Iraq Parliament Elections

I got my question answered about the Iraq Election from the Baghdad Bureau of the At War, Notes from the Front Line blog on the New York Times.

Reader Q. and A. on the Iraq Elections
By ANTHONY SHADID

As the results from Iraq’s March 7 elections finally coalesce, our Baghdad correspondent Anthony Shadid is responding to readers’ questions about the election, its outcome, and the likely winners and losers in the complex negotiations that are certain to follow. Mr. Shadid joined The New York Times earlier this year after winning the Pulitzer Prize in 2004 for his Iraq coverage.

Q. Will the parties be able to use the number of seats they win in Kirkuk right away in negotiating for a coalition, since they are only provisional according to the Election Law? Will those Kirkuk seats be able to cast votes in Parliament before they are finally confirmed? Will this affect the Parliament’s vote for president, prime minister and speaker?
Noah
San Diego

A. All these are possible. My sense is that you won’t see any breakthrough – in ways good or bad – any time soon in Kirkuk. The Kurds, of course, could protest their showing in Kirkuk, but I there’s enough American engagement there right now to head off any conflict. That won’t be the case long term. My sense is that the election will solidify a balance of power that promotes a temporary status quo, with a pledge to negotiate long-term sovereignty in, say, seven years or so. On your question about the seats themselves, nothing is confirmed until the results are certified, so Kirkuk’s representation will await the seating of everyone else. The seats themselves will probably fall in line with larger coalitions that are gathered to name a prime minister. Kirkuk is a little different, since there is a provision to allow a challenge of the voter rolls, but in the end, I’m not sure that challenge will affect the final balance of the seats.

Egypt 'won't force Gazans back'

With the border wall knocked down between Gaza and Egypt by Hamas, I wonder if this is going to lead to the de-facto absorption of Gaza by Egypt. I have written about this in two earlier posts, here and here.

How long will Egypt allow unregulated crossings into their country? In the long term, Egypt is either going to have to rebuild the wall, put more troops on the border to control the flow or take over Gaza.

According to this article, Egypt 'won't force Gazans back', on the BBC website...

The BBC's Tim Franks in Rafah on the Gaza-Egypt border says it will be difficult for the Egyptians to reseal the border on their own, and Hamas has very little incentive to co-operate.

Palestinians have broken through the border before, in 2005, and it was quickly resealed with barbed wire, but reports say that on this occasion two-thirds of the border wall was destroyed.

I doubt Israel is going to back down on the blockade from their side of the fence which puts more pressure on Egypt to allow their fellow Muslims access to their country.

I personally think the Gazans would be better off as part of Egypt and Israel would be better off if Egypt (a country they have a peace treaty with) was responsible for the security in Gaza.

Egypt Doesn't Want to Control Gaza

In reference to my post on the 14th, I just read an interesting article about Israel wanting to hand Gaza off to Egypt.

Egypt Doesn't Want to Control Gaza

Israel may want Egypt to take responsibility for Palestinians in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip but Cairo is making it clear that it is not interested in running Palestinian affairs, an expert here said.

and...

Israel has been trying to draw Jordan and Egypt back to the way things used to be before 1967, when Jordan was responsible for the West Bank and Egypt for the Gaza Strip, Frisch said in a telephone interview.

The West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights came into Israeli hands as a result of the 1967 Six-Day War.

The call for dialogue between Fatah and Hamas was Mubarak's way of saying that Egypt will not take responsibility for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and that Egypt will not allow Israel to turn the Gaza Strip into an Egyptian problem, Frisch said.

I still think it would be better if Egypt took over Gaza again. Maybe Israel, the US and International Community could find some way to sweeten the pot for Egypt. Egypt would have a big hassle on their hands integrating Gaza back into their country, but maybe we would have peace in the Middle East between the Arabs and Israel in our lifetimes instead of never-ending negotiations trying to create a new state where it's inhabitants can't even agree on it's make-up.

I think the Gazans would be better off as well. If Egypt moved back in, they would no longer be cut off from the world in a little prison-like strip of land. Egypt could re-open Gaza's Air and Sea ports and the Gazans would have a free open border in the South for commerce and movement of their people. Egypt would have to come in hard with their own Army and Police in the beginning to establish there authority over militias, but I think they could handle it.

