In Sunday's New York Times, Alissa J. Rubin and Damien Cave team up for a mammoth article "In a Force for Iraqi Calm, Seeds of Conflict" which begins on the front page, continues on all of A14 and winds down with over half of A15. Four photos accompany the text, three by Joao Silva and one by Michael Kamber.
The article addresses the so-called Awakening Councils which are all the rage in Iraq these days as the White House hopes greed of currency can overcome anger at the continued occupation of Iraq by foreigners. It won't work but the sources for the story are military men -- all men. In fact, not one woman, Iraqi or US, appears to have been spoken to for the entire story. Are 'Awakening' Councils working?
The best judge of that would not be the US military or those in the 'Awakening' Councils but people living under the latest armed thugs. "People" would include women. But apparently, the fact that US money is being passed from the military to thugs necessitates that Cave and Ruben only focus on the money transfers.
'Awakening' Councils are the efforts to 'reach out' (buy off) to the Sunni males. It's thought that if you throw cash at the problem, it goes away. Having already tossed cash out at the Shi'ite thugs and seen no drop in violence, the White House decided to pay off another group and call that a 'new' 'strategy.'
It hasn't worked.
Reality is that (and this isn't really addressed) the collaborators with Americans are regularly targeted for assassination (with some of the assassinations resulting in 'success' -- their targets do not escape merely wounded). Another reality (which Cave and Rubin do note) is that you now have on the US payroll many who have killed and wounded US service members.
If there's going to be a peace, resistance fighters who have targeted US service members (which is their right, this is a war) will have to be brought into the process. But this isn't about peace or preparing for withdrawal and you have to wonder how the 'Awakening' Councils would play out across America if most Americans grasped exactly who was now being presented with US tax dollars.
Rubin and Cave (with US military escorts) apparently traveled to a lot of locations (only Stephen Farrell is mentioned in the end credits -- "contributed reporting from Baghdad, Saab al-Bor and Iskandariya") and spoke with the US military higher ups throughout and whomever they were steered to.
It would have been nice if they could have attempted to speak to actual Iraqis living under 'Awakening' Councils. For those who missed it, the 'rationale' for this non-plan is not to throw away more US tax dollars, it's that these thugs will allegedly make areas 'safer.' To determine any safety factor a reporter needs to do something other than look at US official figures (fudged) on violence. And since they were in the area already, it's a real shock (as pointed out by a friend who covered the first Gulf War) that planned (by the military) tour or not, the reporters apparently made no effort to break away for even a second when passing Iraqis who weren't listed on the designated junket.
They spy, with their little eyes, a woman pushing a stroller. They make no attempt to speak to her. What does she represent? Since they're reporters and not impressionists, they really aren't allowed to 'create' meanings with their words.
The US military wants Americans to know that they are working with the 'Awakening' Councils and they think there have been improvements but -- realizing that Americans do not buy the 'turned corner' nonsense having been sold it one too many times already -- want everyone to know that they can only do so much.
That 'message' could have been delivered in the Green Zone. What's the point of leaving it if you're not really offering anything?
Leaving the Green Zone is dangerous. There's no suggestion of "Cowards!" here. But it is worth noting that, from Cave and Rubin's writing, they were see some differences but they made no efforts to speak to the citizens.
Reality is that brutality can result in a lot of 'normalcy' to the naked eyes.
Reality is that the 'Awakening' Councils are not being monitored in any way, nor were their Shi'ite versions. They're being funded and as long as no one knows about any violence (mass graves turning up appears to have no real impact), a happy face can be stamped on it and it can be dubbed 'improved!'
Nowhere in the article is the Shi'ite reaction explored. Why are they so worried? (Even the central puppet government is worried.) Because the US backed the al-Maliki crowd and now it appears to be 'switching sides' and the repression and violence targeting one group can now potentially be targeted at another. (There are many groupings in Iraq. Cave and Rubin focus on tribal for the bulk of their article.)
The reporters do convey the fact that these armed Sunnis do not support al-Maliki. That's not a surprise and that's why the puppet is so worried. It's not just the armed Sunnis that consider his 'rule' illigitmate, it's most Iraqis. Nouri al-Maliki was installed and all the US military has done for over a year now is allow him to maintain his position. If the US military left, the puppet government would most likely collapse. It has no popular support and al-Maliki has long been seen as too cozy with Americans and too willing to back down (his infamous statement, in the wake of the September Baghdad slaughter by mercenaries for Blackwater, that sounded so tough, so in control, vanished the moment he returned to Iraq and, while he was still out of the country, the Times was quoting members of the Iraqi military stating they weren't listening to al-Maliki).
al-Maliki is a puppet. In terms of puppet standards, he's a lousy 'leader.' (He's a lousy leader period; however, we're focusing on the realities of what he is and why he is.) al-Maliki was brought into power by the US in April of 2006 and the US stuck by him because they thought he could push through all their plans while giving them the appearance of being Iraqi plans. He's not been able to.
