by Mohammed A. Salih
Ebril — The Iraqi Kurdish media and public are these days buzzing with heated discussions about independence. The reason is simple: never before has there been such a promising opportunity for Kurds to establish their own state.
Even prior to the recent crisis in Iraq, the situation was not [...]]]>
by Mohammed A. Salih
Ebril — The Iraqi Kurdish media and public are these days buzzing with heated discussions about independence. The reason is simple: never before has there been such a promising opportunity for Kurds to establish their own state.
Even prior to the recent crisis in Iraq, the situation was not promising for Kurds. In addition to the ongoing political bickering between the politicians in Baghdad and the Kurdish capital, Erbil, the Iraqi government’s decision to cut off the Kurdish region’s share of the national budget meant that average people in Kurdistan were seriously affected.
Since the Baghdad government halted the Kurdish region’s budget in February, the Kurdish government has struggled to pay the hundreds of thousands of people on its payroll on time. With the government being the largest employer in this region of nearly 5 million people, the local economy has considerably slowed down. Moreover, there are now serious security threats posed by the Islamic State (IS) to the west and south of the Kurdish borders. Public services such as electricity, fuel and roads were always the cause of many complaints in Kurdistan even before this crisis. Now with the territory under the direct control of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) expanded by over 30 percent, power and fuel shortages have become even more frequent.
Against this backdrop, pro-independence sentiments are rising among Kurds. With Iraq stumbling from one major crisis into another with no end in sight, the vast majority of Kurds have lost whatever faith they might have had in the idea of a functioning Iraq. Baghdad’s regression in the last couple of years to strong-arm policies of the past, such as using overt and covert military threats to cut the budget that so many people here desperately rely on have also worsened the situation.
With Baghdad now mired in conflict against the IS-led Sunni Arab militants, and Kurdistan’s border with the Iraqi government reduced to around 15 km from the over 1,000 km just before June 10, many in Kurdistan believe it’s time to break away from Iraq.
A major factor inspiring pro-independence feelings — in addition to the lack of trust in the Baghdad government and the desire to avoid the bloody conflict between Sunni rebels and the Iraqi army — are the opportunities that the idea of an independent Kurdish nation promises. With Kurdistan sitting on top of around 50 billion barrels of oil, an independent Kurdish state enjoying a reasonable level of regional and international recognition could experience unprecedented levels of prosperity and strength. If the Kurdish government can achieve its stated production target of one million barrels per day some time next year, it could achieve an income of around $35 to $40 billion per year. That figure is about triple the amount the KRG received from Baghdad last year.
Many Kurdish officials appear to be encouraged by the mix of relatively suitable conditions for secession and the prospects in store.
“We as Kurds are tired with what is going on in Baghdad,” Hemin Hewrami, a senior KDP official told me in early July after a session of the Kurdish Parliament when the President of the Kurdistan Region, Massoud Barzani, called on lawmakers to set in motion a process expected to result in a referendum on independence. He was quick to point out that there will be “no rolling back.”
Baghdad appears unable to react. Despite pronouncing their opposition to the idea of a Kurdish state, many here believe Turkey and much of the western world will eventually come to terms with an independent Kurdistan. Iran is the only country that has expressed strong sentiments against Kurdish independence. It fears that Iraq’s central government will be further weakened without Kurdish involvement, and worries that Kurdistan’s independence might stir up stronger nationalist sentiment among its own sizable Kurdish population. Meanwhile, much of the Arab world has remained silent on the matter, which has been perceived here as a covert sign of consent.
A major impediment to independence appears to be internal as the two most powerful Kurdish parties –- the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) — don’t see eye to eye over the push for independence.
While Barzani’s KDP has been very vocally supportive of the push at this time, the PUK (led by Iraq’s ailing President Jalal Talabani) seems to be divided over the matter.
However, if the referendum does take place, the people will ultimately make the decision and the consensus seems to be that they will vote overwhelmingly for independence.
Even if Kurdistan doesn’t achieve independence any time soon, many believe the nature of the relationship between the Kurds and the Iraqi government will change forever as a result of the current crisis. Kurdish leaders are already saying that if Kurds don’t declare independence, they will accept nothing less than a confederational arrangement where Kurdistan will further upgrade its autonomy from Baghdad.
