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.

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.