by Shireen T. Hunter

Nouri al-Maliki is no longer Iraq’s prime minister, but his departure does not mean that Iraq’s problems will be resolved easily or soon. A basic change must first occur in Iraq’s domestic politics, the power struggles within its different ethnic and sectarian components, and the behavior of regional and international actors [...]]]> via LobeLog

by Shireen T. Hunter

Nouri al-Maliki is no longer Iraq’s prime minister, but his departure does not mean that Iraq’s problems will be resolved easily or soon. A basic change must first occur in Iraq’s domestic politics, the power struggles within its different ethnic and sectarian components, and the behavior of regional and international actors towards Iraq.

A reasonable and general consensus regarding Iraq’s future must also be reached. It is not at all clear that the challenge posed by the Islamic State (formerly known as ISIS) to Iraqi Shias and Kurds, plus the embarrassment its behavior has caused for Iraq’s Sunnis, will be sufficient to force these groups to come together, to limit their maximalist objectives, to agree on sensible power-sharing arrangements, and to begin working toward the development of a civic Iraqi sense of citizenship and nationalism. Nevertheless, both Maliki’s departure and the sobering effect of the Islamic State’s victories offers some hope that all players will come to see the errors of their past behavior.

Accepting Reality

First, Maliki’s departure should make it easier for those Sunni politicians who had come to view him as unacceptable to behave in a more logical manner, and to assume an active and constructive role in the formation and management of the post-Maliki government. However, while the Sunnis are entitled to serious positions within the new government and not merely ceremonial posts, it is important for them to realize that they cannot claim their old dominant status and, in failing to achieve that position, continue to claim marginalization and persecution. If they continue on this path, even with the best will in the world the new prime minister could not satisfy them.

The Shias, meanwhile, need to realize that, while being the majority, they do not represent all of Iraq. Moreover, they need the experience and expertise of other Iraqis to solve the country’s problems. In particular, they should distinguish between the hardcore Ba’athists and ordinary Sunnis and not punish the latter for the sins of the former.

The Shias should also realize that they are a minority in the Arab world as a whole. Therefore, to succeed in Iraq, they need to stop the infightings and excessive power struggles within their ranks. Otherwise, they will run the risk of once again being relegated to the margins of Iraqi society and politics. A united Shia front, with reasonable political positions and a clear agenda that also provides benefits for non-Shias would go a long way to encourage others to join them in new political arrangements.

The Kurds, especially Masoud Barzani, should realize that, while Erbil has developed and, until recently, had been more stable than other parts of Iraq, the Kurdish entity in Iraq is still divided and does not have the wherewithal of an independent state. Consequently, the Kurds need to adopt a cooperative attitude toward other groups in Iraq. They should not be swayed by the urgings of countries that have no genuine interest in the Kurds’ well-being and future and are, for these countries’ own ends, encouraging them to seek independence. In this regard, too, Maliki’s departure should help, since his relations with the Kurds had become nearly as bad as his dealings with the Sunnis.

Second, Maliki’s departure should make it easier for some of Iraq’s neighbors, notably Saudi Arabia, to change their attitudes towards Iraq and to stop their efforts to reintroduce Sunni domination of Iraqi politics. Saudi Arabia has had a decisive role in arming and funding Sunni militants in Iraq from virtually the moment of Saddam Hussein’s fall. Moreover, the ideology of groups like the Islamic State, although now called Salafi and Jihadi, has its wellspring in Saudi Wahhabism. The edicts of Saudi clerics entice Sunnis to kill Shias by declaring them Kafir (unbelievers.) Given the tight connection between the Saudi royals and Wahhabi clerics, it is difficult to believe that such edicts could be issued without the government’s acquiescence.

As a sign of a more rational approach toward Iraq, instead of shunning it, the Saudis and other Arabs should welcome it into their ranks. This would also help them achieve their goal of limiting Iran’s influence in the country. Meanwhile, they have to realize that Iran has historic, ethnic, linguistic, and religious ties with both the Shias and the Kurds in Iraq, and that efforts to eliminate its influence there, or worse, to encourage an anti-Iran policy on behalf of the Iraqi government, would be counterproductive.

Turkey, too, should realize that weakening Iraq’s central government would not bring Iraqi Kurdistan, Kirkuk, and hence their energy resources under Turkish domination. In general, Turkey should abandon its dreams of a latter-day Ottoman Empire and realize its own ethnic and sectarian vulnerabilities.

