We’re Half-Awake In a Fake Empire

by Eric Martin

On Sunday night, the US military conducted airstrikes in Syrian territory - ostensibly targeting hubs used to facilitate the passage of foreign fighters into Iraq, and possibly to target AQI personnel.  Although initially, certain members of the Iraqi government seemed to sign off on the operation, today, the Iraqi government issued a forceful condemnation:

Iraq's government denounced on Tuesday a U.S. air strike on a Syrian border village in an unexpected rebuke of Washington.

"The Iraqi government rejects U.S. aircraft bombarding posts inside Syria. The constitution does not allow Iraq to be used as a staging ground to attack neighboring countries," spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said.

The Bush administration chose an interesting time to go ahead with this cross-border attack, as such aggressive actions could severely compromise the already problematic negotiations over the status of forces agreement (SOFA), with autonomy over military operations within, and launched from, Iraq's borders being an issue of contention (the SOFA has been discussed in prior posts, most recently here and here).  The article alludes to the delicacy of the situation:

The criticism of the United States was announced after a cabinet meeting to discuss a security pact to allow U.S. forces to stay in Iraq.

The pact has so far been blocked mainly by Shi'ite political parties, and one of their main complaints has been that the accord might allow U.S. troops to use Iraq as a base to attack neighboring countries.

It's not just the Shiite political parties that oppose the current draft, however.  The Iraqi Islamic Party (IIP), one of the main Sunni political parties as led by Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, has also come out in opposition to the SOFA in its current form.  Meanwhile, Maliki's spokesman has indicated that he will not sign the current draft, and as discussed last week, Robert Gates has stated that this is the final offer:

"The problem is that when we were given the latest draft, we were told the American negotiators will accept no amendments to it, and the Iraqi government has more requirements," said Sagheer, an Islamic cleric who later led the Friday prayers broadcast on national television.

He said that Maliki had come to the Political Council for National Security, a top decision-making body, and said the new accord was the best he could obtain, but it didn't include everything that Iraq wanted.

If Maliki signed the accord and turned it over to the parliament, "I'm sure that the agreement will not be approved for 10 years," Sagheer said.

Swopa takes the view that Maliki et al are simply trying to squeeze the best possible deal out of the Bush administration, and has been employing classic negotiating tactics (especically effective given the Bush administration's obvious agenda):

Isn’t that a classic haggling technique in any society?  Let the other side know you’re oh-so-close to a deal, encourage them to make a few concessions to close the gap… and just as they do and reach for the pen, pull back and say, “Wait, there’s one more thing you need to agree to.”

You’d almost think they’re having fun toying with the Bushites at this point.

Certainly a possibility.  Along these lines, Aswat al-Iraq is reporting that the Iraqi cabinet has made major changes to the SOFA and will resubmit the revised version to their American counterparts.  We'll see if Gates was bluffing, or holding firm.  To counter Maliki's tactics, the Bush administration has, for the first time that I can recall, attempted to use a bit of leverage itself.  Crude, but perhaps effective - reminscent of the "take all my toys and go home" schoolyard gambit:

The U.S. military has warned Iraq that it will shut down military operations and other vital services throughout the country on Jan. 1 if the Iraqi government doesn't agree to a new agreement on the status of U.S. forces or a renewed United Nations mandate for the American mission in Iraq.

Many Iraqi politicians view the move as akin to political blackmail, a top Iraqi official told McClatchy Newspapers on Sunday.

In addition to halting all military actions, U.S. forces would cease activities that support Iraq's economy, educational sector and other areas - "everything" - said Tariq al-Hashimi, the country's Sunni Muslim vice president. "I didn't know the Americans are rendering such wide-scale services."

On the other side of the ledger, a triumverate of Shiite religious authorities have weighed-in on the SOFA.  Matt's Atomic Duss Bin has the details:

On October 21, Lebanon’s Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah criticized the security pact, saying “the Baghdad government has no right to ‘legitimize’ the presence of foreign troops,” and that any agreement should call for an unconditional withdrawal of U.S. forces:

Fadlallah’s edict came in response to questions by some Shiite members of Iraq’s parliament who asked the cleric to give his opinion about the proposed security pact. […]

“No authority, establishment or an official or nonofficial organization has the legitimacy to impose occupation on its people, legitimize it or extend its stay in Iraq,” Fadlallah said in the edict released by his office.

