THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

Comment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iraq is already enduring two wars. Could it survive a third?


The competing claims of Arabs, Turkomans and Kurds in the oil-rich Iraqi north are an explosion waiting to happen Jonathan Steele in Kirkuk
Friday December 1, 2006
The Guardian


The governor's office in this tense city had rarely been so crowded. Friends, colleagues and officials were queuing to congratulate Abdul Rahman Mustafa on surviving the second assassination attempt on him within a fortnight.
A suicide bomber blew himself up on Tuesday when the governor's motorcade slowed for roadworks. The armour-plated car was badly damaged, but the only fatality besides the bomber was an Iraqi civilian. Still shaken two hours later, Mr Mustafa told me he was undeterred and would carry on.

Like every other Iraqi city, Kirkuk has seen a rising tide of violence. Two years ago you could drive there from Baghdad. This time I reached it by coming south from the relative safety of Kurdistan in an armoured pick-up with five Kurdish peshmerga soldiers in the back.
The main hazard is the roadside bomb - 663 have gone off already this year, with another 334 detected before they did any harm. They are almost always targeted at officials, police or US and Iraqi army convoys. Kirkuk has so far been spared the carnage of Baghdad and Basra, where car bombs and mortars are launched at crowds of civilians.

Indeed Kirkuk is the story of a war that hasn't happened. With a mixed population of Arabs, Kurds and Turkomans vying to control a province rich in oil, it was the place which most analysts focused on in the first weeks after the US toppled Saddam Hussein. It seems long ago now, but the argument then was that if violence were to break out in the "new Iraq", it would pit Arabs against Kurds, not Sunni against Shia, and the cockpit would be Kirkuk.

Whether Iraq is in the midst of a civil war or an insurgency has become a crucial question in the US, with obvious policy implications. For Iraqis it is academic. They see both wars happening together, with the chaos further compounded by criminal gangs who kidnap and murder for cash.

In Kirkuk, by contrast, there is only an insurgency. Ethnic war has not broken out. The picture is not so good in the other Iraqi territories with large Kurdish populations, many of which the Kurds call historically theirs. Tens of thousands of Kurds are being intimidated to leave Mosul in slow-motion ethnic cleansing. In Khanaqin, in eastern Iraq, thousands of Arab settlers who had been brought in by Saddam Hussein were summarily evicted in 2003.

But by and large the Kurds are playing fair. In Kurdistan they have enjoyed autonomy since 1991, and they pride themselves on building the kind of democracy the US hoped to install throughout Iraq after 2003. The rolling hills of their fertile region are as different from the flat lands and date-palm groves of Mesopotamia as is the political and security climate. Foreigners and locals can walk the streets and sit in cafes with no fear of kidnap or sudden death.

The Kurds are better off than if they had full independence. This would provoke regional tension, particularly from Turkey. It would also end their current position of having considerable influence in Baghdad's government, with the hope that the "disputed territories" may become theirs by non-violent means.

The bad side, as many Kurds see it, is that they are still tied economically to Iraq. Their electricity comes from the national grid, which means rations of only two hours a day, as bad as Baghdad. They have no refinery for the oil they produce. They live off revenue from the central budget, with their rightful share always cut or delayed unfairly, officials complain.

But Kurds are waiting for the referendums, promised for next year under Article 140 of the new Iraqi constitution. They would allow people to vote to join Kurdistan. Not just in Kirkuk, but in all other disputed territories there is supposed to be a census in July and a referendum in November. The first stage, due by March, is "normalisation", which means the return of tens of thousands of displaced people and the restoration of their homes or compensation.

Kurdish politicians claim to be confident that they have the votes to win. Only violence can prevent it, they say, which is why Kirkuk is suffering from an insurgency. "Implementing Article 140 is not in the Ba'athists' interest," Rizgar Ali Hamajan, the provincial council's chairman, told me. "It will wipe out their Arabisation policy. So they create security problems. They want to make it hard for contractors to work, tell people the provincial council is doing nothing and pave the way for ethnic conflict."

But there are more important reasons why the process is way behind schedule. Western officials in Kirkuk describe next year's deadlines as "risible". Article 140 is "hopelessly vague", making no attempt to explain who will delineate the disputed territories' borders, how a census will be conducted, and what the eligibility criteria will be for voting in the referendum.

