I would love to say that the agreement reached yesterday by the Iraqi leadership is a huge step on the road to peace and reconciliation. But I don’t see how anyone who has watched this crew in action over the last year can honestly say what was agreed to yesterday by the major sectarian factions is anything except Washington-inspired window dressing:
Iraq’s top Shi’ite, Sunni Arab and Kurdish political leaders announced on Sunday they had reached consensus on some key measures seen as vital to fostering national reconciliation.The agreement by the five leaders was one of the most significant political developments in Iraq for months and was quickly welcomed by the United States, which hopes such moves will ease sectarian violence that has killed tens of thousands.
But skeptics will be watching for action amid growing frustration in Washington over the political paralysis that has gripped the government of Shi’ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.
While certainly significant in the sense that they were all able to sit down in the same room and basically agree that there are things that must be done to start Iraq down the road to peace, the devil, as always, is in the details:
Iraqi officials said the five leaders had agreed on draft legislation that would ease curbs on former members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath party joining the civil service and military.Consensus was also reached on a law governing provincial powers as well as setting up a mechanism to release some detainees held without charge, a key demand of Sunni Arabs since the majority being held are Sunnis.
The laws need to be passed by Iraq’s fractious parliament, which has yet to receive any of the drafts.
Again, I hate to be a party pooper, but these laws have been in “draft” form for months – some of them for more than a year. The oil revenue sharing law was passed in the spring and has yet to be taken up by Iraq’s parliament. In fact, precious little has been taken up by Parliament which usually has trouble finding a quorum of members to conduct business.
And frankly, it remains to be seen how much sway these gentlemen have with their various factions. Maliki has only nominal control over the Shia coalition that runs the Parliament. Vice President al-Hashemi has problems with his own party, the Iraqi Accordance Front, who walked out of the government last month over Maliki’s rank sectarianism.
As for the Kurds, as always, they have their own fish to fry. Since their long term goal is an independent Kurdish state, they can afford to be generous to the Sunnis while cooperating with the Shias when it suits them. They will support any deal that maintains their virtual independence from Baghdad.
In short, the senior Iraqi leadership has given General Petreaus one more arrow in his quiver when he gives his report to Congress in about two weeks. In addition to some progress in the security situation about which Petreaus will be able to boast, he can now claim that his deals with many of the Sunni tribes and this latest accord in Baghdad proves that his counterinsurgency strategy is working.
Unfortunately, Petreaus and the military cannot address the huge political and security problem brewing in the south as the British continue their withdrawal:
Shiite militiamen from the Mahdi Army took over the police joint command center in Basra on Sunday after British soldiers withdrew from the facility and handed control to the Iraqi police, witnesses said.Police left the building when the militiamen, loyal to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, arrived, the witnesses said.
The British military disputed the reports, saying they had been in contact with the Iraqi general in charge of security in Basra, who has said the Mahdi Army was not there.
But the witnesses said the Mahdi Army emptied the building — taking generators, computers, furniture and even cars, saying it was war booty — and remained there in the early evening.
This is the tip of the iceberg. Until Maliki can enforce the will of the central government in the south, all the reforms and agreements between the factions wil largely be moot. The writ of Baghdad law does not run in Basra and other towns and villages where the Mahdi and other militias are fighting for control – an intolerable situation that has gotten worse since the British have pulled back their forces and allowed the militias to move in.
This means a final and direct confrontation with Maliki’s friend and supporter, Moqtada al-Sadr is in the offing. Will the Mahdi be the next target for Petreaus if Congress gives him the go-ahead to continue the surge? One would think that the General would be forced to deal with the Mahdi if for no other reason than to plug the holes that will be left by the British drawdown of troops. That would mean some very hard fighting for our boys.
Cynics will question the timing of these accords as well as their utility. Coming two weeks before Petreaus’s report to Congress, the agreement smacks of gamesmanship by both the Iraqi and American governments. The parties all know that the Iraqi parliament will be months, perhaps even years, examining, debating, and amending these laws. For that reason alone, Congress should give little weight to this agreement when the debate over funding the surge picks up next month.
7:46 am
Ah, gamesmanship! And when Congress sets unrealistic expectations that, too, is gamesmanship… although pretty poor gamesmanship as no quick wit was used to jab at Iraq, just a bludgeon of expectations that even this Congress could not meet. Say, its August, just how is that federal budget coming along that has to be passed by 01 OCT? Over 80% done? Lovely ‘benchmark’! Which is, of course, ‘gamesmanship’.
Diplomacy is all about ‘gamesmanship’, and those wishing to point it out can also then point it out on our side and, indeed, on the side of any Nation on this planet.
The current government in Iraq is scrambling and hard to try and get something done because something is being done without them: local control of the towns and provinces is returning. Nary a national government to be seen, either. There are now a number of mayors with a ‘can do’ attitude on clearing the streets, getting businesses up and running, ensuring that the infrastructure works as best as they can… and then looking at what the national government should be doing for them, but isn’t. Had to be quite a bit of a shock to the panjandrum of food distribution in Sadr City to have a Sunni mayor come into his office with US and Iraqi Army officers to get food that was due them. Had to hand it over, too, but the paperwork took a few hours to fill out… now Baqubah announces the re-opening of its flour mills so that Iraq can start producing its own flour and other goods depending upon that. Ramadi is re-opening factories, putting folks to work, getting things running and securing their city.
The US is one thing, and ‘gamesmanship’ with the Congress is fully comprehensible. If a few mayors start to arrive in Baghdad to demand what their people deserve as put forth by their national government… ahhh… that is something entirely other now, isn’t it? You can’t do much in the way of ‘gamesmanship’ with that, especially when they start asking for the money, food and, oh BTW, the election laws so that local parties can run to govern the provinces. Congress and the US leaving are one worry, but competent mayors who have been overseeing the rebuilding and re-invigoration of their cities and that are renouncing terrorism and killing them off?
Faster, please!
We do forget our citizen soldiers take a specific view of the world with them, and then, apparently, adapt it to different circumstances. Will Iraq be a ‘Jeffersonian democracy’, nope! Will it be something that holds different governments accountable to different power structures? Ahhhhh… thats the question now, isn’t it? Because these national parties are seeing that they have very little ‘grass roots’ and that, somehow, the grass is now growing. Add in the changes to the oil revenue sharing due to the reserves now found in the Sunni Arab provinces and things will get interesting there.
Personally, I really don’t think much of a powerful central government. Much prefer the kind accountable to the people of the nation involved. Someday in America we may get that, but the trend is in the opposite direction. Someday we will remember what federalism and democracy are about…
10:11 am
How different would the world be if there were a western “political” surge in concert with the military counterterror surge rather than a political surge AGAINST the military surge? This agreement may just be a political move by the main players in Iraqi politics, but that’s still a good thing. The more the parties argue with words and dollars rather than bombs and bullets the more they move in a democratic direction. Perhaps that’s why certain Senators have chosen to polarize the debate by calling for the undemocratic removal of a democratically selected head of state.
11:54 am
Talk about gamenmenship, whose idea is to send our soldiers into Iraq and tell them they will not be allowed to carry a weapon but will be given a whistle to blow if she feels threatened? This is not only insane but morally reprehensible!