 |
StrategyTalk.org
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
JLK
Joined: 17 Apr 2002
Posts: 3915
Location: East Coast USA
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 3:12 pm Post subject: Why is the US Hostile to Al-Sadr? |
 |
|
The immediate cause of the present developments in Iraq seem to stem from the plan that was described in National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley's November 8, 2006 secret memo (leaked to and reported on by The New York Times) to President Bush. The memo articulated a strategy to politically and militarily neutralize nationalist Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr by fracturing the ruling Shi'ite coalition sponsored that has long been sponsored by Ayatollah Sistani and replacing it with made up of SCIRI and Sunni parties. A.K. Gupta has written a terrific article that outlines the many possible outcomes (none of them good) to the Hadley strategy.
The bigger question, though is: Why does the U.S. wants al-Sadr out of the picture? His forces for the most part are not part of the active insurgency. Of the two major Shi'ite militias, his is the least well-armed and has the fewest links to Iran. While "rogue elements" of his Mehdi Army have been blamed for some of the sectarian violence, the worst of the Shi'ite death squads has been the special police commandos of the Iraqi Interior Ministry, which since mid-2005 has been staffed with members of the Badr Brigade militia that is part of SCIRI and is heavily supported by Iran. As Gupta reports:
| Quote: | | Badr operates death squads under the banner of the special police commandos. Beginning in 2004, U.S. forces organized, trained and equipped the police commandos, drawing from Hussein-era security forces, to create a neo-Baathist militia and death squad that would hunt Sunni insurgents. Under the Iraq government that took power in April 2005, Bayan Jabr, a former high-ranking commander in the Badr Brigade, took control of the commandos as head of the Interior Ministry. Jabr ousted Sunni personnel in the commandos, putting in place up to 3,000 Badr militiamen, and they quickly began a reign of terror against Sunnis in general. |
The worst of the death squad activity also suspiciously coincided with the arrival of former US ambassador John Negroponte (infamous for being behind much of the death squad activity in El Salvador during the Reagan administration). Asia Times reporter Pepe Escobar has also hinted at this:
| Quote: | | The Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group implemented by the Pentagon is regarded by Sunnis and quite a few Shi'ites as being the mastermind of some of the car bombings, assassinations, sabotage, kidnappings and attacks on mosques fueling the civil war. The "Salvador option" has developed into the "Iraqification option". US-trained death squads in Iraq are not much different from the death squads in El Salvador during the 1980s - subordinated to the same "divide and rule" tactics. This is the "civil war" dirty secret: let the Arabs kill one another with the US posing as "victims". |
Al-Sadr, while defending his militia's right to defend itself against hardcore Saddamists and Sunni extremists that view Shi'ites as apostates, has made it clear that he deplores the bulk of the death squad activities.
Why then is al-Sadr viewed as such a threat by the United States? Could it be the fact that, unlike SCIRI, he opposes the presence of US troops and rejects the division of Iraq into semi-autonomous federal states? Could it be that he opposes passage of the proposed hydrocarbon law? Is it because he is amenable to a coalition with moderate Sunnis, which could end the sectarian strife and make the presence of US troops harder to rationalize?
It seems like the Hadley plan is to co-opt SCIRI away from Iranian influence and to ultimately place its leader al-Hakim in power in Baghdad.
_________________
A person hears only what they understand.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Cheryl
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 3932
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I go back and forth between assuming that there is some sort of strategy behind the administration's actions, as JLK does above, and just figuring that hey! whatever! is the action of the day.
There could be an overarching strategy ( war is good because it gives profits to our friends, keeps us in power and allows us to extend that power) that would be consistent with hey! whatever! too.
I think that a central point in deciphering the actions behind JLK's analysis is what intelligence is available on just who is shooting at whom in Iraq, and when. As I read the Iraq Study Group Report and the administration's rhetoric, we don't really know.
_________________
...And when we laugh, we're indestructible.
Joy Harjo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
parvati_roma
Joined: 30 Mar 2004
Posts: 8068
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From Reuters: their deliberately(?) logic-defying paragraph order has been slightly rearranged for clarity:
| Quote: | (...)
Washington has identified the Mehdi Army, a militia loyal to Sadr, as the biggest threat to Iraqi security but the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, dependent on Sadr's political movement for support, has so far struggled to rein it in.
U.S. President George W. Bush said on Wednesday he would send more than 20,000 more U.S. troops to Iraq. White House officials say Bush's troops plan follows personal commitments from Maliki to tackle militias and not to shield Sadr.
Critics have questioned Maliki's resolve after eight months in power to crack down on militias nominally loyal to his own allies and on militants entrenched in the Iraqi police and army.
Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the Baghdad plan would make no distinction between Sunni Arabs or Shi'ites.
Asked whether Sadr had agreed to the new plan, Dabbagh said disarming militias would happen as security improves.
Dabbagh said Iraqi troops would take the lead in confronting armed groups on the streets under the Baghdad plan and it would be Iraqis who will "knock on the door" in raids and searches.
