Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThose Who Talk Democracy Should Listen to Iraq's People
The surge has only bought time for the US in Iraq. There will be no reconciliation without complete withdrawal
Who would have believed it? When George Bush arrives in Jerusalem today to salvage something from the wreckage of his attempt to impose a new pax Americana on the Middle East, there will at least be one ray of sunshine in an otherwise grim presidential vista. Iran may be resurgent, Hizbullah unbroken, the prospect of an Israel-Palestine peace settlement more remote than ever. But, as far as the US administration is concerned, things are at last coming good in Iraq. Its people are "reclaiming a normal society", Bush has declared, a theme echoed enthusiastically across the US and wider western media. American casualties are down, economic growth is up, refugees are returning home, and people can once again walk the streets of Baghdad in safety, the story goes.
"We are out of the woods," Muwaffaq al-Rubaie, the Iraqi government's national security adviser, insisted last month. And however such claims are regarded in Iraq, they are certainly having an impact on the US presidential elections. The Iraq war is still top of American voters' concerns, but it now jostles with the economy, immigration and healthcare and, while a clear majority want troops withdrawn, a record 40% believe the past year's troop surge is making things better. The result is that the leading Democratic candidates are hedging their bets on troop withdrawal - Barack Obama would keep trainers and special forces, Hillary Clinton is only committed to pulling most troops out by 2013. Meanwhile, the glad tidings from Iraq means pro-war Republicans are once again in with a fighting chance.
The one part of this tale that is true is that the level of violence has dropped sharply in the past three months, both involving Iraqis, and US and British occupation troops. The monthly average of US soldiers killed between October and December was 33, compared with 110 in April to June, and the number of Iraqi civilians reported killed in December was 902, according to Iraq Body Count, compared with 2,731 in May. Any reduction in the suffering of Iraqis in particular, who have certainly endured hundreds of thousands of deaths as a result of the invasion of their country, must obviously be welcome. But if that dip in violence is misinterpreted as reflecting the beginning of a successful stabilisation and reduces the pressure to end the occupation, it will only prolong that agony into the future.
The fact is that 2007 was the deadliest year for US troops, with 901 killed; and the second bloodiest for Iraq as a whole, with at least 22,586 civilian deaths. The level of resistance attacks on US forces is still running at 2,000 a month, and the level of violence is back to roughly where it was in 2004-05 - seen as disastrous at the time. The reasons for that drop are mostly not disputed. The first is the creation of "awakening councils", in effect US-backed Sunni militias, to police areas that have been at the heart of the resistance campaign.
Then there is the six-month ceasefire called by Moqtada al-Sadr's anti-occupation Mahdi army, the most powerful Shia militia in the country. And lastly, there has been the impact of the surge in US troop numbers and the change of tactics orchestrated by its architect, General Petraeus, including the carving up of cities such as Baghdad into ethnically cleansed security zones behind Israeli-style walls, barriers and checkpoints. Iraqis also report that US troops have sharply reduced their patrols and operations in the last couple of months in Baghdad and elsewhere, with fewer clashes as a result.
But already, the upsurge in bombings, assassinations and attacks on US forces in the last couple of weeks - including the first killing of American troops by an Iraqi soldier - should be a warning to those now talking up the success of the surge. Here are four reasons why the lull in violence is highly unlikely to hold. First, the occupation-funded awakening councils, which are now getting on for 80,000-strong, are an unstable mishmash of groups with different agendas, created in the teeth of opposition from the supposedly sovereign Iraqi government, which have already been drawn into sectarian clashes with Shia militias. To solve one problem, the US has created another.
Second, the surge was only ever a temporary fix, and US troop numbers are already being reduced. Third, violence has been increasing in Shia areas and is likely to continue to do so, both as militias vie for power and as they come into conflict with US forces now tilting towards Sunni interests - or as a result of the clash between the US and Iran. But perhaps most important, there hasn't been the slightest move to a political settlement for which the surge was meant to buy time. The government barely exists, parliament rarely manages a quorum, and there has been no change in the fundamental issue which drives armed resistance: the foreign occupation of the country against the will of its people.
The reality of the surge is this: the number of people displaced from their homes has quadrupled to over 2 million, and detention without trial has risen dramatically (the US alone holds 25,000 prisoners). Another 2 million have fled the country since the occupation began - and about 30,000 have returned, mostly because of lack of cash and visa restrictions. In oil-rich Iraq, electricity is now available in Baghdad for only eight hours a day, half the level before the invasion; unemployment is over 60%; food rations are being cut; corruption is rampant; and 43% of the population now lives on less than a dollar a day.
The surge has bought time for the US but achieved nothing to prepare the way for an end to the occupation. On the contrary, Bush recently signed an agreement with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for a long-term presence in the country. On Monday, a spokesman for what is regarded as the largest Sunni-based resistance group in Iraq, the Islamic Army, rejected any cooperation with the awakening councils and pledged to "resist the US forces as long as they are in Iraq". Meanwhile, focus-group surveys carried out for Petraeus in five Iraqi cities last month found that all sectarian and ethnic groups believe the US invasion is the primary cause of violence in the country and regard the withdrawal of all occupying forces as the key to national reconciliation. Those who preach democracy for Iraq should listen to its people.
s.milne@guardian.co.uk
© 2008 The Guardian
8 Comments so far
Show AllI have been listening to Iraqi people. The woman blogger who calls herself Riverbend who used to have a tech job getting equal pay to men doing the same work. She liked Iraq prior to our illegal invasion of her land. She was not forced to wear traditional Muslim garb, the female doctors had bandaids and medicine and could still tend to the wounded when we first went in with our troops and our bombs.
Hussein had the dissenting group under control in a small section of the country. Our attack let them loose forcing displaced Iraqi workers to choose which army to choose. It has been a long time since I read online (in English) Iraq newspapers.
