Did the US invasion of Iraq fatally destabilize the country?

False Nostalgia: The Original Fallujah Campaign Destabilized Iraq

By Juan Cole | Jan. 14, 2014 |

(By Juan Cole)

We’ve been treated to a rash of articles about how US veterans of the Fallujah campaigns of 2004 are upset about the return of al-Qaeda to that city and the now dominant position of the extremists. Despite my respect for US soldiers who risked their lives, these veterans are making a political argument and I have to point out that it misunderstands what really happened in 2004.

It was being alleged at the time that Fallujah had become the center of the network of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who affiliated with al-Qaeda. It was being alleged by US generals that 80% of attacks in Iraq were being carried out by Zarqawi. All of these notions were nonsense. After Fallujah was reduced in late 2004, the Sunni insurgency did not skip a beat, and bombings in Baghdad continued. Likewise when Zarqawi himself was killed in 2006, violence did not subside; if anything, that year it got worse. There were 50 major insurgent cells in the Sunni Arab region, and Fallujah was only one site out of many for them.

George W. Bush was alleged by US reporters to have had a grudge against Fallujah because 4 contractors were brutally killed there by a mob in spring of 2004. “Heads must roll,” he said according to one reporter.

In November of 2004, Bush ordered the invasion of Fallujah. It was a brutal invasion that left much of the city in rubble, something Bush administration flacks attempted to cover up at the time.

Many Sunni Arabs in that era were on the fence and undecided about the US. The Fallujah campaign convinced them that their darkest suspicions of Washington were entirely justified.

But was was important was the outcome of the campaign. It was opposed by the Sunni Arabs of center-north Iraq in general. As it proceeded, more and more of them demonstrated against American rule. Many Sunni Arabs in that era were on the fence and undecided about the US. The Fallujah campaign convinced them that their darkest suspicions of Washington were entirely justified.

As a result, the whole Sunni Arab area cut off ties with the US. In Mosul, Gen. David Petraeus had established good relations with the local elite of Iraq’s 3rd city, which is about the size of Houston. Some 4,000 Mosulis, mainly Sunni Arabs but with some Kurds, had joined a new police force there.

After the Fallujah campaign, all 4000 resigned. Some showed back up in ski masks manning checkpoints for the insurgency.

In Ramadi, Khalediya, Samarra and other Sunni Arab-majority cities, local elites broke with the Americans and their young men joined the guerrillas.

Fallujah for the Sunni Arabs of Iraq was an Alamo, a symbol around which to rally, and a generator of hatred for the foreigners.

Then the Sunni Arab elites announced that they would boycott the parliamentary elections scheduled for the end of January, 2005. Paul Bremer, the American viceroy of Iraq and the UN team had set up a proportional system for the elections that was nationwide. Thus, if throughout the country a party got 10 percent of the vote, they’d get 10% of the seats in parliament. This system is more like a US presidential election than like a congressional one. There were no districts.

That was a problem. With district-based elections, even if there is low turnout, somebody will win and the district will be represented. But in the American-sponsored first Iraqi parliamentary election, it was possible that a group might have no representatives at all if they did not come out to vote.

I was very alarmed by the Fallujah campaign and the alienation of the Sunni Arabs from the voting process. I wrote an op-ed for the Detroit News late in 2004 in which I argued that there should be a one-time set-aside of seats for the Sunnis, in case they ended up not being represented in the legislature.

And here was another problem: Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani had imposed on the Bush administration the principle that the Iraqi constitution would be drafted by elected representatives of the iraqi people. That parliament was also a constituent assembly.

If the Sunni Arabs boycotted the vote and ended up poorly represented in parliament, they would have very little say on the shape of the constitution.

In turn, their lack of input into the constitution might cause them to reject it. A constitution is fundamental to a country. If any large number of persons rejects it, that is a recipe for civil war.

No one paid attention to my op-ed. Iraq held its January 2005 elections. The Sunnis largely boycotted.

The Sunni Arabs ended up with only 17 seats out of 275, and 3 of those were on the Shiite list cobbled together by Sistani.

The Sunni Arabs played very little role in crafting the constitution. In mid-October of 2005, when the referendum was held on the constitution, all three Sunni-majority provinces rejected it.

