Kurdish Walk-Out
July 23rd, 2008 by Sarah
Marc Lynch at Abu Aardvark suggests that the recent walkout of Kurdish Iraqi Parliament members at the vote on the country’s provincial election law spells trouble for political reconciliation. “At a minimum, it seems likely that President Jalal Talabani will not vote to ratify the law, which means it will not come into effect. Even worse would be if the decision drives Kurds to now demand the implementation of Article 140 [the deeply contentious referendum on the status of Kirkuk]… And then, of course, there’s the prospect of a mass Kurdish boycott of the provincial elections leading to a round of disenfranchisement reminiscent of the Sunni community in 2005.”
Posted in Elections, Iraq, Kurds, Legislation, Sectarianism | Comment »
Iraqi Accord Front Rejoins the Al-Maliki Government
July 21st, 2008 by Sarah
Al-Jazeera (via Juan Cole at Informed Comment) reports that the “Sunni fundamentalist Iraqi Accord Front rejoined the al-Maliki government. It left last summer over accusations that al-Maliki ignored Sunni sensitivities, refused to speak to his vice president, Tariq al-Hashimi, coddled Shiite militias that ethnically cleansed Sunnis, and kept tens of thousands of Sunnis in prison without charges or due process.”
Posted in Iraq, Political Parties | Comment »
Iraqi Provincial Elections Set for Late December
July 21st, 2008 by Sarah
The Iraqi Elections Committee has proposed to postpone elections until late December 2008 due to the failure of the Iraqi Parliament to pass its election law. Al-Zaman (via Juan Cole at Informed Comment) states that the new date is set for December 22.
Posted in Elections, Iraq | Comment »
Al-Maliki’s Support for Timetables Continues?
July 21st, 2008 by Sarah
Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki has told a German magazine Der Spiegel that he supports a 16-month proposal for withdrawal of U.S. troops. “That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.” Although Maliki did not explicitly say that he supported Barack Obama over John McCain, he did state that “whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems.”
Later, al-Maliki’s spokesman Ali Dabbagh held that Der Spiegel misinterpreted al-Maliki’s statement, while the magazine continues to stands by its original article.
John Marshall at Talking Points Memo, Virginia Dem at Daily Kos, Matthew Yglesias, and Juan Cole at Informed Comment all noted that while most have cited Ali Dabbagh as Maliki’s spokesman, he “actually seems to work for the CENTCOM, or Pentagon Middle East command.”
Juan Cole went further to suggest that “when the original demand came from al-Maliki for a timetable for US withdrawal, it was al-Dabbagh who reinterpreted it as a ‘time horizon.’ Al-Dabbagh was contradicted by National Security Counsellor Muwaffaq al-Rubaie, who seems actually closer in this thinking to al-Maliki. My guess is that al-Dabbagh has been recruited by some agency in Washington, DC, to explain away al-Maliki’s statements whenever they contradict Bush’s.”
Posted in Iraq, Military | 1 Comment »
Time Horizons v. Timetables
July 21st, 2008 by Sarah
Late last week, Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki and President Bush agreed to include a “time horizon” for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq. According to a written statement by the White House Press Secretary, the negotiations include a “general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals,” including certain improvements on the ground.
Steven Lee Myers of the New York Times reports that while the “White House offered no specifics about how far off any ‘time horizon’ would be… any dates cited in an agreement would be cast as goals for handing responsibility to Iraqis, and not specifically for reducing American troops.”
However, it seems as though the Iraqi leadership may have a different understanding of what “time horizon” means. Iraqi Parliament member Ali al-Adeeb said that ‘the Iraqi government considers the determination of a specific date for the withdrawal of foreign forces an important issue to deal with…I don’t know what the American side thinks, but we consider it the core of the subject.’”
Similarly, Dan Eggen and Michael Abramowitz in the Washington Post report that Maliki’s senior political advisor Sadiq Rikabi has stated that while negotiators were still working out the details, “the Iraqi government wants specific timelines governing different stages of what will eventually become a full U.S. withdrawal of combat forces.”
Dr. iRack at Abu Muqawama questions why the Iraqi leadership would agree to an ambiguous time horizon, if it ultimately wants a fixed timetable for a complete withdrawal. The blogger suggests that either al-Maliki was pressured by the Bush administration to agree to the more ambiguous language, or the Iraqi leadership actually wants the U.S. to remain in a supportive role, but is forced to appease the rising nationalist sentiment during the upcoming Iraqi election season.
