posted by Harrison at the Possum Bistro
Recently, I caught Blood Diamond at the cinemas, and found myself impressed with the film and its lessons which we could draw from. The location in context was Sierra Leone in Africa, host to diamond smugglers, warlords, militias and rebels who pillage and plunder at the expense of the defenseless locals, who wish of nothing but to live in peace. Yet the supposed guarantor of such security wields no such sovereignty or power - the government is unable to harness the necessary forces required to purge Sierra Leone of these scourges of the earth.
Militias hop from village to village, slaughtering all they see, employing extreme violence and coercion to prevent or punish those who vote and support the government. Those who are physically strong and able to work are recruited as slaves at the diamond mines. Smugglers sell the diamonds to neighbouring countries, who then through payment finance and fuel the ongoing cycle; these countries sell the diamonds to key figures in countries like Britain - then, by keeping supply low (storing these diamonds in safe vaults) while demand increases as husbands fork out exorbitant amounts of cash to buy those pretty diamond rings in display windows along the shopping avenues - the civil war has thus presented a win-win situation for each participant to keep it going as long as it can: profiteering at its bloodiest.
A scene in the film struck me as prescient: an old man was lamenting that if oil was ever discovered in Africa, it would be absolutely catastrophic for its population.
Which brings me to the seemingly depressing parallel of Iraq - or so defeatists would want you to believe. Contrary to the level of sectarian conflict and internecine infighting between sects that is the time-honoured legacy of tribalism in the Arab world, neither side has successfully mobilised an organised fighting force, or is in possession of the reins of one or few arms of government.
Oil resources have not been siphoned off in pipelines to Iran and Saudi Arabia to be channeled back manifold to fund the proxy Foreign Legions of Iran - namely, Hezbollah and the Mahdi Army - and aQ insurgents in Iraq. Indoctrination of children into child-soldiers ala Sierra Leone or even Palestine for that matter has not happened - or at least not reported - yet.
The government of Maliki had been quiescent for too long, but now has the political freedom to act against the Sadrists without fear of parliamentary collapse - Iraqi politicians are grudgingly accepting of Bush's latest effort to secure Iraqi neighbourhoods, and obviously sense a shift of power in their favour should a vacuum present itself in the form of the Sadrists' departure. He also has the best military force in the world supporting the Iraqi Army - logistical, auxiliary, intel, technology, counter-insurgency training - which should in no circumstances be discounted to accomplish what should be accomplished for the sake of our long-term interests.
al-Sadr is currently avoiding confrontation with US and Iraqi troops, knowing very well that his immunity is uncertain now that firstly, his influence on the Shiite militias is tenuous at best (thus, they might not heed al-Sadr's advice and instead head on out to engage the Iraqi Army - and in the process get slaughtered, also giving us an idea where he is and a viable casus belli to raid the hidey-holes) and thus his Mahdi Army might well be whittled down with time; secondly, by waiting the "surge" out, the Iraqi Army is free to secure all other neighbourhoods, encircling Sadr City and Diwaniya in the process. With checkpoints, zone patrols and documentation of arms and personnel transferring in and out of these internal borders, the Sadrists will find that being boxed in is not going to be very fun at all.
al-Hakim's loyalties lie with Iran - that has been obvious - but now he is compelled to think of Iraq first, Iran second. If Maliki dares to move against the largest parliamentary majority, who is to guarantee he will not act upon the anti-Persian sentiment and purge the Badrists, who are even less of a political and military power in Iraq? With the aircraft carriers being deployed near Iranian straits, Bush's speech possibly hinting at an air/naval assault on oil and gas pipelines in Iran, no longer will Iran be able to play this game of brinkmanship without considering the almost cataclysmic aftermath of an economic collapse. Close the Straits of Hormuz, you say?
