For once, there has been a little bit of encouraging news coming out of Iraq. I’ve also been encouraged by some of the reactions I’ve seen.
First, there was the announcement of a deal between the occupation forces/interim government and al-Sadr under which Sadr’s Mehdi army would surrender its heavy weapons and join the election process in return for cash handouts and reconstruction money, release of imprisoned leaders and other concessions. It’s a safe bet that the terms of this compromise won’t be fully observed by either side. Like Sinn Fein, I’m sure the Sadrists intend to keep a “pike in the thatch”, and the Americans have routinely failed to deliver on their promises in Iraq (reconstruction, precision targeting etc). Still, this is the kind of messy process that you’d expect in drawing a group like the Sadrists (part political militia, part street gang) into a political process with no track record and little legitimacy.
Even better is the news, discussed by Belle that nationalist insurgents in Fallujah, such as the First Army of Mohammad are getting tired of the foreign fighters who have been attracted to the city since it became a no-go zone. Although it may well turn out that not all members of these groups are actually foreigners, this label provides a convenient way of distinguishing between Islamic Iraqi nationalists and the jihadi groups led (or at least symbolised) by Zarqawi. It is the latter who appear to be responsible for most of the really horrific stuff that is going on at the moment – kidnappings, beheadings, suicide bombings and so forth, all seen as part of the general worldwide jihad[1] against the infidels. By contrast, the people of Fallujah in general had no enmity against the Americans until they came to Iraq, and would not wish to pursue them if they left.
It’s equally encouraging that most of the supporters of the war I’ve read seem to agree that this as good news. Only a couple of months ago many of them were demanding that Sadr be killed, and his movement crushed. As for the Army of Mohammad, it was the prospect of letting the Fallujans off that led the Americans to veto Allawi’s proposed amnesty just after the handover. Now, suddenly, it looks as if they are all going to become official good guys, just like the Baathists before them.
All of this is good news, in my view. At this point, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, the most we can hope for from Iraq is that it does not become a terrorist base like Afghanistan under the Taliban, and that it doesn’t revert to a full-scale dictatorship like that of Saddam. Apart from that, I hope the Americans realise that, by now, it’s too late to pick and choose. If elections can be held, and produce a sustainable government, whether it’s dominated by Sistani, Sadr, Allawi or even the Army of Mohammed, that’s a lot better than any feasible alternative. And if the new government demands an immediate withdrawal, the US ought not to wait for them to change their minds.
Of course, even if the insurgents could be persuaded to join, or at least tolerate, the political process, the fundamental divisions (Shia, Sunni, Kurd; tribal/urban, and so on) that make Iraqi democracy such a problematic prospect would still be there. If Bush was looking for a road to democracy in the Middle East, he would, like the traveller in the story, have been well advised to start somewhere else. But it’s too late to worry about that.
fn1. Or crusade, if you prefer it in English
John Quiggin 
Excellent comments and I agree with your assessment of the current situation.
However,if a new government asks the americans to leave………
The good signs have been noted. But they have largely come from progressive Iraqi action, by Sadrites keen to join the political process and Fallujhans keen to expell jihadists. The US admin has done nothing more than gratefully accept the respite.
So I would not be confident that Bush does not stuff things up.
In mid-2002, during my pro-war days, I came up with the “ditch Saudi/hitch Iraqi” model to explain US strategic ambitions in the Gulf. THis model was abstractly articulated in the National Security doctrine in Sep 2002. Its concrete Iraqi application was confirmed by Wolfowitz in the Vanity Fair article.
One implication of this model was that the US would try to turn Iraq into a client state, pressuring Saudis and Palestinis to comply with US strategic requirements and hosting US military bases to enforce that pressure.
So far Bush’s strategy in Iraq has (regrettably) conformed to my prediction. He has elevated Chalabi, and then Allawi, as puppets. And the Pentagon has established 14 enduring bases in Iraq, strategically placed near oil fields, infrastructure and Syria. There has been regress on the issue of the Road Map to Peace.
