Well, at least they’re open about it
EDIT: Fixed to include link. Sorry!
I think this little excerpt from a story about the new Iraqi Army says it all:
“Muhammad, Haider, Fatima, Hasan and Husayn!” shouted a group of dancing soldiers, bellowing the names of the prophet and other long-dead Islamic icons revered by Shiite Muslims.
A second later, the name of a living Shiite figure came out of the din. “Moqtada! Moqtada!” one soldier exclaimed, invoking the name of Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shiite cleric and leader of the Mahdi Army militia that American officials blame for many of the worst acts of violence in Baghdad.
Standing quietly in the crowd were four U.S. Army officers, there to represent the team of American soldiers advising the Iraqis. “Sounds like the Mahdi militia is in the tent,” said their interpreter, Mohammed Noshi.
Moments before the chanting began, at a rally last Saturday morning at the soldiers’ shared base in eastern Baghdad, a brigade commander in the Iraqi army’s 6th Division had called the troops the “hope of this country.”
(emphasis added)
That pretty much says it all: Too many people in too many parts of the Iraqi security apparatus are loyal to a warlord rather than their fellow countrymen, their Constitution, or some other less divisive focus of loyalty. As long as that is the case, there is no hope for Iraq. And I don’t see any way that we can change that fact. Only time and the determination of the Iraqi people can do something about it, and that will happen on its own schedule, a schedule that will likely be hindered by our continued presence.
Comment by CharleyCarp —
January 13, 2007 @ 11:22 am
For years now, my stock answer to anyone putting hopes in the Iraqi national army has been this: “Robert E. Lee”
The best case scenario is accomplished soldiers who are loyal to their own communities, rather than to the made-up conglomerate that is Iraq.
The alternative — a secular national army with significant Sunni leadership can also be summed up by the name of a single person: “Saddam Hussein.”
Comment by Alex at Inactivist —
January 13, 2007 @ 11:51 am
Charley-
Even under the best case scenario, it only works if they are more interested in defending their communities than attacking the other communities.
But I will grant that the emergence of such leaders is a necessary condition for the negotiation of some sort of lasting peace. I doubt that such a peace will take the form of outright partition: An openly independent Kurdistan would face too many problems from its neighbors, and everybody wants a piece of the oil pie. So everybody will remain on the same letterhead. But it will be a form of federalism, probably extreme federalism, where the guys who meet in Baghdad to play at having a national government are obviously ceremonial.
Comment by Nell —
January 13, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
Jim, where’s the article that excerpt is from?
Comment by Stephen —
January 13, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
I apologise in advance for being pissy this evening but does “the determination of the Iraqi people” even mean anything, now? Which Iraqi people?
Comment by Jim Henley —
January 13, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
Nell: I forget!
Alex: How about a link, guy? We have standards here at Unqualified Offerings. Standards!
Comment by MinorRipper —
January 13, 2007 @ 7:41 pm
Not sure if everyone has seen these videos of the US military in Iraq or not, but they are pretty amazing: Hopefully our ’surge’ will not include too many of these types…
http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2006/12/winning-hearts-and-minds-part-three.html
Comment by Nell —
January 13, 2007 @ 9:16 pm
Doh! Sorry, didn’t realize it was a guest post. Alex, thanks for the link.
Comment by Logos —
January 14, 2007 @ 1:54 am
Alex,
Over the long run divisiveness is part of the heart of the nation-making process. Thus if Iraq becomes a smaller assorted group of states (like the former Yugoslavia) as a result of this divisiveness that may lead to better prospects down the road.
Comment by Nell —
January 14, 2007 @ 11:14 am
@Logos, #8: Smaller assorted states are simply easier pickings for the big predators.
Think of the difference for BP/Shell between negotiating with a united Iraq in 1978 and negotiating separately with Greater Najaf and Kurdistan now — shattered by war, sanctions, then war & occupation & civil war. Strong, sizable states don’t sign production sharing agreements. {It occurs to me on re-reading that in 1978 BP and Shell were themselves smaller assorted entities…}
Now the phrase “strong, sizable states” isn’t something to warm the hearts of libertarians, but you know what? Multinational corporations are giant unaccountable bureaucracies; only large, stable governments (or large assemblies of stable governments, a la the EU) have enough power to rein them in.
Comment by Bill Woolsey —
January 14, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
It isn’t clear that there is a problem.
The Iraqi government is a coalition of the religious Shia (most of them) and the Kurds.
It won overwelming support from the Kurds and massive support from the Shia.
The elements that make up the Iraqi military seem loyal to that government.
The army comes from segments of the population that elected the government and appear to have attitudes that are similar to those who elected the government.
Do you really have evidence that the average Shia opposes death squads and ethnic cleansing targetting the Sunnis?
In my opinion, Sadr say what most Shia really think. The so-called moderate Shia, follow a strategy of placating the Americans. They tell us what we want to hear. Encourage us to kill Sunnis. And, when we leave, they plan to be in charge of the government.
Iran is 100% on board with the strategy.
The so-called “moderate” Shia are upset with Sadr because he plays to mass opinion while they have to look like a bunch of suck-ups to the Americans.
Sadr says he opposes ethnic cleansing and death squads too. Maybe he does. But the Shia who believe that “getting tough” on the Sunnis is the solution, are the same kind of Shia who
Comment by Bill Woolsey —
January 14, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
It isn’t clear that there is a problem.
The Iraqi government is a coalition of the religious Shia (most of them) and the Kurds.
It won overwelming support from the Kurds and massive support from the Shia.
The elements that make up the Iraqi military seem loyal to that government.
The army comes from segments of the population that elected the government and appear to have attitudes that are similar to those who elected the government.
Do you really have evidence that the average Shia opposes death squads and ethnic cleansing targetting the Sunnis?
In my opinion, Sadr say what most Shia really think. The so-called moderate Shia, follow a strategy of placating the Americans. They tell us what we want to hear. Encourage us to kill Sunnis. And, when we leave, they plan to be in charge of the government.
Iran is 100% on board with the strategy.
The so-called “moderate” Shia are upset with Sadr because he plays to mass opinion while they have to look like a bunch of suck-ups to the Americans.
Sadr says he opposes ethnic cleansing and death squads too. Maybe he does. But the Shia who believe that “getting tough” on the Sunnis is the solution, are the same kind of Shia who want to hear what Sadr says.