So far their increasingly shrill complaints about having to keep funding the war because Bush and the Republican minority won't let them stop doing so do seem to have successfully avoided a split. One would need a better understanding of how these people think to make confidnt predictions about whether that can last and be turned into the sort of Democrat support for the war that Krauthammer and Ignatius seem to be pushing for.

Arthur said:

"Nevertheless the plain fact is that accepting partition would represent a total defeat for both Sunni Arab Iraqis and prospects of democracy in Arab Iraq and be a major setback to prospects for democracy throughout the region, which is predominantly Sunni Arab. Real civil and regional war would be a far more plausible result of any such policy and it is difficult to imagine that Krauthammer doesn't know it. His slide over the question of Baghdad is not exactly subtle"

Why is "federalism" always being segued into   sensational/alarmist "partition" in relation to Iraq? There is no mystery about federalism - Australia adopted a federalist system in 1901 and it was based on the United States system. This blatant beat up has always seemed ludicrous to me and an example of westernocentric racism towards Arabs and Kurds. (Typical of Krauthammer!) 

The results of the constitutional referendum in Jan 05  and the general election in Dec 05 demonstrated beyond any doubt that half, ie 9, of the 18 Iraqi governorates have a 90% plus Shiite population, representing something like 15 million Iraqi citizens out of a total population of around 25 mill. Why wouldn't they want to be a "state" or a "region"? It's commonsense.

The Kurds similarly command 90% plus of 3 governorates and have a majority in a 4th (Kirkuk) , and already have  their state and have been running it very prosperously by all accounts right throughout this war.

The Arab Sunni demographic power base is in three governates - Anbar, Salahuddun and Ninewah (of which Mosul is the capital city). They also have a substantial minority in Diyala. It is these 3 and  half governorates that will clearly form the future Sunni sate within the federalised Iraq. That is also blatant commonsense in my op.

As for Baghdad - the results of the Jan and Dec votes also demonstrated beyond doubt that Baghdad was already a Shiite city long before the war. The Sunnis were unable to achieve more than 20 per cent of the vote in either election.  Significantly, the Iraqi Constitution - mainly drafted by the 80 per cent majority Shiites and Kurds with some Sunni influence -  prohibits the Baghdad governorate from being allied with any region or "state",  as we would understand it. In fact, in an echo of Australian federalism it seems to make the capital city, like Canberra and the ACT, separate from any regions or states.

The Sunni Arabs won't have to "accept partition". What can happen is they will finally internalise the demographic reality of their situation - as did the Afrikaaners facing the same reality on South Africa - and then they will be able to make the most of what is left to them. Given that the Sunnis comprised the Iraqi educated, professional and business ruling class for all those years it is very likely they could emulate the Kurds long before the Shiite governorates jump on board the 21st century.

The only feasible "partition" is two states - Kurdish and Shiite after the Shiites have driven the Sunnis out of Iraq altogether. That is not and never has been in US interests regionally or strategically. In fact preserving a viable Sunni minority in Iraq has been US policy before and after the invasion, otherwise the Suunis would have been overwhelmed by force of numbers by now.

YM - a caution on the BBC/ABC polls -  on the face of it, its sample has always overweighted the Sunni Arabs and underweighted the Kurds.

For instance, in the question as to whether the respondants consider attacks on Coalition forces to be "acceptable" the poll gives a 57% affirmative, breaking it down to 93% of Sunni Arabs questioned, 50% of Shiites and 5% of Kurds.

Going on the known demographics of Iraq - Sunni Arabs 20% Kurds 20% Shia 60% - the 57% affirmative reported indicates the poll sample weighted the Sunni Arabs between 28 and 30% and the Kurds between 10 and 12%.

If the sample had followed the 60/20/20 demographic the "acceptable" vote would have been slightly under than 50% and the "unacceptable" slightly more than 50.

Ergo, the polls are skewed to Sunni Arab respondants whose reactions are on every question are overwhelmingly negative and away from Kurdish respondants whose responses are usually overwhelming  positive. The Shia have always swung around the middle.

The bias seems to originate in the choice to to take   "random" samples from three discrete regions - north, central and south. Their south region is almost wholly Shiite. The central region is large majority Sunni. But the northern region, comprising the 3 almost wholly Kurdish governorates also includes Ninewah (capital Mosul) which has a majority Sunni Arab population and al-Tamin (capital Kirkuk) which has a large Sunni and anti-Kurd/government Turkomen population - almost 50 percent together.

