News analysis Newsbook
America and Iraq
A troubled farewell
Dec 23rd 2011, 12:40 by A.F. | BAGHDAD
SEVERAL bombs exploded in Baghdad on Thursday morning, killing dozens of people in the Iraqi capital's worst attack in a year and stoking fears that without American soldiers, an unravelling political situation could herald a return for Iraq to the bad old days of sectarian bloodshed.
The troops' final departure on December 18th was a quiet affair marked by flag-folding and the rumble of convoys heading towards Kuwait. But though many have lamented the Americans’ failure to oversee the creation of a functioning government or to bring security to Iraq, their presence may have been a stabilising factor and their departure has left people fearful for Iraq’s future. As army trucks kicked up their last clouds of Iraqi dust, a political crisis descended on Baghdad that could fracture the fragile power-sharing government and re-open sectarian grievances.
Iraqia, the parliamentary bloc which includes many Sunni politicians and won the support of most of the Sunni population in the elections held in 2010, has suspended its participation the ruling coalition. One Iraqia MP said that in doing so, his party hoped to ring alarm bells that the country was going in the wrong direction.
After the elections Iraqia, which won a plurality of seats, agreed—reluctantly—to participate in a government led by Nuri al-Maliki, who commands the support of many Shia parties and voters. They struck a bargain, they say, in which a member of Iraqia would be defence minister, and the bloc’s leader, Ayad Allawi, would play a central role in government. None of this has happened. No defence or interior minister has been confirmed, and power is increasingly concentrated in Mr Maliki’s hands. Iraqia alleges that Shia militias responsible for much of the sectarian violence that tore the country apart five years ago have been incorporated into the security forces, and target Sunnis.
The cracks in the government are increasingly apparent. Saleh al-Mutlak, a Sunni member of Iraqia who is deputy prime minister, called Mr Maliki a dictator during an interview with CNN, an American television network, last week. His boss swiftly called for a vote of no confidence in him though this has yet to take place. Tanks are reportedly parked outside Mr Mutlak’s house. An arrest warrant has been issued for Tariq al-Hashemi, another senior Sunni politician, after his former aides appeared on television claiming that he had participated in terrorist activities.
Sunni politicians outside Baghdad are increasingly worried about their position. In Diyala, a mixed province northwest of the capital, there were reports of Sunni politicians being arrested and bullied, apparently on orders from the government in Baghdad. Earlier in December Sunni and Kurdish members of the provisional council united against their Shia counterparts and announced a bid for federalism, a move that would minimise Baghdad’s political and military control of the province. Protesting against the provincial government's actions, Shia rioters gathered around the council building and blocked the main road through the province.
Ordinary Iraqis frequently express bored disdain for their ineffective, corrupt government. But now people are afraid that this undignified sectarian political squabble will spill onto the streets. Sunnis fear that that they will suffer most. Watching the news on a crackly television in a shop in Baghdad, one young Sunni man said he feared sectarian violence would return to Iraq. “I think if the Americans stayed, it would be better,” he said.
(Photo credit: AFP)
In this blog, our correspondents respond to breaking news stories and provide comment and analysis. The blog takes its name from newsbooks, the 16th-century precursors to newspapers, which covered a single big story, such as a battle, a disaster or a sensational trial
Advertisement
- Americas view | The Americas
- Babbage | Science and technology
- Bagehot's notebook | British politics
- Banyan | Asia
- Baobab | Africa
- Blighty | Britain
- Buttonwood's notebook | Financial markets
- Cassandra | The World in 2012
- Charlemagne's notebook | European politics
- Clausewitz | Defence, security and diplomacy
- Democracy in America | American politics
- Eastern approaches | Ex-communist Europe
- Free exchange | Economics
- Game theory | Sports
- Graphic detail | Charts, maps and infographics
- Gulliver | Business travel
- Johnson | Language
- Leviathan | Public policy
- Lexington's notebook | American politics
- Multimedia | Audio, video and videographics
- Newsbook | News analysis
- Prospero | Books, arts and culture
- Schumpeter | Business and management
Most commented
- Will the euro survive 2012 intact?
- Japan's immigration control: Gulag for gaijin
- Newt Gingrich: Newt and the "food-stamp president"
- The Republican nomination: Live-blogging the Republican debate
- Hungary's travails: Budapest vs Brussels
- Charlemagne: And then there was one
- Taiwan’s elections: It’s all right, Ma
- The Republican nomination: Red-meat delivery
- Income inequality: Who exactly are the 1%?
- The South Carolina primary: The slog begins
Over the past five days
Most recommended
- Technological change: The last Kodak moment?
