Military Coup Planned for Iraq?
A rumor is circulating among well-connected and formerly high-level Iraqi bureaucrats in exile in places like Damascus that a military coup is being prepared for Iraq. I received the following from a reliable, knowledgeable contact. There is no certitude that this plan can or will be implemented. That it is being discussed at high levels seems highly likely.
"There is serious talk of a military commission (majlis `askari) to take over the government. The parties would be banned from holding positions, and all the ministers would be technocrats, so to speak. . . [The writer indicates that attempts have been made to recruit cabinet members from the ranks of expatriate technocrats.]
The six-member board or commission would be composed on non-political former military personnel who are presently not part of the government OR the military establishment, such as it is in Iraq at the moment. It is said that the Americans are supporting this behind the scenes.
The plan includes a two-year period during which political parties would not be permitted to be part of the government, but instead would prepare and strengthen the parties for an election which would not have lists, but real people running for real seats. The two year period would be designed to take control of security and restore infrastructure.
. . .[I]t is another [desperate plan], but one which many many Iraqis will support, since they are sick of their country being pulled apart by the "imports" - Maliki, Allawi, Jaafari et al. The military group is composed of internals, people who have the goal of securing the country even at the risk of no democracy, so they say. "
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 8/23/2007 12:37:00 AM
|
Facebook
35 Comments:
Yes and it would allow carte blanche giveaway of oil resources and war on Iran without Iraqi contraints. These coups always worked so well in South Vietnam too, eh? Nothing like American plans for foreign "democracy"!
Dear Professor Cole
The Coup would have to be synchronised with something similar in Iran as they would be unhappy at the reappearance of any kind of stability in Iraq that they don't control. They would go apeshit at the idea of Saddam Lite.
The chaps in Tel Aviv would be unhappy at their clients the Kurds getting overrun.
Moqtada won't be terribly happy.
Still as you pointed out last year whoever controls the few battallions of T-72s controls the country.
Do we think the odds on Maliki getting shot at his desk have shortened from the 4 to 1 I was getting a few days ago.
this is following a dreadfully familiar script. Basically we are going to end up spending a trillion dollars and kill thousands of people in order to swap one strongman for another... who won't even be able to make the trains run on time like Saddam (more or less) did.
the idiots who thought we could bring democracy to Iraq at the barrel of a gun, should be barred forevermore from public discourse, at least as far as our military and foreign policy.
all you had to do was read and comprehend a history book to understand the folly of the Iraq war.
Talabani just gave an interview over a Le Monde, and he says the government is not going to fall.
Seems exactly like what some of these lunkheads would dream up and wouldnt surprise me in the least.
If you will accept for the sake of discussion that the US military is occupying the country and ultimately responsible for the security portfolio,
and that this military coup will do nothing to improve security at the local level,
or governance at the national level,
why then would the US government want such an event to transpire ?
All I come up with is an appearance of something happening, for US domestic consumption.
So, why would Iraqis go along with it (I mean, those Iraqis not personally enriched by this turn of events ?)
puzzled avid student
it is perhaps one of the most baffling aspects of the AngloAmerican invasion and occupation of IRAQ, to many europeans, and to most Iraqi people themselves ~ that it is such a wimpy effort of conquest and control apparent.
Iraqis and almost all other residents of this reqion are accustomed to decisive autocrats; religious and military leaders who may shroud their intentions in various intrigue, but feel no need to delude themselves or others, to parse words to painful extent, to create some casus belli = an "excuse," really ~ to "justify" obvious intention, or some strongman's personal ambition.
Yet here we have this spectacle of an entirely infantalized AngloAmerican occupation force in IRAQ. i mean, they quite literally ride around the place in their aromoured vehicles not unlike terrified teenagers; firing wildly whenever spooked; calling in "air support" to take out whole buildings, or blocks, whenever someone takes a potshot.
"if they want the bloody OIL, then why don't they just bloody well take the damn oil?" you can almost hear them wondering, almost everyone else in the world, except the American people, themselves. "what's the deal with this constant deceit? why all the effort, the energy, the (frankly, well-organized) media spin-frenzy...
...when, after 'given the GO' the (curiously, incompetent) Officer Corps seem strangely reserved : are they so afraid of taking a hit? one wonders, such that they never commit?