I think Jordan would have a much easier time integrating the West Bank because they already have a large integrated Palestinian population, even the Queen of Jordan is Palestinian. This would also give the West Bank free access to the Red Sea at Acaba for their goods.

Little to celebrate at the birth of 'Hamastan'

"Hamas flags flying in triumph over the Gaza Strip represent a historic blow to Palestinian national unity as well as an end to already slim hopes for any sort of meaningful peace process with Israel. Barring some dramatic reversal after the latest fighting - such as the improbable survival of the Hamas-Fatah coalition government - 1.4 million Palestinians in what is now being dubbed "Hamastan" will not only be physically cut off from their compatriots in the West Bank but will also be ruled by a movement that advocates armed resistance and is boycotted by Israel and the international community.

Neither side will be in a position to conduct negotiations with Israel or anyone else, killing off any hopes of urgently needed momentum to the current stalemate. "It leaves the Palestinians fragmented and very weak," said a senior Arab diplomat. Iran and Syria, which support Hamas, have boosted their influence."

Guardian - Little to celebrate at the birth of 'Hamastan'

Now that the Palestinians seemed to have split into two groups, it should just stay that way. Instead of trying endless failing negotiations to create a Palestinian State, just give the Gaza Strip back to Egypt and give the West Bank back to Jordan. Let the surrounding Arab nations try to police their own.

For Israel, this would be an easier land-for-peace scenario because they already have peace treaties with both Egypt and Jordan and it would be easier to negotiate the final borders with two established governments.

I doubt Jordan and Egypt would want to take them back though. Why take on the the trouble when it is easier to leave it in other hands?

Baghdad Security Plan

I have been a bit frustrated by news reports on suicide bombs in Baghdad recently and Mohammad at Iraq the Model expressed my views on this exactly.

If we look at how the media handles the situation we'll find something like this almost everywhere;

Dozens killed, scores wounded in attacks suggest failure of security measures…

It's as if the speaker here wants to only emphasize the defect in security measures in a way that honestly angers and disgusts me.
When shall they realize, if ever, that we are dealing with brutal crimes against humanity, a genocide against the people of Iraq? Why don't people talk about the cruelty of the crimes and expose the obvious goals of the terrorists behind the crimes?

Yes, why doesn't the media? I wish I could believe that they are reporting on the defects so that security can be improved but instead it seems that they are just trying to sell the idea that providing security is impossible so we might as well just give up. Don't we know that Iraq is about to erupt into full-blown Civil War at any moment? You would think reporters would be embarrassed of writing articles entitled, "Is Iraq on the brink of Civil War?" every few months? They have only been prematurely predicting it for the last few years.

Mohammad asks tough questions in another section of his post.

Where are the media when terrorists use chlorine poisonous gas, acids, and ball bearings to kill and hurt more and more civilians in utter disregard to all written and unwritten laws, ethics and values?
I understand it's the duty of the media to practice scrutiny over the work of governments but isn't it equally their duty to expose criminals and their evil deeds?

It's frustrating to see the media turn a blind eye to the nature of the crimes and open fire on an honest endeavor to restore peace to a bleeding nation. I'm sure the terrorists are pleased by the coverage. Why not, when their crimes are being portrayed as successful breakthroughs against the efforts of Iraq and America it's likely motivating them to keep up the killing.

I bolded what I think are Mohammad's most important points. I know reporters are normally cynics but why do they seem to give the terrorists the benefit of the doubt while harshly criticizing any attempt to improve the situation in Iraq.

Every exploded bomb inflicted on Iraqi citizens is reported as a great victory for the terrorists while every raided car bomb factory is ignored or treated as an expose on how the informant was probably tortured like in the recent New York Times article entitled, 3 Suspects Talk After Iraqi Soldiers Do Dirty Work.

Iraq law to lift ban on Baathists

According to the BBC, the Iraqi government is going to introduce to it's parliament a new law to reform the de-Baathification procedures that occurred after Saddam's removal.

The Iraqi government plans to bring in a new law to allow former members of ex-president Saddam Hussein's Baath party to return to official posts.

The law creates a three-month period for the ex-members to be challenged, after which they will be immune from prosecution over the Saddam era.

