NationStates Jolt Archive

Iraq's ruling parties have demanded US forces cede control of security.

The demand came as the government launched an inquiry into a raid on a Shia mosque that ministers said saw "cold blooded" killings by US-led soldiers.

Jawad al-Maliki, a senior spokesman of the Shia Islamist Alliance and ally of Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the prime minister, said: "The alliance calls for a rapid restoration of security matters to the Iraqi government."

After a confusing 24 hours following the bloodshed around Baghdad's Mustafa mosque in which the US military restricted itself to issuing a somewhat opaque statement, US officials distanced themselves from the operation, calling it Iraqi-led.

Officials in Baghdad appeared to wait for input from Washington, underlining the sensitivity of the confrontation between Iraq's Iranian-linked Shia leaders and the US forces at a time when Washington is pressing them to forge a unity government with Sunnis to avert civil war.

A day later, three broad versions of the events that led to the deaths of 20 - or possibly more - people persisted.

Iraq's security minister accused US and Iraqi forces of killing 37 unarmed civilians in the mosque after tying them up.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/34863D2A-6727-4606-9303-584E29477DBB.htm

An interesting development. Makes me think that the recent rhetorical disagreements between the US and the government are in fact substantive, and that a conflict between the two is developing. My guess is that the issue of Iranian influence is crucial.

The slaughter of civilians is nothing new, after all, not by the US and not by the "Iraqi security forces"; if the Iraqi Government cared much about such atrocities, they would stop committing them themselves.

I suppose it is questionable how effective this move will be. The US forces are still the most powerful faction in Iraq, and they will not be content to be put under foreign leadership. Without US support, the government will have a very difficult time controlling the country, unless they either deal seriously with the Sunnis (if so, why wait so long?) or enlist Iran's aid (which could get messy, with the US still in the country.)

Perhaps most interesting is that the US appears to have Iraqi proxies obeying their direct command, instead of the government's. That is probably a wise move on their part, but yet another sign that they couldn't care less about "sovereignty."

The way I understand it, if the Iraqi government demands that the US leave, the US has no choice under international law. We've got to get out.

The way I understand it, if the Iraqi government demands that the US leave, the US has no choice under international law. We've got to get out.

But they aren't telling us to leave. They want us to restore control over security to them - which, I assume, means following their directives as far as dealing with dissidents and rebels go.

The US isn't going to do that. It wouldn't make a timetable to end the occupation when it was requested, and it won't give up control over its own forces. It has been manipulated expertly by the Shi'ite leadership for the past year and a half, but it's starting to understand that, and is getting worried about Iranian influence.

But they aren't telling us to leave. They want us to restore control over security to them - which, I assume, means following their directives as far as dealing with dissidents and rebels go.

The US isn't going to do that. It wouldn't make a timetable to end the occupation when it was requested, and it won't give up control over its own forces. It has been manipulated expertly by the Shi'ite leadership for the past year and a half, but it's starting to understand that, and is getting worried about Iranian influence.
Don't you need to have had control in the first place to restore it?

Sorry, I'm feeling snarky about the subject.

Don't you need to have had control in the first place to restore it?

Well, that was one of the interesting aspects. Since when has the US had control over security in Iraq? I thought they were sovereign and all?

Well, that was one of the interesting aspects. Since when has the US had control over security in Iraq? I thought they were sovereign and all?
The US has had control over security ever since the invasion, on paper at least. My snark was that they've never really had control of the situtation, period.

The US has had control over security ever since the invasion, on paper at least. My snark was that they've never really had control of the situtation, period.

Yeah, that's true too. This whole affair has been an astonishing display of incompetence.

The Shi'ite leadership has had a more sensible political strategy than the US has, but as far as actually controlling the country, they don't seem to be doing much better. Someone's ultimately going to have to deal with Sunni dissent, and the "kill them all" solution doesn't seem to be working out too well.

The Sadrists are confusing me. My original impression, back around the time of the Constitution, was that Moqtada and the al-Mahdi Army leaned towards the "Sunni" side of things, despite his religious affiliation; he advocated a nationalist line against federalism and against the occupation. He's going along with the current government, however, and seems to be involved in the sectarian death squads, and those two positions don't reconcile very well. Definitely, as far as the current government goes, he's very much leaning towards the anti-occupation side of things; that's why there are these tensions between him and the US.

The Shi'ite government as a whole is adopting a more anti-occupation line very steadily, and I think this is because they think Iran can ensure their continued dominance better than the US can. The US, according to Juan Cole, is moving against Jaafari as a result (or as a cause), in alliance with the Kurds and the Sunnis, of all things; a reversal of a long-standing position (regarding the Sunnis, not the Kurds), which means they're really worried.

A total mess, and I cannot make much sense of it.