One British analyst, using the example of the British drawdown of forces in southern Iraq, suggested that the lower numbers may mean that American troops are irrelevant to the many conflicts racking Iraq: ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods in Baghdad, massive bombings of religious minorities by Sunni Muslim extremists in northern Iraq and Shiite-on-Shiite-Muslim violence in southern Iraq. Instead, he suggested, Iraq’s armed factions and politicians already are thinking beyond the troop buildup.
"Everyone is preparing for what happens" after U.S. forces leave, said James Denselow, an Iraq specialist at the London-based Chatham House, a foreign affairs research institute.
THE DECLINING RELEVANCE OF PETRAEUS. I'm beginning to wonder if "the Petraeus Report"the White House is writing is going to be relevant at all. That's partly because the political "market" has already absorbed the Petraeus argument that the surge is making "measurable" but not earth-shaking progress and that withdrawal will have horrible consequences. The right has promoted Petraeus to the hilt, but the left has developed counter-arguments and public opinion is still firmly against the war. What difference is the actual appearance of Petraeus going to make?
Another reason to think the views of Petraeus won't be particularly relevant is that the country might still absorbing the rapid fire succession of Rove's departure, the resignation of Gonzales, and the Larry Craig scandal. That particular trio represents three of the four horsemen of the Bush/Republican apocalypse--Repulsion, Incompetence, and Hypocrisy. Even though Dick Cheney and Arrogance were missing, recent events have undermined Petraeus by providing such strong reminders of why people dislike and distrust the Republicans.
THE TICKING BOMB. That's not the worst of it. Petraeus will be completely overshadowed if Ayad Allawi is able to pull off his parliamentary "coup," dislodge the al-Maliki government in Iraq, and declare a state of emergency in Iraq. Liberal blogger Digby portrays the Allawi coup as something that has been so widely anticipated that it's now a form of entertainment. But that is only true for political junkies.
Removing al-Maliki would not be a coup in the same sense as a military coup. In parliamentary forms of government, a prime minister can be removed if he or she does not maintain the support of a parliamentary majority and replaced by someone who can. Nevertheless replacing al-Maliki with Allawi would be the equivalent of nuking the Iraqi political system because it would change the basis for Iraqi government. Since the first elections in 2005, a Shiite religious coalition has been the core of Iraqi government because the Shiite religious parties represent a large majority of the Shiite population which is a majority of the Iraqi population. If Iraq had any democratic progress, it was the transformation of the Shiite population from a target of brutal political oppression to the core of the governing coalition.
The Shiite-led governments of al-Jafaari and al-Maliki have been unacceptable to the Sunnis. An Allawi government would put the shoe on the other foot. According to the Chicago Tribune, Allawi (a secular Shiite) would get his support from the Sunni population with Kurdish and secular Shiite support mixed in. Allawi's support from former Baath officials and former Sunni insurgents would make him just as unacceptable to Shiites as the current government is to Sunnis.
As a secularist, Allawi has pledged to end the politics of sectarianism that have plagued Iraq. He is pro-Western, an old Washington ally, who would seek to prise Iraq away from Iran's sphere of influence. He also has the support of former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party and most Iraqi Sunni insurgent groups, excluding Al Qaeda in Iraq, which have indicated they would stop fighting if Allawi were installed.But those features also make him unpalatable to the Shiite majority, who suffered most under Baathist rule and who have borne the brunt of the insurgency's wrath.
Therefore, if Allawi became prime minister, he would be on a collision course with the Sadr bloc, SCIRI, Dawa, the other Shiite religious parties and the many Shiite militias. And it would be quite a collision. Currently, the Shiite parties and their militias run most government ministries, are well integrated into the army and national police, and control Basra and Shiite holy sites like Karbala and Najaf. If an Allawi government wanted to control more than a couple of rooms in the Green Zone, they would have to confront the whole Shiite political and military structure.
And it looks like the Allawi government will be seeking that confrontation because part of "their published program" is to "not only appoint a new government but also suspend the new constitution, declare a state of emergency and make the restoration of security its priority."
Given that the al-Qaeda has been contained and that Baathists and Sunni insurgents would be supporting an Allawi government, the main target of the "state of emergency" would be the Shiite militias and militia control over government ministries, Shiite holy sites, and Basra.