Even more important than the attitudes and polices of regional players are the policies of key international players, especially the United States. To begin with, official speculation about Iraq’s disintegration should cease, along with policies such as arming regional forces, like those of the Kurds, which tend to encourage centrifugal tendencies. Second, outsiders should acknowledge Iraq’s ethnic and sectarian realities, and, unlike the early days after Saddam was deposed in 2003, international actors should not play on the country’s sectarian differences.

Iranian-Arab Truce

Outsiders should also delink Iraq’s domestic politics from policies towards Iran. Certainly, there should be no effort again to turn Iraq into a base for containing or, worse, for attacking Iran. Of course, Iran should not meddle in Iraqi affairs, but its legitimate concerns should not be ignored. If the latter approach is adopted, Iran, together with Arab states and Turkey, could become part of a regional arrangement that could contribute to Iraq’s future stability. The Saudi attitude, which finds any Iranian involvement anywhere in the Middle East and South Asia unacceptable and illegitimate, has proven destructive, not just in Iraq but also elsewhere, notably in Afghanistan. Instead, Iran and the Arab states must accept that they all have constituencies in the Middle East and South Asia, and that by dint of geography, religion, and culture, they are bound to interact. It would serve both their interests if this interaction were carried out through mutual accommodation, to begin with, and eventually perhaps even cooperation.

For their part, key international actors should encourage Arab-Iranian reconciliation or at least refrain from exacerbating their differences in the hope that perhaps Arab-Iranian and Sunni-Shia animosity will bring peace on the Israel-Palestine front. If that were going to happen, it would already have happened in the last decade. That conflict has its own dynamics, and no amount of change in other parts of the Middle East will resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict without addressing the core issue of Palestinian grievances.

International actors that care about promoting stability both in Iraq and in the region more generally must finally call Saudi Arabia to account for its multi-dimensional support for Salafi/Wahhabi movements. The activities of these groups, more than any other agents of terrorism, have imposed substantial costs on international actors, especially the United States, in terms of lives and money. There is no reason that Saudi Arabia should be immune from scrutiny and blame for the part played either by its government or by its citizens in encouraging extremist ideas and groups.

In sum, although Maliki’s clear lack of “people skills” and other managerial flaws impeded his relations with domestic, regional, and international forces, Iraq’s problems were not caused by Maliki alone, and will not be automatically resolved with his departure. Iraq’s crisis is rooted in internal, regional, and international causes including outsiders’ manipulation of Iraq’s fault lines. If there is no new and realistic regional and international understanding regarding Iraq’s future, Maliki might prove to have been just a fall-guy, and Iraq will continue to move from one crisis to another. The notion that Iraqis must solve their problems solely by themselves, when just about everybody is interfering in their country, is only a “cop out” by all concerned.

Photo: Iraqi Shia fighters, one holding the national flag, stand in army uniforms on a truck during a parade on June 21, 2014 in the capital, Baghdad. Credit: Ahmad al-Rubaye/AFP/Getty Images

Follow LobeLog on Twitter and like us on Facebook

by Wayne White

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki resorted to a bare-knuckle power play on Aug. 10 in a frantic attempt to forestall his unfolding political defeat. Leaders recognizing the importance of a fresh new government appeared to overwhelm him. With a new premier in the saddle, peeling Sunni Arabs away from [...]]]> via LobeLog

by Wayne White

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki resorted to a bare-knuckle power play on Aug. 10 in a frantic attempt to forestall his unfolding political defeat. Leaders recognizing the importance of a fresh new government appeared to overwhelm him. With a new premier in the saddle, peeling Sunni Arabs away from the Islamic State could be explored far more effectively. The international community could also have a partner in Baghdad with which to address Iraq’s crisis in a more sweeping fashion.

Over the weekend, 127 Shia parliamentarians lined up behind Deputy Parliament Speaker Haider al-Abadi, a member of Maliki’s own Dawa Party, for him to be the next prime minister. This coalition included nearly 40 parliamentarians from Maliki’s own State of Law election list.

