Sunday
Nov232008
Iraq: The Breaking-Point Politics Beyond the Surge
Sunday, November 23, 2008 at 21:10
For months, I've put forth the paradox surrounding the proposed Status of Forces Agreement between the US and Iraqi Governments. As Washington grows increasingly desperate to get the fig-leaf of the Agreement to underpin its military presence, the political fight over that agreement highlights the mounting irrelevance of US forces.
This week could highlight that paradox. Today the New York Times, close to disgracefully, parades a series of experts (Frederick Kagan, General David Petraeus' former executive officer Peter Mansoor, Petraeus worshipper Linda Robinson, and --- in an act that defines chutzpah --- Donald Rumsfeld) urging us to "stay the military course". James Glanz's Sunday puff-piece in the paper is "In Ramadi, With A Fresh Coat of Paint" .
In Baghdad, however, folks aren't taking their leads from the Times. And I suspect many in the Bush Administration --- though not the President, who is blissfully tripping towards the exit door --- are worrying they aren't taking direction from the US.
On Wednesday, the Iraqi Parliament was convened to support the second reading of the Agreement but was suspended amidst shouting and scuffles. The scene was repeated on Thursday. On Friday, the cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and his supporters made their show of political force after prayers, as thousands took to the streets to denounce the agreement. A stream of Parliamentarians let it be known that they would be absent from Baghdad this week, as they had decided to fulfil their once-in-a-lifetime obligation to make the pilgrimage to Mecca.
Perhaps most importantly, the leading clerical figure in Iraq, Ayatollah Sistani, declared that he would not support the agreement unless there was a national consensus behind it. Now, as the leading Shi'a parties --- the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and Daw'a --- seemed to have swung behind ratification, leading to the Cabinet's vote in favour last weekend, Sistani's statement pointed to the worry that the key Sunni parties would not offer their support.
In mid-week Juan Cole, with his specialist reading of the Arab press and other signs from Iraq, was still predicting that Parliament would narrowly ratify the Agreement; however, he also noted that without clear Sunni backing, Sistani's condition for consensus would not be met. By today, he was being notably cautious. With the Iraqi Parliament postponing the vote again, this time from Monday to Wednesday, Cole wrote, "It is still not clear how the Sunni Arab MPs will vote; without their support, the agreement would likely be seen as a joint Shiite-Kurdish conspiracy."
Absolutely. Here's the twist in the surge that almost no one in the mainstream US media has picked up. The well-trumpeted wonder of the Petraeus strategy was the bolstering of local and regional Sunni groups, the Awakening Council, in provinces outside Baghdad. The unnoted but always-lurking questions was the relationshp of those groups to the national government.
Well, now we're getting the answer. Sunni parties have the perception that, with its desperation to get an Agreement before the UN mandate for the occupation expires on 31 December, Washington has swung again into backing of the Shia-dominated government. It's a cycle that has recurred periodically since 2003, for example, in the debates over the Iraqi constitution in 2005. Meanwhile, there's a minority but very significant Shi'a faction, embodied by but not exclusive to the "Sadrists", who are ready to fight this Agreement to the end, inside Parliament and possibly on the streets.
Which is why the political process had reached the point on Saturday where the Defence and Interior Ministers called a press conference and invoked "the specters of a reborn insurgency, foreign attack and even piracy" if ratification did not occur. This in turn followed a Thursday speech from Prime Minister al-Maliki and, according to some press reports, his threats to resign if Parliament did not act appropriately.
Let's call it forthrightly: if the current Government does not get ratification, it will collapse. And even if it gets a narrow victory, it faces the prospect of a renewed sectarian conflict, at best one of protracted political tension and at worse a return to violence. Hey, even supposed allies may be suspect --- it was reported this weekend that planeloads of weapons from Bulgaria were arriving in Kurdish territory.
Where is the US military in all this? Well, an inadvertent black comedy illustration came in a Thursday story in the Washington Post. The headline portended another good-news surge tale: "U.S. Troops in Baghdad Take a Softer Approach Focus Shifts to Reconciling Factions" . The opening paragraph offered a more pertient, off-script message:
It was billed as a peace concert in war-scarred Baghdad. But after 30 minutes of poetry and patriotic songs, only a scattering of tribal leaders and dark-suited bureaucrats were sitting in the vast expanse of white plastic chairs before a stage painted with doves.