"There should be simultaneous steps taken in improving the security as well as disarming the militias," he said in English.
"This of course is going to be a political consensus and there will be a committee negotiating with all parties who have militias, and those ... who don't have militias, to reach a certain agreement and then it will be applied by force."
"There are strict instructions ... in Sadr City or anywhere else, it is not allowed for any militia to come on the street."
Asked again, in Arabic, if Sadr has pledged his support for the plan, Dabbagh said: "We expect from Moqtada's customary wisdom that he will restrain the supporters of the Mehdi Army from confronting the security forces. These are expectations and commitments we have taken from Moqtada." |
In other words: forget about divide-and-rule attempts to break up the Shi'tes, pit Maliki and/or al-Hakim against al-Sadr etc...  they may sometimes spat over their own power-sharing tussles behind closed doors, their respective followers may occasionally come to blows in provincial police-stations... but no way foreigner infidels can expect to goad Shi'ites into mass-murdering Shi'ites, let alone pit one Shi'ite mullah against another for their own convenience!
... oriental-style: oaks come crashing down in storms but bamboo stalks bend when the wind blows then spring up unharmed when it wanes...
.. so the result of all that US pressure and solemn finger-wagging bluster is simply that the various Shi'ite religious leaders have collectively agreed that provided their own "Iraqi Army" forces are kept in charge of searching/disciplining Shi'ite neighbourhoods, when Americans are physically present it is temporarily opportune for the said Shi'ites not to shoot at Americans, to refrain from wearing militia uniforms in public and to keep their weapons hidden from view.
_________________
“Against barbarity, poetry can resist only by confirming its attachment to human fragility like a blade of grass growing on a wall while armies march by.” Mahmoud Darwish |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
parvati_roma
Joined: 30 Mar 2004
Posts: 8068
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, as I was saying....
| Quote: | BAGHDAD, Iraq - Mahdi Army militia members have stopped wearing their black uniforms, hidden their weapons and abandoned their checkpoints in an apparent effort to lower their profile in Baghdad in advance of the arrival of U.S. reinforcements.
"We have explicit directions to keep a low profile . . . not to confront, not to be dragged into a fight and to calm things down," said one official who received the orders from the anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
Al-Sadr heads the Mahdi Army, Iraq's largest Shiite militia, headquartered in Najaf.
The official asked not to be named because he was not authorized to reveal the militia's plans.
Militia members say al-Sadr ordered them to stand down shortly after President George Bush's announcement that the U.S. would send 17,500 more American troops to Baghdad to work alongside the Iraqi security forces.
The decision by al-Sadr to lower his force's profile in Baghdad will likely cut violence in the city and allow American forces to show quick results from their beefed up presence. But it is also unlikely in the long term to change the balance of power here. Mahdi Army militiamen say that while they remain undercover now, they are simply waiting for the security plan to end.
"If the Mahdi Army is attacked, they will defend themselves," said Sheikh Abdul Razzaq al-Nidawi, a senior al-Sadr official in Najaf. "American troops are the enemy troops . . . if the Americans want armed resistance, we are ready, but we will work hard not to get involved in an armed opposition and we will work hard to endure the pressure even if we make sacrifices to keep our people and country safe."
Mahdi Army sources said that their heavy weaponry had been moved from Sadr City or hidden since the announcement.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16454939.htm
|
What a farce.
_________________
“Against barbarity, poetry can resist only by confirming its attachment to human fragility like a blade of grass growing on a wall while armies march by.” Mahmoud Darwish |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
homeroguajardo
Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:50 am Post subject: President Bush's Speech |
|
|
Address of the president to the nation
From the White House (as delivered)
6:52 PM PST, January 10, 2007
| Quote: | | 01/13/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- 1) “Good evening. Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror -- and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.” |
Critique: It is a lie that the struggle in Iraq “ will determine…our safety here at home”. Iraq has never attacked us. The US attacked Iraq and made it unsafe for the Iraqis. Now the President twists things and says that the Iraqis are making us unsafe. This goes against the facts. It is the US that is terrorizing the Iraqis, by bombing their cities, killing and torturing their citizens. What American city have the Iraqis bombed? What American city has been subjected to the house to house search of Iraqi soldiers?
| Quote: | | 2) “When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together, and that as we trained Iraqi security forces we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.” |
Critique: The truth is exactly the opposite of what the President is saying. The Shiites voted in mass for a divided and undemocratic nation. They voted overwhelmingly for a State that will force on the area the Shiite version of the Muslim religion and for Shiite political parties to run this State. The vote spelled the end of a united Iraq. The US had already taken military power away from the Sunnis. The vote added one more nail on the coffin, for it meant that the Sunnis were now to be excluded from political and administrative power. And as it turned out the election indeed put the Shiites in total control. They now control Armed forces, political parties, and the ministries of Iraq. All with the help of Bush’s vigilant watchful eye. This power grab by the Shiites of Iraq benefits Iran of course. Is this the mission the US wanted to accomplish?
| Quote: | | 3) “But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq -- particularly in Baghdad -- overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's elections posed for their cause, and they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis. They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam -- the Golden Mosque of Samarra -- in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shia population to retaliate. Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today.” |
Critique: It is a complete misinterpretation of the situation to say that “the opposite happened” that “the violence in Iraq -- particularly in Baghdad -- overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made”. Let us never forget that the sectarian violence that afflicts Baghdad has its root cause in the fact that US Armed forces under Bush’s command destroyed the power structure that existed during Saddam. The Sunni controlled armed forces were broken apart and the commander in chief of these armed forces- Saddam Hussein- was hanged.