Brian Ulrich at American Footprints agrees with Ezra Klein at the American Prospect that “fundamentally, Maliki’s comment [in Der Spiegel magazine] is evidence of what the Iraqi government sees as the primary impediment to their government attaining real legitimacy: Us. The American occupation is hugely unpopular, and if Iraq is to truly stabilize, its government needs to be seen as independent from the occupiers and opposed to their continued presence.”
Similarly, Adam Blickstein at Democracy Arsenal bluntly asks “isn’t the ‘aspirational goal’ for a majority of people in both the U.S. and Iraq to have American forces to leave?”
The Pan-Arab Daily (via Juan Cole) suggests, however, that the ambiguous language is in fact a compromise on Bush’s part, not al-Maliki’s.
But, Daniel Larison at The American Conservative disagrees. ”This is not really a shift, as the NYT would have it, so much as it is yet another rhetorical dodge. Officially, the administration has always wanted to leave Iraq as quickly as possible, and we all know that this claim is not credible.”
Posted in Iraq, Military | Comment »
2008: Editorials Criticize Obama on Iraq
July 18th, 2008 by Matt
First, the Washington Post takes aim, decrying Obama’s “foolish consistency” on a timetable for withdrawal, and predicting that it will be extremely difficult to achieve in the manner Obama presents it. The Post also criticizes Obama’s “irrational” and “indifferent” behavior toward the grander strategic ramifications of the war, reiterating how Iraq is “vital” to U.S. security interests, as it sits at the “strategic center” of the Middle East on “some of the world’s largest oil reserves”. Matt Yglesias sarcastically rebuts the notion that we should care about Iraq because of oil strategy:
“Oops, did I say democracy promotion? I meant to say that Iraq has a lot of oil so we need to try to micromanage its future. And yet it’s precisely this impulse — the belief that we desperately need to retain “influence” in oil-possessing parts of the world that got us into the corrupt bargain with the Arab autocracies that produced the conditions under which al-Qaeda arose and began targeting us. Remember when Iraq was supposed to be part of a drive for reform that changed that dynamic? Oh for the heady days of the Arab spring.”
Also, The Wall Street Journal rips Obama’s “judgment” on the surge.
Posted in Democracy Promotion, Election 08, Iraq, US foreign policy, US politics | Comment »
2008: Iraqis Offer Views On Obama
July 17th, 2008 by Matt
Sabrina Tavernise and Richard Oppel, Jr. report for The New York Times on the complicated sentiments expressed by 18 Iraqis informally polled on their feelings toward Barack Obama in advance of his upcoming visit. Although several of those asked say they feel a certain closeness and identifiability with Obama as a person, some (mostly in the Iraqi government or military) express apprehension over his plan to withdraw American forces should he be elected president.
Posted in Election 08, Iraq, Public Opinion, US foreign policy, US politics | Comment »
Signs of Thaw With Iran
July 17th, 2008 by Sarah
Many suggest that there are signs of a thaw in diplomatic relations with Iran. In addition to the Bush administration’s decision to send an American official to participate in international talks with Iran, Ewen MacAskill in The Guardian reports that the U.S. plans to establish a diplomatic presence in Iran for the first time in 30 years, by establishing a U.S. interests section.
Posted in Diplomacy, Iraq, US foreign policy | Comment »
2008: Obama’s Foreign Policy Speech
July 16th, 2008 by Matt
A few POMED-relevant items from Barack Obama’s foreign policy speech yesterday. First, he defines success in Iraq–downplaying the likelihood of “flawless democracy” in favor of “a government that is taking responsibility for its future - a government that prevents sectarian conflict, and ensures that the al Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge.” He goes on to say that victory will be near when Iraqis can responsibly “reach the political accommodation necessary for long-term stability.” The speech and Obama’s recent op-ed on Iraq provide details of his strategy for reaching such a point.
Obama links together the success of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and says he will focus on “training Afghan security forces and supporting an Afghan judiciary” while simultaneously building up the economy and cracking down on narco-trafficking. Elaborating on how to improve the security situation in the tribal areas between the two countries, Obama argues, “we must offer more than a blank check to a General who has lost the confidence of his people. It’s time to strengthen stability by standing up for the aspirations of the Pakistani people.” Only a “strong Pakistani democracy” can permanently secure the region.
Moving the topic to his plan for energy independence, Obama laments the rising price of oil and how it “takes leverage away from America and shifts it to dictators” in the Middle East and elsewhere. He also mentions doubling U.S. foreign assistance to $50 billion by 2012, which presumably would include a few bucks to support democracy and governance in weak and failing states.
Tim Fernholz thought Obama did well, especially on Iraq. Abe Greenwald criticizes Obama on Pakistan.
