Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Friday, August 22, 2008

Security Agreement Undermines McCain;
Dulaimi Was Planting Bombs;
Awakening Councils Targeted

Muthanna Dulaimi was caught while planting a roadside bomb! The son of the leader of the Iraqi Accord Front, which has cabinet seats in the government of PM Nuri al-Maliki and from which one vice president derives, appears to be an active terrorist! Questions have swirled for some time about Adnan Dulaimi and his sons' connections to the Sunni Arab guerrilla movement. Of course, some of the Shiite parties in parliament, including the Badr Organization and the Sadr movement, have also been involved in political violence.

The security agreement nearly completed between the Bush administration and the government of the Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki may pull the rug out from under Sen. John McCain on Iraq, according to AP. It will stipulate that US troops will be out of Iraqi cities by June, 2009 and then mostly out of Iraq by 2011. In that light, it will be much harder for McCain to paint Obama as "surrendering" or wanting to "cut and run," since his withdrawal plan is very close to what Bush and the Iraqi government have agreed on.

McCain's position on having long-term bases in Iraq a la South Korea was always pie in the sky, because it assumed that it was a decision he as president would get to make all by himself. Neither the Iraqi parliament nor Congress will likely actually put up with such a policy. Why McCain hasn't been called on this by the Dems is mysterious to me. Why not do an ad? "McCain says he wants long term bases in Iraq. But that is not what the elected government of Iraq says it wants. Is he going to invade again to get what he wants?"

AP reviews Bush's flip-flop on the timetable issue.

The Shiite government of al-Maliki is mounting a campaign to arrest hundreds of leaders in the Awakening Council movement among Sunni Arabs, which the US military created and paid for as a way of getting Iraqis to fight fundamentalist radicals ("al-Qaeda"). Although the McCain camp confuses the temporary troop escalation of 2007-2008 and the Awakening Council policy, in fact they were two different tracks. Other observers have argued that neither was as important as the massive ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods in Baghdad and elsewhere, in leading to a reduction of civilian deaths (no one left to kill of the other sect in a lot of neighborhoods). The big question is whether al-Maliki can keep the peace in Sunni Arab neighborhoods without the assistance of the Awakening Councils.

General David Petraeus, who has long been at loggerheads with al-Maliki over the Awakening Councils confirms to McClacthy that the Iraqi government has been dragging its feet on absorbing fighters from the Awakening Councils into government security forces.

Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that Shiite neighborhoods in Baghdad are afraid that militias are returning to them. Shu'la, Abu Dashir and Sadr City had seen a big reduction in Mahdi Army and other militia activity in the past few months, but there are troubling indications of a resurgence, some residents say. Sadiq, who opened a music shop in Abu Dashir on the assurance of a return of security, was dismayed to see it fire-bombed, costing him a substantial investment. A note from the perpetrators accused him of contravening Islamic law (radical fundamentalists dislike music but it is not actually banned in mainstream Islamic law). Some residents of Shiite neighborhoods have begun again receiving personal threat letters. Such individual threats have been a major reason for the refugee crisis, since people tend to move out if they know a militia is gunning for them and knows where they live. The personal threat also prolongs the refugee crisis, since it is extremely invasive and victims are hard to convince that the threat has subsided; if they think the militia is still there waiting for them and will view their return as a capital crime, they won't go back.

All the celebrating on the American Right about the "war" being "won" and security having returned is awfully premature, as Gen. Petraeus has underlined.

Not only did the Iraq War siphon off enormous resources from the US military effort in Afghanistan, it also provided the neo-Taliban with a model for fighting US and NATO troop presences.

13 Comments:

At 7:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ms (waste of space) Rice and her Iraqi puppets are day-dreaming. There is no agreement on the troop exit at all. The timeline for the troop leaving the cities is of no consequence since Iraq will still be occupied. The troop reduction, as opposed to complete exit, has always been an American aim because of cost, and again is of no consequence to ending the occupation.

Then you have the comical clause for US citizens and Iraqi laws: the Iraqis have the right to ask the Americans in specific cases, and the US may consider agreeing. Are they nuts?

This will not fly in a million years.

I once watched a nasty paedophile being interviewed on TV. He said that he wasn't abusing the four year old child because she was his girlfriend. Well this little child (Iraq) is kicking, spitting, and screeming to end the assault.

