Al-Maliki: US Cannot Afford to Stay;
Physicians to Carry Weapons
In an interview with the Associated Press, PM Nuri al-Maliki warned that the future is dark if Iraq and the US do not agree on a security pact. And without a pact, he said, all the security progress made in the last year would be at risk. He points out that the alternative is to go back to the UN security council for an extension of Chapter 7 authorization of foreign troops in Iraq, and that UNSC approval is no longer assured because Russia may be in a bad mood after the Georgia tiff. He says Iraq still insists that US troops who are off base and not on a military mission, who commit crimes in Iraq, must be tried in Iraqi courts.
Al-Maliki, who wants a timetable for US withdrawal by the end of 2010, ended the interview with a clever appeal over Bush's head to the American public:
' "If I had enough funds to assist the American economy, I would do all that I can. But unfortunately Iraq cannot solve America's economic problems.
"But what Iraq can do is take up more responsibility security-wise here inside Iraq. And I have told the Americans repeatedly that we are ready to take up responsibility here in Iraq so there are less losses, a decreased number of American lives lost, and I am prepared to present this case before the American people. ...'
Maybe al-Maliki has been reading John Gray, who writes, "The global financial crisis will see the US falter in the same way the Soviet Union did when the Berlin Wall came down. The era of American dominance is over . . ."
Al-Maliki is reminding an economically prostrate America that it cannot afford to buck him on the troop withdrawal timetable. Literally cannot afford! As in, best you go home now and let us take care of security, and save what little money you have left. And, oh, thanks for forking over the $1 trillion while you still had it . . . I guess he is not afraid of McCain's forlorn hope of keeping a US military base on Iraqi soil (expensive!).
To paraphrase T.S. Elliot, "This is the way the [war] ends/ This is the way the [war] ends/This is the way the [war] ends/Not with a bang but a whimper."
The Iraqi government will permit physicians to carry firearms. The decree is a bid to tempt back to Iraq 8,000 medical doctors who have fled the country because they were targeted by guerrillas hoping to destabilize the country by crippling its services. The problem I see with this decree is that many of the physicians have been personally threatened by armed militias. So you'd have to believe you were a quick draw, a good shot, and able to mow down several guys with AK-47s before they could get you, before you would go back.
This sort of stunt, and the situation it is meant to address, both prove how terrible is the situation in Iraq still. If it were 'calm,' the physicians would come back without firearms. If the police and government amounted to anything, the doctors would not have to pack heat themselves. Another thing that works against the physicians' return is that they can survive in Jordan and Syria. Even though they cannot get formal work permits,they can hire on to clinics as 'consultants'. If they have capital, they can also invest locally (in Jordan at least, an investment of $100,000 gets you a residency visa).
Sunday's bombings in Baghdad, and the killing of nearly 100 civilians in Baghdad during Ramadan, raise questions for Iraqis. Is this increase in violence a secular trend, a sign of deterioration, or is it just that guerrillas have more spare time during the month of fasting (when typically people do not work full work days, and lots of people circulate for dinner (i.e. breaking-the-fast) parties. Although this Ramadan was 40% less deadly than last year, it was also more deadly than July and August.
Iraq is buying 12 reconnaissance planes from the US. This purchase is a step toward the Iraqi government regaining control of Iraq's skies. Now that it has more of an armored corps in the army, it needs fighter jets and bombers to provide air cover for them. The US is not ready to relinquish Iraqi air space, but PM Nuri al-Maliki probably sees this purchase as a step in that direction.
McClatchy reports political violence in Iraq on Monday:
' Baghdad
- Mortars hit Hurriyah neighborhood (northwest Baghdad). Five people were injured with one house was damaged.
- Mortars hit Ghazaliyah neighborhood (northwest Baghdad) near Um Al-Qura mosque. Three people were injured with some houses nearby were damaged.
- Mortars hit Abu Ghraib (west of Baghdad). One person was injured with two houses were damaged.