So what’s happening at this moment is exactly what had to happen once the US Army and Marines, under the command of President Bush, broke up the Sunni military machine, and once President Bush and Congress authorized our tax dollars to install an army controlled by the Shiite, and political parties under Shiite control. This new army and these new political parties -finance by our tax dollars - attacked their old opponents, the Sunnis.
What’s happening in Iraq is not a mess, something unexpected. It is a logical and necessary consequence of the policy implemented by the President and his brilliant team of advisors. But President Bush will never take responsibility. He will always blame “the others” for any consequences he dislikes. Our President will blame it on the Sunnis, the Insurgents, the Terrorists etc.
| Quote: | | 4) “The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people -- and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.” |
Critique: If the President were to be made responsible for the death and destruction his decisions have brought upon Iraq, he would be hanging by the neck like Saddam Hussein together with his advisors. The President is lying when he says that he accepts responsibility. No one will dare make the President of the United States responsible, because he is backed and supported by the full power and might of the US Armed forces. Only when this support disappears will the President be made responsible for his decisions.
| Quote: | | 5) “It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted members of Congress from both parties, our allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.” |
Critique: The implication is that the US has yet to fail in Iraq. If the purpose of President Bush’s mission was to give the Shiites power and control over what happens in Iraq, then indeed this has been a successful mission. The Shiites now hold military and political power in Iraq. But remember that empowering the Shiites in Iraq is also a success for Iran. Was the US mission in the area to enable the Iraqi Shiites to present a united front with the Iranian Shiites? Was this the vision of success that President Bush had in mind when he ordered the destruction of the Sunni political and military machine in Iraq?
| Quote: | | 6) “The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.” |
Critique: A good part of the chaos in the region has been created by the presence of the US forces blowing up Iraq, torturing, raping, looting, and destroying. This presence of US troops in Iraq is strengthening not only the Iraqi resistance, but also all kinds of religious extremists which are indeed gaining a growing number of new recruits. The President again twists the facts.
The paragraph above contains at least two more misleading implications :
First: That it was extremists in Iraq that brought destruction to our cities. This is a lie. The Iraqis had nothing to do with the attack on the Twin Towers. Besides, America did not see the destruction of its cities and people, like Iraq is witnessing. What America witnessed was an attack against selected buildings that represent its financial and military might.
Second: That Iran plans to launch attacks on the American people with nuclear weapons. This, again, is an absolute lie and a pretext to attack Iran. Iran has never been and is not a threat to the safety of the American people.
The president here is using the same tactic the Nazis used to convince the
Germans to support Hitler, that is, that the safety of the German people was in jeopardy. This is a tried and successful tactic to make the people back unsuccessful military missions, like the one President Bush has undertaken.
| Quote: | | 7) “The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves, and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis. Only Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.” |
Critique: One truth and one more lie. It is true that “only Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people”. But it is not true that it is their government that has put forward a plan to do it. The “aggressive plan” to bring Bagdad under control has been put forward by President Bush and his advisors. The Shiite Armed forces under American control have to go along with the plan or else.
| Quote: | | “Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.” |
Critique: Before the war started, Mr. Bush was told by several top Generals that he would need more than 500, 000 troops to control Iraq. He fired these Generals. But the fact is that there are 18 million Shiites that live in Iraq. These people live there, the American troops don’t. The questions that our Commander in Chief should ask himself better be the following: How many Americans soldiers is it going to take to prevent the Shiites from being faithful to Allah and instead pledge allegiance to the United States of America and the principles which its flag is supposed to embody ? How many Shiite troops do we have to train so this can happen? For how long will the American troops have to remain there to get this pledge of allegiance? These are the questions President Bush should be answering. The truth is that the US effort to train Iraqi soldiers is the equivalent of providing skills and arms to people that, at the end, will not pledge allegiance to the United States of America, but turn against it at the proper opportunity. Add to this another fact. Right next to Iraq there are a total of 62 million Iranian Shiites. These Shiites have the same beliefs and customs as the Iraqi Shiites. They visit each other, trade with each other, have common religious sites, common customs. They help each other out. The Iranian Shiites have poured millions and millions of dollars to help the Iraqi Shiites. So again, the questions that President Bush has to answer are: How many Americans soldiers is it going to take to force the Shiites in the region to stop being faithful to Allah and to each other, and pledge allegiance to the Americans instead? For how long will the American troops have to remain there to get this pledge of allegiance? To be successful in Iraq these two questions must be answered truthfully by President Bush.
