EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- You and Your Family Are Guinea Pigs for the Chemical Corporations
- The Life and Death of Words, People, and Even Nature
- After Boston, Eyes-Wide Open Hope?
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama in Iraq: The Gift of A Timetable
BAGHDAD - Government officials in Baghdad make two contradictory points about the state of Iraq. On one hand, they say the government is much stronger, having largely crushed the Sunni insurgents last year and severely weakened the Mahdi Army Shia militia in the past six months. They claim journalists like myself do not give them enough credit for these successes. But when I suggest to them that if the government is really so strong, maybe it can do without American support, they immediately look worried. "We cannot really stand on our own," one official told me. "What would happen if there was a Mahdi Army uprising in Basra, or an army brigade mutinied in Anbar, or the Kurds unilaterally moved to annex Kirkuk?"
In theory, the Iraqi state is becoming strong again. It has security forces numbering a half-million men. Its oil revenues might touch $150 billion next year. It has apparently extended its authority to Basra, Sadr City and Amara province. Sunni Arab states like Jordan and Saudi Arabia, which had previously hoped that the Shia-Kurdish government in Baghdad was only a passing phase, accept that it is here to stay and are talking of sending ambassadors and reopening their embassies.
But nobody here knows whether this rebirth of the Iraqi state machine is a mirage. The supposed military victories against the Mahdi Army in the first half of the year would not have happened without the support of American firepower. The Iraqi army itself, though more confident than before, wonders what would happen if Muqtada al-Sadr, the leader of the Mahdi Army, were to end his ceasefire or the Iranians were to reverse their support for the Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. Two powerful tribal sheiks from Sadr City told me firmly that the Mahdi Army was on the run. But when I asked if they would oppose it in public, they replied: "Certainly not. We would be shot down next time when we went to the mosque."
On his visit to Baghdad Barack Obama received the usual encouraging accounts from American generals and Iraqi government officials about how far security has improved and how normality is returning to Iraq. But in the great majority of cases, he will be speaking to people who do not personally set foot in the streets of the Iraqi capital without an armed escort. In one sense Iraq is "better," but the improvement is only in contrast to the previous bloodbath. In June, 554 Iraqi civilians and security were killed, compared with 1,642 a year earlier. The sectarian civil war between Sunni and Shia, which was at its height between the end of 2005 and the first half of 2007, has ebbed. This is not so much because of the Surge, but because there is nobody left to kill. Baghdad has become a largely Shia city. There are few mixed areas remaining.
It is safer driving around Baghdad, but the city is divided up into fortified sectarian ghettoes. Shia and Sunni do not visit each other's districts if they can help it. Above all, the 4 million Iraqis who have fled to Jordan or Syria or moved inside the country are not going back to their homes. When a Shia family went to look at their old house in the al-Mekanik neighborhood in Dora in south Baghdad, which had been taken over by Sunnis, the husband and wife were immediately killed and their driver's headless body was found lying in the street next morning. Visitors to Baghdad like Obama may not quite understand what Iraqis mean by "improved security," because the outside world never fully took on board the extent of the previous slaughter.
For instance, in east Baghdad there is a large wholesale market for spare car parts called al-Siniq, which used to supply the whole city. But in 2006 the wholly Shia police commandos raided the market and arrested seventy-seven people, released the Shia and killed some forty Sunnis. Until very recently no Sunni would go back, but they are now nervously venturing to al-Siniq once again. For Baghdad this is progress, but it still leaves the city as the most dangerous place in the world.
Outside the Green Zone, Iraqis did not pay great attention to the Obama visit, any more than they did to the six visits of John McCain over the past few years. These highly restricted tours have little to do with their daily lives. The main topic of conversation in Baghdad this summer is not about the American presidential election, but the lack of electricity. The Mesopotamian plain is one of the hottest places on earth, and this year there is less electricity than ever to power air conditioning or air coolers. It is also more difficult to get visas to visit Syria and spend the sweltering summer months in the cooler climate of Damascus. Food is expensive, and almost none of it is grown in Iraq. Watermelons are imported from Iran and apples and tomatoes from the Jordan Valley. There are signs that fundamentalist Islamic gunmen no longer control the streets: shops selling alcohol are reopening, as are hair salons, both of which closed in early 2007. But most Iraqis do not drink alcohol, and they have their hair cut at home.