Posted in Election 08, Iraq, Pakistan, US foreign policy, US politics | 1 Comment »
Possible Delay for Iraq’s Provincial Elections
July 16th, 2008 by Sarah
Marc Lynch at Abu Aardvark reports that the vote on Iraq’s provincial elections law has been postponed, after Kurdish members walked out in protest. The blogger isn’t worried though. “The consequences of these elections will be enormous, and it would be foolhardy to rush into them with half-baked, politically controversial rules simply to meet an artificial deadline.”
However Eric Martin at American Footprints isn’t optimistic and believes Lynch misreads the context surrounding the law. “Various groups of Iraqis are battling to determine the political future of their country, to dictate their roles in it, to determine the level of foreign occupation/involvement, and to redress crimes and injustices both recent and historical. How does more time to discuss the various positions/demands undo that?”
Posted in Elections, Iraq | Comment »
Timetables….
July 15th, 2008 by Sarah
Tom Hayden in The Nation addresses the recent debate over some sort of timetable for U.S. withdrawal in Iraq. Hayden suggests Washington’s refusal to agree to a timetable amounts to a “crisis of democracy” because its position is contrary to majorities in both Iraq and the United States.
However, Hayden notes that Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki is using the timetable issue to “curry favor voters,” while attempting undermine Sadrists because of fears that the movement will gain support in the upcoming Iraqi provincial elections.
Posted in Elections, Iraq, Military, US foreign policy | Comment »
2008: Obama Op-Ed Reaction
July 15th, 2008 by Matt
As you would expect, Barack Obama’s Iraq op-ed in The New York Times yesterday resulted in a good amount of chatter from the blogosphere. Here’s a sampling of a few posts, ranging from supportive to full-blown enraged.
At Tapped, Tim Fernholz makes the argument that despite all the “flip-flopping” talk, Obama actually has the clearer plan of the two candidates. Despite the disproportionate (negative) media attention Obama is receiving, it’s McCain who has an “unclear strategy for staying in Iraq indefinitely”. Fernholz is mostly responding to John Judis, who thinks the media has a point about Obama’s flip-flop. Michael Cohen’s conclusion at Democracy Arsenal is that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds–unless you are running for President, in which case, it’s a requirement.”
James Joyner thinks Obama’s “new” plan is pretty much his old plan–which could still “snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.”
At Commentary, Peter Wehner says there is more than enough in Obama’s resistance to the surge, his overall assessment of the war, and his refusal to accept our recent success to disqualify him from being commander-in-chief. Wehner says the op-ed is the work of an “arrogant and intellectually rigid man”. Wehner’s colleague Max Boot weighs in as well, challenging Obama’s conclusions section-by-section.
John Hinderaker calls Obama’s op-ed “breathtakingly dishonest” in its attempt to vindicate his wrong decision about the surge, also criticizing Obama’s treatment of political progress in Iraq, and with regard to al-Qaeda and Afghanistan. According to Hinderaker, this could be the most dishonest thing produced by any “miscreant” in the history of American politics.
Posted in Election 08, Iraq, US foreign policy, US politics | Comment »
2008: Obama on Iraq in NYT, With Zakaria
July 14th, 2008 by Matt
In today’s New York Times, Barack Obama explains his plan for Iraq in light of recent calls by Iraqi political leaders for a timetable for American withdrawal. Obama maintains his commitment to remove American combat brigades over the course of 16 months (freeing up some forces to attend to the ongoing crisis in Afghanistan), while continuing to emphasize the inevitability of “tactical adjustments” depending on conditions on the ground. Troops would be removed from more secure areas first, volatile areas later, with some remaining to conduct counterterrorism operations and to train Iraqi security forces. Following this would be a “diplomatic offensive” engaging every country in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and a $2 billion effort to support Iraq’s refugees.
Obama also discussed Iraq at length on Sunday, sitting down for an interview on Fareed Zakaria’s new CNN show, “GPS”. Zakaria also posed questions on Islam’s internal struggle, the origins of Obama’s interest in foreign affairs, a divided Jerusalem, Afghanistan, and what he would do if Osama bin Laden were captured during his administration.
Posted in Election 08, Iraq, US foreign policy, US politics | Comment »
Don’t Have to Live Like a Refugee
July 14th, 2008 by Adam
The International Crisis Group recently released a report about the status of the Iraqi refugee crisis and its impact on regional and global stability. The report also recommends steps that Iraq, its neighbors, the U.S., and the international community can take in ameliorating the refugees’ plight. The report warns that the international community should not assume the crisis will resolve itself based on recent security gains as, “There is no indication that large numbers of refugees have returned because of a positive reassessment of security conditions.”