| Quote: | | 9) “Now let me explain the main elements of this effort: The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad's nine districts. When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort, along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations -- conducting patrols and setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents.” |
Critique: As the President explains in the next paragraph, the Iraqi forces will need the help of American troops in their “door to door trust gaining mission”. One can just imagine Iraqi troops wearing their black sky masks, helped by American troops, arriving to an Iraqi house, blowing or knocking the door down, while they shout: “Open up mo..fu..ers we have come to gain your trust!” Maybe these troops will kill or maim the terrified children and women that live in these houses, as it has happened so many times. But President Bush says they will “gain their trust”. It gives one a warm feeling inside doesn’t it? This is one for Comedy Central to joke about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SteveS
Joined: 21 Apr 2002
Posts: 669
Location: Northern VA, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Conservative columnist Peggy Noonan has it right: We have an absolute vacuum of leadership in Washington There is an inherent unseriousness in both the "surge" plan and in virtually everything coming from the Hill.
There are a number of serious issues that need to be addressed if one is to be serious:
1) How can the US seriously believe that it can "pacify" a bitter sectarian struggle between unreconcilable sides without taking sides or partitioning the country?
2) If you partition - that would involve taking sides about what the partition should be, so
3) Which side do you support and why?
4) Define the specific conditions that need to be present in order for teh US to withdraw.
BTW the same questions could be applied to the Israel-Palestinian situation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JLK
Joined: 17 Apr 2002
Posts: 3915
Location: East Coast USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If Sadr is ordering his militia to remove their black shirts, the most likely reason is to make it harder for US special forces and the Badr militias to put their own people in black shirts and carry out provocative false flag attacks to blame them on Sadr. This has happened in the past.
The reason for the surge is to keep the Sadrists under control when the US reshuffles the ruling coalition to remove the Sadrists, who are standing in the way of having the Constitution amended in the way the US wants and the new hydrocarbon bill.
_________________
A person hears only what they understand.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cheryl
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 3932
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SteveS: Some good points. However, you are ignoring the Iraq Study Group Report. You are also ignoring the role of diplomacy in dealing with international problems. That second is easy to do in a world where the Rethugs are repeating and repeating that nobody, nobody has an alternative to the President's plan because nobody is serious about Iraq, which seems to mean that those nobodies are not advocating solely military solutions. There is one of those, of course: turn Iraq and Iran into green glass. We still have enough nukes to do that, and it would end the fighting. There would be collateral damage, of course, but that seems to have been little of the calculation up until now.
There was this little bunch of people called the Iraq Study Group, suspect of course because bipartisan and including some of the dreaded foreign-policy "realists," who don't puff their chests out like real neocon men. They came up with a plan that includes that girly-man diplomacy, which just might help to provide a "soft landing" when the escalation fails. This is an alternative to the president's partial and inadequate mini-escalation. Talk about girly-men!
I'm not directing that sarcasm at you, SteveS, but at the people who just can't shut up that tired line that nobody but the President has a plan. There are plans out there, if you're willing to believe that diplomacy has a place in international affairs along with military force.
So here are some serious responses to your serious questions.
| Quote: | | 1) How can the US seriously believe that it can "pacify" a bitter sectarian struggle between unreconcilable sides without taking sides or partitioning the country? |
You've got a lot of assumptions here: that the sides in the struggle (are you including all of them? How many are there?) are unreconcilable. Until there is some arbitration, some negotiation, we don't know that. You are also presenting only two alternatives: taking sides and partitioning the country. It seems to me that partition is something best done by the Iraqis. The Brits drew a bunch of lines in that area in the 1920s, and that didn't work out so well.
But I tend to agree with the gist of the question: what makes the US think we can solve these problems, especially by military force alone? I guess the answer is the same arrogance that assured us that the Iraqis would meet us with rose petals and baklava. The ignorance of the area and its issues has been truly striking, particularly in concert with this arrogance.
| Quote: | 2) If you partition - that would involve taking sides about what the partition should be, so
3) Which side do you support and why? |
More assumptions working out here. As you see, I think we're not in a position to do this.
| Quote: | | 4) Define the specific conditions that need to be present in order for teh US to withdraw. |
It's not as obvious as the other assumptions, but I think I smell one here: that the US is responsible for a "good/successful/victorious" outcome, and that we know (or can know) what conditions will lead to that outcome.
The introduction of 21,500 more troops seems to me to be as much of a diceroll as getting everyone out ASAP. There are lots of possibilities in between, and others outside, like the green glass scenario. All carry risk. The additional troops could irritate the Iraqis sufficiently that things get worse; they could chase Iranians in "hot pursuit" to precipitate an incident that would give the Washington warmongers their excuse to nuke Iran.