Arab and Turkoman politicians want to delay it, preferring the status quo. "The best thing for Kirkuk would be to create a special kind of independent entity where all nationalities and minorities can take part. We need dialogue, negotiation and compromise," says Tahseen Saray Khaya, a member of the Turkoman Front. He accuses the Kurds of packing the voter rolls by bringing in people from the north who were never displaced.

The International Crisis Group, an independent thinktank, proposes a similar plan for special status, though only for 10 years. Western officials call it a non-starter, since it would require amending the constitution. They expect the referendum issue will ultimately be decided by a political bargain in Baghdad, rather than Kirkuk. Iraq's majority Shia government will do a deal with the Kurds to delay the crunch.

How that will be sold to the increasingly impatient Kurds is crucial. Without clear milestones towards an eventual vote or major concessions on other issues dear to the Kurds, there could be a political and social explosion in Kirkuk. On the other hand, holding an unprepared vote and letting Kirkuk join Kurdistan against Arab and Turkoman wishes could add ethnic conflict to the city's current insurgency.

In that case Kirkuk would no longer be the story of a war deferred. The ethnic cleansing already under way in Mosul could accelerate and spread to Baghdad, where some 100,000 Kurds still live. Iraq is already suffering from a war between insurgents and the Americans, and the Sunni versus Shia clashes which flow from it. Can it survive the horrors of war number three?

Quote:

Comment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iraq is already enduring two wars. Could it survive a third?


The competing claims of Arabs, Turkomans and Kurds in the oil-rich Iraqi north are an explosion waiting to happen Jonathan Steele in Kirkuk
Friday December 1, 2006
The Guardian
...

No, that in fact isn't our reaction whatsoever.

I don't say shame on anyone for leaking this info. I'm a proponent of open and non-secret government.

You are the one who is crying foul because of leaks...

I again ask you: do you think there should be investigations of who is leaking in the Executive branch, or are you going to shut up about the NYT? You can't have it both ways.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

No, that in fact isn't our reaction whatsoever.

I don't say shame on anyone for leaking this info. I'm a proponent of open and non-secret government.

You are the one who is crying foul because of leaks...

I again ask you: do you think there should be investigations of who is leaking in the Executive branch, or are you going to shut up about the NYT? You can't have it both ways.

Cycloptichorn

You do realize that it is not possible to have an "open and non-secret government",dont you?

While it would be nice to have,the reality of life says it isnt possible.
The fovt MUST keep secrets from people,if for no other reason then to save lives.

Would you like the govt to publish the names of all its covert agents working in the intelligence service,simply for "open and non-secret government" reasons?

How about the methods we use to collect intelligence?
Both of those actions could get people killed.

How about the codes for our ICBM arsenal?
Should those be made public,for an "open and non-secret government" like you are wishing for?

Should the names of federal agents that are working undercover be made public,so we can have your "open and non-secret government"?

There are hundreds if not thousands of things that the general public doesnt need to know,and releasing that info can get people killed,can get our national security compromised,or could otherwise be damaging.

So,as you can see,your "open and non-secret government",while a nice dream,is just that...a dream.

I don't think there is anything wrong about transparency in the deliberation process, in the policy-making process, in almost anything that isn't directly related to covert operations.

While I agree that much that is classified shouldnt be,exactly where do you draw the line,and what criteria do you want to use to determine what should or shouldnt be classified?

Quote:

While I agree that much that is classified shouldnt be,exactly where do you draw the line,and what criteria do you want to use to determine what should or shouldnt be classified?

In a society which relies upon openness and transparency for its government to function accurately, we should err on the side of openness in every case that is questionable.

One of the benefits of openness is that it makes it much more difficult to say one thing and do another... which takes away the ability for lying bastards to quite be as much of a lying bastard as usual.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

While I agree that much that is classified shouldnt be,exactly where do you draw the line,and what criteria do you want to use to determine what should or shouldnt be classified?

In a society which relies upon openness and transparency for its government to function accurately, we should err on the side of openness in every case that is questionable.

One of the benefits of openness is that it makes it much more difficult to say one thing and do another... which takes away the ability for lying bastards to quite be as much of a lying bastard as usual.

Cycloptichorn

If you do that,then there would be no govt.
EVERY person in politics fits the "lying bastard" description.
That is a basic part of the job description...LOL

I am agreeing with you,BTW,but I am not sure that the public really needs or wants to know every piece of info regarding policy making.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Quote:

Comment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq is already enduring two wars. Could it survive a third?

