Iraqi Unity Not Gaining Traction; civil war on the horizon

You can't seriously expect us to accept named sources as credible, can you?

There are so many different factions in Iraq that full unity is a fairly assured improbability.

I get the impression that you're thrilled about it.

Attack the poster... great debating technique.

George has been a great "uniter not a divider" here, so I don't know why he can't do it in a foreign land.

Well, Squinney he is trying and that alone has got to count for something.

BBB
Brandon is just trying to divert attention away from a very important thread topic. Please don't let him succeed.

BBB

I am certainly impugning her character, but there's nothing whatever wrong with that as long as I do not try to use it as my sole argument that her position is incorrect. You cannot disprove someone's beliefs by attacking their character. What is it that you feel is wrong with me implying that she is a disloyal American???

A detailed list would crash A2K.

US-Shiite Struggle Could Spin Out of Control
POLITICS-IRAQ:
US-Shiite Struggle Could Spin Out of Control
Analysis by Gareth Porter
WASHINGTON, Dec 26 (IPS)

The George W. Bush administration has embarked on a new effort to pressure Iraq's militant Shiite party leaders to give up their control over internal security affairs that could lead the Shiites to reconsider their reliance on U.S. troops.

The looming confrontation is the result of U.S. concerns about the takeover of the Interior Ministry by Shiites with close ties to Iran, as well as the impact of officially sanctioned sectarian violence against Sunnis who support the insurgency. The Shiite leaders, however, appear determined to hold onto the state's organs of repression as a guarantee against restoration of a Baathist regime.

The new turn in U.S. policy came in mid-November, when the administration decided to confront Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari publicly over the torture houses being run by Shiite officials in the Ministry of Interior at various locations in Baghdad.

The decision was not the result of a new revelation, because the U.S military command and U.S. Embassy had known about such torture houses for months, from reporting by U.S. military officers.

U.S. Army doctor Maj. R. John Stukey told the Christian Science Monitor that he and U.S. military police had visited Interior Ministry detention facilities and had reported evidence of torture and other mistreatment at those facilities up through the chain of command before he left Baghdad in June. Washington had nevertheless remained silent about the issue.

However, the U.S. military raided an Interior Ministry's detention centre in the Baghdad suburb of Jadriya on Nov. 13, whereupon the U.S. Embassy and U.S. Command issued an unusual joint statement calling the torture centre "totally unacceptable".

The embassy then used the torture house revelation to issue a public demand that the militant Shiite parties give up their power over the key state security organs. On Nov. 17, the embassy said, "There must not be militia or sectarian control or direction of Iraqi Security Forces, facilities or ministries."

Shiite leaders viewed these U.S. moves as part of an effort to reduce the majority controlled by the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) in the parliament and to increase the vote for former interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, a secular Shiite and former Baathist who has been a long-time collaborator with the Central Intelligence Agency.

As early as August, Prime Minister Jaafari and other leaders of the main Shiite party, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), had passed the word to their party members that the United States was trying to paralyse the government in order to bring Allawi back to power in the December elections.

When Allawi was interim prime minister in 2004-2005, he battled with militant Shiite party leaders over their push for radical de-Baathification and secret Iranian financing of SCIRI and Dawa candidates and the Iranian-trained Badr paramilitary units. Before last January's elections, Allawi's defence minister, Hazim al-Shaalan, publicly referred to the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance slate as the "Iranian list".

The administration shared Allawi's views on Iranian covert involvement in Iraqi politics but chose not to comment explicitly about it in public, sparing the new Shiite government embarrassment. Referring to Iran-Iraq relations last May, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice deplored "undue influence in the country through means that are not transparent".

Shortly before the recent parliamentary election, however, a U.S. official raised the issue explicitly on the record for the first time. Gen. George W. Casey complained in an interview with Knight-Ridder that the Iranians were "putting millions of dollars into the South to influence elections... funded primarily through their charity organisations and also Badr and some of these political parties."

Casey also referred to members of the Badr militia, who have entered the Interior Ministry units and the military in large numbers, as "their guys".