The Iraqi parliament has a level of independence and speaks far more for Iraqis than does al-Maliki. So the fact that he repeatedly stumbled and fumbled while attempting to put together a cabinet -- something that was supposed to take place immediately but he barely managed it by the end of May 2006 -- or the fact that he's not had a full cabinet gor sometime has been overlooked because he's supposed to be pushing through US legislation. The Parliament has repeatedly resisted. Those supporting the theft of Iraqi law (it's not just the White House -- it also includes members of Congress -- Democrats and Republicans) keep waiting for him to deliver and get a little antsy. The escalation was supposed to tamp down on the violence (it really didn't, al-Sadr's call for his supporters to pull back has more to do with the slight reduction in violence) and reduce the call, by Americans, for withdrawal. (Iraqis overwhelming want the foreign forces out of their country. That's little reported on and, when it is, no one seems to care.) Even with the waves of Operation Happy Talk, even with some Americans foolishly buying into the spin of 'safer,' the people still want the troops brought home.
al-Maliki came close to being replaced twice already and all the DC talk about 'progress' is centered around the theft of Iraqi oil. Listen closely and you hear statements to the effect of, "We've given him space, now he needs to produce." And produce never means addressing the lack of potable water or the malnutrition in Iraq (in fact, next month the rations to Iraqi are cut in half but no one wants to explore that in the mainstream -- look for puzzled "How Did That Happen!" pieces when relief agencies document a significant rise in the already alarming rate of malnutrition) or electricity or any of the basics. "Produce" means allowing foreign corporations to make big bucks off Iraqi oil, to operate under terms that they wouldn't be allowed to in any non-occupied country.
And to maintain those contracts, it's necessary to have US forces in Iraq for decades. Which is why we have the permanent bases (with more planned) that no one's supposed to talk about. To be fair, in her last townhall meeting with citizens of her district, US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wanted to offer that "nothing lasts forever." So let's just say "permanent in our lifetimes and the foreseeable future" since Pelosi seems to be on some view that if it's merely decades or even a century, it's not 'permanent.'
Big Oil isn't the only beneficiary and other business want in as well. Fortunately, they contribute a great deal of money in every election cycle. And there are also misguided souls who think 'national security' means economic dictatorship. (Which goes a long way towards explaining the exploitive 'deals' passed off as 'free trade.')
The reality is that none of the above, even if achieved, helps the average American but Congress has made it clear it's not trying to help the American people. That's why the illegal war drags on, that's why Democratic or Republican controlled, the Congress has nothing to be proud of in this decade (which we're not far from the end of).
Reality is that what happens in Iraq is an offense on every level and the language conveys that in one quote Rubin and Cave cite. Col Martin Stanton ("chief of reconciliation and engagement for the Multi-national Corps-Iraq") explains that the armed Sunnis have seen "no burning bush" and then makes it even worse by saying they haven't come "over to this side of the Lord."
While greed motivates the DC players, never factor out xenophobia and grasp that Stanton was chosen to speak to the press.
In terms of the 'success,' the most telling moment is deep in the article. In Ramadi, Second Lt. Stephen Lind, with the reporters, sees something that disturbs him. A local sheik (with 'Awakening' Council members) is also being protected by the Iraqi military. Lind asks them why they are present (they're not supposed to be "a rule that bans the Iraqi Army from the city") and is told that "The sheik told us to come." And? The Iraqi military stays and the US military moves on. Semi-quickly. What rules are being followed?
Rubin and Cave observe, "The standoff, though, underscored the Awakening's long-term challenge." It underscored a great deal more.
New content at The Third Estate Sunday Review:
Truest statement of the week
A Note to Our Readers
Editorial: Should we pray to Santa?
TV: The Weak Get Weaker
The Nation featured 491 male bylines in 2007 -- how many female ones?
Roundtable
"I Hate The War"
Dems & Iraq
Iowa
Cynthia McKinney announces run for president
Things to watch, things to listen to
Highlights
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
the new york times
alissa j. rubin
damien cave
the third estate sunday review