Fadlallah was one of the founders of the Dawa Party in Najaf in 1957, along with his mentor Muhammad Baqr al-Sadr, a relative of Muqtada’s. Fadlallah also helped found Hizballah in Lebanon.

Fadlallah is the marja al-taqlid (source of emulation) for many in the Dawa — including Maliki — which means that they have chosen Fadlallah as a spiritual guide and committed to following his guidance in regard to correct religious practice. This, in and of itself, makes the SOFA in its current form basically a dead letter.

Depending on how one reads Maliki's intentions (secretly in favor of a prolonged US presence or pretending to ally with us, but secretly pushing to the exits), Fadlallah's proclamation either hinders Maliki's ability to compromise with the US, or gives him the cover to shrug his shoulders and plead impotence as he wishes us a fond farewell.  Either way, the result might be the same.  In other Shiite clerical news:

On Wednesday, Ayatollah Kazim al-Haeri, another cleric with roots in the Dawa Party, issued an even more stringent fatwa against the SOFA:

Al-Haeri called the proposed agreement “haram”—which in Arabic means forbidden by Islam—and said that approving the deal would be “a sin God won’t forgive.”

Al-Haeri, based in the Iranian holy city of Qom, has Iraqi nationality and is believed to be a mentor of anti-U.S. Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose followers oppose the deal. The fatwa, or religious decree, was posted on al-Haeri’s Web site.

In the edict, the cleric claimed the U.S. is pressuring the Iraqi government to approve the security pact.

“We know that this deal will undermine Iraq’s national sovereignty and that approving it will mean accepting humiliation and misery,” al-Haeri said.

As Duss notes, Haeri is the on-again/off-again spiritual mentor of Moqtada al-Sadr (currently "on") and many of the Sadrists.  Sistani (the putative source of emulation for many ISCI members and other Iraqi citizens) has issued statements demanding that the SOFA be submitted to parliament and, possibly, a national referendum - which will make it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to pass on any but the most favorable terms for Iraqis.  That pretty much sews up the Shiite side of the equation (with the Sadrists, Dawa and ISCI on the same page), and with the IIP and most of Iraq's non-Kurdish population opposed, this is going to be extremely difficult to pull off unless the US bends more to Iraqi demands.

So much for the grandiose designs of the neoconservative Project for the New American Century that imagined the US establishing a vassal state in Iraq from which to project military power in a series of wars, and further dominate the Middle East.  As Duss concludes:

The power of these ayatollahs to effectively scuttle an agreement of significant import to the security of the United States throws into stark relief what the Bush administration has created in Iraq: a government dominated by Shia religious parties who take their guidance — and derive their legitimacy — from the opinions and edicts of a small handful of senior Shia clerics.

There would be a touch of humor to this if the abject destruction and profligation of human suffering weren't so bitterly tragic.  Hopefully, we can begin to return to a saner foreign policy next week.

Comments

[cleek]

it will shut down military operations and other vital services throughout the country on Jan. 1

sounds like a timeline, to me. why does the US Military long for America's defeat ?

[mfoglia]

I think that there's a second story here: the vice-president of Iraq doesn't know that "the Americans are rendering such wide-scale services" as economic and education projects. How the hell is that a secret?

[morgan]

Excellent National name drop for the post headline. Watch the video.

Here.

[glblank]

Back story. What if Syria shot back? Wouldn't that have foisted an interesting dynamic into say the presidential race? Or am I just spitballing. You get the feeling Bush is running his last days much like McSame is running his campaign. Overwhelming fire, see what you hit.

[Eric Martin]

I think that there's a second story here: the vice-president of Iraq doesn't know that "the Americans are rendering such wide-scale services" as economic and education projects. How the hell is that a secret?

Two possible explanations: 1) He was faking surprise in an effort to sell the Iraqis on the importance of the US; or 2) He was legitimately surprised at the scope of US assistance and was, perhaps, taking us for granted.

Back story. What if Syria shot back? Wouldn't that have foisted an interesting dynamic into say the presidential race? Or am I just spitballing. You get the feeling Bush is running his last days much like McSame is running his campaign. Overwhelming fire, see what you hit.