Sunni insurgents have expressed their interest in cutting a deal with us - no reconciliation, no violence; in addition to that, they will agree to work with the Anbar tribes to flush out aQ insurgents. Already this week, four more Ramadi tribes have switched. Our strategy is increasingly being vindicated, the rapport established, now reinforced by Bush's initiative to get tough with Shiite militias. The various personal accounts of Sunnis fighting the Shiites instead of Americans all signify a certain glimmer of hope that perhaps something workable can be engendered from the continuation of tribal engagement.
The Kurds have decided to chip in, and substantially so - Shiites will soon realise that the alternative to Kurdish cooperation is secession, which means the forging of Kurdistan, and with it the deprivation of Kirkuk and its oil revenues. al-Sadr's attempts to instigate fellow co-religionists to rebuff the Kurdish forces will be in vain: for one, the Kurds could teach the Shiites and Sunnis a thing or two about protecting their provinces. Iran and Turkey will be more cautious in addressing the Kurds, for an autonomous Kurdistan represents the major threat to their societies and governments.
Oil companies are gradually beginning to establish contracts in Iraq; life for Iraqi citizens - yes, no longer subjects under a dictator - has become increasingly better, though it is a tough, bitter struggle day-by-day against the multiple currents of sectarianism, tribalism and corruption that are threatening to render Iraq asunder.
The sobering reality of the situation cannot be further emphasised - but the destructiveness and self-defeating corollaries that will be engendered from our withdrawal from Iraq obviously needs much, much underscoring.
We are at the brink of a new epoch for Iraq - countervailing forces of anti-interventionist, anti-Persian, anti-insurgent sentiments are empowering the beseiged Iraqis with a sliver of hope for a nation of their own. They have known no cause for nationalism before this: history? Of oppression. Culture? Of fear and paranoia. Religion? Definitely not.
To grasp this rare opportunity, an even rarer confluence of events must take place: Bush has taken the crucial step towards empowering the Iraqi government and standing up to Iran - now he must consider how to win back public opinion on the domestic front and ward of the circling vultures of Congress; similarly, the onus is on Maliki to act decisively against militias and insurgents, proving not primarily to Bush but to the Iraqis that the government is to be trusted to protect their lives, liberties and properties.
It takes two hands to clap. Will we hear it before apocalypse descends on Iraq?
The Elephant Bar is grateful to Harrison for allowing us to feature his work and you can read his other work at his place, The Possum Bistro which is at http://gotfetch.blogspot.com/.
We encourage others to be our guests.
Interesting concept, that Mr Maliki "Really" wants to disassociate with both Mr al-Sadr, Mr al-Hakim and Mr Sistani by extension.ReplyDelete
That the "... Iraqi politicians are grudgingly accepting of Bush's latest effort "
Where is real evidence of this "acceptence", the ACTIONS that indicate this sea change?
I hope that you are right and there is always the possibility that those in power will wish to stay in power, but what worries me most is the 800 lb guerrilla of Islam.ReplyDelete
There is no shortage of fundamentalists who along with the assorted Baathists, terrorists and criminals can persuade any local sheik to enlist some fat imam in invoking "the will of Allah." Then all hell breaks loose again. Without a monopoly of power, chaos reigns.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.ReplyDelete
The clear & hold phase might work, with some quiet in Iraq as long as we stay. But who is going to take over from us? The Sunnis generally avoid the whole political system, including not having their own police & army. Will they really give up their insurgency and hopes of ruling Iraq? Will the local Sunnis be the same ones protecting their neighborhoods now, the ones who spend their spare time "cleansing" Shiites out of mixed neighborhoods?ReplyDelete
Likewise on the Shiite side do we hand Sadr City back to ... al-Sadr's group to police?
We are doing the militarily correct thing, but I don't see the Iraqis being able and ready to take advantage of it.
Robert Novak writes:ReplyDelete
While Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki gives Bush lip service about cracking down on Mahdi Army commander Moqtada al-Sadr, U.S. officials recognize Maliki's political support depends on the Shiite militia leader. Thus, Maliki's government is in denial about sectarian conflict. Maliki did not show up for a press conference in which he was scheduled to comment on Bush's new strategy, and he personally remains silent at this writing.