Election 2008 gives me small hope that we oust the corrupt government in the USA and can somehow right our wrong in Iraq. I do my bit by not owning a car, conserving on oil by not watching television or using a clothes dryer. Should turn off the computer too. But thus far it is the best place to find real facts not shared via mainstream media sources.
To Grant and tailpipe,
I guess I wrote poorly and caused you to believe I support the continued Iraq war. As for my wishing that Iraq not be our number one election issue, I only wish that because the war/patriotism emphasis can be spun all over the place and therefore tends to favor the election of more Republicans. If we make economy and health care #1 and terrorism #2, we might come nearer electing lots of Democrats who might eventually get us out of that mess. I was also just wondering aloud if some of the Iraqi power leaders (like al-Sadr, for instance) might be trying to work for the same end in our election.
I'm not sure I trust this point of view. I mean it's written in "English" - the language of Satan! Until its expressed in a language of good people who hate America the most I won't have anything to do with it.
Seumas Milne- Thanks, well done. I agree completely, if our latest reason for being there (democracy) wee true then we'd start by listening to the people we are supposedly trying to help and get the hell out. We all know it's oil anyway.
Grant January 9th, 2008 7:10 pm
You make good points:
"This is completely undemocratic and removed many of the policy options the Iraqis might have chosen for themselves."
"Both parties back a plan for Iraqi oil that is direct opposition to the wishes of Iraqis."
Daniel David January 9th, 2008 3:15 pm
About the Iraqis influencing the election, it's possible. That's what reagan did to Carter. Maybe the US is paying them off.
Daniel David January 9th, 2008 3:15 pm
In any event, for OUR benefit, it would be good for America if Iraq can give us a break from being the #1-rated political issue here.
I strongly disagree, we have people being killed there every day. Men, women, and children are getting slaughtered. To me it is very, very important. We got to stop the killing machine.
"The "surge" may be working somewhat. Our tactical "switch" to backing Sunnis may be working somewhat."
We've dropped four MILLION pounds (enough radiation for 250,000 nuclear bombs according to a former Chief of Naval Staff of India) of depleted uranium on the country. Google depleted uranium & Iraq. Have a nice look at what this does. We've killed over a million Iraqis. We've wounded hundreds of thousands. Iraq has an internal refugee problem that is amongst the worse in the world. The US, before they went into the war, had an economic plan ready. When the Iraqis FORCED the US to hold elections (after Bremer and the administration attempted to cancel them and install puppets into government), the CPA hurried up and put the economic measures into place that even enraged the Iraqi Chamber of Commerce and have destroyed the economy (as well as handed control to foreign interests involved with the occupation). This is completely undemocratic and removed many of the policy options the Iraqis might have chosen for themselves. The Oil Privatization bill is being rammed through the Iraqi government when, by a wide margin, the Iraqi people are against the privatization and about 90% don't even feel they know enough about the bill currently, according to a recent poll. Attacks against US soldiers happen about 575 times a week now, which is sign of the "improvement". Just so you know, that's between three and four attacks an hour, nonstop. Most of the reduction in violence also happens to be in regions that are populated with virtual ghost towns, thanks to US and British bombing. So on what level is the "surge" or "the switch" working? It might be working towards objective laid down by the US government, maybe not. That doesn't mean its "working" from an objective viewer's vantage point, especially one concerned with Iraqis' lives improving. We're beyond working or winning or making Iraqis lives bettor off in that regard but, honestly, imperialists aren't really concerned with that anyway. We can't bring back the dead and can't give back what we've stolen (including priceless artifacts that date back to the dawn of human civilization as well as the WMD'S that were under UN supervision in Iraq and were abandoned, to be stolen by whom we don't know yet). The best options we have now are a less than horrific ending to this mess and to pray that what we, US and British citizens, have allowed our governments to do doesn't further corrode our souls & morals.
"In any event, for OUR benefit, it would be good for America if Iraq can give us a break from being the #1-rated political issue here."
I seriously doubt that this will be the concern of Iraqis while we continue to bomb them and attempt to steal their oil. Frankly, who gives two craps what's in our interests at this point? You might notice that both the Democrats and the Republicans are both are 100% behind the Iraqi Oil privatization bill. Both parties back a plan for Iraqi oil that is direct opposition to the wishes of Iraqis. The karma awaiting this country…
As for listening to Iraqi people, I wonder if the faction leaders there intend to try to influence America's future course of action there by trying to influence our November election. Consider that Islamists are noted for taking "the long view" of things. Consider Moqtada al-Sadr and his six-month (so far) ceasefire. Might he not only try to act in his own short-term Shiite self interest, but maybe also want to make things look more peaceful there for most of this year so as to help America unelect its neocons? The "surge" may be working somewhat. Our tactical "switch" to backing Sunnis may be working somewhat.
Perhaps even a form of temporary faux restraint by some otherwise-radical guys there may be working too (maybe even more than we think) to help prevent us from electing a Giuliani-type---us to be believing for a few more months that Shia and Sunni are making progress in not forever warring on each other. I sure don't know, but for those there who want America OUT, they may have noticed that us re-electing Bush last time over Kerry sure didn't speed our pullout. I have to wonder if some LEADERS there may be playing nice for a while to help usher in a different mindset in American government. We'll see.
In any event, for OUR benefit, it would be good for America if Iraq can give us a break from being the #1-rated political issue here. We've already been burnt socially by that error, and rather badly so since 2004.
what does democracy / liberty have to do with oil and occupation? Also, wouldn't such an agreement be a violation of the Constitution - would that require a Senate vote for approval (treaty)?
What does democracy or liberty have to do with oil and occupation? I am confused. . .