Ending the occupation
Ok, so this is how it is going to work: the occupation shall cease, the troops shall be brought home; Iraq will disappear from the headlines - but what will actually happen? Well the answer seems to be: this kind of thing. "An impenetrable cordon of 40,000 police and soldiers" around Baghdad. Well, at least if they're all Iraqi troops, it will produce a little less resentment than the sight of 40000 Americans and Brits surrounding the city - right? Nope.
1) This won't work properly. Mark Urban, brilliantly informed Dilpomatic Correspondant for BBC Newsnight reckons 40000 is not going to be enough for an effective "ring of steel." The effect then, is going to be that ordinary people cannot go about their daily business, producing more resentment towards the occupation, while the insurgents will continue their attacks. The FT reports that earlier plans to cordon off Baghdad were abandoned because car bombs are often assembled inside the city. Now there will be "roaming patrols" we are told, but even 40000 pairs of eyes can't spy on everyone.
2) Having Kurdish and Shi'ite soldiers implementing this cordon (to be "extended across Iraq" in coming weeks as the Iraqi government moves from a "defensive" to an "offensive" stance) is likely to throw the country in to an greater mess as sectarian tensions increase, and Sunnis feel increasingly dominated. This point is well made by Sabrina Tavernise in the NYT:
'for Sunni Arabs, who are about a third of the population, and are growing increasingly embittered as Shiites begin to run the country, the operation is a cause for concern. Some Sunni Arabs expressed fear that the raids, carried out by police and military forces that are predominantly Shiite and Kurdish, will take on a sectarian tinge and single out Sunnis.
"The feeling from Sunnis is that the Shiites and the Kurds with the help Americans are trying to undermine the Sunnis," said Mejbel al-Sheikh Isa, a member of the National Dialogue Council, a Sunni group that has urged participation in politics. "We won't be neutral in this. We feel insulted by this."'
Propaganda continues to make the aim of pacifying Iraq even more difficult. The insurgents (called "terrorists") are described as "increasingly desperate" in the otherwise reasonably sensible NYT story. In reality, they are achieving what have been their aims from the beginning: to make Iraq ungovernable for the occupiers and their lackeys (now in power).
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is reported either injured or dead. If he is killed or captured, it will be hailed as another great milestone in weakening al-Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgency, as is claimed of the killing or capturing of his supporters. It remains largely unrecognised that for slightly different reasons, both al-Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgency are extremely decentralised, with most agents or "cells" acting autonomously. This means large-scale campaigns which result in 600 "suspected terrorists" being captured - even if they succeed in capturing "big names" - are counter-productive on a basic level: they do not significantly weaken the organisational capacity, and at the same time provide more support for these groups, by producing extreme violence and instability.
Although the Iraqi forces are not yet strong or well trained enough to take on all of the responsibilities of the occupation, the day will surely come, in the not too distant future. When it does, we ought to resist the temptation to celebrate the end of a destructive, violent invasion, but to reflect on the legacy we have left for Iraq: sectarian violence, political instability, infrastructural devastation. Iraq has become a society at war with itself. The potentially unifying nature of the almost-universal hatred of Saddam Hussein's monstrous dictatorship is of no significance after two years of devastation. The "threat" of "independent nationalism" - something the US and its allies have been committed to averting in the Middle East since 1945 - has, however, been averted, and control over the valuable energy resources of the region have been secured.
The war aims of those who launched the invasion have been achieved as they begin to hand the dirty work over to others. The anti-war movement wants to "bring the troops home" - its wishes will soon be fulfilled. As for the Iraqis, they are soon to be forgotten - consigned to the back pages of the newspapers until the violence flares again, when we shall solemnly shake our heads and wonder at the inexplicable inhumanity displayed in the crimes of others, ensuring that traces of our own responsibility disappear deep in to the memory hole.
1) This won't work properly. Mark Urban, brilliantly informed Dilpomatic Correspondant for BBC Newsnight reckons 40000 is not going to be enough for an effective "ring of steel." The effect then, is going to be that ordinary people cannot go about their daily business, producing more resentment towards the occupation, while the insurgents will continue their attacks. The FT reports that earlier plans to cordon off Baghdad were abandoned because car bombs are often assembled inside the city. Now there will be "roaming patrols" we are told, but even 40000 pairs of eyes can't spy on everyone.
2) Having Kurdish and Shi'ite soldiers implementing this cordon (to be "extended across Iraq" in coming weeks as the Iraqi government moves from a "defensive" to an "offensive" stance) is likely to throw the country in to an greater mess as sectarian tensions increase, and Sunnis feel increasingly dominated. This point is well made by Sabrina Tavernise in the NYT:
'for Sunni Arabs, who are about a third of the population, and are growing increasingly embittered as Shiites begin to run the country, the operation is a cause for concern. Some Sunni Arabs expressed fear that the raids, carried out by police and military forces that are predominantly Shiite and Kurdish, will take on a sectarian tinge and single out Sunnis.
"The feeling from Sunnis is that the Shiites and the Kurds with the help Americans are trying to undermine the Sunnis," said Mejbel al-Sheikh Isa, a member of the National Dialogue Council, a Sunni group that has urged participation in politics. "We won't be neutral in this. We feel insulted by this."'
Propaganda continues to make the aim of pacifying Iraq even more difficult. The insurgents (called "terrorists") are described as "increasingly desperate" in the otherwise reasonably sensible NYT story. In reality, they are achieving what have been their aims from the beginning: to make Iraq ungovernable for the occupiers and their lackeys (now in power).
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is reported either injured or dead. If he is killed or captured, it will be hailed as another great milestone in weakening al-Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgency, as is claimed of the killing or capturing of his supporters. It remains largely unrecognised that for slightly different reasons, both al-Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgency are extremely decentralised, with most agents or "cells" acting autonomously. This means large-scale campaigns which result in 600 "suspected terrorists" being captured - even if they succeed in capturing "big names" - are counter-productive on a basic level: they do not significantly weaken the organisational capacity, and at the same time provide more support for these groups, by producing extreme violence and instability.
Although the Iraqi forces are not yet strong or well trained enough to take on all of the responsibilities of the occupation, the day will surely come, in the not too distant future. When it does, we ought to resist the temptation to celebrate the end of a destructive, violent invasion, but to reflect on the legacy we have left for Iraq: sectarian violence, political instability, infrastructural devastation. Iraq has become a society at war with itself. The potentially unifying nature of the almost-universal hatred of Saddam Hussein's monstrous dictatorship is of no significance after two years of devastation. The "threat" of "independent nationalism" - something the US and its allies have been committed to averting in the Middle East since 1945 - has, however, been averted, and control over the valuable energy resources of the region have been secured.
The war aims of those who launched the invasion have been achieved as they begin to hand the dirty work over to others. The anti-war movement wants to "bring the troops home" - its wishes will soon be fulfilled. As for the Iraqis, they are soon to be forgotten - consigned to the back pages of the newspapers until the violence flares again, when we shall solemnly shake our heads and wonder at the inexplicable inhumanity displayed in the crimes of others, ensuring that traces of our own responsibility disappear deep in to the memory hole.
posted by UK plc at 12:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home