Iraq

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

In a follow up to my fellow blogger Jennifer’s piece on the lucrative oil wars in Iraq, the BBC has a piece entitled “Iraq seeking help to develop oil“. This discusses the official beginning of the opening up of the oil industry to foreign investment. The six main oil fields that are being opened up to investment are Rumaila, Kirkuk, Zubair, West Qurna, Bai Hassan and Maysan (according to BBC). These are being chosen because according to Oil Minister Husain Al-Shahristani, “These fields were chosen because their production can be raised in a short time and at a low cost”.

Anbar province (known most commonly as ‘the restive Anbar province’) has been handed back to Iraqi authorities. Anbar is the province of Abu Risha (killed in September 2007), the tribal leader whose prominent backing of the Awakening movement continues to drive the province today. This has brought peace to the province, but the peace’s sustainability remains to be seen.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank based in Washington DC, has released a report on “Quietism And The U.S. Position In Iraq” on June 19. It is written by Anthony Cordesman and Jose Ramos. It mainly discusses Ayatollah Sistani  and his true level of influence. His positions on various issues such as political and military matters are difficult to gauge because his public statements are very limited. According to the report, “Experts also disagree about the extent to which Sistani has seen some loss of influence, faces a challenge from Shi’ite politicians and parties, and has become more cautious in taking political stands. Furthermore, there are conflicting reports about the extent to which he holds private policy discussions, some of which are reported to oppose any lasting relations with the US.”

Australian soldiers are leaving Iraq as of Sunday, June 1, which fulfills the election promises of the current government. This comes on the heels of an interesting article in The Times last week, where Australian soldiers said they were ‘ashamed’ at their lack of frontline role in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The article comes from an extended article written by Major Jim Hammett (who is serving in Iraq) in the Australian Army Journal entitled “We Were Soldiers Once”. “Many within its ranks suspect that the role of the infantry has already been consigned to history . . . the on going inaction [in Iraq] . . . has resulted in collective disdain and at times near contempt by personnel from other contributing nations,” he said. I have attempted to find the piece, but have cannot find a link. If you Google the title and ‘Australian Army Journal’, you can get a link to the pdf of the issue that the article appears in.

After General Petraeus’ meeting at 10 Downing Street with Defense Secretary Des Browne and Sir Jock Stirrup (defense chief of staff), the general agreement was that the 4,000 strong British troop contingent would remain stationed outside of Basra for the time being. When asked about a specific time range the General replied, “The answer right now is we don’t know … We need to work [it] out in the next month or two as we look at the so-called troop-to-task analysis.” This means that the intention of drawing down the contingent to 2,500 is out the window.

General Petraeus also took the opportunity to discuss Iranian arms flowing into Iraq again, in the Guardian’s piece linked above. The U.S. military really seems to be taking the lead on this media offensive, with the last month having seen Secretary Gates, Major General Lynch, and Pentagon spokesperson Morrell among others, making statement after statement on the accusation. Even officials speaking on condition of anonymity never offer any hard proof, they simply continuously state the fact that weapons caches have been found bearing recent Iranian stamps/insignia. The military must show their smoking gun, because to the rest of the world, it sounds like a drumbeat towards war.

My fellow blogger Daniel Graeber has published his own piece on Basra titled “Analysis: A Hornet’s Nest in Basra”. He points out that “the violence between rival…factions could shape the new threat environment.” He gives a great rundown of the recent history of Prime Minister Maliki’s alliance with Sadr and the US’ support of the Abdel Aziz Al-Hakim, who heads up the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council. Definitely a recommended read.

Iraq awoke to a statement by the Multi National Forces that Al-Qaeda in Iraq is planning more and more suicide and car bombings, specifically stolen ambulances. The one district that is specifically mentioned is the Karakh district of Baghdad. The US military has announced that it has intelligence to this effect. This is the day after over 50 people were killed in a bombing at a funeral in the Diyala province, for two brothers who had turned against Al-Qaeda. The brothers were part of the Diyala Awakening group, the type that has spread across the country in the past year and has been said to be partly responsible for the decrease in violence along with Sadr’s ceasefire.

The US statement came on the heels of AQI’s latest communication with their followers: a tape by Ayman Al-Zawahiri. Fancying himself one of the myriad political commentators we have on 24-hour television here in the US, Zawahiri says that the Bush administration is leaving a ‘problem’ to his successors by ensuring that the troops remain in Iraq for the rest of his term. He also calls the Iraq war ‘a failure’, echoing a few American politicians.

The New York Times has a great piece on the dismissal of 1,300 soldiers and policemen in the wake of the Basra offensive. Stephen Farrell writes that there have been revelations “more than 1,000 members of the security forces had laid down their weapons during the fight“. There were a multitude of reasons behind the refusals to fight: basically, it is impossible to say that all of these policemen and soldiers were on the sympathetic to the Mehdi Army (although some invariably were). The highest rank dismissed was brigadier general, according to the report.

National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley (a remarkably quiet NSA when compared with his predecessor) has joined the chorus of voices from the Bush administration condemning Iran’s influence in Iraq. According to Hadley, “I think that one of the interesting developments of Prime Minister Maliki’s offensive in Basra is that it has revealed to the Shia, particularly, in the Iraqi government, the level of Iranian malign influence in the south and on their economic heartline through Basra”. He was speaking on Fox News Sunday (a full transcript of the interview is available here).

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.

US soldiers have killed three members of a family in Tikrit, after US officials said that the troops were fired on before entering the house. However, The New York Times is reporting that an AP correspondent quoted a relative as alleging that the US soldiers kicked open the door of the house and began firing with no warning. This is comes on the heels of yesterday’s statement from the US that the nine civilians killed in Iskandariyah were in fact not insurgents, but mostly checkpoint guards. The Tikrit area is north of Baghdad, unlike Iskandariyah which is to the south and not the focus of the US insurgent clean-up.

The US is dealing with a string of accusations of abuse lately that are dominating the headlines far more than the political logjam of the country or of the intra-Shi’ite fighting in the south of the country. After the twin bombings in Baghdad, the heat is on for the US to polish their lacklustre campaign in Iraq this year.  Despite US assertions that violence levels and casualties are going down, the headlines suggest something quite different.