Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

With Unexpected Iraqi Withdrawal Demand, Bush Has Lost the War

By Gareth Porter, IPS News. Posted July 11, 2008.


New Iraqi resistance to U.S. demands reflects Iran's influence as well as Sadr's belief that he could succeed in driving U.S. forces out.
Advertisement

The official Iraqi demand for U.S. withdrawal confirms what was becoming increasingly clear in recent months -- that the Iraqi regime has decided to shed its military dependence on the United States.

The two strongly pro-Iranian Shiite factions supporting the regime in Baghdad, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) and al-Maliki's own Dawa Party, were under strong pressure from both Iran and their own Shiite population and from Shiite clerics, including Ayatollah Ali Sistani, to demand U.S. withdrawal.

The statement by al-Rubaei came immediately after he had met with Sistani, thus confirming earlier reports that Sistani was opposed to any continuing U.S. military presence.

The Bush administration has had doubts in the past about the loyalties of those two Shiite groups and of the SIIC's Badr Corps paramilitary organization, and it maneuvered in 2005 and early 2006 to try to weaken their grip on the interior ministry and the police.

By 2007, however, the administration hoped that it had forged a new level of cooperation with al-Maliki aimed at weakening their common enemy, Moqtada al-Sadr's anti-occupation Mahdi Army. SIIC leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim was invited to the White House in December 2006 and met with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in November 2007.

The degree of cooperation with the al-Maliki regime against the Sadrists was so close that the Bush administration even accepted for a brief period in late 2007 the al-Maliki regime's argument that Iran was restraining the Mahdi Army by pressing Sadr to issue his August 2007 ceasefire order.

In November, Bush and al-Maliki agreed on a set of principles as the basis for negotiating agreements on stationing of U.S. forces and bilateral cooperation, including a U.S. guarantee of Iraq's security and territorial integrity. In February 2008, U.S. and Iraqi military planners were already preparing for a U.S.-British-Iraqi military operation later in the summer to squeeze the Sadrists out of Basra.

But after the U.S. draft agreement of Mar. 7 was given to the Iraqi government, the attitude of the al-Maliki government toward the U.S. military presence began to shift dramatically, just as Iran was playing a more overt role in brokering ceasefire agreements between the two warring Shiite factions.

The first indication was al-Maliki's refusal to go along with the Basra plan and his sudden decision to take over Basra immediately without U.S. troops. Petraeus later said a company of U.S. army troops was attached to some units as advisers "just really because we were having a problem figuring where was the front line."

That al-Maliki decision was followed by an Iranian political mediation of the intra-Shiite fighting in Basra, at the request of a delegation from the two pro-government parties. The result was that Sadr's forces gave up control of the city, even though they were far from having been defeated.

U.S. military officials were privately disgruntled at that development, which effectively canceled the plan for a much bigger operation against the Sadrists during the summer. Weeks later, a U.S. "defense official" would tell the New York Times, "We may have wasted an opportunity in Basra to kill those that needed to be killed."

In another sign of the shifting Iraqi position away from Washington, in early May, al-Maliki refused to cooperate with a Cheney-Petraeus scheme to embarrass Iran by having the Iraqi government publicly accuse it of arming anti-government Shiites in the South. The prime minister angered U.S. officials by naming a committee to investigate U.S. charges.

Even worse for the Bush administration, a delegation of Shiite officials to Tehran that was supposed to confront Iran over the arms issue instead returned with a new Iranian strategy for dealing with Sadr, according to Alissa J. Rubin of the New York Times: reach a negotiated settlement with him.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq, iraq war, bush administration, iraq occupation, mahdi army, nouri al-maliki, ayatollah ali sistani, dawa party, supreme islamic iraqi cou, abdul aziz al-hakim, iyad allawi, korea model

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Transition Time
Posted by: Gaubladt on Jul 11, 2008 10:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Iraqi Prime Minister and all the government know that as soon as Isreal or the U.S. bomb Iran, they are all as good as dead. They will not be able to maintain what little control that they have. And the new leader will be as nice to them as they were to Saddam Hussein. They have no alternative but to demand the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. Troops from Iraq. Once the occupiers are removed, they will become the heros of the Iraqi people, if they can maintain order.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All For What?
Posted by: Tom Degan on Jul 11, 2008 12:22 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is now painfully obvious to all but the most delussional right wing nuts is what a mind-rippingly stupdid idea the invasion of the (like it or not) sovereign nation of Iraq really was. It has been an utter and catastrophic failure and, in a very real and ominouis sense, that is a good thing. Good because a clear precedant has has been firmly established (Oh, please! Oh, please! Oh, please!) whereby a future president will carefully reflect the on the outcome of the reckless invasion another country on a stupid and unjustifiable whim.