The Iraqi government knows that its claims of success that it is making to Obama are overstated. It has become used to being defended by American troops and fears what would happen to it without them. But in fact Obama could give the Iraqi government no better gift than a timetable for withdrawal, because so long as the US occupation continues, the Iraqi government will be deemed illegitimate by its own people.
© 2008 The Nation
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

24 Comments so far
Show AllNir Rosen made the point that violence in Iraq is down largely because the neighborhood ethnic cleansing is complete and there are simply less people to kill.
Obama's plan to withdraw combat forces within 16 months but leave behind support troops for training the Iraqis seems to be exactly what these Iraqi officials want from us. I wish we would withdraw all troops, but that's not what they are asking us to do.
Now, what to do about the refugees in Syria and Jordan? I haven't heard anybody talk about that. We haven't given either country as much aid as we promised, and they have started closing their borders to Iraqis.
Obama has no intention of withdrawing, he'll leave as many troops as necessary to protect the stealing of Iraqi's natural resources for the next 50 years. It'll be a presence similar to the ones we have in 130 other nations, only larger.
Only a fool at this point will see a significant difference between the preacher and John McCain. Oh I forgot, we're a nation of fools.
Obama is not advocating withdrawal, he's advocating redeployment with an unspecified number of residual forces remaining in Iraq, including possibly halting the redeployment at any time. In addition, he has not called for the dismantling of any of our current airfields or bases, or for that matter, our fortress embassy.
Iraq, such a mess Gertrude Bell made of it.
The real solution is to end this scam called the War on Terror.
If this government has to be supported by foreign troops (american) then is is the wrong government. This Iraq government is of and for an invading army.
sooner or later the iraqis must fight FOR iraqis....maliki must stand on his own...BEFORE THE IRAQI ELECTIONS IN OCTOBER.....we've been training iraqis for over 5 years...AND THEY STILL ARE NOT READY..... does not make any sense at all
COUNTER-PUFF FOR JOHN McCAIN
McCain Puff: "Well, I certainly hope he talks to the generals over there so he learns something about this war and The Surge and how The Surge proves that we're winning the war."
Counter-Puff: A thousand cheerleaders, a thousand virgins from heaven, a thousand neo-con hookers, their faces criss-crossed with furrows from all the pancake 21 they applied to their faces layer after layer:
"Win, John, won, John, you're the winner, John, and you're the man! Hooray! Hooray, John! Hooray for The Surge. S-U-R-G-E!
Hooray! The Surge!!! We'll quig with you in quagmires forever, John!"
COUNTER-PUFF TO ATTY. GENERAL MUKASEY
Mukasey Puff: "The Supreme Court told us to do stuff, and we don't want to do stuff. So Congress has gotta give us rules and specificity so we can thread the needle and honor the terrorists-- I mean the security that guards us against the terrorists."
Counter-Puff: No counter-puff necessary.
Obama's plan would leave at least 80,000 "non-combat" troops in Iraq in order to 1) provide security for the people privatizing Iraq's economy in the "Green Zone" 2) Train Iraqi "security forces," School of the Americas-style, ie. in internal repression 3) fight "al-Aqaeda," meaning any Iraqi who dares to resist the occupation.
And that is IF Obama does what he says he's going to do, rather than maintain the current level of occupation soldiers.
As Saed Jarrar, an Iraqi living in the US, has said, and I urge you to watch a talk he gave recently regarding Iraq's past, present and future at http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/, either the US can negotiate its complete withdrawal from Iraq in relative peace, as Iraqis would prefer, or it will leave Vietnam-style, fleeing from rooftops, after much more violence suffered on all sides. There will be no real solution to the conflict in Iraq so long as the occupation remains, and that includes the real imperialists in the "Green Zone."