Novak point in the column is that al-Maliki's Shia connections are making Republicans very nervous and support is dwindling.
Robert Novak at Townhall.com
Thank you for a thoughtful and thought provoking piece of work. I would also like to thank both Deuce and Whit for publishing it here.
At the moment, I do not believe my frame of mind would yield an opinion worthy of your endeavor. After my blood pressure settles, I hope to communicate further and considerately.
Again, well done.
Also at Townhall is this AP story:ReplyDelete
Two Shiite militia commanders said Thursday that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has stopped protecting radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Madhi Army under pressure from Washington, while the fighters described themselves as under seige in their Sadr City stronghold.
Their account of an organization now fighting for its very existence could represent a tactical and propaganda feint, but there was mounting evidence the militia is increasingly off balance and has ordered its gunmen to melt back into the population. To avoid capture, commanders report no longer using cell phones and fighters are removing their black uniforms and hiding their weapons during the day.
Pelosi won’t block funding of surge.ReplyDelete
LA Times/Bloomberg poll today reports that 60% of Americans disapprove of the surge and want the US out of Iraq. It seems time has run out for Bush, the military and Iraq.ReplyDelete
The damage to American credibility is immeasurable. Bin Laden's assessment of America was spot on. Who would ally themselves with a fickle American electorate? How will America recruit soldiers to a defeated and demoralized military?
Will Islamists move in for the kill or wait until the rotting superpower dies of internal bleeding?
Makes one contemplate taking a spool of rope to Washington and New York to decorate trees with politicians and journalists. God help us.
“The more Iraq unravels, the closer Iraq's Kurds will edge toward outright secession. And the closer they get, the more likely it is that their Kurdish brethren across the border--who make up 7% of Iran's population--will try to join them. As non-Persians (and Sunnis to boot), Iran's Kurds get nothing but abuse from their Shi'ite masters in Tehran.”ReplyDelete
Maybe, given today’s reports indicating growing unease in both Turkey and Iran with the potential for a Kurdish breakout.
> LA Times/Bloomberg poll today reports that 60% of Americans disapprove of the surge and want the US out of Iraq.ReplyDelete
The only reason I am frustrated, not worried about that, is because the people haven't been given the facts. For some reason known only to him, the commander-in-chief has allowed the Democrats to call him a liar for three years and tell their own lies about the war without the President even answering.
instead we have vice-president Cheney go on TV Sunday and say that the American People disagree with him, then they must not be able to "stomach" the war. No Mr. VP, they just want you to answer the questions they've been asking for three years.
What ever happened to the President Bush who picked up the bull horn after 9/11 and said "And the people who knocked down this building are going to hear us?" If we had that man back for one speech, the war would be back on track. The Democrat's pack of lies about the war would collapse like the flimsy house of cards it is.
In fact, Tehran probably fears an Iraqi civil war more than it relishes calling the shots in Baghdad.ReplyDelete
Allen: from your link.
It's been shown that they're funding the insurgency.
The American people quit listening to Bush in 2003. No attacks in 2 years? Let's move on, who's gonna be the new American Idol? Bush could be as eloquent as Churchill but no-one would listen. We need sexy, glamorous Rock Stars to amuse us. Not boring, inarticulate white guys in suits. It ain't Bush...it's the American people that is the problem.
> The American people quit listening to Bush in 2003.ReplyDelete
It wouldn't have mattered because Bush hasn't changed his speeches since 2003.
Bush always said "9/11 was caused by global terrorism, and Iraq is part of that too."
After getting beat in two elections, the Democrats finally adjusted their message to say, "Iraq has nothing to do with the global war on terror. Fighting in Iraq is hurting the GWOT by taking troops away from Afghanistan and other places."
Those are serious charges, and yet the president never responded. Now nearly half the people think that no harm would come to the United States by leaving Iraq. Considering that, there is no wonder they want to get out of Iraq. It is not weakness, but just not wanting to fight an unnecessary war, one which distracts from the real war on terror. (I don't agree with them, but I understand their point. Misunderstanding the facts does not mean someone is weak or has no guts.)
