Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Sunday, August 26, 2007

Surge in Deaths
85 percent in US custody Are Sunni Arabs

The Bush administration talking points on the Iraq War are that the troop escalation has reduced violence and made Iraq safer for Iraqis, that the major threat in Iraq is self-avowed al-Qaeda devotees, and that Iran and the Shiites are just as deadly a threat as the Sunni Arab guerrillas.

The facts? The Associated Press points out the following

Deaths per day from political violence in 2007: 62
Deaths per day from political violence in 2006: 33

Yeah, things are obviously much safer. The report does say that violence is down in Baghdad this year, but the 'surge' just displaced it to other provinces. AP adds:


Nearly 1,000 more people have been killed in violence across Iraq in the first eight months of this year than in all of 2006. So far this year, about 14,800 people have died in war-related attacks and sectarian murders. The AP accounted for 13,811 deaths in 2006.

•Baghdad has gone from representing 76 percent of all civilian and police war-related deaths in Iraq in January to 52 percent in July, bringing it back to the same spot it was roughly a year ago.'Nearly 1,000 more people have been killed in violence across Iraq in the first eight months of this year than in all of 2006. So far this year, about 14,800 people have died in war-related attacks and sectarian murders. The AP accounted for 13,811 deaths in 2006.

The guerrillas have dealt with the surge by a doubling of violence in Iraq as a whole, and the US has only succeeded in wrestling the problem in Baghdad back down to where it was in summer of 2006.

Al-Hayat comments in Arabic on this NYT story that the number of detainees held by the US military in Iraq has risen from 19,000 to 24,400 in the course of the surge. Of these over 24,000, 85% are Sunni Arabs (20,740 of the current total). These numbers make absurd the comments of some US officers that the Shiite militias are as big a threat as the Sunni Salafi 'insurgents,' or that Iran is the major trouble maker in Iraq.

Indeed, since most Mahdi Army fighters deeply dislike Iran, those 15% in custody from among the Iraqi Shiites probably represent Iraqi nativists.

I read 85 percent of detainees being Sunni as meaning that most attacks were in Sunni Arab neighborhoods and so those arrested were from that community. Iran is not backing Iraqi Sunni Arabs because it could not do so without essentially collaborating in attacks on Iraqi Shiites (it is a different situation than Palestine, where there are no Shiites and there therefore is no downside to supporting Hamas).

The NYT says that of the 24,400, only 1800 openly say that they are "al-Qaeda." That is about 7 percent of the whole. Another 6,000, or about a fourth, say they are takfiris, i.e. Salafis who are willing to excommunicate Shiites from Islam and to declare them non-Muslims.

The conclusion is that the vast majority (certainly 2/3s report themselves as neither al-Qaeda nor takfiri). Even if we exclude the Shiites, a majority may well not even be religious.

Meanwhile, Sunni Arab VP Tariq al-Hashimi wants these thousands of detainees formally charged with some crime or released. He says whether his resignation goes through depends on his party's decree. His coalition, the Iraq Accord Front, has withdrawn from al-Maliki's "national unity cabinet." Al-Hashemi's resignation would significantly weaken al-Maliki.

The withdrawal of 3 more cabinet ministers, of the National Iraqi List.

The trial of Baathis involved in suppressing the spring 1991 revolution is barely underway, but it is creating anger against the US since the Bush senior administration called for the uprising and then stood aside as Saddam massacred the rebels.

Reuters rounds up political violence in Iraq for Saturday,

Labels:

9 Comments:

At 4:39 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

America's "progress is being made" is modest compared with Talabani, the Kurdish gangster now the president of Iraq. The al-Sabah, a government funded paper which has been cleansed from nuetral journalists, reports him responding to the "get Maliki" ferver in the US:

" ..the American officials agree with President Bush who describes Maliki as a good and successful Prime Miniter.."

from [in Arabic]:
http://www.alsabaah.com/paper.php?source=akbar&mlf=interpage&sid=48215

He and Maliki have also been saying for months that the vast majority of the Iraqi people and parliament are devoted to Maliki (for obvious reasons?) and would rise up if they lose his leadership: the old "beloved leader" again.

 
At 7:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Professor Cole,

Note also in the numbers in that NY Times article that among all those detainees are 55 Egyptians, etc. But note significantly that the military has ZERO Iranians captured. Isn't that interesting? The Scourge of the Middle East has none of its dastardly minions captured by the Americans.

 
At 7:28 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

Why don't you put together an Alternative Petraeus Report and try to get it published in the NYT as a counterweight to the cherry-picked report that Petraeus himself will produce?

 
At 12:20 PM, Blogger Gail Jonas said...

I've been wondering about why there havn't been more reports that the surge isn't working.