Obama's plan would leave at least 80,000 "non-combat" troops in Iraq in order to 1) provide security for the people privatizing Iraq's economy in the "Green Zone" 2) Train Iraqi "security forces," School of the Americas-style, ie. in internal repression 3) fight "al-Qaeda," meaning any Iraqi who dares to resist the occupation.
And that is IF Obama does what he says he's going to do, rather than maintain the current level of occupation soldiers.
As Saed Jarrar, an Iraqi living in the US, has said, and I urge you to watch a talk he gave recently regarding Iraq's past, present and future at http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/, either the US can negotiate its complete withdrawal from Iraq in relative peace, as Iraqis would prefer, or it will leave Vietnam-style, fleeing from rooftops, after much more violence suffered on all sides. There will be no real solution to the conflict in Iraq so long as the occupation remains, and that includes the real imperialists in the "Green Zone."
How do you "win" an illegal, immoral war?
In fact, this isn't a war -- it's an occupation.
And Obama is right onboard with the underlying rationale for the occupation of Iraq, that is to say, the imperialistic notion that a strong country has a *right* to impose its will on a weaker countries.
The American judges at Nuremberg maintained that the one crime from which all other Nazi crimes emanated was their illegal, unprovoked invasion of other countries. Meaing that by Nuremberg standards all those who support the War, including Obama, are guilty of war crimes.
All empires fall. And America, if it continues along its current, ongoing path, is right on schedule.
Vote to stop the war. Vote Nader, or vote McLinney or vote socialist. But vote to STOP the War, not reshuffle the deck.
Tell OBAMA that you are not going to pay for this war..Tell McSame that you are not going to pay for this war...and as far as Mcsame..tell him you will not pay for a war in Iran either..aka WWIII..I usually do not Cross Post..but..here is some info...action...or the end of liberty and peace...for..the...rest...of...your...life! get it?
If you PAY...you are complicit..PERIOD!
ACTION! Here's HOW!..no excuses..ONLY FEAR!..and one way or the other..if you do not take action now..then you'll most likely be living in FEAR ANYWAY...so? the choice is yours...still..for now...but it may not b for long..
let em know NOW..before the next POWER shift...let the new "president Select" that YOU will not ABDICATE your financial power as Congress has..you WILL have "Representation" or THEy will have to pay for their WAR all by themselves..think they will?...sheeeeit!
GHANDI...HENRY DAVID THOREAU...THE QUAKERS.. ET AL..TAX RESISTORS…IT IS THE ONLY WAY..
TAX RESISTANCE…since some of you have now asked..here you go..don't ask me to incriminate myself and give up my 5th amendment rights..look for yourself..in fact..the 5th..has a $50,000 prize for anyone that can show how filing a income tax is NOT a direct violation of the 5th..go to it..get the 50K…no one else has been able to do it..NOT EVEN THE IRS..go..LOOK!..LEARN!…ACT!..the only way..to stop it…look at wikipedia for THE WHOLE METHOD, ANSWERS, HOW TO…IT IS ALL THERE…FOR ALL THOSE WHO DOUBT!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_resistance
http://www.warresisters.org/
Withholding payment of taxes is one of the quickest methods of overthrowing a government. "
—Mahatma Gandhi
He or she who supports a State organized in the military way – whether directly or indirectly – participates in the sin. Each man old or young takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes. "
—Mahatma Gandhi
I have heard some of my townsmen say, "I should like to have them order me out to help put down an insurrection of the slaves, or to march to Mexico, – see if I would go;" and yet these very men have each, directly by their allegiance, and so indirectly, at least, by their money, furnished a substitute. The soldier is applauded who refuses to serve in an unjust war by those who do not refuse to sustain the unjust government which makes the war… "
—Henry David Thoreau
"….LET THEM MARCH ALL THEY WANT, AS LONG AS THEY CONTINUE TO PAY THEIR TAXES.."–ALEXANDER HAIG
Does anyone know what Obama's plans are for our contractors in Iraq? It is a sizable force in itself. I haven't heard a word on this from any news media.
the mercanaries will be more numerous than the "coalition", under the "progressive" occupation. See, Obama will deliver the promise of change that he has built his following of Obamists on.
