THE WAR IN CONTEXT:: Iraq, the War on Terrorism, and the Middle East Conflict

Iraq + war on terrorism + Middle East conflict + critical perspectives

Saudis threaten to back the Baathists (again) in a new Iraq proxy war
By Tony Karon, Rootless Cosmopolitan, December 1, 2006

...the "Sunni Front" that the U.S. has hoped to build against Iran may be taking shape, but one of its prime objectives may be rolling back the Shiite-led government that Iraqi democracy produced. (There was a reason, after all, that the regimes of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt had supported Saddam in his war with Iran.)

The strategy is a non-starter, of course, not only because it would set the U.S. against the majority of Iraqis, which is an untenable situation for an occupying army, but because the regional dynamic in the wake of the Iraq war has accelerated the collapse of the old regional order on which it is based. For all [Saudi commentator, Nawaf] Obaid's tough talk, the Iranians are unlikely to be quivering in their boots at the prospect of a more robust Saudi intervention in the region. The response of the region to last summer's conflagration in Lebanon, where the Saudis initially blamed Hizballah and were then forced to retract as the Arab street rallied overwhelmingly behind the Shiite guerrilla movement, was a sign that as hostile as they may be to Iranian influence, the old Sunni autocracies of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt are increasingly marginal players in the region. Bush succeeded in his aim of breaking the old order when he invaded Iraq, but the new Middle East he has created is nothing like what he intended. But it remains highly unlikely that this Administration is ever going to be ready to engage with the realities that it has helped create -- a region in which most of the traditional U.S. allies have been repudiated and the representative political forces tend to be Islamist in character and hostile to Washington's influence. [complete article]

U.S. considers ending outreach to insurgents
By Robin Wright, Washington Post, December 1, 2006

The Bush administration is deliberating whether to abandon U.S. reconciliation efforts with Sunni insurgents and instead give priority to Shiites and Kurds, who won elections and now dominate the government, according to U.S. officials.

The proposal, put forward by the State Department as part of a crash White House review of Iraq policy, follows an assessment that the ambitious U.S. outreach to Sunni dissidents has failed. U.S. officials are increasingly concerned that their reconciliation efforts may even have backfired, alienating the Shiite majority and leaving the United States vulnerable to having no allies in Iraq, according to sources familiar with the State Department proposal.

Some insiders call the proposal the "80 percent" solution, a term that makes other parties to the White House policy review cringe. Sunni Arabs make up about 20 percent of Iraq's 26 million people.

Until now, the thrust of U.S. policy has been to build a unified government and society out of Iraq's three fractious communities. U.S. officials say they would not be abandoning this goal but would instead leave leadership of the thorny task of reconciliation to the Iraqis. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the deliberations. [complete article]

Bush, Maliki and that memo
Editorial, New York Times, December 1, 2006

Mr. Bush's lack of curiosity was well known even before he became president, but as time has gone on and bad news has mounted, that disinterested quality has turned into a stubborn refusal to hear bad news. The country simply cannot afford it any longer. Three years of having Mr. Bush trust only his gut has plunged Iraq into bloody chaos and done untold damage to America. There needs to be an urgent change in policy.

Mr. Hadley's memo actually provides a clue to how Mr. Bush has managed to avoid facing hard facts. Despite the horrific situation it describes, the policy recommendations fail to convey any strong sense of urgency and seem to shrug off American responsibility for what has gone wrong. Either the president's security adviser was afraid to be as blunt as the situation requires or he, too, has managed to convince himself that the disaster is really not all that disastrous.

The president's advisers need to tell him all the harsh truths about Iraq in the vivid terms they require; they need to tell him how little time he has left to act. This administration has been orchestrating a foreign policy disaster of epic proportions, and history will remember both that the president failed to hear the warning bells and that many others failed to ring them loudly enough. [complete article]

Comment -- Criticism of the Bush administration all too often focuses on its personalities, yet what George Bush created is a culture. It reflects his own lack of seriousness and the fact that his primary motive for seeking office was above all for the sake of being in office. This self-serving mentality is evident right across the administration; one in which not a single high-ranking officer has resigned on a matter of principle. To rock the boat you have to be willing to disembark or get thrown off. Such willingness is singularly lacking in everyone who has associated him or herself with Bush and Cheney. This is a culture unified by self-interest.

