In Iraq, It's Still All About The Oil

A date's been set for Iraq's general election. It'll be held early next year, on January 21st. There's been a hold up in announcing the final date because of disagreement over the status of the city of Kirkuk. Although a deal's finally been reached, the row offers a glimpse of how the politics of Iraq will shape up after the Americans and the rest have gone. Unsurprisingly, it's all about oil.

About 8 percent of the world's oil is under Iraq. And an awful lot of that is in the north of the country, the mainly Kurdish area of which Kirkuk is the traditional capital. Various ethnic groups have been drawn to the city over the last century, most notably when Arabs were resettled there by Saddam Hussein during the 1980s in an attempt to keep his Kurdish enemies at bay. Since he was ousted in 2003, Kurds have been flooding back again. So now we have a multi-ethnic city in an unstable country with a lot of oil underneath it. No prizes for guessing why this might be problematic.

The dispute was that the Arabs wanted to stick to the 2004 electoral roll (which would favour them) while the Kurds wanted a new one (which would favour them). The compromise is that a parliamentary committee will monitor the election results and, if those aren't in line with the expected demographics, they could be challenged. Ultimately, this should help ensure all of the ethnic groups are adequately represented as the future of Kirkuk (and its oil) is decided.

This deal has done little more than buy some time. Disagreements between the Kurds, Arabs and other interested parties will probably flare up again when the really tough decisions finally have to be made. But, although it sounds worryingly familiar that this dispute is all about oil, the fact that all sides have managed to make a (so far) peaceful compromise at least offers a bit of hope for the future of Iraqi politics.

Obama's Big Test In Iraq

US forces have at last withdrawn from cities and towns across Iraq, handing control to local forces more than six years after the invasion. Those Americans left in Iraq will now be mostly confined to their barracks, in what military folk rather tediously call an 'overwatch' role. Basically they're able to step in if something goes wrong, but from here on in, the Iraqis are largely on their own.

You might think that things have been relatively quiet in Iraq in the two years since the 'surge' of US troops went after the bad guys and stopped much of the violence. And you'd be right, relatively speaking. But in the last couple of weeks there's been a sudden increase in bombings in Baghdad and elsewhere, which have left dozens of civilians dead. The people carrying out the attacks are keen to let everyone in Iraq know that the US is not leaving in victory, but is being forced out by the continued unrest.

The big question now is - how many more bomb attacks will the US allow to happen before its forces are ordered out of the barracks and back into the cities? Military bosses will be telling President Obama that relatively small operations in particular neighbourhoods could root out those behind the recent attacks, and that US troops wouldn't need to leave their bases for long. But Mr Obama will also have to consider the politics of all this. The reason the troops are leaving now is because he made an explicit promise to do so during his campaign for the presidency. To appear to go back on that promise, even if only for a short time, would be a political blow for him, and would also beg the question of how many more times US forces would be called on to leave their barracks to carry out further missions. Mr Obama would prefer not to have to send them back into harm's way at all. But if the bombings continue, he may feel he has no choice.

The British Leave Iraq

British combat operations in Iraq have finally ended, with a handover to American forces. 179 British personnel have died since the invasion of the country six years ago. During the same period, around 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed (some estimates put the figure much higher, but I'm going with the number supplied by Iraq Body Count).

You can't fail to have noticed that the arguments about whether the war was a good idea in the first place have never really stopped raging. They aren't finished yet either, because the government now seems certain to hold an inquiry into the circumstances of how it ended up going to war. Even if that inquiry is held in secret, the same old arguments, hopefully mixed in with some new information, will be heard again and again.

Leaving all that aside for just now, the other obvious question to ask about Britain's involvement in Iraq over the last six years is - has it been a success? The answer is a qualified no. No because of those 100,000 dead Iraqis, those 179 dead British soldiers, the strengthening of Iran, and because of the huge dent to the moral authority of the US, Britain and the other pro-war nations. On the other hand, and this is where the qualified part comes in, at least Saddam Hussein isn't ruling Iraq anymore.

That's not quite the only good thing to say about Iraq though. Whisper it quietly, but at long last it seems as though much of Iraq is now a pretty safe place to be, certainly the areas in the south which were previously under British control. Suggestions that it's now safer to walk around Basra than London are surely exaggerated, but the country certainly hasn't plunged back into chaos and civil war even though the local Iraqi forces are handling security. It may well be that in decades to come Iraq will indeed become a relatively stable, relatively free, democratic country, in the mould of the Iraq envisaged by Bush and Blair when they decided to invade. That will be a good thing. But the shocking human cost of such an achievement can't be forgotten.