None of the neo-cons responsible for the new US Strategic Doctrine have been sacked. If Bush wins the election he will regard this as popular vindication for the “client state” strategy.
Thus I am not confident that the happy straws in the wind, so ably noted by Pr Q, are in fact indicative of progress in this new – dare I call it – Middle East peace process.
“The good signs have been noted. But they have largely come from progressive Iraqi action, by Sadrites keen to join the political process and Fallujhans keen to expell jihadists. The US admin has done nothing more than gratefully accept the respite.
So I would not be confident that Bush does not stuff things up.”
Well you may just have to concede that the ‘progressive Iraqi action’ stems from an iron will by the COW. You may recall that it is not just American input into tactical strategy, but British and others as well. They have not wavered in a seek and destroy mission against any recalcitrants. That strategy may be beginning to pay dividends with a foe that always respects raw, naked power. Strike with the mailed fist and then offer the velvet glove. It would appear, that for all the inevitable and unforseen problems any occupation would throw up, the COW are still on task and on timetable in Iraq.
You do need to acknowledge the COWs superb initial occupation of Iraq, with negligible casualties. Such a swift knockout blow would always leave more subsequent control problems in its wake, than a more measured and gradual campaign. The tradeoff may well have been judged to be worth it. As well there was always the hurdle of the unexpected, in particular the generally rundown infrastructure of the country. In the absence of any real possibility that Iraqis could conceivably choose their own govt forthwith, the COW would always have to impose some form of compromised govt. They might start off favouring a Chalabi for such a role but would inevitably have to be guided by the events and personalities the venture posed. It didn’t take too long to recognise Allawi was the better choice over Chalabi.
All in all, the COW may be quite comfortable with their work in progress so far, despite the criticisms of some. Look, listen and learn, but always carry a big stick may slowly but irrevocably carry the day.
The US administration only dropped Chalabi – like a hot pototato – when it became apparent he’d been passing stuff to the Iranians on the sly.
“Such a swift knockout blow would always leave more subsequent control problems in its wake, than a more measured and gradual campaign.” Recent reports suggest that was exactly what Saddam was hoping for, (although the old shit presumably didn’t count on getting captured in such humiliating circumstances).
How anyone except misty-eyed idealists such as Observa can regard the Iraq campaign as an unmitigated disaster driven by hubris and ideology is a mystery.
Bugger. Sorry. I meant “How anyone except misty-eyed idealists such as Observa can regard the Iraq campaign as ANYTHING BUT an unmitigated disaster …”
Time for bed.
The US and its allies have undoubtedly made mistakes. However, critics blinded by their anti-Americanism and morally indefensible opposition to regime change (the left after all are supposed to be against fascist dictators) are in no position to take the moral high ground. If they had supported intervention but argued for a more sophisticated approach to nation building they would now have some credibility. Many critics of current policy (whatever they might insist to the contrary) basically took the view that the US basically deserved Sept 11 and seem to welcome bad news form Iraq.
It is worthwhile noting that even many French commentators are now realising that the Chirac-de Villepin opposition to intervention (simply because it was by the US and the British) has been extremely damaging to both their country’s reputation and the fight against terrorism.
Again I should also point out that liberal minded people in Iraq support US intervention – and liberal minded individual in Iran keep asking why the US doesn’t intervene in their country to get rid of the mad medieval mullahs who are currently ruining their lives. So why are so called liberals in the west siding with the reactionaries in Iraq.
