Patrick Cockburn: Iraq is safer – but by no means safe
Police know bombers are difficult to stop, and awards are likely to be posthumous
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
The savage suicide bombings in the heart of Baghdad yesterday show how far the violence in Iraq is from being over. It is as if those who order these bombings know that they only have to repeat these atrocities every couple of months to destabilise the country.
The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki makes itself even more vulnerable by boasting that it is improving security. Iraq is a safer place than it was three years ago, but it is still one of the more dangerous places in the world.
There is no need to imagine that the slaughter in Haifa Street yesterday was because American troops withdrew from the cities of Iraq three months ago. With or without US troops, the bombers have been able to get through in Baghdad ever since they destroyed the UN headquarters in 2003.
Suicide car bombings, even when the driver is not planning to detonate his deadly cargo personally, are extremely difficult to stop. Remember the success the Provisional IRA had in the 1990s in targeting much smaller areas in the city of London and Canary Wharf.
After a bomb eviscerated the Iraqi Foreign Ministry on 19 August the Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said its passage must have been helped by collaborators at army and police checkpoints. This may be true. But it is impossible for Iraqi security to search every vehicle, especially as bombers will have made sure that their papers are in order. It will also have occurred to Iraqi soldiers and policemen that any awards for stopping a suicide bomber are likely to be posthumous. Enthusiasm for investigating suspicious vehicles is limited.
The bombings do not by themselves prove that Iraq remains unstable. Unfortunately, there are other pointers such as the failure of 1.6 million internally displaced people to return to their homes. A study by the International Organisation on Migration explains why these internal Iraqi refugees are not going home. It says that security may have got better but refugees are still trying to survive "without work, their own home, schooling for children, access to water, electricity and health care".
Who is behind the bombings? Almost certainly it is some cell of al-Qa'ida, possibly acting with the guidance or help of the Baath party or the security service of the old regime. Al-Qa'ida is not as strong as it was in 2007, but then it does not have to be to create mayhem.
The main problem in Iraq is that there is no fundamental agreement between the three main communities: the Shia, the Sunni Arabs and the Kurds. Each group is still looking for the weak points of the others. The Shia are three-fifths of the population, benefited from the overthrow of the predominantly-Sunni regime of Saddam Hussein and were largely victorious in the sectarian battle for Baghdad in 2005-7. This does not mean that the Sunni, who make up a fifth of the population, do not retain the strength to destabilise the government unless they get the share of power that they want.
Iraqis themselves tend to see the never-ending violence as a sign that their neighbours intend to prevent the re-emergence of a strong Iraq. Iran would like another Shia state in the Gulf, but it does not want a powerful government to resurrect itself in Baghdad. Saudi Arabia has long been aghast at seeing Iraq becoming the first Shia government in the Arab world since Saladin overthrew the Fatimids. Kuwait is still taking part of Iraq's desperately needed oil revenues in compensation for its losses in the first Gulf War.
A further problem is Iraq's undermining the political and economic reconstruction. The country has had 30 years of war, rebellion and economic sanctions. Iraq truly is a broken society. The state is dysfunctional. There is some good news: the price of oil has risen to $80 a barrel. But even relatively peaceful cities like Basra are full of people who are not being paid. The government is failing to heal the deep wounds of the past. Yesterday's bombings – the deadliest in two years – shows how far Iraq is from solving its problems.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
After the British conquered the area during World War One, Iraq was cobbled together as an odd hybrid of colony and monarchy in 1921 by the British Empire for its own purposes, with no attention to the desire of its inhabitants. Like many states established by colonial powers, Iraq was ethnically diverse, encompassing Shiite, Sunni, Kurds, Turkmen, Jews and Christians.
Inventing Iraq was the failure of the British nation-building in the 1920s. Now even a strong man solution cannot hold Iraq. The only hope is a three ways split into Sunistan, Kurdistan and Shiastn. Fragmentation has become the default mode of Western intervention. It was so in Yugoslavia. It is so in Afghanistan. It will be so in the coming future conflicts. But since realpolitik has overtaken idealism, at least an orderly break-up of Iraq should be planned, not denied. In 50 years of meddling, U.S and its allies, and the former eastern block countries have made a mess of Iraq. The bloody history of Iraq will make it impossible for that country to establish a smoothly functioning government, why force the issue?
Following past wars across the globe, countless borders have been changed, former nations have been absorbed and name changes have occurred. Why must Iraq stay intact? Instead of trying to force the issue, U.S. should divide the country and let the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis form their own rules with their own governing bodies, as secular or as theocratic as they wish. We shouldn't force harmony on people who doesn't want to live together. Of course, the nihilists and evil murderers continues their barbaric acts against the people of that country, and regional powers cannot deny their ugly role in these terrible crimes.
As a foreigner I see you for what you are. A colonialist. You want to impose your future on Iraqi's based on a racist assumption about Iraqis in direct conflict with what free Iraqis say they want for their country.
Why should your opinion count over Iraqi's when deciding their future marph45? You are not Iraqi are you?