Negotiating With Terrorists

It appears that five Britons, held as hostages in Iraq for almost two years, are about to be released. The Guardian claims that their captors have struck a deal to trade one of the hostages for ten militants currently held by the US. If it comes to pass, it seems likely similar arrangements will lead to the others being freed too.

You could be forgiven for not knowing about the five Britons. In contrast to some past hostage cases, such as Ken Bigley, there's been almost no media coverage about the men. Partly this is because of who they are. One is a computer consultant, while the others are described as security consultants, which is so vague it seems certain they're linked to British intelligence in some way. The other main reason we've heard so little is because, all this time, the British government has been doing what it says it doesn't do, negotiating with terrorists. And the British didn't want anything about that in the media, to avoid upsetting the delicate discussions.

Governments habitually say they don't negotiate with terrorists, presumably because it's the sort of thing the public expects to hear. After all, politicians don't want to sound soft on terror. But in reality, it's nonsense. Talking to the enemy to try to reach mutually satisfactory solutions on particular issues is just as big a part of countries' struggle against terrorism today as it has been throughout the history of conventional war. The US and Britain probably don't want to let the Sadrist militants go, but it's a better choice than doing nothing or trying a risky rescue mission, and even that last possibility would depend on finding out where the five are being held. Even though they don't admit it in public, politicians all over the world know that sometimes negotiating with the enemy is the least worst option.

"Strategic Victory"

President Bush has used a speech to mark the fifth anniversary of the start of the Iraq War, to claim the recent reduction in violence there marks a 'strategic victory' in his war on terrorism. The number of attacks in Iraq has certainly fallen sharply over the last nine months or so, since more US troops were deployed as part of the so-called surge. But to claim any kind of victory is just as premature as Mr Bush's infamous 'mission accomplished' address following the defeat of Saddam Hussein in May 2003.

Far from being a strategic victory, the folly of US policy in Iraq was based around a catastrophic strategic misjudgement. Lots of very clever and important people thought Iraq would quickly turn into a relatively stable democracy, and that this would spread throughout other countries in the Middle East, just as democracy spread throughout Eastern Europe in the late 1980s. But there was one flaw with this idea. It was spectacularly wrong. Baghdad is nothing like Bucharest.

These days things are indeed finally looking up in Iraq. Perhaps if the US had committed far more troops in the early days after the invasion, the security situation would have been good enough to allow democratic institutions to take hold, as they're still struggling to do now. But the incompetence of how the Bush administration handled the whole thing means we'll never know. If Iraq does eventually turn out to be the beacon of democracy the US has long wanted it to be, it will be despite President Bush, rather than directly because of him. We can expect more speeches from him like today's, in which he tries to claim some amount of credit for things that are going well. But in a few months we'll be able to ignore him - then it'll be up to someone else to solve all the problems.

Baghdad Market Massacre

Baghdad has been hit by the worst bomb attacks in the city for exactly six months. At least 64 people were killed in a double strike against a market in the Iraqi capital. Reports suggest the bombs were strapped to two mentally disabled women, who were then blown up by someone pressing a button somewhere else.

For a while things have been going well for the US and Iraqi Government. The extra American troops sent in last year, the ceasefire imposed by the head of the Shia militia group the Mehdi Army, and the troubles suffered by al Qaeda in battles with US-armed Sunni fighters, have all led to a sharp reduction in violence over the last six to nine months. Inevitably, a devastating attack such as this was going to break that relative peace eventually, and it seems the terrorists have been forced to resort to a particularly despicable tactic to carry out their crime this time. It's not enough to stop us being optimistic about Iraq, but it's certainly a setback. How serious depends on whether more attacks follow in the coming days and weeks.

Trouble In The North

A police chief in the Iraqi city of Mosul has died in an ambush, as he visited the site of a bombing that killed around three dozen civilians. Mosul's suffered an increase in violence over the last year, just as the security situation has improved further south, in and around Baghdad.

In one way, the problems in Mosul (which is ethnically mixed) prove the partial success of the US troop surge. As more American forces have moved into the area around Baghdad, insurgents and militiamen have had to head out, and head north. We generally hear less about violent incidents that happen away from Baghdad, largely because of a lack of pictures to illustrate the stories on the TV news. But the bombings and attacks are still taking place, as these events in Mosul show. Although there's no doubt the surge has made things better in much of Iraq, it's a long way from being the solution to all of the country's security problems.

Talking Turkey

The Iraqi government says it's going to do its best to rein in the Kurdish rebels, operating out of the far north of Iraq, who have been attacking Turkish soldiers. The most recent ambush over the weekend was the worst of its kind in a decade - it left 12 Turkish troops dead, and a further eight missing. The Kurdish fighters are separatists, who want to set up a Kurdish homeland in southern Turkey.

