blony

As reported in Iraq newspaper, Az-Zaman (title link) and Asia Times via Iraq Daily, We Vote, then we throw you out, a 'pact of honor' has been signed by more than 57 political parties and influential tribes in the country.

The groups agreeing to our pact of honor represent all hues of the Iraqi society
...
Any government assuming power after the December 15 elections will have to take the signatories demands into account.
...
Among the signatories were Ahmad Jalabi, current deputy prime minister and representatives from influential Shiite and Sunni factions.

The pact explicitly calls on the new government to make a clear distinction between “resistance” of foreign troops and “terror.”

Araji [Bahaa al-Araji of the Sadr movement which helped draft the pact] said the pact “considers resistance a legitimate right but condemns terror, violence, the killing of civilians and kidnapping.”

He said the pact also demands “the departure of occupation troops in the light of a specific timetable. The legacy of the occupation troops must be removed and no concession be given to them to set up bases whether temporary or permanent.”

On Israel, the pact says any new government must be under obligation no[t] to normalize relations with the Jewish state.

The demands in the pact are not binding. However, the pact shows that pressure for the withdrawal of U.S. troops is building in Iraq as well as in the United States.

The major factions in the current Shiite coalition have signed the pact and al-Sadr movement is reported to have agreed to join the coalition on the understanding that they will implement it if they win the elections.

The pact even calls for the release of what it describes as “the sons of the honorable resistance”, currently raging in Sunni-dominated areas, from both U.S. and Iraqi jails.

The Asia Times piece refers to the same pact but is considerably more fleshed out with various perspectives. Most disturbing is the reporting on polls of Iraqis:

• At least half of the Iraqi population is still not convinced of the merits of Western-style democracy, at least the White House-promoted version.
• Half believe that the occupiers should have never set foot in Mesopotamia.
• Sixty percent think that they turned the country into an even bigger disaster than it was after the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, the first Gulf war in 1991 and 12 years of United Nations sanctions.
• Two thirds of the population wants the occupiers out.
• Half the people polled by the BBC said Iraq needed a strong leader (a "Saddam without a moustache"?)
• Only 28% said democracy was a priority.

Prognosis: Iraq may be on its way to extinction

Weaving reporting with analysis, Pepe Escobar (Asia Times), predicts the break up of Iraq along sectarian lines.

The US would be left with little more than the Green Zone - which is not exactly an oil lake - and a lot of empty desert. Essentially, Kurds and Shi'ites will be able to decide what to do with their oil revenues. The Kurds, for instance, have already signed a contract with a Norwegian oil company to drill for oil.

One harmonic chord

What really glues them [Iraqis] to TV sets is Saddam on trial (the majority of Iraqis, Shi'ites and Kurds, has already condemned him to death).

Unfortunately, Hussein has been enabled to make a shambles of his trial, to date, on one hand and Condoleeza Rice is whining about what she calls an international 'boycott' on the other.

Encouraging: I'd rather do it myself!

Remember the old commercial where a 'helpful' mother is breathing down the neck of a young woman who turns on her and says in exasperation: MOM! I'd rather do it my self!

The prognosis in Iraq may be more optimistic than it looks on the surface and the folks in the U.S. who urge deployment and the primacy of Iraqi responsibility may hold the key to the shortest path to recovery for that country.

The, so-called, 'pact of honor' suggests Shiite empathy with the (mostly Sunni) resistance. This dovetails interestingly with a scathing, albeit arguable, analysis in an op-ed by Haith al-Dari, secretary general of the Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq, followed by a proposal that actually makes eminent sense:

For the political process to succeed it must proceed in a healthy environment which will take shape only when occupation comes to an end. The solution to the Iraqi problem, in the view of the Association of Muslim Scholars, is simple and logical: it is one that fully complies with international legality and would serve to reinforce it; that would put an end to the daily haemorrhage of Iraqi blood; that would lay the foundations for a state of law that protects the rights of all its citizens and seeks to secure basic human dignity; that provides an alternative to occupation, as explained in the memorandum we submitted to the United Nations and the Arab League.