To hell with the cowardly nations around the world who are passively watching or even helping the abuser.

 
At 8:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The security agreement nearly completed between the Bush administration and the government of the Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki may pull the rug out from under Sen. John McCain on Iraq, according to AP. It will stipulate that US troops will be out of Iraqi cities by June, 2009 and then mostly out of Iraq by 2011. In that light, it will be much harder for McCain to paint Obama as "surrendering" or wanting to "cut and run," since his withdrawal plan is very close to what Bush and the Iraqi government have agreed on.

I still hope that it stipulates nothing. I hope that like Zeno's description of an arrow in flight it never reaches its target because it must first cover half the distance... and again, and again, and again...

McCain's position on having long-term bases in Iraq a la South Korea was always pie in the sky, because it assumed that it was a decision he as president would get to make all by himself. Neither the Iraqi parliament nor Congress will likely actually put up with such a policy. Why McCain hasn't been called on this by the Dems is mysterious to me. Why not do an ad? "McCain says he wants long term bases in Iraq. But that is not what the elected government of Iraq says it wants. Is he going to invade again to get what he wants?"

Well, if the Iraqis will not put up with what has been the Neocons' goal from the get-go then the arrow will never reach its target.

I find it marvelous indeed that the Democrats are seen in any way to differ with the Neocons' goals in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, or elsewhere around the world. They are in complete accord with the Neocons. Obama would carry out their plans to the best of his abilities, as have Clinton, Pelosi, Reid and the rest over the course of the past eight years, if he were elected. It may, as the polls indicate, become a moot point.

The son of the leader of the Iraqi Accord Front, which has cabinet seats in the government of PM Nuri al-Maliki and from which one vice president derives, appears to be an active terrorist! Questions have swirled for some time about Adnan Dulaimi and his sons' connections to the Sunni Arab guerrilla movement... The big question is whether al-Maliki can keep the peace in Sunni Arab neighborhoods without the assistance of the Awakening Councils...

The raid by a special forces operation on the governor's HQ in Diyala province is being denounced as a rogue operation by the US military. Sunni figures have recently been targeted, raising suspicions that the Badr Corps paramilitary of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq was cleaning house, and suspected someone in the provincial government of having links to the Sunni Arab guerrilla movement.


Again I marvel at the shock!.. yes shock!.. displayed upon learning that the Sunni's are the enemies of the Shiia and the US in Iraq and are merely soaking up money and armaments as members of the "Awakening Councils" in preparation for the day when the time comes to turn on both.

I hope that the Iraqis are able to run out the clock on the "security agreement" with the US, that the US is required to leave Iraq when its "mandate" runs out, and that the Shi'ia in Iraq are able to make common cause with their brothers and sisters in neighboring countries the better to resist the depredations of Sunni and Yankee alike.

 
At 9:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The following scrap of Silly Season ‘analysis’ from Mr. Charles Babbington -- "Who?" -- was quaint, if nothing better:

U.S. political activists seem uncertain how the [Crawford-New Baghdád SOFA] proposal might affect the Obama-McCain race.

''At this point, O’Bama looks a little less reckless than he might have a few months ago,'' said Michael O’Hanlon, a military expert at the Brookings Institution. O’Hanlon, who once backed O’Bama, has often criticized him for refusing to acknowledge the achievements of the U.S. ''surge'' in troop numbers and for sticking to his 16-month withdrawal goal even as events in Iraq have changed. O'Hanlon said the proposed agreement faces substantial political and military hurdles."


=

It is picturesque to account Dr. O’Hanlon a "political activist," and even picturesquer to envision Dr. O’Hanlon -- of all ‘DemocratParty’ activists! -- solemnly readmitting the Senatorino from Cook County to the roll of donkeys in good standing.

To be sure, OH says only that OB is "a LITTLE less reckless" . . . .

"The Irish, sir, are a fair people. They never speak well of one another."
--S.J.

Happy days.

 
At 9:50 AM, Blogger Da' Buffalo Amongst Wolves said...

"...and then mostly out of Iraq by 2011."

'Mostly out'?

If they aren't already done, better finish those Sacramento size, Burger King/Cinnabon equipped PERMANENT BASES.

