- A roadside bomb targeted a police patrol in Fudhailiyah neighborhood (east Baghdad). Five people were injured including two policemen.
- A roadside bomb targeted an American patrol in Tobchi (Al-Salam) neighborhood (northwest Baghdad) .One civilian was killed and five others were wounded. No US casualties reported, police said. The U.S. military said that one person suffered minor injuries and no one was killed.
- Police found one dead body in Ur neighborhood (east Baghdad) today.
Diyala
- Gunmen opened fire on Sahwa members in Swghaa village near Buhriz (3 miles south of Baquba). Three Sahwa members were wounded.
Salahuddin
- A car bomb targeted a police patrol in Abu Ajeel village (3 miles east of Tikrit). One policeman was injured. '
There is not any doubt that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz intend to go to war against Baghdad, and the signs I've seen are that they have convinced President George W. Bush to do it. Apparently the top officers in the US armed forces are unanimous in not wanting this war, but then Colin Powell initially opposed the first Gulf War, as well. Who wants to be dragged into an uncertain operation that might make you look bad? Nevertheless, if Bush orders the war, it will happen.
The varying Pentagon war plans being leaked are not a sign of unseriousness. They are a sign that different factions within the Pentagon want to do the war in different ways, and they are jockeying for position by releasing their opponents' plans with a negative spin on them. War departments always have varying scenarios for fighting a war, and often only in the actual event are the hard choices made. Those with good memories may remember that the geniuses over at The New Republic were insisting on putting 100,000 U.S. troops into Afghanistan last October, and apparently there were some in the Pentagon who agreed that might be necessary (what a recipe for disaster) before the Taliban collapsed so startlingly.
The Senate and the House don't appear to be opposed to the project. And, the drumbeat of the intellectually dishonest members of the war party, such as former CIA director James Woolsey, intimating that perhaps maybe somewhere there is not impossibly a possibility that it is not unthinkable that there is an Iraq-al-Qaida connection appears to be being bought by the naive. (Of course, there is no such evidence).
The lack of enthusiasm for such a war on the part of the militarily important Powers in continental Europe, in Russia, and in the Arab World, does not mean it cannot be done, I've decided. It simply means that the U.S. will be acting almost unilaterally. Since it will need Saudi or Jordanian air space, which won't be on offer, it is entirely possible that the US will simply use it anyway, on the theory that there is nothing that the Saudis or Jordanians can do about it.
While it seems likely that Bush will go to war, the outcome of such an action is very much in doubt and could haunt him (and us) in the future. The negative possibilities include:
1) Iraq could be destabilized, with ethnic forces becoming mobilized and squabbling over resources, as happened in Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion.
2) Iraq could be reconstituted as an unpopular American-backed dictatorship, as happened in Iran in the 1950s. So far, close US allies in the War on Terror in the Middle East include Egypt, which is a military dictatorship that just jailed Saad Eddin Ibrahim for human rights work; Pakistan, a military dictatorship whose leader is attempting to manipulate the fall elections to keep himself in power; Saudi Arabia (nuff said); and other countries with extremely bad human rights records or which are involved in imperial occupations. A Pinochet in Iraq would potentially harm the US diplomatically for decades to come.
2) The loss of civilian life will be significant, further turning much of the world against the United States and losing any sympathy generated by September 11.
3) Recruitment of terrorists to strike the U.S. in the Muslim world may well be easier in the aftermath of a bloodbath in Iraq.
4) The unilateral nature of the action may well provoke Europe, Russia, China and India to begin trying to find ways to unite against the U.S. on such issues in the future, so as to offset its massive military superiority by isolating it on the Security Council and in other international venues. Europe's relative economic clout could grow if war uncertainties keep the US economy weak.
5) The Bush First Strike doctrine may well be emulated by other nations who fear their neighbors, producing copy cat wars that destabilize entire regions. It should be remembered that the German army in 1914 had a first strike doctrine, which dragged Europe into an unnecessary and highly destructive maelstrom.
6) There may be no dividend to an Iraq war in the form of lower petroleum prices in the long run. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait both have significant excess capacity, and OPEC always has an incentive to pump less oil for higher prices, as they have done in the past. Even if Iraq could pump 5 million barrels a day instead of 2, OPEC can just reduce its output by 3 mn. barrels a day and put the price back up. They would have every incentive to do so since they could get about the same amount of income from less oil, benefiting them over time.
For "cont'd" postings, click here.
I know it may seem a novel idea to people like McCain and Palin, but it would be worthwhile actually reading Khalidi's book on the Palestinian struggle for statehood. (I urge bloggers interested in this issue to link to his book, which the American reading public should know).
McCain's and Palin's attacks on Khalidi are frankly racist. He is a distinguished scholar, and the only objectionable thing about him from a rightwing point of view is that he is a Palestinian. There are about 9 million Palestinians in the world (a million or so are Israeli citizens; 3.7 million are stateless and without rights under Israeli control in the West Bank and Gaza; and 4 million are refugees or exiled in the diaspora; there are about 200,000 Palestinian-Americans, and several million Arab-Americans, many living in swing vote states). Khalidi was not, as the schlock rightwing press charges, a spokesman for the Palestine Liberation Organization. He was an adviser at the Madrid peace talks, but would that not have been, like, a good thing?
Much of the assault on Khalidi comes from the American loony Zionist Right, which quietly supports illegal Zionist colonies in the West Bank and the ethnic cleansing of the remaining Palestinians. They have been tireless advocates of miring the US in wars in Iraq and Iran to ensure that their dreams of ethnic cleansing are unopposed. They are a tiny, cranky but well-funded group that has actively harassed anyone who disagrees with them (at one point, cued by Daniel Pipes, they cyberstalked Khalidi and clogged his email mailbox with spam for weeks at a time). All opinion polling shows that most American Jews are politically liberal, overwhelmingly vote Democrat, and support trading land for peace to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Khalidi is their political ally in any serious peace process, which many have recognized.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has repudiated the "Greater Israel" fantasy that drives the Middle East Forum, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Commentary, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, the Hudson Institute, the American Enterprise Institute and other well-funded sites of far-right thinking on Israel-Palestine that have become, with the rise of the Neoconservatives, highly influential with the US Republican Party. Olmert's current position is much closer to Khalidi's than it is to the American ideologues.
That McCain should take his cues from people to the right of the Neoconservatives shows fatal lack of judgment and signals that if he is elected, he will likely pursue policies that are very bad for Israel, forestalling a genuine peace process (which would involve close relations with Palestinians!)
