“But for both sides the politics proved too tricky. Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, has managed to cling onto his post but heads a parliament so angrily divided that it rarely makes a decision—and his mandate is by no means strong enough to force one through on his own. The movement led by Muqtada al-Sadr, a populist Shia cleric, which is powerful both in government and on the street, remained vehemently opposed to letting any American troops stay. When it became clear that Iraqi politicians, mindful of the residual Iraqi anger over American abuses at Abu Ghraib prison and elsewhere, could not publicly approve of letting American soldiers have immunity from arrest, as any American administration must insist, the talks broke down and plans for a rapid and complete withdrawal began in earnest. In the United States, where Iraq has long been absent from the front page of newspapers, there were a few howls of protest at the news of the withdrawal………..”
Republicans are mostly pissed about the end of SOFA and withdrawal from Iraq. Candidates who never fired a shot in anger on a battle field are screaming against the “loss” of Eyeraq. You’d think Mesopotamia as there Jerusalem. Maybe the Republican National Convention next year the battle cry of this GOP diaspora will be “Next Year in Baghdad”, or is it Fallujah or Basrah or Abu Ghreib. Now I shall have to insist on all Republican Tea Party candidates going to Iraq. Not just the “viable” candidates like, well, I have to think more deeply on this “viability” thing. The American people are fickle and are prone to the “next morning: what the hell did I vote for” syndrome. By all means go to Iraq, talk to al-Maliki, talk to al-Sadr, text al-Sistani about staying. Then go for a group hike all he way to he Iranian border. And should you stray a bit and inadvertently cross over into the domain of the mullahs, the American people will understand. There is always 2016 or 2020…………
“Once friends, Turkey and Iran are finding that their reactions to the Arab Spring revolutions are driving them apart and renewing an old regional rivalry. One sign of the deepening divide was obvious from the attendee list for an international conference on Afghanistan security that opened today in Istanbul. Every primary player is here: 14 regional nations, with the presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan in attendance, as well as more than a dozen other countries, including the United States. But Iran had planned to send just its low-ranking deputy foreign minister, despite its long border with Afghanistan and claims of being a regional superpower. While Iran relented at the last minute and sent Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi, the diplomatic tension indicates how the people-power uprisings have helped transform the Turkey-Iran friendship into an escalating rivalry. So far, analysts say, Turkey appears the winner in pushing for secular, democratic outcomes …………..”
It almost looks like that old rivalry that was fought on territory extending from the Caspian Sea to Mesopotamia. Eventually the Turks ended up with what is now Iraq as well as the rest of the Arab East (it was mainly Iraq they fought over and kept winning and losing to each other). There is no doubt that the Arab uprisings have enhanced the Turkish role in the Middle East. The Arab uprisings have also sharpened the contrast between the Turkish model and the Iranian one. Many more Arabs now look toward Turkey, a NATO member, as an example. Perhaps it is the comparison between the elected Turkish leaders and their own thuggish Arab dictators and absolute tribal kings. It is also partly the contrast between Turkish leaders and the inarticulate Iranian clergy who come across as repressive (mainly because they are repressive). The Turks have also benefited from moving away from their “former” Israeli friends in recent months. Either way the Turks have benefited from the Arab uprisings, for now. The Iranians are on the defensive mainly because their system of government is not nearly as free and democratic as the Turkish one. They have also suffered partly as a result of a furious Saudi sectarian media campaign that has continued since the Iraqi elections of 2005. The Saudi dynasty rules Arab airwaves, or most of them. That Saudi campaign has not only been aimed at the Iranian regime: more ominously it has also targeted Arab Shi’as and poisoned relationships within many societies on the Persian-American Gulf. Cheers
mhg
“The New York Times newspaper reports the United States is
negotiating with Kuwait to allow American combat troops to be based in
the Persian Gulf area after completing the announced withdrawal from
Iraq by the end of this year. The Times says the United States is also considering sending more warships through international waters in the region. The size of the potential standby force has not been determined.
There was no immediate confirmation of the Times report, which was based on interviews with unnamed military officials and diplomats.