Also, many people wonder "Haven't we already won in Iraq? They have a democracy. If the war is over, why not get out?"ReplyDelete
Saddam Hussein is dead along with most of his henchman. The potential for weapons of mass destruction is gone. What are we fighting for now? To make the Iraqis love each other? Even the Democrats want to keep Special Operations in Iraq to knock down Al Qaeda and its bases. What else do we need to do in Iraq?
Maybe there is a good answer, but Bush never explained it to people. He talks about an Iraq which can stand on its own feet, but it already seems to be there. In fact its prime minister said they just want us to supply them with weapons, then let them run their own country.
No one hears the eloquent Tony Blair either.ReplyDelete
He is not speaking much, either.ReplyDelete
We were on a great progressive effort, the most progressive imaginable. Mr Blair convinced me that there was nothing "conservative" about the Iraq Effort, at least not in Mr Blair's view.
Harrison, also, has this very excellent post at the Possum Bistro. Doves and VulturesReplyDelete
Make sure and read the comments; they are excellent. A whole lot of good work.
"The damage to American credibility is immeasurable. Bin Laden's assessment of America was spot on. Who would ally themselves with a fickle American electorate? How will America recruit soldiers to a defeated and demoralized military?ReplyDelete
Will Islamists move in for the kill or wait until the rotting superpower dies of internal bleeding?"
I admit I'm guilty of the very same lamentation. But just as Rat is skeptical of the tales of an Iraqi sea change, isn't it appopriate to be just as critical of tales of the impotent superpower, of Americans obsessed with what broadcast television transmits en masse? Does one want Americans whipping themselves with bicycle chains before to prove they are unambiguously focused?
I don't think anyone who "feels" bad about our current GWOT policies could describe what an unambiguously better exercise of American power would be at the moment. So many cheap descriptions such as withdrawal or some revenge fantasy receive far more attention than their plausible efficacy deserves.
I've bitched plenty and have been fearful and uncertain about where things are going. But bitching aplenty can't be taken seriously as a description or explanation of anything but the individual so espousing.
Pab, I've, also, lamented, wailed, gnashed my teeth, and rended my garments. The only good thing is I've done it here in the relative privacy of the Bar.ReplyDelete
Those Assholes doing it now, have a microphone, and a VOTE.
Here's what gets me:ReplyDelete
So, you name the enemy, "Islam" or "Islamism"
Victory against Islam/Islamism is what? Christianity? Athiesm? Neauvo Islam?
Will it look like the "victory" over communism?
I know I don't know.
I think first we better worry about GETTING the "Victory."ReplyDelete
We'll "Name It," later.
More and more I hear that Iran is the one whose in increasing disarray. Young Iranians know young Indians, especially as they goto school in the West. The Indians know they can go home and have a chance at a good job. The Iranians do not have even a chance. Iranians do not look upon Iraq for instruction, but instead India.ReplyDelete
Its just that there isn't much modern history that points to what signals a society growing sick and tired and jaded of Islamism? Michael Totten has promised a feature on Algeria, and how its "burned out" from Islam. What makes Charles Martels out of dhimmis or guised apostates? I don't know what to look for, but time is not on Irans side. Its regional pursuits may not be indefinitely sustainable, what with its domestic situation, and the forces that have been roused against it, from Israel to KSA.
If there is some balance to be struck in the region, when we decide to declare Islam the enemy, what do we do then? I just don't see where that supposed clarity of vision gets us.
So, you name the enemy, "Islam" or "Islamism"ReplyDelete
Not as long as we are making use of...Muslim armies, Muslim workers, Muslim allies, etc. Within Muslim nations with Muslim governments.
The other guy can say we are at war against Islam. The other guy DOES say we are at war against Islam. We cannot say we are at war against Islam.
We can say Islam is great, fabulous, and that we're here to give it a little makeover. Where needed.