McCain is bringing up Khalidi in order to scare Jewish voters about Obama's associations, and it is an execrable piece of McCarthyism and in fact much worse than McCarthyism since it is not about ideology but rather has racial overtones. Not allowed to pal around with Arab-Americans, I guess. What other ethnic groups should we not pal around with, from McCain's point of view? Is there a list? Are some worse than others?
The rightwing American way of speaking about these issues is bizarre from a Middle Eastern point of view. Lots of real living Israelis have close ties to actually existing Palestinians. There are 12 Palestinian members of the Israeli Knesset, and they have helped keep the Kadima government in power. Here is PLO leader Mahmoud Abbas with current Israeli Prime Ministerial candidate Tzipi Livni; Livni has repeatedly negotiated with the PLO as foreign minister of Israel. McCain's entire line of attack assumes that Palestinian equals "bad" and ignores Israel's and the Bush administration's support for the PLO against Hamas.
As the Young Turks pointed out, before the 'straight talk express' became the 'mealy-mouthed train wreck,' McCain advocated direct negotiations with Hamas when it was in control of the Palestinian Authority after the 2006 elections.
Iraqis Want Strict Withdrawal Timetable; $6 Bn. Spent on Private Security Guards by Bush
Remember how John McCain insisted to Wolf Blitzer that the security pact being negotiated by Iraq and the Bush administration talks about the withdrawal of US troops as "conditions-based" rather than tied to a strict timetable? That was not true of the draft, which called for US troops out by 2011 but did contain language in a different section that allowed for them to stay under certain conditions. The Iraqis now want that clause removed and the Baghdad government wants an iron-clad guarantee of US troops being out by 2011. The recent US military raid into neighboring Syria may have stiffened Iraqi resolve in this regard. If McCain were elected, which McClatchy argues is still entirely possible, he'd have rocky relations with Iraq if he continued to oppose a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops.
The US military turned over security duties in Wasit Province to Iraqi forces on Wednesday. All Shiite-majority provinces are now under Iraqi army control. The US continues to have primacy in five provinces including Baghdad itself (also Diyala, Salahuddin, Ninevah and Kirkuk). These provinces continue to see significant social violence and Diyala, Salahuddin and Ninevah have Sunni Arab majorities.
The International Organization for Migration urges that the 2 million Iraqi refugees in nearby neighboring countries be given support, not forced back to Iraq. Most of the refugees have been traumatized, seen a family member kidnapped, been personally threatened, or seen their old neighborhood ethnically cleansed and their property expropriated, so that they are disinclined to return or have no place to return to. Violence remains endemic in some of the places they have fled, including Baghdad.
- A roadside bomb targeted a bus of the ministry of education's employees in Ur neighborhood (east Baghdad). Two employees were killed and six others were wounded. - A roadside bomb targeted a police patrol near the Nadia ice cream shop on Palestine Street (east Baghdad). Five people were killed and seventeen others were injured, including the head of the traffic police department in Nahda neighborhood (downtown Baghdad).
Diyala
- Gunmen attacked the house of the Dahalka Sahwa leader in Dahalka village in Balad Ruz, about 27 miles east of Baquba.They killed three people, the father of the Sahwa leader, his daughter and her husband. Fourteen others were wounded, including 7 men and 7 women. - A roadside bomb detonated in the Baquba central market downtown Baquba city. Sixteen people were wounded including one a girl who died later.
Mosul
- A car bomb targeted a police patrol in Yarmouk neighborhood in downtown Mosul city. One policeman was killed.
- A sniper killed an Iraqi soldier in Al-Tanak neighborhood in Mosul city around noon.'
Iraq Condemns Syria Raid; Seeks Renegotiation of Security Accord
Iraqi government spokesman Ali Dabbagh on Tuesday backed off his earlier support for the US raid into Syria. He said that the Iraqi constitution forbids third parties to use Iraq as a staging ground for attacks on other countries. It is not clear whether Dabbagh was just issuing a pro forma condemnation or whether the Shiite government in Baghdad has gotten new information suggesting that the raid was problematic in some way. Ordinarily the al-Maliki government is delighted to see Sunni fundamentalist guerrillas targeted.
McClatchy reports that the Iraqi cabinet has made some changes in the draft security agreement with the Bush administration. US officials are quoted as saying it is unlikely Washington will accept the changes. The cabinet members in Baghdad are convinced that without these changes, parliament will reject the agreement. One new provision gives Iraq authorities the right to decide whether a US GI accused of wrong-doing was on- or off-duty at the time. (On-duty US soldiers would have immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts; off-duty ones would not).
Well, first of all, having one party in control of the White House and Congress could have the benefit of allowing them to unite to get something practical done about the financial crisis (remember that one?)
Second, the Democrats do not have the supreme court, and there is no early prospect of a firm Democratic majority on it. The conservatives on it are still fairly young and energetic. Thomas and Scalia are very far right, and Alito and Roberts only a little less so. Kennedy is a swing vote but not exactly a liberal. The likely retirements will mostly come from the ranks of liberals, so that Obama and a Democratic congress will only be able to maintain a status quo. It is true that they can stop a far-right putsch on the Court, but that is hardly one party rule.
Moreover. the Republicans did have one-party rule in 2000-2006 and really did have all three branches of government under their control. Can anyone think of any major Republican leader in that period who argued that it was a bad thing and who urged voters to cast ballots for Democrats in order to restore some checks and balances?
On the contrary, the Republicans seriously considered abolishing the Senatorial tradition of requiring 60 for the passage of especially important measures such as confirming justices. They wanted to be more, not less, powerful, to exercise the prerogatives of one-party rule without let or hindrance.
McCain would only have credibility on this issue if he denounced the Republican majority in all three branches of government in 2000=2006.
US: Raid Targetted al-Qaeda Facilitator; May Complicate Security Agreement with Iraq
US government sources maintained on Monday that the cross-border raid into Syria that left 8 dead had succeeded in killing "Abu al-Ghadiyah" (Badran al-Mazidi) of Mosul, a member of the fundamentalist vigilante group of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (originally called "Monotheism and Holy War" but more recently "The Islamic State of Iraq"). Al-Zarqawi was killed in 2006. US intelligence fingered al-Mazidi as a major facilitator for networks of fundamentalist vigilantes who were infiltrating into Iraq from Syria. The administration allegation is that it struck when it did because it got especially good information on al-Mazidi's exact whereabouts.