“Our party has called for either independence or confederation,” Rizgar Ali, a senior PUK official told me in his office in Erbil last week. “There are no binders between Kurds and Iraq now…and Kurds cannot be a spectator forever.”
Talking to people here in Erbil, it’s hard to find someone who wants the old arrangement to persist.
Photo: Kurdish Peshmerga Keep Fragile Peace In Kirkuk. Credit: Spencer Platt/Getty Images
– Mohammed A. Salih is a journalist based in Erbil, Iraqi Kurdistan. He has written for almost a decade about Kurdish and Iraqi affairs for local and international media.
]]>by Wayne White
The spike in discussion about partitioning Iraq into Sunni Arab, Shia and Kurdish states is hardly surprising given the sweeping success of what is now being referred to as the “Islamic State,” the initial collapse of Iraqi army units facing it, and bitter wrangling in Baghdad over a new [...]]]>
by Wayne White
The spike in discussion about partitioning Iraq into Sunni Arab, Shia and Kurdish states is hardly surprising given the sweeping success of what is now being referred to as the “Islamic State,” the initial collapse of Iraqi army units facing it, and bitter wrangling in Baghdad over a new government.
Yet, after encountering relatively light resistance in its first advance through mainly Sunni Arab areas, the Islamic State has run up against much tougher resistance from a mixture of Iraqi troops and Shia militiamen. In fact, front lines have mostly see-sawed indecisively through contested areas in heavy fighting over the past two weeks.
To improve Iraq’s military and political options to address the Islamic State’s challenge, the swift formation of an inclusive new government is needed. Instead, with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki defiant in his bid for a third term and no clear replacement emerging from the parliament’s Shia majority, there has been stalemate. Not unexpectedly, parliamentary sessions on July 13 and 15 failed to break the prime ministerial deadlock, although the traditional Sunni Arab speaker was chosen on the 15, which represented some movement.
Kurdish Opportunism
The Kurds had already enjoyed considerable autonomy as the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) while Arab Iraq endured 11 years of violence. Before that, a separate Kurdish region existed largely beyond Saddam Hussein’s reach during 1991-2003. Both experiences fueled the Kurdish yearning for independence.
The Islamic State’s surge prompted the Kurds to seize many mixed, disputed areas adjacent to the KRG, last week expanding to encompass key oilfields. Plausible Kurdish claims were made that real estate like the city of Kirkuk had to be occupied to keep it safe from the Islamic State.
Since then it has become clear that the KRG hopes to keep these territories. Kurdish President Masoud Barzani has also upped the ante by charging the KRG parliament on July 4 with preparing a referendum on Kurdish independence. The result was predictable: over 90% of Kurds voted for independence in an unofficial referendum a few years ago.
Maliki vs. the Kurds
Deepening Iraq’s ethno-sectarian crisis, Maliki on July 9 accused the Kurds of using the KRG capital Erbil “as a base” of operations for “the Islamic State, and the Baathists, and al-Qaeda, and the terrorists.” This wildly specious outburst probably relates to the KRG’s humanitarian gesture of opening its doors to hundreds of thousands of panicked Iraqi troops, Kurds, Shia, Christians, and Turcoman fleeing the Islamic State.
Maliki also criticized the Kurds for capitalizing on the crisis to make another bid for independence, which rings true, but his false accusations have taken to a new low his years of bitter feuding with the KRG over practically everything: oil exports, oil revenue sharing, and disputed territory.
Maliki’s allegations drew an angry response from Kurdish leaders. Barzani said Maliki is now “afflicted with true hysteria,” and on July 11 senior Iraqi Kurdish officials began boycotting Maliki’s government pending an apology. Kurdish lawmakers in Baghdad, however, remained at their posts (to continue opposing Maliki).
Maliki retaliated by cutting off cargo flights between Baghdad and Erbil. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari (Kurdish) warned ominously that if an inclusive government could not be formed, “the consequences are very dire; complete fragmentation and failure” of the Iraqi state.
Demographic Obstacles
Despite its superficial appeal and Kurdish ambitions, Iraqi partition could not be implemented as neatly as many non-experts believe. For starters, Iraq’s highly complex demographics represent a formidable obstacle.