And the main weapon in an Allawi government's hands would be the American military.
If Allawi takes over the Iraqi government, the Petraeus report would be irrelevant because the focus of the on-going Iraqi civil war, and American involvement in that civil war, would shift to battles over the Shiite heartland.
Posts
10 comments:
I'm beginning to wonder if "the Petraeus Report"the White House is writing is going to be relevant at all.
There certainly seems to be an effort on the left to make sure it isn't perceived as relevant. All the talk 6 months ago about waiting to see what the report indicates has come down to minimizing, contradicting or denouncing it before it's even official. Gore forbid, americans might get the "wrong" idea from the thing.
That particular trio represents three of the four horsemen of the Bush/Republican apocalypse--Repulsion, Incompetence, and Hypocrisy. Even though Dick Cheney and Arrogance were missing,
Spiteful, but clever.
Currently, the Shiite parties and their militias run most government ministries, are well integrated into the army and national police, and control Basra and Shiite holy sites like Karbala and Najaf.
Which is why a confrontation needs to happen. Of course it needs to be a confrontation that shows the Shiites that the Sunni intend to work with them, rather than against them and that is likely a much larger challenge.
declare a state of emergency and make the restoration of security its priority.
At least someone is willing to give security top priority. Suspension of the constitution may seem like an extreme step. If it's done well, and is temporary and fairly implemented it may be a smart move.
And the main weapon in an Allawi government's hands would be the American military.
If Allawi takes over the Iraqi government, Petraeus would be irrelevant
Any chance you can reconcile those two sentences? Amazingly disjointed for consecutive statements. If the US military is going to be Allawi's "main weapon" Petraeus, as commander of the American military would be a central player. Kind of gums up the entire post, but you ought to be getting quite adept at managing that.
Notwithstanding "ef's" comments which I did not read, you Ric, have underscored the resons that it is time for a realistic game-plan for getting our people out of Iraq.
Notwithstanding "ef's" comments which I did not read
Because if you read them you may cry in the corner until the bad thoughts go away? Instead, just avoid having to subconsciously suppress any counter argument altogether.
I do not read them because they are irrelevant. In order to be relevent, there must be a point to what one says.
Having time to think all this over, I must add a few more thoughts (based on facts.)
FACT: The simple reality is that two thirds of Americans, myself included, do not trust the President's judgment when it comes to this war.
FACT: It is a conflict that has been defined by mismanagement and misinformation since before it began, and the results have been devastating for the Iraqi people and for our men and women in uniform.
FACT: We know that top administration officials, men like Douglas Feith, abused the public trust and misused the work of the intelligence community when making the case for war.
FACT: Since then, every piece of evidence suggests that the strategy employed by this Administration has failed in Iraq.
FACT: The sectarian strife in Iraq has not abated, with routine bombings that kill dozens of civilians.
FACT: The unemployment rate in Iraq ranges between 25 percent and 40 percent.
FACT: Baghdad only has a few hours of electricity per day.
FACT: Our troops have continued to pay the price for being caught in the middle of another nation's civil war.
FACT: Fraud, and a lack of oversight have haunted every aspect of our involvement in Iraq. Projects critical to the rebuilding and stabilization of Iraqi society have been handed out to private firms using no-bid contracts. Firms that failed to live up to their responsibilities.
FACT: That same fraud and lack of oversight have for years posed a mortal risk to our troops. In January of 2006, we learned that 80 percent of the U.S. Marines who had died from upper-body wounds in Iraq would have lived if they had proper body armor.
FACT: A Pentagon report released in January of this year stated once and for all that our troops have been sent into battle time and again without proper armor or equipment. A reality which still exists today.
This hasn't simply been a case of going to war with the army we have. We have faced these armor shortages because Pentagon contracts were given to companies that weren't up to the job, and couldn't meet the demands of this conflict.
Our troops have done their jobs in Iraq, and risked their lives countless times. But now, they are being asked to do something that no army can do: find a military solution to a political problem. If the mission we have given our brave soldiers is the wrong one (and it is), then why would we help our enemies by refusing to change course?
Supporting the mission is unrelated to supporting the troops. The mission is flawed therefore demanding a change is the only proper choice.
Mr Bush's surge has been publicly opposed by numerous high-ranking generals; men like General John Abazaid, General Colin Powell, and General James T. Conway, the Commandant of the Marine Corps.