Iraq panel to urge pullout of combat troops by '08
By Peter Baker and Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post, December 1, 2006

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group plans to recommend withdrawing nearly all U.S. combat units from Iraq by early 2008 while leaving behind troops to train, advise and support the Iraqis, setting the first goal for a major drawdown of U.S. forces, sources familiar with the proposal said yesterday.

The commission plan would shift the U.S. mission in Iraq to a secondary role as the fragile Baghdad government and its security forces take the lead in fighting a Sunni insurgency and trying to halt sectarian violence. As part of major changes in the U.S. presence, sources said, the plan recommends embedding U.S. soldiers directly in Iraqi security units starting as early as next month to improve leadership and effectiveness.

The call to pull out combat brigades by early 2008 would be more a conditional goal than a firm timetable, predicated on the assumption that circumstances on the ground would permit it, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the commission's report will not be released until next week. But panel members concluded that it is vital to set a target to put pressure on Iraqi leaders to do more to assume responsibility for the security of their country. [complete article]

Iraqi forces can take over by June 2007
By Tabassum Zakaria and Suleiman al-Khalidi, Reuters, December 1, 2006

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said on Thursday his government's forces would be able to take over security command from U.S. troops by June 2007 -- a move which could allow the United States to start withdrawing.

"I cannot answer on behalf of the U.S. administration but I can tell you that from our side our forces will be ready by June 2007," Maliki told ABC television after meeting U.S. President George W. Bush in Jordan. [complete article]

As the talks on Iraq conclude, Arabs wonder, is that all?
By Hassan M. Fattah, New York Times, December 1, 2006

For days, Arab governments lobbied against any American opening to Iran, Jordanians planned protests against President Bush and politicians braced for a possible announcement of a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

But as the summit meeting between President Bush and Prime Minister Kamal Nuri al-Maliki of Iraq concluded Thursday morning, the Arab world was left dumbfounded that nothing had come of it.

"I am baffled by what I saw," said Abdel Moneim Said, director of the Ahram Center for Strategic Studies in Cairo. "This was an expression of the Americans in deep trouble, but Bush's approach to dealing with the Iraqi problem also bore the signs of someone out of touch with what is going on." [complete article]

Al-Maliki faces revolt within government
By Hamza Hendawi, AP, November 30, 2006

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki faced a widening revolt within his divided government as two senior Sunni politicians joined prominent Shiite lawmakers and Cabinet members in criticizing his policies.

Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi said he wanted to see al-Maliki's government gone and another "understanding" for a new coalition put in place with guarantees that ensure collective decision making.

"There is a clear deterioration in security and everything is moving in the wrong direction," the Sunni leader told The Associated Press. "This situation must be redressed as soon as possible. If they continue, the country will plunge into civil war." [complete article]

Having pinned little hope on talks, many Iraqis appear to be beyond disappointment
By Kirk Semple, New York Times, December 1, 2006

Even if Sana al-Nabhani had cared about the summit meeting in Jordan on Thursday between Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki and President Bush, she would not have been able to watch the news. As usual, Iraqis went without electricity from the national grid for most of the day and she could not find any gasoline to run her personal generator.

Told by a reporter later in the day about the meeting's outcome, Ms. Nabhani, a 34-year-old homemaker, scoffed: "Is that all? Was that even worth the fuel consumed by their airplanes?"

Her dismay was common among Iraqis who managed to follow the news on Thursday. So was a range of other emotions that probably would not hearten Mr. Maliki or Mr. Bush, including disappointment, indifference and despair. [complete article]

Democracy strangled at birth
By Haifa Zangana, The Guardian, December 1, 2006

Five children were killed in their house in Ramadi, in the Anbar province, western Iraq, yesterday. The youngest female casualty was six months old and the eldest was aged 10. Another female at the scene was injured but refused treatment, the US military said in a statement.

A US patrol fired tank rounds, machine gun and small arms fire at " two men who were shooting from the roof of a house", the statement said. After the "battle" there were no US casualties but the US patrol found six bodies (five children and a female adult) inside the house.

The new massacre, like many others, follows the same pattern of actions by US troops: kill, try to cover up the crime, then issue a statement blaming it on the "insurgents" either directly or indirectly.

But these days the US massacres barely prickle the consciousness of the public. We are being repeatedly told that the main story in Iraq is Iraqis killing Iraqis in their hundreds each day, and that the main question is whether it has yet become a sectarian civil war, as if the victims care about the label. So the scores of Iraqi girls killed, in various cities, by the occupation troops are just a minor part of the picture. For Iraqis, it is not. The presence of occupation troops and their crimes are the main picture. [complete article]