- Rioting in Romania: The battle of Bucharest
- Daily chart: Winners and losers
- Internet regulation: Black ops
- Newt Gingrich: Newt and the "food-stamp president"
- The euro zone crisis: France goes soft-core
- Civilian drones: Difference engine: Unblinking eye in the sky
- Mexico's drug war: Working together
- The visible hand
- Satire in South Korea: Sneaky tricksters, unite!
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
- The week ahead
- From Newsbook
- Micro no more
- From Babbage
Subscribe to The Economist's free e-mail newsletters and alerts.
Subscribe to The Economist's latest article postings on Twitter
See a selection of The Economist's articles, events, topical videos and debates on Facebook.
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
The past three hundred years of history have taught us (or at least should have) that freedom is not for the faint hearted. It is bloody, complex, messy, hard work, and it only survives as long as those fighting for it don't give up.
True freedom fighters will always be fighting two enemies: The tyrant at their front denying their right to freedom, and the one at their rear consisting of the nea-sayers and elitists with their ever ready list of reasons why it is too hard, or not wise, or not worth the effort, or just plain wrong to want freedom when it costs so much.
America has produced the greatest group of freedom fighters in history. They did not give up at Valley Forge and created the Union. They did not give up at Gettysburg and preserved the Union. They did not give up at Normandy and freed Europe and turned Germany into an ally. They did not give up at Okinawa and gained an ally in Japan. They did not give up Pusan and saved South Korea from the dreadful fate of North Korea.
Unfortunately they were forced by the neasayers to surrender in Vietnam and deliver that country to a half century of hell and repression under communism.
And as of right now it's looking like the liberal elite have won again in Iraq by getting us to pull out before the job was done there. I'm afraid we will look back on this as the time we pulled defeat from the jaws of victory and doomed the Middle East to yet more years of poverty and tyranny.
USA invaded and massacred 100,000 Iraqi and then chicken out.
After they have killed, tortured and mutilated hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, after they have destroyed and stolen billions of dollars of infrastructures and treasures, after they have destroyed peace and stability in Iraq, after they have destroyed the social fabric in Iraq, the Americans now declare themselves advisors of the political and social system of Iraq. What a shame!
George Bush and his regime attacked Iraq, and over the next nine years America ruined the country for millions of men women and children, while killing and maming tens of thousands of innocent people. Fortunately, Dick Cheney's plan to steal their oil failed!
widollar,
I think the record probably shows that sunni insurgents, sectarian violence and the efforts of Al Qaedia Iraq wrecked the country. Wasn't going to count all the looting though, but I think that could be attributed to the locals too.
If you pine away for the days of Saddam, why don't you move to Tikrit?
Have a happy new years..
If nothing else, this thread provides testimony that many Americans are too lazy or stupid, to look beyond the propaganda that's fed to them. The telltale signs that a) there were no WMD and b) that American soldiers wouldn't be welcomed by the people of Iraq were clear and obvious to anybody with a modicum of scepticism.
In contrast to the brainwashed sheeple, the American elites were well aware of both, but were stupid enough to believe that America's alleged military might would easily overcome b) and prevent the loss of credibility due to a). Among others, France's president, Chirac, was kind enough to publicly warn them. He was dismissed and vilified. Arab ass would be strongly kicked and make them submit in awe.
Make no mistake, America's power and standing in the world won't recover from the epic failure in this war of poor choice. No amount of horseshit can and will change that. Vietnam left American prestige in Asia in tatters, Iraq does the same in the Middle East.
The American will make sure the Iraqi kill each using american weapon. This is cheaper way than staying in Iraq.
As for the locals going at it with each other - You need to learn your weapons. Most of what different sects and insurgents are using are of Soviet/Russian make, albeit, with IP heavily extracted from Hugo Schmeisser over 55 years ago (think MP 40, Sturmgewehr, etc.).
Well at least we (the US) didn't create a bunch of synthetic countries as we "bailed out."
I can not help saying bloody hegemony cause all of this.Anyone who can tell me why an independent country,s affairs should be judged by others.Is usa nominated peace keeper by aliens?Interfering would only exacerbate everthing
macmyway -
Interfering in what? Explain exactly what the US was interfereing in?
Their allies were being threatened by Saddam Hussein in the 1990s. Outright with military action, namely occupation of Kuwait in 1990, later by diplomatic noise, possible plots (like a supposed assination attempt on President George Bush Sr.) as well as by troop movements.
Saddam Hussein was not some peaceful, indigeneous, noble third world personality that the left wing seem to fall in love with...
By the way, the US was invited into the area in the 1980s, with the reflagging of Kuwait tankers, as well as with Saudi's desiring insurance (how one prince described the once relatively secret military infrastructure in the desert back in the 1980s).
I had acquaintances based in Bahrain in mid-1980s. Seems the Gulf States were quite welcoming to some extent.
It has now become the norm to violate the territorial sovereignty of other countries with impunity. They will fight back using terrorism and we shall continue to be enmeshed in this never ending cycle of hit-run-hit game.