It appears to me that there's been a general consensus that the military surge is actually working but that the Iraqi government isn't able to take advantage of the increase in security to make significant changes.

I can see the misconception re the success of the surge leading to Congressional support for prolonging the current military plan.

 
At 2:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Concerning the prisoner issues Juan raises, they are obviously more complex than Juan has posted. After all Jaish al Mahdi (JAM), or the Mahdi army, apparently controls entire ministries in al-Maliki's government like the health ministry - including Baghdad hospitals. Therefore taking JAM militants is very sensitive in Baghdad especially. Also the US military seems to consider Al Qaeda and Sunni extremist groups a far more serious military threat so far.

Also the US Military has done extensive analysis of the motivation of US prisoners in Iraq - they call them "detainee's". The deputy commander of the US military prison in Iraq said they found the #1 motivation of prisoners is money. By that he likely meant the largest group of prisoners simply wanted or needed the money. The #2 motivation, and likely the 2nd largest groups, he said feared threats against themselves or their families.

The #3 motivation is nationalism and fighting what they consider the occupation of their country, and likely the next to smallest group. Finally the #4 motivation and is a small group of very dedicated extremists who carry out attacks for religious reasons. He said this is the most powerful group as well.

The prisoners he said are eventually turned over the Central Criminal Court of Iraq where he said they get a 68% conviction rate. He said that conviction rate primarily depends on how much evidence collection is done up front and he said that recently the Courts are passing down a death sentence every other day against US prisoners. He seemed very pleased about that, although he said the courts are based on an old French model with no juries.

Also on a related matter, Bush's proposal to label Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a "terrorist" organization has outraged Iran and if Bush carries through could well provoke Iran to provide JAM with more lethal weapons. Therefore if Democrats in Congress dutifully line up like "sheep" to support Bush's proposed "terrorist" labeling then Bush might consider that a so-called "green light" to launch an attack on Iran.

 
At 3:13 PM, Blogger MonsieurGonzo said...

LA Times : “The Center for Strategic International Studies' report says: ‘The vast majority of Saudi militants who have entered Iraq were not terrorist sympathizers before the war; and were radicalized almost exclusively by the coalition invasion.

The average age of the Saudis was 17-25 and they were generally middle-class with jobs, though they usually had connections with the most prominent conservative tribes. ‘Most of the Saudi militants were motivated by revulsion at the idea of an Arab land being occupied by a non-Arab country. These feelings are intensified by the images of the occupation they see on television and the Internet ... the catalyst most often cited [in interrogations] is Abu Ghraib, though images from Guantanamo Bay also feed into the pathology.

It is well-known that the presence of Saudi ‘foreign fighters’ in IRAQ (one wonders how anyone could be classified as foreign in a declared Global War On Terrorism ~ but i digress) is expressed not as plain fact, but as "an embarrassment" experienced by Bush Administration offcials and the American officer corps, thus.

Their acknowledged and well-reported emotion, embarrassment, in and of itself speaks volumes; that the main American television & print media conduits continue to echo IRAN! IRAN! hysteria, citing what we used to call defensive anti-armour bazookas and booby-traps to be Weapons of Mass Destruction casus belli IRAN! thus...

...is a spectacle that the whole world is watching ~ except, apparently ~ for the Americans, themselves. That American media act this way is well-known, now.

What *IS* surprising, though, and fwiw remains a mystery to this writer, is: why does the opposition, Democratic Party make so feeble (if any) attempt to educate the Americn Public as to the true nature of The Mission in IRAQ = OCCUPATION, where "winning" and "losing" have no meaning, really; nor do the Democrats enlighten the electorate as to the rôle of Saudi Arabia, therein?

For it is one thing to live in an indulgent consumer culture with a compliant, corporate-controlled press ~ and quite another to have a government that is, for all intents and purposes: a monolithic cabal of co-conspirators.

 
At 5:07 PM, Blogger Arnold Evans said...

Isn't this idea of improving security leading to political reconciliation an example of just trying to repeat something enough hoping it will eventually make sense?

Maliki is supposed to disarm the Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades if security improves? The threat to US forces posed by Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades is the only thing preventing a US coup, installing someone the US really likes.

And the US stupidly can't stop repeating this threat, moving Maliki closer to, not further from the militias.

The government is supposed to either let Kirkuk go or decide it will stay if the security situation improves? Why? What is the relation?

The Southern, non-Sadr Shiites are supposed to give up on their own superstate even though the Kurds get one if security improves? Why? What is the relation?

The Shiites are supposed to give seats in government and society to Sunnis, at the expense of the Shiites currently holding them as part of reforming debaathification if security improves? Why? What's the relation?