The 2006-08 wave of ethno-sectarian cleansing considerably reduced Baghdad’s diversity, but from about 60 miles south of the city all the way to the Turkish border, large areas remain mixed. As noted earlier, the KRG controversially occupies disputed territories, but the entire 1,000 kilometer perimeter of a notional independent Iraqi Kurdistan runs along heavily mixed areas.
In fact, Diyala Governate, northeast of Baghdad, south of the KRG, and east of the Sunni Arab city of Tikrit, is an ethno-sectarian mosaic. There is also a large pocket of Sunni Arab population south of Baghdad (nicknamed the “Triangle of Death” because of the danger it posed to US and Iraqi forces during the heyday of the Sunni Arab insurgency).
So partition would require the uprooting of millions of Iraqis to clear the way for demographically homogeneous mini-states. In the inflamed atmosphere across the country, precise borders would also be extremely difficult to define, and population shifts would be accompanied by considerable looting and bloodshed.
Baghdad now appears to be about 20% Sunni Arab and 80% Shia (without factoring in tens of thousands of Kurds, Christians and Turcomen). That alone could involve conflicting Sunni Arab and Shia visions of Baghdad: the former of a common capital and the latter of an entirely Shia one.
Even if granted a slice of Baghdad, Iraq’s intensely nationalistic Sunni Arabs would find the division of the city from which they dominated the country from independence through 2003 a difficult pill to swallow.
Sunni Arab areas of Iraq are bereft of any key resource that could sustain a notional state. Compared to the Shia south and Kurdish northeast, the Sunni Arab region has little land suitable for irrigation and insufficient rainfall. Most importantly, there is no developed oil or gas. And even if there were limited revenue sharing in the context of a weak confederacy, Maliki has shown by sometimes withholding oil revenue from the KRG to express his ire that such an arrangement would be unreliable.
It is therefore likely that any purely Sunni Arab state would remain poor, encumbered with even more refugees evicted from mixed areas, and harboring profound grievances toward the other two states. Under those circumstances extremists could flourish in various forms threatening not only the other Iraqi states, but also its foreign neighbors.
One pressure point a notional Sunni Arab state does have concerning the Shia south is upstream control over the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. That would put a Sunni Arab state in a position to pressure or retaliate against the Shia by disrupting water flow to the rich agricultural south (something already in play as Baghdad fights desperately to defend a Euphrates dam near Fallujah that the Islamic State wants).
Should Maliki succeed in his bid to remain prime minister, a negative domino effect could be set in motion.
A Maliki 3rd term would mean, regardless of rhetoric, no credibly inclusive government in Baghdad. That would make splitting a large slice of Sunni Arab elites away from the Islamic State and recovering lost territory exceedingly difficult. Equally worrisome would be the very real possibility that the KRG could regard the extension of Maliki’s tenure as a pretext to set in motion an unambiguous bid for full independence from Iraq.
Photo: Residents of the Sunni city of Mosul protest against Iraq’s Shia-dominated government on April 3, 2013. Credit: Beriwan Welat/IPS
]]>by Wayne White
Coverage of the Iraqi crisis from the media to Capitol Hill has been characterized by scary worst-case scenarios and exaggerations of the military capabilities of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Yet this Islamic extremist group has probably already seized most of the important Iraqi real estate it [...]]]>
by Wayne White
Coverage of the Iraqi crisis from the media to Capitol Hill has been characterized by scary worst-case scenarios and exaggerations of the military capabilities of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Yet this Islamic extremist group has probably already seized most of the important Iraqi real estate it is going to get. It is vital for the US to avoid simply doing Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s sectarian dirty work for him and returning Iraq to its previously miserably unbalanced status quo. Under the circumstances, however, avoiding that misstep poses daunting challenges.
The successes of ISIS in Iraq do represent a dicey problem for Iraqi authorities in Baghdad and the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) in the north. ISIS now commands the majority of Iraq’s Sunni Arab heartland as well as a large swathe of mixed ethno-sectarian areas, albeit those with substantial Sunni Arab populations. However, very little territory remains outside ISIS’ current holdings where a Sunni Arab extremist movement would be received with open arms or even passive resignation.
