Thomas Ricks, author of Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, is definitely not optimistic about Iraq’s chances now that the deadline has arrived for American troops to leave the cities. Basically, he assumes that a power vacuum will be created into which will rush the same toxic brew of militias, inter- and intrasectarian and ethnic fighting we witnessed in 2006-2007.
My worry is that I don’t see the political situation as being much different than it has in the past. Nothing much has changed from the previous rush to failures. As readers of this blog have seen me say before: the surge succeeded tactically but failed strategically. That is, as planned, it created a breathing space in which a political breakthrough might occur. But Iraqi leaders, for whatever reason, didn’t take advantage of that space, and no breakthrough occurred. All the basic issues that faced Iraq before the surge are still hanging out there: How to share oil revenue? What is the power relationship between Shia, Sunni and Kurd? Who holds power inside the Shiite community? What is the role of Iran, the biggest winner in this war so far? And will Iraq have a strong central government or be a loose confederation? And what happens when all the refugees outside the country and those displaced inside it, who I think are majority Sunni, try to go back to their old houses, now largely occupied by Shiites and protected by Shiite militias?
Maybe a better series of questions would revolve around how long it will take Iraq to work its way through these problems and how badly these problems will reflect on the job the Americans have done there. One school of thought is that Iraq will move through a period of deep disequilibrium, but they will reach a balance more quickly with the Americans out of sight than they would with another year of the status quo. Another school of thought is that the training and equipment and stability being provided by America’s security-presence in the cities is working but hasn’t reached a sufficient point yet. More time might not be a guarantee of anything, but pulling back now puts what has been gained at unnecessary risk.
I don’t know which school of thought is more accurate, to be honest. And I don’t think I would even trust our best experts to know either. I do know that the Iraqis are celebrating today and taking pride in the notion that Iraq’s cities will be policed solely by Iraqis. They want us to leave. They have their fears, too, but it appears that a nearly unanimous majority are willing to take their chances. And that is the best sign I know of for guiding our policy.
.
(New York Times) – A partnership of BP and the China National Petroleum Corporation, or C.N.P.C., won the first contract awarded, in the latest indication of Chinese interest in Iraq, a country that has until recently seemed to be firmly in the American sphere of influence for natural resources.
BP-led consortium including China’s CNPC accepted a contract to develop the biggest oilfield, the 17-billion barrel Rumaila in the south, but only after an Exxon Mobil-led group rejected the government’s proposed fee.
In another sign of China’s interest in Iraqi oil fields, Sinopec, China’s refining giant, offered $7.22 billion last week to buy Addax Petroleum, a Swiss-Canadian company with operations in the Kurdistan region of Iraq and in West Africa.
Sinopec’s rival, the China National Petroleum Corporation, started drilling in the spring in the Ahdab oil field in southeastern Iraq. China’s three main oil companies — Sinopec, C.N.P.C. and the China National Offshore Oil Corporation — all bid in various combinations with Western multinationals on Tuesday in Baghdad, although further negotiations remain to iron out the details of each of their contracts.
It is common in the oil industry for initial auction results to be followed by weeks of dickering over details. But the bidding in Baghdad on Tuesday was particularly contentious, as multinationals demanded that the Iraqi government allow them to keep more of the revenue from each extra barrel of oil they pump.
…
China has $2 trillion in foreign exchange reserves, mostly invested in dollar-denominated bonds, and has been looking for ways to diversify gradually into other assets like commodities.
BP, CNPC Wins Iraq’s Rumaila Oil Field Contract – Oil Min
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."> who I think are majority Sunni
An ambiguous, misleading phrase. Sunni comprise 32-40%, Shi’a 60-65%, depending on source.
Perhaps he means Sunni are the majority of the displaced.
In any case the focus on the tactical success as making a space for reconciliation, etc. was not just a failure, but enabled ethnic cleansing, by other reports, a phrase missing from his article, missing from the comments on his site.
he definitely is saying that he is of the opinion that the majority of the displaced are Sunnis.
I don’t know what the ethno-sectarian breakdown of the refugees is, and frankly, sect is not a subject of discussion among the refugees and refugees assistant organizations I have worked with, except that it does come up how incredibly focused Americans are on sect and ethnicity – or rather on three of the many sects and ethnicities of Iraq.
Editorial by Iraqi Interior Minister in today’s Washington Post.
.
Over the last few weeks a Sunni satellite television station based out of the Gulf has begun attacking Shiites during its broadcasts raising new fears about sectarian tensions.
The channel, named ‘Al-Khalijiyah‘, has quickly become notorious for its attacks on Shiite Muslims and their religious authorities. In Najaf, the holy Shiite city, local residents say the channel has become a source of provocation.
“If I have ten nuclear bombs, I would use one against Christians and Jews, and the remaining nine against Shiites,” proclaimed a recent slogan. Another declared: “Oh God… humiliate the Shiites and those who support them; count them all, without skipping any of them, and kill them all.”