What is incomprehensible in this tragedy is the lives that have been lost - over a million Iraqi men, women and little children; over four-thousand American servicemen and women - who have died for nothing. As the late, great Molly Ivins once opined, "It's hard to convince people that you're killing them for their own good".

In his new book, Vincent Bugliosi makes a more-than convincing argument that the half-witted, murderous little thug in the Oval Office should be tried for murder. As he said this morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe, it is the most horrendous crime ever committed by a single American citizen. Call me naive, but I have a hunch that the man is on to something, don'cha think?

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: All For What? Posted by: Lauren
» Lauren.... Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: All For What? Posted by: LeaderofMen
» RE: All For What? Posted by: jstevenson
» RE: All For What?....Tom Posted by: Captainmagic
» RE: All For What? Posted by: zeek2
We All lost.
Posted by: weathered on Jul 11, 2008 1:04 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a country we're suffering from low self-esteem.

Shroud the White House in yellow/black police tape and lock it down as a crime scene.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The US can occupy Iraq without any Iraqis
Posted by: PaulK on Jul 11, 2008 1:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All we lose is a fig leaf. We can occupy the oil fields until the U.S. Treasury collapses, which given that two quasi-government corporations have collapsed from about $70 a share to $5 a share, may not be too far off.

You wouldn't have to run on the banks if you'd walked when I told you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Whatever happened to.....
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Jul 11, 2008 2:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The official Iraqi demand for U.S. withdrawal confirms what was becoming increasingly clear in recent months -- that the Iraqi regime has decided to shed its military dependence on the United States." As part of showing his resolution on why we need to stay didn't Bushco say "as the Iraqi's stand up, our troops will stand down".

Obviously, no one has told the Iraqi's he was only joking. We really came in for the oil, stupid. I think this is a wonderful thing, we can now really support our troops and bring them home, giving them the quality care they have earned and deserve.

No, really, staying now is like if you've ever had a fire and the fireman come and then when the fire is out they continue to stay -eating your food, living in your house, coming and going as they please. We have overstayed our welcome, it's past time to leave..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is anyone interested in pursuing this with me?
Posted by: foreverhope on Jul 11, 2008 3:32 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would like to begin a group on Yahoo to launch a petition to indict the BUSH/CHENEY administration. GET IT ALL OUT THERE, EVERY EVIL ILLEGAL THING!

People could download the petition. Put a petition like this into the hands of thousands, collect millions of signatures, respectfully requesting PRESIDENT OBAMA to appoint a special counsel to investigate ALL OF IT.

Kucinich (bless his sweet heart) has already brilliantly laid the groundwork with his recent articles of impeachment against GWB/CHENEY. We could use those articles to draft the petition, most of it is probably right there, easy peasy.

NOW! To deliever these petitions we enlist the help of Cindy Sheehan and veteran's orgs opposing the war. Organize "A Million March For Peace" on Washington DC.

I understand some of you are really very upset with Obama right now, I can't say I am not also somewhat disappointed by his FISA vote. However I still have hopes for this man, not ready to pass judgement, not ready to give up. With only about 115 days till the election however we might individually feel about this we don't have many immediate options. I believe what I am proposing is a better use of time and energy than hoping for a miracle third party candidate, and will go MUCH further to getting us where we want to go. What I am proposing CAN be done, I feel it SHOULD be done, the press would be FANTASTIC. It will put the war and the misdeeds of GWB on the front page and in the face of our collective leaders, both dem and repug. I really think it is more exciting and more productive than attempting to launch a third party candidate and so very little time left to do it.

