by Wayne White
After a drought of news on Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s bid to stay in power, a July 22 Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article claimed he has run into real trouble. Now, not only Iraq’s Sunni Arabs and Kurds, but many Shia leaders, plus the Iranians reportedly realize Maliki’s re-election [...]]]>
by Wayne White
After a drought of news on Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s bid to stay in power, a July 22 Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article claimed he has run into real trouble. Now, not only Iraq’s Sunni Arabs and Kurds, but many Shia leaders, plus the Iranians reportedly realize Maliki’s re-election could be disastrous, possibly undercutting efforts to oust the Islamic State (IS) from its recent gains. Yet Maliki remains grimly determined to press ahead with his candidacy.
Iraqi officials with access told the WSJ that senior Shia politicians present at meetings with Iranian officials in Baghdad and the Shia holy city of Najaf said Maliki “had lost the confidence of all but his most inner circle.” Likewise, these officials said participating Iranian officials indicated that Tehran also had “really started to lean away from Maliki as a candidate.”
Iran’s position seemed confirmed by a July 23 Associated Press (AP) July report that none other than Iranian General Ghasem al-Soleimani recently told Maliki to abandon his effort to remain prime minister. Soleimani has been intensely involved in organizing Iraqi resistance to IS around the city of Samarra north of Baghdad that houses an important Shia mosque/shrine. Yet, Maliki reportedly rebuffed Soleimani.
Worse still for Maliki, three Iraqi officials associated with these discussions said Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the source of emulation for most Iraqi Shia, wrote of his opposition to Maliki’s quest for a 3rd term as prime minister in a letter to the Iraqi leader last week. Sistani’s wish that Maliki drop out of the prime ministerial race (in this case relayed by an intermediary even earlier) likewise appeared to be confirmed by the AP via two Iraqi officials.
A Defiant Maliki
Quite apart from his apparent reaction to Soleimani, Maliki seemed unshaken in remarks released last Friday, asserting once again that since his State of Law (SL) bloc won the most seats in April’s parliamentary elections, he should get first crack at forming a government.
The process of government formation can begin now that Iraq’s largely ceremonial Iraqi president (traditionally a Kurd) — in this case Fouad Massoum — was elected on July 24. Massoum must formally identify the individual to be accorded the first shot at cobbling together a new government coalition.
Maliki’s insistence on being named in that respect was boosted on July 23. Iraq’s Federal Supreme Court ruled that his State of Law bloc had the legal right to go first.
One motivation driving Maliki may be fear. After years of serious, often extralegal abuses against his sectarian and political enemies and rampant official corruption, another government could delve into Maliki’s ugly record and place him in a lot more jeopardy than simply losing his job as prime minister.
Stalemate
The frontlines between IS, allied factions, and the Iraqi government forces have moved very little. Fighting still flares outside Samarra, in the vicinity of Tikrit, south of Kurdish-held areas, and even in portions of Sunni Arab al-Anbar Governorate in western Iraq where isolated government garrisons have held on (reinforced and resupplied via helicopter and ground convoys snaking around IS-held areas).
Government attempts to retake locales like the city of Tikrit on the road to Samarra and the encircled refinery at Baiji have failed. On July 24 militants attacked a government-held base about 12 miles north of Baghdad and a convoy evacuating prisoners from the base. The affair turned into a bloodbath with 52 prisoners and 8 Iraqi soldiers dead amidst countercharges that either the militants or the soldiers fired into the prisoners.
Meanwhile, bombings have occurred regularly in Baghdad, now claimed by IS. As far back as 2011, however, such bombings against Shia or government targets had already become commonplace.
IS Abuses and Vulnerabilities
Reports have soared over the past week of IS human rights abuses, atrocities, and acts of historic religious destruction, particularly in and around Mosul. IS fighters have expelled Christian monks from a historic monastery in Mosul, prohibiting them from taking ancient texts. Christians in general also have been forced to flee into nearby Iraqi Kurdistan after being told they must convert or leave, taking little or nothing with them.
The conservative Sunni Qatar-based International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS) declared the Christians “native sons of Iraq” and that the expulsions “violate Islamic laws.” Islamic tradition holds that Christians enjoy protection and can be required to pay a tax (Jizya); Christians do not have to pay the Zakat tax levied on Muslims. IUMS and senior clerics elsewhere in the region have likewise denounced IS’s pretentious announcement of a Caliphate.