In 2006, a few months later, a civil war broke out between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq. Part of the impetus was the Sunni rejection of what they saw as the Shiite constitution. Some 2500 people were showing up dead every month by that summer. Sunnis were massively ethnically cleansed from Baghdad.

So that was the actual impact of the Fallujah campaign. It pushed the Sunni Arabs off the fence and most of them became anti-American. Thousands of police resigned from their government positions. Entire cities became sullen and rejectionist.

So, the American Fallujah campaign did not save Iraq and nor did it create a path toward democracy in Iraq. To the extent that it angered the Sunni Arabs and alienated them from the American-sponsored political process, it was highly negative. There is a sense in which it led to the civil war of 2006-2007.

The people of Fallujah do not believe that they owe something to the Americans. Even the ones who later allied with the US, in the Awakening Councils, think the US forsook them after 2008. The Fallujah campaign epitomized the hubris of American rule under Bush. It was another step in the downward spiral of Iraq into chaos.

AIPAC and the Saudis are doing their mischief to get the US involved in a war with Iran

The Monty Hall Problem

Hat tip: Farmer Bob

Obama arrives at a sensible foreign policy solution on Iran and the US Conga Line wants to screw it up.

Iran to implement nuclear deal as Obama repeats Congress sanctions plea

John Kerry says Tehran will start to implement November's 'comprehensive agreement' on 20 January

Follow Paul Lewis by email

Paul Lewis in Washington 

The Guardian, Sunday 12 January 2014 12.34 EST

Iran will begin eliminating its stockpile of highly enriched uranium in eight days' time, after negotiators in Geneva reached an agreement on how to implement the interim nuclear deal reached in November.

The six-month deal, under which Iran has agreed to freeze and even curb some nuclear activities in return for an easing of sanctions, will come into force on 20 January.

"As of that day, for the first time in almost a decade, Iran's nuclear programme will not be able to advance, and parts of it will be rolled back, while we start negotiating a comprehensive agreement to address the international community's concerns about Iran's programme," the US secretary of state, John Kerry, said in a statement.

The start-date for the agreement was announced on Sunday by the European Union's foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, who represents the US, China and Russia and France, Germany and Britain, the three European powers who reached the settlement with Iran.

President Barack Obama described the latest agreement as a significant step forward, but immediately renewed his plea for Congress not to introduce a range of new sanctions against Iran, which he said would risk "derailing our efforts to resolve this issue peacefully".

Sunday's announcement, which was confirmed by Iran, marked the culmination of weeks of fine-tuning over the technical implementation of November's interim deal. Senior officials from the EU and Iran met in Geneva on Thursday and Friday, making progress on a framework to execute the nuclear deal that was ratified by participating countries over the weekend.

The breakthrough comes at a critical moment for the nuclear agreement, which is coming under growing pressure from hardliners in both Tehran and Washington.

November's agreement provides limited sanctions relief to Iran – which, according to US estimates, will provide a $7bn boost to the country's economy. In return, Iran has agreed to freeze its nuclear programme, destroy stockpiles of higher-grade uranium and commit to more rigorous inspections.

The Obama administration will hope the details of the implementation of the deal will reassure sceptics in Congress. A senior administration official said Iran had agreed to disable the cascade that produces 20%-enriched uranium before the start of the agreement, and to begin destroying existing stockpiles immediately.

"By the end of the six months, it will all be gone," a second senior administration official said.

In return, world powers will also suspend some petrochemical and auto sanctions on 20 January. However, the bulk of relief will be in the shape of $4.2bn in restricted Iranian assets that will be repatriated to Tehran in regular instalments throughout the six months until the deal concludes in July.

Some of those funds are being set aside to be released to Iran as and when it completes its promised destruction of higher-grade uranium.

"We are basically waiting to make certain that Iran has begun to fulfil its commitments, as verified by the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], before the funds are made available to the Iranians," a third senior administration official said.

All three officials spoke to reporters on a conference call on the condition of anonymity – a routine requirement the Obama administration places on such calls.

They said most of the fine print hammered out in recent days relates to the IAEA, which will begin an expanded series of inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities, providing monthly updates to a joint commission overseeing the agreement.

