More Progress in Iraq

[rikzilla]

U.S. Forces Give Iraqis Full Control Of Najaf
Move Is Seen as Step Toward Bigger Pullout


NAJAF, Iraq, Sept. 6 -- The U.S. military pulled hundreds of troops out of the southern city of Najaf on Tuesday, transferring security duties to Iraqi forces and sticking to a schedule that the United States hopes will allow the withdrawal of tens of thousands of its forces by early spring. ... Other cities in the heavily Shiite south, and in the Kurdish north, are likely to be next.

The Washington Post

Alot of people here have expressed the opinion that if the Iraqi insurgency was not losing, it was automatically winning. But the flip side of that seems to make much more sense; if the insurgency is not winning it is losing.

It has failed to stop the elections, and has failed to thwart a representative government from forming. It may have had ideas about driving US forces from Najaf; but now what chance have they got in driving Iraqi security forces from Najaf? This process will be repeated all over Iraq. Eventually it will aquire a momentum which will be nearly impossible to reverse. What legitimacy will MoveOn and Ms. Sheehan's "freedom fighters" have then?

-z

 

[CapelDodger]

The Kurds have been looking after themselves for a good while, and Najaf is Shia heartland territory. Grasping for straws, I'm afraid.

The relationship that develops/has developed between Iraqi forces and Shia militias in Najaf and Shia areas generally will be interesting to watch. And entirely outside US influence, I suspect.

In the Sunni, insurgent-rich areas the Iraqi forces are in a completely different environment. Many are Shias from out-of-state, and the Sunnis among them have families. If they reach an accomodation with the insurgents it will have to involve them confining themselves to barracks and pre-arranged patrols while the insurgents run things. Which would hardly be a success for US policy.

If the Shia/Kurd dominated central government defeats the insurgency and imposes itself on the Sunnis, that conflict will be a civil war by any definition. The prevention of which is US policy.

All in all, it doesn't look good. Which is not to say it can't be presented as good. Like democracy in Egypt. Roll on, Wave of Freedom.

 

[WildCat]

The Kurds have been looking after themselves for a good while, and Najaf is Shia heartland territory. Grasping for straws, I'm afraid.

The relationship that develops/has developed between Iraqi forces and Shia militias in Najaf and Shia areas generally will be interesting to watch. And entirely outside US influence, I suspect.

In the Sunni, insurgent-rich areas the Iraqi forces are in a completely different environment. Many are Shias from out-of-state, and the Sunnis among them have families. If they reach an accomodation with the insurgents it will have to involve them confining themselves to barracks and pre-arranged patrols while the insurgents run things. Which would hardly be a success for US policy.

If the Shia/Kurd dominated central government defeats the insurgency and imposes itself on the Sunnis, that conflict will be a civil war by any definition. The prevention of which is US policy.

All in all, it doesn't look good. Which is not to say it can't be presented as good. Like democracy in Egypt. Roll on, Wave of Freedom.

Actually, CD, there's been quite a bit of progress in the Sunni areas, especially in Anbar. Many of the Sunni tribes are cooperating w/ the coalition and Iraqi gov't, and in many areas there is open warfare between Sunni tribes and al Qaeda. As much as many Sunni dislike the Shia and the US, they're also realizing there is no future w/ al Qaeda. The press doesn't seem to like reporting on these developments it seems, Bill Roggio's blog does a good job of collating the various news reports and providing his analysis.

Right now, there is action in Tal Afar west of Mosul and al Qaim on the Euphrates River near Syria. The US is becoming quite adept at forming alliances w/ local Sunni tribes, who are providing intelligence.

Also, for a look at what it's like at the platoon level of combat, I highly recommend reading Michael Yon's blog. You'll find what the troops are really up to in Iraq. From reading most press accounts in Iraq, written by reporters who never leave the Green Zone, you'd think all we're doing there is driving down roads waiting for the next IED to explode. Read those blogs and you may learn much more than you knew, I sure have.

 

[Skeptic]

The Kurds have been looking after themselves for a good while

Well, not exactly. Saddam gassed and butchered them, didn't he? Until of course the imperialistic American intervention in the sovereignity of Iraq forced him to stop that sort of thing after the first gulf war.

 

[CapelDodger]

WildCat : Reaching an accomodation with Sunni tribes is a double-edged weapon. Is law-and-order enforced on a tribal basis really the kind of "democracy" US policy is aimed at? I'm not dissing it per se, that's a separate subject, but it sounds like mission apparently accomplished.

I've long advocated accomodation - a deal deal - with the Sunnis, which could expunge the Islamists in short-order. The Ba'athists were always hard on that type, and their experience in community monitoring is hard to rival. I'm not surprised the guys on the ground are taking account of the local realities, whatever policy is blown-off above their heads. But the recent constitutional farrago suggests that a high-level deal had not yet been negotiated.

I can't see what's wrong with ceding Anbar and the other western, Sunni provinces to Jordan and Syria. They'd hate it, but since when have the locals got to draw the maps?

 

[CapelDodger]

The Kurds have been looking after themselves for a good while

Well, not exactly. Saddam gassed and butchered them, didn't he? Until of course the imperialistic American intervention in the sovereignity of Iraq forced him to stop that sort of thing after the first gulf war.

Back in the 70's the US backed the Kurdish resistance against Baghdad because Iraq was close to the Soviets. When the Iraqi regime turned off the Soviets (reneging on debts in the process) and on to the US, the CIA promptly shopped the Kurdish resistance to Baghdad. Kissinger days. After Saddam gassed Halabjah, it remained, as far as US statements and policy were concerned, the "alleged" gassing of Halabjah (ditto the Hurd-Rifkin Axis in the UK) until the day after the invasion of Kuwait. At which point the "alleged" modifier was dropped.