Collapse of dysfunctional army units
Admittedly, the performance of Iraqi Army units assigned to Sunni Arab areas like Mosul has been dismal. Retreating in the face of a few thousand lightly armed militants largely without a fight would have been bad enough. However, the loss of all cohesion, mass desertion, and the abandonment of valuable armaments, ammunition, and equipment compounded the collapse and gave additional advantages to ISIS.
These events revealed just how badly crippling internal problems have undermined the Iraqi Army. This has been especially so since Iraq’s dominant Shia establishment made it effectively impossible for American military advisors and trainers to remain in Iraq beyond the US withdrawal in 2011.
Throughout the ranks, the army has suffered from a high degree of politicized, sectarian, or bribe-generated appointments and promotions, debilitating corruption, and a severe lack of intelligence concerning Sunni Arab areas of the country. Its political favoritism and corruption appear to exceed what prevailed during the Saddam Hussein era. The units that collapsed apparently had no clue ISIS was about to attack Mosul. There have also been suggestions that self-serving unit commanders were more concerned about their personal safety than rallying their troops.
Tamping down the panic
As I noted on June 11, Maliki and his cronies woefully underestimated Sunni Arab tolerance for and potential pushback against years of exclusion and abuse. Now, however, a stunned and reeling Iraqi government probably is overestimating ISIS. Correspondingly, in the wake of its run of unexpectedly easy successes, ISIS might well be returning the favor by underestimating Iraqi Army units and militias in Baghdad.
In any upcoming fighting in Baghdad and the south, ISIS would be far more vastly outnumbered than it was in Mosul and likely to encounter armed Shia elements mustering quite a bit of fanaticism of their own. Only one portion of the army was routed in the north; a city many times the size of Mosul would be a huge mouthful for so small a force of ISIS fighters; and Iranian combatants could very well join the fight.
Moreover, despite Senator Lindsey Graham’s comment yesterday that the US “should have discussions with Iran” about the Iraq crisis, this may be irrelevant. Whether talks occur or not, Tehran, already closely aligned with the present Iraqi government, will likely act as it sees fit in Iraq to serve Iranian interests — regardless of US views on the matter.
Finally, if, as expected, the US commences air strikes, ISIS’ task of moving farther south would be that much more daunting. Near the top of the target list of those anticipated US air (and drone) strikes should be major pieces of military equipment seized by ISIS in the north. That would prevent ISIS from deploying them over the border into Syria (already in progress) or putting them to use in its upcoming clashes with Iraqi government forces.
Homeland imperiled by ISIS gains?
Those harping on ISIS’ “threat to the Homeland” are exaggerating that aspect of the problem. Since adopting the ISIS moniker in April 2013, and during operations by its antecedents since January 2012 in Syria (and going back 10 years in Iraq), ISIS has posed little threat to US interests outside Syria and Iraq.
Of late, its efforts have been consumed by its struggle to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria, combat moderate and other Islamist rebel rivals in Syria, and recently moving against the Iraqi government. There is a threat to the US to consider, but that is likely to emerge further down the line (but, ironically, could be heightened by US air strikes against ISIS in defense of Maliki & Co.)
One potential direct threat to the US that has also existed as part of the Syrian rebellion since 2012 is that of numerous US and other Western European citizens fighting with ISIS and the extremist al-Nusra Front. The prospect of those militants entering the US at some point (US visa requirements are typically waived for Western Europeans) does pose a threat. That threat is magnified by the difficulty Western intelligence and law enforcement agencies have had in gathering precise data on the identities of such individuals.
Trying to harness the Maliki government
Extracting substantial change in the Iraqi government’s abusive behavior toward its Sunni Arab community poses an extremely tough challenge for US policymakers. Holding back US air and other military support to secure this agreement could render getting assurances the easiest part of this endeavor.
If substantial portions of Sunni Arab Iraq were recovered from ISIS, it is difficult to envision how Iraqi government compliance with a more tolerant policy could be monitored reliably. And accountability is critical; Maliki has broken such pledges before. In fact, it would be best all-round if Maliki could be dumped as prime minister in the ongoing negotiations to form Iraq’s post-election government, but there are no indications that his Shia backers would cooperate.
