December 06, 2006

Memos Everywhere

It is the season of the memos. Hadley's. Rumsfeld's. More soon, perhaps. These were leaked (purposefully by their respective authors, or on their express direction, in my view) rather transparently so as to say: 'see, we've got ideas too!'--before the much more detailed Baker-Hamilton recommendations are released tomorrow. A somewhat pitiable display of bureaucratic butt-covering, it would appear, but there it is. Regardless, and while we await the release of the ISG's recommendations, it is worth noting perhaps the massive disconnect between the rather clinical recommendations captured in these memos and the actual situation in Iraq. For instance, both Hadley and Rumsfeld appear keen to lessen Shi'a influence in the Ministries, but alas, much more easily said than done, it would appear.

Hadley:

Compel his ministers to take small steps — such as providing health services and opening bank branches in Sunni neighborhoods — to demonstrate that his government serves all ethnic communities;

Bring his political strategy with Moktada al-Sadr to closure and bring to justice any JAM actors that do not eschew violence;

Shake up his cabinet by appointing nonsectarian, capable technocrats in key service (and security) ministries;

Announce an overhaul of his own personal staff so that “it reflects the face of Iraq”;

Demand that all government workers (in ministries, the Council of Representatives and his own offices) publicly renounce all violence for the pursuit of political goals as a condition for keeping their positions...

Next, Rumsfeld: "Aggressively beef up the Iraqi MOD and MOI, and other Iraqi ministries critical to the success of the ISF — the Iraqi Ministries of Finance, Planning, Health, Criminal Justice, Prisons, etc. — by reaching out to U.S. military retirees and Reserve/National Guard volunteers (i.e., give up on trying to get other USG Departments to do it.)"

And then, grim realities, via Nir Rosen:

With the January 30, 2005, electoral success of the Shia parties, the balance of power between Shias and Sunnis shifted, initiating an apartheid process. In the ministry of health, pictures of Muqtada and his father were everywhere, along with pictures of Shia saints and banners celebrating Shia holidays. Traditional Shia music reverberated through the hallways. Doctors and ministry employees referred to the minister of health as “imami,” or “my imam,” as though he were a cleric. And in the ministry of transportation, walls were adorned with Shia posters, including some specifically supporting Muqtada. Sadrists instituted a program they called “cleansing the ministry of Saddamists,” with “Saddamist” defined so broadly that all Sunnis felt vulnerable. Ousted Sunnis were replaced by Shias with no apparent qualifications. In one case, a Sunni chief engineer in the transportation ministry was fired and replaced with an unqualified Shia who wore a cleric’s turban to work. Efficiency dropped; the ministries of health and transportation barely functioned, and the ministry of the interior operated an anti-Sunni death squad. Its secret prisons were uncovered in November 2005.

Although SCIRI controlled the ministry of the interior, which nominally controlled the security forces, the rank and file were poor, young Shia men, often members of the Mahdi Army. Local police forces thus fell under the control of the Sadrists. Iraqi police stations and army bases were decorated with posters of Muqtada, as were police and military vehicles. Even in the Sunni Anbar province, the Iraqi army was composed of Sadrists. In the spring of 2006, when Sunni soldiers from the Anbar province graduated as new members of the Iraqi army and were told that they would serve outside their home province, among Shias, they rioted and tore off their uniforms. (The Americans had established police forces in Anbar, composed of local Sunni men selected by their tribes. When I visited them in the spring of 2006, these police had not been paid in months, because the ministry of the interior was not sending the money.)

Sunnis had initially courted Muqtada, who opposed Iranian intervention, in the hope of establishing a united front against Americans. But Muqtada’s Mahdi Army was in fact primarily responsible for the attacks against Sunnis. The Mahdi Army could claim, as it did, that it had handed over its weapons after battling Americans in Najaf, Sadr City, and other Shia enclaves, that it was a purely “spiritual army,” but since Mahdi Army soldiers pervaded the police force, they were still armed and in control. And although the ministry of the interior had been implicated in attacks against Sunnis, it was the police themselves that conducted such attacks regularly.

Posted by Gregory at December 6, 2006 06:00 AM
Comments

Looks like things are going just great.

Posted by: Mitsu at December 6, 2006 09:08 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Hmmm... Religious reverence of a political leader, unqualified loyalists as appointees, political purges of government ministries...

Seems like Iraq is employing W's FEMA method for screening appointees. And they said we'd never be able to export American-style democracy to the Middle East.

