March 13, 2006
AN INTERNAL AFFAIR:
Iraq's Sovereignty Vacuum: The Campaign to Pacify Sunni Iraq (Michael Schwartz, March 13 , 2006, Mother Jones)
What the world has come to call the "insurgency "in Iraq is largely located in Baghdad and the Sunni-dominated cities to the north and west of the capital. In the Kurdish north and Shia south, residents have largely been organized into local quasi-governments that are frequently at odds with the American occupation (and therefore with the central government in the capital); but -- despite notable moments of great violence -- none of these localities has mounted a sustained war against the American-led presence as the Sunnis have.While the Sunni insurgency is certainly the focus of Iraqi news coverage, the actual nature of the war in Sunni areas goes largely unreported. Coverage tends to focus on spectacular moments of violence and destruction, especially car bombs and other suicide attacks against civilian targets. Only rarely mentioned are the multitude of small-scale confrontations between resistance fighters and patrolling American troops that account for the majority of violent clashes. As a result, the methods of the American side -- the use of assault weapons, tanks, artillery, and air power -- and so the spreading "collateral" damage to Iraqi civilians is significantly underreported.
A recent James Glanz piece in the New York Times proved an exception to this pattern. Based on U.S. military statistics, Glanz offered strong evidence against the administration portrait of a weakening (or at least stalemated) resistance movement. Guerrilla attacks had, in fact, "steadily grown in the nearly three years since the invasion." Even during a "lull" in December 2005, the 2,500 violent confrontations -- over 80 per day -- were "almost 250 percent [higher than] the number in March 2004," which, in turn was twice the level of August 2003.
The chart that accompanied the article (originally delivered to the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee by Joseph A. Christoff of the Government Accountability Office) contained an even more significant fact, almost unknown to the American public: Despite the impression we may have from news reports, Iraqi civilians constitute only a small proportion of resistance targets each month -- never exceeding 20% and typically falling well below 10%. In December 2005, they accounted for just 8% -- about 200 -- of the 2,500 attacks. .
The overwhelming target of such attacks -- in a typical month around 80% of them -- was the American military and its coalition allies, mainly the British. Last December, the figure was a little over 70%; some months it reaches 90%. The Iraqi armed forces (integrated, as they are, into the American command) account for another 5-10% of the targets.
Until now, at least, the war in the Sunni areas of Iraq has largely been between the Americans and the guerrillas. The Iraqi government itself is not a factor in this confrontation, and consequently is rarely mentioned -- even in a pro forma way -- in news accounts of the battles, negotiations, and other elements of the war.
How then, as best we can tell, is the Sunni resistance organized in the many cities in the four provinces in central Iraq and in Baghdad where the war is an ongoing part of life?
Though it is divided into two ideologically contrary groups -- the guerrillas who target the occupation and the jihadists who tend to seek out civilian targets -- and within those divisions into many grouplets, the Sunni resistance is coherent enough to be another contender for sovereignty, at least in its own areas. It has tied down and exhausted the U.S. military, forcing strategic and tactical alterations in American policy. It continues to influence both national and local Iraqi politics, even as its internal contradictions increasingly set jihadists and guerrillas against each other.
The role played by the Sunni resistance can best be understood by briefly reviewing the situation in Falluja before its recapture by American forces in November 2004. In April of that year, after an abortive attempt to seize the city, the U.S. military had withdrawn, leaving it in the hands of the "Falluja Brigade," made up mainly of Baathist army veterans. They were assigned the job of pacifying the city. Instead, the Brigade gave its support to a group of local religious leaders allied with the insurgency that soon evolved into a local government. Borrowing its organizational skeleton from the rich community organizations traditionally connected to Sunni mosques (including their Shari'a courts), it used the resistance fighters as a police force. Perhaps not surprisingly, the structure that developed was similar to those that had already formed in Shia cities like Basra.
During the period from April to November, Falluja had only the most tenuous ties to the national government in Baghdad. Nir Rosen, an independent journalist, produced remarkable descriptions of the city in this period (for the New Yorker and Asia Times). His pieces give a sense of the developing tensions between the jihadists, who wanted to establish Falluja as a safe rear area for their larger operations, and the local resistance, determined to keep the Americans out but uninterested in going on the offensive. The new government also heightened tensions by enforcing cultural customs similar to those adopted in Basra: head scarves for women, facial hair for men, and the abolition of liquor and western music. In these months, street crime disappeared, as did armed confrontations of any sort. They would prove the most peaceful in Falluja since the fall of Saddam's regime.
