Because the U.S. post war reconstruction plan in Iraq has been grossly mishandled and has proven to be largely ineffectual, Iraqi artists and filmmakers have decided to take cultural reconstruction efforts into their own hands. Recently in Baghdad, Iraqi filmmakers unveiled the city’s first traveling film festival, showcased at sites where explosions have ruined cultural landmarks have killed hundreds of Iraqi citizens.

“From these places that have been attacked by terrorists we want to send a message that in Iraq cinema, culture and civilization are still alive,” states Husam al-Sharam, one of the organizers of Baghdad’s first traveling cinema festival, in a recent article by the BBC.

According to the BBC article, all of the films shown have been filmed in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, and all of them deal with the current reality of living and surviving in Baghdad.

The resurgence of Iraqi film, which has a rich and fruitful history, is a particularly important aspect of the devastated city’s cultural reconstruction. During the 2003 Iraq war, the majority of the country’s cultural heritage landmarks, including museums, libraries and archaeological sites were destroyed in raids by US allied forces. Although only three films have been made in Iraq since 2003, they each play an important role in rebuilding the country’s rich history and unifying the Iraqi public.

Iraqis Celebrate as U.S. Troops Exit to City Outskirts

Iraqis were partying in the streets on Tuesday last week, celebrating the withdrawal of U.S. Troops from Iraqi cities.  As Newsweek reported, U.S. military operations have moved to nonurban areas and “belts” around major cities such as Baghdad, Basra and Mosul.  American troops will still be at the disposal of Iraqi security leaders, preparing to step in when asked.  But a major question on many minds, even Iraqis’, is will the government ask for help when they need it? 

The day was dubbed “National Sovereignty Day,” a holiday declared by President al-Maliki.  Iraqi officials have been calling this Iraq’s “liberation,” turning the move of U.S. troops into a major event.  With the news of the celebration and declared national holiday, my emotions are torn; part of me is elated that our troops are getting out of the deadliest zones as they try to battle suicide bombers and that Iraqis are feeling more empowered and less occupied.  However, the other part is feeling slightly offended.  Obviously, an occupying force is a horrible thing.  But we’ve remedied our leadership, changed our strategy for handling this invasion and are generally trying to make international repairs, including in Iraq.  To be characterized as an “enemy” seems to me as a little too polarized.  I must admit though that if I had been living in an occupied country, I would probably be feeling the same thing about the occupiers. 

From Newsweek’s report, I’m not the only one feeling conflicted about the withdrawal — Iraqis are as well.  A retired school teacher named Fatima Ali said, “Americans are outsiders and occupiers.  They destroy the country and cause its people lots of harm.”  Other Iraqis are looking past the celebrations and are feeling a little nervous about security operations being handed over to the Iraqi forces.  A college student, Samir Ahmad, was quoted saying, “I’m not happy with the pulling of U.S. soldiers out of the cities. It leaves everything in the hands of the Iraqi forces, who proved incompetent in achieving security, for they are sectarian, impolite, and aggressive.”  And then there’s the comment made by Maj. Gen. Hussein Jasim al-Awadi, the top national police commander, explaining that U.S. forces would still be close by, responding to Iraqi requests for assistance.  In an interview, he said, “The Americans are not leaving… civilians should calm down and relax.” 

As for the immediate future, we’ll be looking for two things: whether the Iraqi government will ask for help in security the cities when they need it; and if the violence in the cities subsides now that U.S. troops are no longer there.  And of course, looking to the future, we’ll be waiting to see what happens during the parliamentary elections at the end of 2010, as well as the full withdrawal of U.S. forces.

I meant to write about this right after the news came out but I got sidetracked with the election drama. 

In his newest book, “The War Within: A Secret White House History, 2006-2008,” Bob Woodward confirms the rumor that the US is spying on Nuri al-Maliki, Iraqi Prime Minister, as well as other top Iraqi officials and possibly every person spending time in the Green Zone in Baghdad.  The Newsweek article that discusses the book, and this very interesting development, claims that 'the Green Zone is probably among the most thoroughly spied-upon pieces of turf on the planet.’  Adding to this, US government employees are also monitored through their phone calls, being reprimanded if they mention details about top US officials.  The article hints that al-Maliki, upon hearing the news of the spying, was upset, however one Iraqi official interviewed did not seem put off by this lack of privacy, stating that the issue would be raised with their American counterparts. 

Another problem for US troops and Iraqi security forces is the penetration of Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army into the safety of the Green Zone.  One Sadr follower was arrested while working at a police station.  The worry here is that the radicals who make it into this secure part of Baghdad are sending coordinates out to rocket launchers, who are then able to target specific sites and people. 