As the ballots were being cast on Dec. 15, Khalilzad indicated clearly that the United States wanted much broader power sharing in the next government. "Since no single party will have a majority, there will be a need for a very broad-based coalition," he said.

The embassy apparently hoped that the UIA would get fewer seats and Allawi more seats in the next parliament, increasing the pressure on the Shiite parties to negotiate a broad coalition government including both Allawi and Sunni representatives.

On Dec. 19, Khalilzad again signaled the U.S. determination to force the SCIRI leadership to yield control over the security organs of the government. "You can't have someone who is regarded as sectarianàas minister of the interior," he said.

The initial returns indicated a stronger showing for the UIA than the embassy had expected, and a weaker showing for Allawi than in the January elections. Allawi now appears to be eliminated from negotiations on high-level jobs in the administration.

Nevertheless, Khalilzad still has the Kurdish card to play. The UIA will need the support of the Kurds to form a new government, and the Kurds, whose military alliance with the United States is central to their political strategy, have now signaled that they will demand the inclusion of Sunni representatives in the government.

At a meeting with Khalilzad on Sunday, Pres. Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, said, "Without the Sunni parties there will be no consensus government... [and] without consensus government there will be no unity, there will be no peace." Kurdish negotiators are also likely to insist that the Shiites give up control over the Interior Ministry.

The last time the UIA was in the process of trying to form a government after the first parliamentary election in January, Kurdish demands played a major role in delaying the formation of the new government for three months. That Kurdish negotiating strategy dovetailed with U.S. efforts to exert pressure on Shiite leaders to allow former Baathist officers to keep leading positions in the military and Ministry of Interior.

When the SCIRI leadership refused to back down on control over the Interior Ministry, the Bush administration relented rather than create a political crisis. This time, however, the stakes are higher. If sectarian violence continues to worsen, the White House risks a collapse of political support at home. And the administration has already warned publicly that it will not accept a continuation of the status quo.

For Shiite party leaders, U.S. pressure to share state power with secular or Sunni representatives -- especially on internal security -- touches a raw nerve. They regard control over the organs of state repression as the key to maintaining a Shiite regime in power.

If Abdul Aziz al-Hakin and other SCIRI leaders feel they have to choose between relying on U.S. military protection and the security of their regime, they are likely to choose the latter. They could counter U.S. pressures by warning they will demand a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops if the United States continues to interfere in such politically sensitive matters.

That would not be an entirely idle threat. Last October, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani was reported by associates to be considering such a demand. The implication of calling for a relatively rapid U.S. withdrawal would be that the Shiite leaders would turn to Iran for overt financial and even military assistance, in line with their fundamental foreign policy orientation.

The Bush administration's strategy of pressure on Shiite leaders over the issue of control over state security organs thus has the potential to spin out of control and cause another policy disaster in Iraq and the entire Middle East.
------------------------------------------

*Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in June.

Iraqis Glad 2005 Over, Dim Hopes for 2006
CHALLENGES:
Iraqis Glad 2005 Over, Dim Hopes for 2006
Dahr Jamail and Arkan Hamed
BAGHDAD, Dec 20 (IPS)

Despite the parliamentary elections last week and temporary ease in violence, Iraqis remain bitter about the outgoing year, and sceptical of 2006.

''As a doctor I usually travel daily from home to college," said Um Feras, a doctor of physics at Baghdad University who asked that her last name be changed for her protection. ''2005 was a terrible year, and now it has become unacceptable for me to leave my house to go teach due to the troops, who always where sunglasses even on gloomy days, aiming their rifles at everyone like they are gangsters."

The majority of Iraqis in Baghdad now fear the security forces, as dozens of people each week are ''disappeared" by police and soldiers around the city and new torture chambers have been discovered recently.

Dr. Feras told IPS that the daily chaos on the streets of Baghdad, such as closed roads and bridges, always caused her to be late, as well as most of her students.

''Nothing is good in Iraq now," said the doctor. ''Torture, detained friends, pillaging of houses, seeing neighbors suffering from poverty, no electricity, no water and gun fights everywhere. We have no relief from this suffering now."

