If you bought the full program, with all the bios and stats for the major and minor players in the Iraqi fiasco, then none of the following analyses are likely to surprise you. Predicting outcomes is largely a numbers racket, and the numbers in Iraq aren't hard to fathom--obviously some coalition of Shia parties will control the new Parliament, and Sunni participation will lag (although at least one report tonight paints a picture of encouragement). The rest of the story is in who is being backed by whom, and how that dynamic will be impacted by the rather formal statement of who will be empowered by the election and who will be marginalized.
Much of the below is cribbed from Juan Cole, which for the purposes of this conflict is largely like saying you got some materials from the Library of Congress. (The Hardball interviews are my contribution; a benefit of free workout time at the office. Chris Matthews has a strangely sycophantic streak about himself when it comes to Bush, but he consistently brings on guests who trash the operation, so watching it is better than Wolf at 4pm.) First and foremost, something you probably did NOT know even if you got the program; it's still not something that has received any serious media play: the major winners in this week's election want us out and are OK with shooting at us to help make the decision easier:
According to the reports, the "Pact of Honor" that was adopted consists of 14 points, among which the following demands and agreements are the most important (the sentences in quotation marks are translated from the document as quoted in the reports):
• "withdrawal of the occupiers and setting of an objective timetable for their withdrawal from Iraq"; "elimination of all the consequences of their presence, including any bases for them in the country, while working seriously for the building of [Iraqi] security institutions and military forces within a defined schedule";
• suppression of the legal immunity of occupation troops, a demand coming with the condemnation of their practices against civilians and their breach of human rights;
• categorical rejection of the establishment of any relations with Israel;
• "resistance is a legitimate right of all peoples, but terrorism does not represent legitimate resistance"; "we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing, abducting and expulsion aimed at innocent citizens for sectarian reasons";
• "to activate the de-Ba'athification law and to consider that the Ba'ath party is a terrorist organization for all the tyranny it brought on the oppressed sons of Iraq, and to speed up the trial of overthrown president Saddam Hussein and the pillars of his regime";
• "to postpone the implementation of the disputed principle of federalism and to respect the people's opinion about it."
The conference established a committee that is responsible for following up the implementation of the resolutions and reporting on it after six months.
If anything, the conference was a testimony to the increasing importance of the Sadrist current. As for the actual implementation of its resolutions, it will greatly depend on the pressure that the same current will be able to exert after the forthcoming election, if the United Iraqi Alliance -- of which the Sadrists are a major pillar on a par with SCIRI -- succeeds in getting a commanding position in the next National Assembly."
Ah, the Sadrists. Certainly no fundamentalism there. Remember that of the two, Sistani is the "quietist" (Koran not necessarily the literal guide for politics), while Sadr is the traditionalist (Koran is your law text). Remember back when he was wanted for murder? I know it's the Moonie Times, but it's true! We kind of well, let all that slide if he agreed to lay low for a while. And he has, waiting patiently until December 16th. And here's where the ugliness starts. Here's Bob Baer, CIA expert and inspiration for Syriana, on Sadr's strategy:
BAER: I think, Chris, we are going to see worse problems after the election, because the Shia are going to say we are the legitimate rulers, we are taking the oil, we‘re taking the power and oh, by the way, you Americans, thanks a lot, now leave. And it‘s—you‘re going to have a radical government ...
MATTHEWS: Well, that would be interesting. Do you really believe that the Shia would feel themselves confident enough to hold the place once we leave?
BAER: With Iran‘s backing, why not? Muqtada al-Sadr was put in by Hezbollah. He‘s been told to back off until after the 15th. I think pretty well the best prediction after the 15th, he is going to say all right, thank you very much.
MATTHEWS: I‘ve never heard this before. You believe, Bob Baer, based upon your knowledge, that the government they elect in Iraq and we supervise next Thursday will have enough self confidence to say we can leave?
BAER: I think they will. And I think their plan will be—is to go into Ramadi and Fallujah and take care of business.
"Take care of business." I don't think he means they'll set up a tax-abated economic development zone. How will they exert that power? With the intelligence and security apparatus of the Badr Brigade, a longtime partner/acolyte of the Iranian paramilitary service. It is these forces that have quieted down southern areas and even parts of Baghdad; not only are they probably the most badass Iraqis short of the Kurdish peshmerga, they are stragetic in their methods. Their control of the area is the price they seek for making things look politically quiet for the Americans.
Via Cole we get a really sharp history and analysis of the Badr, and how they are another primary set of 'businessmen' ready to TCB. But what I found most interesting was the rather pernicious allegation that the "horrified revealment" of US-backed Iraqi security abuses of Sunni detainees was actually engineered by the US. Recognizing that a disaffected Sunni could really mess things up long term, the idea is that exposing the torture of Badrites et al would pump up the ballot box in Sunni areas. The US government, cynically exploiting the torture they claim they know nothing about for political gain? Can't be.
Believe it. Matthews' other guest that workout Tuesday was Michael Ware, TIME's Baghdad correspondent. He didn't reference the timing of the torture revelations, but did make it clear that the US was wary of the Shia landslide and wanted to try to pump up the Sunni any way possible:
WARE: Well, there has been considerable Sunni outreach, particularly by the U.S. mission here, trying to contact Sunni community leaders, tribal leaders, sheiks, the opinion makers, to try and get them to bring their people to participate in this process.
America, to some agree, went to bat for the Sunnis in the constitutional process. Yet by in large, it was to very little avail. The people who hold the ranks of power kept a tight hold on those ranks.
Strangely, what we‘re seeing now is an enormous shift, an evolution in U.S. strategy. They‘ve always had engagement with the Sunni, even with the insurgents. We‘re seeing that ramped up. The U.S. mission here has recognized that the war cannot be won militarily in the time available, that is being given it by the American
public. So they‘re looking for a political solution, they‘re looking for their allies. What are they doing? They‘re bringing back the new Baath party. The new Baath, not the Baath of Saddam, but a Baath as military intelligence said, “expresses Sunni nationalism.”MATTHEWS: Will it work? Can we bring together Sunni nationalism and Shia nationalism to form a new coalition? A new government? A new deal?
WARE: Listen. Politically there a ripe middle ground here in Iraq that‘s waiting to be captured. Right now, those who are benefiting from the system, as it stands, are the extremists on both ends.
Hey, that sounds kind of hopeful! Ware does say that the US has appeared to figure out which horse to back, better late than never. Maybe this will shake itself out shortly after the election, and we can start leaving in gradually increasing numbers. But ultimately he too shares the opinions of the rest:
WARE: Well, put it this way. I‘m certainly—I‘ll bet the house that American troops cannot leave this country any time soon. The ones who are winning from this war are America‘s enemies, Iran and al Qaeda. They‘re the ones who are getting stronger, not weaker.
Something to look forward to. {cough} Hey, you want something affirmative? Here's an affirmative, answer-the-tough-questions advocacy for withdrawal sooner than later. Read the responses, and arm yourself for the next conversant who says we can't just leave...
--TJ
Comments