Why are they always arriving, seemingly after the fact? So strangely, detached; afraid to even go into town : they will have soon 'occupied' IRAQ for ~5 years, yet never been there.
i have enjoyed reading about "Napoleon in the Middle East," professor ~ may i say you have succeeded not only in finding parallels, but also making stark apparent just how puny a spectacle this modern invasion and occupation has been :
if the Americans want to bomb IRAN, then why the faux news figleaf? You can almost hear them wondering. credibility, in the eyes of the world? shame? oh, come on ~ everyone knows the former's shot, the latter naught : why so puny and pathetic, these Western powers? all WORDS. no WARRIORS.
Why would America go along with this?
Because the current Iraqi parliament is unlikely to ever pass the oil law as currently written.
A dictarship is much easier (and more profitable), as long as we control the dictator.
"There is serious talk of a military commission (majlis `askari) to take over the government. The parties would be banned from holding positions, and all the ministers would be technocrats, so to speak. . ."
FINALLY!
American Democracy[tm] comes to Iraq!
RE: "There is serious talk of a military commission (majlis `askari) to take over the government.."
If you start from the obvious point that Bush's objective in Iraq is to establish a US client state dedicated to the advancement of US interests, then a military dictatorship is certainly is a direct way to get there. I would like to be first to suggest the name "Operation Save Democracy."
"......The plan includes a two-year period during which political parties would not be permitted to be part of the government, but instead would prepare and strengthen the parties for an election ......."
You should add:.....and approve the Oil and other monopolies laws.
Dear Professor Cole
I misspoke with my previous comment.
The people who control the T-72s only control the country if they have good infantry to work with them.
As the Israelis found out last Summer there are lots of good anti-tank stuff about.
In a number of tactical sitautions particualrly urban ones the tank is at a disadvantage.
If there are only 70 of them and someone has 500 RPG 16 or RPG 29 then the fat is in the fire, so to speak.
even if the new leader/strongman we install is ultimately as ineffectual as Maliki, he will at least serve as a prop for the Bush regime to buy themselves another Friedman Unit or two.
You know, "Iraq has a new leader, we need to give him a few months to show results." DC pundits will proclaim that April 2008 will be the critical time to show results, this time for sure! No crossies!
And the war will drag on, the Bush disinformationists will proclaim that progress is being made, another $100 billion of debt will be racked up, a few hundred more troops and thousands more Iraqis will die, and after the next Friedman Unit passes it will be decreed that it would be irresponsible to do anything drastic with regards to Iraq 'just before' the 2008 election.
Once again the DFHs will be right, and all the people who have been consistently wrong about this war will continue to be rewarded with MSM soapboxes.
It sucks to be Cassandra.
Let me get this straight--It will be a "military coup," but will not involve anyone currently in the military? And they will pull this off with *which army*? Lemme guess.
(via TPM Muckraker)
It's being reported thatAyad allawi's hired Haley Barbour's powerful GOP lobbying firm
Allawi's been the subject of many coup rumors over the years, now they'v got some substance.
There is a considerable risk that the plight of the Iraqi people may be pushed aside in favor of companies and investors outside Iraq who want to invest in state-owned factories and Iraq's oil and gas resources. Certainly Congress is feeling that pressure, which is likely why the Democrats especially are changing their position on Iraq.
The major energy companies are apparently focused on developing the oil and gas resources around Basra, while smaller exploration companies apparently want to develop the largely unexplored Kurdish oil and gas fields. One Norwegian company which partnered with the Kurdish government is already producing oil.
However Iraq's oil minister said Iraq intends to honor it's OPEC oil export limit, at 3+ million bpd, and that seemed to prompt Bush's harshest criticism of Maliki. However I read that yesterday Maliki reduced the price of Iraqi oil exported to the US, which seemed to considerably sweeten Bush's mood. This new national oil law is of critical importance to energy companies who are desperate to invest in Iraq, and the Maliki's government has said the "rogue" Kurdish government contracts to develop oil resources there must be approved.
I assume the US would not pull the trigger on this. I've read murmurings at IC about US preparations for a coup since around last year this time.