New Iraqi President Fouad Masoum extended Sunday’s scheduled parliament session by one day to finalize the deal. Although Maliki had been on solid ground to get first shot at forming a government (his list winning the most deputies in the elections), there remains some wiggle room in the constitutional definition of what constitutes the most numerous list, coalition, or faction. Nonetheless, nearly half of Maliki’s list subsequently abandoned him.The precise deadline for a presidential decision naming the first candidate to form a government is also blurred by doubts about how the countdown should be conducted (whether national and religious holidays should be counted, for example).

Maliki’s Dangerous Gambit

In a desperate effort to head off an obvious defeat in parliament, during Aug. 10-11 Maliki sent Iraqi elite security forces groomed as loyalists into Baghdad’s streets along with small crowds of supporters. This was the culmination of Maliki’s authoritarian behavior — including covert violence — as prime minister.

Maliki appeared on Iraqi TV twice over 24 hours, first to challenge Masoum’s legal right to postpone the Aug. 10 parliamentary session and later to reject al-Abadi’s nomination.

Even if Maliki had been given the opportunity he sought to muster support for a new government, weeks of precious time would have been wasted since he lacks sufficient parliamentary backing. The election that gave him a small plurality also pre-dated the Islamic State’s offensive, resulting largely from Maliki’s own exclusion and persecution of Iraq’s Sunni Arabs. So, Maliki’s only hope of scraping up enough support to stay in office would have therefore been to resort to hard-edged bullying.

With many enemies and abuses of power, Maliki has good reason — sheer ambition aside — to cling to his job.  Absent the horde of government and semi-official goons to watch his back, whether in Iraq or elsewhere, Maliki could be in danger of serious payback if Iraqis with grievances seek revenge.

Ignoring Maliki’s military power play and legal objections, Masoum nominated al-Abadi to form a government “that would protect the Iraqi people” on Aug. 11. Muqtada al-Sadr endorsed al-Abadi’s nomination as the “first sign” Iraq was moving in the direction of safety. Sadr’s Shia Mahdi Army, with tens of thousands of battle-hardened militia street fighters, would be a formidable foe if Maliki presses ahead with his military challenge. The US, France, Turkey, Iran, and the UN quickly lined up behind Masoum and Abadi.

So who is Haider al-Abadi? The British-educated engineer has held senior positions under every Iraqi prime minister (save one) as well as parliamentary positions since the 2003 ousting of Saddam Hussein. Well-respected and known for his economic expertise, Abadi was considered for prime minister in 2006. He is said to be a lot more flexible than Maliki and is not known for excessive involvement in sectarian politics.

The Bottom Line

If Maliki can be removed without an all-out street fight or weeks of delay, it would be the first major break since the Islamic State began its offensive back in June. Opposing Maliki has been the Islamic State’s most effective propaganda weapon in rallying diverse Sunni Arab support; Maliki’s departure alone would be a setback for the extremists. Likewise, until now Maliki has been a bone in the throat of international efforts to fashion a credible strategy to contain and then drive back the militants.

With Maliki gone, the US would be able to support Baghdad far more directly — aid has so far been held back so Washington would not be seen as merely doing Maliki’s sectarian dirty work. Under Maliki, Iraq had practically severed meaningful relations with the US and its allies as 5 years of pleas for ethno-sectarian fairness were ignored.

The most notable change would relate to Iraq itself.  Without a new prime minister following the elections, Iraq has been adrift during its greatest moment of post-occupation crisis; its response to the Islamic State’s challenge has so far lacked any real hope of success because of the discredited leadership in Baghdad. Stifling more creative policies, Maliki retained the Defense, National Security, Interior and Intelligence ministry portfolios for himself.

Symbolic of Maliki’s flawed, self-centered priorities was his deployment of the elite Iraqi Special Forces with their armored Humvees on the streets of Baghdad — just the sort of force so desperately needed on various battlefronts. Similarly absurd after his resort to military force was Maliki’s statement today calling upon the army, security forces and police to stay out of politics and keep their focus on defending the country!

Follow LobeLog on Twitter and like us on Facebook

by Wayne White

Forces of the Islamic State, formerly known as ISIS, have lunged toward two strategic dams earlier this month, one in the north and the other west of Baghdad. The northern offensive drove Kurdish forces from areas they had protected, showing how vulnerable Iraqi Kurds could be in the face [...]]]> via LobeLog

by Wayne White

Forces of the Islamic State, formerly known as ISIS, have lunged toward two strategic dams earlier this month, one in the north and the other west of Baghdad. The northern offensive drove Kurdish forces from areas they had protected, showing how vulnerable Iraqi Kurds could be in the face of more sweeping attacks. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s battle for political survival has delayed a more coherent, unified Iraqi response to the military threat posed by the Islamic State. Certain gains from this Sunni extremist group while Baghdad remains adrift politically would increase the potential for greater foreign military involvement.