Apparently Syria declined to move against al-Mazidi, leading to charges by the US military that the ruling Baath Party in Syria was actively harboring al-Qaeda. That charge does not seem plausible to me, since the Alawis at the top of the government are terrified of Sunni fundamentalism and are vulnerable to being overthrown by it. (Sunnis are some 80 percent of Syrians; a folk Shiite group,the Alawis, are at the pinnacle of the government). The US is always over-estimating how powerful and efficient these ramshackle, personalistic regimes in the Middle East are, and attributing things to deliberate plotting that are likely just the result of incompetence or cowardice. Washington also tends to over-estimate the importance of individual leaders such as al-Zarqawi and al-Mazidi. Mostly they are fairly easily replaced. It is not as though they have been through a military academy or anything. When al-Zarqawi was killed, it changed absolutely nothing with regard to violence in Iraq. Others than Mazidi can smuggle North African volunteers into Iraq.
I still think the timing of the raid had to do with the US presidential election, and that it is likely Bush and Cheney want to make sure Iraq stays off the front pages for McCain's sake, since otherwise his talk of "victory" might seem hollow. It is also possible that the White House was offering the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad a carrot in hopes it would smooth the passage of the draft security agreement.
In fact, some Iraqi politicians said that the raid would complicate negotiations on the security agreement. Certainly, Iran's opposition will have stiffened. Kurdish parliamentarian Mahmud Osman charged that the US acted without Iraqi government knowledge. Iraqis are touchy about the idea of the US using Iraq as a launching pad for attacking neighboring countries. Even Ali Dabbagh, spokesman for Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who approved of the American action, said that it would not be allowed after the first of the year.
NYT reports that al-Maliki has been mainly using Arab police and soldiers in his security campaign in Mosul, drawing down Kurdish troops of the Iraqi Army. Kurds had dominated Ninevah Province because Sunni Arabs boycotted the Jan. 2005 provincial elections, but they are a minority. Kurdistan nationalists wish to annex some areas of Ninevah to the Kurdistan Regional Government. There is growing tension between Arabs and Kurds in the north, reflected in the increasingly difficult relations between al-Maliki and Kurdistan president Massoud Barzani.
Al-Sharq al-Awsat reports in Arabic that the Shiite grand ayatollahs in the holy city of Najaf are signalling to Iraqis that they may vote for whatever party they choose, religious or secular, so long as they judge it competent in solving the country's problems. In past elections the top Shiite clerics had urged voters to cast their ballots for the United Iraqi Alliance, a coalition of Shiite fundamentalist parties. That coalition seems to be breaking up, and Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani has been deeply disappointed in its record in power. Sistani had all along been opposed to the Iranian model of clerical rule, but he had in the past favored the Iraqi religious Right. If al-Sharq al-Awsat is accurately reporting his views, this move toward pragmatism and willingness to see lay Shiites vote for secular parties marks a further evolution of his thought.
- An American squad raided the New Baghdad and Baladiyat neighborhoods, Iraqi police said, with no more details. The coalition reply was, “Coalition forces killed five criminals after a small arms fire attack in Baghdad's New Baghdad security district, Oct. 27. At about 1:20 a.m., Multi-National Division - Baghdad Soldiers were attacked with small-arms fire at a joint security station. The Soldiers were able to identify those responsible for the attack and returned fire. A total of five attackers were killed with no U.S.casualties.
-A roadside bomb detonated in Ameen neighborhood (east Baghdad). Three people were killed and five others were injured. Also two civilian cars were damaged.
- Around noon a roadside bomb detonated near the Kindi hospital intersection (northeast Baghdad). Two people were wounded.
- An adhesive bomb detonated under a civilian car at Khilani intersection (downtown Baghdad). Two people were killed and seven others were wounded.
- Police found one dead body in Mashtal neighborhood in east Baghdad today.
Mosul
- Gunmen killed a civilian near the jewelry shops in downtown Mosul.
- Gunmen opened fire on an Iraqi army patrol in Al-Jazair neighborhood (downtown Mosul). Two soldiers were wounded.
- A suicide car bomber targeted an Iraqi police patrol in Borsa neighborhood in Mosul. One policeman was killed and two others were wounded.
Dohuk
- Turkish artillery bombed some villages in the northeast of Dohuk in Kurdistan region before noon, Peshmerga sources, the security forces in the area, said. Also they said that the Turkish had bombed the same area last night, too. No casualties or damages were reported.'
Middle East Press Negative on US Attack on Syrian Soil.
The USG Open Source Center surveys the Middle Eastern press reaction to the US raid on Abu al-Kamal in Syria, finding it mostly negative and based on Syrian reports. Lesson: If the US had just gotten word out about its side of the story more quickly and effectively, it might have blunted the generally negative reation in the region. It appears that Washington did no public diplomacy at all around the episode. This report concerns the Middle East and so does not mention that Russia condemed the attack, as well.
OSC Report: Middle East Reaction to US Operation in Syria Monday, October 27, 2008
Middle East -- Limited Official Reaction Mostly Condemns US Operation in Syria As of 1830 GMT on 27 October, OSC has monitored limited reaction in the Middle East to the US operation in the vicinity of Abu Kamal in northeastern Syria, news of which came too late for extensive print media coverage or comment on the 27th. Apart from harsh Syrian condemnation, limited official comment elsewhere generally condemned the US operation. Official Iraqi reaction suggested some confusion within the Iraqi Government. Most regional media reporting of the incident cited Syrian claims that the target and victims of the attack were entirely civilian in nature.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Mu'alim, at a press conference in London, denounced the operation as a "criminal, terrorist act" that was "not a mistake" but "deliberate." He branded as "lies" claims that Syria is turning a blind eye toward terrorist activities by Al-Qa'ida or other terrorist organizations operating from Syrian territory and asserted that all the casualties were "unarmed Syrian civilians" (Al-Jazirah TV, 27 October). Both state-controlled and nominally independent Syrian newspapers echoed the official line.
Official Iraqi comment suggested uncertainty on the part of government officials.
As quoted by AP, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh implicitly endorsed the operation, describing the area in which it occurred as "a theater of military operations where anti-Iraq terrorist activity takes place" (27 October). Foreign Ministry Under Secretary Labid Abbawi, however, described the incident as "regrettable" and said that "we are sorry it happened" (AP, 27 October). A separate Foreign Ministry statement said that Iraq would provide Syria with the results of the Iraqi investigation into the incident, which demonstrated the "extreme importance of joint security coordination and cooperation between the two countries" (PUKMedia, 27 October).