Joe Biden is famous for two things: His boundless narcissism IOW his love affair with his blinding porcelain smile and the sound of his own soporific voice, and his invariably wrong-assed foreign policy assessments. If you need a guy who is 100% wrong on just about every foreign policy issue, look no further than Joe "The Mouth" Biden. Biden was for the invasion of Iraq in 1993 but against driving Saddam's army out of Kuwait in 1991. Biden was in Georgia in July patting Saakashvili on the back and babbling about a "Russian invasion" when even the EU has officially accepted that Georgia was the aggressor.
Biden is also uncompromisingly for partitioning Iraq:
So why Patrick do you not mention the sea change in Iraqi politics seen in the last few months? Is it not the case that ALL participants in Iraq's upcoming elections are running on cross sect nationalist tickets?
Anyone would think you don't want your readers to know. Why would that be Patrick? read back your "output" over the last 7 years. Oh yes, shows you up doesn't it? No oil theft, politically free Iraqi's and a Pax Iraqi emerging fast.
My view is that foreign people who declare Iraqi's incapable of political freedom and use this to argue for either leaving people enslaved under dictators or imposing some split up of their country and appointment of religious or political strong man leaders are in fact the real racist colonialists.
Iraqis are politically free. Its their decision what to do about about their fractured society. I say butt out Patrick. Keep your consistently wrong views to yourself and report how Iraqis are showing themselves to be so different (and better) than the miserable hopeless picture you continue to paint of them. They are better than you Patrick.
- not sectarian, its political and aimed at the Iraqi state
- driven by a minority of Baathists in Syria and Al Queda both using a plentiful supply of cretins who believe your stories about US intent and the unsuitability of Iraqis for freedom
- is done with the acquiescence if not direct incitement of Iraq's neighbours - people who fear democratic united free Iraq more than anything they have ever faced.
Have a listen on the BBC Today program website. Pay attention to the BBC interviewers response to this key statement. Ignored it and went on to sensationalise the loss of life. Sickening stuff. Typical of the baby shaking witch hunters of Today. They have much to answer for IMHO. How many extremists began from the starting point of angry Today program listeners? heads full of their lies and spin they are easy candidates for the religious extremist to turn into killers. Disgraceful stuff. We pay for this (salary and, no doubt fiddled, expenses from our tax receipts)
So again, if these people are trying to destroy "freedom" in Iraq, why was it invaded in the first place?
Sad, but true.
Barf it up big boy, what is this "reality" you see from behind the scales?
I can describe mine in detail, and link to the factual basis of it. For example, wiki main country pages will show you that the USA is a 14,000 billion per year economy and that Iraq's oil is worth in total 70 billion a year and that Iraq action was planned to cost 200 billion and actually cost > 1,000 billion.
Come on, tell us.
(witch hunters always hate this, watch what happens next readers)
Why should Iraqis not enjoy the same rights you demand?
It was invaded in the first place to remove Saddam Hussein and, once that was done, to leave Iraq politically free. This has been done. All other "reasons" suggested by people (like stealing oil, colonising etc etc etc) are now observable as nasty ignorant lies that incited violence, insurgency, extremism and lots and lots of death. Not just in Iraq, in Exeter, London, Madrid.
"these people" are opposed to Iraqi's voting for their govt. Don't you even see that?
"I accuse people of racism who say that Iraqis, because of their race(s) should have some form of govt imposed upon them rather than vote for what they want, be it untied or broken up, secular or theocratic."
You liar. You're the only one who's said this.
Why should Iraqis not enjoy the same rights you demand?
It was invaded in the first place to remove Saddam Hussein and, once that was done, to leave Iraq politically free. This has been done. All other "reasons" suggested by people (like stealing oil, colonising etc etc etc) are now observable as nasty ignorant lies that incited violence, insurgency, extremism and lots and lots of death. Not just in Iraq, in Exeter, London, Madrid.
"these people" are opposed to Iraqi's voting for their govt. Don't you even see that?
OK, well seeing as your sure of the motivation can you please explain to me why the US supported and was biggest financial sponsor of Saddam through out most of his time in power?
Can you also explain why the Americans sought to fabricate the WMD argument as a justification for the invasion instead of just saying that they wanted to get rid og Saddam?
Can you explain why all of Iraqs oilfields are now in foreign hands?
Can you expalin the Fulluja massacre? Can you explain the use depleated uranium on civilians that has caused the biggest cancer epidemic in middle eastern history?
Now lets be clear. Are you saying that the US invaded Iraq for no other reason than to help the Iraqi's because they were suffering under dictatorship?
1)during the Saddam Hussein rule i.e from 1967 till 1993 the Sunni part of the country got the best part of the cake, more or less structured by the Baath party which was a convenient label for a dictatorial cum clanish regime. All the higher functions in the Civil Service, the Judiciary, the Army and of course the Police were sealed by Saddam stooges preferably belonging to the Tikrit tribe.
