Iraq Unrest or Injustice?

[Winstonm]

The following is from a source called AlterNet - I cannot vouch for credibility - but it gives a different take on Iraq than from traditional reporting from the U.S. MSM.

(Emphasis added.)

One of the ironies of the reporting out of Iraq is the ubiquitous characterization of Muqtada al-Sadr as a "renegade," "radical" or "militant" cleric, despite the fact that he is the only leader of significance in the country who has ordered his followers to stand down. His ostensible militancy appears to arise primarily from his opposition to the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq.

 

He has certainly been willing to use violence in the past, but the "firebrand" label belies the fact that Sadr is arguably the most popular leader among a large section of the Iraqi population and that he has forcefully rejected sectarian conflict and sought to bring together representatives of Iraq's various ethnic and sectarian groups in an effort to create real national reconciliation -- a process that the highly sectarian Maliki regime has failed to accomplish.

 

It's vitally important to understand that Sadr's popularity and legitimacy is a result of his having a platform that's favored by an overwhelming majority of Iraqis.

Most Iraqis:

 

 

Favor a strong central government free of the influence of militias.

Oppose, by a 2-1 margin, the privatization of Iraq's energy sector -- a "benchmark towards progress according to the Bush administration.

Favor a U.S. withdrawal on a short timeline (PDF) (most believe the United States plans to build permanent bases -- both are issues about which the Sadrists have been vocal.

Oppose al Qaeda and the ideology of Osama Bin Laden and, to a lesser degree, Iranian influence on Iraq's internal affairs.

 

With the exception of their opposition to Al Qaeda, the five major separatist parties -- Sunni, Shia and Kurdish -- that make up Maliki's governing coalition are on the deeply unpopular side of these issues. A poll conducted last year found that 65 percent of Iraqis think the Iraqi government is doing a poor job, and Maliki himself has a Bush-like 66 percent disapproval rate.

 

As in Vietnam, the United States is backing an unpopular and decidedly undemocratic government in Iraq, and that simple fact explains much of the violent resistance that's going on in Iraq today.

 

Seems that the word "terrorist" has evolved into a code word for "anti-U.S. agenda".

It looks like Maliki and his 35% are more the insurgents than is Sadr.

 

Who should control Iraq?

 

Or maybe it's simply that majorities and public opinion count for nothing - it would seem so to Dick Cheney: Quoting USA Today:

 

Vice President Cheney doesn't spend a lot of time talking with the press, and his interview on ABC's Good Morning America Wednesday showed why. When a reporter noted that two-thirds of Americans say it's not worth fighting in Iraq because the cost in lives exceeds the gains, Cheney's grinning response was a dismissive, "So?"

[luke warm]

winston, do you think al-sadr is an enemy of the usa? do you think he is responsible for the deaths of americans?

[kenberg]

How on Earth would someone come to know that Iraqi's oppose something or someone by a 2 to 1 margin? As the old joke goes, 73% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

 

I seriously doubt that two-thirds of the Iraqis are lying awake worrying about whether the energy sector is to is not privatized.

 

One might say that this is a side issue. But the author raised it. You have doubts about his credibility? I have no such doubts. He has none.

[helene_t]

73% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

I thought it was "82.6467% of all statistics under-report their own error margin".

 

But "a 2/1 margin" does not sound as a statement claiming high accuracy. And actually there has been at least one poll in Iraq about this issue. Google on iraq poll privatization. Roughly 2/3 of Iraqis do indeed oppose privatization of the oil industri. The other claims made by the author seem to be correct, likewise. Btw on none of the topics there was high discrepancy between the ethnic groups, except that only a slight majority of Kurds oppose privatization.

[Winstonm]

winston, do you think al-sadr is an enemy of the usa? do you think he is responsible for the deaths of americans?

That's a difficult question to answer. Al-Sadr called a halt to violence and sustained the ceasefire. At the same time, he is no ally to the U.S. and wants U.S. troops out of Iraq.