Further complicating this crucial issue, the upcoming mainly sectarian face-off will inevitably result in atrocities on both sides. Already, ISIS has claimed and videoed its execution of large numbers of captured Iraqi soldiers, inflaming the atmosphere. The recruitment of Shia volunteers (with many hardened Shia militiamen undoubtedly among them) along with the possible employment of elite Quds Force cadres from Iran has also been reducing Baghdad’s control over the behavior of its own combatants.
Atrocities will undermine the ability of even a well-intentioned government in fielding a policy of communal toleration. Even worse, instead of a fast-paced government campaign to drive ISIS out of most of its Iraqi holdings, portions of the coming fight might resemble the more prolonged and grueling 2003-08 US-Iraqi struggle against the Sunni Arab insurgency and ruthless Shia militias.
Sorting out a workable way to thread this complex needle toward a new Iraqi national sectarian compact should be as high a priority for the Obama administration as military measures meant to defeat ISIS. The international community could perhaps be drawn into the task of monitoring Baghdad’s compliance in the coming years. Still, preventing a return to pre-crisis sectarian hostility is likely to be as difficult as the immediate military task of containing and rolling back ISIS — if not more.
This article was first published by LobeLog and was reprinted here with permission.
Photo: Carry weapons and waving Iraqi flags, volunteers join the Iraqi army to fight militants from the radical Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in eastern Baghdad June 15, 2014.
]]>by Wayne White
Since 2005, Iraqis have voted in four parliamentary elections yearning for decisive positive change. In three of those elections, popular hope for more effective governance and a decline in violence were dashed with governments consumed by their ambitions and flawed policies. Indeed, elections often have seemed less important than [...]]]>
by Wayne White
Since 2005, Iraqis have voted in four parliamentary elections yearning for decisive positive change. In three of those elections, popular hope for more effective governance and a decline in violence were dashed with governments consumed by their ambitions and flawed policies. Indeed, elections often have seemed less important than the evolving situation on the ground. If current Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki succeeds, as expected, in securing a third term after last week’s election, more disappointment probably lies ahead.
Through the premierships of Iyad al-Alawi, Ibrahim al-Jafaari, and Maliki, Iraq’s senior leadership has included a large percentage of former exile opposition leaders along with prominent members of two long-standing Kurdish parties-cum-militias. This relative lack of turnover in terms of fresh political faces at the top has magnified the shortcomings of this narrow grouping.
The 2004 transition and a missed opportunity
Prior to the first election, a non-electoral political milestone giving Iraq its first post-occupation government triggered similar hope. In June 2004, the US-run Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) under J. Paul Bremer passed formal sovereignty to an Iraqi Interim Government (IIG) with Iyad Allawi as interim prime Minister. With the Sunni Arab insurgency raging at the time, many Iraqis hoped this step away from American control would weaken the insurgency.
At that time, high expectations also were palpable within the Bush administration. Yet, as the head of the State Department’s Iraq intelligence team, I warned such optimism was unfounded. In fact, the new Iraqi political line-up differed little from the Shi’a and Kurdish-dominated Iraqi Governing Council that had worked with Bremer. Such hopes were dashed as the insurgency raged on ever more ferociously.
One big opportunity did present itself in 2004. Many leading Sunni Arab tribal leaders and insurgent commanders sought a ceasefire with American forces (by far their premier foe). Although promising to cease attacks against US and Iraqi targets and cooperate with US forces in countering a burgeoning al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), these leaders refused to recognize the IIG. Allawi, pressured by Washington, agreed to meet with the group. However, the IIG rejected the offer (despite otherwise being unable to end the insurgency).
Ironically, just over two years later, with ethno-sectarian violence soaring out of control, the US (despite opposition from another Iraqi prime minister) accepted the same deal unilaterally. Thus, the so-called Sunni Arab “Awakening” would be born, reducing violence substantially, but too late to save the tens of thousands who died during two intervening years of bloody fighting.
The first 2005 Iraqi Election
The next political way station toward what was hoped would be a measure of normalcy was the January 2005 election of an Iraqi National Assembly to name a prime minister and oversee the preparation of a permanent constitution. Iraqi voters went to the polls amidst an intense wave of hope.
Overall turnout was high, but polling in Sunni Arab areas was nil as most boycotted the vote. The bulk of employment in such areas had involved the military or Saddam Hussein-era government bureaucracy — disbanded by Bremer. Over a million Sunni Arabs had been members of the ruling Ba’th Party; Bremer banned such individuals from future employment. Unemployment was high and disaffection from the new Shi’a/Kurdish order intense. Seeing no real stake in the elections, many Sunni Arabs continued to support the insurgency.