 
At 10:12 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

See, I just wouldn't rely on Petraeus for any realistic assessments of conditions in Iraq. As we learned in the summer of 2007, Mr. PowerPoints is prone to politically convenient tweaking.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/60982/

And I also wouldn't rely on dubious statistics provided by official outlets in Iraq. Rageh Omaar:

"I returned to Iraq recently for the first time in 18 months to make a documentary about the ordinary Iraqis I have known over 10 years of reporting from the country. But operating there as a journalist has never been harder."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/mar/17/iraqandthemedia.iraq

He said that in March. Maybe you don't find that signifigant, Juan, but I do. Why, if violence is REALLY down, is reporting from Iraq MORE difficult?

Omar adds:

"It's now almost impossible unless you are surrounded by armed bodyguards or you observe "the 20-minute rule" - that you allow yourself no more than 20 minutes to get out of a car, speak to Iraqis and then leave. Any longer and onlookers will phone local militia to say they've seen westerners on the street.
...

This fear of being associated with anything western has appalling consequences. Syria is home to nearly 1.5 million largely middle-class Iraqi refugees, but even in exile Iraqis are terrified to have their faces shown. Officials from the UN High Commission for Refugees told me there have been four cases of Iraqis being killed specifically because they had been interviewed by western journalists. In Baghdad, it's hard to find Iraqis willing to go on camera for exactly this reason."

Again, these comments date from March 2008. Does that sound like improved security to you? It sounds to me like a situation where warlords and militia, paid by the US not to kill US soldiers ( and I thank God that the killings of our soldiers are down) have created a situation EVEN MORE violent and dangerous.

I think THAT's why refugees aren't returning - because they know the pablum that the US media are dishing out to the US public, straight from the hands of the US administration and media for the most part, and the Iraqi Vichy administration - isn't reality.

How many people in the US even know that there are more contractors in Iraq than US soldiers, and we have really no idea at all, to my knowledge, of what deaths and casualties amongst them are?

Omaar: "five years on from the invasion I find it impossible to escape the conclusion that Iraq is a contradiction - it is still the most important international news story, but the continuing violence and insecurity have also made it an information abyss."

It seems that, from the point of view of the administration, and many who swallow the administration's Iraq narrative, no news is good news.

 
At 10:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pity you didn't like the other McClatchy story from today. I thought it presented wonderfully the present state of the SOFA negotiations:

Iraq still demanding withdrawal date, right to try U.S. troops

This is the Maliki people version:

A one-on-one meeting between Rice and Maliki was "deep and direct," said Sadiq al Rikabi, a top advisor to Maliki, but only time will tell if a compromise can be reached, he said.

"They tried to reach a compromise solution, but it is too early to say they reached an agreement about all issues," he said.

"The Iraqi government wants as a sovereign country to be the master of the law in Iraq," said Ali al Adeeb, a Shiite legislator from Maliki's Dawa party. "There needs to be a strict timetable, otherwise these forces will stay forever. Not having a timetable means they will never leave."


Meanwhile, in the same story, Zebari is telling it differently:

While Shiite lawmakers and advisors to Maliki indicated that a plethora of issues remain to be ironed out, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told reporters that a draft was complete and would be referred to the executive council on Friday.

"Time is of essence," Zebari said. "We are redoubling our efforts to bring this to a final and successful conclusion."


Rice's attitude:

Talking to reporters, Rice stressed that there was no agreement and put the burden of responsibility for completing the agreement on Maliki.

"The negotiators have made really, really good progress. They are satisfied with where they are," she said. "But obviously it is going to be the prime minister's call, so this is a chance for me to sit there with him."

Rice said the security agreement was "advanced" and the Americans had shown "flexibility." The draft included "aspirational timetables."

she said. "It will be an excellent agreement when we finally have agreement."


(No doubt, in private she uttered heavy threats against Iraq, if it doesn't sign.)

Those expressions are just perfect. I've said here before that the negotiations are close to stalling, and there is the proof. The US administration must be close to panicking. No wonder all the narratives about splits in Iraq, Maliki's plans to slap down the Awakening Councils, the Diyala raid, etc.

We really have to be less credulous about stories of splits spun out of the US embassy in the Green Zone.

The big issue is Maliki's failure to sign. Why is it that the "professional analysts", like Parker, Krahl and Dr iRack, to mention people who have made recent visits to Baghdad, don't seem to be able to analyse what the political issues are that lead to such a hard resistance to signature? There has been absolute silence on this vital issue. Could it be that the US authorities in the Green Zone don't want light thrown on the subject? Because it might reveal that resistance to continued US occupation is solid.?