 

The bigger question to me is are we simply rhyming with Vietnam - supporting a non-majority puppet regime (Maliki) in order to impose our will on a region. All the while fearing a Domino theory (Iran influence spreading).

[Winstonm]

How on Earth would someone come to know that Iraqi's oppose something or someone  by a 2 to 1 margin? As the old joke goes, 73% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

 

I seriously doubt that two-thirds of the Iraqis are lying awake worrying about whether the energy sector is to is not privatized.

 

One might say that this is a side issue. But the author raised it. You have doubts about his credibility? I have no such doubts. He has none.

I would think he was quoting this poll: (emphasis added)

 

 

Iraqis Oppose Privatizing Their Oil

 

The Iraqi Oil Law poll was carried out in June and July by KA Research, and coordinated and analyzed by Custom Strategic Research. It was based on face-to-face interviews with 2,200 Iraqis in all 18 provinces. The full sample has a margin of error of 2.3.

The poll was sponsored by a coalition of NGOs in the USA and the UK. In the USA, Oil Change International, the Institute for Policy Studies, and Global Policy Forum. Additional support was provided by End Oil. In the UK, PLATFORM, Iraq Occupation Focus, Jubilee Iraq, War on Want and Voices.

 

 

Its key conclusion is that Iraqis oppose plans to open the country’s oilfields to foreign investment by a factor of two to one.

 

If you simply want to shoot the messenger, better reload.

[kenberg]

OK, maybe. But what was the question? Would you rather have the oil fields in Iraq owned my the people of Iraq or by Dick Cheney? Anyway, I thought the main issue on oil was that the Shiites were trying to keep all of the revenue for themselves. Am I misinformed?

 

That Al-Sadr is popular I don't doubt. So was Bush at one time. And Lyndon Johnson. Richard Nixon was twice elected president. Fame, and approval ratings, change. Al-Sadr has been pretty effectively kicking our butt. I imagine a lot of Iraqis enjoy watching that. If this situation changes, they may become less fond of him.

 

Leaders do need to have people behind them for the long haul, so polls have some relevance, but I would go very easy on relying on them as reflecting any thought out position of the populace, here or in Iraq.

[luke warm]

winston, do you think al-sadr is an enemy of the usa? do you think he is responsible for the deaths of americans?

That's a difficult question to answer.

very well... then is he a *self-proclaimed* enemy of the usa (since it's difficult for you to answer, maybe it's less difficult for him to answer)?

The bigger question to me is are we simply rhyming with Vietnam - supporting a non-majority puppet regime (Maliki) in order to impose our will on a region.  All the while fearing a Domino theory (Iran influence spreading).

philosophically speaking, was the domino theory then incorrect and if there is one now is it also incorrect? notice i'm not saying how we chose to handle it then or now is the right way, i'm simply wondering if it exist(s or ed)

[Winstonm]

A big issue to me is the information access about this conflict - what we typically hear in the U.S. is simply repetition of what the White House proclaims. And thus we tend to accept a slanted version of reality.

 

For example, Jimmy says,

 

very well... then is he a *self-proclaimed* enemy of the usa (since it's difficult for you to answer, maybe it's less difficult for him to answer)?

 

This is no doubt an accurate statement - Al-Sadr is a enemy of the U.S.A. - but left unsaid is that Al-Sadr is an enemy to any other nation influencing Iraq, including Iran.

 

The Alternet article puts it like this:

 

The real source of conflict in Iraq -- and the reason political reconciliation has been so difficult -- is a fundamental disagreement over what the future of Iraq will look like. Loosely defined, it is a clash of Iraqi nationalists -- with Muqtada al-Sadr as their most influential voice -- who desire a unified Iraqi state and public-sector management of the country's vast oil reserves and who forcefully reject foreign influence on Iraq's political process, be it from the United States, Iran or other outside forces.

 

I also wonder about "radicals" and "insurgents" when those groups represent the majority view - what type of democracy is it when the majority is ruled by a minority?