U.S. military plans in the region have been under discussion for months, but the Times said the talks became more urgent when President Barack Obama announced that the last American troops would leave Iraq by the end of December……….“
Several of the GCC states will no doubt be happy to host more U.S. forces. Kuwait especially was traumatized by the Iraqi invasion under the Ba’athist regime and feels more secure with American forces nearby. Yet it is not clear why the huge new buildup in the Persian-American Gulf. It is highly unlikely, with American and other Western fleets congesting the Gulf, that any “foreign” forces will invade. The only candidate, Iran, has never invaded its neighbors in modern times, but was invaded by Iraq (1980) and by the Soviet-British forces during World War II. Saudi Arabia invaded Bahrain last March by invitation from its ruling elites.
What many Arabs, outside the pro-Saudi Wahhabi GCC faux-liberals of my Gulf and their Salafi allies, speculate is that the West is preparing a military attack against Iran. The pro-Saudi Wahhabi faux-liberals of my Gulf and their Salafi allies hope fervently that this is true, that the West plans to start yet another war in our region. If the mullahs refuse to come to war, then by golly the West shall bring the war to the mullahs.
Cheers
mhg
Sports potentates of the Persian-American Gulf, including the GCC states and Yemen (which is not a Gulf state) and Iraq but minus Iran, met Monday and made a sudden decision to move the upcoming Gulf Cup games from Iraq to Bahrain. They cited instability in Iraq as a reason for the move, adding that it was not a political move and that the next round, the 2013 tournament, will be in Iraq. The move was from the frying pan of Iraq to the fires of rebellious occupied Bahrain.
Of course the move was all political. Moving the games from terrorist-threatened Iraq to a Bahrain where the people are in revolt against the regime. It was also a way for the GCC potentates to needle Iraq, insult it by forcing it to attend in occupied Bahrain or, possibly better yet, forcing it to withdraw from the event. No doubt the Saudis and their al-Khalifa toadies were behind the move, hoping the Iraqis will decide to quit. Of course the al-Saud may have to send in more tanks and soldiers into Bahrain for the games, and they may have to ban a majority of Bahrain’s people from attending the games. I suspect most of the people may boycott the games anyway.
One thing is almost certain: whoever wins the Gulf trophy can attribute the victory, as usual, to the ruling potentates; whoever loses will blame the mullahs in Iran. Cheers
mhg
Republicans, and Ed Koch and Joe Lieberman, are pissed that Obama is pulling out of Iraq. None of them is pissed that the Iraqis want the Americans out: they are pissed that the Americans are doing what the Iraqis want. In the old days this was called “colonialism”, when a Western guest force, usually uninvited, overstayed their welcome. The Americans had to fight several years with help from NATO the French (Lafayette and all that) to achieve what the Native Americans (aka Indian tribes) never did: get rid of the British colonial power. Now the Republicans are all opining that the United States should stay in Iraq. The great veteran of financial and downsizing wars, Mitt Romney, and that other veteran of office wars (and other office affairs) Newt Gingrich are up in arms. As are other GOP candidates.
Now I had suggested here earlier that Mr. Gingrich should head to Mesopotamia, along the border with Persia, with a view to spending some quality time as guest of the mullahs in Iran. I thought that would shore up his foreign policy credentials, if not his credibility. I am amending my earlier suggestion now. I am suggesting now that it is a good idea if Mr. Gingrich would take Mr. Romney along on his trek. To make it easier, they can each take along their hairdressers, sort of like the old colonial masters used to take along their hairdressers, butlers, cooks, shoe-shiners, etc. Mr. McCain also tempted me by showing ire at Mr. Obama for obeying the Iraqi people’s wish that US troops leave their country, but since he is not a candidate, I shall not make any suggestions. Some Arabs, especially some potentates on my Gulf, are also pissed at the U.S. withdrawal, mainly because the American occupation was like a stick they could use against the Iraqis. Now they don’t have that stick to discredit the Iraqi elections. I would suggest that Gingrich also take a couple of the ‘princes’ along on his trip. Cheers
mhg
The hypocrisy of some Arab opinion-ators, quasi-intellectuals, and faux-liberals (both the Wahhabi and non-Wahhabi variety) has been breathtaking. This is especially true in the Gulf region where many take their cue and their orders from absolute monarchies. Just look at how they treat events in the Arab Spring these days, and go back a few years.
