Iraq

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.

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.”

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.

The pause in troops that has been touted by General Petraeus and Secretary Gates as necessary to judge and consolidate security gains from the surge has been universally panned by Democrats. The reasoning behind the ‘pause’ (Pause: it’s pop culture’s new ’surge’, I can just feel it) is that “We have momentum, and we must maintain this momentum. Without a pause to assess trends, we could make a serious mistake,” says an anonymous US officer to the New York Times.

I am uncomfortable with standing with the Democrats in reviling this announcement, because if you have followed the Iraqi political and security situation in any amount of detail or for any amount of time, you will have learned that the political and security situation stops and starts its progression. For example, the handover in Basra from British to Iraqi forces was de facto, as the British had withdrawn to the airport and to their base outside the city. The current head of the Basra provincial police chief has openly remarked on the infiltration of his forces by militant groups. Garrett Therolf’s LA Times piece provides insight into a former Sunni Iraqi SWAT commander’s claims that he was tortured under the orders of Maj. Gen. Ghanim Quraishi, the Shi’ite head of the Diyala police force. He claims that the torture was part of an orchestrated campaign to eradicate Sunni Muslims from the police and security force.

My point in all this is that the current security situation is not conducive to a peaceful society for which humans are expected to live. Not only are militants terrorizing the general population, but the police forces have been infiltrated and/or are largely complicit in these crimes. Then again, the argument can also be shifted to: How is that different from many other places in the developing world? Take Pakistan for example. Not exactly the epitome of democracy and strong state institutions. But their history and political situation with the US is quite different.

In the background of all of this, Ambassador Ryan Crocker has hailed the Iraqi parliament’s passage of three new bills today as, “important steps forward.” This is after weeks and weeks of gridlock during which only the Ba’ath party bill (the Accountability and Justice Law, a link at the bottom of this page provides a PDF of the English translation of the text of the legislation itself) was passed allowing for the reinstatement of former Ba’ath party bureaucrats into their old posts. The three major bills have been a $48 billion national budget, an amnesty law, and legislation allowing for provincial elections on October 1. Speaker of the Parliament, Mahmoud Mashhadani, has called this ‘a day of celebration for Iraq’.

I guess we should be pleased that there is some slow, inching progress towards stability, although I loathe to all it ‘reconciliation’. That will take generations, as many experts have pointed out. The problem is that the US as a whole has a very short memory, while the rest of the world’s memory is decidedly longer. They remember their enemies’ foul-ups for many generations, as well as the United States’ and this is not promotive of quick peace initiatives that coincide with our election schedules.