Nothing's a sure bet here. You can visualize reasonable (violence decreases as US troops leave) or unreasonable (see above) scenarios. Making stupid decisions leaves you with dreadful options. That's where we are now.
_________________
...And when we laugh, we're indestructible.
Joy Harjo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SteveS
Joined: 21 Apr 2002
Posts: 669
Location: Northern VA, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I guess that I need to define some of the assumptions underlying my questions:
1) The sectarian issue predates the US invasion. Many (especially in Europe) argued that Iraq was inherently unstable without a Saddam-like dictator to hold things together. I've always been suspicious of the assumption that the Shi'ite majority could coexist with the Sunni minority that used to run the country. Democracy is not likely to bring much benefit to the Sunnis in the triangle and they have precious little reason to accept it peacefully.
2) One of the critical issues all along was how to allocate the oil revenues within the country. The distribution of oil inherently handicaps the Sunnis.
3) The facts on the ground basically force the Sunni minority to accept a second class role. However, the majority of the arab world is Sunni and Al Queda is also majority Sunni. Significant support for the Sunni resistance has been and continues to be provided by outside forces seeking to prevent a Shi'ite majority from taking complete power - especially an Iranian-backed Shi'ite authority.
4) The Iranian factor cannot be underestimated. The Iranian agenda is to provoke enough violence to keep a detente from developing between the Shi'ite majority and the Sunni and Kurd minorities. As others have observed, Al Sadr is not especially compliant for anyone - the Iranians included.
5) The Iranians, the Sunni element backed by Al Qaeda, the Europeans, the Russians, and damn near everyone else have a common goal of seeing the US "humbled" by the Iraqi experience. This varies from active opposition to merely standing by and iteratively repeating "tut, tut, we told you so".
6) The US finds itself in a situation where virtually everyone external to the situation is invested in preventing a peaceful power sharing arrangement. It would apear that the only real ally the the US has for promoting pacification is the majority of the Iraqi population - which has no power.
6) There is no realistic diplomatic settlement on the horizon. While it easy to attack Bush for not thinking of diplomacy - diplomacy only succeeds when either a win-win solution can be constructed - or when the prospect of losing becomes real enough to force one or both of the sides to moderate its demands. As long as the "diplomatic solution" is US surrender, there is no diplomatic solution.
7) Current Bush plans focus on inflicting enough pain on the warring factions to convince them to come to the table because there becomes a real prospect of military defeat if they don't. This has little chance of success. As P_R's links demonstrate, all the opposition groups have to do is delay until the heat is off - or until the Democrats take over and withdraw.
 Current Democratic plans for Iraq don't seem to exist. Or more accurately, there is a different plan for each democrat out there.
9) The ISG report advocates a diplomatic approach that is basically one of waiting and temporizing in the hopes that a new reality sinks in and imposes more rrealitistic. The classic definition of diplomacy is to say "Nice doggy" until you can find a stick. This isn't a plan - it's a wish.
One way out of this mess is to get western agreement on a package of incentives that will be enough to remove the Sunni objections to Shi'ite rule, trade Iranian nuclear disarmamanet for US withdrawal from Iraq, and a series of strong disincentives/sanctions on foreign powers that can be proven to be funding/inciting violence. Absent concessions from the Iranians. Syrains, et al - the only course of action left to the US is to partition Iraq, walk out, and let nature take it's course. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ferdinand
Joined: 17 Apr 2002
Posts: 3286
Location: 43.12N 5.93E
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SteveS wrote: | One way out of this mess is
(1) to get western agreement on a package of incentives that will be enough to remove the Sunni objections to Shi'ite rule,
(2) trade Iranian nuclear disarmamanet for US withdrawal from Iraq, and
(3)a series of strong disincentives/sanctions on foreign powers that can be proven to be funding/inciting violence.
(4) Absent concessions from the Iranians. Syrains, et al - the only course of action left to the US is to partition Iraq, walk out, and let nature take it's course. |
(1) Apart from a few nuke ICBM... I don't imagine any.
(2) Why would the Iranians want the US to get out of this stingers nest ?
(3) You mean USA and GB ? I don't see anyone else having spread violence in Iraq...
(4) Agreed. So...
_________________
ferd.
best but not beast... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cheryl
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 3932
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for making yourself clearer, SteveS. I'll also note that our dialog is getting somewhat away from the topic of this thread, but it still includes some of the factors that may or may not impinge on why the US finds al-Sadr so offensive.
