Pacification one step closer in Iraq?

[Ramo]

The question is, will the new Iraqi gov't, likely under Jaafari, continue these talks? Jaafari seems to be committed much more rigidly to de-Ba'athification than Allawi.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo

I don't know if State entirely took over, though. Negroponte and Allawi were important victories for them, granted, but I thought Fallujah for instance was more Defense's dawg than State's.

well the execution was, it was a military campaign after all. If you mean that State or NSA or, for that matter, Allawi, thought it was a bad idea, i think youre incorrect. I think the consensus was that an insurgent sanctuary in Fallujah was unacceptable on numerous grounds.

As for Allawi, I thought Defense pretty much fell in line ever since the choice was made (certainly, neo-con critiques of Allawi have been sparse)

you havent been reading Jim Hoagland in the Washington Post, have you? Granted Im not sure how much Hoagland writes based on his neocon contacts, and how much on his personal contacts with Iraqis, notably Chalabi, but hes been a strong voice. If youre interested in Iraq, intra - US govt politics, etc you really do owe it to yourself the read the WaPo regularly.

, but it is an amusing thought that a massive victory for Islamists could be considered a victory for Defense.

These "islamists" aint salafists or Khomeinists. It is a victory for democracy promotion over "realism", for Debaathification, and for the Shiite-Kurdish alliance. Recall please that pre-war some at DoD wanted an "Afghan" strategy relying on US air allied with Peshmerga and exiles, as opposed to the State/CIA strategy that looked to Iraqi army types, like Allawis friends. It may not be a victory for long term US bases in Iraq, or having an Iraqi "puppet" but I dont think that was EVER DoD strategy.

That may be the case, but I haven't seen any evidence that the US particularly committed itself to the process.

I dont think Allawi got enough response to justify US commitment.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
The question is, will the new Iraqi gov't, likely under Jaafari, continue these talks? Jaafari seems to be committed much more rigidly to de-Ba'athification than Allawi.

which is why I asked earlier, what is that the Sunni Arabs want? If they want to continue rebaathification of the security services, I dont think Jaafari will give them that. Indeed, given the evidence that the Iraqi state is highly penetrated by insurgent sympathizers, and that has been of significant benefit to the insurgents, debaathification may be a strategic necessity, not just a political position.

Im also not sure that the negotiations with insurgents are in the same category or cover the same areas as the political discussions expected to take place with AMS and IIP.

[lord of the mark]

, but it is an amusing thought that a massive victory for Islamists could be considered a victory for Defense.

It is a mistake, a profound mistake, to identify the strategizing of Wolfowitz, Feith, Rumsfeld, Bolton, etc with the rantings of an Anne Coulter, Michelle Malkin, or other islamophobes in the media. The right wing Islamophobes tend to defend the neocons largely from 1. a vicious hatred for the kinds of folks who tend to attack the neocons 2. an admiration for the use of American force 3. a refusal (shared on the left, BTW) to take the neocons strategy seriously

[Ramo]

well the execution was, it was a military campaign after all. If you mean that State or NSA or, for that matter, Allawi, thought it was a bad idea, i think youre incorrect. I think the consensus was that an insurgent sanctuary in Fallujah was unacceptable on numerous grounds.

I got a different reading from State. IIRC, there was a sharp reversal of policy regarding Fallujah (and other things). Something that can only signify turf wars over Iraq.

you havent been reading Jim Hoagland in the Washington Post, have you? Granted Im not sure how much Hoagland writes based on his neocon contacts, and how much on his personal contacts with Iraqis, notably Chalabi, but hes been a strong voice. If youre interested in Iraq, intra - US govt politics, etc you really do owe it to yourself the read the WaPo regularly.

I generally look to TNR for that perspective. Thanks for the tip.

These "islamists" aint salafists or Khomeinists.

Some are. From what I've heard, there are a dozen or two genuine Sadrists on the list (incidentally, I find it quite rediculous that not only did no one know who the candidates were before the election, no one seems to know a month after it).

In any case, they're almost certain to implement sharia as personal status law, and perhaps even extend it to economic relations, etc. Remember that they're trying to make Islam the sole source of legislation; while they may not be able to get that in the Constitution, they may get that informally for as long as they're in power.

