Sunday, Oct 15th: Iraq Update

Keeping an eye on the ball in Iraq while the State Department is absorbed in North Korea. There are three articles below.

The first is about a UK General who has publicly stated and defended the following statements:

Britain should “get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems,” he told the Mail.

“I don’t say that the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq, but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them…

The second article is “Iraqi Parliament Passes Federalism Bill”. This is the path suggested by Joe Bidden and refused by the Republican leadership. The point here is that it is neither the Democrats choice or the Republicans choice on what the Iraqi people do. The choice is up to the Iraqi people.

The third ”Iraqis call for five-man junta to end the anarchy”. This is not a bill that has passed so this in not Iraqi policy. However, it gives you a taste of the sitution in Iraq. “IRAQ’S fragile democracy, weakened by mounting chaos and a rapidly rising death toll, is being challenged by calls for the formation of a hardline ‘government of national salvation’.”

This is inline with Ian Bremmer’s thesis “When a state suddenly becomes unstable, its citizens may demand a restoration of stability at the expense of all meaningful reform.” The Bush Doctrine is ineffective because you can not force massive amounts of reform on a people. Too much reform all at once forces a country into the unstable depths of the J Curve, much like Iraq is now.

(1 of 3) First Article of Three: Army chief urges troop pullout

Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:38 PM ET
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-10-13T163839Z_01_GEO743062_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C2-TopNews-newsOne-2

By Deborah Haynes and Peter Graff

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain’s army chief said his troops should be withdrawn from Iraq soon as their presence was making security worse, in bluntly worded comments seized upon by opponents of the U.S.-led invasion three years ago.

Chief of the General Staff Richard Dannatt told the Daily Mail newspaper that post-war planning for the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was “poor” and the presence of troops there was hurting British security globally.

The remarks, extraordinary from such a senior serving officer, could have political fallout on both sides of the Atlantic. The war has damaged the standing of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and is a major issue for U.S. President George W. Bush’s allies in congressional elections next month.

Although in later interviews Dannatt denied any split with Blair, he may have added to the storm by warning that overstretching the British army in Iraq could “break it”.

Britain should “get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems,” he told the Mail.

“I don’t say that the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq, but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them,” he said.

“I think history will show that the planning for what happened after the initial successful war fighting phase was poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning.”

Blair told a news conference in Scotland later on Friday that having read the newspaper interview and transcripts of remarks Dannatt made to radio and television stations there was no division between them.

“What he is saying about wanting the British forces out of Iraq is precisely the same as we are all saying,” Blair said. “Our strategy is to withdraw from Iraq when the job is done.”

“The reason that we have been able to give up two provinces now to Iraqi control is precisely because the job has been done there,” he added, noting that Basra was still not secure which was why British forces remained in place.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said after reviewing transcripts of Dannatt’s interviews, “The comment was taken out of context and his general point was that, you know, when your work is done you hand over authority to the Iraqis.”

“The Iraqis have said that they want continued presence, and they have also made it clear that when they think that they are going to be capable of assuming full control for various areas, they are eager and willing to do so,” Snow said.

POLITICAL STORM

Iraq government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said U.S. and British troops were still needed.

“The Iraqi government and the Iraqi people don’t want foreign troops to stay in Iraq indefinitely. But we believe the British and Americans are playing a positive role in Iraq and that their presence is necessary to control the security issue.”

But Dannatt’s remarks were seized upon by anti-war campaigners. Reg Keys, whose son died in Iraq, said: “Here you have an officer, at last, who is prepared to speak how it is, and not be a mouthpiece for the delusions of a prime minister.”

In Basra, where most of Britain’s 7,200 troops are based, locals told Reuters they agreed it was time for them to go.

“In the last three years, people started to look at these troops in a different way. They simply hate these troops,” said school teacher Fatima Ahmed, 35.

A British military source in Basra said Dannatt’s comments referred to Maysan province -- one of two regions controlled by British forces. He said co-operation with local residents was better in Basra region.

Asked if Dannatt’s comments had hurt troop morale, he said: “He is a popular man. He is a soldier’s soldier and he tells things the way they are.”

Hours after Dannatt’s interview appeared, he made radio and television appearances to calm the political storm. He said his remarks were taken out of context but he did not deny them.

“It was never my intention to have this hoo ha, which people have thoroughly enjoyed overnight, trying to suggest there is a chasm between myself and the prime minister,” he told BBC radio.

British troops were targets in some places, but were beneficial in others, he said and insisted he was not proposing an immediate withdrawal. “I’m a soldier. We don’t do surrender ... We’re going to see this through,” he said.

But he added: “I’ve got an army to look after which is going to be successful in current operations. But I want an army in five years time and 10 years time. Don’t let’s break it on this one. Lets keep an eye on time.”

Britain has launched a large new operation in Afghanistan this year, and commanders have acknowledged that they had hoped they could reduce their force in Iraq faster.

Generals have said they now hope to cut their force in Iraq in half by the middle of next year. They have turned over control of two of the four provinces they patrol to Iraqis.

In Iraq on Thursday, a bomb in a police station in Hilla killed a police colonel and five others. The bodies of 14 construction workers were found in an orchard near a town 40 km (25 miles) north of Baghdad. One policeman and eight insurgents were reported killed in clashes in Mosul.

(2 of 3) Second Article of Three: Iraqi Parliament Passes Federalism Bill

By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA
The Associated Press
Wednesday, October 11, 2006; 11:47 AM

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The Shiite-dominated parliament Wednesday passed a law allowing the formation of federal regions in Iraq, despite opposition from Sunni lawmakers and some Shiites who say it will dismember the country and fuel sectarian violence.