On whether the regime posed a real thereat or not, I suggest that the ‘peace in our time/head in the sand crowd’ read the review by Christopher Hitchens of the The Bomb In My Garden, a memoir by Saddam Hussein’s chief nuclear physicist. This can be found at http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2107972&#ContinueArticle
Finally if critics of US policy are too be taken seriously they should, before a decisions is made about what policy to pursue, come up with some serious alternatives of their own rather than simply oppose whatever the US does. What should, for example, the policy be towards Pakistan and the very real danger that sections of its ruling elite will pass nuclear materials or a weapon to terrorists. Should the present regime be maintained, should pressure be put on the regime to introduce democracy, should it made clear that far more aggressive action will be taken if Pakistan does not dismantle its nuclear program etc. Not so easy is it when one can’t simply oppose what the US is doing.
Personally though, as a long time member of Amnesty International (until recently) I supported the removal of Saddam because he is a murdering scumbag and because it sends a strong message to other murdering scumbags (or at least it would have if the French etc had got on board)about the potential consequences of their actions. Oh and for those who go on about international legitimacy and the UN, this not so esteemed organisation is up to its usual tricks again attacking Israel (the only democracy in the Middle East) while Sudanese starve and are raped and murdered.
Hi John,
you might want to comment on the issue
i had identified in the following post about
the prevalence of people with extreme views
in Australia
http://truckandbarter.com/mt/archives/000225.html
-Paul Asad
Perhaps it might help us all look more clearly at Iraq now if we hypothetically removed a little fog from the glasses. Imagine for a moment that the COW had not invaded Iraq, but maintained UN sanctions. This severely weakened Saddam’s regime to the point where a popular military uprising, led by characters like Chalabi, Allawi and Co had led us to the present situation, albeit that all COW troops are actually various Iraqi units loyal to the new regime. Imagine, the same number of casualties have been inflicted on the Iraqi population as have by COW intervention to date. The Allawi regime is promising to introduce free and fair elections next Jan as currently.
Question: Would you say Iraq at present is much better off today than under Saddam and should we ‘recognise’ and support the Allawi regime with some formal legitimacy, both unilaterally and via the UN?
I should add of course that the Allawi regime has allowed UN weapons inspectors to adequately ensure it does not possess any WMD purportedly held by the previous regime, in order to threaten its neighbours.
‘Israel (the only democracy in the Middle East)’: do Palestinians have a vote for the Israeli government which exercises sovereignty over them?
Geoff,
The Palestinians have been offered numerous peace deals (the one under Clinton was extremely generous given the history of Palestinian violence and anti-Semitism that preceded it ) and have rejected them all and turned to violence. The attitude of many so-called progressives to Israel is a good example of what is wrong with much left-of-centre thinking about the middle east and the use of American power in general. Which is more than a bit unfortunate given that the right seems to think that all one needs to national build is free markets. But look attacking Israel and the US is more fun is it not that actually proposing constructive policies or supporting real progressive forces in the non-western world (e.g. those who which to live their lives free from the dictates of Islamic extremism).
to those who are feeling optimistic can I suggest you read some history of the country perhaps even why the UK ( afterall it was Churchill advised by one cheesed off T E Lawrence that created the country) left.
good to see michael back and defending israel.
My question is what do Israeli arabs get in terms of water and what do Israelis get?
What do Arabs have to do to get certificates, identity checks etc and how do these conditions compare with what Israelis go through.
Israel at present is very much like the old deep south of the US ie democratic in name only but quite discriminatory in practice. Under Sharon it is more likely they will travel along the South African road ie legal discrimination and afterall this is what Ben gurion and the rest wanted in the first place.
Michael:
There may be people out there who are blinded by anti-Americanism, and there may even be a handful of Westerners who ‘took the view that the US basically deserved Sept 11’ (although I’ve never met one). But they are not to be found amongst the readers of this blog, at least as represented by the commenters. So isn’t rather a waste of energy to keep fulminating against such sentiments here?
On the other hand there are plenty of readers who opposed the war from the start or who now think it was a mistake. We think that the ten-thousand or so lives lost so far has been too high a price for what has been achieved in Iraq. Since you conclude otherwise, you should put your case forcefully of course. But it would make for more constructive debate if you were to stop insisting that we disagree with you only because of an irrational prejudice.
