Iraq

The video I’m posting is of the Iraq Town Hall that was put on by the Foreign Policy Association, last week in New York City. The panelists are Dr. Fred Kagan, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute specializing in defense issues and the US military. He is a military historian and taught at West Point. Dr. Richard Norton is a professor at Boston University in international relations and anthropology. He’s a retired Army Colonel and also taught at West Point. The moderator is Dr. Lawrence Korb, a senior fellow at the  Center for American Progress. He’s a former Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Reagan in the early 80’s.

The two panelists brought starkly different views to the table, with Dr. Kagan positing that the surge has been a success and that with the new elections in October of 2008 and again in 2009, there will be ‘a sea change in the nature of Iraqi political discourse’. Al Qaeda in Iraq is still a day-to-day danger, but has been defeated in the sense that they have no chance of establishing an Islamic state supported by the people, according to Dr. Kagan. Although in a ‘transformative period’, there is still no way to pull out below 15 brigades this summer, he argues.

On the other hand, Dr. Norton acknowledges that although the surge is ‘technically a success’, the war in general has been a ‘horrible failure on many levels’. He discusses the military being at the breaking point, and the lack of media attention paid to this fact because it is truly frightening. He discusses the long term effects on the military, with the junior officers and future leadership draining away. Another interesting point that the professor brought up was the nature of civil wars in general. He believes that there is one going on in Iraq, but the character of a civil war changes day to day. The nature of it changes with the economy and with groups having a vested interest in the continuation of the war, etc. The civil war in Iraq is quiet right now, excepting Basra, he posits.

According to several media reports, the battle of Basra is NOT going well. Just a few hours ago, militants blew up a crude oil pipeline. An act of retaliation, this is part of a tenacious fight that the Sadrists are putting up in the south of the country. The Iraqi and US forces have a lot riding on this operation. The Iraqi government and security forces want to prove that they can plan and execute an operation of this magnitude, while the US needs to win the perception war back home. They need to prove to the US populace that there has been some progress after it was universally acknowledged a couple of weeks ago that the political deadlock is far from being broken.

James Glanz has an excellent piece in the NYT detailing the assault. A very important point that was posited by Mr. Glanz is that the central government’s security forces are supposed to be working with the local security police force (about 16,000 of them), which have been known to have direct links with militias, and in most cases, infiltrated by them. This is a point acknowledged by the chief of police of Basra, Major General Khalaf, who has been working tirelessly to rid the police force of its sectarian infighting. He has survived at least two attempts on his life since being appointed less than a year ago.
Although Maliki’s government’s official line is that they are not targeting just one militia, the general consensus is that the Mahdi Army of Moqtada Al-Sadr is the main focus of the clean out. The Mahdi Army still controls many neighborhoods, and most of the casualties over the course of the offensive have been civilians. Civilians have been trapped in their houses since the operation’s start and are growing frustrated with the violence. Since Sadr has withdrawn from the coalition, PM Maliki can go after them without fear of losing his support in government. Below is an informative piece by Al Jazeera English on the particulars of the situation.

In Part One, I discussed the likelihood of the British contingent staying on in Basra past their pull-out dates because of continuing instability in the province and city.

The big parties that are fighting for dominance are the Fadhila party (a smaller Shi’ite party), the Sadrists, and the followers of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and Abdel Aziz al-Hakim. Fadhila’s Muhammed al-Waeli is governor of Basra.

Basra is located in southern Iraq, and is important for many reasons. It is a port city, with the Umm Qasr port being the country’s only gateway into the Persian Gulf. Also, it is sitting on massive oil reserves, mostly untapped. It is a flower waiting to bloom. Control over Basra does and will continue to have far-reaching ramifications for Iraq and the Middle East as a whole. Sam Dagher for the Christian Science Monitor has done a wonderful article detailing the intricacies of the vacuum that has opened up since the fall of Saddam. Basra’s port is not very efficient, it needs massive reconstruction to be working at full capacity. Basically, Basra is a huge prize. It has oil, it has Iraq’s only port, it is providing massive amounts of money to the central government, and right now, it is under the control of the militias.

The violence towards the British and the violence towards ordinary residents rivals that of Baghdad and Mosul. Many of the jobs at the port (a major source of employment) are controlled by the Shi’ite militias in local government and are given to those who join the militias. They regularly hold oil production hostage if their demands are not met. Recently, some high ranking Iraqi officials visited the port city in attempt to assess the situation, encourage more investment, and to bring the city under control. It warranted a piece in the New York Times about two weeks ago, and the officials interviewed for the article were quite vague on the details of the offensive that the Independent’s piece mentioned. Deputy Prime Minister Barhem Salih said that the Iraqi troops would lead the charge and that a strong military presence was needed to force out the militants. We are now seeing the beginning of the offensive, much earlier than the vaguely posited ‘this summer’. As Iraq’s National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie said recently, “Whoever gets in the way will be dealt with swiftly, decisively and with no mercy.”

What first caught my eye was an article in the UK Daily Mail yesterday (which I think is little more than a tabloid, but occasionally they have a gem or two) that said in its headline ‘Rocket attacks dent hopes of bringing British troops home from Basra‘. As readers of this blog know, we have chronicled the Basra situation before, here and here. This is a very interesting dynamic, as there is a lot of intra-Shi’ite rivalries going on. In September, British troops pulled out of Basra city and retreated to the outskirts of the city, where they remain on the grounds of the airport. They are there and continue to train Iraqi forces. The Brits were forced out by rocket fire last year, and only symbolically handed over power of the province to the Iraqis in December. They had been out for quite some time. With the violence raging in Basra between Iraqi security forces and the militias today, it is an important time to examine this in more depth.

The United Kingdom has been telling its constituency for months that they will significantly reduce their presence in Iraq, and will cut their troop levels from 4100 to 2,500 by April 2008. Secretary of Defense Des Browne has said that many soldiers will be sent home as promised, but they will definitely be replaced. The draw-down is not happening because of the security situation is spiraling out of control, according to all reports. The British are sustaining deadly rocket attacks after a lull in violence after they pulled out of the city in September. Despite being outside the city, the last British base is still facing hostile fire from militants causing coalition casualties. In an article posted by The Independent, Iraqi commanders are planning a major offensive against Shi’ite militants this summer. The British most likely will NOT participate in the offensive, but will provide back up and support if and when needed.

In Part II, I will discuss further the nature of the factions and criminals that are involved in the takeover of Basra, and why Basra is an important part of the country.

The New York Times has posted a searing piece that details the correspondence of dead soldiers. It is painful to read their emails, diary entries, and blog postings knowing that they are not coming home. Charlie Rose of the Huffington Post has conducted a series of interviews for the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, with several videos posted. In his own words, “On the fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq, I did a series of conversations to find out how both critics and supporters of the war effort see the current situation. Some of the critical voices I listened to are Les Gelb, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, the New Yorker’s George Packer and two young Iraqis living in the United States.” It’s interesting to see different outlets have different takes at this time. This has really become a point where people are looking back and judging the progress (and lack thereof).

The show Frontline on PBS is airing what they call ‘a definitive documentary analysis’ of the events of the Iraq war. It will be airing in two parts, on March 24 and March 25. It promises to be quite a critical piece on the Bush administration’s handling of the war and the background events that haven’t been in the news. There’s even an interview with Richard Armitage! That should make the policy wonks go nuts! There’s also web content that will be streamed later in March, the information is on the bottom of the page linked above.

Well, we’re five years in folks. There is a ton of press coverage, the tone varies from publication to publication. First off, I would like to bring your attention to the Washington Post’s ‘Five Years in Iraq‘ section, which has interviews with people as wide ranging as an Iraq war protester, an infantry officer, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, in addition to having a longer (and quite thoughtful) piece by Karen DeYoung. The London Times has a quick piece called (in true British style) ‘Iraq: Five Years Hence’, which details what needs to happen to have an established Iraq by 2013. In fact, the entire Iraq section in the London Times definitely has a very critical slant, and it’s an interesting perspective to see it from the British POV.

The Guardian has an incredible, interactive timeline that brings you from the date of the invasion to the present day while highlighting the major events that have marked the war. It’s pretty amazing. The Middle Eastern press in general is still discussing Cheney’s visit, with this scathing piece by the Daily Star in Lebanon that starts out with “US Vice President Dick Cheney’s regional tour would carry a lot more credibility if he had not played such an instrumental role in fomenting the multiple crises that he now seeks to resolve.” Ouch. The New York Times has a whole section devoted to its ‘Baghdad Bureau Blogs’, which have wide ranging articles on many aspects of the insurgency and the effects on the lives of ordinary Iraqis. Christian Science Monitor’s extensive piece on the anniversary is more tempered, with points about relative increase in freedom of press and religion.

Brian O’Neill from the FPA Middle East Blog (whom I don’t envy at all having to cover an entire region) sent this wonderful link my way, it’s a piece in the World Affairs Journal by George Packer that highlights the realities on the Iraqi street. It’s called Over Here: Iraq the Place vs. Iraq the Abstraction. Also, our wonderful FPA War Crimes Blogger, Daniel Graeber, has a great piece published in UPI, called ‘Analysis: Marriage of Convenience in Iraq’.

Unless you’ve been living under the proverbial rock, or just don’t care about these sorts of things, you might have heard that Admiral Fallon has resigned as head of Central Command. Here is a link to the map of Central Command’s area of responsibility (AOR). They are responsible for Iraq as well as many of the hotspots of the world today, including Somalia, Ethiopia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This has important implications for the region, and by extension, Iraq. The most foremost implications have to do with Iran. I’m sure you read the Esquire article by Thomas P.M. Barnett on Adm. Fallon (Incidentally, Barnett has put up a small statement acknowledging the Admiral’s resignation). Barnett portrayed Fallon as the only thing stopping the Bush administration from invading Iran, and something along the lines of “I won’t let it happen on my watch” was attributed to him. Iran is high on the Bush administration’s list. To say that they sacked their top CENTCOM commander to prove a point to Iran may be a bit much, but this article had a lot to do with it. The administration wants to show Iran that there is NO obstacle when it comes to attacking them. Whether the Bush administration actually has any plans to attack Iran isn’t really the point. All they need to do is show Iran that there is nothing stopping them. The logic is, if Iran thinks that the top commander won’t let the US attack them, they can have free rein to do whatever they want in WMD negotiations and be as uncooperative as possible.

Although this post isn’t explicitly on Iraq, this event has far reaching ramifications for Iraq and the region as a whole, and deserves our attention. Here are a few interesting links: A scathing L.A. Times piece by Max Boot, criticizing the Esquire article and questioning Adm. Fallon’s ’strategic brilliance’ (Barnett put it) and a WSJ piece that is a bit more tempered. Senators Reid (D-NV) and John Kerry (D-MA) are making their own statements about the situation, calling for panel inquiries and publicly questioning whether Adm. Fallon was forced out on the Iran issue. Here’s the Kerry statement, while BBC quotes Senator Reid saying, “I am concerned that the resignation of Admiral William J Fallon… is yet another example that independence and the frank, open airing of experts’ views are not welcomed in this administration.”

The death toll from a Thursday evening blasts in Baghdad has risen to 68 with over 120 wounded, according to Al Jazeera English. The dual bombs were set off in a crowded market, and no one has yet claimed responsibility. They were set off one right after another, with a New York Times piece quoting witnesses as saying that the first bomb was hidden in a trash can, with the second possibly originating from a suicide vest.

Walter Pincus and Karen DeYoung have written an excellent piece in Washington Post called “Officials Lean Toward Keeping Next Iraq Assessment Secret“, in which Director of National Intelligence Mitch McConnell writes his recommendation to Senator John Warner (R-VA) that the next Iraq report be kept classified. It is to be presented in April before Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker testify before Congress on the state of the Iraq war. With the previous assessments from intelligence agencies having massive coverage from the media, this may be a way for the administration to create a buffer between them and the public before making their final Iraq decisions now at the end of their tenure. Two further estimates are due by fall on the state of the Afghanistan war and the ‘terrorist threat to the homeland’.

According to an AFP report picked up by Lebanon’s Daily Star, women are bearing the brunt of violence in Iraq according to ‘Women for Women International‘, womens’ rights group. 64% of women surveyed by the organization have reported increased amounts of violence against them in the past five years. Many more women are being threatened because of leaving their homes without wearing the veil. Iraq’s Minister for Womens’ Rights (a Kurd) has stated that the greatest threat for women comes from extremist Islamic groups.

There have been some new books published in the past week on the Iraq situation, with The Financial Times reviewing one called “The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict” by Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes (Columbia and Harvard professors). The FT’s review is scathing in its criticism, saying that their numbers are highly politicized and flawed, and saying, “The “cost” of the Iraq war is in the eye of the beholder. Our two beholders here are anti-war and so their assertions, it should be understood, are made to bolster the case for the Democrats in the forthcoming US presidential election.”

Another book entitled “So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits –and the President — Failed on Iraq” by Greg Mitchell (an editor at ‘Editor and Publisher’, a newspaper trade journal) has been reviewed by ‘Editor and Publisher’ and the Kirkus Reviews. An interview posted on Iraqslogger with the author mentions the book as well, calling it “provocative” and “a must-read”. The book criticizes the media, especially New York Times’ Judith Miller’s closeness with the Bush administration. He also criticizes MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on his remarks made on the day of the Bush administration’s assertion that the war was won.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made a trip to Iraq (finally!) this weekend, with Al Jazeera English calling it ‘a landmark visit’. The New York Times points out that his trip overlaps with Adm. Mike Mullen’s trip to Baghdad, but makes sure to note that there were no plans for the two of them ‘to cross paths, and the timing of their visits appeared to be coincidental’. Thank you, dears at the NYT. The London Times has a great piece analyzing the situation (by Deborah Haynes) called “The Day the Former Foes Became Friends” that discusses President Ahmadinejad’s visit in depth and its more strategic ramifications.

The BBC details the President’s speech in which he blames the United States for bringing terrorism to the region with its invasion of Iraq. The article has commentary from the BBC’s correspondents in Iraq which note that many Iraqis see this as part of a ‘normalization process’ of ties with Iran, and still more Iraqis blame Iran for funding and training militias that have caused so much violence and havoc in the Iraq. The reaction from the Iraqi citizens is clearly mixed.