Shortly after the election, the Bush administration requested that the heads of all major US intelligence agencies, plus British civilian and military intelligence arms, meet at CIA, along with one expert each, to sort out the bottom line. It clearly hoped for good news. Instead, I led off for the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence & Research, pointing out the grim, unchanged dynamic on the ground. All present agreed.
As the Intelligence Community believed, in terms of fundamentals driving violence, the election had changed nothing. Once elected, the new National Assembly took two months to agree on a Prime Minister (Ibrahim al-Jaafari). Even though the constitution was completed later that year, setting the stage for the first election of a permanent parliament, insurgent and AQI terrorist violence continued unabated.
The second 2005 parliamentary vote
As with the election at the beginning of the year, the December 2005 vote for the Council of Representatives (COR) brought forth another wave of hope.
Still, the constitutional referendum preceding it had underscored the glaring sectarian divide that fueled the insurgency. In the Sunni Arab majority governorates of Salah ad Din, al-Anbar, and Ninawa, the constitution was opposed by 82%, 97% and 55% of voters (a rough reflection of the percentages of Sunni Arabs in those jurisdictions).
The results of the December parliamentary election showed far higher Sunni Arab participation, but were accompanied by Sunni Arab and secular Shi’a anger over allegations of fraud favoring Shi’a religious parties. The field of political lists was little changed from January. This time around, six months of bickering ensued before Nuri al-Maliki emerged as a compromise prime minister in April 2006.
Between two elections: 2005-2010
In February 2006, with the bombing of a revered Shi’a mosque shrine, violence spiked massively. Shi’a militias like firebrand cleric Muqtada al-Sadr’s “Mahdi Army” retaliated against Sunni Arabs, especially in Baghdad. “Sectarian cleansing” of much of the capital raged out of control; over a million Sunni Arabs fled westward for safety. This maelstrom also heavily damaged Iraq’s Christian community.
In late 2006, a desperate Bush administration finally decided to accept the deal in which Sunni Arab insurgents would cease attacks on US forces and fight alongside US Army and Marine units against AQI. Although by mid-2007, tens of thousands of insurgents had switched sides, Maliki & his mainly Shi’a supporters opposed the deal. Only in late 2008, under sustained US pressure and following considerable success involving Sunni Arab “Awakening” cadres, did Maliki reluctantly accept the arrangement, albeit only partially.
Also in 2008, with Sunni Arab resistance much reduced, Maliki, with US assistance, was able to address rampaging Shi’a militias — especially those controlled by Sadr. Badly beaten in southern Iraq and Baghdad, Sadr agreed to disarm most of his forces. During 2006-2008, however, the majority of the Sunni Arab population had been driven from the capital. By that point, many Sunni Arabs once hostile toward US forces had come to view US troops as their only reliable protection from Shi’a militias and rogue elements of the Iraqi security forces.
Nonetheless, according to the 2008 US-Iraqi Status of Forces Agreement, US troops withdrew to their bases in June 2009. At that point, insurgent, AQI and militia violence was the lowest since the 2003 invasion.
The 2010 parliamentary campaign and vote
In the lead-up to the March 2010 vote, Maliki seized upon the polarizing de-Ba’thification issue to firm up his electoral support within his Shi’a base. In the run-up to these elections, US Embassy cables from early 2010 say Maliki “directed the removal” of large numbers of “some of the highest quality personnel” from Iraq’s security organizations over links to the Ba’th Party as part of his “political gamesmanship.”
Almost 500 Sunni Arab (many secular or liberal) parliamentary candidates were also disqualified by an “Independent High Election Commission” stacked with Shi’a. Even Kurdish Iraqi President Jalal Talabani urged Maliki not to be “unjust” to candidates. However, few of the bans were reversed.
Sunni Arabs still voted hoping a new alliance under the secular Iyad Allawi might unseat Maliki. Even with the deck stacked in favor of Shi’a religious parties, Sunni Arab participation was far higher than in 2005, and Allawi scored well. Nonetheless, after 8 months of maneuvering, Maliki again was named prime minister in late 2010.
