The latest news in Iraq so far this week:

Iraqis will have the opportunity to voice their opinion on how well the U.S. has adhered to its compromise on troop withdrawal.  Reuters reported yesterday that the Iraq Cabinet approved the vote and slated it for January 16, the same time as the Parliamentary vote.  If the Iraqi people pass the referendum, U.S. troops will stay on course to gradually vacate Iraq by 2012.  However, if rejected, all U.S. troops could be required to leave in half the time, being completely gone within one year’s time.  There are currently 130,000 military personnel still stationed in rural areas of Iraq.  The Security Pact was passed in November, 2008 and required the U.S. military to exit urban areas earlier this year. 

The Human Rights Watch organization recently released a report stating that gay men in Iraq are being targeted in attacks, torture and executions.  CNN reported yesterday that the HRW said fundamentalist militias, particularly Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army, are involved, conducting interrogations and demanding names of men suspected of being gay.  A government spokesperson, Ali al-Dabbagh, said that the government does not condone these actions, but cannot provide homosexuals with additional security.  The hostile environment for gays is made worse by Muslim leaders stating that homosexuality must be eradicated.  Additionally, honor killings of homosexuals have become more common as the families are worried about shame and dishonor.  The Human Rights Watch added that they have evidence of Iraqi security forces taking part in the attacks; the report released statements from at least 50 people who gave statements of abuse at checkpoints.

The northern province of Iraq, where Sunnis, Shi’a and Kurds dispute power, land and resources, is still in turmoil.  An anonymous Iraqi soldier quoted by the New York Times said that there are essentially three governments ruling this one small area: the central government, the Kurdish government and the Islamic State of Iraq government.  The Times states the situation clearly when they say, “The central government is trying to push back an expansionist Kurdistan regional government; Sunni Arab leaders have old and new scores to settle with Kurdish leaders; and insurgents linked to Saddam Hussein’s ousted government and Al Qaeda want to foment conflict.”  Further, U.S. military officials have determined that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia have linked up with the Islamic State of Iraq, another militant group.  At this point, as the article states, the violent culture is in a free-for-all, eye-for-an-eye state, as retaliatory bombs are continually set off.  The Iraqi government also seems to be at a standoff over the situation; the provincial Governor sees this environment on a daily basis and has to withstand pressure from local Kurdish leaders, however lawmakers in Baghdad have all but dismissed the problem.  U.S. leaders finally were able to pressure Iraqi President, al-Maliki, into meeting with Massoud Barzani, president of the Kurdistan region.  The article concludes by saying that all parties are willing to talk, but no one seems willing to make compromises.  And until someone backs down, the violence will no doubt continue.

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?

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.”

A recent article by Steven Simon in the Foreign Affairs journal is quite an interesting read. It can be read here at RealClearPolitics.

The main points of the article are as follows:

• There should be a distinction made between the Iraqi Sunni insurgents who are nationalists and Al-Qaeda members who poured in from foreign countries at the start of the US invasion. Initially it was a ‘marriage of convenience’ as Simon put it, but eventually the two factions broke off from each other. This was mostly due to the fact that AQ had hijacked the nationalist movement and advance their leadership of the Sunni movement (of Iraq) in general. When AQ created the Islamic State of Iraq to separate and isolate the Sunni movement, the Sunni nationalists balked. This political isolation from the rest of Iraq would cut them off from the oil revenues (by cutting them off from the central government) and also spur the secessionist aims of the Shi’ites and Kurds.
• The surge, as enacted by the United States, has revitalized tribalism by empowering sheikhs and other tribal leaders. This allows them to contest state authority and therefore weakens the central government in Baghdad. The United States has not brought the tribes into the fold properly.
• The US arming of the Sunni tribes has been perceived by the Sunnis as the US re-empowering them and restoring them to their former supremacy. Once they realize that reconciliation means different things to them than to the Kurds and the Shi’ites, they may well turn on the US.
• “Public commitment to a phased withdrawal” by the US may draw the international community to truly help stabilize and bring Iraq forward. Such a commitment where the international community engages in multilateral efforts not overtly “stage-managed” (as Simon puts it) by the US could have the influence needed to revitalize top down political dialogue.
• A remedial effort may be to hold provincial elections as soon as possible to to solidify tribal leaders empowered by the US and bring them to connect with the federal government in Baghdad. Most of all, the tribes must be “weaned” off of US support and have them fully dependent on Baghdad as their source of support and patronage. This is vital in subordinating the tribe to the state.

The article makes several good points, and has a good argument for troop withdrawal although it's still very risky. I agree with the point that short term stability in Iraq is no indicator of the long term or even near term future. It can be argued that the lull in violence is pretty much over as of 2008.

If anyone has scanned the great cartoon depictions of the Sunni/Shi’ite/AQ/US timeline, please let me know. I looked on the Foreign Affairs website and couldn't find them. The drawings are great visuals of how the sectarian violence has progressed and the US’ involvement in the mix.

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.

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).

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’.

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.

Iraqi security officials have been ordered to round up homeless people, beggars, and vagrants in effort at preventive counter terrorism. This is a result of the suicide bombings several weeks ago which were supposedly carried out by two women with Down's Syndrome, but recent statements made by US and Iraqi forces indicate that this was probably not the case. According to the New York Times piece published yesterday, the psychiatric records of the women were parsed, and no information on Down's Syndrome was ever mentioned in the paperwork found. However, they were noted to have suffered depression and schizophrenia. The fear is that Al-Qaeda will target these vulnerable people and recruit them to the insurgency, using them as suicide bombers (as was allegedly done in the case of the two female bombers).

In this vein, Major General Abdul-Karim Khalaf says that beggars and homeless people would be taken to state-run shelters, while the mentally disabled would be hospitalized. This is a wonderful idea and it shows that the Iraq government is taking preemptive steps to crack down on the militancy. However, the hospitals in general are overloaded with patients already with very serious physical injuries from the almost daily attacks in Iraq. These hospitals are understaffed, underfunded, and ill-equipped. I have difficulty believing that this is a long term solution to a problem that runs far deeper than simply getting vulnerable people off the streets. If there is no proper hospital or shelter to take care of these people, then what's the point? If the conditions in the shelters or hospitals are bad, there is no stopping them from going back out onto the streets. In the end, this could lead to a waste of time and energy of the security forces and may well breed more resentment against them by the local populace.

An article written by the Associated Press is very clear in its description of the decrepit state of the Iraqi medical system today, with doctors being caught up in the sectarian violence, and IV's and basic medical supplies being in short demand. The black market for legitimate drugs and medication is thriving, while the pharmacy shelves and the hospitals are empty. My point is, if the basic necessities for violent physical injuries is lacking, how can Iraqi hospitals expect to spare staff, facilities, and equipment for large amounts of mentally disabled people? If the government can't fund these hospitals, how are they going to find spare funding for psychiatric hospitals? Although this promise by the Iraqi government to step up their efforts is promising, it seems to be short-sighted and it is not backed up by any credible institutions to sustain the attempt.