The competing claims of Arabs, Turkomans and Kurds in the oil-rich Iraqi north are an explosion waiting to happen Jonathan Steele in Kirkuk
Friday December 1, 2006
The Guardian
...

Which will they have, life and some of what they want or death and none of what they want?

EXCERPTS FROM THE KORAN
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-koran?specfile=%2Flv2%2Fenglish%2Frelig%2Fkoran%2Fwww%2Fkoran.o2w&query=wherever+you+find+them&docs=text&sample=1-100&grouping=work

Chapter 4: The Women : 4.89: They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

Chapter 4: The Women : 4.91: You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority.

Chapter 2: The Cow : 2.191: And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

Chapter 9: The Immunity : 9.5: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Chapter 44: The Smoke :
44.51: Surely those who guard (against evil) are in a secure place,
44.52: In gardens and springs;
44.53: They shall wear of fine and thick silk, (sitting) face to face;
44.54: Thus (shall it be), and We will wed them with Houris pure, beautiful ones.
44.55: They shall call therein for every fruit in security;
44.56: They shall not taste therein death except the first death, and He will save them from the punishment of the hell,
44.57: A grace from your Lord; this is the great achievement.

Chapter 52: The Mountain :
52.17: Surely those who guard (against evil) shall be in gardens and bliss
52.18: Rejoicing because of what their Lord gave them, and their Lord saved them from the punishment of the burning fire.
52.19: Eat and drink pleasantly for what you did,
52.20: Reclining on thrones set in lines, and We will unite them to large-eyed beautiful ones.
52.21: And (as for) those who believe and their offspring follow them in faith, We will unite with them their offspring and We will not diminish to them aught of their work; every man is responsible for what he shall have wrought.
52.22: And We will aid them with fruit and flesh such as they desire.
52.23: They shall pass therein from one to another a cup wherein there shall be nothing vain nor any sin.
52.24: And round them shall go boys of theirs as if they were hidden pearls

Chapter 55: The Beneficent :
55.69: Which then of the bounties of your Lord will you deny?
55.70: In them are goodly things, beautiful ones.
55.71: Which then of the bounties of your Lord will you deny?
55.72: Pure ones confined to the pavilions.
55.73: Which then of the bounties of your Lord will you deny?
55.74: Man has not touched them before them nor jinni.
55.75: Which then of the bounties of your Lord will you deny?
55.76: Reclining on green cushions and beautiful carpets.
55.77: Which then of the bounties of your Lord will you deny?
55.78: Blessed be the name of your Lord, the Lord of Glory and Honor!

Chapter 56: The Event :
56.11: These are they who are drawn nigh (to Allah),
56.12: In the gardens of bliss.
56.13: A numerous company from among the first,
56.14: And a few from among the latter.
56.15: On thrones decorated,
56.16: Reclining on them, facing one another.
56.17: Round about them shall go youths never altering in age,
56.18: With goblets and ewers and a cup of pure drink;
56.19: They shall not be affected with headache thereby, nor shall they get exhausted,
56.20: And fruits such as they choose,
56.21: And the flesh of fowl such as they desire.
56.22: And pure, beautiful ones,
56.23: The like of the hidden pearls:
56.24: A reward for what they used to do.
56.25: They shall not hear therein vain or sinful discourse,
56.26: Except the word peace, peace.

Hmmm....now that's what I'm talkin' about.

Looks like the Christians needs to hire Islam's PR firm.
They've sparked my interest....think they honor requests?

All I was saying is that somewhere deep in the mountains of bullshit every religion peddles, this is the most appealing.

....though I have a tough time with that whole martyr thing.

I hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal, in that they are endowed by God with certain rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the people governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to secure these rights.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that people are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

To secure for me my rights endowed me by God, I must possess the right to defend myself effectively against those attempting to deny me one or more of my rights. Those people who are attempting to deny me or are denying me one or more of my rights, thereby forfeit those very rights originally endowed them by God that they seek to deny me.

The gift of my rights by God obligates me to attempt to help others secure these same rights, whenever anyone attempts to deny them these same rights.

Rumsfeld Suggested Change in War Plan
Before Resignation, Memo Called For 'Major Adjustment'
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 3, 2006; Page A01

Two days before he resigned from the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld sent to the White House a classified memo recommending "a major adjustment" in Iraq strategy and acknowledging slow progress there.

"Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough," Rumsfeld wrote in the Nov. 6 memo.