Posted in Iraq | Comment »
Status on Sadr
July 14th, 2008 by Sarah
Andrew Lebovich argues at The Washington Note that the surge “reworked the militia structure, inadvertently aiding the Sadrists both in the streets and in parliament by eliminating their rivals.”
While Eric Martin at American Footprints agrees that the recent anti-Sadrist operations in Basra, Sadr City and Amarah don’t pose a serious threat to the organization, Martin argues that the military campaign has proven to be a setback for the Sadrists both politically and with respect to their militia.
Posted in Iraq, Military, US foreign policy | Comment »
SOFA Agreement Is Abandoned
July 14th, 2008 by Sarah
Karen DeYoung at the Washington Post reports that the U.S. has abandoned efforts to create a SOFA agreement before the end of the Bush presidency. Instead, the U.S. and Iraq intend to sign a “memorandum of understanding” which will likely include a “time horizon” for withdrawal of some troops.
Dr. iRack at Abu Muqawama argues that the SOFA agreement failed because Iraqis perceived it to be a negotiation for permanent occupation, and the debate was framed in a way that reversed leverage. He blames Bush for refusing to negotiate for a withdrawal and failing to impose conditionality on U.S. support to Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki.
Yet, Daniel Levy and Michael Wahid Hanna write in an op-ed in the Boston Globe that widespread Iraqi consensus opposing the SOFA agreement may “turn out to be good news for both the United States and Iraq” “by providing the organizing principles for a nascent program of national accommodation and reconciliation.”
In regard to withdrawal of troops, Michael Cohen at Democracy Arsenal claims that the Bush administration is paradoxically embracing Barak Obama’s position and is less extreme than John McCain.
Meanwhile, the Defense Analysis Group at the Naval Postgraduate School will be releasing a report in the coming month, supporting troop withdrawal. It will recommend that “U.S. forces be reduced to as few as 50,000 by the spring of 2009, down from about 150,000 now.”
Posted in Iraq, Military | Comment »
2008: Political Discomfort on Iraq
July 10th, 2008 by Matt
As Barack Obama endured some discomfort over the July 4th holiday regarding the “refinement” of his position on Iraq, John McCain has endured something similar this week with the news that the Maliki government is seeking a timetable for eventual U.S. withdrawal. McCain’s most direct response to the withdrawal question is here at Time’s political blog. Adam Blickstein critiques the nature of McCain’s response at Democracy Arsenal; at American Footprints, Eric Martin seconds Blickstein’s point and offers some further analysis of what this exchange means for Iraq and McCain in the long run.
Posted in Election 08, Iraq, US foreign policy, US politics | Comment »
Timetable or No Timetable?
July 9th, 2008 by Sarah
Earlier this week, Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki addressed the inclusion of a timetable in a SOFA agreement with the United States. Shortly after, a White House spokesmen denied that such negotiations included a hard date for withdrawal.
Yesterday, Alalam News (Iran) reported that The Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani rejects any security agreement with US, stressing such deal will negatively affect the country’s sovereignty.
Today, Iraq’s National Security Advisor Mowaffak al-Rubaie warns, in firm language, “we would not accept any memorandum of understanding with [the U.S.] side that has no obvious and specific dates for the foreign troops’ withdrawal from Iraq.”
Juan Cole argues that al-Rubaie’s insistence that U.S. soldiers be subject to Iraqi law is quite unusual. Cole notes that every other SOFA agreement that the U.S. has around the world does not include this provision, and it will be seen as unacceptable in Washington.
M. Duss at The Wonk Room suggests that by demanding a timetable for U.S. withdrawal, Maliki is co-opting one of the Sadrist’s biggest issues.
Matthew Yglesias argues that agreeing to a firm timetable would “buy the United States an added degree of public support within which to conduct some additional operations and leave the best possible situation behind.”
Posted in Iraq, Military, US foreign policy | Comment »
Maliki Calls for U.S. Withdrawal
July 8th, 2008 by Sarah
After Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki suggested that a timetable for U.S. withdrawal may be included in a Status of Forces Agreement, a White House spokesman adamantly denies that negotiations between the U.S. and Iraq will set a “hard date for withdrawal.”
Jonathan Stein at Mother Jones suggests that Maliki’s comments represent a significant break from the Bush administration.
Likewise, the USA Today reports that Juan Cole believes the move is “a negotiating tactic by al-Maliki to ensure greater sovereignty for his government.”
However, Robert Dreyfuss at The Nation argues that Maliki doesn’t actually want U.S. troops to withdraw, but rather is under pressure from both Iran and Sunni nationalists to loosen Iraq’s reliance on America. “The pressure is building day by day for a US withdrawal, and Maliki is by no means in control of the process.”
Posted in Iran, Iraq, Military, US foreign policy | Comment »