But I still disagree with some of your assumptions.
| Quote: | | 1) The sectarian issue predates the US invasion. Many (especially in Europe) argued that Iraq was inherently unstable without a Saddam-like dictator to hold things together. I've always been suspicious of the assumption that the Shi'ite majority could coexist with the Sunni minority that used to run the country. Democracy is not likely to bring much benefit to the Sunnis in the triangle and they have precious little reason to accept it peacefully. |
Perhaps. I don't know enough of the historical details to be able to say one way or another. Certainly there was a doctrinal split between Sunni and Shi'a early on, but such splits are not necessarily the basis for bloodshed. Catholics no longer kill Lutherans.
| Quote: | | 2) One of the critical issues all along was how to allocate the oil revenues within the country. The distribution of oil inherently handicaps the Sunnis. |
Agree. But it's not clear that this translates into sectarian warfare.
| Quote: | | 3) ...Significant support for the Sunni resistance has been and continues to be provided by outside forces seeking to prevent a Shi'ite majority from taking complete power - especially an Iranian-backed Shi'ite authority. |
It appears that by listening to Shi'a Ahmed Chalabi in preparing the invasion, the US may have slanted things toward sectarian warfare from the beginning. Again, I don't know enough details to be sure whether this is true. But I keep wondering why Don Rumsfeld, the guy who shook Saddam's hand while backing him against the Iranians, didn't realize that Iran had an interest in seeing Saddam taken down too.
| Quote: | | 4) The Iranian factor cannot be underestimated. The Iranian agenda is to provoke enough violence to keep a detente from developing between the Shi'ite majority and the Sunni and Kurd minorities. As others have observed, Al Sadr is not especially compliant for anyone - the Iranians included. |
See my previous comment. It's not in the Iranians' interest that a civil war that could pit them against the Saudis or even the Turks break out. It's not even in their interest to have a civil war that pretty much stays within Iraq; consider the refugees, which flow has already started. This is an interest that Iran shares with the US; a basis for negotiation.
| Quote: | | 6) The US finds itself in a situation where virtually everyone external to the situation is invested in preventing a peaceful power sharing arrangement. |
Not true; see my previous comment. National interest goes beyond petty tut-tutting, although I realize that the neocons would rather be right than serving the national interest. A wider war in the Middle East, or a failed Iraq, is in nobody's interest except maybe al-Qaeda's. Europe, Russia and China are physically closer to the mess than is the United States.
| Quote: | 6) There is no realistic diplomatic settlement on the horizon. While it easy to attack Bush for not thinking of diplomacy - diplomacy only succeeds when either a win-win solution can be constructed - or when the prospect of losing becomes real enough to force one or both of the sides to moderate its demands. As long as the "diplomatic solution" is US surrender, there is no diplomatic solution.
|
Nor is there a realistic military solution.
Bush and the neocons seem reflexively to go to win-lose solutions. The trouble with that is that win-lose hardly ever slips to win-win, but it can to lose-lose. So it's one of those stupid decisions the Decider made early on that has given us the bad choices we face now.
There's always a win-win (or not-lose/not-lose?) solution that can be constructed. Iran is assured that the US is giving up its forcible regime change policy. Its nuclear program is more closely safeguarded. It stops messing around in Iraq. Turkey gets some assurance that northern Iraq will not become a proto-Kurdistan. Syria gets better relations with the US, along with the end of that forcible regime change policy. And we still have Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan to consider, along with the more removed parties.
Who's proposing "surrender" as the diplomatic solution? Only those who inherently see diplomacy as surrender, those who have constructed their frame so that the undertaking of diplomacy itself with Syria and Iran is a surrender. Kind of stupid to define the necessary road to ending a conflict as itself being surrender.
| Quote: | | 7) Current Bush plans focus on inflicting enough pain on the warring factions to convince them to come to the table because there becomes a real prospect of military defeat if they don't. This has little chance of success. As P_R's links demonstrate, all the opposition groups have to do is delay until the heat is off - or until the Democrats take over and withdraw. |
Agree.
| Quote: | 8 ) Current Democratic plans for Iraq don't seem to exist. Or more accurately, there is a different plan for each democrat out there.
|
SteveS, you usually do better than to repeat Rethug talking points. That's what this is. Repeat it enough, and people begin to believe it. Iraq Study Group. Iraq Study Group. Iraq Study Group. John Murtha. John Murtha. John Murtha. Both are plans. The party out of power doesn't need a full-up plan in the same way the party in power does. But both of those that I've mentioned (Iraq Study Group and John Murtha) are reasonably detailed and cover all the bases, not just the Baghdad and Anbar of President Bush's plan.
| Quote: | | 9) The ISG report advocates a diplomatic approach that is basically one of waiting and temporizing in the hopes that a new reality sinks in and imposes more rrealitistic. The classic definition of diplomacy is to say "Nice doggy" until you can find a stick. This isn't a plan - it's a wish. |
Not true. I realize that diplomacy doesn't have the seeming finality of bombs sailing into buildings (remember 2003? Ah, such finality!), but it's not just "waiting and temporizing." A contact group will eventually be necessary to stabilize the region.
And isn't putting 21,500 troops more into Iraq just a wish?
| Quote: | | One way out of this mess is to get western agreement on a package of incentives that will be enough to remove the Sunni objections to Shi'ite rule, trade Iranian nuclear disarmamanet for US withdrawal from Iraq, and a series of strong disincentives/sanctions on foreign powers that can be proven to be funding/inciting violence. |
Woooh! You're a lot more generous to the Iranians than I am. I'd hold out for a heavily safeguarded nuclear program. They've said they'll go along with that. And I don't know that I'd offer a full withdrawal from Iraq to the Iranians; possibly to the Iraqis in extremis.