The Kurds have established a reasonable, and popularly supported, self-government since then. There have been problems, this is the sort of place where politics and weaponry are intimately linked, but they were resolved without direct US intervention.

I can't see what's wrong with carving off Kurdish Turkey and creating a Kurdish state to irritate the Iranians and Syrians with. The Turks might well kick and squeal, but since when have the locals got to draw the maps?

 

[Ziggurat]

I can't see what's wrong with ceding Anbar and the other western, Sunni provinces to Jordan and Syria.

What makes you think either country would WANT that wasteland and all the problems it contains?

 

[Ziggurat]

I can't see what's wrong with carving off Kurdish Turkey and creating a Kurdish state to irritate the Iranians and Syrians with. The Turks might well kick and squeal, but since when have the locals got to draw the maps?

WHAT???

You'd be willing to go to war with another member of NATO?

Does the idea of an alliance mean ANYTHING to you?

Damn, man, if you thought our invasion of Iraq was a mess, what would make you want to turn against an ally of the US, which hasn't been militarily crippled, which isn't a pariah state on the world stage, and whose government DOES enjoy popular support? And what makes you think we could possibly pull off such a hair-brained scheme without problems orders of magnitude larger than we already face?

Do you actually understand the consequences of something like that, or do you simply not care because there's no way in hell we'd do it so it doesn't matter?

 

[WildCat]

WildCat : Reaching an accomodation with Sunni tribes is a double-edged weapon. Is law-and-order enforced on a tribal basis really the kind of "democracy" US policy is aimed at? I'm not dissing it per se, that's a separate subject, but it sounds like mission apparently accomplished.

I've long advocated accomodation - a deal deal - with the Sunnis, which could expunge the Islamists in short-order. The Ba'athists were always hard on that type, and their experience in community monitoring is hard to rival. I'm not surprised the guys on the ground are taking account of the local realities, whatever policy is blown-off above their heads. But the recent constitutional farrago suggests that a high-level deal had not yet been negotiated.

I can't see what's wrong with ceding Anbar and the other western, Sunni provinces to Jordan and Syria. They'd hate it, but since when have the locals got to draw the maps?

Obviously, there are a lot of obstacles for democracy in Iraq. If the Sunni reject the Constitution, they will be forced to draw up a different one. But it's far better to have them settle differences at the ballot box than w/ bullets and IED's.

Iraqi democracy will be different than American, just as American democracy is much different than European democracies. All democracies reflect the local culture.

As for Anbar becoming part of Syria or Jordan, it will never happen. The Iraqi Sunni want part of Iraq's oil revenue, which is why federalism is such a divisive issue w/ them. Syria and Jordan have no oil revenue to offer, and it's doubtful they'd want Anbar anyway.

 

[CapelDodger]

WildCat : If the Sunnis draw up a different Constitution, they'll have to fight for it, and this time they won't have a European power as sponsor, which is what they had in the British after the Great War when Iraq was carved out of the Eastern Ottoman Empire. Before that, Sunnis dominated in the region because the Ottomans were Sunni converts. Oil didn't even feature until the 40's - Iran was the place for oil. Sunnis also dominated the higher reaches of the economy, and still do when oil is discounted. The proverbial carpet-merchant is a Sunni, the carpet-makers were day-labour Shia.

If Anbar were ceded to Jordan, the Jordanians could refuse but that would leave the Anbarians stateless. Driven off by the Jordanians, driven off by the people with the oil. The world would regard them as Jordanians, so they'd be between a load of sand and a dry place. Hey, waddya gonna do? How much you gonna care when there are bigger things going on?

 

[CapelDodger]

WHAT???

You'd be willing to go to war with another member of NATO?

Not personally, I'm thinking big picture here. Let's not make an icon of NATO. I was born in a client signatory, remember; we may have different perspectives.

Does the idea of an alliance mean ANYTHING to you?

Personally, yes, but I do wonder, what have the Turks ever done for us? NATO has North Atlantic written all over it, so what does it have to do with sorting out the Middle East sufficiently for us not to have to care about it? Carve Turkey up between the Greeks, Arabs and Kurds and simplify so many things.

Damn, man, if you thought our invasion of Iraq was a mess, what would make you want to turn against an ally of the US, which hasn't been militarily crippled, which isn't a pariah state on the world stage, and whose government DOES enjoy popular support? And what makes you think we could possibly pull off such a hair-brained scheme without problems orders of magnitude larger than we already face?

I don't think the invasion of Iraq was a mess, in fact I was well impressed. Shock and Awe was awesome; it missed out on the shock by alerting CNN et al 45mins in advance, but none the worse for that. I think the whole operation was remarkable, given the constraints. The military were given a job, and did it.

It's all the other stuff I take issue with.

Do you actually understand the consequences of something like that, or do you simply not care because there's no way in hell we'd do it so it doesn't matter?

Do you understand the consequences of carving up the Eastern Ottoman Empire in the way it was done? Is that now to be regarded as a given, like the distribution of oil, water and sand? Nobody could have precisely predicted the current situation 80 years ago, but conflict of some sort was inevitable. The Turks were never happy with their borders - they were promised Mosul - Iraq was one British Mandate, TransJordan became half of another one, Syria and Lebanon were defined by the French within their own Mandate, and nowadays all these borders are regarded as sacrosanct. Except Israel's borders; they're allowed to remain fuzzy, for some reason.

If a nettle has to be grasped, just grasp it. Legend is true : if you don't hesitate, it won't sting.