There may be people out there who are blinded by anti-Americanism, and there may even be a handful of Westerners who ‘took the view that the US basically deserved Sept 11’ (although I’ve never met one).
James,
It is clear that anti-Americanism is prevalent among academics, social activists and European elites and this greatly distorts their analysis. Last time I went to an academic get together I expressed this view and was met not with disagreement from those present but the usual long list of US wrongdoing or alleged wrongdoing –and try defending Israel and see where that gets one. In any case one does not need to listen to me but one can go to rational left wing commentators such as George Orwell and Arthur Koestler. I think many of the arguments they made about the biases of many left intellectuals and academics are just as pertinent now as they were in the cold war period.
On the large numbers of deaths in Iraq, yes I and other supporters of the liberation of the country greatly underestimated how stupid and ungrateful sections of the Iraqi population would be. I also underestimated how incompetent the US administrators would be including their failure to put in sufficient troops (but then again if Europe had not run down its miliary and relied on US protection things would also have been different). Nevertheless, Saddam has gone, so have the Taliban and the US stepped in to save Muslims in Kosovo from being massacred by Serbs. In doing this they deserve more credit than their critics.
Regarding their may be a handful of westerners comment. Have you seen the bookshelves recently – They are stocked with books by the likes of Moore, Pilger, Klein and Chomsky who certainly do claim the US got what it deserved on Sept 11. Even Amnesty International now spends more time criticising the US than the real nasties of the world. Which is not to say that Bush is not an idiot – he is-he just looks cleverer than his critics which is not saying much.
For once I am in partial agreement with MB – I am all for regime change. The sooner the Bush-Cheney junta and their pseudo-fascist brethren likes in this administration are booted out of Washington the safer we’ll all be.
Seriously, I find it remarkable that MB, like all on the far, far right, accuse those who have criticized genocidal US foreign policy as “anti-American”. Its such a simple smear, but seems designed to justify the atrocities committed in our name (by ‘our’ I mean the so-called benevolent democracies in the west that have been waging economic wars to justify the status quo). Of course this benevolence is a naked lie – not only has the US and its minions (e.g. UK) been slaughtering thousands in the name of ‘liberating Iraq’ (Falluja, Hilla, Sadr City, and many other cities have witness carnage on a grand scale) but this form of industrial state terrorism – for that is exactly what it is – has been responsible for the huge spike in individual and group terrorism worldwide.
So now MB says that “regime change” was a suitable pretext for invading Iraq, killing upwards of 30,000 civilians and 100,000 soldiers (mostly conscripts) and plunging the entire country into disarray? Why wasn’t this simple pretext put forward in the first place, in lieu of the serial lies we were told about WMD, links with Al Queda, and democracy? The answer is simple – because regime change, like a war of aggression, violates international law. “To wage a war of aggression” wrote the Nazi prosecutors at the Nuremberg trials “is the supreme international crime”.
Lastly, I also find it amusing the pervading myth that Iraq is “full of foreign fighters”. Several senior American military personnel have recently put the figure at 1,000 – or even less. What is happening in Iraq is a popular resistance. What’s ironic is that when G. H. W. Bush encouraged the Shia to ‘rise up’ against Saddam in 1991, and then abandoned them (fearing that a fundamentalist Islamic regime would fill the vacuum), these Shia were called “freedom fighters”, and their slaughter was condemned as genocide (at least recently anyway, because it has political leverage). Now that history is repeating itself, with the Shia and other groups rising up to evict their imperial occupiers, the media is referring to them as “insurgents”, “Saddam loyalists” and “terrorists”.
John, I’ve got an (overlong) comment over on Belle’s CT post arguing that despite those hopeful signs, we will actually see carnage in Fallujah in the next couple of months- full reasoning in my comment there. I would really, really love to be proved wrong about this.