- Police found one dead body in Saidiyah in Karkh bank (south Baghdad) today.
Mosul
- Sunday night, a bomb was put under a taxi car detonated in Abu Tamam intersection in Mosul city. Only the taxi driver was injured in that incident.
- Around 5:30 pm a car bomb detonated in Nabi Yunis neighborhood in Mosul before the Iraqi army experts defuse it. Nine people were injured including 5 Peshmerga members of the PDK.'
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 9/30/2008 12:50:00 AM
|
Facebook
14 Comments:
What is happening with the Iraqi air force is simple, the GoI has begun to pay for it. The ISF budget has skyrocketed, alongside Iraq's oil revenues.
The Iraqi air force currently has 75 aircraft in the fight, and will have 123 by the end of 2009. The intermediate run plan to to build up to 336 or more aircraft. It will likely take the Iraqis $100 billion over 10 years to build a decent air force.
Juan, regarding your comment on US troop strenght inside Iraq, the Petraeus plan is to draw down to 5 brigades (from 21 brigades at the peak) within less than 2 years. The real question is after that.
If the US were to leave Iraq then iraqi oil would be no longer priced in USD and that would be the collapse of the PETRODOLLAR and than in turn would mean the financial bankruptcy of the US. So, the US will fight tooth and nail to stay in Iraq forever.
Fascinating post, thanks again Juan.
Al-Maliki is reminding an economically prostrate America that it cannot afford to buck him on the troop withdrawal timetable.
Might be worth remembering how much Iraq has already paid the USA for the dubious pleasure of this withdrawal. I mean, in both blood and treasure.
PS: Does anyone still doubt, after today's events on Wall Street, that Bush is the worst US president ever - by a very long way? Please do not elect McSame, folks.
From a friend in Australia.
PS: I read that John Gray article earlier today and initially I thought it smacked a little of leftwing gloating. But reading it again now, after a full day watching events unfold, it rings even more true. In fact, it's deserving of editorial status in every major US newspaper.
It's odd how US citizens have been taught to fear words like "socialism", which are eagerly embraced across Europe, not to mention South America. Perhaps this week's events will help people work their own way out of that mental stupor, and ask how they ever got there, and make sure it never happens to their own children.
Reaganonomics is dead. Time to join the real world, folks.
"If an agreement is not reached, the alternative is unknown and it would not be clear how the (U.S.) forces would operate, under what legal cover, how they would practice their duties or whether they would have to withdraw quickly."
Legal cover? Since when did the US need any stinkin' legal cover? The only legal cover we need is the Bush Doctrine. Withdraw quickly? What are you smoking, Nuri? You talk like a Republican--the sky will fall if this is not done right now. Let me assure you, if there is no agreement, the status quo will continue until the US is goddamn good and ready to change it.
Coincidentally Juan, a member of my SanFranciscoForObama listserv was just published in the Guardian UK.
Steven Guess:
The end of the Reagan Revolution
Republicans killed the $700bn Wall Street bail-out plan, but their vision of laissez-faire capitalism won't survive this crisis
to Gandhi,
American attitudes about socialism, putting things and technology above people, glorifying corporate raiders while denigrating corporate employees, and shouting down, ignoring and dehumanizing all who do not agree can all be examined as consequences of Ayn Rand's puerile philosophy.
Plans to steal US election:
Perhaps, with a stolen election, the McSames plan to stay in Iraq regardless of anything al-Maliki says. But what of the dollar? What if the Pentagon cannot afford to fuel troop movements?
About a year ago (1.5), there was an article detailing US military forces emergency evacuation from Iraq northwards, IIRC, into Turkey.
Maliki's anti-occupation pedigree is fake and undeserved. He was very happy to sign a declaration of intent with Bush last year to cover military, political, economic, and cultural bonding with the Americans.
He would be delighted to agree Bush's terms, but his hands are tied and he is too weak to force his will. Let's remember that when the Americans leaves, the Iraqi garbage they brought with them, including Maliki, would have already left before them. He would be a fool to reject the occupation of his accord, would he not?