Arab League Secretary General Amr Musa condemned the operation, saying that he is "holding constant contacts with the Syrian authorities and listening to Syrian reports on what happened" (MENA Online, 27 October). Iranian
Foreign Ministry spokesman Hasan Qashqavi condemned the operation, saying that the "murder of innocent people" is "unacceptable" (IRNA, 27 October).
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Baraq implied approval of the operation but distanced Israel from the incident.
He told the independent daily Ma'ariv : "It was a pinpointed strike against a terrorist target. Israel was not involved in it in any way. We had no part in the matter" (27 October). Media Coverage Largely Based on Syrian Accounts
The two major pan-Arab news channels, Al-Jazirah and Al-Arabiyah, led their 27 October newscasts with the story, airing videos from the scene as well as statements and interviews with locals, journalists, and officials. The two channels' coverage provided both Syrian and American as well as Iraqi perspectives on the incident.
The Qatari Government-financed Al-Jazirah interviewed former US Ambassador David Mack, who justified the operation as a "last resort" in response to the infiltration of foreign fighters into Iraq across the Syrian border. It also carried a Syrian TV clip of a woman said to be a victim of the operation, and its own correspondent's statement that witnesses claimed US soldiers fired "indiscriminately" during the operation.
The mostly Saudi-owned Al-Arabiyah aired a video from the scene of the attack. It also carried an interview with Iraqi Member of Parliament Jabir Habib Jabir, who maintained in the face of skeptical questioning from the channel's correspondent that the area of the operation was used to smuggle weapons and fighters into Iraq.
Reportage of the incident on 27 October in the Saudi -owned London dailies Al-Sharq al-Awsat and Al-Hayah, as well as the domestic Saudi daily Al-Riyadh, cited official Syrian accounts. State-run Saudi TV1, in its report, cited "the Iraqi Government" as saying that the operation targeted "fighters" inside Syria.
Reports in Egyptian, Jordanian, and Turkish media on the 27th were largely based on wire service accounts, which in turn mostly cited official Syrian reports.
The headline in the independent, pro-government UAE daily Al-Khalij on the 27th reported "US Aggression Against Syria," while the independent Qatari daily Al-Arab adopted neutral language in reporting the incident.
For "cont'd" postings, click here.
Farmhouse raided in Abu Kamal village, courtesy Syria-news.com
Joshua Landis at Syria Comment carries an account from a physician of the killed and wounded that casts doubt on the US military story that the workers killed were part of a logistics operation in support of fundamentalist vigilantes on their way to Iraq.
Landis speculates that Bushco. figures that it would get a lame duck freebie in attacking Syria now, on the brink of an Obama administration.
It seems to me more likely that the attack was aimed at making sure that what the administration calls "al-Qaeda in Iraq" did not have the means to mount a spectacular bombing or assassination campaign that would hurt McCain and help Obama. I was told by NGOs when I was in Amman last summer that the Bush administration had for the first time pledged money to help Iraqi refugees, and that US officials had admitted to them that the reason was that the administration wanted the refugee crisis kept off the front pages this fall. Scott McClellan has already told us that the Bushies are in campaign mode 24/7. I'd say that every single thing they are doing, whether raiding Pakistan or raiding Syria, is intended in some way to help the Republican Party in the election, in addition to whatever local military goal the action had.
Pakistani Military Takes Towns in Bajaur; If this is So Central to US Security, Why isn't it News? US Strike Kills 20 in S. Waziristan
Although both candidates tie the resurgence of the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan to US domestic security, I personally have difficulty understanding exactly how that works. The September 11, 2001, attacks on the US were planned by Arab expatriates in Hamburg, Germany, and Pushtun tribespeople had almost nothing to do with them (did the Taliban even know what Bin Laden was planning?)
Both McCain and Obama have adopted Bushspeak on this issue, allowing W. and Cheney to frame the national debate into the next four years. Bushspeak works by contiguity, by things being next to one another, rather than by causality. Al-Qaeda was in Khost, which was controlled by the Taliban, so ipso facto the Taliban are related to 9/11, and since the Taliban were largely Pushtuns, the Pushtuns in Pakistan and Afghanistan are, whenever they rebel against their local government, a dire threat to the US mainland. There are roughly 28 million Pushtuns in northwest Pakistan, and 12 million in Afghanistan. The ones in Pakistan recently rejected the fundamentalist parties for the most part in favor of a secular-leaning Pushtun nationalist party. Many of the ones in Afghanistan are part of, or back, the Karzai government. In my view, tying US national security to Pushtun local politics is magical thinking. The stability of Afghanistan and Pakistan are important, but framing that stability in the terms of a "war on terror[ism]" ignores the dynamics of secular and religious forms of Pushtun national self-assertion.
Although the US media gives us glib references to the resurgence of the Taliban, I see little or nothing on US television news explaining the fighting in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan, which is presumably what the US politicians are talking about.
The Pakistani military has adopted a scorched earth policy toward the Taliban in Bajaur, tearing down houses and using them as bunkers, and displacing an estimated 200,000 civilians from the region (some have become refugees in nearby Afghanistan).
Maulvi Faqir Muhammad and his Tehrik-i Taliban frontally attacked Pakistani military checkpoints and started a feud with the Pakistani army. The Tehrik-i Taliban has been blamed for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto last December, and it is said that as her widower, Asaf Ali Zardari, rose to the presidency, he pressured the military to destroy the movement, with which he now has a family feud.
'The ISPR spokesperson Major General Athar Abbas, who also accompanied the media team, said before the start of the operation by security forces, Bajaur Agency was in a state of lawlessness. Militants were constantly attacking security forces’ checkposts and had closed all roads for movement of Government/FC convoys.
“All Levies pickets in the Agency had been demolished by the militants and a parallel system of administration in Tehsil Mamund, Charmang and Salarzai had been established. Militants had taken control of schools in the Agency and had converted them into their centers. They had also established courts in which they use to award severe and capital punishments of beheading and killing of personnel in public,” he said.
The spokesperson said the militants in these areas were granting licenses for business and imposing taxes on people and transport.
He said during first eight months in 2008, they had killed as many as twelve Maliks, dozens of security personnel and also kidnapped many for ransom.
In this backdrop, he said, the security forces started operation codenamed “Sherdil” [Lion-Heart] in Bajaur Agency to clear the area of the miscreants.
He said during last one and a half month, the security forces faced heavy resistance primarily as militants had support from across the border and due to involvement of foreign elements.
“The area was being used as a safe haven by foreign fighters, the militants had developed a strong trench and tunnel system of defence in populated areas like Loesam which also became a stronghold of resistance,” said the spokesman. '
It is confusing that, while the Pakistani military is engaged in hard fighting against the Bajaur branch of the Pakistani Taliban, it has been accused of using the organization, and tribes allied with it, to hit Afghanistan and to assert Pakistani influence in southern Afghanistan.