As this interlude indicated, in the Sunni areas local clerics already constituted a proto-government-in-waiting, quite capable of enforcing "law and order" if not challenged by the occupation military. The fighting in Sunni cities comes and goes with the arrival and departure of the occupation military. When the occupation forces enter a city (or a neighborhood in Baghdad), the IEDs begin to explode, snipers fire away, and hit-and-run attacks start up. As soon as they withdraw to pacify another town, the city in question, in a more battered state, falls back into the hands of local clerics and their allies among the guerrillas.
At no time does the Iraqi government figure significantly into this process. Occasionally, it may appoint a governor or police chief, but these functionaries quickly discover (like their counterparts in Basra and Kirkuk) that they have little choice but to work with the local power structure, resign in protest over their lack of authority, or become assassination targets.
In a sense, the difference between Sunni cities -- most of which have been wracked by fighting -- and their Shia or Kurdish counterparts has been the determination of the American military to pacify them.
Whether the Shi'ites of Iraq choose to tolerate a Sunnistan in the middle of the country or to purge them instead oughtn't matter to us. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 13, 2006 10:17 AM
i wouldn't read an article about the correct spelling of "mother" in Mother Jones. the chances of an article like this being accurate are exactly 0.000000%
Posted by: toe at March 13, 2006 6:44 PMYes, Mr. Judd but as you probably are aware, way back when this thing was nothing but a really bad idea in GWs head, everyone decided we could not possibly accept any borders based on population status. But now the mullahs are reminding us of what we forgot after Vietnam: All Politics Is Local.
No We would go with those boundries laid down all those years with a ruler and pencil, in London, in White Hall, by somebodies secretary. Of course everyone who said the second Iraq war was a bad idea, or even the Iraq itself was a bad idea, is now told that they said no such thing and that nobody saw this insurgency coming. The same for people who said we should make friends with the Iranians. If they did say there was something vaguely unpatriotic about it. We'll figure that out later and Anne Coulter can write a book about it.
How do you lose your job in Washington these days? Do you have to crap on the president's desk? The democrat almost lost his job for getting felated on a copy machine. What exactly does a republican have to do? Invade Russia?
Posted by: exclab at March 13, 2006 6:59 PMex:
No, it would be nice if Iraq was to choose to be multi-sectarian, it just isn't important. But, yes, to oppose liberty for Iraq--or anyone else for that matter--is literally unAmerican.
You lose your job by doing something illegal, not by doing the right thing messily.
Posted by: oj at March 13, 2006 7:04 PMThis article of course glosses over the torture / murder rooms found after Fallujah was recaptured. I doubt there's much if any street crime in North Korea either.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at March 13, 2006 7:30 PMWho is opposing liberty for Iraq? Not me. And I hate to be a bore but opposing people's liberties has been american on many occasions. Liberating people has also been the proud action of americans from time to time. But to say that opposing liberty is unamerican is not saying anything meaningful, because americans have often happily done so. In the name of God and America.
As for losing one's job? Yes, presidents and thier cabinets should loose thier jobs for doing them badly. I think that is justified and very desirable. Especially in this case. This president does not live in the same world as I do. I live in a market driven world where work force education, nuclear proliferation, government spending, free trade and china are the biggest problems for the future of the USA. GW does not think too hard about any of that. The middle east and our bad step child, Israel, are not the issue.
I say we eat crow, make friends with Iran and start getting our street cred in the ME back. Its cheaper and more effective. And by doing so we will stop China taking all the choclates.
Posted by: exclab at March 13, 2006 7:45 PMNo, America has done it, but it's unAmerican, which is why it's done in the name of Realism, not God.
We are friends with the Iranians just not their current government.
Posted by: oj at March 13, 2006 8:37 PM"We are friends with the Iranians just not their current government."
According to whom? We've done a poll? I would not be so sanguine. We should be friends with the government, if we are going to invade the country one side and then the other. Again - dumb.
Posted by: exclab at March 13, 2006 9:20 PM"No, America has done it, but it's unAmerican, which is why it's done in the name of Realism, not God."
I don't know. If realism preempts americanism, I am not sure how much you want to rely on it. We're pals with the King of Morroco and always have been. How much would it cost us to get "american" with him? We practically gave him the Western Sahara, against the wishes of the people who live there. If thats us being realistic, who cares about being american or unamerican. We walked in and said "Whose in charge here?" The king said "me". We said "Hokay! its yours."
And that was that.
Posted by: exclab at March 13, 2006 9:29 PMYes, polls routinely show that Iranians are favorably disposed towards America. Our quarrel is with the current regime, not the people:
http://www.pressreleases.be/script_UK/newsdetail.asp?nDays=d&ID=27152
Posted by: oj at March 13, 2006 9:59 PMThe current King of Morocco is rapidly Westernizing. Morocco will probably number among the successful nations of the latter half of the 21st century.