The agreement will last only until July, and officials close to the negotiations say it will almost certainly have to be renewed to give more time for extended talks which, the parties hope, will yield a permanent settlement to end the standoff over Iran's nuclear capabilities.

But the deal has received a frosty reception in Washington, where senior Republicans and Democrats are threatening to introduce a bill to ramp up sanctions against Tehran – a move experts say would breach the spirit if not the letter of November's agreement.

"Imposing additional sanctions now will only risk derailing our efforts to resolve this issue peacefully, and I will veto any legislation enacting new sanctions during the negotiation," Obama said on Sunday.

He added: "With today's agreement, we have made concrete progress. I welcome this important step forward, and we will now focus on the critical work of pursuing a comprehensive resolution that addresses our concerns over Iran's nuclear programme."

The White House has so far dissuaded senior lawmakers from pursuing a bill to tighten the sanctions noose on Iran. Despite November's breakthrough, there had been doubts over whether senior diplomats would succeed in agreeing a plan to execute the historic agreement.

The enthusiasm that greeted the deal in November has been short-lived and on Thursday Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, used fiery language to criticise the approach of the US – which he called the "Great Satan" – to the negotiations.

"The nuclear talks showed the enmity of America against Iran, Iranians, Islam and Muslims," he said.

Khamenei's decision to give Iran's reformist president, Hassan Rouhani, space to reach a deal with the US and other powers was crucial to November's deal.

When Kerry tried to sell the plan to Congress last month he met a wall of opposition from both parties, who appeared almost entirely unified against the deal, which some argued had endangered the US and its ally Israel.

In his statement on Sunday, Kerry echoed Obama's call on Congress to hold back on new sanctions. "Now is not the time for politics," he said.

Any bill increasing sanctions on Iran would likely contain a six-month delay, and only be implemented if the current agreement fell apart. However, it would jeopardise November's deal, which contains a clause in which the US administration committed itself to "refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions" – even though the wording provided some acknowledgement that Obama could not control legislation passed by Congress.

In response, a group of Iranian MPs has threatened to propose a bill requiring the Rouhani government to enrich uranium up to 60%, an unacceptable level for the west, should the US decide to impose new sanctions.

The thought police and the Anti-Semitism Racket

Israel's Overplayed 'Anti-Semitism' Card

Posted: 05/08/2013 1:25 pm

Huffington Post

Legitimate [adj.] -- in accordance with established rules, principles or standards.

In our interconnected, postmodern world, "anti-Semitic" has become synonymous with "morally indefensible," unworthy of rebuttal, able to swiftly kill careers and conversations. As with nuclear weapons, though, this power should be exercised sparingly and responsibly.

Barely a day goes by without someone being branded "anti-Semitic" or "borderline" anti-Semitic for criticizing or condemning Israel or its supporters -- as Chuck Hagel learned when he was nominated for Secretary of Defense. And yet, we're told, there's always room for "legitimate criticism of Israel." So what is the difference -- what should be the difference -- between anti-Semitism and legitimate criticism? If Israel is rightly and proudly proclaimed as "the Jewish State," must this mean that anti-Israel remarks are automatically anti-Jewish (i.e., anti-Semitic)?

The absence of clear or consistent "rules of the road" is a persistent barrier to open dialogue and conversation. It limits the meaning and effectiveness of efforts to counter the persistent manifestations of genuine anti-Semitism. Sometimes inadvertently, and out of ignorance, interlocutors use terminology that deeply offends Jews, so there's also a need to translate bad wording into constructive language that Jews can hear and absorb.

The Israel criticisms and "anti-Semitism" counter-attacks vary depending on whether they involve career politicians and cynical propagandists, or seekers and bridge-builders with real grievances and prejudices.

On the political level, especially on Capitol Hill and college campuses, crying "anti-Semitism" can gain instant, if short-lived, tactical advantage by marginalizing Israel's critics and stifling unpleasant debates. Sadly, some of the people who'd be interested in real answers get turned away and turned off.

