Iraq
(AP) 4 US soldiers die in Iraq bombings.
(CBS) 26 U.S. Troops Killed In 1 Week In Iraq
(WaPo) A big story outlining the failure and intraShia chaos in Basra. (Don't shortchange this. The British are being chased out of Basra.
I find it interesting that they can write this article with only passing mention that "An airport base outside the city.... has been attacked with mortars or rockets nearly 600 times over the past four months.")
(Question: What are the implications of this intraShia violence for the politics in the Green Zone? Is Basra a reflection of broad splits, or do the events in Basra fuel splits?)
(AP) Maliki is visiting Turkey today and Iran tomorrow. (The Turks are expected to deliver an ultimatum on the PKK.)
And, as a look to the US's future, (TimesOnline) "Britain was accused yesterday of abandoning 91 Iraqi interpreters and their families to face persecution and possible death when British forces withdraw." (or from the Guardian.)
(CBS) 26 U.S. Troops Killed In 1 Week In Iraq
(WaPo) A big story outlining the failure and intraShia chaos in Basra. (Don't shortchange this. The British are being chased out of Basra.
I find it interesting that they can write this article with only passing mention that "An airport base outside the city.... has been attacked with mortars or rockets nearly 600 times over the past four months.")
(Question: What are the implications of this intraShia violence for the politics in the Green Zone? Is Basra a reflection of broad splits, or do the events in Basra fuel splits?)
(AP) Maliki is visiting Turkey today and Iran tomorrow. (The Turks are expected to deliver an ultimatum on the PKK.)
And, as a look to the US's future, (TimesOnline) "Britain was accused yesterday of abandoning 91 Iraqi interpreters and their families to face persecution and possible death when British forces withdraw." (or from the Guardian.)
posted by mikevotes at
8:11 AM
10 Comments:
NPR had an insightful interview with Ann Garrels yesterday. Ann is probably the most informed Iraq reporter there is, with a deep and broad understanding of the country it's politics and its schisms.
She mentioned both the intra-Shia and intra-Sunni fighting now on the rise in Iraq. In fact she points out that the oft reported "good news" of some Sunni groups turning against al-Qaeda really is just an example of divisions within the Sunni population. There are still plenty of Sunni al-Qaeda sympathizers and supporters. Ms. Garrels' observation is that the country continues to devolve, as it has since the invasion, and that any so called progress is isolated, temporary and usually accompanied by increase violence and instability elsewhere in the country.
We started this war talking about Iraqis. Then it was Kurds, Sunni, and Shia. Now it divisions of Kurds (e.g. PKK), divisions of Sunni, and divisions of Shia. Every time there's a split, we move exponentially farther away from the mythical concept of a Unity Government. (My observation, not Ms. Garrels')
This is a reality which must simply be unfathomable to the Bushies, who are only capable of binary thought. In a regime as clumsy in it's intellect we will continue to see them grab for blunt instruments of power.
My old man used to say, "A bad carpenter who blames his tools for his shoddy work." Mr. Bush is a very, very bad carpenter. Giving him more powerful tools will not help him build a safer house.
By
-epm, at 9:02 AM
(Question: What are the implications of this intraShia violence for the politics in the Green Zone? Is Basra a reflection of broad splits, or do the events in Basra fuel splits?)
What happens in the Green Zone all comes back to how the oil revenues are shared IMO. What incentive do the Shia have to share with the Sunnis? Not much that I can see.
Obviously the Shia will have to fight among themselves for leadership. Nobody can predict the outcome but if Iraqi history is any indication a strong man will emerge. One thing is for sure...he will not be acceptable to everybody.
By
Anonymous, at 2:12 PM
EPM, I heard a chopped down version of that this morning.
And what you describe, splits on splits on splits is not the recipe for the much feared civil war, it is the recipe for warlordism that comes after a failed state.
.....
Anon, The Shia are definitely fighting over oil right now, although it's only a battle of transport and export right now.
The only incentive the Shia have to share is if the Sunnis can create enough violence and disply the ability to curb that violence to be able to barter. The Sunnis have nothing but violence to trade with.
By
mikevotes, at 2:43 PM
The Sunnis have certainly proved their ability to make life difficult.
And I see Turkey and Iraq have agreed, sort of, to roust out the PKK...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070807/
ap_on_re_mi_ea/turkey_iraq
Can we expect to see the Iraqi army back in Kurdistan? The Pershmerga may have something to say about that.
By
Anonymous, at 2:55 PM
"...it is the recipe for warlordism that comes after a failed state."
I think of warlords as being concerned with their own little turf, with little sense or concern for national identity. In the Iraq situation, are these developing warlords fighting do control the direction of the country of Iraq, or only their fiefdoms... their clan turf?
Does fractionalization -- creating several regional strongmen -- actually create the stew from which a national government can be formed (one requiring real coalitions and compromise)? Thin in contrast to the conventional view of the big three (Kurd, Sunni, Shia) where each group seems to be play a winner take all game.
By
-epm, at 3:53 PM
Anon, I saw the statement regarding the PKK, we'll have to see. The Iraqi government needs the Kurds, so anything that goes down has to have Kurdish approval.
And how much force can the Iraqis effectively put up in Kurdistan? Could you convince soldiers to leave their families to the fates of the civil war?
...
EPM, I see Iraq as competition on a whole bunch of levels. The top level is political economic concerned with laying the groundwork for as much as they can get in the long term.
There's a second, generally local, level of militia commanders and criminals and politicians, trying to extract what they can right now and set up income streams going forward.
Then, there's the foot soldiers who fight for emotional reasons, politics, religion, etc. and for some graft.
As to your fractionalization idea, maybe. That idea has been floated. I read one guy making the argument that's why the US is arming the Sunnis.
In that scenario, though, you're creating local warlords whos alliances will shift and will require constant bribery. It can be semi-stable with the right government strongman, but the secondary complication of Sunni/Shia makes the whole thing far more difficult.
Think of Afghanistan under their regional warlords, or, in a worst case, Somalia in the 90's. It can be sorta stable, but it';s not peaceful, and in those cases, the differences were minor compared to what we're looking at in Iraq.
Plus, such a structure would be ripe to interference from regional countries.
The winner take all game will not go away.
By
mikevotes, at 4:43 PM
'And how much force can the Iraqis effectively put up in Kurdistan? Could you convince soldiers to leave their families to the fates of the civil war?'
Sorry my question about the Iraqi army going into Kurdistan was supposed to be humorous. No way will Barzani let non-Kurdish soldiers deal with the PKK.
I think the whole idea is to put pressure on the PKK to satisfy the Turks but I'm not sure how much support the PKK enjoys inside Kurdistan....quite a lot would be my guess.
By
Anonymous, at 5:47 PM
I do believe that the Kurds would allow some arrests and token presence/action if it gave them Kirkuk in the barter.
Just like Sadr gave up some of his "rogue" militia leaders awhile back when he was trying to reconcile with the Us, or what the Sunnis are doing today.
But I don't have a handle on internal Kurd politics, so who knows.
By
mikevotes, at 9:08 PM
Kirkuk is the key. The Kurds are counting on winning the referendum there. They've got the place loaded with friendly voters now so they probably will. Turkey, Iran and the Sunnis won't be happy. Not sure about Bush and the Iraqi Shia.
By
Anonymous, at 9:20 PM
I think the administration wouldn't really mind the Kirkuk oilfields going to the Kurds. It'll make some of the diplomacy more complicated, but the Kurds will deal with Western interests.
I don't know about the Shia. I would think they'd try to keep some sort of veto power/influence if they could.
By
mikevotes, at 9:51 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home