The Shiites would be forced out of government by this plan. Sadr and Al-Hakim would reconcile their differences immediately and begin fighting the Americans.
The Shiites are better placed strategically, have better numbers and have Iranian suppliers of resources who are more effective than the Sunnis' Saudi and Gulf suppliers.
Some Sunnis may slow down their attacks on the Americans, but there is no way they can stop the attacks when the US is still universally seen by Sunnis as an illegitimate occupying force.
So lets say it would cut the Sunni insurgency by 2/3 and add a full all-out Shiite insurgency.
It would be a bad trade for the US, that would spike the monthly death rate. It would also bring Iran into Iraq openly, at the invitation of the Maliki government which would consider itself and be considered by others still as Iraq's legitimate government.
Like threats of a US attack on Iran, threats of a coup against Maliki serve a purpose in themselves, which is that they pressure him to move away from Iran and from Sadr. (Threats of an attack on Iran scare away investment.)
Actually pulling the trigger would be a different story. I doubt it will happen.
Oh, and about Iran, pretty much any government the Iraqis could conceivably elect would be a tremendous victory for Iran. Which is why "elections after two years" would be an obvious lie to everyone in the region.
Hamas, US opposition to one-person one-vote in Lebanon, US support for dictators in Egypt and Jordan have already by now completely discredited the idea that the US supports democracy in the Middle East. I don't think anyone outside of the United States still believes that.
It is a mistake to call one faction of the Shiites pro-Iran because any Shiite faction, if stably in power, would be unacceptably pro-Iran for US and Israeli interests.
For example, there is no faction of Iraqi Shiites that would deny transit rights to Iran to send arms and resources by land and using Iraqi airspace to Syria to ultimately reach Hezbollah and Hamas.
Americans might even think of this as "Iranian control". But defining terms that way, there is no way to produce a democratic government in Iraq that is not under "Iranian control". So the Iranian insistence on "Iranian control" is the same as the Iranian and Iraqi insistence on democracy and sovereign rule.
regarding further Friedman Units:
Charlie Rose dot com has a 16 August interview with the inventor of the Friedman Unit, in which he says "no more FU's." It's too late.
He says he made mistakes, but has nothing to apologize for.
Friedman says there are 2 broad options:
we stay and continue to fail; or
we pull out, leaving a mess behind.
He suggests we should choose between these options based on what's worst for Iran. That is the way he decides what's best for the USA. And pulling out would dump a mess in their laps, so we should go.
But we need to keep a robust force in the Kurdish area. and maybe along the borders.
regarding efforts to end the war:
If any of you were following the lawsuit that tried to force the Army to obey the US law prohibiting the use of Mercenaries,
it was dismissed last night.
I failed to raise the $8 Million in commitments needed to have standing to file the suit.
avid student
I anticipate the wingnuts' and liberal interventionists' heads exploding. They have all relied on the justification that Sadaam was an evil dictator and now they want to impose another dictatorship!
They're opening up a Pandora's Box, just as they did when they facilitated the overthrows of President Diem in Vietnam and Prince Sihinouk in Cambodia.
I read somewhere that American civilians in Saigon concocted an unofficial "campaign ribbon" to demonstrate that you were an "old hand." The ribbon was awarded if you had been in Saigon for 1.5 coup d'etats, the Diem Coup having sparked imitators. This recognized that not all coups were successful. I wonder if we'll have to establish a recognition of this kind in Baghdad?
OOPS sorry all
Barbour link above is broken
This isn't.
GOP Lobbyists Back Allawi
CNN's Michael Ware is also reporting US consideration of "non-democratic" alternatives. The problem is, of course, one of legitimacy and anything we "consider" (especially via Haley Barbour's influence peddling skills) is doomed
Another major influence leading toward an eventual coup is that US war planners need a scapegoat. The politicians aren't willing to change course or take any blame for what they've done so far, so if things aren't going well it must be the fault of the Iraqis. A coup lets the country blame the Iraqis for what our politicians and military did to them. If the new post-coup rulers fail, then our politicians can blame them too just like they blamed Saddam after he was installed with US/UK help and then went on to do things our government didn't like.
Of course, everything will simultaneously be the fault of war opponents and advocates of withdrawal, who stabbed the patriotic neocon agenda in the back.