If ratified, it will replace the de-Baathification programme that was created to eject key party members.

I think this is good news if it passes. Coupled with the new Iraqi Oil Law that will also be presented to the Iraqi Parliament in the next month or so, it will really help to bring in the moderate Sunnis to cooperate with the government. If Iraq is going to return to peace and stay a single country, the different ethnic groups are going to have to trust each other and settle their disputes politically instead of with car bombs and death squads.

With some of the Sunni Tribes in the Anbar province already starting to fight the Al Qaeda groups in their cities, knowing that they will get a fair share of oil revenue and their jobs and pensions back will help their motivation.

The last big political hurdle if those two laws are passed, is reforms to the Constitution that all sides can agree too. I think that will be the hardest of the three. They have set up committees to explore it but I think it will take awhile before anything happens.

Don't Panic

New York Times Article

The Bush administration, under intense pressure to deal with mounting violence in Iraq and rising domestic criticism of the war there, said today that it was working “collaboratively” with Iraqi leaders to find better ways forward and had issued them no ultimatums.

But amid a ferment of speculation that the administration was considering new approaches, losing patience with the government in Baghdad and contemplating a series of deadlines for progress, one high-ranking Iraqi urged the coalition’s political leaders to avoid “panic.”

In London, Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih of Iraq said that Prime Minister Tony Blair had assured him that Britain would “hold its nerve” in Iraq. But Mr. Salih also warned against British and American decision-makers giving way to “panic.”

“I’m obviously concerned about the debate both in the United States and in Europe, I have to say, because there is too much of the pessimistic tone to this debate, even I would say in certain circles a defeatist tone,” he said, according to news agencies.

Effect of Anti-War Americans

Obviously people have the right to express any opinion they want, but I wish sometimes people would analyze what the effect of their opinion is on the world. I am one who thinks that the anti-war movement in the USA is giving the insurgents in Iraq the moral support to fight American soldiers & attack the democratically elected government. It also gives the insurgents the impression that if they can just increase the anti-war opinion in America a bit more with a few more car-bombs, America will give up on Iraq and leave.

I wanted to show part of a recent post by an Iraqi of the impact of anti-war opinion in the USA on Iraq.

What do you expect the attitude of the common Iraqi to be when he watches, hears or reads about the fairly wide anti-war movement in the west? When there are Americans who say America is wrong or say the war isn't for a just cause and when Americans say the US presence in Iraq is bad, and when that is the only side of the image the media focuses on, it becomes an invitation for Iraqis to resist this presence and there's no doubt many will answer the invitation whether with words or violent action since they will get the impression that they're legitimately resisting something bad.

We have little in our culture about compromise or working-out-our-differences-peacefully. Radical solutions often seem more tempting to the ordinary, less educated people. When everyone, and I mean everyone, keeps telling them America is their enemy, the common reaction would certainly involve violent means of expression...yes, that's our common way in showing our disagreement with others in this part of the world. It sucks, it's backward and it's savage but it's the fact and it will not change overnight, such changes happen slowly.

I think that if more people who are against the war were aware of this negative impact, they might change their minds or find a better way of expressing themselves. If my side of the argument was that the American military should pull out of Iraq and it was supported by insurgents who try to achieve the same result by blowing up bombs in marketplaces. I would take a second look at my opinion.

Intelligence Report on Iraq

I thought this was a smart opinion piece in "The Australian" newspaper on the recently declassified intelligence document on Iraq. Here are some selected quotes that I found to be right on the money.

Bush constantly emphasises that the spread of democratic processes, pluralism and support for moderate forces will eventually work against the terrorists. So does the NIE, not just once but in several places.

It says democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations during the next five years will drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives. There is a risk that such reforms could be destabilising in the transition period, but that's the case whenever countries move towards democracy.

I agree, people need to look at the long-term benefits, not just the short-term problems.

For those who say the war in Iraq has spread terrorism, surely the October 2001 invasion of the terrorists' home base, Afghanistan, had already done that. The 2002 bombings in Bali happened before Iraq, as did the attack on the USS Cole in 2000 and many other terrorist incidents.

I know these facts are quoted by Bush and John Howard, yet they are still facts and the logic that flows from them remains logical. Jihadism took off way before Iraq and there is no reason to think it needed Iraq to explode.