As result of inbuilt bias, the BBC/ABC polls are  only useful in suggesting trends. The trend suggests the Kurds and Sunnis haven't changed their  pro/anti views over the last 4 years, but the Shiites are shifting from pro to anti. Which is not all that surprising.

cyberman's post removed to junk forum (topic bumping)

Please read the wikipedia link on topic bumping. If you have made a point that has not been responded to then don't bump it back to the top of the tree. Assume that site readers are intelligent people who notice that you have made a point that has not been responded to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_(Internet) 

If you read this thread from the beginning you will see that it began with  about 5 really thoughtful  attempts to analyse  actual events in Iraq  and to work out how things are developing.  Then Steve came in with  one sentence and a link to  an article about  US weapons getting into the wrong hands.  After that  was removed Cyberman jumped in  and tried to change the topic to US bases.  Neither of them  bothered to address the substantive issues raised in earlier posts.   If people want to introduce new material to existing threads that is fine,  but it must be done in the context  of the  thread.   We didn't establish this forum as a sort of free for all soap box.

Comrade Bill,

No-one is trying to change the subject. We aren't interested in US plans for enduing bases, per se, or as a diversion , rather these go right to the heart of the matter in establishing the motivation of the US military operation. Without an understanding of what this is,  or was, we can't hope to make sense of anything else.

For example: As Arthur said in his original posting:

5. The US cannot withdraw ...... 

Is it a case of cannot or do not want to? 

and:

8. Nobody who actually understands what is going on has much motive to explain clearly as doing so would undermine various important tactical and strategic objectives without much compensating advantage.

We all, I hope, would really would like to understand what is going on, whether or initial positions turn out to be right or wrong, so I hope that you can think of something better than to just consign this to the junk folder. My understanding now has certainly been modified and improved. I think Arthur is giving away a clue here in his use of the plural as highlighted above. I think he knows, at least as well as the rest of us, that just establishing a 'democracy' in Iraq is far from the true story.

It looks from recent developments that the Iraqi conflict is entering into a new phase. The anti -US forces in Iraq have been, and of course still are, divided along sectarian lines and, at least, as interested in jockeying, not to say fighting,  for their own advantage after the US withdrawal as they have been in ensuring that withdrawal. However, there is an  increasing understanding that a US withdrawal cannot be assumed in the short term and an alliance of forces will be necessary to achieve liberation. This announcement on Al Jazeera as reported in the AP could prove to be very significant in the longer term.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hFBDzwtElBRcfXeLIbdJVx2PDSTgD8S7094G0

The resistance forces are split , not only along sectarian lines, but also on their committment to a unified Iraq as Raed Jarrar and Joshua Holland have recently reported reported.
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/62042
The battle lines are still far from being well defined. For instance, in certain provinces the desire to be free of Al-Qaeda and their allies has led some Sunni groups to ally themselves, at least temporarily, with the Americans. However, it seems likely,  as the US occupation, which is now in its its fourth year, grinds painfully on and will probably continue for several more years, notwithstanding any change of administration in the 2008 US presidential elections, that the struggle will assume more the characteristics of a classical nationalist liberation struggle against an imperial invader. That is to say,  elements who were initially welcoming of the US invasion and the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime will increasingly side with the national liberation forces. If Raed Jarrar and Joshua Holland are correct in their analysis, we should welcome the US siding with the separatists, as this can only strengthen the resolve of the nationalist elements to put aside their own ethnic differences. 

Overseas, the time for arguing about the rights and wrongs of the US Iraqi invasion has passed.  What has been done cannot be undone. In fact, just as there is likely to be a coming together of pro and anti-invasion elements in Iraq, so should there be elsewhere too. Everyone who thought otherwise at the time,  should now recognise the large body of opinion, particularly in the western world, in favour of the US invasion of Iraq and on the grounds, if not on WMDs,  that the  removal of Saddam Hussein and the establishment of a democratic system was justified.  That process has now been completed. It is now time for them to unite with the sceptics,  urge the US to keep their word, respect the wishes of the Iraqi population, and set a timetable for withdrawal.

Iraq has been off the front pages for a while now - both in the mainstream media and at this site. The mainstream press has, in the main, been defeatist from the start and because of the progress being made by the Iraqi people and their allies it's difficult for the 'experts' and opinion-makers to come up with shock-horror headlines.

The pseudo-left still don't get it, and cannot be expected to. They still find comfort in notions of 'blood for oil' and, in the post from cyberman, 'national liberation struggle'.

Progress in Iraq - the defeat of the insurgency and the process of national reconciliation - is happening at such a rate that cyberman himself could not now possibly take seriously the analysis and prediction he made only a few months ago (12 October 2007), namely: "the struggle will assume more the characteristics of a classical nationalist liberation struggle against an imperial invader. That is to say,  elements who were initially welcoming of the US invasion and the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime will increasingly side with the national liberation forces".