This president does not live in the same world as I do. I live in a market driven world where [China is one of] the biggest problems for the future of the USA. GW does not think too hard about any of that.
GW lives in an intensely market-driven world, it's just that the market he's participating in distributes power, not dollars.
He can't lose his job due to incompetence, but he can lose any ability to do anything but cut ribbons and smile at cameras.
China may or may not be a future global problem, but they will in no way threaten the future of America during the 21st century, either militarily or economically.
If anything, we want them to become a hugely successful and mature economy.
The middle east and our bad step child, Israel, are not the issue.
Israel is the best child that anyone could want - smart, innovative, tough, determined, principled, the baddest mofo on the block...
Most of the rest of the M.E. suffers from a bad case of Zion-envy, Turkey, Jordan, and the UAE excepted.
I say we eat crow, make friends with Iran and start getting our street cred in the ME back.
I say we bomb Iran until they get their minds right. They're wasting billions on pointless nuclear weapons, when what they really need are a few oil refineries.
If taking down Saddam's regime in three weeks doesn't give us any cred in the M.E., nothing will.
And by doing so we will stop China taking all the chocolates.
I say we let China buy up all of the oil in the M.E., and we get cracking on the next transportation paradigm.
They'll be locked into supporting a hundred year old technology, and we'll steal a march on the future.
Posted by: Noam Chomsky at March 13, 2006 10:01 PMYes, Morocco and Tunisia are on the cusp of becoming normal Western-style nations. They just need to boost their standards of living slightly to be able to maintain liberal democracy.
If Morocco and Tunisia would take Algeria with them into the modern world, it would take the pressure off France as Algerians would find their way back home to participate in the new found prosperity. I surely hope Allah akbar's these brave efforts.
Posted by: erp at March 14, 2006 9:25 AMchom
"He can't lose his job due to incompetence, but he can lose any ability to do anything but cut ribbons and smile at cameras."
excelllent idea.
Morroco is on cusp of western democracies? How do you guys think this stuff up? You mean like the emirates? You guys remind me of the left in the sixties. Flakey ideas and no substance. This must be an american cycle. every 40 years the place goes nuts.
Bomb Iran? I thought they liked us. Do you watch the news? People don't like it when you bomb them.
Posted by: exclab at March 14, 2006 6:24 PMYes, like the Emirates. Morocco and Tunisia have been trending our way for awhile:
http://www.brothersjudd.com/cgi-bin/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=morocco
No one's ever minded being bombed by us enough to carry a grudge.
Posted by: oj at March 14, 2006 6:33 PMNo, Mr. Judd on all counts.
My fiance just got back from the emirates. All significant industry is owned by the emires. It's called a monarchy. Cause they are the boss. "Trending our way" is the phrase USA foriegn policy apologists of the putative left and right, use to describe incremental movements. In Morroco the king is the king. Period. I had a friend who lived there too. When the King goes shopping everyone has to pull over and traffic stops. Why? Because the street belongs to the King. Yeah we helped give him west sahara, so he has that too. We did it because it was the american thing to do.
Point two on bombing, I can name some people who are a bit pissed off. cambodia, vietnam, iraq. They seem to have taken it personally in Iraq. Funny people. They are still pissed off in Bosnia.
Iran is going to be OK. GW is going to continue to miss call the situation and then suddenly they will announce they have a bomb. At that point we will make friends with them and give them a trade deal. since the 50s have always rewarded countries contribute to proliferation. GW is certainly not an exception. GW is going to help us get used to proliferation. Cause that is what we are getting.
Posted by: exclab at March 14, 2006 7:17 PMex:
Yes, a wealthy monarch and aristocracy is no bar to democratization. Britain's kings are still loaded. You don't get to mingle with W at the mall either. the Secret Service clears eveyone out of the president's way.
Iraq, Cambodia and Vietnam are allies of ours these days --two of the three democratic -- they got over the bombing.
Iran won't be allowed a bomb until it reforms the mullahcracy that oversees the democracy.
Posted by: oj at March 14, 2006 9:27 PMOn Iran, I think you are wrong. I think Iran is going to get the and those are the only terms we will make friends under. Iran needs us but have never accepted an Iranian government that was not of our making. But the bomb will change that.
In England the queen doesn't hold monopolies and a relatively vast portion of the nation. She has no power. Why am I argueing this, It ,akes no sense.
I hadn't noticed a lot of peaceful acceptance of the occu...
no forget it I give up.
g, night
Posted by: exclab at March 14, 2006 10:58 PMIn England the monarchy did when it became a democracy.
Look at Kurdistan and Shiastan rather than the Sunni rump. Even they'll get over it in a couple years though.
Iran doesn't particularly need us, Iranians just like us. We're similar in many ways.
Posted by: oj at March 14, 2006 11:07 PM