The US attempt to deal with the Afghan Taliban in Ghazni with air strikes may have gone awry on Sunday, as local Afghan officials claimed that 20 government security guards were killed along with Taliban insurgents who had attacked a NATO convoy.
Poland is in charge of Ghazni now.
I come back to my original question. How is the fighting in Bajaur Tribal Agency a threat to domestic US security?
It is a question the next president will have to answer in a practical way. I wish the candidates were at least sometimes pressed on it now.
For "cont'd" postings, click here.
Absent the unexpected, it is unlikely that a security agreement in the form of a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the US will be in place before our Presidential elections and almost as unlikely before the end of the year when the present UN Security Council mandate runs out. That mandate, in the form of a resolution renewed annually, provides the terms and conditions under which the US has been able to occupy and seek to pacify and rebuild Iraq politically. In practice, it has given the US a free hand as the occupying power. To that extent, it has severely limited Iraq’s sovereignty and has legitimized its maintenance by the US in a tutelary status. The negotiations to replace the UN mandate with a type of SOFA has been underway for much of this year and from what little is known of its contents the US has agreed to initiate military operations only with Iraqi assent; to withdraw its forces from Iraq’s cities by June 2009 and from Iraq entirely by the end of 2011.
While language is included to suggest that a complete withdrawal might be conditions-based by mutual agreement, it seems to be a sop given by the Maliki government to the Bush administration. Even with such seemingly anodyne conditionality, the provision has proven to be unacceptable to many in Iraq’s parliament. Similarly unacceptable to Iraqi politicians seems to be the provisions regarding legal jurisdiction over offences committed by US troops, which would place them under US jurisdiction while on base or on authorized military operations off-base. With senior US officials indicating that the US limit has been reached on further concessions, an impasse seems now to exist.
If the news reports on the draft SOFA’s main provisions are generally accurate, it is hard to understand what the fight is all about. The US appears to have conceded on all major issues and is left with little alternative to withdrawal:
--after January 1, the US will undertake military operations only with Iraqi consent;
--all US non-military contract employees will be subject to Iraqi law. (The US military operation has become so dependent on contract employees that it’s hard to understand how the US could function if US contract employees are pulled out by their employers because of their exposure to arrest by a legal system they do not understand and understandably fear.)
--all Iraqis apprehended by US military must be turned over to Iraq authorities.
--by June 2009, all US military must evacuate the cities and return to fixed bases, from which they can operate only with Iraq’s permission. The practical effect of this provision is that whatever the merits of General Petreus’s strategy of deploying forces to cities and neighborhoods to protect the population and to sponsor civil affairs and local self-help activities, it will be history. Thus the surge will also be no more, together with the many soldiers and special forces needed to support it..
--By the end of 2011, all US combat forces will be withdrawn unless the two sides agree that circumstances require them to stay.
We know little about the precise language of the draft or anything regarding what must be an extensive agreement covering issues such as jurisdiction over air space; limits on operations; import-export of material ranging from foodstuffs to sophisticated weaponry; designation and inventorying of current bases including elaborate airbases and their eventual disposition (including buildings and equipment) following drawdown and departure; and much more. Further, are there provisions for residual forces, for whatever purpose, authorization for ongoing training and military assistance programs, civil construction and technical assistance programs, and the like?
Taking all into account, and accepting the reality that present efforts to replace the Security Council resolution with a bilateral SOFA is badly stalled and may abort, how should the US and Iraq proceed? From the US standpoint, some organic instrument is needed to legitimize and help manage our continuing activities in Iraq and more especially in the context of our departure over the next few years. From the standpoint of Iraq, the restoration of its sovereignty would be critical not only to its international standing but in bringing about the kind of internal political accommodation so desperately wanting. Popular perception of tutelage and occupation and dependency helps make Iraq a failed state. The restoration of sovereignty in fact as well as theory—essentially, the recognition of Iraq’s adulthood--may well be central to encouraging the kind of national political accommodation the US says it has been seeking.
With this seeming stalemate, any way forward needs to take into account a number of practical realities central to both countries:
--The US will shortly be electing a new President who will be responsible to the American public for the US position in the Middle East and the implementation of a SOFA in that context.
--Similarly, Iraq will be holding critical regional elections early next year which could well significantly alter the political balance within the country, bring new constituencies and new political actors on the scene and perhaps result in a new government. It is that government which should be responsible for implementation of the SOFA and associated withdrawal, indeed, for the future direction of Iraq.
--Gaining time needed to reach agreement should not be a problem. If Iraq, with Arab support, asks for an extension of the current mandate for six months, the Security Council will comply. The Russians, for example, will be only too happy to see the US army bogged down in Iraq for as long as possible.
With a continuing Security Council resolution providing legitimacy, the US and Iraq can proceed to implement the 99% of the SOFA that appears to be agreed upon and which in any event would be compatible with a 2011 (or 2010) withdrawal, with or without conditionality. The matter of jurisdiction over criminal behavior by US troops off base and off duty can perhaps be dealt with by third-part arbitration by the UN. The new US and Iraqi governments can then limit the SOFA to housekeeping matters and concentrate on fundamentally political matters that don’t belong in a SOFA anyway, looking toward a future US-Iraqi relationship. These might include:
--a formal termination of hostilities between the two countries, whether by treaty or executive agreement, supported by a Congressional Joint Resolution that terminates the authorization to conduct hostilities adopted by Congress in 2003. This might be accompanied by a US declaration formally terminating the occupation regime. Nothing would more authoritatively reestablish Iraqi de jure sovereignty as well as its psychological sovereignty and sense of nationhood. (The bestowal of sovereignty several years ago by Jerry Bremer amounted to a formal, but ineffective gesture, given the reality of Iraq.)
--With a now sovereign Iraq, the two governments can negotiate agreements defining their future political and military relations. The latter might include cooperation in combating terrorism, whether by using US forces stationed in Iraq or available over-the horizon; US overflight and landing rights; ongoing military assistance programs involving training and weapons sales. Special provision might be needed for the protection of the US diplomatic establishment by a reduction in size and the according of diplomatic immunity for a protection force assigned to the Embassy and a generous periphery thereof.
A new US Administration might also bear in mind that the successful termination of the war in Iraq could well contribute to the opening of discussions with Iran, leading to the normalization of relations.
Helman "was United States Ambassador to the European Office of the United Nations from 1979 through 1981."