Posted by: The Right Reverend Rabbi Judah at December 6, 2006 09:17 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Always, its seems, when people talk of solving the Iraq problem by improving the practices of Iraqi governance and institutions, the language employed to define this effort gets quite vague, illusive, somewhat allegorical. I imagine this is because smart people like Zinni know the only real way to stop the downward spiral is to send in not a brief surge of US troops but rather a new invasion force geared for total domination - and of course that can never happen. And thus the quaint language.

Posted by: saintsimon at December 6, 2006 11:23 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Bin Ladden got away with mass murdering Americans....and Bush helped him.

Bin Ladden knew who to mess with, by far.

Posted by: me at December 6, 2006 02:55 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Okay, it is only a half hour till the MOMENTUS 11th hour when the Baker Panel Report officially becomes public! (Cue theme from 2001! , DUM, DUM, DUM!) Can anything so wildly triumpanted possibly live up to its advance billing? And even if its recomendations are followed, are they anything that is not too late to actually work? Rather doubt it, myself. (Try for more detailed analysis later when time available.)

Posted by: David All at December 6, 2006 03:31 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Have posted my comments on the Zinni thread. What happened to remarks here?

Posted by: David All at December 6, 2006 10:59 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

"In one case, a Sunni chief engineer in the transportation ministry was fired and replaced with an unqualified Shia who wore a cleric’s turban to work. Efficiency dropped; the ministries of health and transportation barely functioned."

Wow, sounds like we have exported our ideas to iraq.
The Shia have really picked up on the republican way of running things.

Posted by: DonkeyKong at December 6, 2006 11:00 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

For Belgravia Dispatch readers: as per my own thinking and that of Professor Joshua Landis of Syriacomment.com (in a private e-mail), there appears to have been less substance and more smoke to the recent article by Nawaf Obaid in last week’s Washington Post. To wit, according to Reuters, he has been dismissed. Or as the Saudi Ambassador put it: “we felt that we could add more credibility to his claims as an independent contractor by terminating our consultancy agreement with him”. It would appear that the threat of overt Saudi intervention in the Iraq conflict, if the USA were to withdraw, was one that Riyahd, did not want to make at all, or make so overt. Which of course is what the article did in fact do. In either case, it would appear that we should all tone down the likelihood of a regional war, if the USA does decide to withdraw from Iraq. Attached is the article from Reuters:

Wed Dec 6, 2006 3:09pm ET

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia on Wednesday said it had fired a security adviser who wrote in The Washington Post that the world’s top oil exporter would intervene in Iraq once the United States withdraws troops.

Saudi Arabia’s government said last weekend there was no truth in Nawaf Obaid’s November 29 article, which suggested the kingdom would back Iraq’s Muslim Sunnis in the event of a wider sectarian conflict.

Obaid stressed in the article that the views were his own and not those of the Saudi government.

“We felt that we could add more credibility to his claims as an independent contractor by terminating our consultancy agreement with him,” Prince Turki al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States, told the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia.

The article said the kingdom would intervene with funding and weaponry to prevent Shi’ite militias from attacking Iraq’s Sunnis and suggested Saudi Arabia could bring down world oil prices to squeeze Shi’ite power Iran.

“There is no basis in truth to the article by the writer Nawaf Obaid in the Washington Post of November 29, 2006,” the state Saudi Press Agency last week quoted an “official source” as saying.

Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab countries have accused Iran of meddling in Iraq.

On Wednesday the high-level U.S. bipartisan Iraq Study Group urged the United States to begin to withdraw forces from combat and launch a diplomatic push, including Iran and Syria, to prevent “a slide toward chaos” in Iraq.

Diplomats have said Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally, is worried that Washington has lost control of Iraq and developments in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which Arab governments say is driving Islamic extremism and anti-U.S. sentiment in the region.

© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.

Posted by: Charles G. Coutinho, Ph.D. at December 7, 2006 12:29 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Errata for my URL it is:


WWW.DIPLOMATOFTHEFUTURE.BLOGSPOT.COM

Posted by: Charles G. Coutinho, Ph.D. at December 7, 2006 12:31 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

About Belgravia Dispatch

Gregory Djerejian, an international lawyer and business executive, comments intermittently on global politics, finance & diplomacy at this site. The views expressed herein are solely his own and do not represent those of any organization.


More About the Author
Email the Author
Recent Entries
Search



The News
The Blogs
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Law & Finance
Think Tanks
Security
Books
The City
Epicurean Corner
Archives
Syndicate this site:
XML RSS

Belgravia Dispatch Maintained by:
www.vikeny.com

Powered by