IS has also turned on local Muslim communities. On July 24, it blew up the revered shrine/mosque of the Prophet Jonah (Yunis in Arabic) in Mosul. In some areas IS cadres have plundered mosques, and it has been reported that some localities went over to IS only after mayors, other prominent citizens, and their families were held hostage pending submission.
The UN issued a report on June 20 accusing Islamic State militants of wanton executions of clerics, political leaders, educators, health workers, rape, and the recruitment of child soldiers. Al-Qaeda in Iraq wore out its welcome as an ally against the US occupation 8-10 years ago, spawning the Sunni Arab “Awakening,” by doing far less. So these abuses and atrocities will make IS a lot more vulnerable. The defection of a number of its non-IS Sunni Arab allies would be in play if Baghdad were able to proffer a viable — and credible — alternative that addresses these groups’ longstanding grievances.
Maliki Facing Long Odds
If Maliki wins his battle to stay in office, Baghdad’s ability to offer that alternative will be greatly diminished. Non-Jihadist Sunni Arab elements like tribes, former military personnel, and alienated inhabitants of IS-occupied communities could see little choice but to stick with IS regardless — at least for a while.
After all, the prospect of “liberation” by a motley collection of Iraqi troops and undisciplined, notoriously brutal Shia militias would be particularly frightening with a prime minister known for his anti-Sunni Arab attitudes still at the helm.
Despite Maliki’s determination, he will have a hard time hanging on with the Kurds, Sunni Arabs in parliament, Sistani, and the Iranians now wanting him out. This morning, Sistani, in a statement at Friday prayers almost certainly meant for Maliki, called upon leaders to “bear their national responsibilities” requiring “sacrifice and self-denial and not to cling to positions or posts.” So Maliki probably will be given his chance to form a government, but even many Shia in his own electoral bloc likely won’t support him.
]]>by Wayne White
Secretary of State John Kerry’s June 23 meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki sent a risky symbolic message, albeit unintended: perhaps the US could work with Maliki after all. So it was no surprise today when Maliki came out swinging with his standard litany of accusations against his [...]]]>
by Wayne White
Secretary of State John Kerry’s June 23 meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki sent a risky symbolic message, albeit unintended: perhaps the US could work with Maliki after all. So it was no surprise today when Maliki came out swinging with his standard litany of accusations against his political enemies, clearly determined to exploit the crisis to secure another term. If he stays on, the inclusive Iraqi political solution the White House seeks will remain elusive. The same could be said about the hopes for more speedy and successful action toward driving the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIL or ISIS) out from many of its holdings in Iraq, with or without strong US air support.
Excessive alarm, impatience
The Obama administration appears driven by worse case military scenarios that continue to dominate the US media. Much of ISIS’ recent acquisitions along the Iraqi-Syrian border, although troubling, have been against the relatively easy pickings of isolated garrisons. Even before these gains, ISIS had transited the border quite easily, and along the Jordanian border ISIS faces capable Jordanian military units.
In mixed areas along its battlefront, ISIS has run into some spirited resistance from not only Kurds, but even the Sunni Arab Naqshabandi Army (Baathists & former military cadres) southwest of Iraqi Kurdistan. The refinery complex in Baiji, its isolated garrison fiercely defending it for 2 weeks, appears to have been retaken. Likewise, although ISIS took Tal Afar near the Syrian border, this occurred after government security forces had again gamely taken it back from ISIS.
Iraq’s government forces are not without some obvious fighting power, and ISIS is unlikely to make substantial inroads into the predominantly Shia south or areas held by Kurds in the north.
Kerry raising the possibility that the US might begin air strikes against ISIS prior to the creation of a “transformative” government was another misstep: Washington seems too focused on the immediate situation on the ground at the expense of the basic political and military fundamentals. Due to the size of the ISIS challenge, the latter is more important. The US should have persisted with holding Baghdad’s feet to the fire over a credibly balanced new government (near impossible with Maliki as Prime Minister).
Kerry’s extraction from Maliki of a promise to speed up government formation in Baghdad already has been twisted to Maliki’s advantage; meeting with Maliki threw the beleaguered Iraqi leader a lifeline of sorts. Previously, the White House had said everything short of Maliki must go. The pressing need to peel Sunni Arab tribes and former pre-2003 regime cadres away from ISIS hinges on Maliki’s departure, which now seems less likely. Today Maliki exploited Kerry’s call for a new government within a week by promising to do so, lamely calling for unity, but lashing out again at other Iraqi politicians, Iraq’s Kurds, and foreign countries for conspiring to create the ISIS mess.