 
At 1:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a very long terms, they will never withdraw in 2011. The Agreement states that they can leave earlier (yeah sure) or later. Their strategy is simple. Iran will have to be dealt with sometime between 2011 and 2015. That is when they will stop experiments and starts production according to Western Estimates (wrong). This period till 2011 time will give the U.S. a reprieve from the Iraqi War and re-stockpile for the next. When all done Iran will be far less powerful to interfere in Iraq and Shia will be weakened to the point that no objection at that time will be made to permanent bases. Why you don’t hear it in public, or the Democrat make noise about it, because they have been made aware of it under National Security terms. They keep the plan under the rug so it can pass now. It is critical that it does now, or the war after the newly elected President will in fact intensify to force immediate departure or U.N mandated resolutions with Russia’s help.

 
At 5:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h2w2_ZRWUlGqmHol7rZ00dVHYKxQ

August 22, 2008

Coalition Air Strikes Kill 76 Afghan Civilians
By AFP

KABUL — A US-led coalition military operation in western Afghanistan on Friday killed 76 civilians, including 50 children and 19 women, the Afghan interior ministry said....

[Impossible madness....]

 
At 5:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2008/08/more-than-dozen-civilians-have-been.html

August 22, 2008

"More than a dozen civilians have been killed in an air strike by U.S.-led coalition troops in Afghanistan's eastern province of Laghman, two provincial officials said on Thursday." *

* http://in.reuters.com/article/southAsiaNews/idINIndia-35123120080821?sp=true

-- As'ad AbuKhalil

 
At 5:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is the war that Sarkozy and Brown rushed to Kabul to support this week and applauded Obama for. The good war, through a country that is among the poorest of countries, since 2002, and no remote cessation mentioned, only more. So, what are we to do, surge through Afghanistan after 6 years as thought we have not surged enough? How, after whom, where? Will we build walls about the Afghan mountains? Divide the population according to, well, according to what principle of division?

A country larger in area, far more complex in terrain, larger in population, more scattered in population than Iraq. Bordering an Afghan friendly Pakistan.

 
At 6:06 PM, Blogger Da' Buffalo Amongst Wolves said...

John Francis Lee said... "I find it marvelous indeed that the Democrats are seen in any way to differ with the Neocons' goals in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, or elsewhere around the world. They are in complete accord with the Neocons. Obama would carry out their plans to the best of his abilities, as have Clinton, Pelosi, Reid and the rest over the course of the past eight years, if he were elected. It may, as the polls indicate, become a moot point."

The difference is not truly moot:

Democrats = "Mostly out", whatever THAT means. Probably ongoing low intensity warfare, stupid 'smart bombs', and 'precision' airstrikes from those Sacramento size airbases to secure the petrochemical infrastructure that WILL NEVER be secure.

Republicans = 100 year war with all US troops driven out forcibly (or due to the economic destruction of the US economy) before the 'mostly out' troops who 'weren't out' would have ever left.

The Democrats and 'mostly out' equals endless 'low-intensity' warfare and leads to far more cultural, social, and infrastructural destruction than the hundred year plan with US troops forced to remain in bunkers and eventually forced out entirely.

In...ahem... summation, to truly end the fighting rapidly, vote Republican!

(Da' Buffalo extracts bovine size tongue from cheek and spits cud at the thought in the direction of Washington DC, glares balefully...]

 
At 11:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dexter Filkins remembers the destruction of Fallujah by US Marines:
"By then, you hardly noticed the wreckage, there was so much of it. Long piles of white rocks and dead wires and sliced-up cars, some of them still smoking. A ruined world. Nothing like the way we had found it coming in, when it looked more or less like a normal town. The Marines had blasted everything: every building, every car, even if there was no one in it; every single person, even if we hadn’t seen him. Now the town was quiet."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24filkins-t.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

 
At 6:15 AM, Blogger searp said...

I was in Iraq in Feb 07 and July 07 helping troops north of Baghdad.

The name Dulaimi showed up so often in bad guy reporting (I realize it is a type of clan/tribal name) that every time I heard it I thought insurgent.

I predict the Sunni-Shia war will erupt again, only question is whether it waits for our draw down. The surge has only delayed the reckoning.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home