Years of retrenchment
Back in business, Maliki redoubled his efforts to amass personal power and marginalize the Sunni Arab community. He placed some crack Iraqi army units and police elements under his own control. He also employed unofficial security forces for extra-judicial skullduggery. This included attacks against local Sunni Arab leaders and the detention of prisoners in private holding pens.
Meanwhile, he hounded more Sunni Arabs out of key positions in government. In late 2011, for example, Maliki’s government charged Sunni Arab Iraqi Vice-President Tariq al-Hashimi with involvement in terrorism from “confessions” exacted from arrested bodyguards. Al-Hashimi fled to Iraqi Kurdistan in December 2011.
Maliki also dumped some of his commitments on Sunni Arab “Awakening” cadres (known as “Sahwas”). Promises to integrate them into Iraq’s security forces were only partly fulfilled. He even turned loosely trusted police units — and anonymous gunmen — against Sahwa leaders in some localities.
Since the US opposed this behavior, Maliki and his government dealt the US out of the Iraqi equation. Although a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) was concluded in late 2008 to keep a limited US troop presence in Iraq beyond the December 2011 withdrawal, Maliki’s government ultimately ruled out the retention of US bases in Iraq. Soon after, Maliki also rejected judicial immunity for any US troops and military advisors left behind. Thus the Obama administration had little choice but to withdraw completely (clearly Maliki’s goal: to free himself from American oversight).
Maliki’s face-offs with his Kurdish coalition allies led to the Kurdish refusal to turn over Tariq al-Hashimi. Disputes over oil export agreements and territory as well as the Kurdish Regional Government’s (KRG) concern over Maliki’s growing personal power also darkened the period between the 2010 and 2014 elections (despite Maliki’s agreement with the Kurds to do the opposite to secure their support for his candidacy in 2010).
Meanwhile, violence on the part of a rebounding AQI had been rising. This culminated in January 2014 with the seizure of the Sunni Arab city of Fallujah by elements of the extremist Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and local tribesmen. With Sunni Arab anger rising across northwestern Iraq because of grievances against Maliki, ISIL, like AQI, found a more favorable reception.
The 2014 election
Maliki has positioned himself to secure another term. Blaming his opponents for rising violence, Maliki made his familiar appeal for renewed unity after last month’s parliamentary election. With his reputation for sectarianism and duplicity, there is little chance he will change his spots. One could be more definitive in the negative, but Maliki’s inability to restore government control over Fallujah after 3 months of trying might force him to make at least some concessions to Iraq’s Sunni Arab community to weaken ISIL.
Plus ca change; plus ce le meme chose
For nearly 10 years since the transfer of sovereignty, Iraq has failed to evolve substantially toward an inclusive democracy, reduced sectarian tensions, a more diverse ruling elite, greater rule of law, and effective governance. Also, under Maliki there has been a drift toward authoritarianism.
In addition to the serious deficiencies described above, the Iraqi government remains largely dysfunctional in almost every sense: endemically corrupt, judicially partial, administratively inept, and non-transparent. Despite the day-to-day impact of such poor governance, it is somewhat surprising that many Iraqis have not become far more cynical toward their elections.
President Barack Obama recently praised “the Iraqi people” for voting again in their pursuit of a peaceful, unified and prosperous future. Perhaps the most baleful impact of Maliki’s sustained engagement in sectarian politics has been how it has prevented Iraq’s population from finding more common ground upon which to base a more coherent “Iraqi” popular identity, instead of one that is exclusively Shi’a, Kurdish, Sunni Arab, Turcoman, or Christian.
Photo: Guarded by a barbed wire fence, Iraqis line up to vote in the 2005 parliamentary election. Credit: American Forces Press Service
]]>The signing on 6 December of a US-Iraq Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) concerning defense cooperation might suggest ties between Washington and Baghdad remain close, but such is not the case. In fact, the two sides have more generally experienced somewhat chilly relations in recent years, mainly because of actions taken by [...]]]>
The signing on 6 December of a US-Iraq Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) concerning defense cooperation might suggest ties between Washington and Baghdad remain close, but such is not the case. In fact, the two sides have more generally experienced somewhat chilly relations in recent years, mainly because of actions taken by Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki’s government that are at odds with American goals in Iraq and within the Middle East region more broadly. One Iraqi policy in particular could soon have ominous consequences for Maliki and his allies.
