Warning: Iraq Is Asserting Her Statehood
in SPITE of attempts to prevent it
By haystack Posted in Foreign Affairs — Comments (20) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
There is almost NO media coverage yet this morning regarding Iraq's meeting with her neighbors about regional issues, and I am not really surprised.
After all, there is still plenty to discuss in the media regarding the failures in this war, the treatment of Soldiers when they come back home, and the Democrat plan to withdraw troops through any means at their disposal. It matters little what good news may come from Iraq itself. In fact, good news just mucks up the plan.
I am no fan of the US negotiating with Syria OR Iran regarding issues within Iraq, if for no other reason than my belief that these two countries are part and parcel to blame for the problems Iraq continues to struggle with. But, thankfully, such things are not up to me. They ARE up to Maliki and his government, and as long as we remain in-country, we are part of HIS support staff. HE wants a parlay, and he wants us to sit with him at the table.
In fact, this quote says it best:
David Satterfield, a US state department adviser on Iraq, said: "If we are approached over orange juice by the Syrians or the Iranians to discuss an Iraq-related issue that is germane to these topics - how to secure a peaceful, democratic Iraq - we are not going to walk away."
Mohammed, from
I personally think that most of those meeting tomorrow will show up just to pretend they are willing to help while common sense suggests they don't—the reality that was born after the change in Iraq represented by toppling a dictatorship and the attempt to build a new state on basis of democracy, rule of law and protecting minority rights is raising deep concerns among some of our neighbors. And perhaps watching the former dictator walk to the gallows for a crime he committed twenty five years ago made them think about how similar their history is to Saddam's and fear for their own heads and wonder what kind of concessions they'd have to make to keep their heads on their shoulders.
Mohammed just may be ON to something here.
More below the fold...
Al Jazeera says:
The primary purpose of the meeting, which has ample time scheduled for delegates to meet informally, is to pave the way for a later high-level meeting that may be held next month, but officials say the event will give an opportunity to air a wide range of concerns, including US accusations of weapons smuggling from Iran and Arab demands for greater political power for Iraq's Sunnis.
Iran has been a critic of the US military presence in Iraq, with its concerns growing after American forces detained two Iranian security agents at the compound of a major Shia political bloc in Baghdad in December.
Six other Iranians were arrested on January 11 at an Iranian liaison office in northern Iraq, with the US military saying they were members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard. A charge Tehran again denies.
As well as its concerns over Iran, the US are expected to air claims that Syria allows Sunni fighters to cross its border into Iraq, and that weapon shipments from Iran are reaching Shia militias.
The US and Iran have shared interests in Iraq. Iran is keen for the US to crackdown on Sunni attacks on Iraq's Shia population, while the US requires Iranian help to control Iraq's Iranian-aligned Shia militias.
"Both Iran and the United States realise they are stuck together on Iraq," said Alireza Nourizadeh, chief researcher at the London-based Center for Arab-Iranian Studies. "So perhaps they see this meeting as a way to open some doors for bilateral talks."
I think the "stuck together" analogy is a good one, and lends itself to asking the follow-on question. When will Iran and Syria decide it's time to change course?
President Bush had this to say:
But George Bush, the US president, said on Friday during meetings in Brazil, that the message to Syria and Iran will not change at the Baghdad conference.
"We will defend ourselves and the people in Iraq from weapons being shipped in that cause harm; that we will protect ourselves and help the Iraqi people protect themselves against those who would murder the innocent to achieve political objectives," Bush said.
Clearly Iran has enjoyed much increased power and influence in the region, and their President has gone to great lengths to tout his increased stature around the Arab (and Latin) world. There is a cut-off point, however, beyond which his accrued "capital" might reach "overdrawn" status, and his checks start bouncing...so to speak.
As Mohammed suggests,
What's been going on since 2003 is that most of the neighbors want Iraq to fail and to do that they saw that feeding a proxy war using local surrogates and foreign terrorists was the best strategy to block the tide of change off their doors. In this manner the slower progress is being made in Iraq the longer their regimes can last, so why would anyone think those little tyrants like to see a democratic federal Iraq run by a constitution approved by the people!?
and he is right of course. Why WOULD they want this thing to end, if it has brought so much improved status in the power-struggle-wars?
Well, at some point, that which makes these men rich may no longer enable them to have such luxuries as inciting or sustaining the civil wars of others. Consider this perspective:
The Arab League said this week that it would push for changes in Iraq's constitution to give more political power to Iraq's Sunnis, who are outnumbered nearly three-to-one by the Shia population, while Turkish officials say they fear oil riches for the Kurds could stir separatist sentiments that would spill over into Kurdish areas in Turkey.