At the United Nations, diplomats routinely engage in hardball rhetoric and parliamentary tricks to gain advantage and penalize adversaries. It's the big league, it's not meant to be fair. As a small but staunch U.S. ally, Israel is an easy target, and would gain neither respect nor lasting advantage by throwing down the "anti-Semitism" card every time it got bumped or singled out. States do have their own interests -- there is a difference between wanting to isolate Israel for political gain and humanitarian redress, and wielding anti-Israel policies and statements as a diplomatic form of anti-Semitism.

Formulaic Third World political attacks on Israel emanate as much from the Cold War-era battle lines between East and West -- and lingering de-colonization resentment by the "global South" -- as from religiously inspired anti-Semitism. Even when Israel's enemies are truly motivated by anti-Semitism, intellectual honesty and self-respect demand this be demonstrated and not merely assumed. Aside from looking bad to others, doing otherwise cultivates a culture of uncharacteristic detachment, self-delusion and paranoia that filters down and reinforces popular prejudices on both sides.

On the human level, where people ideally strive to know each other and find a way forward, openness needs to be reciprocated and not punished with charges of "anti-Semitism." If there can be no legitimate disagreement, even acrimony, there can be no dialogue and potential for mutual acceptance and genuine respect. Criticism can be unfair, disingenuous, inaccurate and even offensive, without being anti-Semitic. We must also beware of watering down dialogue to the point of hollow politeness, lacking substance or purpose.

Short of portraying Israelis as hook-nosed Nazis devouring babies, with blood dripping from their fangs, what crosses the line and what does not? In the hopes of opening this taboo topic, and emphasizing that I don't necessarily agree with each "legitimate criticism," I offer some examples in form and content:

Anti-Semitic: The Palestinians are victims of a Holocaust.

Legitimate: As a people subjected to centuries of persecution, Jews should be more sensitive to the plight of others.

Anti-Semitic: The Holocaust is an exaggeration, if not a myth, created to justify Jewish control of the Middle East and global institutions.

Legitimate: Israel uses its post-Holocaust victim status to distract from its present-day humanitarian obligations.

Anti-Semitic: Israel is the Apartheid state.

Legitimate: Israel's Separation Wall and other practices are reminiscent of Apartheid-era South Africa.

Anti-Semitic: Zionism is Racism.

Legitimate: Granting automatic citizenship to Jewish immigrants while denying Palestinians the right to return to their birthplace is hypocritical.

Anti-Semitic: You wouldn't say that if you were true to your Torah.

Legitimate: I truly have trouble understanding how Israel's behavior comports with the powerful ethical teachings of the Jewish tradition.

Anti-Semitic: The Jewish State is a cancer that must be wiped off the map.

Legitimate: Israel tries to dominate the Middle East, just like its American patron.

Anti-Semitic: The Jew-controlled media won't give Muslims a chance.

Legitimate: The media are biased against Muslims and Palestinians.

Anti-Semitic: I don't have a problem with Jews, only with Zionists.

Legitimate: There are better ways of securing Jewish physical and cultural survival than having a Jewish state.

Anti-Semitic: All Israeli Jews are legitimate targets.

Legitimate: Israel doesn't seem to care if Palestinian civilians get hurt.

Anti-Semitic: Israel and the Jews were behind 9/11.

Legitimate: Israeli and U.S. policies made attacks like 9/11 inevitable.

Anti-Semitic: Israel's attack on the Gaza Flotilla in 2010 was a typical Zionist war crime.

Legitimate: Israel was at fault in the fatal Flotilla raid, and its blockade of Gaza is unjust.

Over the past several decades, I have heard each of these arguments leveled against Israel, and often directed at me. Many of them struck me as repugnant canards, and that includes some that I've categorized as "legitimate." If we want to have an open discussion, if we want to address Israel's critics head-on -- if we want to earn or share the moral high ground rather than living off the dividends of Crusades, Holocaust and Arab hostility -- then we need to allow the airing of criticism even we consider it unfounded, uninformed and ill-intentioned.

Anti-Semitism is a real phenomenon, and we shouldn't shrink from calling it by its name, when warranted. But we ought not reduce it to a one-size-fits-all fig leaf, and better stick to answering Israel's critics on the merits.

With due respect, there are no U.S. “vital interests” in the Levant.

