Iraq

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.

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.

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’.

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.”

The death toll from a Thursday evening blasts in Baghdad has risen to 68 with over 120 wounded, according to Al Jazeera English. The dual bombs were set off in a crowded market, and no one has yet claimed responsibility. They were set off one right after another, with a New York Times piece quoting witnesses as saying that the first bomb was hidden in a trash can, with the second possibly originating from a suicide vest.

Walter Pincus and Karen DeYoung have written an excellent piece in Washington Post called “Officials Lean Toward Keeping Next Iraq Assessment Secret“, in which Director of National Intelligence Mitch McConnell writes his recommendation to Senator John Warner (R-VA) that the next Iraq report be kept classified. It is to be presented in April before Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker testify before Congress on the state of the Iraq war. With the previous assessments from intelligence agencies having massive coverage from the media, this may be a way for the administration to create a buffer between them and the public before making their final Iraq decisions now at the end of their tenure. Two further estimates are due by fall on the state of the Afghanistan war and the ‘terrorist threat to the homeland’.

According to an AFP report picked up by Lebanon’s Daily Star, women are bearing the brunt of violence in Iraq according to ‘Women for Women International‘, womens’ rights group. 64% of women surveyed by the organization have reported increased amounts of violence against them in the past five years. Many more women are being threatened because of leaving their homes without wearing the veil. Iraq’s Minister for Womens’ Rights (a Kurd) has stated that the greatest threat for women comes from extremist Islamic groups.

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.

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.

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.

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.