The Islamic State has tried for weeks to get its hands on the Haditha Dam complex near Fallujah, Iraq’s second largest reservoir. To their credit, Iraqi troops have so far fought well in fending off the militants; Baghdad was able to reinforce its Haditha garrison at one point with 2,000 more troops. Nonetheless, the garrison is mostly isolated deep within Islamic State-held territory.

On Aug. 1, the Islamic State launched its heaviest attack to date toward Haditha. The assault almost broke through government lines. However, late in the fighting, Sunni Arab tribes from the area massed against the Islamic State to prevent the dam from falling to the group. These tribes depend on the dam, and they were not prepared to let go of such an important asset.

It is, however, doubtful that the Islamic State would simply destroy the dam (or one near Mosul that it may have seized). Blowing up the dams to spite downstream Shia would flood large Sunni Arab areas under Islamic State-control — hardly desirable as the group tries to win more Sunnis over to its side. The Islamic State may wish instead to manipulate dam power flows to benefit areas under its control, deny power to Shia areas, and, yes, occasionally alter water flows to damage government held areas downstream.

Challenging the Kurds

Seemingly in parallel, the Islamic State lunged for the Mosul Dam (Iraq’s largest) in the north on Aug. 3, which Iraq’s Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) occupied when it took control of extensive areas around the KRG’s perimeter to head off the militant threat. In addition, Islamic State fighters took Sinjar on Aug. 2, two smaller towns, and an oilfield. These locales were in Kurdish hands too, although isolated along the Syrian border far west of the KRG and hard to defend. Both sides claim to have the dam, but local residents told the AP on Aug. 7 that the Islamic State now holds it. The group also struck the other end of the KRG perimeter near the Iranian border, but was repulsed.

The Islamic State realizes KRG forces are spread thinly trying to cover a perimeter hundreds of miles long, so it can mass its forces at selected points to overwhelm local defenses. And the Islamic State’s re-conquest of mixed areas taken over by the Kurds in June could play well among Sunni Arabs concerned by KRG ambitions.

Excessive praise for the Peshmerga capabilities tends to be misplaced. The Peshmerga (literally, “those who face death”) mainly consists of militia-style light infantry against which the Islamic State can use heavy weapons seized from fleeing Iraqi forces when Mosul fell. In fact, the Peshmerga have an iffy track record against heavily equipped or fanatical opponents.

In 1991, after crushing much of a Shia rebellion in the south, Saddam Hussein’s well-equipped forces easily pushed aside Peshmerga units, driving over 2 million Kurds into Turkey and Iran. Then, in 2002, prior to the US invasion of Iraq, the Peshmerga twice tried to dislodge a small pocket of Ansar al-Islam (extremist Kurds and some al-Qaeda fighters who had eluded US forces in Afghanistan). In both instances, large Peshmerga assault forces were stopped cold by small numbers of less well-armed fanatics. Lastly, the Kurds faced little of the Sunni Arab insurgency’s wrath during 2003-08, so Kurdish Peshmerga saw little recent combat from which it could have drawn much needed military experience.

The KRG did seize large quantities of heavy weapons including tanks, other armored vehicles, and artillery from Saddam’s demobilized army after the US invasion in 2003. Little was done to incorporate them into Peshmerga units. Worse still, one of the two dominant Kurdish factions, the Popular Union of Kurdistan (PUK), sold a large quantity of this equipment to the Iranians.

The Secretary General of the KRG ministry overseeing the Peshmerga, Jabbar Yawar, declared on Aug. 6 that the Peshmerga would switch from defense to offense; Islamic State positions were attacked that day. The KRG is now receiving some limited air support from Baghdad and fighters from the Syrian Kurdish community, which has had considerable success in fending off the Islamic State. Nonetheless, KRG forces remain dangerously overstretched, and it lost more towns to the Islamic State in predominantly Christian areas under Kurdish protection on Aug. 7.

Yazidi Humanitarian Crisis

Iraq’s latest humanitarian crisis is associated with the fall of Sinjar, where Iraq’s small Yazidi community lives. Yazidis are members of an obscure sect often incorrectly labeled “Devil worshippers.” The Islamic State sees them as infidels, and there have been reports of executions.