It certainly could have, but I doubt Syria would want to escalate the situation. They're not as powerful as Pakistan. But I don't doubt that the Bushis figured that even if this blew up, it could redound to the benefit of McCain.

[LT Nixon]

In regards to the Syria raid, it was to take out Abu Ghadiya, a foreign-fighter facilitator who has probably been responsible for killing thousands by transporting suicide bombers into Iraq, and the raid worked. Obama supports cross-border strikes (at least in Pakistan) when a country can't police inside its own borders, so these type of raids aren't going away. As for Dabbagh issuing a condemnation, I think "The constitution does not allow Iraq to be used as a staging ground to attack neighboring countries" is more code for the U.S. is not allowed to attack Iran from Iraqi bases. The Shi'ite-dominated Iraqi government does not have very much sympathy for Al-Qaeda.

[LT Nixon]

But I don't doubt that the Bushis figured that even if this blew up, it could redound to the benefit of McCain.
I don't think I'm as cynical as you, Eric. If this was supposed to be an "October Surprise" to keep the Republicans in power, they probably could've come up with a more grandiose strategy than a cross-border strike on the other side of the world. Although, I'm guessing the President was the one who had to approve this operation.

[Praedor Atrebates]

Hopefully, we can begin to return to a saner foreign policy next week.

Don't get your hopes too high. Bush/Cheney aren't out until the end of January. PLENTY of time to give the finger to an incoming Obama - plus, who knows what Obama will do with Albright and Berzinski in his camp - Albright thought the millions of innocents killed by the totally ineffective sanctions on Iraq, and Berzinski, totally OK with the disaster we foisted upon Afghanistan by encouraging a Soviet invasion (and championing the creation of Al Qaeda). With advisors like that, you are looking like more of the same, with perhaps a LITTLE less shooting from the hip.

[Jesurgislac]

and the raid worked.

Well, if you believe the unverified word of unnamed "American officials" who claim that all eight people killed by the airstrike "were militants".

Given that this is always the first reaction of unnamed "American officials" when the US military kills civilians, I wouldn't be in too much of a hurry to assume that they're telling the truth this time.

As for Dabbagh issuing a condemnation, I think "The constitution does not allow Iraq to be used as a staging ground to attack neighboring countries" is more code for the U.S. is not allowed to attack Iran from Iraqi bases.

The UK objected to being used as an airbase for the US to launch civilian-killing attacks on Syria too. The notion that when politicians of one country object to having their country used as a base for foreign air strikes on another country, this must be "code", is ... well, unnecessarily complicated. It's not the US that will suffer if Syria decides to retaliate for the raid, after all.

[tomeck]

Kind of off-topic, but kind of not: Has anyone seen Condi Rice lately? I know SOFA is a miltary agreement, but shouldn't State have something to say?

And I'm not quite sure if the Syria raid is the kind of thing Obama's talking about. I've only heard him mention it in reference to taking out bin Laden. His focus is to get out of Iraq to concentrate on Afghanistan and al Qaeda/taliban. Widening the war in Iraq doesn't serve that purpose.

[Jeff]

In regards to the Syria raid, it was to take out Abu Ghadiya, a foreign-fighter facilitator who has probably been responsible for killing thousands by transporting suicide bombers into Iraq, and the raid worked.

With all due respect, so you say. The Syrians say somethinfg different. And if this was such a bad guy, why not offer the Syrians some inducement to get him themselves?

I remain skeptical. How many Number 3's have we captured or killed?

[Jay C]

Kind of off-topic, but kind of not: Has anyone seen Condi Rice lately? I know SOFA is a miltary agreement, but shouldn't State have something to say?

Well, yes, State probably should; but given the Bush regime's propensity to manage nearly everything to do with Iraq policy mainly through military channels, why would they start involving DOS now? And disrupt Dr. Rice's busy schedule of shoe-shopping?

[LT Nixon]

Kind of off-topic, but kind of not: Has anyone seen Condi Rice lately? I know SOFA is a miltary agreement, but shouldn't State have something to say?

Good question. The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) is a sub-section of the Strategic Framework Agreement, which is very much a matter for the State Dept. Probably hearing more from the military than DoS because they are so badly under-resourced in our current foreign policy commitments.