No wonder you are wary of diplomacy!
_________________
...And when we laugh, we're indestructible.
Joy Harjo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JLK
Joined: 17 Apr 2002
Posts: 3915
Location: East Coast USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SteveS wrote: | | 1) The sectarian issue predates the US invasion. Many (especially in Europe) argued that Iraq was inherently unstable without a Saddam-like dictator to hold things together. I've always been suspicious of the assumption that the Shi'ite majority could coexist with the Sunni minority that used to run the country. Democracy is not likely to bring much benefit to the Sunnis in the triangle and they have precious little reason to accept it peacefully. |
The truth is more complex than that. The primary allegiance of most Iraqis is tribal, not sectarian. The US came in assuming the opposite and framed policy assuming sectarian allegiance, which only gets you so far. The mantra that we have heard in the US press that "Sunni and Shi'ites have been fighting for a thousand years" is largely incorrect.
Most Sunnis distrust Iran, but that is true of Sadr's supporters as well. Sadr's constituency is Shi'a Arabs from the rural southeast of Iraq, many of whom moved to the Baghdad Sadr City slum during the Saddam era but still retain their old tribal loyalties. These people are Iraqi nationalists. They believe in a strong united Iraq, distrust Iran, hate Israel and the US occupation, but also deeply distrust Saddamists because of the persecution they suffered under Saddam. They also distrust SCIRI, which is dominated by the commercial class of Shi'ites mainly from urban Karbala and Najaf and has close ties to Iran. The Sadrists could easily form a political alliance with nationalist mainstream Sunnis given a chance.
| SteveS wrote: | | 4) The Iranian factor cannot be underestimated. The Iranian agenda is to provoke enough violence to keep a detente from developing between the Shi'ite majority and the Sunni and Kurd minorities. As others have observed, Al Sadr is not especially compliant for anyone - the Iranians included. |
Iran is worried about a possible alliance between the Sadrists and mainstream Sunnis just like the US is. Iran is closely ties to SCIRI and its Badr Brigrade militia (which fought for Iran in the Iran-Iraq war). The new US policy is to essentially support SCIRI, which ironically puts the US in the same camp as Iran. Is all the anti-Iran bluster disinformation to placate neighboring Sunni countries and Sunni tribes?
| SteveS wrote: | | 7) Current Bush plans focus on inflicting enough pain on the warring factions to convince them to come to the table because there becomes a real prospect of military defeat if they don't. This has little chance of success. As P_R's links demonstrate, all the opposition groups have to do is delay until the heat is off - or until the Democrats take over and withdraw. |
Recent public opinion polls in Iraq show that the Sadrists are rapidly gaining support. Come the next elections, there will likely be an increase in parliament both of the Sadrists and of mainstream Sunni parties (as a result of wider Sunni vote participation).
The US doesn't want a Sunni-Sadr government for two reasons. Both groups are strongly nationalist. The US wants a divided, federalist Iraq because a strong united Iraq will be harder for the oil companies to manage and will ultimately rearm and pose a threat to Israel. So the US is pushing for a SCIRI-Kurd coalition, because both SCIRI and the Kurds want autonomy for their respective regions. The purpose of the surge is to keep the Sunnis and Sadrists from amking too much trouble while the necessary reshuffling is conducted in the government.
_________________
A person hears only what they understand.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ferdinand
Joined: 17 Apr 2002
Posts: 3286
Location: 43.12N 5.93E
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cheryl wrote: |
| Quote: | | 4) The Iranian factor cannot be underestimated. The Iranian agenda is to provoke enough violence to keep a detente from developing between the Shi'ite majority and the Sunni and Kurd minorities. As others have observed, Al Sadr is not especially compliant for anyone - the Iranians included. |
See my previous comment. It's not in the Iranians' interest that a civil war that could pit them against the Saudis or even the Turks break out. It's not even in their interest to have a civil war that pretty much stays within Iraq; consider the refugees, which flow has already started. This is an interest that Iran shares with the US; a basis for negotiation.
| Quote: | | 5) The US finds itself in a situation where virtually everyone external to the situation is invested in preventing a peaceful power sharing arrangement. |
Not true; see my previous comment. National interest goes beyond petty tut-tutting, although I realize that the neocons would rather be right than serving the national interest. A wider war in the Middle East, or a failed Iraq, is in nobody's interest except maybe al-Qaeda's. Europe, Russia and China are physically closer to the mess than is the United States.
| Quote: | 6) There is no realistic diplomatic settlement on the horizon. While it easy to attack Bush for not thinking of diplomacy - diplomacy only succeeds when either a win-win solution can be constructed - or when the prospect of losing becomes real enough to force one or both of the sides to moderate its demands. As long as the "diplomatic solution" is US surrender, there is no diplomatic solution.
|
Nor is there a realistic military solution.