Most Yazidis from Sinjar have taken refuge in mountains around the town, but the Islamic State has been trying to secure the heights to seize them. In an Aug. 5 Iraqi parliamentary session, a Yazidi deputy made an impassioned plea to save her people from genocide. Fortunately, some of the Yazidis from Sinjar were reportedly rescued over the past 24 hours.

Political Uncertainty in Baghdad

Maliki has remained adamant that he will not step down as a prime ministerial candidate despite opposition from key ally Iran, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Sunni Arabs, Kurds, and even some former Shia supporters. Despite his reduced chances of prevailing, Maliki clearly does not care that his stand has postponed fielding a fresh new crisis government to marshal Iraqi forces against the Islamic State.

Last week, US officials began meeting in Erbil with Sunni Arab officials and leaders from Islamic State-occupied areas to help fashion a Sunni Arab alliance against the group. US officials admitted, however, that the American strategy would not make much headway as long as Maliki remains prime minister.

Constitutionally, Maliki is on solid ground. As the head of the parliamentary list that garnered the most votes in elections earlier this year, he should be given first crack at forming a government.

The deadline for giving the go-ahead to someone is only days away. So, Iraq’s new president, Fouad Massoum, might as well ask Maliki to try and form a government (even if Maliki fails). Although time consuming, this move appears to be the only way to force Maliki to step aside. That might happen in a parliamentary session today.

Fragile Military Situation

Although it has so far been largely checked farther south, now that the Islamic State has shown interest in hitting Iraq’s Kurds in the north, it will probably make additional gains up there. And until there is a new government in Baghdad, Iraq will remain unable to mobilize its full potential to check or drive the Islamic State back.

Should the Islamic State concentrate its scattered forces for a major, focused offensive, it could jeopardize all Kurdish holdings outside the KRG (including Kirkuk), or even thrust into the KRG to throw Kurdish forces off balance. It might overwhelm isolated Iraqi government garrisons in Haditha, the refinery complex in Taiji, or Samarra with its highly sensitive Shia mosque/shrine. Similarly, the failure of most of the surrounded Yazidis to avoid capture followed by a massive Islamic State-atrocity against them would generate a huge wave of international outrage. Even additional territory in the vicinity of Baghdad could fall to an especially robust assault by the Islamic State.

The worst-case scenarios noted above would place Turkey, Iran and the US in particular under more intense pressure to take direct military action against the Islamic State. For example, would Tehran allow Samarra to fall to the group after Iranian senior officers have been sent to help organize its defense?

Follow LobeLog on Twitter and like us on Facebook

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 [...]]]> via LobeLog

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 3^rd 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.

Follow LobeLog on Twitter and like us on Facebook

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 [...]]]> via LobeLog

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.

Follow LobeLog on Twitter and like us on Facebook

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 [...]]]> via LobeLog

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 3^rd 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

Follow LobeLog on Twitter and like us on Facebook

by Shireen T. Hunter

When the Soviet Union fell in 1991, there was hope that a main barrier to implementing the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter and creating a more law-based international system and order had been removed, offering the chance that states, both great and small, would endeavor to [...]]]> via LobeLog

by Shireen T. Hunter

When the Soviet Union fell in 1991, there was hope that a main barrier to implementing the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter and creating a more law-based international system and order had been removed, offering the chance that states, both great and small, would endeavor to organize their relations on the basis of law and principle and not sheer power and ambition.

Perhaps those who nurtured such hopes were too naïve and let their desires for the future overshadow their experience of the past. Whatever the case, they were soon cured of their illusions by the turn of events. Instead of ushering in a new political order for the 21^st  century, the end of the USSR led to a revival of the politics of the 19^th century. Those who had won the Cold War began to dream of global hegemony and reshaping whole regions according to an ill-defined program of democratization. The concept of humanitarian intervention, first advanced by one-time French Minister of Culture and later Foreign Affairs Bernard Kouchner, became the ideological vehicle for this new age of global intervention much as the Civilizing Mission (mission civilisatrice) had been for the colonial age. Ironically, those clamoring for this type of intervention dismissed so-called Christian ethics with their humanitarian components because these ethics were too soft and did not approve of the use of force. Instead, they called for a pagan ethos, which they saw as more muscular and uninhibited by the moral considerations of the supposed dawn of the new age.