THE ENEMY OF OUR ENEMY

By: Patrick J. Buchanan
1/10/2014 06:00 AM

HUMAN EVENTS

In the wars she has fought, America has often allied with regimes that represented the antithesis of the cause for which we were fighting.

In our Revolutionary War for freedom and independence from the tyrant King of England, our indispensable ally was the King of France.

In World War I, Woodrow Wilson said we were fighting to “make the world safe for democracy.” Yet our foremost allies were five avaricious empires: the British, French, Italian, Japanese and Russian.

In World War II, the ally who did most of the fighting against Hitler was Josef Stalin.

Enough said. In America’s wars, cold and hot, the enemy of our enemy has often been our ally, if not our friend.

And that is the question of the hour in the Middle East.

The region seems to be descending step by step into a war of all against all. And at its heart is the civil-sectarian war to overthrow the Syrian Alawite regime of Bashar Assad.

Now that war has spilled over into Lebanon and Iraq.

And in Syria and Iraq our principal enemies are the jihadists of the al-Nusra Front and ISIS, the Islamic State of Syria and the Levant.

Implacably anti-American, these Islamist fighters control enclaves in northern Syria and appear to have captured Fallujah and perhaps Ramadi, crucial cities of Iraq’s Anbar province for which hundreds of Americans died.

And who are the foremost fighting foes of the Nusra Front and ISIS?

In Syria it is Bashar al Assad, whom Obama said two years ago must leave, and a Syrian army, which Obama was about to attack in August, until the American people rose up to tell him to stay out.

Who are Assad’s allies against the al Nusra Front and ISIS?

Vladimir Putin’s Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah whose forces helped turn the tide back last year against the rebels.

In Iraq and Syria, al-Qaida jihadists and Sunni terrorists, our enemies, are also the enemies of Iran, Hezbollah and Assad. Indeed, Iran has offered to join us in sending military assistance to Baghdad in its fight against the al-Qaida-backed rebellion in Anbar.

Yet, there are other vantage points from which this widening war is being seen, and one is Riyadh.

While Saudi Arabia has come to recognize the menace of ISIS and sent aid to rival rebel factions in Syria, the larger and longer-term threat Riyadh sees is Tehran. And understandably so.

Saudi Arabia is the Sunni and Arab power in the Persian Gulf. But Shia and Persian Iran is almost twice as populous and at the heart of a Shia Crescent of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Hezbollah.

Moreover, Riyadh in 2013 saw her superpower patron, America, back away from an attack on Syria, negotiate in secret with Iran, and begin talks with the Ayatollah’s regime on limitations to its nuclear program — in return for a lifting of U.S. sanctions.

To the Saudis, what appears to be an emerging detente between Tehran and Washington looms as a strategic disaster.

From Israel’s vantage point, the overthrow of Assad would mean the isolation of Hezbollah, which would no longer receive weapons from a Syrian regime that Hezbollah had fought to keep out of power.

But what about America’s point of view?

“Sooner or later,” The Washington Post writes, “the United States will have to face the threat to its vital interests emerging across the Levant.”

But, with due respect, there are no U.S. “vital interests” in the Levant.

For the first 150 years of our existence as a nation, the Levant was ruled by Ottoman Turks, and then by the British and the French under the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916.

What difference did it make to us who ruled Damascus or Beirut?

The vital interest America has in that region is to keep the oil flowing out of the Gulf, upon which the global economy depends.

While a victory for the rebels might fit well with the agendas of Riyadh and Tel Aviv, it might also mean a massacre of Alawites and a mass exodus of Christians. At best, it would bring about a regime along the lines of the Muslim Brotherhood government that lately ruled in Cairo. At worst, it could bring to power a regime dominated by Sunni jihadists.

The greatest threat to U.S. interests there is not autocrats, Sunni or Shia, interested in getting rich, but radicals with the mindset of suicide bombers taking over a state and spreading revolution down the Gulf.

War is the clear and present danger, and peace the necessary condition of securing those interests.

The defeat of ISIS in Anbar and Syria and peace in the region should be our primary goal. And if Iran is willing to assist Damascus and Baghdad in defeating al-Qaida, Iran should be treated as a temporary ally in a common cause.

After all, FDR and Truman got on famously with “good old Joe” Stalin.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?” 