What is odd is that the Bush administration did not behave that way when the infiltration of fundamentalist vigilantes from the Syrian side was a more significant problem.
I don't know if this is election politics on Bush's part, an attempt by Bush-Cheney to mire Obama down in a Syria conflict they started.
Or maybe the secular, Alawi-dominated Baath Party of Syria, always afraid of the Sunni fundamentalists, has grown so terrified of Fatah al-Islam that they gave a secret go-ahead to the US to hit the fundamentalists where they had intelligence on them.
The Iraqi Islamic Party, led by Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, said it was suspending further high-level contact with the United States on Saturday. The Sunni fundamentalist group is angry about a raid in Fallujah in which US troops killed a member of the IIP. The US military contends that the man opened fire on the American soldiers and that they found weapons and weapon-making materiel in his house, saying that he was a leader of Hamas al-Iraq, an offshoot of the 1920 Revolution Brigades. The IIP is thought by some to be the civilian wing of this guerrilla group. The IIP seems especially angry that its political rivals in the Awakening Council movement, who will contest provincial elections in late January, have informed to the Americans on IIP operatives. The IIP won al-Anbar Province in 2005 with only 2% of the electorate casting ballots, but the contest in January will be more heated. The IIP maintains that the US military is abetting the Awakening Councils in taking al-Anbar.
The Iraqi Islamic Party also opposes the draft security agreement that was negotiated between PM Nuri al-Maliki's office and the Iraqi government. The IIP-sponsored "Baghdad Satellite Channel" carried a sermon on Friday by pro-IIP cleric Hashim al-Ta'i in which he said (Open Source Center translation),
'"If we go back in memory to the early 1990s when Iraq was the target of the aircraft of America and the states that supported it and when Baghdad and the major Iraqi cities in particular and all other targets in Iraq in general were the target of these aircraft, and if we go back in memory to those difficult days in the history of Iraq, we will find that America has destroyed all infrastructures and killed and displaced hundreds of thousands of people.Furthermore, on the pretext of the former regime, on the pretext of this regime's alliance with Al-Qa'ida, and on the pretext of the weapons of mass destruction, it placed Iraq and the Iraqis under a stifling, unjust, and tough siege to the point where the Iraqis ate fodder. Since that date, Iraqi brain drain has been continuing and the Iraqis have continued to leave Iraq."
He adds: "America's policy toward Iraq led to the death of more than 2 million children during the time of the siege. The war has also created strange kinds of cancer and deformed births." He says: "This is the bitter harvest America madeus reap in our wounded country. Today, an agreement is offered to the Iraqis.So, what will the Iraqis say? Through my contacts with the people and their letters and recommendations, and based on what I hear, there is a unanimous Iraqi voice which says: No to an agreement that consolidates the occupation and prolongs its life; no to an agreement that consolidates sectarianism and racism and fragments the country into groups and cantons; no to an agreement that mortgages the country and its resources for many decades; no to an agreement that does not include a timetable for the withdrawal of the occupiers from our land and that seeks to build military bases that would perhaps stay for tens of years in Iraq to threaten Iraq and the neighboring states together; and no to an agreement, which does not include equal opportunities." '
Ta'i's sentiments appear to be widespread in Iraq, right down to the exaggerated estimate (it is usually put at 500,000, not 2 million) for the number of Iraqi children that were killed by US and UN sanctions (the interdiction of chlorine made it impossible to do water purification, which in turn caused infant and toddler deaths from gastrointestinal diseases and consequent dehydration). Yep, the Neocons called that one, about Iraqi gratitude to the US, right on the money, they did.
On the other hand, many secular-minded Sunni Arab Iraqis (and they are still the majority) are said to approve of the security pact between the US and Iraq, on the grounds that it will limit Iranian dominance of Iraq. The "al-Arab" newspaper of Qatar reported on Friday that (Open Source Center translation):
'The latest poll Al-Arab carried out about the Iraqi-US security agreement included 270 Sunni Iraqis in the cities of Al-Fallujah, Al-Ramadi, and Baghdad. Eighty percent of these Iraqis suggested that that the security agreement will end the Iranian influence or at least limit it, and that Iraq will be able to return to the Arab ranks again without Iranian control. They also insisted that the agreement with the United States will have limited damage, unlike the Iranian influence. Therefore, they support the agreement and work to make it successful.
Of the participants, 4 percent checked the "We do not know whether it is good or bad for Iraq" box. Some see that the advantages or disadvantages of the agreement are still unknown due to the vague agreement articles and for not announcing the agreement clearly so far. They noted that some media sources mentioned that there are points which will remain secret and unannounced in that agreement.
Sixteen percent of the participants rejected the agreement referring to the Holy Koranic verse: "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors" (Partial Koranic verse; Al-Ma'idah, 5:51). Despite that the majority of those who expressed their rejection are affiliated to religious parties, particularly the Salafist sect; they find their votes getting lost and unheard among Iraqi Sunnis due to what they called the advantages of the agreement for not leaving Iraq to a fanatic Shiite authority or an Iranian remote or close control.
Shaykh Ahmad al-Hadithi, a leading figure of the Iraqi Islamic Party, told Al-Arab that the percentage was not surprising at all because Sunnis, as well as Christians, and the sons of the other religions fear the current Iranian influence in Iraq.
Dr Abd-al-Wahhab Salim, from the Desert Research Center in Al-Anbar, said that Sunni Iraqis desire a secular system, not religious. They see that the United States invaded them militarily, but the Iranian invasion was ideological, social, and religious, which for their country is more dangerous and horrible than the military invasion.'
On another front, Kazakhstan is withdrawing its troops from Iraq. John C. K. Daly argues that Astana was in part attempting to please Russia while not damaging its new ties to NATO. Thus, Kazakhstan maintained that its troops had done their duty and were now going home.
- Around 8 p.m. a roadside bomb targeted an Iraqi army vehicle in Al Shaab neighborhood killing one civilian man was passing by the site and injured four Iraqi army soldiers.
- Around noon, gunmen from Mahdi army militia clashed with Iraqi national police soldiers in Al Shaab neighborhood. The clash lasted more than an hour. One civilian was killed and five others were injured. . .
- Around 4 p.m. a roadside bomb targeted an Iraqi army vehicle in Palestine St. killing two soldiers and injuring three others.
- Iraqi police found two dead bodies throughout Baghdad, one in Husseiniyah, one in Dura.
Nineveh
- Gunmen killed two policemen while they were off duty in Al Sinaa area in Mosul.'