There is another, deeper, problem here. The NIE states: "We assess that the Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists." Well, let's assume that's correct. My question is: And? What follows from that assessment? Israel is also a cause celebre for jihadists. Does that mean we should abandon it? If the answer is: "No, that's a ridiculous proposition", then it is logically equally ridiculous in the case of Iraq.

I bolded the most important part.

But, still, doesn't this NIE assessment contradict Bush when he says US policy and actions have made the world safer from terrorism? Not necessarily. The US homeland has not been attacked despite obvious efforts by al-Qa'ida to do so.

Furthermore, you have to consider the consequences if no such action had been taken, if there had been no cause celebre such as the attack on Afghanistan and the attack on Iraq. Non-action has its own consequences. There is a strong case to be made, and certainly one I support, that non-action is exactly what caused the original growth and strength of jihadism in the lead-up to 9/11. Would the world have been safer if we had continued to avoid retaliatory action? I don't think so.

Bin Laden took strength from our non-action, calling the USA a paper tiger who was afraid to take casualties. It emboldened him and his terrorist allies to attack the USA many times, climaxing on 9-11.

Here is the link to the article if you want to read the whole thing.

Word for the Day - Fitnah

I came across an interesting new Arabic word in the blog of an Iraqi I follow.

Fitnah, is one of these words that I find difficult to translate succinctly; perhaps there is an English synonym unknown to me. Fitnah is sawing discord that results in conflict and violent antagonism. But in Arabic the word has much stronger connotation. There is a verse in the holy Koran that contains the following expression: “Fitnah is worse than murder”. What is happening in the land of the two rivers right now is one of the worst Fitnahs in our long eventful history. We have known in the past, persecution, intimidation and murder; but that was always organized and perpetrated by the state and its repressive organs. We have never seen though, neighbor turning against neighbor and friend upon his erstwhile friend, even kin against kin; not in our recent history at any rate.

I have bolded the section of one his paragraphs that I find very important.

The vision of the enemy is to engulf the country in a quagmire of medieval bestiality that would completely abort all efforts of reconciliation and utterly thwart and bring down the elected government; and encouraged by noises coming out of the U.S. they hope to disgust and confuse the Americans out of Iraq with the help of the antiwar camp in the West, and some foolish councilors in America who think they know better when in fact, they understand nothing. With this main obstacle of the U.S. military removed, they can then unleash their full offensive and bring in all the "Jihadis" from all over the world and together with the Saddamists and local aroused Sunni tribesmen, they imagine they can overrun the country and massacre everybody and establish their Taliban style Emirate or perhaps Caliphate or whatever their sick minds are hallucinating.

California Environmental Laws

This is a very informative article in the New York Times about the new law on reducing greenhouse emissions by 25% and other environmental laws here in California.

This is the state that in the early 1970s jump-started the worldwide adoption of catalytic converters, the devices that neutralize most smog-forming chemicals emitted by tailpipes. This is the state whose per capita energy consumption has been almost flat for 30 years, even as per capita consumption has risen 50 percent nationally.

I think this is a good idea. California has always been the leader in environmental issues in the US and with the clout as the most populous state in the country, industry has to follow the new guidelines if they want to be in the California Market. This makes California a good test case for this country for this type of regulation to see if it is effective in decreasing greenhouse gases without hurting the economy.

Perhaps the most ambitious measure California has undertaken is the newly mandated 25 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. If we do it right, Mr. Schwarzenegger said at a news conference, it can be an example for the rest of the world and the rest of the country to see. If not, the concept could be discredited.

If California of all places can't pull it off than no one can. I think this new law has a side effect of helping the reputation of the US after we pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol. After all action speaks louder than signed treaties.

BBC Comments on Afghanistan

They was a wide range of comments on NATO's request for more troops for Afghanistan in the Have Your Say on the BBC website. Some were smart and some were very stupid.

Of course other nations should do more. I understand and agree with the opposition to participation in Iraq, but Iraq is not Afghanistan. It is ironic, because, during the Cold War, some Europeans questioned whether or not the US would really defend Europe and accept the casualties of a Soviet invasion. Now, in a much less costly conflict, some of these same nations are not meeting their commitments that they had agreed under the NATO founding document. Afghanistan is not Iraq!