Further, Iraqi officials have not responded to allegations of counter-spying.  Government spokesman, Ali Dabbagh, acknowledges that Iraqis often joke about who is listening to their cell phone discussions, especially after the US handed out mobile phones with an American country code and a 914 area code.  Dabbagh claimed that it is the right of the Iraqi government to spy as long as they don't break international laws, but that the US should not be spying in Iraq. 

As usual, Woodward has found a niche in the literary world, uncovering the secrets of the Bush Administration.  Not only does he consistently write about interesting topics, but he does so in a captivating way.  The book came out September 8th, and I’m definitely looking forward to picking it up very soon. 

The biggest news story at the beginning of the week involving Iraq is that of Iraqi-Iranian talks over the weekend.  BBC reported that Nuri al-Maliki (Iraqi PM) discussed security issues with Iranian President, Ahmadinejad.  This included Iraqi desire to stop Iranian backing for Iraqi Shi’a groups and Iran's concern over Iraq's constant chaos.  Also on the table during these talks was Iranian hostility toward a US-Iraqi security agreement.  This comes as no surprise; if the US gets as many military bases (58, as Juan Cole's Informed Comment reports), the US will have the security advantage, and Bush's desire for a preventive war against Iran could materialize in a real way.  Dr. Cole further stated that al-Maliki also met with Iran's highest religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.  For Khamenei, the problem is very simple: the US. 

What complicated this situation even further, yet is also unsurprising, is the US’ increased pressure on Iraq to tie up our own security agreement once and for all.  The AP reported a couple days after the talks that a top State Department official believes that an agreement can be reached by next month.  With regard to US-Iranian relations, Myers and Kulish for the New York Times reported yesterday that Bush is looking for harsher sanctions against Iran.  This is understandable; as a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Iran needs to adhere to its guidelines against enriching uranium (for more information, see the IAEA's “Focus Iran” site).  However, we see Bush putting “all options… on the table” (typical) while his new ally, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, is still sticking with diplomacy. 

This fight over Iraq was destined to become more heated as the Iraqi government attempts to pull itself together, especially with all the nuclear drama.  While Iran is violating international law by starting down the path toward nuclear weapons (they have not arrived yet), we should ask ourselves why.  Instead of jumping to conclusions, as the US media does so much with Iran, we should consider their reasons for wanting nuclear weapons.  This could help us determine the right path in trying to stop their enrichment program, and therefore their potential threat to US troops in Iraq (depending, of course, on when we leave).  If we were in their place with a proclaimed enemy taking over right next door, I’m sure we would be sweating just as much as Ahmadinejad. 

We should remember that Iran does not have the same fledgling government that we saw in 1979, when students took over the US Embassy.  In my opinion, it is very unlikely that they will act irrationally, especially with nuclear wildcard Israel a few doors down.  Yes, their government is religiously zealous, but so are the Saudis.  And while we see George W. threatening Iran, he's partying like a rock star in the Saudi royal palace. 

According to the latest statements by CIA director Michael Hayden in today's Washington Post, Al-Qaeda's influence and popularity is on the downturn. He says that they do not have the influence that they once had, and that the Iraq invasion providing a platform for increasing their popularity has degraded considerably.

Although this blog focuses solely on Iraq, I can't resist pointing out the sharp contrast between this assessment and the Taliban. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda are two separate entities, although it should be noted that they have a lot of similarities. The Taliban is a nationalist movement based on Islam that fights for Pashtuns. Pashtuns are an ethnic group that spill into both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Al-Qaeda is a pan-Islamic movement that embraces the entire Muslim world. According to Beitullah Mehsud in a recent Daily Times article, the Pakistani Taliban is hoping to reach out to a wider audience by uploading more content to YouTube. Since rurals do not have easy access to the internet, this can be seen as an attempt to encourage the growth of the Taliban with young professionals in Pakistan, India, and the wider western world including the UK and the US. They are trying to brand themselves as a more global movement that reaches beyond its current confines of being a nationalist movement for a particular ethnic group. In essence, they want to be the new Al-Qaeda.

My point in bringing the Taliban up in a discussion about Al-Qaeda in Iraq is emphasize that we cannot simply view Al-Qaeda as the only threat. We cannot assume that our enemies are not thinking strategically and attempting to expand. This is a long haul, whether we're still in Iraq and Afghanistan or not. If Al-Qaeda is defeated, we can't assume that the ideology will die with it. We have to focus our efforts on the growth of the ideology in the cracks that we miss.

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.