The Sunni coalition in parliament and two Shiite parties tried to prevent a vote on a bill by boycotting Wednesday’s session to keep the 275-seat body from reaching the necessary 50 percent quorum.

But the quorum was reached with 140 lawmakers, who voted on each of the bill’s some 200 articles individually, passing them all unanimously.

The law includes a provision that regions cannot be formed for another 18 months, a concession to Sunni concerns.

The federalism law sets up a system for allowing provinces to join together into autonomous regions that would hold considerable self-rule powers, a right given to them under the constitution adopted last year in a national referendum.

Some Shiites want to create an autonomous zone in their heartland in the south, much like the self-ruling Kurdish region in northern Iraq.

But Sunni Arabs deeply oppose the federalism measures, fearing it will divide Iraq into sectarian mini-states, giving Shiite and Kurds control over oil riches in the south and north, and leaving Sunnis in an impoverished central zone without resources. Some Shiite parties - including the faction of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr - also oppose the measures for nationalist reasons.

Critics also have warned that moves for federalism could fuel Shiite-Sunni violence.

“This is the beginning of the plan to divide Iraq,” said Adnan al-Dulaimi, leader of the Sunni National Accordance Front, which boycotted the vote along with al-Sadr’s party and the Shiite Fadila party.

“We had hoped that the problems of sectarian violence be resolved. We hope there won’t be an increase in violence,” al-Dulaimi said.

The head of the Shiite coalition that dominates parliament, Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, praised passage of the bill and denounced Sunni opposition to federalism.

He said the law would be a “factor of unity in the face of the enemies of Iraq _ Baathists, Saddamists, criminals and Takfiris (Islamic radicals) .... who rejected federalism, just like before, when they rejected the constitution.” Sunni Arabs largely voted against the constitution passed in 2005 because it outlined the federal system.

The law outlines a process for forming regions, requiring any province considering joining a region to hold a referendum, if a third of the provincial legislators request it.

In September, the Sunni parties agreed to allow the bill to be presented to parliament for a vote after reaching a deal with Shiite lawmakers that the law would not come into effect for 18 months and that a committee would be formed to consider constitutional changes sought by the Sunnis.

Still, the Sunnis tried to prevent the vote Wednesday, and Shiite parties accused them of breaking the agreement. During the voting, some lawmakers demanded that the provision putting off regions for 18 months be removed from the law to allow their formation immediately.

But in the end, the 18-month delay was grudgingly passed.

“We do not want to betray the agreement like (the Sunnis) did,” Hadi al-Amiri, from the Shiite Badr Organization party, argued before the lawmakers.

Al-Hakim said the Shiite parties were ready to create two regions from the nine mainly Shiite provinces of southern Iraq.


(3 of 3) Second Article of Three: Iraqis call for five-man junta to end the anarchy
The Sunday Times October 15, 2006

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2404311,00.html

Marie Colvin

IRAQ’S fragile democracy, weakened by mounting chaos and a rapidly rising death toll, is being challenged by calls for the formation of a hardline “government of national salvation”.

The proposal, which is being widely discussed in political and intelligence circles in Baghdad, is to replace the Shi’ite-led government of Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, with a regime capable of imposing order and confronting the sectarian militias leading the country to the brink of civil war. Dr Saleh al-Mutlak, a prominent Sunni politician, travelled to Arab capitals last week seeking support for the replacement of the present government with a group of five strongmen who would impose martial law and either dissolve parliament or halt its participation in day-to-day government.

Other Iraqis dismissed the idea that a unilateral change in the leadership would be desirable or even possible. “The only person who can undertake a coup in Iraq now is General George Casey (the US commander) and I don’t think the Americans are inclined to go in that direction,” said Ahmed Chalabi, head of a rival political party.

Any suspension of the democratic process would be regarded as a severe blow to American and British policy.

The establishment of democracy has been its cornerstone and successful elections in December last year were hailed as a cause for optimism. However, Anthony Cordesman, an influential expert on Iraq at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said there was a “very real possibility” that Maliki could be toppled in the coming months.

“Nobody in Iraq has the military power to mount a traditional coup, but there could be a change in government, done in a backroom, which could see a general brought in to run the ministry of defence or the interior,” Cordesman said.

“It could be regarded as a more legitimate government than the present one as long it doesn’t favour one faction.”

This weekend Mutlak, who leads the Iraqi National Dialogue Front, the fifth largest political group in the national assembly, vowed to press ahead with his plans.. “We think Iraq is now in a tragic state,” he said.

“Maliki must step down. He has done nothing up to now. Hundreds of Iraqis are being killed almost daily and thousands are being removed from their homes in sectarian purges, and he takes no action.”

The main focus of a new regime, Mutlak said, would be to bring security back to Iraq by “cleaning out” the ministries of defence and the interior, widely seen as having been infiltrated by sectarian militias. He said he had the support of four other parties including al-Fadila, a Shi’ite party based in Basra.

Mutlak’s proposal is evidence of increasing frustration with Maliki who has failed to stop violence and to revive the economy.

Last week Iraqi officials estimated that up to 100 people, mostly civilians, were being murdered every day.

Yesterday’s grim reports included the discovery of seven headless bodies north of Baghdad. They were among 17 Shi’ite construction workers kidnapped last Thursday, apparently in retaliation for the burning of three Sunnis the previous day.