Interesting game Maliki is playing as the clock runs down, now only 92days left to unwind. Stating the obvious is a good rhetorical strategy.
Big Money's implosion and the failure of its extortion attempt are very welcome events, although it must be noted that the annual "bailout bill" for Big War--the "defense" appropriations bill--was for more that $650 Billion and only generated 39 Nay votes, and this in the face of an estimated deficit for 2009 of at least half a trillion dollars. Unfortunately, Reaganomics isn't dead yet as both Obama and McCain are acolytes.
As Paul Kennedy detailed in his Rise and Fall of Great Powers, the attempt to expand the Empire when the fiscal means are absent will result in the Empire's eventual death is what we are now witnessing.
The United States armed forces are and always have been thoroughly socialized environments. Anyone who has spent time in the military has lived socialism. I didn't have many complaints, at least about about the socialized aspects of the lifestyle. Actually, one could argue that military life is beyond socialism and closer to communism since food and lodging on-post are free. The medical and dental care gets a lot of bad publicity but the minor problems I had were taken care of quite satisfactorily.
That the Americans can no longer afford to occupy territories in the manner to which they have become accustomed, that is ~ in an entirely defensive posture ~ means that their purpose must become offensive ~ if only to withdraw (it will be done so with extreme prejudice), or re-deploy (it would be a Mission to amplify military aggression, elsewhere). Most American troops Over There loathe the ennui of occupation; They dread the relentless and random drip, drip KIA count media metric of their "success" = their attrition rate; and long for that raison d'être for which they are best suited: assault.
I daresay Mr. al-Maliki, et al may long for "the good old days" of Stasis Of Forces; Few of us, Over Here, will. How soon he (they) forget their own history lesson, that it is ‘crisis’, real or conjured that "awakens this sleeping giant and fills him with a terrible resolve."
"Now that it has more of an armored corps in the army, it needs fighter jets and bombers to provide air cover for them."
We call our activities in Iraq a "war" because we are waging significant military violence in a foreign country. By calling it a war we can bring just about any imaginable level of force to bear on the people of Iraq. But what is it when the Iraqi government does the same thing to the Iraqi People?
When we leave Iraq is it our hope that the central government, equipped with tanks, artillery, and fighter planes, will continue to bomb suspicious dwellings, break down doors, make arbitrary arrests, put towns and districts under marshal law, and cover the nation with checkpoints?
The central government is not arming to fight off foreign invaders (that is the current mission of the various resistance groups). It is arming to to sustain its own power within the state. What kind of government would think it needs fighter bombers, tanks, and a several hundred thousand man army to sustain a civil society?
ref : “What kind of government would think it needs fighter bombers, tanks, and a several hundred thousand man army to sustain a civil society?”
As you so well said: THEY, the Iraqi government do not need heavy armour and air power for any reason other than to emulate US, in character rôle being an Iraqi occupying force.
Such was the perverse vision of Vietnamization : “Richard M. Nixon had campaigned in the 1968 presidential election under the slogan that he would end the war in Vietnam and bring "peace with honor." However, there was no plan to do this, and the American commitment continued for another five years. The goal of the American military effort was to buy time, gradually building up the strength of the South Vietnamese armed forces, re-equipping it with modern weapons so that they could "defend their nation" on their own. This policy became the cornerstone of the so-called ‘Nixon Doctrine’. As applied to Vietnam, it was labeled Vietnamization.”
Their historical dilemma was that "Vietnam" was then not a real State, but a stalemate ~ being two competing notions of "nation" at Civil War with one another.
otoh, It is not uncommon for governing authorities ~ even in microcosm tribal elders ~ to absorb their massive surpluses of restless male labour into institutions (military, religious, penal and state-industrial, etc.) where they can be ordered... literally incorporated ~ rendered by that anxious society as "regulated", thus.
Post a Comment
<< Home