Most Arab states ‘of the east’, and all the GCC Gulf states, supported the American-British invasion of Iraq in 2003. In fact they actively supported it (I supported it inactively at the time). Yet as soon as the “wrong” kind of regime emerged in Baghdad, they all turned against it, calling them “puppets”. Admittedly they are now too fundamentalist in Iraq for my taste, but then our whole region is heading that way, if only temporarily. They certainly are not nearly as sectarian or as fundamentalist in Iraq as they are in Saudi Arabia (almost nobody in the world is). Most Arab so-called ‘intellectuals’ and opinion makers still claim to be sour about Iraq, but they are not sour on their own governments for enabling it. But then we all wish sectarianism would just vanish. (Warning: maybe I’ll start my own ‘sect’ and have everyone else join me. I promise that I’ll not use witchcraft. Sorcery and magic will be seriously frowned upon).
Now to Libya. Many, possibly most, of the very same Arab opinion-ators were eager for the West, for NATO, to intervene in Libya. Their concern was admirable: to save Libyan civilians from the dictator and his henchmen. Yet Saddam had killed many more Iraqis, and others, during his rule than Qaddafi, than anyone else in modern Arab history. They accepted (actually pushed for it) American, British, and French forces to fight against Qaddafi even as they complained about American and British forces intervening in Iraq.
The hypocrisy is not confined to one party or one sect. It works for all sides. Some who are against the Syrian uprising strongly support the Bahrain uprising. Some who are strongly against the Bahrain uprising strongly support the Syrian uprising.
“President Barack Obama said on Friday that all U.S. troops would withdraw from Iraq by the end of 2011 as scheduled. Washington and Baghdad had been in discussions over whether some U.S. troops would stay on as trainers, but failed to reach a deal over the issue of immunity for American troops…………”
So Mr. Obama announced about one hour ago.
The ignorance (and occasionally stupidity) of some analysts, experts, and former high officials and generals (and some reporters) astounds me. The latest news is about SOFA: lack of an agreement on the status of US troops has led to a decision to withdraw from Iraq. This is exactly what President Obama had promised in 2007 and 2008. Yet it is being treated as some kind of ‘quasi-defeat’. Then there is the phony issue of a “vacuum” in Iraq. Iraq is a large country, potentially the richest in the Middle East if it gets its act together. Its population, Shi’a or Sunni or Buddhists, have a strong nationalist streak that goes back to their struggle against the British mandate in the early 1920s. No country in the neighborhood can “control” Iraq: not ancient Iran now under a theocratic regime, not tribal Saudi Arabia under an absolute monarchy, nor former occupier Turkey which has its own border issues. No doubt there will be foreign influences in Iraq:
There will be a strong Iranian influence, mainly in the middle and the south and the Kurdish north. Yet there has always been a strong Iranian influence in Iraq, even under Saddam Hussein’s Ba’athist tyranny. It was not overt, as millions of Iraqis were terrified into repeating the Ba’athist mantra.
There will be some Saudi (and Jordanian and Syrian) influence but limited to the west (al-Anbar, etc). There have always been tribal connections with these Arab states, especially in the west and parts of the southwest. And there is the Arab money flowing to the tribal leaders, just as Iranian money is reported to flow to some groups.
There will be a strong American influence. There will always be some American influence in Iraq, much more than all these “experts” claim. Possibly Iraq may now have the best American-trained armed forces and security forces in the Arab world. Best trained and well-armed, but not necessarily best led. Then there is the fact that most Iraqis, like most Arabs, like even more Iranians, are fascinated by many aspects of American life. Many aspects but not all aspects of American life. Most Arabs, like even more Iranians, would rather live an American life-style than an Iranian or Saudi lifestyle, with some cultural modifications. Most would rather have an American style political system of government than being ruled by mullahs or tribal Arab princes or the usual kleptocrats and despotic dynasties.
Iraq is Arab and she will remain an important Arab state.