[Adam]

Doesn't the Iraqi response sort of undercut the rationale for McCain/Bush's whole "we have to keep our bases" argument in the first place? My understanding of that argument has always been that they wanted to maintain power-projection in the Mideast, particularly over Iran and Syria.

If Iraq refuses to let us use our bases for staging, what exactly is the point of demanding permanent bases in the country at all?

[Ugh]

Screw this. What kind of fncking pussy is Bush? Stop with these pansy-ass pin prick strikes and bring the noise. Damascus, Tehran, Karachi, Islamabad, etc. -- all fncking in. This drib drab here and there bullsh!t leaves hundreds of millions of screamin', pissed off muslims who hate the U.S. Just sign legislation that will outlaw Islam forever and begin the bombing in five minutes.

Otherwise, STFU and get the fnck out.

[LT Nixon]

Jes,

I'm more likely to believe unnamed military officials than the word of the state-run Syrian news agency. Not exactly a country known for its journalistic freedoms. It's also nothing new that the Syrian-Iraqi border has been the Point of Entry for terrorists for many years.

[Nell]

"It worked." Well, then, that settles everything, doesn't it?

[Slartibartfast]

The Ned's Atomic Dustbin reference gave me a chuckle.

[Eric Martin]

If this was supposed to be an "October Surprise" to keep the Republicans in power, they probably could've come up with a more grandiose strategy than a cross-border strike on the other side of the world.

But I didn't, even with my cynical cap on, suggest that it was supposed to be an October surprise.

I said that even if it blew up, it could be useful. Thus, the primary purpose was not October Surprise, but that could be an ancillary benefit if events evolved in a certain way.

[LT Nixon]

I said that even if it blew up, it could be useful. Thus, the primary purpose was not October Surprise, but that could be an ancillary benefit if events evolved in a certain way.Sure, maybe, but it'll probably take more than an event like this to get McCain into office at this stage of the game. Matt Welch said in the LA Times it would basically take a massive act of domestic terrorism.

[freelunch]

LT - Given the track record of both groups, I would be surprised of they aren't both lying, er, spinning wildly about what happened.

Ugh - Nice mic check. I remember hearing the news about Reagan's crack when it happened and realizing that sometimes it really helps to have a president who is amiable (particularly if he is a bit of a loose cannon).

[freelunch]

[I]t would basically take a massive act of domestic terrorism.

Nope, the Republicans have been telling us how they are protecting us with their massive attacks on civil liberties. If we have given up our liberties for no added safety, they will lose votes. Even the thickest voters will realize that Republicans cannot govern.

If the terrorist attack were commercial airline related, they would be lucky to keep any seats in the House as flyers decide that the entire annoyance that they have been subjected to for the last seven years were nothing but show.

[Eric Martin]

Sure, maybe, but it'll probably take more than an event like this to get McCain into office at this stage of the game.

Again, I agree. But again, I never said otherwise. Or implied otherwise.

[Model 62]

With all due respect, so you say. The Syrians say somethinfg different. And if this was such a bad guy, why not offer the Syrians some inducement to get him themselves?

Maybe the Syrians agreed to allow this particular cross-border raid. You may recall an earlier instance of cooperation between the United States and Syria.

[Jesurgislac]

LT Nixon: I'm more likely to believe unnamed military officials than the word of the state-run Syrian news agency.

Yes, I'm sure you are. That says nothing about who's actually lying. (Also, what freelunch said.)

Your assertion that "it worked" is
breathtaking, too. If the objective was to (a) identify one person as responsible and (b) killing that one person, and that was all, then assuming that the US military had identified the correct man and killed him, I supposed that "worked". But if there were any long-term objectives to be accomplished by killing the man, you have no notion in the world if it "worked" or not, and past practical experience in trying to end terrorism says that it won't have done.

[Jesurgislac]

(Not my past practical experience. *facepalm* The recorded practical experience of British soldiers in Ireland, IDF in Israel/the Occupied Territories, etc. A military strike to kill one terrorist is at best useless: at worst, when the strike kills civilians too, counterproductive.)

[Jeff]

Maybe the Syrians agreed to allow this particular cross-border raid.

Not likely. They wouldn't have mentioned civilian deaths, if it was done with the knowledge of Syria.

As for how well it worked, considering it made the Iraqis add a clause to the SOFA outlawing any further such raids, I'd say not so well.