We need to stop this surge, and change what we are doing in Iraq. We need to promote a political solution and a diplomatic solution to that nation's problems.
We need aggressive Congressional oversight of everything that is done there. If that is not done then how can we be sure that money spent will protect our troops instead of being squandered by corrupt contractors?
We need to stop asking our soldiers to do the impossible. Speaking honestly about this war won't undermine the morale of the troops. It is the duty of our lawmakers as well as our own as citizens to speak honestly about the burdens we ask our soldiers to bare.
All signs indicate that the report written by the White House but bearing General Petraeus' name will tell us all to be patient. But patience means nothing when deadlines are constantly moved.
War lovers will say that to change our course in Iraq will signal a defeat. But this willfully ignores the entire history of the Iraq war. After more than four years of relentless conflict experts tell us that in Iraq, Al Qaeda is stronger than ever where once it was non-existent.
The conclusion is clear: the American military is not being given a chance to bring peace to Iraq or fight our enemies, not because our troops aren't good enough, but because their current mission is inherently flawed.
It is not weakness to admit a strategy is not working and to change it. It is the very opposite: a sign of strength. Our leaders corrected failing courses when they arose during the Civil War, and during World War II. Why should this war be different?
It is time to refuse more needless sacrifice of our soldiers, further weakening of our military, further undermining of our national security, and bleeding our country in ways which even the worst terrorists could never dream.
Our soldiers have been asked to endure terrible hardships as a direct result of the practices of this Administration. And they are enduring them to this day, at this very hour. For Congress to leave them there without some plan to get them out over time is the true definition of abandonment.
People are tired of this Congress abandoning our troops to a fate they don't deserve. No one could justify this continued carnage to the families of our soldiers. With all we know now, how can anyone still say to the families of those killed, or to the young men and women maimed for life, "your loss was needed?" No one can. What we need to say to them now is, "you have given enough. It is time to come home."
The American people know what must be done. It's time to begin the long process of bringing our people home. Congressional Democrats also know. We all know that using congressional authority to force a change of course in Iraq is the best way to protect our troops. We know that forcing a change of course by denying funds to continue this conflict will not mean taking equipment and supplies away from our troops.
For four long years, the President's assertion of unprecedented power has gone unchecked by Congress. It is time for Democrats and reasonable Republicans to reclaim their responsibility under the Constitution as a co-equal branch of government, with specific powers of their own in matters of war and peace.
Congressional Democrats need to exercise their oversight responsibility. For too long, the Administration was allowed to operate in secrecy. Not just in Iraq, but also here at home. People have suffered detentions in defiance of the Geneva Conventions. The NSA has participated in eavesdropping on people's telephone calls, reading their mail, and reviewing their financial records, all without judicial authorization.
For four long years, the President's assertion of unprecedented power has gone unchecked by Congress. Democrats, in a responsible measured way should begin to reign the Administration in and begin an orderly withdrawal and redeployment of our troops.
Allawi has no base of support in Iraq whatsoever. The speculation is that Sunnis will support a secular leader, but nothing supports that speculation.
The fact is that Allawi's support comes completely from the U.S. and it is the U.S. that will install him as a puppet leader. This is why Allawi's "campaign" has been to the U.S. Congress, Bush, and the Pentagon, and not to Iraqis. The plan is for a military coup, nothing more. Sure, there will be promises of democracy down the road, but those are always made when the military takes over.
Then we will have to give Allawi more time to take control, which should stall things until Bush leaves office.
Cutnpaste, it's too bad modern medical technology can do so much for eyesight but they haven't figures out a way to cure terminal myopathy.
myopathy - that's a real medical term meaning something completely different than being myopic. Who knew?
So the correct term is "myopia". That's what I get for trying to be clever without doing a bit of research.
Todd Dugdale is right about the weakness of Allawi's support in Iraq. Hard as it is to believe, an Allawi government would be even more fragmented and ineffective than the al-Maliki regime.
I revised the post to reflect the point that the "Petraeus report" will become irrelevant instead of Petraeus himself.
I got as far as:
"Everyone is preparing for what happens after US forces leave..."
being used as an example of the irrelevance of our presence.
Gobsmackingly ignorant.
Post a Comment