 

Alternet again:

 

One of the ironies of the reporting out of Iraq is the ubiquitous characterization of Muqtada al-Sadr as a "renegade," "radical" or "militant" cleric, despite the fact that he is the only leader of significance in the country who has ordered his followers to stand down. His ostensible militancy appears to arise primarily from his opposition to the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq.

 

And then there is the problem with where really lies Maliki's loyalties - U.S. or Iran?

 

Alternet:

 

It has always been the great irony of the occupation of Iraq that "our" man in Baghdad is also Tehran's. Maliki heads the Dawa Party, which has long enjoyed close ties to Iran, and relies on support from SIIC, a staunchly pro-Iranian party, and its powerful Badr militia.

 

And:

The United States, for its part, continues to take sides in this conflict -- in addition to providing airpower, U.S. forces are enforcing the curfew in Sadr City -- rather than playing the role of neutral mediator. That's because the interests of the Bush administration and its allies are aligned with Maliki and his coalition.

 

So if you take this article at face value you get a totally different picture of the Iraq War - and of the conflict within its borders.

 

From this perspective, it looks more like colonialists revolting against Imperial rule.

[luke warm]

A big issue to me is the information access about this conflict - what we typically hear in the U.S. is simply repetition of what the White House proclaims. And thus we tend to accept a slanted version of reality.

 

For example, Jimmy says,

 

very well... then is he a *self-proclaimed* enemy of the usa (since it's difficult for you to answer, maybe it's less difficult for him to answer)?

 

This is no doubt an accurate statement - Al-Sadr is a enemy of the U.S.A. - but left unsaid is that Al-Sadr is an enemy to any other nation influencing Iraq, including Iran.

why should i have said that?

The Alternet article puts it like this:

 

The real source of conflict in Iraq -- and the reason political reconciliation has been so difficult -- is a fundamental disagreement over what the future of Iraq will look like. Loosely defined, it is a clash of Iraqi nationalists -- with Muqtada al-Sadr as their most influential voice -- who desire a unified Iraqi state and public-sector management of the country's vast oil reserves and who forcefully reject foreign influence on Iraq's political process, be it from the United States, Iran or other outside forces.

 

I also wonder about "radicals" and "insurgents" when those groups represent the majority view - what type of democracy is it when the majority is ruled by a minority?

 

Alternet again:

 

One of the ironies of the reporting out of Iraq is the ubiquitous characterization of Muqtada al-Sadr as a "renegade," "radical" or "militant" cleric, despite the fact that he is the only leader of significance in the country who has ordered his followers to stand down. His ostensible militancy appears to arise primarily from his opposition to the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq.

 

And then there is the problem with where really lies Maliki's loyalties - U.S. or Iran?

 

Alternet:

 

It has always been the great irony of the occupation of Iraq that "our" man in Baghdad is also Tehran's. Maliki heads the Dawa Party, which has long enjoyed close ties to Iran, and relies on support from SIIC, a staunchly pro-Iranian party, and its powerful Badr militia.

 

And:

The United States, for its part, continues to take sides in this conflict -- in addition to providing airpower, U.S. forces are enforcing the curfew in Sadr City -- rather than playing the role of neutral mediator. That's because the interests of the Bush administration and its allies are aligned with Maliki and his coalition.

 

So if you take this article at face value you get a totally different picture of the Iraq War - and of the conflict within its borders.

 

From this perspective, it looks more like colonialists revolting against Imperial rule.

and do you take those articles at face value? if so, why? have you examined them objectively, or do they somehow mirror a presupposition you might have? i'm just wondering

[Winstonm]

why should i have said that?

 

Perhaps to paint a clear picture of how much an enemy he is.

 

You know, someone can say, "He killed his mother," and be accurate - even when leaving off the part "accidentally while shooting at an intruder."

 

It may be accurate, but it doesn't reflect reality.