He is right in that the war in Afghanistan was a direct response to the Taliban's hosting of the terrorist group who attacked the US on 9/11. Whether you agree that the war in Iraq was necessary or not, the Taliban's Afghanistan was already a failed state that allowed terrorists free reign to attack the rest of the world from it's territory.

The current Afghan government was elected with a higher election turnout than most western democracies and we can't leave them to armed insurgents who would love to retake power before this democracy's army and police force are rebuilt.

Anyway, all the recent fighting against the Taliban is because the Afghan Army and NATO Forces are moving into previous areas that they didn't previously control. The Taliban are not making some big comeback in Afghanistan, they are just fighting for these lawless areas where they had previously been hiding out.

-----

NO. Take our troops out of there. Stop interfering with people who are different to you.

For centuries, white people have invaded other cultures, forcing our ideas onto them about what is 'civilised'. It happened with the Plain's Indians, the aboriginies, etc.

Stop interfering. Let them change on their own if they want to.

I guess this person is saying that the when the Taliban took power, they didn't force their ideas on Afghanistan. The Taliban blew up ancient monuments in Bamian, forced Afghan women from the workplace and schools, outlawed traditional Afghan sports, songs and traditions that went against their strict version of Islam. If anything, removing the Taliban was the best way to allow the Afghans to be able to practice traditional activities freely instead of those being forced upon them by religious police.

-----

In the EU surrounded by the Human Rights legislation it is easily forgotten the suffering of women under the Taliban. Since the invasion women teachers & doctors have been able to resume their careers and schoolgirls to rerun to their education. Can the free world afford to turn its back on Afghanistan and return to the days where multiple hangings at the city football stadium were a regular occurences. Ask yourselves that from the comfort of your living room?

This is an excellent response to all the commenters who want to pull out of Afghanistan because it is getting a little tough.

-----

It's all about oil; rather, it's all about blood for oil.
Think about that every time you fill your car.

This guy is so enamored of inaccurate anti-war slogans that he can't even keep track of the difference between Afghanistan and Iraq.

-----

Why don't the West just buy the opium harvest in Afghanistan each year and burn it? Surely that way everyone would be happy (except the Wests drug dealers of course).

My first response is great idea, why don't they? If the military can buy weapons back from militants, why not drugs. As a short term solution to wean the farmers away from the Taliban in the south and take opium off the market, it would probably work great. But it would probably need to have some kind of program where the farmers would have to guarantee to use the money to switch over to new crops in a year or so. One problem is you would probably get an influx of opportunists growing opium just for the cash.

Jimmy Carter on Blair

Jimmy Carter is another who mistakenly thinks that Blair is just Bush's poodle in a story on the BBC.

But Mr Carter told Newsnight: "I have been really disappointed in the apparent subservience of the British government's policies related to many of the serious mistakes that have been originated in Washington."

Mr Carter, an opponent of the US-led war in Iraq, added: "No matter what kind of radical or ill-advised policy was proposed from the White House, it seems to me that almost automatically the government of Great Britain would adopt the same policy without exerting its influence.

Actually, I think his comment about the British government is pretty insulting. He is not just saying he disagrees with it's policies which is perfectly normal, but insinuates that the British government doesn't even agree with it's own stance and is too weak to do anything about it.

Why do people keep confusing agreement on the issues as subservience? If anything, watching many of Blair's answers on Prime Minister's Questions over the years shows that he is more passionate and eloquent on the subject of democracy in the Middle East than even Bush.

For me personally, it was Blair's arguments, not Bush's, for invading Iraq that convinced me that it was the right thing to do.

Bush, a great President?

The foreign editor, Greg Sheridan, of The Australian newspaper gives his opinion on George Bush's legacy against terrorism in this article.

Some key sections:

LET me be the first to offer a bold, revisionist view. George W. Bush may well be judged, ultimately, a great president, especially in foreign policy, especially in the war on terror. This consensus won't form for 20 or perhaps 30 years.

