High Fives Are Not In Order

By Cernig

The Washington Times Post editorial today writes that "the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war" in Iraq, following reports that the month of may saw the lowest US casualty count - 19 - since the beginning of the occupation. Iraqi civilian deaths are down from 2007 highs too - although only to 2005 levels that were sufficient to cause the collapse of Iraqi society - while recent high-profile offensives by the US military and the Iraqi security forces have enabled supporters of the occupation to claim exactly what the WaPo editors are, that the war is being won.

But the war ended in 2003. This is an occupation ,and an occupation is only won when the occupiers go home and the nation is at peace. Despite the wishful words of the WaPo and others, there are damn few signs of that actually happening. As the LA Times notes:

the improved security trends have not been matched on the political front, leaving unresolved the simmering tensions between Iraq's major ethnic and religious groups, which could erupt again into violence.

Talks aimed at bringing members of the main Sunni Muslim political alliance back into the Cabinet collapsed last week over who would occupy one of the seats. Most Sunni representatives quit Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's government in August, accusing the country's majority Shiites and their ethnic Kurdish allies of refusing to share power.

U.S. officials hope that provincial elections scheduled for the fall will give Sunnis a bigger stake in the government. But the vote could also become a trigger for violence, as the current power brokers are challenged by factions that boycotted the last vote, in 2005.

Indeed the much-touted Iraqi offensives in Basrah, Sadr City and Mosul missed their ostensible targets. The Sadrist movement is still alive, well, and has shifted tactics to peaceful political protest after forcing the Iraqi government to ask Iran to intercede to draw up truce terms. In Mosul, al-Qaeda mainly eluded security forces and instead they rounded up hundreds of political dissenters against the central government. The provincial elections have been pushed into never-never land - possibly November but more likely not until next year, if at all. Agreements to arrange an American presence in Iraq after the expiry of the UN mandate in December have also been opposed across a wide spectrum - from Sistani to prominent Sunni religious figures, Hakim to Sadr and Jafari to members of the Awakening. In both of these issues, the split that is threatening a civil war is not the old Sunni-Shia divide, but rather a split between the imported (mainly Iranian) Green Zone elites and those Iraqis who are more nationalist by virtue of having always been Iraqi.

The WaPo's editors might as well have written ""the Iranian-backed government and army may be winning the war". Maliki is off to Iran next week, and his spokesman says he has no intention of bringing up alleged Iranian meddling.

Government spokesman Gholam-Hossein Elham on Saturday denied rumors that al-Maliki will be seeking explanations from the Iranian government for Western accusations that Iran is interfering in Iraq's domestic affairs.

Speaking to reporters during a news conference, Elham described the trip as a normal visit meant to expand bilateral relations.

Iran is in constant contact with the Iraqi government, he added.

Iran is developing cooperation in economic, political, and cultural areas with Baghdad and such visits are normal, he stated.

There's a 'war' between Iraqi factions that still hasn't been decided. There's a proxy 'war' between Iran and the US that seems to be a draw with no end in sight so far. Both are part of a combined anarchy of occupation and civil strife that means Iraq as a whole will be traumatised for years to come. Let's not forget that these conflicts are in large part due to the quickly-won invasion and the botched first five years of the occupation. High fives are certainly not in order.

Comments

[Clive A.]

The Washington Times editorial today writes ...

It is a Washington Post editorial.

Also, the WaPo's front page (below the fold) features a "Basra is soooo much nicer now" piece.

[Steve Hynd]

Fixed. You can perhaps see why my confusion :-)

Thanks Clive.

Regards, C

[JohnShreffler]

C,

Bernhard over at Moon of Alabama has a useful post citing 1967 PR from the US government. It sounds the same. Tet! Yes, that happened in 1968. As we wait on George the Mad to either bomb Iran or peacefully leave office, this is a thought worth thinking. "Too soon to tell," as Zhou en Lai said of the French Revolution.