This solution must be based, first, on an announcement by the US and its allies of a timetable for withdrawing their troops. Second, it would entail replacing the occupation forces with a UN force whose main task would be to fill the security void. This would be followed, thirdly, by the formation of an interim Iraqi government for six months under the supervision of the UN in order to conduct genuine parliamentary elections in which all parts of the Iraqi population would take part. Finally, the duly elected Iraqi government would take charge of the task of rebuilding the country's civil and military institutions.

Nothing will work in Iraq unless the root of the problem is addressed: the occupation must end.

The positions of Mr. al-Dari and the signatories of the 'pact of honor' are not at all inconsistent with the ideas of John Murtha and the majority of Americans. It may well be that the time has come for Iraqis to take over arranging their own future. The threads that may intertwine Iraqis in the near term:

• Speeded up trial and disposition of Saddam Hussein
• Continuing the reconciliation meetings sponsord by Arabs
• Sense of self-ownership of destiny
• Common sense: Iraqis do not need more war, civil or otherwise
• US withdrawal, perhaps as a willing goat, will enhance reconciliation among Shiites and Sunnis. Both can blame the U.S. for much and forgive eachother.
• A fresh start at a constitution with U.N. assistance
• UN forces to secure borders
• Trusted brokers (probably UN) to mediate differences
• U.S. acknowledgement that the time has come for Iraqis to take over combined with readiness to fulfill the promises of rebuilding
• A turnover in the US Congress and, finally, in the executive branch

Flies in the ointment

• Stubborn intransigence of Bush administration
• Iranian influence and meddling
• Shiite (re)vengefulness against Sunnis
• Militias loyal to demagogues and power struggles
• Corruption

Note that we don't mention al-Quaeda as a significant factor. Al Quaeda was not welcome in Iraq prior to the invasion and occupation. The influx has been a matter of the void left by insufficient US resources to secure Iraq's borders, disarm its citizens and provide security to all of them. That would have left no apparent path to power and influence but the political option and would have enabled the promised restoration of an infrastructure.

The marriage between Al-Quaeda and what Sunni and Shia, alike, see as legitimate resistance to occupation has been one of convenience. But it has worn thin; Iraqis have been, and will continue, turning against terrorists who slaughter their own.

Should, for some reason, that fail to pan out - then, the U.S., as with Afghanistan, would have a legitimate reason for war with Iraq. No one doubts this, few would argue with the correctness of it and there would be international support for it.

But Al-Quaeda is fast becoming a criminal pariah throughout the world.

Reinforcement of U.S. intents and motives

We will argue for a long time about the justifications for invading and occupying Iraq. Yes, reaction from 9/11 was a factor. Yes, the history of Saddam Hussein was a factor. Yes, the neo-cons' hypothetical Greater Middle East was a factor. Yes, oil was a factor. Yes, Bush family personal acrimony was probably a factor. And, yes, if democracy was among the highest of Bush administration ideals - the U.S. wouldn't have declared the rest of the world irrelevant and invaded and occupied Iraq in the first place.

This is NOW and reality has changed. The world agrees it needs a stable, hopefully whole and healthy, Iraq. That is, now, the stated intent of the U.S.; the debate is about how best to make or enable or allow that to occur.

The heavy hand was not heavy enough in the first place. Now it is too heavy. If the U.S., now, is genuinely altruistic regarding Iraq, it is time to set it free and get out of the way while remaining available as a friend.

How Americans can help

We've reversed our position. Since the beginning, we've called for a change in course that consisted of an all-out effort to quell the chaos in Iraq and enable the incubation process by providing adequate security. While we think that would have been effective earlier, a corner has been turned. We agreed with John Murtha, assuming no change in course by Bush. In the recent flurry of speeches by Bush, we perceive no forseeable change in the addministration's tactics. We now agree, wholeheartedly, with Murtha ... and emerging consensus among U.S. citizens and most Iraqi citizens.

What the hell is Democracy about besides consensus?

Support a timetable for withdrawal. Perhaps that might be combined with an offer to secure the borders of Iraq - under the auspices of the U.N.

Stand by the U.S. commitments to help with rebuilding Iraq but get out of the way.

Clean out Congress in 2006!