Two stories on troop reductions
First, MSNBC has a story up about Iraqi President Maliki's settlement offer with the insurgents. A large part of this article looks at the negotiating point around a firm US withdrawal timetable. (I think the Sunday Times piece was more comprehensive.)
Second, the NYTimes has a piece up (dated tomorrow?) which reports classified briefings where Gen. Casey tentatively projects a token 7,000 troop drawdown this September, followed by a larger reduction in 2007.
I think it all hinges on the Maliki settlement offer. If he can somehow convince the major Sunni groups to put down their guns, and the Shia militias to give up their activities, it might all work out. But that's a pretty damn big "if."
The negotiations of oil revenue distribution and the role of Islam in the government and courts, for example, haven't even been broached yet, and these armed groups, and their threat of violence, are the only real negotiating leverage available to minority groups.
After all, why are the mainstream Sunnis fighting? To insure that they aren't overrun by a Shia dominated government. Is that more likely or less likely if they put down their guns?
Or the minority Shia militias, why are they fighting? To establish their place in the political order and influence the actions of the government.
The violence in Iraq is an outgrowth of unresolved structural problems in the country, and as far as I can tell, this offer by Maliki attempts to address some of the agitants towards violence, but doesn't address the reasons for the conflict.
Without a credible threat of a crackdown by the Iraqi government or US forces, there seems to be every incentive for the mainstream armed groups to continue as they are. The fact that Maliki is offering concessions means that they are achieving their goals.
So, it's a pretty damn big "if."
Second, the NYTimes has a piece up (dated tomorrow?) which reports classified briefings where Gen. Casey tentatively projects a token 7,000 troop drawdown this September, followed by a larger reduction in 2007.
If executed, the plan could have considerable political significance. The first reductions would take place before this fall's Congressional elections, while even bigger cuts might come before the 2008 presidential election.
I think it all hinges on the Maliki settlement offer. If he can somehow convince the major Sunni groups to put down their guns, and the Shia militias to give up their activities, it might all work out. But that's a pretty damn big "if."
The negotiations of oil revenue distribution and the role of Islam in the government and courts, for example, haven't even been broached yet, and these armed groups, and their threat of violence, are the only real negotiating leverage available to minority groups.
After all, why are the mainstream Sunnis fighting? To insure that they aren't overrun by a Shia dominated government. Is that more likely or less likely if they put down their guns?
Or the minority Shia militias, why are they fighting? To establish their place in the political order and influence the actions of the government.
The violence in Iraq is an outgrowth of unresolved structural problems in the country, and as far as I can tell, this offer by Maliki attempts to address some of the agitants towards violence, but doesn't address the reasons for the conflict.
Without a credible threat of a crackdown by the Iraqi government or US forces, there seems to be every incentive for the mainstream armed groups to continue as they are. The fact that Maliki is offering concessions means that they are achieving their goals.
So, it's a pretty damn big "if."
posted by mikevotes at
1:35 PM
5 Comments:
What about the other if--whether Bush would accept this settlement. It looks like a big loser for Haliburton.
By
NYC Educator, at 4:45 PM
Don't know. The US politics of the deal are pretty weird. Amnesty and release for 14,000 who were arrested by the US on suspicion of attacking them. And Iraq withdrawal timetable just days after Bush and the Republicans said such a thing is totally wrong.
And, Haliburton will probably do just fine. They won't make the same no bid profits, but the reconstruction in Iraq will still be needed, and through kickbacks and US go'vt pressure, they'll pick up their share.
Would the US allow a European company (German/French) to come in after all this? Or a Russian, or Chinese?
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 6:26 PM
Good point. I knew Khalilzad was in, but as much as I read, I hadn't seen anything on a UN timetable previous to this little surge so I wasn't sure exactly what it consisted of. We'll find out tomorrow.
Just to complicate things, let me add that Khalilzad has gone off the official playbook before. He was pulled back at one point for passing messages through some low level Iranian representatives when the US was trying to say no negotiations over Iran's nukes. They were contacts he had utilized when he was in Afghanistan.
I think your second points are dead on. This is a massive political minefield for the administration, and all the problems you mention assume that the deal works. How does he look if he signs off on the deal and it flops? Or is that why they're using Maliki as the official negotiating front, so Bush doesn't "negotiate with terrorists," and if it fails nothing gets on him.
Hmmm... I think you're right. I do need to digest this a bit more. I was taking it all at too much face value.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 9:26 PM
One more bit. According to Aljazeera there is no UN schedule for withdrawal, just a schedule for training security forces.
""There is no finite and UN-approved timeline for the withdrawal of foreign troops, but there is a timeline to accomplish the readiness of Iraqi security forces to take over security in the country," Othman said."
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/5172A610-5C55-4A84-8F75-59E7FD862B45.htm
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 9:56 PM
Wow. You're all over this.
HUGE Thanks.
There had been a couple vague reports that the Iraqi Gov't had been talking with the Sunni insurgency, and there had been reports of a possible amnesty, but the Times of London was the first to report with any real detail and certainly the first to report anything about a formal offer with the offer points.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 7:02 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home