Meanwhile, Russia, which as the Soviet Union had lost the Cold War, started to dream of resurrecting its lost empire instead of focusing on curing its internal ills. And other would-be imperial powers, such as China, were just waiting in the wings.

After the calamitous consequences of this new version of old mind-sets, one hoped that the allure of nineteenth-century politics, with its imperial divide and conquer propensities, would have subsided. Instead, some of the less powerful countries began to dream of empires and spheres of influence, and of manipulating existing states’ fault lines in order to achieve their goals; hence Turkey’s neo-Ottoman project, Saudi Arabia’s Sunni Khilafat, and the mirage of a Shia Crescent.

The latest development along this line has been the desire for a so-called new Sykes-Picot agreement, referencing a May 1916 Franco-British drawing of prospective borders in the Middle East, as modified by the San Remo Treaty of 1920. The new agreement would presumably remake the Middle East and possibly parts of South Asia’s political map, supposedly on an ethnic and sectarian basis that is more realistic than that which currently exists. In fact, such ideas emerged after 2001 and were reflected in articles such as Blood Borders, which showed how countries like Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan could be divided into more homogenous ethnic and sectarian entities.

These themes, however, were never seriously pursued by any government until the outbreak of the Syrian civil war and the recent crisis in Iraq. Now some countries seem to be actively encouraging Iraq’s disintegration, or while officially opposing it, are secretly supporting it.

Yet these countries, most of which have their own disgruntled ethnic and religious minorities, do not realize that Iraq’s dismemberment would in all likelihood also encourage centrifugal tendencies in other neighboring states. For example, the government of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan thinks that somehow Turkey would remain immune to the impact that an independent Kurdistan in Iraq would have on the aspirations of Turkey’s Kurds. Yet, in all probability, an independent Iraqi Kurdistan would in due course seek to incorporate other Kurdish-inhabited areas into the new state, especially because of the Greater Kurdistan dreams of Masud Barzani, the president of the Kurdistan Region.

Nor would Kurds be the only minority in Turkey who might want to separate. For example, the disintegration of Syria and the emergence of a separate Alawite state might encourage Turkey’s Arab minority, many of whom are Alawites, to join that state. They have been subjected to pressure and discrimination, which has increased in recent years, and they live close to the Syrian border in lands claimed by Syria. A Shia state in southern Iraq, meanwhile, would become a magnate for Shias in Saudi Arabia, another persecuted minority, and in Bahrain, with its persecuted Shia-majority population.

What is more frightening is that this process of separation and realignment would be extremely violent and brutal. There would be no velvet divorces, as happened in Czechoslovakia in 1993. This process would also very likely lead to confrontation among current states. These upheavals ultimately could and probably would reach areas of crucial international importance due to their oil resources. So far, there has been a degree of nonchalance regarding regional conflicts because they have not affected the supply and/or price of oil and thus the interests of key international players. But there can be no guarantee that this would always be the case.

Moreover, the new states, which could emerge out of a disintegrative process, would not be viable, partly because even these supposedly more homogenous states would still be fragmented unless they took the form of Lilliputian entities. They would depend on their neighbors: some for access to the sea, others for resources, and hence would become extremely vulnerable to pressure. Certainly, the creation of these entities would not resolve such intractable problems as the Arab-Israeli conflict or the Kashmir problem, even if there were several states in Syria or an independent Baluchistan.

Thus the solution to current and potential problems should not be a new wave of semi-colonial gerrymandering. Instead, the international community should encourage wherever possible federal or semi-federal relationships and regional integration and cooperation. Certainly outsiders should not encourage the use of force to bring about change.

In Central Europe, with the exception of the velvet divorce of Czechs and Slovaks, the collapse of the Soviet Union’s external empire did not lead to the repeat of the injustices of the various treaties agreed to after World War I in 1919-20. Instead, one requirement for admitting Central European countries to NATO and the EU was that they would retain their existing borders and foreswear past territorial claims on neighbors. This approach has never been encouraged and tried in the Middle East and South Asia. The current unitary states might have run their course and Iraq may be the first of many facing the challenge of remaining intact. But the creation of other smaller and less-viable unitary states is no solution.