' . . . BAGHDAD - A bomb stuck to a vehicle carrying an Iraqi army brigadier general killed the driver and wounded the general and a civilian in the central Karrada district, police said . . .
* KIRKUK - A body of a women was found in the southwestern industrial district of the city of Kirkuk, 250 km (155 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.
* JURF AL-SAKHER - One man was wounded when a speeding car opened fire on a checkpoint of U.S.-backed patrols in Jurf al-Sakher, 40 km (25 miles) south of Baghdad, police said.
NEAR KIRKUK - Iraqi police found the body of a man with signs of torture just south of Kirkuk, 250 km (155 miles) north of Baghdad, police said. . .
MOSUL - A roadside bomb wounded two women when it struck an Iraqi army vehicle in eastern Mosul, north of Baghdad, police said.
MOSUL - Gunmen killed a civilian in a drive-by shooting in eastern Mosul, north of Baghdad, police said.
NEAR KUT - Iraqi police arrested one gunman and wounded another in clashes on Friday just south of Kut, 150 km (95 miles) southeast of Baghdad, Police Major Aziz Latif said.
NEAR KUT - Police said they found a dead body inside an abandoned house just south of Kut on Friday. The dead individual appeared to have been tortured and shot. . .
FALLUJA - Gunmen killed an imam of a mosque and another man in a drive-by shooting northeast of Falluja, police said. . .
FALLUJA - Iraqi soldiers killed a suspected militant and arrested another one, believed to be responsible for training insurgents in producing and placing roadside bombs, on Friday in Falluja, 50 km (30 miles) west of Baghdad, the U.S. military said.'
Al-Sharq al-Awsat reports in Arabic that the Christian representative in parliament is acusing a unit of the Iraq army,which has significant numbers of Kurds, of being behind attack on Christians in Mosul that have forced thousands of Christians to flee instability.
'Last month, 98 Iraqi policemen were killed. On about two days out of every three, a bomb killed two or more people. Over all, those bombings killed 164 people and wounded 366 others. These and other attacks killed 500 Iraqi civilians, about 17 a day. '
' SEC. 313. USE OF CONTRIBUTED AMOUNTS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES. (a) PERMITTED USES-
... (b) PROHIBITED USE-
(1) IN GENERAL- A contribution or donation described in subsection (a) shall not be converted by any person to personal use.
(2) CONVERSION- For the purposes of paragraph (1), a contribution or donation shall be considered to be converted to personal use if the contribution or amount is used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate's election campaign or individual's duties as a holder of Federal office, including--
(A) a home mortgage, rent, or utility payment; (B) a clothing purchase; (C) a noncampaign-related automobile expense; (D) a country club membership; (E) a vacation or other noncampaign-related trip; (F) a household food item; (G) a tuition payment; (H) admission to a sporting event, concert, theater, or other form of entertainment not associated with an election campaign; and (I) dues, fees, and other payments to a health club or recreational facility.'
The most likely suspect in a bombing like that is a Sunni Arab guerrilla cell, either Baathist or fundamentalist vigilante. The bombing shows that while the monthly death totals for civilians have fallen, Iraq is still a very violent place.
Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that the Sadr Movement in Parliament has begun a boycott of proceedings to protest the draft security agreement negotiated by the government of PM Nuri al-Maliki. Al-Hayat also chronicles the failure of the visit to Iran of Iraqi Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani, who was seeking to reassure his Iranian colleagues about the status of forces agreement. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Speaker of the House Ali Larijani, and Expediency Council head Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani all denounced the proposed agreement as a humiliation for Iraq and an infringement against it sovereignty. Larijani compared it to the agreement between the Shah of Iran and the US over troops and bases in Iran, which restricted GIs from being tried in Iranian courts. Resentments over immunity for US troops in Iran was one impetus for the 1979 Iranian Revolution.
WaPo visits Sadr City and finds a) that the Mahdi Army is still mosty in charge there and b) they are increasingly angry with the government and can barely prevent locals from attacking government forces. The only thing wrong with this perceptive (and courageous) piece is that it does not mention the ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis of West Baghdad as a major factor in the decline of civilian deaths.
' Talks require a negotiating partner. The first step in Iraq must therefore be holding provincial elections. In the first and only such elections, held in January 2005, the Sunni Arab parties declined to participate. Provincial governments in Sunni-majority provinces are thus uniformly unrepresentative, and sometimes in the hands of fundamentalist Shiites, as in Diyala. A newly elected provincial Sunni Arab political class could stand in for the guerrilla groups in talks, just as Sinn Fein, the political wing of the Irish Republican Army, did in Northern Ireland.'
Dabbagh Rejects Bush Pressure Tactics on Iraq; Al-Haeri Declares Security Agreement Illicit; Irrelevancy of Al-Qaeda on McCain
Iraqi government spokesman Ali Dabbagh reacted sharply on Wednesday to comments of US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen last Tuesday that Iraqis did not have much time to pass the agreement and might not understand the full consequences of failure to do so. Dabbagh said, "It is not correct to force Iraqis into making a choice and it is not appropriate to talk with the Iraqis in this way."
Grand Ayatollah Kadhim al-Haeri issued a formal religious ruling or fatwa denouncing the proposed security pact between the Iraqi government and the US as humiliating and infringing Iraqi national sovereignty. (The tradition of Muslim clerical thinking is hostile to the political subordination of Muslims to non-Muslims.)
Al-Haeri tends to be followed by members of the Sadr Movement, the leader of which is Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr, who is too junior to issue fatwas. Al-Haeri is sometimes called Iraq's "fifth Grand Ayatollah," and is a rival to Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani of Najaf. Al-Haeri declines to live in Iraq under US occupation, and
"We have learned of the pressures exerted by the Occupation forces on the Iraqi government for the purpose of obtaining its assent to a humiliating agreement termed "a long term security agreement," which leads to Iraq's loss of its national sovereignty, and its acceptance of humiliation and abasement."
He added, "Whoso aids the Occupiers in achieving what they desire, God shall not forgive his sins, nor will the oppressed Iraqi nation go easy on him, norwill the blessed centers of Islamic learning nor any Muslim with a conscience who believes in the Judgment Day."
As for the pro-al-Qaeda internet bulletin board that urged support for McCain because he is hotheaded and would keep large US troop contingents in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would not pay much attention to it. It was a posting from one guy, so we don't know if the leadership feels this way. But even if he were not obscure, we should not let al-Qaeda play mind games with American voters. Al-Qaeda hates and wants to kill both Democrats and Republicans; it hates America in general. We don't even know why this posting to the internet supports McCain; for all we know they are trying to help him, expecting blow back from the public. The important thing is what McCain's practical plans are, not some 'gotcha' post from some scruffy fundamentalist vigilante on the internet.