While it may not ALL be about oil flows and revenues from same, these things are certainly on everyone's minds. The Arab world has grown far too accustomed to their money to part with it now, or risk as much, by letting Iran and Syria continue unabated in this venture.
"All the delegates are united by one thing: the fear of a prolonged civil war in Iraq. It would hurt them each in different ways," said Abdel-Moneim Said, director of Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo. "Fear is the one thing bringing them all together."
Whatever got us here, and for whatever varying motivations we remain, one thing is clear: the US refuses to budge until Iraq is secure.
Pay attention to that Congress. The surge you hate, and the Troops you insist we withdraw immediately, are playing a role in forcing these guys to rethink their positions. You may get votes, but you risk ruining a thing almost finished.
We will not resolve the thousands year-old complexities within the Arab and Muslim world, but we can at LEAST afford Iraqis the opportunity to be equal players on an "evened" playing field.
As Mohammed points out,
The Israeli-Palestinian issue offers a clear example of the effect of regional interference in the region; the players are almost exactly the same and their policy is pretty much the same as well in both cases.
The conflict is almost sixty years old and the Arab regimes still wouldn't accept Israel's existence. It is wrong to think that this only about disputed rights in land because the conflict is largely due to the nature of Israel's political system and the way of living which differ a lot from those in Arab countries.
Interference from Arab and Muslim countries has always been to keep the conflict alive if not to further complicate it, and the Palestinians themselves weakened their position and lost much by accepting involvement from other Arabs. Even the peace treaties that some had signed with Israel do not seem to reflect sincere interest in long-lasting peace.
Those regimes will keep on meddling in Iraq and the Palestinian territory and they will continue to fund and arm groups of extremists and do anything they can to kill any seeds of democracy.
Like we said many times before, a simple reading of the history of the region tells us to not trust the words of dictators and clerics, for words are inexpensive and clerics and dictators have plenty of words they are willing to use to buy time.
However I do think the Baghdad conference will be significant in another aspect and this would be stressing the reality that Iraq is a state equal to her neighbors and that in Baghdad there is an elected government representative of its people.
Insisting that the conference be in Baghdad and not somewhere else kind of sends a message that Iraq is not anyone's backyard and the government is not a bunch of dissidents living in exile and our neighbors will have to recognize this reality.
It is a sad fact that most of our Shia politicians often blame Syria and Saudi Arabia for violence in the country while remaining silent about Iran and the opposite is true when it comes to most Sunni politicians, so finally I hope that whoever's representing Baghdad in tomorrow's meeting will deal with all of the abusive neighbors equally.
Hope remains, progress might be made, and at the very least, a future continues to appear bright...in spite of every effort here in the Congress and the Media to suggest or inflict otherwise.
« So Tell Me, Mr. Immelt, Why Are You Killing American Servicemen? — Comments (30) | Modernizing China's Financial System — Comments (12) »
Warning: Iraq Is Asserting Her Statehood 20 Comments (0 topical, 20 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
is that the media CAN'T cover this because of what it means...and yet the President's unwillingness to agree to the ISG suggestions got so much play...even more than the contents of the report itself.
To cover this now, however, would mean they would have to admit the surge, changes in ROE, backroom haggling over changing Maliki's political strategies, etc would appear to be working favorably for us and Iraq...now, we just can't have that can we?
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
posting this story. I posted a message to IAF's 'my vow' diary linking to this analysis by Mohammed. The Democrats with the help of MSM are going to try and steer the news cycle toward them with all of the political games they are playing out. They are playing politics with lives of American soldiers, and their games are based on focus groups that tell them what can they do that will least hurt their chances in '08 Presidential campaign
while appeasing the radical left. We can't let them control the news cycle because there are more important things taking place.
The "money quote" from Mohammed is:
"Insisting that the conference be in Baghdad and not somewhere else kind of sends a message that Iraq is not anyone's backyard and the government is not a bunch of dissidents living in exile and our neighbors will have to recognize this reality."
highly recommended read
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
ITM is the most decent and fair Iraqi perspective I have found. I have talked with Omar many times, and if we could only get the Dems to be half as pragmatic about Iraq, we might just get this thing done.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
What worries me is the longevity of this charade. When I read Mohammed’s article yesterday it began to bring visions of countries such as Lebanon.