Far from a national liberation movement developing, the trend is for former Baathists to support the Iraqi government and its allies against al-Qaeda. The insurgency has diminished and will continue to do so, as the participants wake up to the reality that the old days and ways cannot be restored and as the former Baathists who were once excluded from public service are allowed into public service jobs. The passage of the Justice and Accountability Law is a landmark in this process. The small minority of fascist die-hards will not be allowed back - an estimated 3,500 in number - but they will be permitted to receive government pensions (a revocation of the previous policy which denied them pensions), which should at least keep them quiet. The 30,000 or so former Baath Party members who will be allowed into the public service under the new law are mostly rank-and-file members who may or may not have supported the party's national-socialist aims.

The Sunni's principal parliamentary bloc - the Accordance Front - is about to return to the National Assembly after having boycotted it. In the localities where al-Qaeda had a presence, the Sunni "awakening movement" is working with Iraqi and US troops to crush the jihadis.

Levels of violence are down, generally, and life is returning to normal. Refugees are returning. The 12 million Iraqis who defied the threats of terror to vote in two competitive federal elections show no interest in any illusory national liberation struggle but will be voting again for a new parliament. The Sunni bloc will probably increase its vote next time round.

There are still huge problems in Iraq - it can hardly be portrayed as a peaceful place. But such is the level of achievement that the US has announced a time-table for the withdrawal of about 20,000 troops. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-01/12/content_7410944.htm The Iraqi Security Forces, largely trained by the US, now stand at more than 350,000.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi parliament can direct the Iraqi government to tell the US forces to leave at any time - all that is needed is the numbers in the House.

A national liberation struggle? Hardly.

A victory for the democratic forces? Yes (but still early days: as Samarra showed, it only takes a few suicide bombers to spark widespread sectarian violence).

I do agree with cyberman, in a different thread, where he says:  "Indulging in written predictions, can result in looking quite foolish". His stuff about a growing national liberation struggle makes him look precisely that.

Barry -

Barry,

This could be a re-run  of the Global Warming debate. You leap on one set of good annual figures, for casualties and deaths,  and declare the debate to be over. Actually I think 2007 was one of the worst figures. I suspect that many refugees are returning because they have run out of money and just don't have any choice.

Quote them at me if you like, but I don't particularly want to get into a debate on the death and casualty figures. I really do mean that more is worse.  If you can show that they are falling then so much the better. I certainly don't go along with letting off car bombs in the middle of crowded market places.  There is no real benefit to anyone in that sort of carnage. If you can show that its decreasing then ,  well and good.

I stick by my prediction that a more unified National Liberation struggle will develop. It's happened everywhere, or nearly everwhere,  that countries have been colonised. I wouldn't expect that Iraqis will accept the long term occupation of their country without putting up a fight. Of course I could be wrong about the Americans. You might be quite right and now that "life is returning to normal", as you put it,  they might decide to pull out completely and let the Iraqis get on with it all by themselves. But I don't think so.

"Meanwhile, the Iraqi parliament can direct the Iraqi government to tell the US forces to leave at any time - all that is needed is the numbers in the House. "  Please go on. I do like fairy stories!

I think you inadvertantly used the work 'landmark' when you maybe meant 'benchmark'? Pardon me, for sounding a little sceptical but I do have a sneaking suspicion that the desision to allow the Baathists back, or at least some of them, may have had more than a little to do with the occupying forces.

I'd just like to correct something from my last post. I said that the figures for 2007 were one of the worst. If you go by the figures for US army deaths they were actually the worst. Sorry about that.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/11/06/iraq.main/index.html

And, yes, I do mean worst, I don't like the idea of young Americans being needlessly killed in an imperialist misadventure.

I think you could be quite right in your analysis of the US elections. If you are right and you have a Republican President. maybe John McCain, do you think that US policy will change in Iraq?

Would US policy be much different under a Democratic President?

What do you think of Barry's suggestion that the US would leave, even if they did not want to, but if the Iraq Parliament asked them to?

What is your opinion on the motivations of the US invasion? Did they really believe the WMD story? Was the establishment of democracy their real motivation?

In response to dalek: no, the Baathists are not the new good guys and no-one has argued that they are (though as usual you need to misrepresent your opponents' views). What they are is the defeated guys!    And now they have no choice but to join the political system established by Iraq's democratic federal constitution, which itself was approved by Iraqis in a national referendum. Not to mention the two federal elections in which about 12 million Iraqis voted. (You know, the referendum and elections you opposed and still oppose).

It's about national reconciliation and, as that process strengthens the new democratic Iraq, dalek is bound to oppose it.

As for cyberman, he implicitly concedes that a national liberation movement has not developed in Iraq during the three months since he first made the prediction that it was developing and would develop. Rather than look at the reasons why it hasn't developed - namely, the Iraqi people don't want such a movement but want the further development of national reconciliation and democracy - he just continues to wish that it will happen: "I stick by my prediction that a more unified National Liberation struggle will develop". Talk about fairy-tales!