Rumsfeld has made similar comments in public about insufficient progress in Iraq, both before and immediately after his resignation on Nov. 8.

But the defense secretary's unusually expansive memo also laid out a series of 21 possible courses of action regarding Iraq strategy, including many that would transform the U.S. occupation.

Michael O'Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution, said the revelation of the memo would undercut any attempt by President Bush to defend anything resembling a "stay the course" policy in Iraq.

"When you have the outgoing secretary of defense, the main architect of Bush's policy, saying it's failing, that puts a lot more pressure on Bush," he said.

The memo makes clear that Rumsfeld understood acutely the political implications of changing strategy.

"Announce that whatever new approach the U.S. decides on, the U.S. is doing so on a trial basis," he wrote in one of the bulleted options. "This will give us the ability to readjust and move to another course, if necessary, and therefore not 'lose.' "

He next advised: "Recast the U.S. military mission and the U.S. goals (how we talk about them) -- go minimalist."

Similarly, Rumsfeld advocated announcing "a set of benchmarks" for the Iraqi government -- "to get them moving," he added parenthetically, as well as to "reassure" the U.S. public that progress can be made.

The existence of the memo was first reported last night by the New York Times, which posted it on its Web site. The Pentagon confirmed the memo's authenticity.

Asked about the memo, White House spokeswoman Eryn Witcher said: "The president has said he's been dissatisfied with the progress in Iraq, so the right thing to do is reevaluate our tactics. There are a number of reviews underway, and the president is open to listening to a wide array of options."

Rumsfeld's ideas did not depart radically from the alternative strategies emerging so far from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group or from other military and governmental Iraq policy reviews initiated in recent weeks.

For example, Rumsfeld called for significantly increasing the number of U.S. military trainers embedded with Iraqi forces, and, in a twist, for "a reverse embeds program" that would place Iraqi soldiers with American squads, partly to boost the Arabic-language skills of U.S. troops.


Several options Rumsfeld raised involve withdrawing or pulling back the 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq as a way to pressure the Iraqi government to take greater responsibility for its own security. This idea, favored by many Democrats in Congress, has not been publicly embraced by Rumsfeld to such a degree. Still, Rumsfeld wrote that he opposed setting a firm withdrawal date.

"Begin modest withdrawals of U.S. and Coalition forces (start 'taking our hand off the bicycle seat'), so Iraqis know they have to pull up their socks, step up, and take responsibility for their country," Rumsfeld wrote.

Rumsfeld suggested using the security provided by U.S. troops in a carrot-and-stick approach, providing security only for provinces and cities that fully cooperate with U.S. forces. Similarly, reconstruction aid should go only to "those parts of Iraq that are behaving," he wrote, adding: "No more reconstruction assistance in areas where there is violence."

Options the defense secretary characterized as "less attractive" involved U.S. troop increases, such as a surge in U.S. forces into Baghdad or substantially increasing the number of American combat brigades in Iraq. The only place he recommended a U.S. troop increase was along Iraq's borders with Syria and Iran.

Rumsfeld's well-known frustration with other branches of the U.S. government comes through repeatedly in the memo, albeit far more bluntly than he has voiced in public. He called for reaching out to U.S. military retirees and reservists to "aggressively beef up" Iraqi ministries, adding, "i.e. give up on trying to get other USG Departments to do it."

Similarly, he called for a "massive program for unemployed youth" but said it would have to be run by U.S. forces, "since no other organization could do it."

Retired Army Col. Andrew Bacevich, now a professor of international relations at Boston University, said his impression of the memo is that it is a "laundry list" of current ideas entirely lacking in analysis.

"The memo is a tacit admission of desperation and of impending failure," said Bacevich, who has been critical of the conduct of the war.

People in Washington familiar with the workings of the Pentagon and the media were suspicious of the motives behind the leak of the memo.

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, an Iraq veteran who has been critical of Rumsfeld, said he was bothered by both the timing and the substance of the memo.

"For Mr. Rumsfeld to write this leaked memo, saying things aren't going well, is disingenuous and self-serving," said Eaton.

But he added that he did not think it would affect the morale of troops or officers serving in Iraq, saying he thought they would dismiss it as irrelevant "high-level politics."

Staff writers Thomas E. Ricks and Michael Abramowitz contributed to this report.

Michael O'Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution, said the revelation of the memo would undercut any attempt by President Bush to defend anything resembling a "stay the course" policy in Iraq.