Instead, key international and regional players should resist fanning the flames of ethnic and sectarian discord, in hoping to benefit from them. They should focus on realistic arrangements that respond to the needs of various peoples, without dismantling the entire state system, because these flames will inevitably also engulf outside players. As the saying goes, those living in glass houses should not throw stones.

Photo: Kurdish Peshmerga soldiers near the northern Iraqi border with Syria Credit: Reuters

Follow LobeLog on Twitter and like us on Facebook

The Blame Game on Iraq threatens to eclipse the popularity of the World Cup – at least among American self-nominated experts on that poor country. Where have we heard those authoritative voices before – Kristol, Pollack, Wolfowitz – even the castigator-in-chief Cheney. Oh, yes. Now you remember. They were promoters of the 2003 Iraq invasion [...]]]> by Henry Precht

The Blame Game on Iraq threatens to eclipse the popularity of the World Cup – at least among American self-nominated experts on that poor country. Where have we heard those authoritative voices before – Kristol, Pollack, Wolfowitz – even the castigator-in-chief Cheney. Oh, yes. Now you remember. They were promoters of the 2003 Iraq invasion which was to have been, they assured us, demonstrative of American power and the first step towards an outbreak of moderation, friendship and democracy not only in Iraq, but all over the Middle East.

Wrong, tragically wrong, they were — a conclusion attested to by 4,500 American dead, many more wounded, over a trillion dollars spent and countless (who counts?) Iraqi casualties. A badly wounded country, Iraq, I mean, although the same adjective would fit this country as well. To keep this background in mind I recommend that media outlets affix to those savants now reappearing in print or on TV the suffix (something like Ph.D. or the British CME) WOI – signifying “Wrong on Iraq” as warning to the unwary public.

But let’s move on to the true facts. Who did lose Iraq and how did they manage it?

First, we swallowed a plateful of our values in supporting Iraq in the war it imposed on Iran (as well as on its own Kurds.) That made it last much longer, busted Iraq and caused it to turn on its supposed benefactors – Kuwait and other Gulf Arabs — and led to the invasion of the former.

After easy Gulf War I, we imposed deadly sanctions for about a decade until Bush II invaded — the worst move in US foreign policy since LBJ and Nixon grievously damaged us by the escalating the Vietnam war.

After “shock and aweing” Baghdad, more bad moves were to come. The Bush perpetrators insured long-term loss by disbanding the Iraq army and the Baath Party. Closing down the army left the country without a defense force for internal and external threats and, with the same adroit stupidity, created a rebel force of unemployed, unpaid, Sunni men opposed to the majority Shia who were taking over the country (for the first time in modern history.)

Casting out Baath party members was almost as dumbly devastating: Under Saddam Iraq was a one party state with membership required for virtually any significant job in government or the private sector. No nation can lose its skilled cadres and continue to function well. Thanks to a US-designed electoral system suitable for New England, but hardly for a sharply divided nation without experience with democracy, Iraq has a Shia government led by Nouri al-Maliki, together with a disgruntled Sunni opposition, quasi independent Kurdish statelet and heavy Iranian influence. No surprise when Maliki rejected the US demand for legal immunity for our troops that might have stayed on. They left — much to President Obama’s pleasure.

Probably that split-up was not only inevitable but a good thing for us. American troops could have remained another decade without basically affecting the structure, dissension and functioning of the country.

But, wait, there’s yet another grievous mistake. Obama decided Assad of Syria had to go – notwithstanding his most formidable enemies were Islamic terrorists (ISIS). We turned our backs as Saudis and other rich Sunnis opposed to Assad’s Iranian backers funneled in cash and arms. Those same Islamic terrorists are now opposed by us as they move to seize Sunni areas of neighboring Iraq. A safe haven for terrorists is being established despite our [indirect and limited] aid to al-Maliki and because of our [indirect and permissive] support for ISIS in Syria.

Last week Obama proposed half a million dollars in aid to ”appropriately vetted” opponents of Assad. Wrong in Syria (WIS) — for the arms will (1) surely filter to ISIS and (2) a weakened Assad will mean a strengthened ISIS.

Enough of the fumbling incoherence of both Obama and his neo-con critics. What should be done?

We should leave those regional states with most at stake to address the problem: Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states plus Egypt. They have the most to lose; they should expend the most. We can cheer from the sidelines. However, any serious commitment of our forces will only suck us in more deeply and, as in Afghanistan and Pakistan, turn people against us.