Relaxed Politics

You think I’m joking? Why would I lie to you…?

[It is the sense of the Senate to] recognize the success of the troop surge in Iraq and its strategic significance in advancing the vital national interests of the United States in Iraq, the Middle East, and the world, in particular as a strategic victory in a central front of the war on terrorism[...]

(2) commend and express its gratitude to General David H. Petraeus, General Raymond Odierno, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker for the distinguished wartime leadership that made the success of the troop surge in Iraq possible…

Now who do you suppose introduced that asinine ‘bipartisan’(as it’s being touted) senate amendment…? Why, Joe Lie himself, with *gasp* his best buds, McCain and Graham as co-sponsors… Strange that there were no real Dem senators that co-sponsored that rubbish!

Funny thing though, their idol and hero, Gen. Betrayus, must’ve missed that talking point memo… Silly man…

No victory in Iraq, says Petraeus

The outgoing commander of US troops in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, has said that he will never declare victory there.

In a BBC interview, Gen Petraeus said that recent security gains were “not irreversible” and that the US still faced a “long struggle”. [...]

Leaving his post, he said there were “many storm clouds on the horizon which could develop into real problems”.

Overall he summed up the situation as “still hard but hopeful”, saying that progress in Iraq was “a bit more durable” but that the situation there remained fragile.

He said he did not know that he would ever use the word “victory”: “This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade… it’s not war with a simple slogan.”

*ouch* that has to hurt!

What about those storm clouds…? As the Center for American Progress, and, specifically; Brian Katulis, Marc Lynch, and Peter Juul point out…

Victory in Iraq Declared, Not Achieved

The 2007-2008 surge of U.S. troops achieved important gains in reducing violence in Iraq. But it has not delivered on its central objective: achieving a sustainable power consolidation among Iraq’s different political forces. The surge has frozen into place the accelerated fragmentation that Iraq underwent in 2006 and 2007 and has created disincentives to bridge central divisions between Iraqi factions.[...]

Rather than advancing Iraq’s political transition and facilitating power-sharing deals among Iraq’s factions, the surge has produced an oil revenue-fueled, Shia-dominated national government with close ties to Iran. This national government shows few signs of seeking to compromise and share meaningful power with other frustrated political factions. The surge has set up a political house of cards. But this does not mean that the U.S. military must stay longer to avoid its collapse. Quite the contrary: Without a U.S. military drawdown, Iraq will not be able to achieve the true internal consolidation of power necessary to advance U.S. security interests in the Middle East.[...]

Ten key challenges ahead for Iraq’s political transition include:

1. The U.S.-Iraq security agreement
2. Provincial powers and elections
3. Refugees and internally displaced persons
4. Disbanding and integrating militias and other armed groups
5. Constitutional review
6. Kirkuk and other disputed territories and Article 140
7. De-Baathification reform implementation
8. Amnesty implementation
9. Oil and revenue sharing laws
10. State capacity, governance, and anti-corruption

These are all issues that Iraq’s leaders must address on their own terms, and at their own pace. The United States cannot impose a military solution to the power-sharing disputes among Iraq’s leaders, and expending significant resources in an effort to do so is unwise

I wouldn’t place those ten items in that particular order, but, it does account for the bulk of the issues that need to be resolved by the Iraqis…

The report went on to describe beautifully what the political landscape looks like in Iraq…

Iraq’s internal politics today are a complicated mosaic of competing interests and contradictory trends. Five enduring, unresolved tensions lie beneath the surface, each capturing a part but none the entirety of the political dynamics of post-surge Iraq.

1. Centralizers vs. de-centralizers. Some Iraqi factions want to see more power placed in the hands of the national government, while others continue to push for more power to be vested in local and provincial governments.

2. State power holders vs. popular challengers. Certain factions have disproportionately benefited from the national government’s spoils, such as Dawa, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, and the Kurdish factions who are part of national government. Some factions that have not benefited from the national government’s increased oil wealth and military power have stronger support in key areas of Iraq such as the Sons of Iraq in central and western Iraq and the Sadrists in central and southern Iraq.

3. Sunni vs. Shia. Sectarian conflicts are much reduced since high levels of violence in 2006, but the Sunni-Shia sectarian strain endures.

4. Arab vs. Kurds. The Arab-Kurd division is coming to a head in the unresolved crisis over the status of Kirkuk and other disputed territories.

5. Religious factions vs. secular factions. Latent tensions remain between Iraqis who are concerned by the religious nature of Iraqi politics versus those who see politics as one facet of advancing enduring religious principles of either Sunni or Shia Islam. Religious minorities such as Christians and Yazidis have suffered from persecution at the hands of other groups in Iraq since 2003.

The five persistent fault lines are present in the three major alliances and political groups that continue to evolve in Iraq: the fragmenting Shia-Kurdish coalition that has ruled Iraq, the transformations in Sunni politics, and the still fledgling efforts of nationalist and secular groups

Several articles today point out the recognition by the Iraqis of the tenuous situation…

Iraq speaker urges action by MPs

Iraq’s parliamentary speaker has urged MPs to resolve a range of intractable disputes as the house resumes work after a four-week summer recess.

“Iraq is looking to you for a solution,” Mahmoud Mashhadani told MPs. [...]

“I urge the MPs to speed up the culture of concord and participation and not get caught up in a maze that would take us back to square one,” Mr Mashhadani, said during the brief session.

Ironically, as the article also pointed out today’s Parliament began two hours late because there were not enough MPs for a quorum at the scheduled start of business. I guess they’re real anxious to resolve the issues, eh?

It also appears that our leverage over the Iraqi GZG continues to fade and is increasingly replaced by Iran…

Iraqi, Iranian officials oppose US deal

Iraqi Vice-President and Iranian Majlis speaker have opposed a controversial security deal possibly to be adopted by Iraq under US pressure, PressTV reported.

The US-Iraqi security deal has many negative points, including immunity from legal prosecution for American forces in Iraq, Adil Abdul-Mahdi said during a Tuesday meeting with Iran’s Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani in Tehran.

Mission Accomplished…?

Interestingly, in a weird confluence of recent historic events, today is not only the 7th anniversary of 9/11, but, it also marks the 2000th day we’ve been in Iraq! An ignoble milestone to say the least!

posted on Friday, September 12th, 2008 at 3:00 pm under Defense, Politics, Relaxed Politics, US Politics.