Tweet
The end of last week included a day of déjà vu news from Iraq:
- The nominally independent election commission barred nearly 500 candidates from the voting scheduled for March 7, after receiving a request from the government to remove individuals accused of having ties to Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party. (Iraq expert Reidar Visser referred to the commission’s explanation as “making up the law.”)
- 11 men were sentenced to death for their roles in a massive bombing of two Iraqi government ministries last summer, an alleged Baathist-led plot. The regime claimed to have broken up a similar plot earlier this week.
- Perhaps in reaction to either the conviction or the political maneuvering, multiple bombs exploded in Najaf yesterday evening, near the Imam Ali shrine (an especially holy site for Shiite Muslims) and the home of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.
In the previous national elections, it was Sistani’s endorsement of a slate dominated by Shiite political parties that put the current government in power — and those same parties have consistently used anti-Baathism as a rallying cry for sectarian policies that disenfranchised Sunni Muslims.
In short, the factionalism that tore Iraq apart after the American invasion continues to simmer, even as (to quote Juan Cole) “the remaining 110,000 U.S. troops in Iraq seldom do patrols and seldom see combat any more.” Which shouldn’t come as any surprise.
For the hawks who foisted the Iraq war on us, the invasion and occupation were all about imposing the will of the United States on that country, not to mention the rest of the Middle East. Some who opposed the war saw it through a similar American-centric prism, claiming that the horrific internal violence that followed was purely in response to U.S. imperialism.
In fact, neither was the case. We removed the ruler of a country awash with armaments, and various factions have been fighting ever since for the power to rule it next. The colossal, stupid tragedy of the U.S. involvement there was our government’s decision to set off the conflict in the first place, and then to stay in the middle of it.
Of course, for some, there is an apparent silver lining:
A wave of American companies have been arriving in Iraq in recent months to pursue what is expected to be a multibillion-dollar bonanza of projects to revive the country’s stagnant petroleum industry, as Iraq seeks to establish itself as a rival to Saudi Arabia as the world’s top oil producer.
… The contracts will be administered either directly by the Iraqi government or as part of Baghdad’s oversight of international oil companies that have signed agreements during the past few months to develop the country’s most promising oil fields.
… Among the companies that have started sending workers and equipment to the country or have plans to are Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Weatherford International and Schlumberger, all Houston-based oil-services companies, and several construction and engineering giants, including KBR, Bechtel, Parsons, Fluor and Foster Wheeler.
… While American oil companies have enjoyed only modest success in winning oil development deals in Iraq, the numerous contracts signed in recent months have created an enormous backlog of work that leaves Baghdad with limited alternatives to Halliburton and the other American companies that dominate the oil industry services sector.
Funny (or sad, I guess) that some folks always seem to come out on top, isn’t it?
11 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Project going according to plan. Well, almost.
Iraq? What’s that?
BTW Swopa, great pic. Who are those silly men in those ridiculous looking costumes?
That’s an honor guard in Great Britain; the picture is from Maliki’s visit there last April.
I thought it looked like the Brits, but I was thinking that Iraq was aping empire, like India did. Can’t wait to see the pic of Maliki in front of a U.S. honor guard in camoflage, the new empire uniform.
Busheconomics!!
I think it’s fair to say that some Iraqis were fighting to rule Iraq, some were fighting to secede, and the rest were fighting to kick out foreign occupation forces. All we had to do to was stop trying to occupy Iraq, and announce withdrawal plans. That seems to have put a damper on the fighting, at least until after the bulk of our forces actually leave the country.
The war was effectively ended in 2006, initiated by the joint U.S./ISF operation Forward Together. While the operation itself was deemed a failure (touted as bringing security to Baghdad) it acted as both cover for and active participation in the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad that broke the back of the Sunni insurgency and sent their popular civilian support structure into exile (to the tune of 4 million mostly Sunni’s). The following “surge” managed to co-opt the remaining tribal infrastructure into a bogus protection deal with the U.S. that enriched them at the expense of the active resistance that was left. In the meantime the Sadrists struck a deal with the Maliki government to cool their jets and secretly ally with the the administration as long as they (Maliki) insisted on the SOFA deal that the U.S. was out by 2011. That deal was made public after the last election cycle by the Sadrist announcment that they were now allied with Maliki. Funny that, as it directly followed the Maliki’s “”very apparent”"governments crackdown on said movement, not to mention the Sadrist’s “weak” showing in that election.