What is worse, a Congress composed of millionaires or a Congress where they are all-out to become millionaires?

Make the money, make the laws: Congress has more millionaires than ever - report

Published time: January 09, 2014 22:48

RT.com

The most unproductive and least popular US Congress in history can count on another distinction: For the first time ever, most members of the Legislative Branch are millionaires.

At least 268 of the 534 current members of the 113th US Congress have an average net worth of US$1 million or more, according to personal financial disclosure data members registered last year on 2012 net worth, the Center for Responsive Politics reported Thursday.

In 2011, only 48 percent of members had a median net worth of at least $1 million. That number is just over 50 percent for 2012.

The median net worth in 2012 for the 530 current congressional members who were in Congress as of the May 2013 filing deadline was $1,008,767, up from $966,000 in 2011. The totals represent a 5.8 percent net-worth increase for all members.

Net worth for Republicans and Democrats went up 10.3 percent and 11.6 percent, respectively.

For all members of the House of Representatives, net worth increased 4.6 percent, from $896,000 to $856,000. House Democrats and Republicans both saw increases, at $929,000 and $884,000, respectively.

In the Senate, there was a 10.8 percent increase in net worth overall. Median net worth for all senators went up to $2.794 million from $2.5 million. For Senate Republicans, the median net worth went up to $2.9 million from $2.5 million. Senate Democrats, on the other hand, saw a decline, at $1.7 million from $2.4 million.

That decrease can be explained in part by wealthy senators no longer in the upper chamber. John Kerry, now Secretary of State, was the wealthiest member of the Senate in 2011, with a net worth of $248 million. Sen. Frank Lautenberg was worth $87.5 million before his death last year.

Republican Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, is the richest member of Congress, with a net worth of $464 million in 2012.

Issa, who made his fortune in the car alarm business, had held the top spot for years before 2011, when fellow House Republican Michael McCaul reported a net worth of $500.6 million. For much of his wealth, McCaul can thank marrying the daughter of Clear Channel Communications Chairman Lowry Mays.

Yet McCaul’s reported wealth in 2012 went down to $143.1 million. The drop exemplifies a rule change the House adopted this year from the Senate in which members reporting high-value assets, income and liabilities that belong to spouses are only required to report that wealth as being worth “$1 million or more” on official filings. McCaul’s wife was reportedly worth over $50 million in his 2011 filings. In 2012, that amount was reported as a “spousal asset over $1 million” despite the likelihood that it is much more.

Though more members of Congress are millionaires than ever, and their median net worth is tops all-time, the total net worth for all lawmakers in 2012 actually fell to $3.9 billion from $4.2 billion in 2011.

The Center for Responsive Politics found that investing in the stock market, after declining for several years with congressional members, is again on the rise. More members invested in the top 50 stocks of 2012 than in 2011, with General Electric and Wells Fargo being the two most popular for investment.

Financial powers like Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase, among others, make up most of the top 10 congressional investments. Mutual funds and managed portfolios are also popular, based on good returns and the ability for members to avoid blatant conflicts of interest.

Pew Research Center reported in December that the 113th Congress (2013 to 2014) was the least productive Congress in its first year. Gallup reported in November that the 113th was the least popular Congress of all-time, with a 9 percent approval rating.

"Despite the fact that polls show how dissatisfied Americans are with Congress overall, there's been no change in our appetite to elect affluent politicians to represent our concerns in Washington," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. "Of course, it's undeniable that in our electoral system, candidates need access to wealth to run financially viable campaigns, and the most successful fundraisers are politicians who swim in those circles to begin with."

Changes in the blog

Due to some egregious bad manners and habitual disruptive behavior of a few, I find it necessary to change the comment section of the blog. Other changes will be made, but at a minimum I will require an email address from commenters. I reserve the right to open comments up at certain times, but I do intend to prohibit those whose only intent is to disrupt.

No email will be shared with anyone. I am not looking for pen-pals. I moderate and provide creative content to aprox 40 other commercial blogs and have a limited  amount of time to waste dealing with a few senior delinquents. 

You can apply to be a blog member by sending an email to: Elephant95@comcast.net

If there is enough interest, we will continue. If not, no hard feelings but I am not wasting time that I value.

Deuce