Bush and the neocons seem reflexively to go to win-lose solutions. The trouble with that is that win-lose hardly ever slips to win-win, but it can to lose-lose. So it's one of those stupid decisions the Decider made early on that has given us the bad choices we face now.
a) There's always a win-win (or not-lose/not-lose?) solution that can be constructed.
b) Iran is assured that the US is giving up its forcible regime change policy.
c) Its nuclear program is more closely safeguarded.
d) It stops messing around in Iraq.
e) Turkey gets some assurance that northern Iraq will not become a proto-Kurdistan.
f) Syria gets better relations with the US, along with the end of that forcible regime change policy.
g) And we still have Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan to consider, along with the more removed parties.
|
4) I disagree. Iran has interest in a civil war what likely outcome is a separate Shiite South what would unofficially marge with it. They could easily deal with any Saudi threat. Turks are something else but their common interest is to crush the Kurds and share the Northern oil fields.
5) We may be physically closer but anyways far from the reach of the mess. Kossovo is a much more worrying place from our PoV than Iraq may be. Besides, jumping oil prices are a competitive advantage against the US. There, we do share an interest with Bush's masters.
6)
a) No, not always. For a win-win each party should win more teaming up than alone, it's not always possible.
b) They're already assured about that. Any attempt would secure the regime.
c) Is that in their interest ???
d) What for ? They want the oil and enjoy a winning hand freely given by Bush.
e) And Kurds turn on the US. Since they are their last supporters in the whole ME...
f) This may work. But what Syria could change in Iraq fate ?
g) Yes, with all the ethnics rivalities, factions hating each other, drugs dealers, islamists wanting nukes and so on...
Sorry, Cheryl, all this could have worked years ago but, IMHO, it's now too late to avoid any outcome save civil war, may be coupled to interstates ones. I think that it's futile to spend ressources to avoid something already done while trying to prevent full scale regular wars with no known limits seems to me of some interest because being a possible efficient action. BTW, I think that Iran should fear much more the nukes owner Pak than any Saudi on the planet. A point what makes their nukes mandatory for enjoying any strategic international sovereign choice.
_________________
ferd.
best but not beast... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
parvati_roma
Joined: 30 Mar 2004
Posts: 8068
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
(Sidenote on the interesting side- issue of Iran-Pakistan relations brought up by Ferdi:
| Quote: | | BTW, I think that Iran should fear much more the nukes owner Pak than any Saudi on the planet |
My perception is instead that Iran and Pakistan are far more "natural allies" than "natural rivals", for a whole series of reasons - geopolitical+nuke-cooperation+pipeline... plus the "unmentionable" but not insignificant point that as well as being both muslim nations - although with different dominant sects - they both belong to the same ethnic-linguistic-cultural "family" - both Indo-Iranian, with long interwoven history, and very much aware of it. Could almost call it a kind of counterweight allegiance-bloc to "pan-Arabist" tendencies in the muslim world? (Noting that the possible Sadr + Iraqi Sunni alliance based on both being nervy about "Persian dominance" is classic pan-Arabist ...call it "ethno-psychopolitics"??). Anyway - no Iraqi-style Shi'ite vs Sunni tensions apparent in current national-level Paki-Iranian relations, least not at present, despite some mixed-region sectarian tensions in Pakistan - also/above all because as a nation, Pak's big regional rival/hate-object is of course India, while Iran's used to be Iraq... now less overt but Iraq tug-of-war certainly seems to be pitting them against the Saudis? So given these more immediate and worrisome rivalries with their "more diverse" strong neighbours + both being not only muslims but proud tetchy "ancient civilization" peoples trying to wrest themselves a stronger present-day role as regional powers .. also by attaining nuke-autonomy...despite/in the face of "Western" control-attempts, I'd say they have a "natural" tendency towards mutual-benefit alliance/cooperation rather than conflict. So call 'em "first cousins"? And events both recent-past and present plus fulsome mutual-ties rhetoric do seem to confirm this is how they're viewing each other ... plus of course there's that pipeline-thingy! 
First link I came up with but could find hundreds more: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C01%5C13%5Cstory_13-1-2007_pg5_16 ... )
_________________
“Against barbarity, poetry can resist only by confirming its attachment to human fragility like a blade of grass growing on a wall while armies march by.” Mahmoud Darwish
Last edited by parvati_roma on Sun Jan 14, 2007 9:02 pm; edited 5 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cheryl
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 3932
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ferd - None of the diplomatic moves I listed is a slam-dunk. But neither is military action. I was trying to enumerate some opening moves, not a complete settlement, or directions in which the negotiations might move.
The thing about diplomacy (like military action) is that you don't know how it's going to go until you try it.
It's easy to feel that what seems obvious or in progress now is the way things must go. But we have to keep in mind that all that may be capable of change.
_________________
...And when we laugh, we're indestructible.
Joy Harjo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