With Maliki’s history of broken promises and abuse concerning Iraq’s Sunni Arab community, Sunni demands that Maliki must go appear non-negotiable. In fact, ISIS has been using Maliki’s continued rule among Sunnis as a rallying cry for its military campaign: a struggle to punish Maliki for his anti-Sunni misbehavior.
Keeping the Kurds in hand
The President of the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG), Masoud Barzani, told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour this week that Maliki’s “wrong policies” brought on the crisis, and Barzani could see little hope that Iraq could “stay together” with Maliki in office. Maliki has broken promises to the Kurds too, becoming deadlocked or sparring endlessly with them over oil export and territorial issues.
Amidst the present crisis, many Kurds have also revived their calls for Iraqi Kurdish independence. Barzani said as much in his interview with CNN. Kerry pushed back against this, and a senior State Department official warned that Kurdish separation would be very damaging at this time.
Despite Kurdish dreams of walling themselves off from the ugly challenges facing Arab Iraq, this is an illusion. Kurdish independence would render the effort to oust Maliki far more difficult by taking the Kurds out of the political fight in Baghdad, as well as leaving them with many of the same security concerns from which they want to walk away.
With mainly Sunni Arabs all along their western and southern borders, an independent Kurdish Iraq would still face a long battlefront. Over the past two weeks the KRG has moved its forces into disputed areas between it and both Sunni Arabs and Shia, including the contested oil center of Kirkuk. Under the present circumstances, this was prudent to prevent a possible ISIS takeover, but it is no secret that the Kurds would like to hold onto these areas for good — unacceptable to all Arab Iraqis. Such unilateral seizures further increase the likelihood of confrontation with either ISIS or a new government in Baghdad, be it united Arab or mainly Shia.
Governmental mess in Baghdad
Maliki’s State of Law coalition scored well in the April parliamentary elections. He and his cronies will fight hard to fend off all comers, fearing, among other things, possible retribution down the line for their abuses. By retaining the Defense, National Security, and Interior portfolios, Maliki also retains the power to intimidate.
Although a Maliki government could hold Baghdad and most of the south, such a government would not create the ethno-sectarian alliances needed to drive ISIS from the bulk of its vast acquisitions elsewhere. In fact, a narrowly based Maliki government could end up resorting to the same sort of destructive, bloody and inevitably indiscriminate slog in which the Assad regime has mired itself since 2011. Hopefully, today’s Syrian airstrikes are not an ominous harbinger of things to come.
Shia elements likely opposed to a new Maliki government also maintain an important role. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani all but declared at Friday prayers last week that Maliki and his policies are bankrupt, calling upon key parliamentary blocs to produce “an effective government that enjoys broad national support, avoids past mistakes, and opens new horizons toward a better future for all Iraqis.” If Maliki is indeed unacceptable to Sistani, that could make his bid to stay a lot tougher.
Meanwhile, Muqtada al-Sadr, repeatedly at odds with Maliki (who turned US forces loose on Sadr’s Madhi Army militia in 2008) commands the most powerful Shia force capable of aiding the Iraqi army against ISIS. Sadr knows Maliki cannot be trusted and might push back by making full support from his tens of thousands of armed, fanatical followers conditional on Maliki’s departure.
One major obstacle in dumping Maliki is the lack of an obvious alternative. No other Shia leaders in Baghdad enjoy any particularly strong political or popular support.
The notion that Iran could help the US forge a new government without Maliki is misplaced. The Iranians have supported Maliki’s hostile policies toward a Sunni Arab community known to harbor profoundly anti-Iranian views reminiscent of the Saddam Hussein era. Iran also values its close relationship with Maliki. In fact, elements of the Iranian leadership might well be counting (as is Maliki) on fears related to ISIS gains eroding US patience in holding back “intense and sustained” US military support pending a more promising political lineup in Baghdad.
With Maliki determined to exploit Kerry’s request for a new government merely to press ahead with his own candidacy, the prospects for a sustained, coordinated, ground, air and political effort against ISIS looks bleak. Since Maliki’s 2010 election campaign especially, he has been the main driver in turning Iraq into the writhing ethno-sectarian snake pit we see today. A well-grounded way out of this crisis remains far from clear.