Joseph,
It used to be the norm to violate territorial sovereignty up until WWI. Following that was an intellectual transition period, albeit one flaunted by fascist powers. Diplomatic standards arising after WWII meant usually that some serious excuse/justification had to be provided for military action, although the Korean War probably provided the last of the blatant, world recognized land grabs, in this case by the communists.
All other types of actions tended to be far more complicated (see Arab-Israeli conflict, Kashmir, various conflicts emerging from decolonization).
The toppling of Afghanistan's Taliban followed the norms of international law, interestingly enough along the context of what the Austria Hungarians wanted to do to Serbia in 1914.
The Iraq invasion followed a decade of tense armistice and low level actions (recall Operation Desert Fox under Clinton). So things are not so straightforward.
As for terrorism, it had been practiced in a different, more left-wing, nationalist context in the Middle East and Europe 1970s, 1980s and 1990s (see Munich, plane hijackings, a ship hijacking, etc.)).
Seems the Salafist, islamic extremist variety tends to eschew much concern for civilian casualties and bad press in the west. Probably the suicidal aspects of operations are more blatant. See massacres in Algeria, the Taleban regime in general, the Taleban assassination campaigns in both Afghanistan and Pakistan as insurgent tactics, Al Quaeda Iraq's violent actions eventually alienating local Iraqi's, car and suicide bombings amidst civilians in general, the list goes on.
I think what Osama eventually demonstrated (and shown by the life of Zarqawi and others) is that they are just power hungry extremists who would have found excuses to engage in criminal behavior regardless of made up excuses (like troops based in some desert in Saudi Arabia). Just Middle Eastern equivalents Shoko Asahara and his Aum Shinrikyo (or do you think Japan brought that nerve gas attack upon itself too).
It could be a god-sent opportunity for foreign interferences to foster a civil war between the militant bros and the militant Shiite.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/mitt-romney-on-iraq-war-in-hindsight-obviousl...
Gov. Mitt Romney - “Well, if we knew at the time of our entry into Iraq that there were no weapons of mass destruction, if somehow we had been given that information, obviously we would not have gone in.”
Thanks Hibro.
That is just about the most stupid comment ever made by a prominent person about the US intervention in Iraq.
I recall Colin Powell's (remember him? Another casualty of the Iraq war) presentation of "evidence" of WMD to the UN and recall how unpersuasive it was.
A dictator with a vast army and secret police force apparently had to hide a biological weapons factory in the back of a truck. Ha, ha, ha Colin. Pull the other one; its got bells on it. Remember Nigerian yellowcake? That sounded bogus even before it was proven to be.
To some extent I sympathise with Americans who were persuaded that going into Iraq was a good thing. Often in international affairs the government has information that it cannot share and people are entitled to believe that its proposals are based on the best advice available and not on lunatic ideology. On an issue like this there ought to be degree of trust in government. At least they ought not tell outright lies.
In the long run the permanent loss of trust between government and governed in the US and elsewhere will be the true legacy of Iraq.
I sometimes wonder why it is that the third world is not permitted to make the same mistakes or stuff up endlessly as other countries are and that the only difference between now and ancient times -when countries were permitted to f**k up- is the the ability nowadays to instantly intervene.
Think of England during the Wars of the Roses. The deposition of an incompetent king lead to hundreds of years of most incompetent leadership but eventually England got through without the intervention of any foreign country showing the English how they really ought to govern themselves. England is probably in part English because of this episode.
The US both before and after the Civil War was not a model of good governance. Quite the opposite. In fact if took the Americans the best part of 100 years after having fought one another to work out a way to be an American that did not include racial identity. Foreigners had no role in this. Foreign intervention might have spend it up.
For decades after Canada became independent (1967) Canadian elections were bought with booze and bribes. No one intervened to insist to insist that Canada follow a non-existent model of free elections. It developed one of its own. Canada made it through OK.
So why is that the emerging nations have to emerge instantly with crystal clear governance and balanced elections? Why is that they need foreign intervention when the nations dominant today (mostly Anglo-Saxon) managed to become the dominant nations with out it even though our past history is really no worse than theirs?
I think that the third world ought to be cut some slack and given the opportunity to work it out for themselves even if they get it wrong. It will take longer but the results are more likely to take than something imposed by smarty pants westerners who have no understanding of their own dismal history.
This is the wisest post I have read in this thread. Thank you for posting it. Foreign countries must not intervene in the internal affairs of a country. The interventions of the US in many countries have brought only evils, killings, murders, assassinations, tortures and mutilations of human beings - Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, the South American countries, Somalia, Libya, etc. China, on the other hand, preaches and practices a police of non-intervention and the peaceful development of the world. It proposes a policy of no invasion, no bombing and no economic sanctions.