Trish, I think this pig is going to require one of those large, industrial-size lipsticks.ReplyDelete
And, lunch is definitely "Out."
I agree, rufus.ReplyDelete
And no number of skipped lunches will really do the job.
Islam is what it is.
"Now nearly half the people think that no harm would come to the United States by leaving Iraq."ReplyDelete
Cost/benefit, wu. Cost/benefit.
More unpopular than the Vietnam war it is. That's quite an achievement. Breathtaking, really.
The Music was better back then.ReplyDelete
This War is too hard to explain, Trish. Vietnam was easy. We were fighting the "Commies."ReplyDelete
This one we're fighting for, "Maliki?"
That's a pretty tough sell.
Look, the Dems, and the Media have worn us down, pretty good. We, actually, had a pretty good last couple of weeks; but we're afraid to talk about it, because we're waiting for the other shoe to drop.ReplyDelete
Row over angry, penis-removing doctorReplyDelete
Doctors' unions in Romania have criticised a decision to make a surgeon pay £100,000 in damages after he lost his temper and hacked off a patient's penis during surgery.
Surgeon Naum Ciomu, who had been suffering from stress at the time, had been operating on patient Nelu Radonescu, 36, to correct a testicular malformation when he suddenly lost his temper.
Grabbing a scalpel, he sliced off the penis in front of shocked nursing staff, and then placed it on the operating table where he chopped it into small pieces before storming out of the operating theatre at Bucharest hospital.
-ht Ace Comments
Thank you, whit and deuce, for linking to my blog and allowing my post to grace the pages of the EB. I am sincerely grateful and hope that this will spark off meaningful discourse.ReplyDelete
We all are impressed with your post and your thoughtful comments, Harrison.ReplyDelete
...sometimes thoughtful discourse is hard to come by, however, hope you understand!
The Bistro is impressive, also, as noted before.
Maybe sometime you can do a post on the awareness state of others your age.
Could only hope others were as well-informed as you.
You are welcome! Our pleasure!
I second Doug's motion. I am curious about how young people in your part of the world "see the world." How do your peers see Islam? Do they feel threatened? Do they feel threatened by America? Do they think the future will be better? Or have they all seen "Child of Man", already?
Your perspective is alway welcome at the Elephant Bar.
You are most welcome harrison. We certainly appreciate all that goes into putting a post together and having the stones to put it out there for discussion and criticism. I hope it is one of many.ReplyDelete
"This War is too hard to explain, Trish."ReplyDelete
Should've called it the War on Al Qaeda. The War on Those Bastards Who Actually Gave Us a Black Eye on 9/11. That's not hard to explain, is it? The moment Iraq was brought into it, it became so broad as to become little more than a magnet of unending contention and ugly controversy. It also became deeply dishonest - and dishonest wars are of course very, very difficult to explain.
I don't consider Iraq a necessary or legitimate part of the war. It's pretense, rufus. Bloody pretense. And it has ruined completely a political party that I'd grown quite fond of.
Hewitt and many others think it's a problem of communicating/getting out the message.
Reality is the Message.
According to USA Today,ReplyDelete
the U.S. military is reporting a dramatic and unexpected increase in the number of police recruits in Anbar province, the center of Sunni insurgent activity in Iraq.
In the past two weeks, more than 1,000 applicants have sought police jobs in Ramadi, the provincial capital. Eight hundred signed up last month in Ramadi, said Army Maj. Thomas Shoffner, operations officer for the 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division.
Those figures compare with only "a few dozen" recruits in September, the U.S. military said.
doug, yes, I definitely understand what you are saying. It is easier said than done, but I believe that all of us here try our hardest to achieve it.ReplyDelete
That's an intriguing suggestion you and whit have put forth, and I'll see what I can do regarding the awareness levels of my peers.
deuce, discourse is always good, and I cannot think of a better place to conduct it than in the company of the EB crew.