Even in theory - even if violence on the whole had decreased, how was this supposed to have worked?

What could the surge have been successful at?

To disarm the militias, Maliki needs a date when there will be no threat of a US sponsored coup so he won't need militia protection.

For Kirkuk, the prospective southern superstate and debaathification a decision has to be made, is the US breaking up the country or not.

If Kurdish provinces are to Sunni provinces as Virginia is to Maryland, then it doesn't really matter who gets Kirkuk. If they are as Germany is to France, it does matter and there will be a fight over it.

But in the case of Virginia and Maryland, Washington DC gets to veto foreign basing arrangments. If Iraq has a strong central government, Baghdad (Maliki & Dawa) gets to veto US bases in Kurdistan.

That's the decision the US has to make. Either give Baghdad a veto over the bases (which it will use, with the encouragement of Iran) or you're breaking up the country.

If the Kurds go, the Southern Shiites go. Period. I haven't even seen a rational that the Shiites could sign onto if they wanted to that they should stay stuck with the oil-free Sunnis but the Kurds get independence.

Where have some Americans gotten this idea from that the Shiites do or should understand the need for Kurdish autonomy but not insist on it for themselves? It's just a form of wishful thinking. Entirely devoid of logic.

Debaathification depends on the Shiites, especially the non-Sadrists believing that the Sunnis have a stake in their country and that they are better off with the Sunnis happy. With a very real possibility the the country is breaking up, Shiites outside of Baghdad have no reason to make any concessions at all to these future citizens of a different country.

If you're breaking up the country, there is no surge that can resolve the competition of who gets what resources from this dissolving state.

I've always assumed that the point of the surge had nothing to do with any political reconciliation - that wouldn't make sense. I thought the aim was to lower civilian deaths as a good in and of itself. It didn't really work, and if it had worked it would have been short term.

But there never was even a theoretical reason it would hold the country together when the US is so clearly signalling that an intact Shiite-dominated Iraq is unacceptable.

I always took this "we'll give them room to make political concessions" as maybe PR, maybe just making statements that sound good. Nothing to take seriously.

I'm reading this so "political reconciliation" stuff so much now that I find myself wanting to ask "wait a minute - you don't really believe this do you?"

US foreign policy decision makers are so naive, so - there is no word better than stupid - that even if the colonial era hadn't been over for over half a century, there still would be no way the current US in particular (this includes the entire US political spectrum, not just Bush) could pull it off.

(Another thing. We'll know if Maliki takes the coup threat seriously, which he does not yet, because he'll move towards calling for a withdrawal date. Maliki contradicted both Iran and Syria on this issue because he feels safe from a US coup right now. He didn't have to and he won't if he starts to worry.)

 
At 9:29 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

So what do we make of this man, Nuri al-Maliki? Or is he ours to make at all?

Ultimately, at the end of the rainbow of El Presidente's wet blood-and-sweat dream of Iraq lies a very real truth - can a democracy in Iraq create a Neoconservative Republican state? Or will an Iraq, cursed with that Shiite majority and Sunni 20%, forever remain a bastion of Arab majority that, for some reason (probably Islam and NOT Imperialism NOR Israel), continues to deny Bush's America's dream in the Middle East?

There is, after all, a community in Iraq that is a strong ally of Bush and the Israeli hawks - the Kurds... But, unfortunately, because of liberal democracy, Bush can not expect the Kurds to shape Iraq into a pro-Israel and pro-Bush country... And then there is also the matter of those pesky Turks who are opposed to a Kurdish state and are growing increasingly anti-American, what with their popular anti-U.S. blockbuster Valley of Wolves, or their democratically elected Islamist majority in parliament (soon expected to yield an Islamist president)... How does El Presidente balance an alliance with Kurds with an alliance with Turks?

It seems like Mr. Maliki epitomizes the inability of the Shite community to become good Neoconservative Republicans... For some reason, every Iraqi Shiite candidate Bush picks up turns out to be more Iraqi and Shiite than Bushiite.

Links to related materials are on my blog.

 
At 10:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Professor Cole:

With regards to the makeup of the current group of prisoners remember that the Taguba report said that 70% of the inmates at Abu Graib were guilty of nothing and were just in a neighborhood where a sweep took place. It appears that sweeps are overwhelmingly taking place in Sunni neighborhoods which suggests to me that the American forces are being used by the Shia parties and their militias.

Second comment: Feinstein and other democrats have called for the replacement of Maliki. This suggests that Feinstein things that Maliki is a US employee we can fire at will. One writer asked why the democrats haven't raised the issue that the Iraqis are fighting the occupation; Feinstein's comment speaks loudly of the democratic leadership's understanding of the situation.

Forensic economist

 

Post a Comment

<< Home