As I have said on previous occasions, the Bush administration would love to be able to leave Iraq (it has always been an unpopular war in the US), and the Iraqi government and people will be very happy when the conditions in their country allow that to happen. There will be dancing in the street when it happens, not because Iraqis wanted an immediate withdrawal of US forces all along, but on the contrary because the withdrawal will suggest that Iraqis are finally in a reasonable position to defend their own national interests. I believe Iraq will continue to need international support for some time, including a continuing US military presence, though on a much smaller scale.

Iraqi sovereignty means that its government can ask the US to withdraw at any time: that is no fairy-tale. It can be tested any time, but requires a majority of the elected representatives in the National Assembly to vote for a resolution to that effect. If the government declined to act on such a resolution, the parties who had the numbers to get the resolution through would only need to then move and pass a no-confidence motion in the government. A new government would then be formed, consisting of parties seeking the immediate withdrawal. The reality is, despite some chest-beating, that has not happened.

It hasn't happened precisely because the Iraqi people want a democratic future and don't want to blow it by allowing the opponents of democracy to be relatively strengthened by an immediate full-scale withdrawal of Iraq's military allies.

Barry

Barry,

Perhaps you could explain to me what John McCain actually means in the following exchanges:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18573163/

MR. RUSSERT:  But the duly elected people's bodies, the U.S. Congress and the Iraqi parliament, say they want a troop withdrawal.  That's more than a poll.  Isn't that the voice of the people?

SEN. McCAIN:  Well, the--as far as the Iraqi parliament is concerned, the Iraqi government obviously doesn't feel that way, their--the representatives in their government.  Second of all, there is some, a certain amount of domestic political calculations involved there in what the Iraqi, quote, "parliament" said.  The Iraqi parliament has their ability to, to voice their views, and I respect them.  And I, as I say, I--I'll repeat again, I understand how democracies work.  I saw it in Vietnam.......

.............................

MR. RUSSERT:  Would you be in favor of a referendum amongst the Iraqi people to make a decision as to whether U.S. troops should stay or leave?

SEN. McCAIN:  No.....

........................................

SEN. McCain

This government ( the Iraqi government   has to pass the oil revenue sharing law.  This government has to pass de-Baathification.  They have to declare elections in the provinces

What are these domestic political considerations? Why does JM have to put quotes around the Iraqi parliament. If the Iraqi parliament are truly independent why do they "have" to do anything? 

I think you could be quite right in your analysis of the US elections. If you are right and you have a Republican President. maybe John McCain, do you think that US policy will change in Iraq?

What do you think of Barry's suggestion that the US would leave, even if they did not want to, but if the Iraq Parliament asked them to?

What is your opinion on the motivations of the US invasion? Did they really believe the WMD story? Was the establishment of democracy their real motivation?

Would you be in favor of a referendum amongst the Iraqi people to make a decision as to whether U.S. troops should stay or leave?

Quiksilverhg,

Well I know the official position is that the US forces are there at the invitation of the Iraqi Government but, if that is true,  what I don't understand is why the US government are spending up so big, hundreds of billions of dollars,  on permanent,  or 'enduring' in 'Pentagon speak', military bases and their embassy.  The US embassy alone  in Baghdad, consists of 27 buildings on more than 100 acres, and has more employees than all of the other U.S. embassies around the world combined.

One answer might be that the Iraqi people are so united in their support of the US occupation that the chances of being asked to leave are slim to non-existent. However that is not really the case. In May 8 of last year , a majority of Iraq’s parliament signed a petition demanding a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops. Furthermore, opinion polls in Iraq have shown consistent support for the idea of a timetabled US withdrawal. You'll know better than me, but even in the USA, I would say that it is not generally accepted that we are looking at a long term, 30 years or more,  occupation. 

The decision for a long term stay in Iraq must been taken at the highest levels in the US, regardless of any possible future democratic process which might seek to reverse it, either in Iraq or the USA. The vast amounts of money spent so far leaves no other conclusion possible.

There has been a consistent 'spin' in the media that the situation is rapidly improving. The British army have completely pulled out of Basra so it wouldn't be surprising if their casualty rates are down. Similarly in Baghdad large areas have been walled off, and rather that the US patrolling the areas as they used to, the movement of civilians has been controlled by checkpoints. Obviously it makes sense to do this to try to minimise casulalties but let's not pretend that this is 'getting back to normal' as Barry would suggest.

Finally I would suggest that Al Qaeda are the least of the the US 's long term problems in Iraq. They weren't present at all in Iraq before the invasion. Saddam Hussein liked them even less than you guys! It looks like they have overstayed their welcome as far as the Iraqi people are concerned and they may well move on to other activities.