“Victory” in Iraq.
|
|
| Also listed in: Evergreen Progressives |
In a wonderful article, Peter W. Galbraith reviews the recent history and current status of the war in Iraq. He starts by looking at the definitions of victory used by President Bush - a unified, democratic and stable Iraq. McCain's definition is similar - an Iraq that is a "democratic ally." So the issue on the table is the path that makes democrats out of theocrats, sidelines Iran and "reconcile Kurds and Sunnis in Iraq's new order.
According to Galbraith, the surge has not been the main reason for the decline in violence. Rather, it is the rise of the Sunni "Awakening" that, supported by the Americans, have driven out al-Qaeda from the Sunni areas and diminished the awful attacks on the Shiites. This enabled the Shiite Moqtada al-Sadr to order his Mahdi Army to stand down, thinking that the US presence was temporary, and keep his powder dry for a subsequent renewed civil war with the Sunni.
But once the Shiite party most closely aligned with Iran assumed power in the central government under Maliki, the Shiite national army with American help was used to oust the Mahdi Army from most of Basra and reduced their power in Sadr City, Baghdad's Shiite slum. So in 2007 and 2008, according to Galbraith, Sunnis and Shiites fought civil wars, the Awakening (not the Americans) emerged to defeat al-Qaeda, the ruling Shiites undercut the Mahdi Army. So it was not the Shiite Iraqi army defeating insurgents but the Sunnis.
Maliki wants the US to withdraw so that he can turn his forces against the Sunni and the Kurds because he leads a Shiite party that wants to turn Iraq into a Shiite Islamic state, allied with Iran. Until 2007, the Americans fought alongside the Shiite-led Iraqi army, but under General Petraeus backed the Sunni Awakening that is deeply hostile to the Shiite government. So Maliki want the US to get out. With Americans gone, the Iraqi army and police could attack the Awakening. And Iran would back them up.
Meanwhile the Kurds in the north, who are secular, pro-western and democratic according to Galbraith, have been attacked by the central government forces at Khanaqin. Although the forces withdrew later, it was a danger sign to the Kurds, who have opposed us slaes of F-16s to Iraq because they fear they will be used against them.
Meanwhile, the political reconciliation that was supposed to happen once the surge bought some time has not occurred. For Maliki, the Kurds and Sunni are obstacles to achieving a Shiite Islamic state. Iran, not the US, is his primary ally, and he is a hard lineShiite militant from the Dawa Party, having spent twenty years in Iran and Syria.
John McCain says often that due to the surge, we are winning the Iraq war and that he wants to continue supporting a government and Iraqi factions that are Iran's closest allies in the Middle East. "He praises the Awakening and but [sic] seems not to have realized that the Iraqi government is intent on crushing it." His denunciations of Obama and Biden offer no protection to Iraq's Kurds.
"George W. Bush has put the United States on the side of undemocratic Iraqis who are Iran's allies. John McCain would continue the same approach. It is hard to understand how this can be called a success - or a path to victory."
According to Galbraith, the surge has not been the main reason for the decline in violence. Rather, it is the rise of the Sunni "Awakening" that, supported by the Americans, have driven out al-Qaeda from the Sunni areas and diminished the awful attacks on the Shiites. This enabled the Shiite Moqtada al-Sadr to order his Mahdi Army to stand down, thinking that the US presence was temporary, and keep his powder dry for a subsequent renewed civil war with the Sunni.
But once the Shiite party most closely aligned with Iran assumed power in the central government under Maliki, the Shiite national army with American help was used to oust the Mahdi Army from most of Basra and reduced their power in Sadr City, Baghdad's Shiite slum. So in 2007 and 2008, according to Galbraith, Sunnis and Shiites fought civil wars, the Awakening (not the Americans) emerged to defeat al-Qaeda, the ruling Shiites undercut the Mahdi Army. So it was not the Shiite Iraqi army defeating insurgents but the Sunnis.
Maliki wants the US to withdraw so that he can turn his forces against the Sunni and the Kurds because he leads a Shiite party that wants to turn Iraq into a Shiite Islamic state, allied with Iran. Until 2007, the Americans fought alongside the Shiite-led Iraqi army, but under General Petraeus backed the Sunni Awakening that is deeply hostile to the Shiite government. So Maliki want the US to get out. With Americans gone, the Iraqi army and police could attack the Awakening. And Iran would back them up.
Meanwhile the Kurds in the north, who are secular, pro-western and democratic according to Galbraith, have been attacked by the central government forces at Khanaqin. Although the forces withdrew later, it was a danger sign to the Kurds, who have opposed us slaes of F-16s to Iraq because they fear they will be used against them.
Meanwhile, the political reconciliation that was supposed to happen once the surge bought some time has not occurred. For Maliki, the Kurds and Sunni are obstacles to achieving a Shiite Islamic state. Iran, not the US, is his primary ally, and he is a hard lineShiite militant from the Dawa Party, having spent twenty years in Iran and Syria.
John McCain says often that due to the surge, we are winning the Iraq war and that he wants to continue supporting a government and Iraqi factions that are Iran's closest allies in the Middle East. "He praises the Awakening and but [sic] seems not to have realized that the Iraqi government is intent on crushing it." His denunciations of Obama and Biden offer no protection to Iraq's Kurds.
"George W. Bush has put the United States on the side of undemocratic Iraqis who are Iran's allies. John McCain would continue the same approach. It is hard to understand how this can be called a success - or a path to victory."
Stories from by friends still in describe the 1920 Revolutionary Brigade ("1920's" for short) not as a allies, but enemies with benefits.
The problem with bribing your enemies is that they will eventually want more.