These are report to be Obama's words:
http://www.counterpunch.com/whitney07212008.html
"The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as president, I won't. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights."
Obama supporters should take their candidate at his word. What he is proposing is a dramatic escalation and expansion of the war into another sovereign country. How is this consistent with the demands of his base or the millions of Americans who believe that Obama represents real change.
for a much better strategy, read "Three Cups of Tea" by Mortenson.
Any candidate who seriously endorses this approach has my vote.
I guarantee a great read with advice even the Pentagon endorses (not officially)
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Cups-Tea-Mission-Promote/dp/0143038257/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216694691&sr=8-1
Today in Informed Comment (by Juan Cole, Online) there is a slightly more intelligent analysis of things in Iraq.
Hey JCrumb: quit collecting taxes for the govt. at your sales web-site.
You are helping fund fascist police forces, tasers, and other tools of repression.
I mean dude, you Collect them for The Man!
Cool! I guess for your every $80.00 T-shirt Special, you send the govt. about $6.00,
Thanks for the laughs.
Why the F does CD allow links to Sales, for-profit web-sites anyway?
The above blustering by 'bama and the tired bomb , bomb by big john should bring shudders to Iranians or Pakistanis but mixed relief to the peacemakers around the world . Nothing short of the draft would cripple the US military or economy faster than to be bogged down in three Muslim countries . Bring it on
First of all, there is no war in Iraq now. It's an occupation. Obama will end the war which isn't, and shift some troops to Afghanistan as part of a surge to win a war that isn't a war in Afghanistan (it's an occupation). In the end, some number of troops will be left in Iarq to prevent them from the bogus threats of AQI and Iran, and to protect our oil companies, and the occupation will continue, but as an occupation, not a war. He will end the war, but the defacto occupation of the last 5 years will formally begin when he declares victory. We are not leaving Iraq.
On CNN Int'l today I listened to Obama explaining the benefits of his recent trip. He said "......I am going to be dealing with these guys over the next 8-10 years." Does Obama know something we don't?
Obviously, he is the chosen one to win the election, no problem with his forgetting about the elections. But what about the extra 2 years (he could have said 8-9 if the countdown started today)?
Are we going to have a National Emergency before Obama takes over, or when he takes office? Remember Lieberman said he will be tested by AQ upon taking office?. Would a COG under Bush, and martial law, be more easily implemented with a Bush-Obama team, pacifying both the left and the right by eliminating the polarization and paranoia of the left (if Bush was the leader) vs right (if Obama was the leader). This gets left and right to join together to sacrifice to handle the emergency.
The COG would not count towards Obama's presidential term since he would not have been inaugurated. Could it be planned to last 2 years?.
The conspiracy theorists (gulp) would be rounded up and detained, and the internet will be shut down or heavily censored.
Maybe much adoo about nothing, but then I think back to that secret meeting last March in the House, called by the neocons who wanted to tell the Dems something they should know before they voted on FISA.
Is a bell ringing in your ears?
Obama might have mispoke, that Afghan opium is some powerful stuff. He might have let us in on a secret.
Unfortunately, the majority of American voters who say they don't support the Iraq invasion/occupation have never shown strong convictions about the matter, on way or the other.
Most Americans may WISH the Iraq obscenity to end, but they have never clearly DEMANDED that it end and they likely never will.