The policy makers cannot lose and from their view cannot and should never be held accountable for their mistakes. It's always somebody else's problem, depending upon who they can point their fingers at.
They wish to replace a brutal dictatorship that maintained order and stability with a brutal dictatorship reigning over chaos.
How convenient if this coup could be blamed on Iran.
Bush couldn't get the parliament to pass the Hydrocarbon Law like obedient puppets, so he'll put in a new Saddam to turn over the oil to his cronies at Chevron, Exxon, Conocco, Shell, and BP.
IRAQ OIL THEFT RESOURCES
Will Maliki Survive?
One good guess is that Maliki knew exactly what he was doing when he paid friendly visits to neocons’ arch-enemies Ahmadinejad and Assad. Now suppose he gets dumped from PM’s post in one way or another. Then his next step will be to to follow Chalabi and join some pro-Iranian faction!
Of course, neither Ahmadinejad nor God Himself can guarantee anything to an Iraqi politician. However, it looks like US politicians are at least as interested in Maliki keeping his current position as Maliki himself. I know this is just a speculation, but I would not be particularly concerned about his future.
Let's look at this from a few angles.
Will it succeed? As professor Cole pointed out many times, Iraqi society is too modern and mobile for them to just sit back and allow themselves to fall under dictatorship. These aren't peasants nor farmers we're dealing with here, but an armed and aware population. The Shia won't take this loss lying down, the Kurds won't like another Saddam-lite, and the Sunnis won't appreciate this move either.
Can it bring improvements? While some political deals may be struck that Maliki can't or won't do, a technocrat government probably won't be able to bring security much better. Do they have an army or military? I doubt it. Will they be able to secure the country with both Sunnis and Shiites opposing it?
I'm sure it's being spoken about (wistfully) in the higher levels, but I'm sure they also fantasize about Hillary Clinton getting assassinated by Ahmadinejad.
Unfortunately, the US and France backing the similiar coup in Algeria (voiding the elections after a religious party won and going to military dictatorship) proves that they don't have many scruples and would do it, IF they could get away with it. In the case of Iraq, it's too visible; they can't openly ruin the democracy without being obvious hypocrites. It's not like Egypt, where Condileeza Rice can pay lip service and hope their anti-democratic steps avoid the front page. Iraq is front-page stuff, and such an unpopular move in Iraq can ruin the 2008 elections, let alone the world opinion.
A military coup would be in keeping with a civil war. Remember Algiers in the late 50's ? If you study history, which repeats itself, the Middle East is a hotbead of emotion and turmoil and will always be.
This post got a mention on Diane Rehm show (WAMU FM in DC). WAy to go.
...The plan includes a two-year period during which political parties would not be permitted to be part of the government, but instead would prepare and strengthen the parties for an election....
We need that here in the US!
What comes to mind for me is Zenawi's rise to power in Ethiopia. After a "statebuilding" period of military rule, which of course ran way over it's two year mandate, Zenawi held elections and, wouldn't you know, won some 90% of the vote, and has clung to power since. His rule, of course, hasn't been all that bad, and human rights are respected in Ethiopia, except, of course, around election times.
The U.S. strategy in Iraq was designed to fail. This is intentional.
This is a good idea. We can govern a lot better than the Iraqis can right now.
In response to Coleman Foley, I doubt that is the case.
The US tried that already, with Jay Garner and L. Paul Bremer. Even with 160,000 Americans + many contractors and some coalition forces in Iraq, still not much got done. They can't even speak the language, let alone process the backlog of detainee cases or fix the refugee crisis or stop ethnic strife. I'd argue that the US strategy of dividing Iraq into Hutus and Tutsis since 2003 has backfired and led to the situation we're in now.
I suspect that it will not be a military coup, except that some of the Iraqi military will be involved to provide media 'cover'. It will be a corporate coup, and the mercenaries are already in country, and, importantly, the kid gloves will truly come off. Those Pinochet/Ft Benning trained Latin mercenaries and the South Afrikaners will not take prisoners, except make the Baghdad football stadium into one serious kill zone.
It will probably resemble many of the Sci Fi depictions of a truly corporate state - think maybe "RollerBall" (the original w/ Caan).
Post a Comment
<< Home