 

and do you take those articles at face value? if so, why? have you examined them objectively, or do they somehow mirror a presupposition you might have? i'm just wondering

 

What they do is present an understandable reason for the conflict - they present a picture of the whole that is consistent with a reasoned opposition instead of mindless claims of "evil insurgents". And because they have consistent reasoning running as a thread through the whole conflict, they have the "ring of truth" to them.

[kenberg]

 

From this perspective, it looks more like colonialists revolting against Imperial rule.

 

Of course! I might not put it exactly that way but roughly speaking that's a good part of the problem. It's only necessary to recall the visceral reaction when Dubai wanted to run one of our ports. Speeches everywhere. The Senate went berserk. Here we are in the Middle East with a very large footprint. We should not be amazed if we are not loved. I hardly need Alternet or anyone else to explain this to me. There are really quite a few people out there who don't much like us. This won't change.

 

The situation in Iraq is complicated by the fact that besides hating us, they also wish to kill each other, the Iranians back one side, the Saudis back another side, the Turks are worried about the Kurds, and of course just about everyone wants to wipe out Israel. And we need the oil. So, by the way, do our fellow infidels in Europe.

 

Tough situation. I wish I had the faith that some do that bringing the troops home would solve the problems.

[Winstonm]

There is a case to be made that the U.S. is following in the footsteps of Great Britain in Imperial overreach that will eventually lead to decay and loss of power.

 

The dollar as the world reserve currency is key to financing the empire.

[luke warm]

why should i have said that?

 

Perhaps to paint a clear picture of how much an enemy he is.

 

You know, someone can say, "He killed his mother," and be accurate - even when leaving off the part "accidentally while shooting at an intruder."

 

It may be accurate, but it doesn't reflect reality.

ok, we'll have it your way... you said

Al-Sadr is a enemy of the U.S.A. - but left unsaid is that Al-Sadr is an enemy to any other nation influencing Iraq, including Iran.

so now it seems that we can agree that al sadr is a self-proclaimed enemy of the usa who has used terrorist tactics to maim and kill u.s. citizens and soldiers and who would do the same against anyone else he perceives as influencing iraq... does that defense of al sadr reflect reality more to your liking?

 

as to how much an enemy he is, all i can say is that if he did accidentally shoot a u.s. soldier he would most likely consider it a stroke of good luck

 

michelle obamba has, since her husband began running for president, for the first time in her life felt proud to be an american... her husband never knew that the man who married him and his wife, baptized his children, mentored him and preached sermons to him for 20 years felt that we caused 9/11, that the "chickens have come home to roost," or that america deserves what she gets... he never heard any racist or unamerican sermons or lectures from his pastor

 

we don't have to go to iraq or anywhere else to see and hear those who hate america, or whose language suggests they do

[Winstonm]

we don't have to go to iraq or anywhere else to see and hear those who hate america, or whose language suggests they do

 

Hating America means not accepting at face value 100% of what we are told? Loving America, then, is blind loyalty?

 

The greatest threat to the U.S. is internal - and blind loyalty is its accomplice.

 

so now it seems that we can agree that al sadr is a self-proclaimed enemy of the usa who has used terrorist tactics to maim and kill u.s. citizens and soldiers and who would do the same against anyone else he perceives as influencing iraq... does that defense of al sadr reflect reality more to your liking?

 

Are you aware there are two sides to the story?

Al-Sadr is an enemy, but he also called a cease-fire for 12 months, and that cease fire is more responsible for the drop in violence than the "surge". But during the cease-fire, the government troops continued to attack the militias.

 

Because the government of Iraq is sponsored by the U.S., does that automatically make its actions right?

[kenberg]

There is a case to be made that the U.S. is following in the footsteps of Great Britain in Imperial overreach that will eventually lead to decay and loss of power.

A more recent analogy is the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. There were many reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union no doubt, but their war in Afghanistan cost them greatly and left them vulnerable.