If anyone is interested in pursuing this effort please let me know here or write to me:

foreverhope95@yahoo.com

I propose the Million March For Peace be (hypotheically) scheduled one year from today! This would send a POWERFUL message to ALL our elected leaders, both dem and repug, and, perhaps more importantly, to the WORLD. It would be HISTORICAL. OMG! I would LOVE to help make this happen!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The US will not leave Iraq until the oil runs out
Posted by: Daidactic on Jul 11, 2008 3:43 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While this article is interesting, what the Iraq government wants or believes while the US tanks, etc., are parked on the lawn is irrelevant unless it can force the US out.
Unfortunately, that would require a long insurgent war that no-one can win.
The US superbases are not made of candy floss. They have been built to last and since the US government, whether it be Republican or Democrat is slave to their Big Oil masters that is it. They will not leave Iraq until they have raped it of all its OIl.
What the Iraq government or the UN want is irrelevant. The invasion was illegal, so who is going to worry that the occupation is illegal and lacks any democratic legitimacy?
Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, first they make mad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wrong heading!
Posted by: Jeanne on Jul 11, 2008 4:05 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Circumstances aside, the heading should say "We've Won the War." Then we can pull US troops, and no one will have their petty egos bruised by the inane concept of having "lost" the war. Tell them they won. The truth didn't matter going in, why should it matter now?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm surprised no one commented on this yet....
Posted by: the baron on Jul 12, 2008 7:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
U.S. "defense official" would tell the New York Times, "We may have wasted an opportunity in Basra to kill those that needed to be killed."

This shows not only how ignorant most of our country is but also just how amoral our leaders that "we the people" not the individuals voted into office.

Plus it shows that some of the peoples' comments are right. Who cares what Iraq wants, we came in illegally, we are there illegally and we are going to stay there illegally.

Despite my interest to see things set right, namely Bush and the rest of his administration charged for war crimes and violations of the constitution; but that won't happen. (And yes I have written to my congressman about it and he in fact; C. Fattah is on the Impeachment Committee. So any of you whiners, who have swallowed Obama's "Change" litany whole can shut up before you even start on "We can do blah and blah; and Obama is going to yakkity yakkity.")

Do you honestly think that we will get as much from Iraq in oil after leaving compared to as much as we could if we stayed? Sure we'd get something, they need the business, they need economy. But Iraq would probably find that business and economy elsewhere and then that business would be sold to the U.S. at a higher rate through say China or Russia.

The Iraqi people have suffered too much under U.S. occupation to readily accept a business as usual stance on oil sales with the U.S. through the government presiding over their country.

*Note I said "the government" not "their government".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Missing The Role of Iraqi Politics
Posted by: motown67 on Jul 12, 2008 8:08 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think this article really oversells the role of Iran. Yes they have been putting a lot of pressure on Maliki to reject the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), but Maliki has his own issues to deal with. The whole call for a withdrawal is just a negotiating ploy that Maliki is playing with the U.S, not some grand Iranian manufactured policy. Many Iraqi politicians think that the U.S. is negotiating from a position of weakness because Bush wants the SOFA signed before he leaves office. They are playing hardball with the U.S. as a result to get more concessions, and the withdrawal demand is part of that. Maliki is also without a base in Iraq because his Dawa party, which was always small and weak, just split in two. Calling for a U.S. withdrawal is part of his plan to paint himself as a nationalist for the upcoming provincial elections. Lastly, if the Arab press has been noting that Baghdad has been moving away from the withdrawal plan. They want the idea of a U.S. pull out included in the SOFA, not an actual timetable for one. I have several pieces on my blog about these negotiations. If interested: http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

over/under
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Jul 12, 2008 8:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for the number of days until al-Maliki is overthrown and replaced with a (presumably) more loyal lapdog is set at 75.

jdfu!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Follow UP
Posted by: motown67 on Jul 12, 2008 7:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Gulf News reported yesterday that the Sunni Accordance Front and the Kurds are opposed to any withdrawal being included in the SOFA agreement. The head of the Kurdish bloc in parliament also said the Political Council for National Security agreed not to include the idea in negotiations with the U.S.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Half-empty?
Posted by: YogiBear on Jul 13, 2008 9:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With Unexpected Iraqi Withdrawal Demand, Bush Has Lost the War

Or won it. Wasn't the point that they run the country independently? We all know Bush and McCain are terrified of losing control. But this call for a timetable is the most hopeful news I've seen in a while that an independent government might be possible over there after all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» what makes you think Posted by: hurricane hugo
» RE: what makes you think Posted by: maxfactor
more needed on American and Iraqi reacton to al Maliki
Posted by: whealeydj on Jul 15, 2008 4:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
request for drawdown. can we stand down or do the kurds and sunnis need to ask us also? what was reaction of Obama's foreign policy advisors? are McCain for. policy advisors what was Bush regimes reaction? this story has disappeared with Freddie Mac and new yorker stories.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]