Bush understands much better than his critics the war on terror and the way the world works more broadly. Above all, he has had the courage to confront reality. The key planks of the Bush doctrine - regarding terrorists not as criminals but as a force at war with the US and its allies; holding state sponsors of terror responsible for the actions of their terrorist surrogates; seeing the root of terror in the profoundly dysfunctional political culture of the Middle East and fighting the ideas behind terror with an agenda of democracy and human rights; reserving the right to take pre-emptive military action against threats that could involve weapons of mass destruction - all these will be maintained by Bush's presidential successors.

One of Bush's key decisions, and this was truly the insight of the much derided neo-conservatives, was that the status quo ante in the Middle East did not produce stability but produced growing terrorism. I believe Bush was right to take action against Iraq and Australia was right to join this action, in part because everyone believed that Iraq possessed WMDs, but also because Saddam was the most prolific state murderer of the second half of the 20th century and threatened his neighbours. He also supported much international terrorism and rejoiced in the al-Qa'ida attacks of 9/11. The danger of his co-operating in WMDs with terrorists was great.

None of this is to diminish the Bush mistakes: the fatal disunity between the Pentagon, the CIA and the State Department in the first administration, the lack of post-conflict planning and many other errors in Iraq.

But any strategy by any president in the Middle East would look messy. Much of the judgment on Bush is absurdly unrealistic in its failure to acknowledge that the enemy gets a say in what the battlefield looks like. The war on terror is an epic struggle. Any epic struggle you care to think of - the US Civil War, World War II, the Cold War - involved many mistakes and many lost battles. All war, including the war on terror, is very, very messy. It is not conducted in bow ties by well-mannered air forces, shaking hands first and then meeting for well-ordered battles off shore and far up in the sky.

I agree with his article about Bush's foreign policy. I was about give my take on it but this person's comment about it on The Australian's website captures my thoughts exactly.

Sheridan is right again; he will be roundly lashed for this, but he is right. Bush’s biggest weakness has been his inability to communicate with the broader international community. However, he is a transformational president for transformational times. He will be remembered, more likely than not, fondly, for linking political freedom and development to security outcomes. Iraq is a disaster, but it will fade, and what will be left will be a new security architecture, designed by so-called neo-cons, that will produce a more prosperous and secure world.Well done, Dubya, and don’t listen to those short-sighted nay-sayers on the left and the right.

Annan on Iraq

Interesting comments here from UN Secretary General Kofi Annan on the Middle East in the New York Times today.

Most leaders in the Middle East believe the United States-led invasion of Iraq and its consequences have been catastrophic for the region, Secretary General Kofi Annan said Wednesday.

Honestly, most of the leaders I spoke to felt that the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath has been a real disaster for them, Mr. Annan said. They believe it has destabilized the region.

I am not surprised. Authoritarian regimes upset that a free democracy has been set up right in their neighborhood, what a shock. I guess an Iraq that was under the fist of a brutal dictator, Saddam, who attacked his neighboring countries and gassed his own people was not considered a disaster to these guys. In fact, destabilizing the dictatorships in a moribund region by introducing democracy was one of the main reasons for the Iraqi invasion.

He said the officials he met were of two minds about whether the Americans should leave Iraq. Many leaders felt the Americans should stay until the situation improves and that, having created the problem, they cannot walk away, he said.

Then, you have another school of thought, particularly in Iran, that believes that the presence of the U.S. is a problem and that the U.S. should leave, he said. He added that the Iranians had offered to help the Americans leave, but, asked to elaborate, said, I didn't get into details as to how they intend to help.

At least some of them are smart enough to realize that if America leaves before the new elected Iraqi government can secure it's own country, a civil war could erupt. The American military is necessary to try and keep the peace between the different Iraqi groups as they learn how to share power in a non-violent way. The necessary removal of Saddam released a lot of pent up anger in Iraq that needs to vent in a controlled environment.

MSNBC - Marines facing Murder Charges

MSNBC - Marines could be charged with Murder

I am not surprised it happened. American soldiers have committed atrocities in practically every war they have fought in. War is a stressful place and all military/political leaders can due is try to contain it and punish those responsible.

The thing is that the American military is held to an almost impossibly perfect standard, and while that is is a worthy goal, it is idealistic and unreasonable. The Iraqi insurgency commits mass killings every other day of innocents, but if it isn't Americans doing the killings, no one seems to bats an eyelash. Practically every car bomb is reported as a failure of the US Military to prevent it, instead of the blame being put where it belongs, on the shoulders of the insurgents.