There will be no vacuum in Iraq. There will, however, be opposing or conflicting influences. Cheers
mhg
Saudi network Alarabiya reports that the Libyan rulers (NTC) have decided to bury the corpse of Mu’ammar Qaddafi in an unmarked grace in an unknown location. This is (at least) the second public atrocity committed by the new rulers. The first one, as I wrote here yesterday, was to allow the wounded and captive dictator to be tortured and killed. I wrote that he should have been tried, as Saddam was tried in Iraq for three years. I also speculated that killing Qaddafi was convenient escape for some of Libya’s current leaders and for many Western leaders who dealt with him, for a price. Now making Qaddafi’s body vanish is another atrocity, another unnecessary act. Saddam Hussein’s grave is known and marked, and it has not caused him to come back to life. A dead body, no matter who had occupied it, deserves some dignity, one of many things the new rulers of Libya apparently need to learn after 40 years of dictatorship.
All this is a worrisome sign for the “New” Libya: it resembles what happened in Iraq when the Ba’athists (and their allies) first took over. Cheers
mhg [email protected]
I watched the grisly, nay ugly, savagery in the footage of Mu’ammar Qaddafi in captivity: at first wounded but very much alive, then dead naked and being dragged about. There is no way he was shot while trying to escape, but that is alright now, everyone wants the new Libya to start with a ‘clean’ slate. Nobody wants the new Libya to start with the usual extra-judicial atrocities that the old dictatorship committed. Which brings me to the new ‘regime’, which will be what it is until a ‘proper’ government is elected by the people. That is why most Arab regimes are ‘regimes’: unelected, possibly unelectable, and I don’t mean just the republics. Now this killing of Qaddafi also helps the National Transitional Council clean its own slate, given that many of its members served in high positions under Colonel Qaddafi. It saves a lot of embarrassing and inconvenient court testimony by Qaddafi and his lawyers and witnesses. A lot of local names to be talked about: who did what under Qaddafi. With the dictator dead, there is no need to embarrass anyone. Then there is no need to embarrass Western leaders who dealt with the dictator and helped him, for a price of course. (I wonder what Berlusconi and Sarkozy and Tony Blair and many others feel now). Saddam Hussein was tried for three years before being executed. (I recall the media in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain thought that was extra-legal, as if their own regimes care much for legal niceties: in both these countries people vanish without legal niceties, sometimes forever). But then the new Iraqi government was mostly composed of former exiles and not composed of his former officials. Nobody to embarrass with court testimony. Cheers
mhg
“US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has encouraged Afghanistan’s wary leadership and civic leaders to keep up Taliban reconciliation efforts and boost counterterrorism co-operation with Pakistan, as the Obama administration presses ahead with troop withdrawal plans. On an unannounced visit to Kabul, Clinton told civic leaders on Thursday that the US would not abandon Afghanistan and pledged that reconciliation would not come at the expense of women’s and minority rights. Clinton, who arrived in the capital on Wednesday, was to see President Hamid Karzai and other top Afghan officials to repeat her message later on Thursday. She assured women’s rights activists, educators and politicians that their concerns “are being heard at the highest levels of the US government”. “These are some of my heroes,” she told reporters before the start of a meeting at the US embassy……. Clinton’s trip comes after Karzai expressed frustration with attempts to woo Taliban fighters away from the fighting amid increasing attacks by the Taliban-allied, Pakistan-based Haqqani network. In her meetings with Afghan officials, Clinton was also to underscore the importance of linking Afghanistan to its neighbours, a consideration for a regional conference inIstanbul, Turkey.………”
Apparently Clinton read Karzai parts of the riot act (long overdue). But keeping minority and women rights, such as they are, will be hard with the Taliban in government. Meanwhile Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has delayed his own approach to Kabul until she leaves. His jet was practically in a holding pattern as he follows her into the Afghan capital.
Come to think of it, Ahmadinejad has away of descending onto Kabul right on the heels of departing American potentates. I recall hims descending into Baghdad right after Dick Cheney had left: the difference was that he entered the city in broad daylight. He did the same in Kabul once: arriving just as Cheney left. Do you suppose he is trying to send a message with his stalking (well, not him, but his mullah bosses)? It is possible he was trying to tell Cheney that Iran will always be lurking across the border: to the northeast of Iraq, to the West of Afghanistan.
They say Hillary is heading to Pakistan. I wonder what Ahmadinejad’s post-Kabul travel plans are. Cheers
mhg
Rattlesnake Ridge 
BFF