At any rate, the current drop in violence can be explained by the simple fact that the Sunni insurgency has either been defeated or forced into exile and the deal between Sadr and Maliki contingent upon the removal of U.S. troops, Post 2011 (and the immediate future), and the supposed removal of U.S. troops presents a whole new set of circumstances in that the Shiite government of Iraq will have to decide between an alliance with Iran or the U.S. – as it will have to endorse either the U.S. anti-Iran position – leaving it an isolated Shiite government, or siding with Iran and doubling its local influence and prospects.
Not to underscore that such a time line will probably include the natural (or otherwise) death of Sistani just about the time that Mookie emerges from his Iranian teachings as a full Ayatollah.
Bush and Cheney wanted to do regime change in Iraq. Whatever fact,truth or sane reading of Iraq’s real or current political,social,religious or ethnic status available during 2002 going into early 2003 was fully subjugated to Bush/Cheney regime change desire in Iraq. They had gone Hitlerian. If they could not find “legitimate” reason they would and did create one or more not legitimate reasons. Which is why they are now war criminals.
Iraqis ought to pursue these war criminals by all legal means.
That would be the best thing that could happen to Bush and Cheney and WashingtonDC.
In a just world after establishing that Saddam had no WMD and was a paper tiger the blowback on Bush and Cheney should have been big and fast.
Instead they were re-elected (stole election?) in 2004. Now Bush is doing a legacy scrub and working on his Library for himself. Dick the Dick Cheney is doing more Dick Cheney sneering and jeering living in comfort near WashingtonDC. This prick should be fully shut down here in 2010 but instead enjoys a wide American media slot and gets to mouth off when and where he pleases. A real darling of AEI,Heritage and Politico types.His daughter Liz is doing it as well.She is a damn good little dickette too.
Bush and Cheney got away with doing warmongering/war crimes and a near seven years later Iraq is rebooting for next strongman ruler who will crush all opposition. Iraqi nationalism may well return to the oil fields again dependent on how next Iraqi strongman wants to reset Iraqs oil wealth.
Bush and Cheney did war crimes and by rights should have been taken to court and after a fair trial found guilty of war crimes and fully disgraced and put out of American public life completely if not jailed and serving a prison term. Inject guffaw lol here if desired.
Iraq Debacle now leading back into Afghanistan which better informed and wagering minds suggest will not end well for WashingtonDC.
Of course the real deal to come is Iran and whether WashingtonDC messes with Iran or lets Israel as WashingtonDCs proxy do it that stupid act will make Iraq Debacle appear the lesser debacle.
Barack Obama seems intent on letting Bush and Cheney know no consequences for the warmongering and war crimes they presided over and seems fully intent on doing a deep dive into occupation of Afghanistan and messing around in Pakistan with a open option on Iran getting some too.
Barack Obama now owns Bush and Cheney warmongering and war crimes and is piling on his own in addition.
So when does WashingtonDC get regime changed out for war crimes?
The last thing this occupation was about was terrorism, that’s always been a for sure, even under the Reagan III administration, or Bush I, it was just another CIA false flag. Sort of a Bilderberg, OPEC proving ground
to ruffle the Baath Party for the House of Saud, and to get domestic oil pumping again at a good price. And, instead of the regular little puppet country getting smashed again like say Afghanistan, or Vietnam for example.
It looks like Israel is going to come out on top, and the fall of U.S. Empire in near vertical decline.
Juan Cole is correct- the sad fact of nearly all the countries in the Middle East is that 100% of the governments are autocracies, and whenever a revolution happens, it results in a period of rank choas, until another autocracy arises. Iraq’s turmoil was almost always chiefly a civil struggle over who would rule the country next, and it will always continue to be that way. We understandably attribute a lot of significance to American action, but 100 years from now hardly anyone there will remember it.