Maliki and his military commanders need advanced military hardware such as F-16 fighters and the nearly 150 M1A1 Abrams tanks sold under prior agreements with the US as well as associated American training. These weapon systems outclass those of most of Iraq’s neighbors and will greatly help offset the glaring superiority in numbers of heavy weapons enjoyed by all surrounding states with the exception of Jordan and Kuwait. The MOU covers 5 years of exchanges, professional training on such complex systems, the development of Iraqi military intelligence and counterterrorism cooperation. Yet, even with this MOU, Baghdad may turn to cheaper sources, like Russia or the Ukraine, for a hefty slice of its defense needs. With so much materiel needed to equip a sizeable and competitive military, deals with non-US suppliers (like Moscow, which already has had military talks with Baghdad) would require less money per item, allow more units to be equipped, and involve sales with less strings attached. Additionally, most Iraqi military personnel are more familiar with Soviet-style armaments as a result of decades of purchases from the former Soviet Union, China, and others during the Saddam Hussein era.
There is, however, little else to be bullish about concerning the bilateral relationship. Maliki and his Shi’a backers largely opposed the late 2006 American program to partner with the bulk of Iraq’s Sunni Arab insurgents against al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). This opposition was disruptive enough while the US had a substantial military presence in Iraq, but especially since the US departure, far too many Sunni Arab fighters who did so much to beat back the AQI threat have been denied employment in the Iraqi security forces and hounded by the regime. Some have even been hunting down and killed. These actions occurred in parallel with the exclusion of most Sunni Arabs from Maliki’s Shi’a=dominated and increasingly high-handed government and the Iraqi political mainstream in general. All this conflicted with the American vision of an inclusive and more genuinely democratic Iraq. Additionally, Sunni Arab interests in assisting Maliki and his allies against AQI have fallen off, and AQI’s ability to carry out devastating, mostly anti-Shi’a terror bombings remains robust and a major security threat, especially in central Iraq. Likewise, despite a host of electoral promises, Maliki has been unwilling to meaningfully address territorial demands on the part of the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) in the north. Admittedly, the KRG has shown little interest in compromise either. Consequently, the overall atmosphere in the north between the government in Baghdad and the leaders of the KRG has been extremely tense for quite some time. Attempts at US and other outside mediation between the parties have either been unsuccessful or shunned by Maliki. So this festering ethnic dispute is likely to persist well into the future.
Most unsettling to the US has been Maliki’s close ties with Iran. Overall, it is clear that Tehran has had far more influence over decisions in Baghdad than has Washington for nearly five years. In fact, the more Maliki alienates both the Sunni Arab and Kurdish communities in Iraq, the more he needs a strong Shi’a ally hostile to the first and with some influence over the second. As a result, this relationship is likely to endure. Probably most disturbing — even infuriating — to the Obama Administration and much of the international community (including the Arab League) over the past two years has been Maliki’s failure to join in condemning the depredations of the Assad regime in Syria. Worst still, Iraq has allowed its airspace to be used for important Iranian resupply flights to Damascus. This is directly related to Baghdad’s close ties to Tehran and somewhat ironic considering the longstanding hostility between the pre-2003 Iraqi regime and the Assad’s.
Potential danger lurks in the sympathy Maliki has shown toward the now teetering Assad regime. That regime appears likely to be replaced with not only a Sunni Arab order, but one that could be somewhat Islamist. Before stability is restored, however, there also could be a prolonged period of infighting that would involve some robust Sunni extremist elements. Either of these scenarios would pose a security risk for a neighboring government that not only facilitated support for the Syrian regime, but also mistreats its prominent Sunni Arab minority. Adjacent to the Syrian border, Iraq’s Sunni Arab community (especially militants within it) could become the recipient of considerable assistance from sympathetic Sunni Arab elements within Syria or even a resentful and far more Islamist successor regime in Damascus, potentially further destabilizing the less than ideal situation already prevailing inside Iraq.
- Wayne White is a Policy Expert with Washington’s Middle East Policy Council. He was formerly the Deputy Director of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research’s Office of Analysis for the Near East and South Asia (INR/NESA) and senior regional analyst.
]]>