It is a victory for democracy promotion over "realism", for Debaathification, and for the Shiite-Kurdish alliance. Recall please that pre-war some at DoD wanted an "Afghan" strategy relying on US air allied with Peshmerga and exiles, as opposed to the State/CIA strategy that looked to Iraqi army types, like Allawis friends.

Sure, sure, I see how it can be seen as a victory for Defense, but the thought amuses me.

It is a mistake, a profound mistake, to identify the strategizing of Wolfowitz, Feith, Rumsfeld, Bolton, etc with the rantings of an Anne Coulter, Michelle Malkin, or other islamophobes in the media. The right wing Islamophobes tend to defend the neocons largely from 1. a vicious hatred for the kinds of folks who tend to attack the neocons 2. an admiration for the use of American force

I'm not just talking about Coulter et al. There seems to be a bit of paranoia towards the "Islamo-fascist menace" in neocon circles.

3. a refusal (shared on the left, BTW) to take the neocons strategy seriously

That might be because the Admin neocons don't seem to take the "neocon strategy" seriously. Hence, when Musharraf refused to resign as head of the army, not a peep from these guys.

I was watching a Dean/Perle debate on foreign policy a week ago, and I was struck by precisely how poor Perle's connection to realty was. He's still trying to pass the Iraq war off as some victory for American national security against "the terrorists." Not in terms of a flowing of democracy, domino effect, etc., etc., but he still seems to think that Saddam was in cahoots with al-Qaeda. It's all Straussian doublespeak for these guys. Who the hell knows what they really think?

Practically, it seems like their support for real democracy is lukewarm at best. Wolfy, after all, was a supporter of Suharto, Chun and Marcos. "Democracy promotion" in Iraq has specifically excluded anything that might restrain corporatism, illustrated by the continued repression of unions, dissolution of any badly needed welfare, etc. (showing either a fundamental lack of understanding of, or apathy towards, opposing Islamist terror and supporting democracy).

which is why I asked earlier, what is that the Sunni Arabs want?

I have no idea. As far as formal demands, the only one seems to be "end the occupation."

Incidentally, the AMS recently denied involvement in negotiations with Americans; rather that the American contacts are with "high leaders of the dissolved Baath Party." If that's the case, success of these negotiations would only have limited effect in stopping the insurgency:

The following interesting excerpt from today's (Feb 23) Al-Hayat (my translation from Arabic):


' A member of the Association of Muslim Scholars [believed to be the most popular group among Arab Sunnis in Iraq] has denied that the contacts held by the American delegation wiith armed groups involved the Association.

He declared to Al-Hayat that the practice of equating the "armed resistance" with the Sunnis is "a big mistake, and the contacts do not take place with Sunni groups but with high leaders of the dissolved Baath Party."

He added that the Association is not concerned by these contacts, because it is "a Sunni religious authority opposed to the occupation through peaceful means, and even though it considers the resistance to be a legitimate right of every Iraqi, it rejects terrorism and the killing of innocents."

He revealed that the contacts engaged with the Association in order to integrate it in the new government centered only around the procedure of writing the constitution, and were held with Iraqi political forces and with Ashraf Qadi, the representative of the UN General Secretary, and not with the Bush administration.

He added that "these meetings will remain useless if the Americans keep betraying their promises, like carrying on the military operations and arrests."
"The US administration, which is the occupying force, should have controlled the borders with the neighbouring countries that allow the infiltration of terrorist groups, and made a distinction [in their contacts] between the legitimate resistance and terrorism, unless they are the first beneficiaries of the instability of security conditions to guarantee that they will stay as long as possible." '

[Berzerker]

The irony is many insurgents dont want the US to leave soon, not because they want US targets, but because they want the US army to protect them from the Shia. Thats what the insurgency is really about, fear of reprisals from former victims of Saddam and the Sunnis.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Berzerker
The irony is many insurgents dont want the US to leave soon, not because they want US targets, but because they want the US army to protect them from the Shia. Thats what the insurgency is really about, fear of reprisals from former victims of Saddam and the Sunnis.

We should do as little as possible to disuade the Shia in this as we give them one last chance to negotiate before we leave.

[Ramo]

The irony is many insurgents dont want the US to leave soon, not because they want US targets, but because they want the US army to protect them from the Shia. Thats what the insurgency is really about, fear of reprisals from former victims of Saddam and the Sunnis.

Not really. The insurgents (mistakenly IMO) believe that they can win a civil war. That's their strategy - get the US to leave, then take over the country.