Electricity in Baghdad remains far below pre-war levels, with most houses enjoying 3-5 hours per day. Meanwhile, oil exports in December have sunk to a two-year low while up to 22 percent of the 21 billion dollar set aside by the U.S. government for reconstruction projects in Iraq has been diverted to security, according to Dan Speckhard, the director of the Iraq reconstruction management office, who made the announcement to reporters earlier this month.

Asked about her hopes and expectations for 2006, the doctor says: ''I only want a normal life far away from the interests of those bastards who invaded our country. I don't care about the elections and politics and the new political parties because these are just a small part of the strategy of the invaders."

The doctor began to cry then added: ''My dream for the coming year is that the invaders pull out, we have Iraqis who love one another to govern Iraq, we build something related to civilization and have emotions towards our land and lives in order to get back to the situation where each of us loves the other and we feel the good will of God."

She paused for reflection before saying, ''But I can't say this will happen."

Other Iraqis, like 40 year-old leather worker Ismael Mohammed feel similarly.

''2005 was worse than 2004 because the coalition forces are still handling everything tightly in their hands and nothing has changed except the faces of the governors," he told IPS in Baghdad, ''They are trying to get everything they can from Iraq, meanwhile financially it is getting worse, fuel [availability] is worse and the roads are worse."

His feelings about the infrastructure are common around Baghdad, as Iraq is suffering an unemployment rate of over 50 percent, oil exports remain below pre-war levels, and the infrastructure remains in shambles amidst the broken promises of the Bush Administration.

''Democracy? Where is our democracy?" asked Mohammed who said his best day of 2005 was when one of his cousins was released from Abu Ghraib, ''Freedom? People shout with no one to hear. Everything goes with a bribe now. You want to be a professor-easy, just give me the money and you are a professor."

Mohammed told IPS he remains sad and perplexed as to why his cousin was recently killed. ''We are Shia. Yet he was killed."

And he asks: ''Who profits from this constitution because we already had one? Who is profiting from all of this? Iraqi leather used to be the best all over the Middle East, but now it even seems as though the rain has stopped falling in Iraq, as my trade has stopped growing. Now we even have to import leather!"

According to the Institute for Policy Studies, a Washington-based think tank, the value of Halliburton stock, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney's old military company to which he still has financial ties, has increased 138 percent since March 2003. Halliburton has been awarded at least 10 billion dollar in contracts for their operations in Iraq.

Meanwhile, U.S. citizens aren't benefiting from the occupation either. The average monthly cost of the Iraq war for the U.S. is 5.6 billion dollar for a total of over 225 billion dollar thus far, pushing their national debt over 8 trillion dollar, according to the U.S. Department of Treasury. For 2006, Mohammed voiced the dreams of many Iraqis.

''To get rid of the invaders and have God give back blessings to the people of Iraq," Mohammed told IPS. ''We want good people in positions of authority who will compensate Iraqis who have suffered. I would like to see Iraqis work as one unit, putting the good of the country ahead of divisions between them and to go on dealing as humans."

Mohammed added: ''We need a lot of work to obtain true sovereignty and to cure the problems brought by the invaders, as independence isn't so easy that we can get it in one year. Democracy cannot be given as simple as that; we have to work hard for it and educate people to get it."

Iraqi defense officials deny influence of Kurdish militia le
Posted on Thu, Dec. 29, 2005
Iraqi defense officials deny influence of Kurdish militia leaders
By Tom Lasseter
Knight Ridder Newspapers
BAGHDAD, Iraq

The Iraqi defense ministry, reacting to a Knight Ridder report this week, said Thursday that Kurdish troops in the Iraqi army take their orders from the central government in Baghdad, not from Kurdish militia leaders.

Knight Ridder this week reported on interviews with Iraqi soldiers and officers in northern Iraq who said that they were ready, if necessary, to follow the commands of Kurdish militia leaders to secure the borders of an independent Kurdistan.

On Wednesday, staff members of the Iraqi army's chief of staff, Gen. Babaker al-Zebari, asked a Knight Ridder reporter for the names of every Iraqi soldier and Kurdish political official who was interviewed for the story or facilitated the reporter's visits to Iraqi military bases. Al-Zebari is a Kurd. The reporter refused.