This article was first published by LobeLog and was reprinted here with permission. Follow LobeLog on Twitter and like us on Facebook
Photo: US Secretary of State John Kerry, a State Department translator, and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki pose for a photograph before beginning a meeting in Baghdad on June 23, 2014. Credit: State Department
]]>by Emile Nakhleh
Much blame could go around regarding the current chaos in Iraq and the recent territorial gains of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Four contributing factors stand out:
The 2003 decision by the Bush administration to dissolve the Iraqi army and “debaathify” the country (ban the Baath [...]]]>by Emile Nakhleh
Much blame could go around regarding the current chaos in Iraq and the recent territorial gains of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Four contributing factors stand out:
Senior US diplomat Paul Bremer’s decision in 2003 to dissolve the Iraqi army and to debaathify the country, with the approval of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney, was disastrous. Overnight, hundreds of thousands of soldiers and thousands of officers, many of whom were Sunni Muslims, found themselves on the streets without a job and with a debilitating loss of influence and status. Their anger fueled the first insurgency.
Most Iraqis were expected to hold Baath party membership under Saddam Hussein if they desired a position in the government and in the private sector, including education, health services, and corporations. Bremer’s decision to lay off these people because of their party affiliation produced millions of unemployed Iraqis — angry, alienated, desperate, and willing to carry arms against the new Shia-dominated power structure and the US occupation.
According to media reports and published memoirs, Vice President Cheney and his top advisers, including David Addington and Scooter Libby, believed on the eve of the invasion that Iraqis would view the US military as liberators, not occupiers.
They failed to realize at the time that Iraqis’ dislike for Saddam did not automatically translate into love of foreign occupation. Debaathification and dissolving the army created a “perfect storm,” which explains what’s happening in Iraq today.
Prime Minister Maliki has pursued a narrow-minded partisan policy, which excludes anyone — Sunni and Shia — who does not belong to his Dawa Party. Visitors to his office would be hard-pressed to find any senior employee without party affiliation.
Contrary to American advice, Maliki refused to keep thousands of Sunni tribesmen, who were involved in the “Awakening,” on the government payroll. Here again, thousands of these tribesmen who received regular incomes from the American military became unemployed.
Not surprisingly, they became the backbone of the second insurgency against the Maliki government.
Maliki misjudged his countrymen thinking that they would tolerate a regime based on divisiveness, sectarianism, systemic corruption, and a budding dictatorship. He promoted sectarianism even among the senior military officer corps and promoted party allegiance over competence and experience.
He thought mistakenly that for geopolitical reasons, both the United States and Iran would continue to support him despite his poor policies. This support is now tepid at best; even mainstream Shia political leaders are calling for his removal.
Maliki has clearly reached a dead end and should be replaced. Following the US departure, he failed to lead Iraq into a more inclusive and stable country. Key regional and international actors no longer believed his accusations that his critics were “terrorists.”
ISIS’ territorial advances, as were dramatically depicted on television screens around the world, highlight the disintegration of some divisions within the Iraqi army. It’s an embarrassment not only for the Iraqi army, but also more significantly for the US military, which trained these units.
Depicting ISIS’ sudden success as another case of “intelligence failure” is tempting. In reality, the US military had inadequate knowledge of the loyalties, commitment, professionalism, and sectarianism of the Iraqi military. Abandoning their uniforms and weapons and refusing to fight for their country meant Iraqi officers did not believe in what they were fighting for or their mission. Billions of dollars spent by the US on training these units went to naught.
Washington’s failure to bring about the fall of Assad early on has also emboldened Sunni militants to fight in Syria. “Jihadists” from across the globe, including from Western countries, descended on Syria for the same cause. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and other Gulf countries have funded these groups.
Bashar al-Assad’s self-fulfilling prophecy that terrorism is the main enemy in Syria has come home to roost, not only in Syria, but also in Iraq.
The way forward
A failed state in Syria and a dismembered Iraq could push the entire Middle East toward sectarian wars and instability, which could in turn unsettle oil markets and rattle the global economy. Before the 2003 invasion, former Secretary of State Colin Powell warned President George W. Bush of the Pottery Barn rule. The United States pushed Iraq into this mess; it’s time Washington owns what it broke.
This article was first published by LobeLog and was reprinted here with permission. Follow LobeLog on Twitter and like us on Facebook.
Photo: Demonstrators carry al-Qaeda flags in front of the provincial government headquarters in Mosul, 225 miles (360 kilometers) northwest of Baghdad, Iraq on June 16, 2014.