 

Somewhere between the obvious (to me) truths that we can't fight everyone everywhere and that we must sometimes fight someone somewhere, we need to find the right path. Among other things, when we send in the troops we need a clear understanding of what we are getting into, and a realistic sense of the possible. Easier said than done of course.

 

Some random thoughts:

 

1. The world was not created to serve the interests of the US.

 

2. Other cultures like to do things their way. This can be anything from practicing a different religion to not wanting to serve Big Macs at the Eiffel Tower.

 

3. Being nice doesn't always win friends.

 

4. There are too damn many people in the world for everyone to drive an suv.

 

5. The global economy is here to stay.

 

6. Might doesn't always make right, but it can be pretty useful.

 

I'm not a particularly greedy guy. I want a decent life for me, my kids, my grandkids. After that is reasonably assured, I would like us to follow policies that would make this a better world. Getting the troops out of Iraq without leaving the place in total chaos would be great, but the clause about not leaving total chaos is important to me. If it cannot be done then it cannot be done, but we (maybe not you, maybe not I, but we as a nation) created this mess and I think we have some responsibility for what happens next.

[mike777]

With all the chatter in the race for President I got lost on where they all stand on what they will do with the 1)war in Iraq, 2) war in Afghanistan?

 

 

I thought I read somewhere that all three say we will stay in both places for years but they will bring the troops home as soon, as very soon as possible? I got the impression that none of them are bringing many troops home soon.

 

I know they will answer the phone at 3 am and make some decision. :angry:

 

 

Perhaps a poster has better information they can share on the stance of all three? I got the impression they are basically saying the same thing, but that can't be right.

 

 

Again why are we still sending our young people there today to Iraq or Afghanistan, no really what is the reason?

 

I know Congress keeps spending money to keep them there.

[Winstonm]

There is a case to be made that the U.S. is following in the footsteps of Great Britain in Imperial overreach that will eventually lead to decay and loss of power.

A more recent analogy is the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. There were many reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union no doubt, but their war in Afghanistan cost them greatly and left them vulnerable.

 

Somewhere between the obvious (to me) truths that we can't fight everyone everywhere and that we must sometimes fight someone somewhere, we need to find the right path. Among other things, when we send in the troops we need a clear understanding of what we are getting into, and a realistic sense of the possible. Easier said than done of course.

 

Some random thoughts:

 

1. The world was not created to serve the interests of the US.

 

2. Other cultures like to do things their way. This can be anything from practicing a different religion to not wanting to serve Big Macs at the Eiffel Tower.

 

3. Being nice doesn't always win friends.

 

4. There are too damn many people in the world for everyone to drive an suv.

 

5. The global economy is here to stay.

 

6. Might doesn't always make right, but it can be pretty useful.

 

I'm not a particularly greedy guy. I want a decent life for me, my kids, my grandkids. After that is reasonably assured, I would like us to follow policies that would make this a better world. Getting the troops out of Iraq without leaving the place in total chaos would be great, but the clause about not leaving total chaos is important to me. If it cannot be done then it cannot be done, but we (maybe not you, maybe not I, but we as a nation) created this mess and I think we have some responsibility for what happens next.

Ken,

 

I think this whole post is well-stated and it expresses my sentiments, as well. I do not look for perfection, but at the same time do not want to be led by lies, either.

 

The U.S.S.R. collapse is a valid comparison, IMO. There, again, wasteful war and war machinery spending eroded the real economy and caused collapse.

 

The only thing that keeps the U.S. going at this point is the foreign money still willing to support our debt - but for how much longer, I wonder.

[Winstonm]

Again why are we still sending our young people there today in Iraq or Afghanistan, no reallly what is the reason?

 

Only IMO, but I think it is because few are willing to challenge the validity of the "war on terror", not because it is real, but because it opens them up to political "I told you so's" should there be another terrorist attack in the U.S.

 

The only thing anyone in elected office cares about is pacifying their lobbyists and getting re-elected.

 

And that goes for both political parties.