- An adhesive bomb detonated under a civilian car in Mansour neighborhood (west Baghdad). Two people were killed.
- An adhesive bomb detonated under the head of the Diwaniyah Facility Protection Service’s car, Colonel Mohammed Abu Atra, in Nidhal Street in downtown Baghdad. The colonel was injured with two of his guards.
- An adhesive bomb detonated under an ambulance car in Andalus intersection in central Baghdad. One person was killed and three others were wounded.
- An adhesive bomb detonated under a civilian car in Zafaraniyah neighborhood (east Baghdad). One person was injured.
- Police found one dead body in Saidiyah neighborhood (southwest Baghdad).
Mosul
- A car bomb detonated in Thawra neighborhood in Mosul city. Four people were killed and four others injured.
Diyala
- A roadside bomb targeted a police patrol in Balad Ruz (east of Baquba). One policeman was killed.
Kirkuk
- People found a head cut off its body in the Imam Hussein neighborhood in Tuz Khurmatu (south of Kirkuk), police said. The dead man was identified by police as a Turkman person who was kidnapped about a month ago from Inkija village of Tuz Khurmatu.
Anbar
- A mass grave of 34 dead bodies was found in Al-Qa’im town (about 250 miles west of Baghdad) near the Syrian border. A resident from the town while digging found four dead bodies and then he told police and the local council. They dug and found the mass grave of 34 bodies of civilians who were killed by the Al-Qaida organization.'
The US military accidentally killed 9 Afghan soldiers in an air strike on Wednesday, one in a series of mistaken such aerial attacks in recent months, some of which have left behind substantial civilian casualties. Earlier in the Afghanistan war, US commanders had avoided the tactic of air strikes precisely for fear that they would alienate the local population.
' I arrived in Kabul from Kandahar last Saturday . . . My translator - or fixer as we say - delivered the bad news before we even left the airport. I could no longer leave my well-barricaded guest house without escort, I should probably wear a shalwar kameez - the typical Afghan male dress - when we ventured into public places, and must keep the car doors locked at all times, he said. A spate of kidnappings and assassinations, more brazen bombings and an insurgency creeping ever closer to the city gates had made Kabul a very different place. . . Before we drove into a neighbourhood that was a little less safe than the city centre, he removed all the contact numbers from his cell phone for foreigners and government officials. The Taliban are known to check phones for such links, which amount to an offence that, in their world, is punishable by death. The city itself seemed more dominated than ever by concrete walls and barriers. Kalishnikov-toting security was everywhere . . . a foreign aid worker had been shot dead in the street, walking to work. She was later identified as Gayle Williams, a 33-year-old Brit. The Taliban said she had been killed because she worked for a Christian-based organization and was prosletyzing. Her job, though, involved helping disabled Afghans.'
Despite a good try, I came away from the article still wishing for specifics (they hardly mention any tribes by name, e.g.) Maybe the specifics can't easily be discovered . . .
But never mind fighting the Taliban in the tribal areas, the Pakistani government is bankrupt and can barely fulfill its ordinary functions. It has failed to secure aid from allies and so is being forced to go to the International Monetary Fund for a big loan. The IMF is known for imposing tough conditions on borrowing countries, including the elimination of subsidies that the poor often need, and adopting IMF recommendations has sometimes caused countries to provoke popular unrest.
For "cont'd" postings, click here.
Iraq Moves Closer to Obama-Type Plan for early US Withdrawal; Cabinet rejects Security Agreement
The debate between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama about a timetable for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq may have just been overtaken by events. Without a bilateral agreement on the rules governing US military actions in Iraq, US soldiers and officers would become liable to prosecution for acts committed in the course of battle.
It is highly unlikely that any security agreement will be passed by parliament by January 1st, when the UN mandate for multinational troops in Iraq runs out, given that the Iraqi cabinet has now called for substantial revisions in the draft agreement.
In fact, one possible outcome, though unlikely, is a quick US withdrawal.
McCain opposes a withdrawal timeline of the sort that Bush has just agreed to. McCain said last summer:
“Prime Minister Malki . . . I am confident that he will act, as the president and foreign minister have both told me in the last several days, that it [US troop withdrawal] will be directly related to the situation on the ground, just as they have always said. And since we are succeeding and then I am convinced, as I have said before, we can withdraw and withdraw with honor, not according to a set timetable.'
But the Iraqis insisted on a timetable, initially 2010 but Bush argued that was too close to the Obama plan and got it postponed to 2011.
One of McCain's main talking points has been left behind in the dust.
The good news is that Iraq’s leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009.
Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.
But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.'
The Iraqi cabinet shot down the draft security agreement negotiated by the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and the Bush administration, insisting that several of its paragraphs need a change of wording. Bush administration officials say that they are unwilling to engage in yet another round of negotiations. Without cabinet approval, the draft probably would not even be submitted to parliament, much less passed by it. Some of the objections, as I reported yesterday, come from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, which is al-Maliki's chief political partner, the support of which he would need to get the draft through parliament. ISCI is close to Tehran, which objects to the agreement.
Even al-Maliki seemed lukewarm about the draft his office had negotiated, complaining that the US government 'takes away with one hand what it gave with the other.'
The Bush administration came to al-Maliki last spring with a request for a Status of Forces Agreement specifying the rules for US troops operating in the country. Bush asked for hundreds of bases, no timetable for withdrawal, and complete legal immunity for both US contractors and for all military personnel.
By the time a draft agreement was circulated last week (text courtesy Raed Jarrar), the US military had found itself confined to bases by next June and constrained to leave by 2011; civilian contractors were open to prosecution in Iraqi courts; and off-duty US troops who commit crimes might also find themselves before a qadi or Muslim court judge. There was no mention of long-term bases.
Behind the scenes, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani mobilized opposition to the original Bush demands, as an infringement on Iraqi national sovereignty.
In all likelihood, Iraq will go to the UN Security Council for a one-year renewal of the Multinational Forces Mandate. But the Iraqi politicians and people are voting, by their reluctance to acquiesce in the Bush/ al-Maliki plan for a SOFA, for something (with regard to the timetable for withdrawal) much closer to Obama's plan.
Winner, October 5, 2007, Scott Nearing Award for Courageous Scholarship (Awarded by the Graduate Students of the Political Science Department, University
of Pennsylvania).
|
Facebook