I thought this guy at The Times gave a reasonable analysis.

The challenges in Iraq for these young men and women are overwhelming. In the past three years more than half a million American troops have been rotated through the country. They have been fighting a suicidal counter-insurgency in a battle for which they are ill-equipped and ill-trained. While barbarity cannot ever be condoned, it beggars belief to think that in these conditions, with these numbers, outrages will never occur.

You could put half a million Buddhist monks into the mantrap that is Anbar province and I guarantee you’d get an atrocity or two. With most of the painstaking nation building and counter-terrorism efforts of these Americans virtually unnoticed by a critical world, a signal victory such as the al-Zarqawi killing is critical.

How the US responds to the mistakes of its military is the most important thing. The American military punishes its soldiers who commit war crimes, which is the opposite of the behavior of the insurgents who are glorified for attacking civilians on purpose.

Iraq: Al-Zarqawi killed

Maybe bigger and more important news is that on the same day the Iraqi Prime Minister announced the death of Al-Zarqawi, the last three cabinet ministers, the Interior, Defense and National Security were appointed and received parliament approval. The three most important and the hardest to fill. The constitutionally elected Iraqi government is now complete.

With Al-Zarqawi out of the way, I think the new Iraqi government will have an easier job of negotiating with the Sunni insurgent groups, but we'll see.

Iraq Civil War?

Here is an article posted today (from Al-Jazeera, no less) explaining the reasons why Iraq won't descend into a civil war.

Many Iraqis dismiss the possibility of civil war in their country saying the Iraqi tribal, ethnic, religious and sectarian mosaic is interconnected through blood and marriage.

Despite widespread speculation at home and abroad that Iraq is on the verge of civil war, couples from different backgrounds have been defying the theory by marriage.

Young men and women – as was the case before the US-led invasion three years ago - from different ethnic, religious and sectarian backgrounds still flock to the civil courts every morning for marriage contracts.

Personally, I think without the American presence, violence between Shiite militias, Sunni insurgents groups and Kurdish Peshmergas would escalate and there would be more overt fighting instead of low-level bombings and assassinations. The presence of the American Army keeps the leaders at the political negotiating table and acts as the backbone of support and training for the Iraqi Army and Police which is slowly over time growing stronger than and also absorbing the militias.

If the Americans left before the 4 year Iraqi unity government is in place and before the Iraqi Security forces can stand on their own feet then everything could fall apart like a house of cards and a true all-out civil war would start. I think the Iraqi inter-marriages are a glue that helps hold the country together as long the Americans help keep the violence at a "relatively" low-level between the sectarian groups.

You have to allow the cement to set before you remove the supporting props.

Here is in interesting comment from Iraq the Model.

What caught my attention recently was a statement made by the national security advisor in the interim government Mowafaq al-Rubai'I and an response to this statement from Dhafir al-Aani the spokesman of the Accord Front.

Al-Rubai'i was speaking enthusiastically about a plan to coordinate the withdrawal of MNF from Iraq with the leaders of the coalition. He said they're working on a plan to significantly reduce the number of foreign soldiers in the course of 2006 and said he expected all foreign troops to leave Iraq by the end of 2007 since "Iraqi security forces will be ready by then".

Al-Aani didn't like this statement and apparently feels that getting Iraqi troops trained and equipped isn't the main thing we need to do before the MNF can leave. He said that "we don't want the MNF to start leaving until all militias are disbanded…".

Here I see a great change in positions from what we used to see in the past two years. And especially on the Sunni side. None of the Shia leaders-except for the Sadr-were really interested in seeing the MNF leave soon and had been only talking about asking the MNF to leave because of pressures from the Sadrists and the Sunni Arabs.

But now we hear the same government happily announce that ending the presence of foreign troops in Iraq is near at the same time that Sunni Arab politicians began to change their tone and started to view the American military presence as a balancing factor!

What I see here is that Arab Sunni leaders have rearranged their priorities; except for a year or two after 2003 the Sunni never considered America their greatest enemy. Their greatest enemy had always been Iran and whoever allies with her while America ranked 2nd or 3rd (that's if not viewed as an ally) and I think this is how they view things right now.