On Thursday, al-Zebari's office released a statement saying that the quotes in the story weren't representative of the defense ministry and charging that they "are false and created by followers of the ex-regime to frustrate the Iraqi brave army's will."

It wasn't clear whether the ministry was accusing Kurdish soldiers - almost all staunch opponents of the former regime of Saddam Hussein - or the Knight Ridder reporter of ties to the former regime.

Such accusations are serious in a nation where militia death squads have been accused of murdering former regime officials and sympathizers.

"Al-Zebari expressed astonishment for such statements at a time the elected Iraqi government has achieved important steps in building up a united Iraqi Army working under the leadership of both ministries of Defense and the Central Iraqi Government," the statement said.

The challenge of creating a national army in a country torn by sectarian divisions is a serious obstacle to hopes of reducing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq.

The nation's Shiite Arab and Kurdish political parties both have large militias and have pursued a two-pronged strategy of sending some of their fighters to join the Iraqi security forces while maintaining armed militias in their provinces.

Both the Shiites, some 60 percent of the population, and the Kurds, about 20 percent, have spoken frequently of splitting Iraq into semi-autonomous regions that would report to the government in Baghdad but run many of their own day-to-day governmental affairs.

Kurdish leaders have made it clear that they would like the oil-rich city of Kirkuk to be a part of their region and at some point in the future would like to break away from Iraq and claim independence.

In October, a Knight Ridder reporter embedded with a Shiite Muslim-dominated Iraqi army brigade in Baghdad in which members spoke openly of wanting to kill members of the nation's minority Sunni Muslim sect.

The commander of the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division, which controls Baghdad, later said that "the most zealous" of those soldiers had been fired.

I believe that the Kurdish leadership now considers it best to continue as
part of Iraq.

The constitution allows considerable local autonomy and the Kurds have
been making the most of it. The Kurdistan Development Corporation has
launched an aggressive advertising campaign ("Kurdistan -- The Other
Iraq") to solicit foreign investment. They've already got a Norwegian oil
company and Chinese equipment working on the first new drilling since
the start of the war.

They are aware that they are surrounded by nations (Turkey, Syria, Iran)
with Kurdish populations who would vigorously oppose an independent
Kurdistan. In the future, they may develop sufficient strength to maintain
themselves as an independent nation, but for now a decentralized Iraq is
enough.

As for Kirkuk, that is a fascinating but very worrisome situation. It could
come to violence.

George, The fact the the Kurdish forces are willing to fight the Iraqi army, and the Sunnis and Shiites are in constant turmoil, what makes you think these problems are going to disappear based on a "central government?" Are you as nieve as Bushco?

As usual, you cannot back up what you say. Enough said.

Earlier in this thread, you posted "What is it that you feel is wrong with me implying that she is a disloyal American??? "

I would say that THIS is the main thing that is "wrong" with you, Brandon.

You seem to define patriotism, not as an undying love for one's country, but as some form of blind, unquestioning loyalty towards its leader(s).

Now....when that blind, unquestioning loyalty brand of patriotism is given to a leader with warmongering/self interested ways, who hasn't much of a clue as regards world politics or long term consequences of meddling in things that were obvious, from the beginning, would end up as a complete mess, I would say that such a "patriot" was somewhat misguided to say the least.

But they would never admit it.



From day one of the "shock and awe" campaign, the clock was started for Iraq to break into pieces......a large part making an alliance with its Iranian brother, and the rest fighting among themselves.

Most people know this, and have known it since day one. Maybe if you removed your head from GWB's backside, you would see it as well.

I absolutely deny this and challenge you to produce one single, solitary post in which I have suggested either that one should follow leaders without question, or that questioning a leader is in principle equivalent to disloyalty. Your pathetically simplistic characterization of what I have said bears no relation to what I have actually said, which is that certain people behave disloyally.

The problems are many and various and certainly will not disappear.
However, the Kurdish leadership is willing to remain part of Iraq based
on a decentralized government. For now.

That's just the point; it'll only survive as a "decentralized" government.