2)When the Americans overturned Saddam Hussein, the Chia took over as they are a practical majority with the Sunni and Kurds relegated to positions of secondary importance (although the Kurds were well organized with a military small but efficient army (the Peshmerga).
3)the discontented Sunnis reorganized into shapeless cells or small units, on the basis of tribal or former Baath structures, but launched a series of bomb attacks mainly during the main Chia religious meetings. Sometimes real massacres but at the same time fighting the Americans ( see Falludjah)
4)Finally the Americans decided to organize the Chia into sort of tribal militias with a decent pay and the bomb attacks considerably decreased. But in the meantime, the administration of these militias was transferred to Nuri-al-Maliki, a Shiite who neglected their management and....pay. Consequently, the bomb attacks are on the rise.
5)the Chia are not united. There are the Al Sadr and Hakim Isci "private" militias, good street-figthers and fairly active, fighting each other, the Sunni and the Americans whenever possible. The majority of Chia follow Ali Sistani who is a moderate but in this case, the influential agressive minority has the upperhand (see the IRA for instance).
6)the Kurds have a right of veto but also claim the region of Mossul and Kirkurk which was theirs but Saddam Hussein recklessly expelled their age-old kurdish inhabitants by Sunni Arabs. Now, the Kurds are in turn driving out the Arabs. Another source of problems for the central authorities.
7)To top it all, there is a fairly coherent Turkmen minority (some 200.000 people) which is duly "protected" by Turkey which sees there a good opportunity to regain some influence in a region which they considers as theirs since 1919. A good motive to interfere into Iraqi internal affairs ( and the Kurdish one as well).
8)Taking advantage of the Saddam Hussein declining power, the Turks built a series of larges dams, diverting some two third of the Tigre and Euphrate rivers which can no longer irrigate Iraq which previously was largely self sufficient for agriculture products.
9)We must not either neglegt a possible Iranian influence ( probably less than we think) but also the usual monnies from Saudi Wahhabites and the Emirates if only to check the Shiite dominant position.
Of course, Saddam Hussein's regime was dictatorial and ruthless ( the Kurds had some bitter experiences) but before the attack on Iran, Iraq was a pleasant country, people were friendly and hospitable. We consider that there were other methods to overthrow Saddam's dictatorship but the Americans although engaged in Afghanistant couldn't resist the sweet smell of oil, under cover of a democratic missionary zeal. At the same time, the Israel/Palestine wound was left gaping which gave fundamentalists excellent grounds to justify their fight against the "Crusaders' " presence in Iraq.
Now "we" (not only the Americans) are in a quagmire and we don't have any smooth solution in sight. Starting a war is easy, getting out is a rather complicated business: recent problems in Baghdad and Waziristan appear to confirm this point of view.
Maxim02
Well, that would be the key, which is why you don't say what these"other methods" are.
I bet you wont, because you don't have any. Barf em up
Silly goose.
You talk to the dead like that; vomiting over those killed, injured and made homeless over the past six years is pretty much what you do _every single time you post here_.
1979, Saddam Hussein took power as Iraqi President after knocking down his close friend and the leader of his party (Ahmed Hasan Al-Bakr) and killing and arresting his leadership rivals.
In 1980, Hussein claimed that Iranian forces were trying to topple his government and declared war on Iran
Source wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq#Persi
So, for one year of Saddams rule [before the attack on Iran, Iraq was a pleasant country]
Cretin
You're witch-hunting again, freedommangler! Are you afraid of seeing so much truth in one place? It doesn't happen very often in your world, does it?
Why is there such a massive disconnect between maxim, and your, idea of reality and what you can see and what I, yes rudely (you are hysterical after all), keep on putting in front of you. These are facts I am stating. You never manage to address any of them do you? Go on, address the facts above goatbucket and answer for maxim
Or do you think its your freedom to be able to state such things without challenge and indeed ridicule and abuse?
You've given some guy grief because he's made a _mistake_ about when Saddam Hussein took over. Because he has stated that Saddam Hussein was in charge instead of the Ba'ath party. You _could_ have pointed it out politely. Instead you called him a cretin.
And then you fail to answer anything else within his post.
Funny that, it's almost as if whenever you see something that isn't part of the Bumper Book of American Propaganda you can't compute it and must clutch for straws to wave at whoever has deigned to deviate from Truth TM.
And yet you cannot understand that the vast military expenditure by the U.S. is profoundly about its self-interest rather than "democracy"?
Well, I think you know the truth, freedommangler. You just choose not to tell it.
Please note that I made a serious typing mistake.
Paragraph 4 I typed...." Finally the Americans decided to organize the Chia....
instead of :
"Finally the Americans decided to organize the SUNNI
which of course completely different.
Can you still amend this unfortunate "lapsus calami".
With my best thanks Maxim02
What's wrong with him?
Answers on a postcard please folks. Send them to his secret freedom base in Norfolk (or Iraq, depending on who he's posting to and what about). Perhaps it's in or around RAF Feltwell - that would explain his U.S. military bias...
And it encourages me to learn more about the subject as well...