The Iranians and Syrians could potentially change tactics, move temporarily away from violence and create conditions for us to draw down troops. Certainly, the latter is everyone’s desire since it provides for eventual Iraqi autonomy; albeit for different reasons.
Both Iran and Syria could continue activities which inculcate their proxies into various governmental positions. Those operatives would be a cancer which never allows complete democratic processes to be realized, or permits backsliding at the appropriate time. Should they (Iran and Syria) be able to maintain that posture, it would be a significant threat to the long term goal of regional and global stability.
Tempering this is an odd duo; the growing sense of democracy within Iraq itself and the seeming unquenchable need of outsiders to perpetrate violence. Granted some of that violence is settling old scores between various groups; however, it is fueled by capabilities and ideologies that are often not indigenous. While violence can subjugate a population, the long term effects are destructive. But Iran and Syria under the current regimes can not help their proliferation of violence as a means of displaying power. It is therefore doubtful they will abandon it; to their peril.
The growing sense of democracy is an intoxicating feeling to a country with a strong sense of self and thirst for freedom created by a long dictatorial drought. Anyone studying the history of this region would understand that if a strong Iraqi identity can be proliferated, it is our greatest hope for regional peace and societal change. That is one reason why I felt proposals of three autonomous regions were so destructive and somewhat ignorant; they overtly discounted shifting demographical dynamics and nascent, slow growth of Iraqi pride.
Overall, this is a complex situation with many potential outcomes. However, it is certain that pulling out troops or setting artificial, inflexible, opportunistic deadlines which do not consider actual events on the ground is the absolute worst alternative. That would not only destroy the eventual positive effects of a democratic Iraq, but would also keep us further involved in the region for years and make this country less safe.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
... we're aiming for in making Iraq a target. The whole idea was to create a viral liberty that would reshape the region. I think the "neocons" were proved wrong in their assumption that the whole region was at a tipping point, but that doesn't mean that the anticipated outcome will never happen.
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
I think the "neocons" were proved wrong in their assumption that the whole region was at a tipping point
I don't think the miscalculation was in supposing that the region was ripe for change, but in expectation that the US would be immediatelly embraced. Unfortunately, past American policy, such as our support for regime change in Iraq by Pres Bush 41, then the LACK of support as Saddam murdered those very people we encouraged to revolt, has given the people of the region reason to distrust our resolve.
By the same token, our Democrat insistence on "cut and run" leaving Iraq to bloody conflict, provides evidence that their distrust was well taken.
The Iranian regime is hated by most of the Iranian people, and the long-hoped-for rebellion might well be coming soon. I return of Iran to a more secular, and possibly even democratic form of government would provide the Domino Theory a much needed boost.
Wouldn't it be a shame of the "neo-cons" were proven right?
This analysis fails on several levels. First of all “neocon’s are not setting the policy. If you research the initial policies they were made by DoS and the President. That designation, whether deliberate or not is somewhat derogatory.
In its essence the idea was enabling Iraqi’s to elect their own government; something they had not been able to do for some time. Secondarily it is to proliferate those freedoms and a holistic democratic process in Iraq; something that will absolutely take years.
This process is certainly at the very beginning and it would therefore be extremely early to judge the regional impact. In fact, this is what the terrorists, et al are worried about and fight against each day. The more autonomy and freedom the Iraqi’s receive it becomes less likely they will bow to a destructive, radical ideology.
Imagine a functional democracy in Iraq side by side with Syria and Iran. Do you think that type of freedom exists in either of those countries? Hardly, and the more their populace sees this process move forward, the more concerned Syria and Iran become. Their intervention in Iraq stretches beyond ideology; it involves their long term governmental longevity. The picture is not a pleasant one for any of their plans and a reason they fight so hard against change.
Overall, it is far too early to judge the impact, something that has been said by the President and those guiding this policy since the beginning.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
I'm just saying that a vision of a Middle East that, as you say, was able to hold free elections and break the bounds of the growing Islamist movement -- with all of the world-changing ramifications of that -- was very much on the minds of people like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, David Frum, Richard Perle, and others throughout the nineties. After 9/11, I think this thinking was "at the table" (but not the controlling influence) when the Bush brain trust was considering the Iraq invasion. If you read An End to Evil, Perle and Frum lay it out pretty clearly. Their hypothesis was that they were revolutionary, counter-Islamist forces just below the surface in Middle East societies, but that to bring about change, those forces would need outside help getting the Islamist despots out of the way.