This week could highlight that paradox. Today the New York Times, close to disgracefully, parades a series of experts (Frederick Kagan, General David Petraeus' former executive officer Peter Mansoor, Petraeus worshipper Linda Robinson, and --- in an act that defines chutzpah --- Donald Rumsfeld) urging us to "stay the military course". James Glanz's Sunday puff-piece in the paper is "In Ramadi, With A Fresh Coat of Paint" .
In Baghdad, however, folks aren't taking their leads from the Times. And I suspect many in the Bush Administration --- though not the President, who is blissfully tripping towards the exit door --- are worrying they aren't taking direction from the US.
On Wednesday, the Iraqi Parliament was convened to support the second reading of the Agreement but was suspended amidst shouting and scuffles. The scene was repeated on Thursday. On Friday, the cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and his supporters made their show of political force after prayers, as thousands took to the streets to denounce the agreement. A stream of Parliamentarians let it be known that they would be absent from Baghdad this week, as they had decided to fulfil their once-in-a-lifetime obligation to make the pilgrimage to Mecca.
Perhaps most importantly, the leading clerical figure in Iraq, Ayatollah Sistani, declared that he would not support the agreement unless there was a national consensus behind it. Now, as the leading Shi'a parties --- the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and Daw'a --- seemed to have swung behind ratification, leading to the Cabinet's vote in favour last weekend, Sistani's statement pointed to the worry that the key Sunni parties would not offer their support.
In mid-week Juan Cole, with his specialist reading of the Arab press and other signs from Iraq, was still predicting that Parliament would narrowly ratify the Agreement; however, he also noted that without clear Sunni backing, Sistani's condition for consensus would not be met. By today, he was being notably cautious. With the Iraqi Parliament postponing the vote again, this time from Monday to Wednesday, Cole wrote, "It is still not clear how the Sunni Arab MPs will vote; without their support, the agreement would likely be seen as a joint Shiite-Kurdish conspiracy."
Absolutely. Here's the twist in the surge that almost no one in the mainstream US media has picked up. The well-trumpeted wonder of the Petraeus strategy was the bolstering of local and regional Sunni groups, the Awakening Council, in provinces outside Baghdad. The unnoted but always-lurking questions was the relationshp of those groups to the national government.
Well, now we're getting the answer. Sunni parties have the perception that, with its desperation to get an Agreement before the UN mandate for the occupation expires on 31 December, Washington has swung again into backing of the Shia-dominated government. It's a cycle that has recurred periodically since 2003, for example, in the debates over the Iraqi constitution in 2005. Meanwhile, there's a minority but very significant Shi'a faction, embodied by but not exclusive to the "Sadrists", who are ready to fight this Agreement to the end, inside Parliament and possibly on the streets.
Which is why the political process had reached the point on Saturday where the Defence and Interior Ministers called a press conference and invoked "the specters of a reborn insurgency, foreign attack and even piracy" if ratification did not occur. This in turn followed a Thursday speech from Prime Minister al-Maliki and, according to some press reports, his threats to resign if Parliament did not act appropriately.
Let's call it forthrightly: if the current Government does not get ratification, it will collapse. And even if it gets a narrow victory, it faces the prospect of a renewed sectarian conflict, at best one of protracted political tension and at worse a return to violence. Hey, even supposed allies may be suspect --- it was reported this weekend that planeloads of weapons from Bulgaria were arriving in Kurdish territory.
Where is the US military in all this? Well, an inadvertent black comedy illustration came in a Thursday story in the Washington Post. The headline portended another good-news surge tale: "U.S. Troops in Baghdad Take a Softer Approach Focus Shifts to Reconciling Factions" . The opening paragraph offered a more pertient, off-script message:
It was billed as a peace concert in war-scarred Baghdad. But after 30 minutes of poetry and patriotic songs, only a scattering of tribal leaders and dark-suited bureaucrats were sitting in the vast expanse of white plastic chairs before a stage painted with doves.
Reader Comments