Gordon,
Depends on who you are talking about, and when. There are quite a few occassions where countries are "left" to develop on their own. One could say the Arab spring is a reaction to the West complacently getting along with a set of polities. Afghanistan in the 1990s is another prime example. Interestingly, S. Korea suprised everyone too (except Walter Rostow), despite the huge amounts of aid and troop deployments.
As for interference in certain occasions, seems they resulted from the local polity attacking others, or being in the midst of some greater power rivalry (like the Great Game, or the Cold War).
S0 Japan went off the handle in the 1930s and 1940s and got occuppied. Similarly, Iraq pursued an aggressive policy against allies of the west in 1990 (notably occupying Kuwait), lost a war and engaged in adversarial actions, including violent ones, that helped enabled the proponents of the 2003 invasion.
Afghanistan was pretty much left alone to its devices, aside from some foreign policy experts. No one cared about it in the early 1990s. Then the Taliban decided to dote on Al Qaeda, and play host to their leadership. To say the least, only an extremist would say it is somehow unfair that their should be a reaction following a series of attacks, including those on September 11, 2001.
Conversely, the Egyptian army and civilian strongmen regimes of Sadat and Mubarak received considerable support to secure piece - Essentially a great buy off a la the Caesars of the first century, to make sure there wasn't a fifth Egyptian-Israeli conflict (and to mitigate the Soviet presence in the Middle East).
More complicated are the cold war cases. Korea stemmed from the Japan occupation, and the US tried to pull out, but got pulled back in by the North Koreans' invasion (with Chinese and Soviet support). And it seems Korea still pretty much developed on its own under the strong man Park and his successors and adversaries, albeit economically copying Japan.
Iran 1953 probably presents a more clear case of west interference in a developing country (which the US reluctantly did at the behest of Britain); and South East Asia. Particulary Indochina and Indonesia.
Otherwise, could you provide examples to underpin this statement:
"Why is that they need foreign intervention when the nations dominant today (mostly Anglo-Saxon) managed to become the dominant nations with out it even though our past history is really no worse than theirs?"
It seems countries do still have different histories, possibly following general stages of development (even that varies, see Marx, Walter Rostow, or flying geese analogy of the Japanese).
Interestingly, the best run countries relatively speaking seem to keep to themselves - See Benelux and Nordic countries nowadays.
“I think if the Americans stayed, it would be better,”
Thanks but no thanks. We should not have been in Iraq in the first place, should not have tried to replace it's government with our own idea of governance, and should not have sent ignorant political hacks to to operate a reconstruction in cooperation with GOP-friendly business interests.
All of the simplistic explanations, propaganda, etc. are obviousely wrong.
Ordinary Iraqis may have disdain for their government. They are also the very folks who have murderous hatred for one another, based solely on tired religious arguments. Whether the US left this year, next year, or 50 years from now, the bloodshed was ordained to resume immediately.
please check out http://www.islamicsolutions.com/connecting-the-dots-quote-of-the-day-251/
Regulation is a dirty word and a dirty thing. As opposed to wasting time increasing regulation and making American businesses more uncompetitive than they already are perhaps we should think about overhauling corporate governance in America. Again, managers have no skin in the game so they take outsized risks.
As an accountant I can tell you first hand how out of control both the tax code and business regulations are in the US. By increasing regulation all you do is increase the job security of lawyers and accountants. This only serves to redistribute some of the nations wealth to lawyers and accountants. Do you know how much time I spend dealing with laws that have nothing to do with my business because some genius regulator thought he could save the world by issuing regulations? The key is to force managers to take long term financial stakes in the Company's in which they manage. Therefore reducing their willingness to take stupid risks. Again, you're very good at pointing out the issues but your knee jerk idea's on how to fix the problems sound mostly like mindless partisan speech.
Maybe if the silly people hadn't carved up the Middle East on some draft paper with a ruler, choosing shapes partially based on how EASY THEY WERE TO DRAW, we'd have a fewer ethnic problems, eh?
Maybe if the silly Brits and French hadn't carved up the Middle East on some draft paper with a ruler, choosing shapes based on how EASY THEY WERE TO DRAW, we'd have a few less problems, eh?
Obama has ignored the advice of his commanders in the field to pull all U.S. troops out of Iran soley to help his reelection campaign. With this action he has surrendered a costly hard fought victory to chaos and to Iran, and he's in the process of surrendering Afghanistan, again against military advice, to the Taliban. Never in the history of the U.S. has a President damage the strategic position of the U.S. so badly to win a few votes for his reelection. Obama is an unfit President, and the U.S. will pay dearly in treasure and lives for for what he has done!
Your intelligence powers are uncontrollable, being hypnotized by goyyimsm. It is the problem when wars of civilization occured, religious wars occured, civil wars occured, ethnic wars occured, shia and sunni wars occured.
China declared no trade wars.