Via the AP: Iraq Unity Talks Set Back; 4 Marines Die
Efforts to form a unity government suffered a new setback Sunday when Iraqi leaders postponed a parliament session after failing to agree on a prime minister.[…]
On the eve of the session, Pachachi announced a delay of “a few days” to give the religiously and ethnically based parties more time to agree on the new prime minister, president and five other top posts that require parliamentary approval.
Before the announcement, Shiite official Hussain al-Shahristani told Sunni and Kurdish leaders that his bloc, which controls 130 of the 275 parliament seats, would decide what to do about al-Jaafari “within the coming two days,” Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman said.
Majority Shiites have been giving similar assurances for the past two weeks, and it was unclear how soon the issue could be settled. CNN quoted Pachachi as saying that with the parliament delay, it could take another month to form a government.
Voters chose the new parliament on Dec. 15, but the legislature met briefly only once last month.
The death of the marines is not linked (directly, any rate) to the prime minister issue, of course; but rather this is one of those weird AP-isms in which the reporter/editor/someone decided that they couldn’t spare the electrons for two stories, so intertwined two into one. They do it all the time and, quite frankly, I don’t get it.
It is probably an editing issue, but it is interesting to note the byline:QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA.
Abdul-Zahra is an Iraqi reporter working for AP. It is typical for most of the major Western news outlets to rely on Iraqi stringers rather than their western reporters due to the fact that the c ountry is so unsafe.
If news outlets could operate at full strength, with their full staff doing reporting, you would probably have less “bundling.”
Since Iraq is extremely unsafe right now, only Arabs like Abdul-Zahra can actually do real reporting.
Comment by Rigo — Monday, April 17, 2024 @ 1:08 am
I like the headline though.
Way too over dramatic, and it amusing to think it might be linked.
I mean, are the Iraqi politicians going on a rampage now, since they can’t form a government?
“That’s right! We’re frustrated, and will keep on killing Marines until we drop!”
Comment by B. Minich, PI — Monday, April 17, 2024 @ 7:51 pm
Our Plan For Iraq
A PLAN FOR IRAQ (AND A WAY OUT FOR US)
After WWI Britain, still an active colonial power, participated in a nation building experiment and the country of Iraq was the result. The purpose was to establish a puppet government and enable the British to exploit the vast oil reserves in the area. For almost ninety years the unstable mix of peoples in Iraq had been held together by force and terror on the part of the governing entity. With the removal of Hussein from power, the country of Iraq is in the midst of splitting apart into warring groups. The process is inexorable and the result inevitable. Why not encourage this “cultural correction” to proceed in an orderly fashion and reduce bloodshed?
Any solution for the insurrection and civil war occurring in Iraq will be realized by the Iraqis themselves. The following describes a plan for three autonomous regions, with economic incentive for the Sunnis. Perhaps many Iraqis would consider this plan because it respects boundaries that existed long before Western meddling in the region.
There are three dominant, disparate groups: Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd. These groups should be allowed to divide the country into three autonomous regions roughly corresponding to the long existing historical-cultural divisions reflected in the recent elections. Because of its mixed demographics, Baghdad itself would have to be divided or remain neutral. The traditional Sunni region would have to be expanded to include some significant oil-rich territory or the Sunnis would need to receive oil payments from the Shiite and Kurd regions. The Sunni portion of the hard scrabble land of Iraq unfortunately doesn’t include any appreciable amount of oil. This is a major problem and another one is that the Sunnis have lost the total political control they had under Hussein. Most of the insurrectionists are Sunnis. Common sense tells us that if the Sunnis had their own autonomous region and significant income from oil, they would be satisfied.
Currently, the Sunnis rightfully feel excluded from representation and income and extremist elements in the Sunni community are ready to destroy Iraq if their demands are not met. The elections gave the Shiites majority control. After five hundred years of dominance and harassment by the Sunnis in the area now called Iraq, it is incredibly naïve to expect the Shiites to be magnanimous and share power equally with the minority Sunnis. And recent events have made it painfully obvious that many Sunnis will never accept a secondary position, which is their fate in a “unified” Iraq. The tables have turned and now it is the Shiites who are dominating and harassing the Sunnis. Sunni leaders are complaining about Shiite death squads and are asking U.S. forces for protection. Better to have three autonomous regions. Meanwhile, the Kurds are already on the way to autonomy since they have made deals to sell oil independent of the central government.
The three groups could each elect representatives and convene constitutional conventions and write their own constitutions. With three separate groups there is an excellent chance that they could get along among themselves. There would have to be a demilitarized “no-man’s land” along the borders of the regions to prevent cross border incursions. Maybe patrolling those borders would be a job for our F-16’s if we are invited and supported. The borders with Turkey, Iran and Syria would definitely have to be protected. Each region could arrest or expel foreigners who lack proper I.D. since many of the hard core terrorists are from neighboring countries and abroad. Instead of trying to pacify groups that will probably never cooperate, just allow the three groups to form their own autonomous regions. And get out of their way. Then we could leave or at least drastically reduce our presence.
The hopes for a unified Iraq have been shattered. Three regions is not the ideal solution but it may the only answer to quell the violence and allow us to get our troops out of a hellish situation. The plan has an added benefit: the Kurds. For whatever reason, they’ve always been our loyal supporters. Their region has plentiful oil and they would be more than willing to sell it to us, which will please Bush. The Kurds are the most rational of the three groups, being more secular than sectarian. They might even form a democracy.
The Shiites and the Kurds each want self rule and they have for many years. Why not let them have it? The Sunnis would want self rule also if their region had oil. The primary reason the Sunnis want a strong central government is that their region lacks oil and historically they’ve been able to derive income from oil appropriated from the Shiite and Kurd regions. The Sunnis are beginning to realize that they will never again control the country of Iraq and its oil. They are probably at the point of understanding that their own autonomous region is the best that they can hope for, especially if an agreement can be reached with the Shiites and the Kurds to provide the Sunnis with a share of oil income.
The bottom line is that we have to present and encourage a solution that reflects the cultural reality of Iraq. Obviously, we are doing the opposite. The Wilsonian ideal of promoting freedom and democracy around the world, that Bush has adopted, has backfired in Iraq. In fact, the elections decreased the chances for democracy by exacerbating ancient sectarian differences and hatreds. Our efforts in Iraq are doing nothing but adding fuel to the fire of insurrection and civil war. Recently, our troops have been ordered to stand-down in the ongoing civil war so we now have 130,000 troops in Iraq whose main mission is to stay alive. Iraq is not a melting pot ready for democracy, but a volatile stew that our interference has stirred up. The recent increase in sectarian violence has only made the situation worse. Iraq is approaching the point of critical mass and ready to explode into anarchy. Reasonable parties must realize that the greatest chance for a lasting peace will be when each group is given its own space, relief from violence and a viable economy. Three autonomous regions would seem to be the best answer for now, at least until things cool down and reason prevails.
Is this the best approach? Or is there another, better one? Ask the Iraqis! So far, we haven’t done that.
-Richard Parr
Comment by Richard Parr — Saturday, April 22, 2024 @ 6:17 pm