Much as it disgusts me to say it, I think most Americans want their government's global empire to survive and to continue doing Whatever It Takes to keep them confortably fat and mindlessly entertained. I also think most Americans want to remain in denial about the multifarious outrages against humane values - and the suicidal outcome for themselves - that their empire involves -- until the entire house of cards collapses, seemingly involuntarily, on their heads.
Obama's tip-toeing anti-war rhetoric initially seemed to promise many wishful-thinking Americans at least an easy way out of the mess of Iraq -a way which wouldn't require any troublesome reckoning of deeper contradictions in their society.
Obama, the one major candidate promising hope and change, has now shown that his real intention is to play the same old disastrous empire game in foreign policy, just as Bush and others have played before.
What his blindly wishful supporters fail to see is that, if he's elected, Obama will have no choice but to also play the empire game in US domestic policy, since these two aspects of empire now go hand in hand as never before.
If he ever did have any real, transformative democratic ideals, Obama's future consolation in selling them out more and more as a president, will be that most Americans will 'understand.'
Most Americans will probably, at worst get pouty toward a failed Obama presidency; wish it could be different ['easier'] for their wrongly wrought empire to pound out its privileges from a broken, agonized world; and never, until the end comes, demand anything more difficult of themselves or their government than a reliable flow of cheap gasoline, fattening poisonous food, and brain-numbing entertainment.
All of us better-visioned progressives should of course keep up our efforts toward creating more humane political and economic forms in the US. Ultimately, though, this might be best achieved by doing it from some place outside the US, where democratic civilization still exists.
I've been thinking about some Scandanavian country, for example.
"Today in Informed Comment (by Juan Cole, Online) there is a slightly more intelligent analysis of things in Iraq."
I used to enjoy Juan's blog, until I tried to comment on it. Juan Cole is fond of censorship. Here's an example, he once posted some long diatribe about supporting the troops, I tried to post a comment very critical of supporting the troops (nothing vulgar, no name calling), but he wouldn't post it. I tried submitting my comment again, still he wouldn't post it. So then I tried changing all my criticisms of the troops into praise. I changed things like "Our troops are facilitating a genocidal war" into tripe like "God bless our troops who are bravely fighting for freedom" and SURPRISE! the post got published.
What is Juan Cole's comment policy? Well, at Juan's whim he will decide whether to publish your comment or not, he's "the Decider". That's his right, by all means, it's his blog. But why censor so many comments without explanation? I think he's either an insecure academic who can't handle criticism, or he feels a need to condescend to his readership by selecting what he feels are valuable opinions and by censoring those which he doesn't like. Personally, I say just let the readers decide.
Take Common Dreams for example, would it be a good idea to have one person deciding which comments to keep and which to throw out? It might be nice to get rid of divas like Daniel David or Zionist trolls like Ariel Sharon, but I think it's better to include them, even if they are idiots or shills. I honestly can't see why Juan feels the need to censor so many comments.
BTW, I was the wingnut referenced on his post today: "Some wingnut even tried to pressure me to retract the little sentence I had written on the affair yesterday, on the grounds of "al-Dabbagh's" mendacious and ridiculous assertions.
I wrote a response, but he wouldn't post it. Why Juan? What do you gain by limiting the discussion? Why do you want to hide from the public the diversity of reactions people have to your blog? Why offer a comment section in the first place?
zzz; I've commented on his site with no problem. But I kept it to an analysis of events in the ME.
Less a projection of my own points of view.
zzz, we go back and forth-where DO you get info; bless CD, but it is insufficient as a sole fource of facts/events.
Signed, A Believer In Lesser Evils.
JCrumb; No Response?
Just try typing Nor th Amer ican Un ion.
Strange! It doesn't seem to like Nor th Amer ican Un ion. But it doesn't object to North American Security and Prosperity Partnership.
This Wordpress board is certainly screwy at times. I'm not sure whether it's just the site's customization and administration quirks or some kind of deliberate systematic censorship.
Sure...withdraw from Iraq
and send them to Afghanistan... or Iran
sigh