I remember a post of Wretchard's from a couple of years back, in which he speculated on the reasons why this administration chose to go to war in Iraq. He surmised that "we may never know." In fact, we do not here agree on reasons, and when ostensible supporters cannot know with certainty or understand the fundamental motives of as grave an action as that, you are in deep, deep trouble. The country is in deep, deep trouble. Now you've got to say reprehensible things like, "Well, we're there and it doesn't really matter how or why we got there." But it does matter, rufus. It matters especially because it has attatched itself to war that must be fought and cannot be won without moral clarity and honest purpose.ReplyDelete
"A Party I'd grown quite fond of."ReplyDelete
1994, such great goals and high hopes.
W has reversed MOST of them w/his Compassionate Big Government Agenda.
The MBA that fantasized that accountablity would work in Govt as it does in Business.ReplyDelete
Reagan knew Govt is the problem, minimizing it and it's damage the goal.
I believe that the reasons for going into Iraq were clearly known to all, and were stated by Congress in the Authorization of Force resolution agreed to by both Democrats and Republicans.ReplyDelete
As long as Saddam Hussein's regime existed, it was a threat to the US. And because Hussein refused to obey a decade of UN resolutions, no one knew if he had weapons of mass destruction or not. Everyone knew for certain he had them in the past, knew how to make them, and had used them in the past. Indeed, it was really somewhat meaningless to argue whether he actually possessed WMD, since he could build more at any time.
Saddam harbored various terrorists, including Al Qaeda. The administration talked about some light links between Hussein and Al Qaeda, but they never claimed he was Al Qaeda. President Bush quite rightly decided that defending ourselves against terrorism involved more than Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is a Sunni organization, separate from the Iranian / Shiite family of terrorist groups like Hizbollah. Even a secular Muslim ruler like Hussein could help terrorists attack the US.
Now that Saddam is dead and buried and we know his WMD capability is destroyed, it is easy to sit back and say "Iraq wasn't a threat. We shouldn't have done it." The pictures Colin Powell showed the UN and everyone were real. No one disputes that. What we didn't know then was whether they were transporting and destroying WMD or something else. No one from the Democratic Party or anywhere else said "Those aren't WMD. There's no need to invade." And in fact even if we knew all the WMD were destroyed (if they really were), Saddam still could have built more.
People have speculated about additional motives, and there may have been some, but that doesn't change the original and core motives for liberating Iraq.
There is also the argument of whether we should have done it this way, or whether as the Left would have it, this was an evil "preventative" war. It is actually more complicated since the UN IS authorized to fight preventative wars, it said Saddam was a threat, but had refused to act for over a decade because the Russians and French were bought and paid for by Saddam. As President Bush said in a speech before the UN, either you protect us or we'll do it ourselves.
Afganistan was clearly a "good" war, a war fought in self-defense against a government which had bombed us and was going to try again. Yet we could have encountered the same problems there as Iraq. We would have had to fight on because there was no other choice. In fact, right now there are problems in Afghanistan, and if we weren't in Iraq, the Left would be calling for us to get out of Afghnistan in a "phased redeployment". They'd be counting the bodies.
Whatever anyone thinks about Iraq in the past, Saddam's Iraq, we have different reasons for being there now. We were attacked on 9/11 by people trained in Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. Do we allow Al Qaeda to build those same kind of training camps in Iraq? I don't see how anyone could say it wouldn't be a threat. If not, then why did we liberate Afghanistan?ReplyDelete
I don't think Iraq is as big a mess as some make it out to be. Most of the problem is poor communication by President Bush. The rest is just an attitude that needs to be changed in the US, that we will only fight clean, perfect wars, otherwise we walk away, otherwise we say we failed. Almost all the problems in Iraq are their problems, not ours. The US can't afford to cut & run out of a country everytime the locals start shooting each other.
The problem is not just the Left in the US, but some pro-military people as well. It is the idea that a war is a football game, and we need to "win" quick.
Get [url=http://buy-cialis.icr38.net/Lamisil]lamisil online[/url] here - Incredible Offer celebrex online easy - Ultimate OfferReplyDelete