According to 39 year old Kathim, a resident of Najaf, “this provocative rhetoric is an unprecedented media call for violence against Shiites and it will not bring any good to the people of Iraq and neighbouring countries.”
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Al Khalijiya (which, awkwardly, but accurately translated, means “The Gulfite”, or more precisely the female Gulfite – the Arabic word for channel is feminine), is very much a Gulf TV channel, and is not connected to Iraq. There is a lot of bigotry against Shi`a Islam in parts of the Gulf, so it is not surprising to hear some Khaliji idiot talking like that. I hope no Iraqis will take it as an excuse to keep their problems going.
“More time might not be a guarantee of anything, but pulling back now puts what has been gained at unnecessary risk.”
here’s what i have to say about that second school of thought
Those “gains” haven’t come close to what existed BEFORE we invaded and smashed the whole thing.
“what has been gained” always needs to be read in the context that those “gains” wouldn’t have even been necessary if we hadn’t decapitated and demolished the government that already existed in iraq.
oh yes, we got rid of Saddam’s rape rooms. And replaced them with our own.
Everytime i hear someone talk about those “gains’ makes me think of an abusive parent talking about the gains their brain-damaged child is making, when the parent is responsible for the brain damage to begin with.
what we’ve done, and what will inevitably play out, is to set the stage for massive bloodshed. THAT is what will happen. And the victor will be Saddam Hussein with a different name, probably more closely allied with the Iranians.
I don’t know that it is inevitable, but it is obviously something everyone should fear.
I don’t think it is inevitable at all, nor do I think it is something everyone should fear. I think it is something people should be prepared for as one of a number of possibilities. It is at least equally likely that things will get no worse, or will begin to quiet down very soon if not right away.
I think people do not realize how much of the violence in Iraq is committed by the occupation forces, or targeted at the occupation forces and their Iraqi proxies. Sometimes when I listen to the news I don’t know whether to laugh or throw something. This morning on a report about the “pull out” they spoke of great concern that once the Americans left the cities Iraqis would not be able to provide for their own security since, after all, just yesterday there was an “insurgent” attack on American troops in Baghdad that injured several Iraqis. Okaaaaay, and this militates against the U.S. withdrawal exactly how? Do those people actually think about what they are writing and/or saying?
There can be an argument that sometimes war and other catastrophes enable a new start for the afflicted countries. Maybe Europe needed WWII to clean out its encrusted ruling clots and discover new perspectives.
Unfortunately for Iraq, it’s hard to see where there’s any plus to what the US did to it. There was no war as we’ve come to know it, no definable sides, no winners, no treaty. No lessons for any of the actors. Saddam got his head ripped off, but the issues that put him in power appear unchanged and the benefits that his bloody dictatorship provided in education, secularization, and distribution of oil wealth seem at risk. Maybe there will be gains, but if so they will come because of some extraordinary genius among the Iraqi people and their culture, and despite the senseless mutilation wrought by the US and its patsies.
You are right. There is no plus. Iraqis will rebuild their country, but it will take decades if not generations to heal and mend society, and it might never be the same again, and not in a good way.
Just a small correction. Saddam did not secularize Iraq. Iraq has always been a secular state, and the society was relatively pluralistic even before statehood. This is the way very diverse societies such as Iraq’s survive and advance.
Just remember, the guy who talked the PNAC Platoon into Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo is none other than Ahmad Chalabi, Iranian operative. (Seriously. Just Google “chalabi iran” for more info.)
This is Iran’s revenge for the US’ backing Iraq (with the goal of keeping both sides pinned down shooting at each other) during the Iran-Iraq War.
“Maybe a better series of questions would revolve around how long it will take Iraq to work its way through these problems…“
That is exactly the correct question.
“…and how badly these problems will reflect on the job the Americans have done there.“
That this is Americans’ concern is about as deeply ironic as it gets considering that the “job” Americans have done there is the direct cause of the problems Americans are so sure Iraqis cannot solve without more of their “help”.
But then everything is always about how Americans look in the end, isn’t it? America, get over yourself!
“One school of thought is that Iraq will move through a period of deep disequilibrium, but they will reach a balance more quickly with the Americans out of sight than they would with another year of the status quo.“
That is the thinking of the overwhelming majority of people who 1) actually know something real about Iraq, 2) have as their first priority Iraq and Iraqis and not America’s image or self-image, and 3) do not have a vested interest in the United States’ continued presence and support.
Another school of thought is that the training and equipment and stability being provided by America’s security-presence in the cities is working but hasn’t reached a sufficient point yet.“
It’s just beyond ironic for the U.S. to claim that it has brought stability to Iraq, even after The Surge(TM).
“More time might not be a guarantee of anything, but pulling back now puts what has been gained at unnecessary risk.“
The longer the U.S. stays around the longer they delay Iraq’s recovery from the hell they brought on there.