Posted on CT before the US began the latest heavy round of bombing of Fallujah:
Fighting in cities is something that favours the defender much more than virtually any other kind of war, so long as you’ve got committed and trained infantry to defend with. From the descriptions of the Fallujah, there are plenty of veterans of Saddam’s wars there, and they fought pretty damned well against the US Marines this spring. On the other hand, the guerrillas in Ramadi folded pretty quickly in the face of US pressure recently. One desperately hopes that this news may be the prelude to a Ramadi-style collapse in Fallujah.
But on the evidence, I’m dubious: firstly, the senior echelons of the US military have shown very little capacity for learning from events in Iraq, and that goes double for the political leadership. Secondly, if even a fraction of the best gunmen from the various Ba’athist, nationalist and Islamicist factions stay and fight it out with the US troops in Fallujah, that will mean a hell of a hard fight, because, as noted, urban warfare favours the defender, and these guys have had plenty of time to prepare.
The US will prevail because of their greater firepower and control of the air, but using those two advantages will mean a lot of civilian casualties, unless there is a thorough evacuation of non-combatants beforehand. If I were a US general or politician, I would insist on any such evacuation as a prelude to an assault, but it’s likely to be blocked for several reasons: the guerrillas in Fallujah will likely not let civilians leave, as they will want them as cover; and the US military will be unwilling to give precise advance warning of a move into Fallujah.
I could be wrong and I really, really hope I am. But I would say that, notwithstanding this news, the chances are that we will see carnage in Fallujah before the end of the year.
On Insurgents in Iraq I note that clinton’s point man in the middle east whose name is Dennis someone is now suggesting the Insurgents number about 100,000 and are getting stronger and more sophisticated in their attacks.
HP, don’t stop your reading of Iraqi history with the early 1920s when the British handed over formal control. Keep reading about the success of dyarchy as implemented under Sir Lionel Curtis (complete by the late 1930s), the success in stopping the pro-Axis revolt and the siege of Habbaniyeh, and continuing progress until the Baghdad Pact was destabilised by US diplomacy following Suez (it appears Eden was absolutely correct in his descriptions of repercussions). After that it all went downhill, which is why my own family had to move on like other expatriates (so did our Jewish friends, who had been quite safe there in Iraq until the US unintentionally destabilised the region in the late ’50s – I remember their cultural penetration, including how it affected my own primary schooling).
The bizarre notion that Israel is democracy needs to be challenged. It is democratic inasmuch as rival groups of Zionists ,some even more extreme than others squabble over how best to further rob,kill and disposses the Palestinians who have been under attack for almost a century,since the whole Zionist project began The terrible daily assult on the Palestinian people we see nightly on our TV screens is just the lastest ,and most wicked part of the whole terrible story.. As to Iraq,no doubt the US,in its’ Vietnam mode now,will kill many innocent civilians in Falluja as its’ war crimes escalate in Iraq.If Israel is the worlds’ largest machine for producing anti-semitism,then the US military in Iraq is Osama Bin Laden best recruiting agent. Note too that the British now must send troops to Baghdad to ease the pressure on the US Army ,which in the light of todays’ news of a US troop mutiny in Iraq, says a great deal about the situation. As British casualties mount in Baghdad this will increase pressure on Blair,who,if today’s Guardian article is correct faces a British population now seething with loathing for both the US and its’ Israeli ally(or is it its’ master )Brian McKinlay
I’ve put up a new post on Israel/Palestine. Comments on this topic should be posted there. Meanwhile, if people have more to say about the Iraq situation, please carry on.
Oops, correction.
Sir Lionel Curtis was the ideologue/strategist behind dyarchy as a means of imperial evolution to dominion status via hegemony. Sir Reginald Coupland, however, was the tactician/administrator who implemented it/supervised its implementation in Iraq in the 1920s and ’30s.
If the US can’t run a fair election at home,how are they going to run a fair election in Iraq?