That feeling, given to the "neocons" by people in the know in the region, was what led to all of the "greeted as liberators" and "sweets and flowers" talk.
One problem, as pointed out already, was trusting the US to actually follow through after our 1991 abandonment, and subsequent slaughter, of opposition forces. Another, which explains why the expected tipping of neighbor Iran hasn't occurred, is simple apathy. In Iran, the lights are on, people are fed, and life is fairly normal -- difficult circumstances under which to foment unrest.
My thought has always been that Bush, Cheney, et al, saw Iraq as a shortcut to winning the GWOT. They might still be right about that, but clearly they didn't think it would be this hard.
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
My issue with Perle, Frum and Wolfowitz was that while correct on some of the larger concepts necessary to achieve change, they were wrong about how it would be accomplished and the longevity necessary.
Issues such as Perle trying to tell Schwarzkopf how many troops it would take for an invasion or Wolfowitz opining wrongly about insurgencies and factional fighting reveals a certain posture. That posture is marked by a somewhat antiseptic, parochial view of what would be necessary to achieve the goal. Frankly, that is best left to people with better operational and historical perspective, something I believe they failed to give adequate weight. There appears to be some truth to that assertion as they have spent a significant time explaining (or criticizing) specific actions and policies.
Secondarily, Iran is much more complex and thus the resistance is not overwhelmingly due to apathy. There are significant theocratic controlling forces at work amongst the population which result in a severe limitation of governmental change. If you look at the rise of Ahmadinejad it is easy to identify forces which keep reform and further freedom from proliferating. However, the recent standoff over nuclear issues also provides another perspective on internal political machinations; many are not happy with this confrontation because it could spark growing unrest and cause it to spiral into flagrant confrontation, something the theocracy does not want.
Overall, Iraq is still the best chance for change in the region. There is much invested in this process and thus more a reason to work for successful completion; irrespective of the time necessary. Leaving, either by pulling out the troops or not keeping a commitment to the region would be akin to your 1991 reference, something I think we all can agree was a substantial mistake. Unfortunately, the Democrat Party can not get beyond the political perspective and make what would otherwise be a wise, intellectual decision. If pursued, that path would make this country eminently more unsafe.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
...came from an Iranian friend of mine who goes there regularly. I was asking him about why, when there are so many American-educated, middle-class folks there, and a government that probably isn't in lockstep with the will of the people, is there no movement to overthrow the current regime?
He answered that with the complex and tribal nature of the country, most people living in most places are at least happy enough with the state of affairs that they wouldn't risk their lives to change it. So maybe apathy isn't the best word. Maybe it has more to do with not having a reason to rebel that's compelling enough to die for.
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
Signs of progress and a positive out come (democracy) worries the dictators in the region? Worries the Dems too? Democrats, killers and dictators all in the same camp. No surprise here.
...isn't Rifaat Assad still living in France?
Talk to Iran? How nuts!
...in the region, Iraq included, voluntarily holding a regional meeting, and our running to Syria and Iran and begging them to make the violence stop.
...I, for one, have no problem with "talking" to Iran -- be it in the context of a regional summit or something else. What I have a problem with is negotiating or bargaining with them.
There is absolutely nothing that government wants that we should be willing to cede a single inch on.
I think we should be more than happy to bargain with them in the same way that Tom Hagen bargained with Jack Woltz.
The problem with the ISG wasn't that they wanted us to talk to Iran and Syria -- it's that they wanted us to make concessions to Iran and Syria (including a concession that Israel would give the Golan Heights back to Syria...which is just ballsy, an American commission saying such a thing).
If they had said "Talk to Iran and tell them that they're either going to suspend their nuclear program or find some Trident missiles coming this way," I'd be doing nothing but praising them.
address from 3 am EST when i wake up at 7 am tellin them why their mullah homes are smoking and that we have only temporarily seized the oil fields.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Just posted this at Right Truth with a link back to you. Interesting.
http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2007/03/what_went_on_be.html
how about we just launch air raids on Iran and Syria and take out their ability to make weapons for the terrorists in Iraq? I mean we have evidence of that, terrorists killed or captured had weapons made in Iran and Syria. So let us just bomb factories in Iran and Syria, and bring in economic sanctions against them.
That will help Iraq become a nationstate and teach Iran and Syria not to mess with it.
Great post haystack--somehow all of this escaped the attention of the NYTimes editorial board today--not what they want to hear, I suppose.
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld