Iraq

Good news!  Iraq will be going to China next month, and sending four athletes: a men’s rowing double, a discus thrower and their sprinter, Dana Hussain (their archer may also have the chance to compete, as long as his spot is still available after entries are completed by other countries.)  USA Today reports that the IOC cleared the Iraqi athletes late Tuesday after the government’s promise to uphold their assigned National Olympic Committee.  CNN states that Iraq will be able to hold their own election for a new national committee as late as November, 2008.  Because of the missed deadline last week, a few athletes will not participate, however, all media outlets are reporting that Iraqis are thrilled to be able to compete in China.  “We look forward to seeing the Iraqi flag in Beijing,” said IOC President, Jacques Rogge. 

Bush has agreed to “a general time horizon,” as The New York Times announced last week.  Many believe this is due to the pressure from the Iraqi government regarding a future US military presence in the country.  Unfortunately, we can’t celebrate just yet, as the Bush Administration continues to be vague on the matter.  However, some of this decision will rest on Iraqi military capability, and the White House has stated that further troop reductions could come with increasingly better conditions.  Some officials claim that Iraqis should be taking charge of security by 2009, with a complete independence from the US by 2012.  Senator Obama responded to the news by saying it’s ”a step in the right direction,” but believes the Administration is still being too vague.  Senator McCain continues to back Bush, stating that the timeline is proof of the success of the surge. 

After the bombing and riots in Kirkuk on Monday, which left 51 dead and over 250 injured (The Washington Post), Iraqi lawmakers have called for a special session to discuss disputes over the city, as reported by USA Today.  Kirkuk, an oil-rich and valuable area, has long been fought over by Arabs, Turkomen and Kurds.  The Kurds currently hold most of the power on the provincial council, and current tensions are coming from a new law that would require equal seats for all three groups.  Another aspect of this problem, and one that has been plaguing Iraq for many years now, are the Kurdish claims to Kirkuk as being a part of their semi-autonomous region.  However, Turkomen and Arabs, along with the rest of the Iraqi population, want to keep Kirkuk and its oil fields under central control and contributing to Iraqi finances.  The bombing, which attacked Kurds protesting the bill, set off sectarian violence on Monday as the Kurds then rioted at a Turkoman political site, blaming them for the attack. 

The International Olympic Committee has banned Iraq from competing in China next month.  However, as usual, there are two completely different versions of the story and I still don’t fully understand what happened.  Adding to the confusion is the fact that many major media outlets are not reporting on these events. 

CNN (with the most coverage) reported last Thursday that the Iraqi government reappointed their own National Olympic Committee, unrecognized by the IOC and further, against their rules.  Iraqi officials claim that the committee appointed for them was corrupt and grossly outdated, holding members in their one-year posts for over five years.  Further, they were running meetings without quorums. 

In their official statement, the IOC claimed that the Iraqi government is interfering in the processes of their National Committee, especially by installing their own committee leader, the Iraqi Minister of Sport.  Further, they claim that the Iraqi government mismanaged the situation by not responding to an invitation last week to meet and discuss the problem with IOC officials. 

Today, CNN reports that Iraqi officials will attend that meeting after all in order to discuss Iraq’s potential place at the Olympics.  Iraq believes that it was mistreated; the IOC did not take into account their reasons for dismissing the National Committee, and according to Jassim M. Jaffer, Minister of Youth and Sports, they are considering legal action.  On the other side, IOC spokeswoman, Emmanuelle Moreau stated Thursday, “The athletes have been ill-served by the government in Iraq,” and that Iraqi track and field athletes could still compete if the original National Committee is reinstated. 

I’m not sure which side I’m on in this situation.  One the one hand, the IOC has a commitment to fairness and the Charter, but on the other hand, they should uphold a commitment to honesty as well.  Iraqi concerns over the corruption of their committee should be heard, however, this is horrible timing on the part of the Iraqi government.  Fighting the ban in this manner (especially with legal action) still leaves Iraqi athletes missing deadlines and being disqualified from competition.  I would think that instead of throwing a tantrum, at this point officials might consider conceding until after competition, allowing their athletes to compete.  Because, after all, wouldn’t successful athletes prove Iraq’s progress more so than a government tantrum? 

It seems that the Bush Administration has given up its rigidity when it comes to troop numbers in Iraq (maybe they read my last post!).  As Time and CNN.com reported this week, the US is withdrawing troops from Iraq.  But don’t get excited yet; this only means that levels are returning to their original number prior to the surge, plus 15,000.  Interestingly, The New York Times went further, reporting that the US might actually be considering an increased draw down, continuing to 120,000-130,000, about 25,000 less than where we are right now. 

There is yet another reason not to get our hopes up though; if the US does increase our withdrawal from Iraq, the plan is to reroute our military muscle in order to combat the increasingly unstable situation in Afghanistan.  There is also the possibility of using these so-called extra troops “potentially [for] other missions.” (NYTimes)  I don’t know exactly what that means, but it scares me. 

What I’m wondering, aside from why we took our military power away from our original arena in Afghanistan, is what will happen to these troops now?  Most likely, they will be sent home for an entirely too short R&R, then called back to fight in Afghanistan.  Unfortunately, it seems that this withdrawal is bittersweet.  The problem is that many in the military do not get an adequate or even mandated rest period in between tours.  It seems that even with this withdrawal, our military will still remain overstretched. 

A picture of why it has become necessary to redeploy troops from Iraq into Afghanistan.
From the NYTimes Online

The latest news this week is Iraq’s demand for a withdrawal timetable from US officials.  The Washington Post reported on Tuesday that Iraqi National Security Adviser, Muwaffak al-Rubaie, demanded the timetable, saying that Iraq is “impatiently waiting” for the withdrawal of US troops.  This comes after Prime Minister al-Maliki’s same request, and was “the strongest demand yet by a senior Iraqi official” on setting “specific dates for the departure of US forces.”  He went on to say that Iraq would not accept any deal in which a time line is not specifically delineated. 

This seems, in my opinion, like a good sign: the Iraqi government appears to be tired of relying on the US, and further, must believe that they can do the job themselves.  I would trust the judgment of these high-ranking Iraqi officials– if the country explodes again, they know that their lives will be on the line as they avoid assassination attempts.  In the past, the quandary about a withdrawal has involved both the Iraqi government and the American people; the Iraqis wanted us to stay for protection and resources, and Americans were operating under the premise, “you break it, you buy it.”  But here’s our green flag.  Here’s W’s chance to negotiate for Iraqi military bases while pulling out and still keeping some dignity in the history books.  So why is the Bush administration blowing this off? 

Further, statements made by US officials are both confusing and frustrating.  They were quoted in this article saying that al-Maliki’s previous calls for a timetable “were aimed at local and regional audiences,” and that they don’t “reflect fundamental disagreements with the Bush administration.”  However, how could the timetable demand not be directed toward toward the US government when it is being addressed in terms of our bilateral security agreements?  Additionally, Tony Fratto, White House spokesperson, said that talks of a withdrawal are not currently on the table because the Iraqi government “would not take an action that would destabilize the country.”  Meanwhile, media and government reports lead us to believe that the surge worked and that security is getting better each day.  ”Destabilization” is not a word we hear now when the administration discusses Iraq.

To me, US officials are making a mockery out of Iraqi officials.  It seems that the Bush administration is treating the new government like a petulant child who doesn’t know what it wants.  But even more, this offends me as a US citizen; these statements by the administration don’t add up.  Americans have dealt with patronizing and conflicting reports like these for five years now, and so far most have fallen through (and this includes the motives for the 2003 invasion).  But the jig is up now: avoiding the truth with the American public is just not going to fly anymore. 

It’s amazing how two newspapers have taken the same remarks from the Iraqi Foreign Minister Zebari, and spun them into totally different articles. The articles are mainly focused on Zebari’s remarks made at a press conference in Baghdad earlier today. New York Times’ article is titled “Iraq Hints at Delay in US Security Deal” and Washington Post’s is “Progress Cited on US-Iraq Pacts: FM says Nations Are Working to Resolve Differences“. The titles convey very different stories. Even the tone in which Foreign Minister Zebari is quoted makes his words sound conciliatory in the Post piece, and a bit more pugnacious in the Times piece.

The Times says that Zebari, “told reporters that some headway had been made, but that negotiators were deadlocked over issues like the extent of Iraqi control over American military operations and the right of American soldiers to detain suspects without the approval of Iraqi authorities.” The Post says, “We have reached a comfortable stage of negotiations, and the differences have been narrowed.” What’s interesting is that neither piece mentioned the other statement. Both statements convey a completely different intention.

In regards to the US concession that private contractors’ immunity will be revoked, both newspapers painted Zebari’s comments on it differently. The Washington Post quoted Zebari as saying that the US had shown a great deal of flexibility on “thorny issues”, and placed his statement that the US had agreed to lift immunity for contractors after that statement in the paragraph.

However, the New York Times puts his statement on this issue towards the end of the article, with the qualifier that it was the one place that the United States had conceded. “…Mr. Zebari told Iraqi lawmakers in Parliament that the Americans had conceded on one area of contention in the negotiations — the legal status of private security contractors in the country.”

My media watching has lead me to be a bit cynical towards the mode of coverages that different organizations favor, but such an obvious difference in tone of coverage by such prominent newspapers was still a bit surprising to me. Thoughts?