They've actually been fighting like this since 1984, but now they've decided to make a renewed effort to get what they want. The instability prompted by the Iraq war was always going to raise Kurdish hopes of some kind of independent country in the areas around northern Iraq and southern Turkey (which is why Turkey was so reluctant to get involved in the invasion, despite being a US ally and member of NATO). And there's no reason to believe the Iraqi government will be able to do much to prevent the campaign continuing. Despite the US surge, and yesterday's surprise announcement that violence in Iraq is down 70 percent since June, the Iraqi administration is still pretty weak and has its hands full simply remaining in power.

So what happens next? Probably some more attacks against Turkish soldiers, and possibly some in Turkish cities, which would certainly help Turkey's allies in Washington cast the conflict as part of its war on terror. If the campaign continues though, it'll be difficult for the US to prevent the Turks carrying out military attacks on Kurdish rebel positions in northern Iraq. Four years after it decided at the last moment not to join in the invasion of Iraq, the chaos caused by that ill-fated conflict may yet force Turkey to end up doing its own version.

Told To Get Out

The Iraqi government has told the US that it must cut its ties with private security firm Blackwater. Some of the company's employees are accused of firing on Iraqi civilians, killing at least 17, although Blackwater insists its people did nothing wrong. The whole thing's been a big embarrassment for the US, and has severely strained its relations with Iraqi officials in Baghdad.

The Iraqis don't have much choice but to send Blackwater home, otherwise they'll lose what little credibility they've still got with their own people. But this is unlikely to be the last such controversy we'll see in Iraq. In the coming years, as the Americans do as the British are doing and remove their forces from frontline duties, ultimately bringing them home, private security firms are going to be called on to take up the slack. Many of the men who work for them are ex-soldiers anyway, earning much more than they'd ever be able to in the military. Those in the US who still support keeping American troops in Iraq often say an Iraq without the American military could be more violent and chaotic than the Iraq of today. The Blackwater affair offers a preview of one aspect of that post-occupation Iraq.

Standing In The Way Of Control

Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr is trying to regain control over his Mehdi Army militia in Iraq, by ordering it to stop its activities for six months. He's telling his estimated 60,000 fighters not to attack US and British forces, or anyone else for that matter, which certainly sounds like good news.

There's one main reason why al-Sadr's had to do this, and that's Iran. Despite his recent denials that some of his men have been trained, equipped and funded by Tehran, it's widely believed that elements within the Iranian regime have been doing exactly that. Today's development is a tacit admission by al-Sadr that he's lost control of groups of fighters, who seem keener to do the bidding of Iran's Shia clerics. If those men continue to follow Iranian orders, it would be foolishly optimistic to expect much of a reduction in violence.

"We Have Not Asked For Iran's Help"

The radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has given an interesting and rare interview to the Independent, in which he denies claims Iran has been arming and helping his private militia army in its battle against the British and Americans in Iraq. He also tells the paper his Mehdi Army has played "an important role" in forcing British commanders to realise it's a war they can't win.

It's difficult to believe his denials about Iran. Although it's certainly in Washington's interests to try to paint the Iranians as among the villains in Iraq, there seems to be compelling evidence that elements within Iran are helping the Mehdi Army and others build the bombs that regularly kill and maim US and British soldiers.

But al-Sadr has two other interesting things to say, that could point to a better future for Iraq. First, he seems to suggest al Qaeda is as much an enemy of his group as the US. He says those Shias who've stood against the terror network in Ramadi have "written their names into our history books." Any hopes al Qaeda might have to turn Iraq into the sort of haven it used to enjoy in Afghanistan therefore seem far-fetched.

Then there's his remarks on the UN, saying: "if the UN comes here to truly help the Iraqi people, they will receive our help in their work." Whatever happens in Iraq once the Americans and British have gone home, a much bigger role for the UN is clearly essential.

Trouble In Tripoli

Since the weekend, Lebanon's been plunged into its worst internal fighting since the end of the civil war nearly two decades ago. Well-armed members of a militant Islamist group, holed up in a refugee camp near Tripoli in the north of the country, have been fighting Lebanese troops since a few of their number were arrested over a bank robbery the other day.

Bank robberies don't have much to do with this, but Syria has everything to do with it. This Islamist group appears to be operating with at least the tacit support of Syria, and possibly firmer backing in the form of guns and so on. Ever since the death of Syria's Ba'athist strongman Hafez al-Assad back in 2000, their traditional hold over Lebanese affairs has been loosened. In 2003, as US forced stormed through Baghdad, there appeared to be genuine concern in Damascus and everywhere else that Syria might be next unless it stopped supporting Palestinian militant groups. The Syrians were on their uppers.

But since then, as Iraq has fallen apart, so Syria has felt able to act with impunity once again, as the elder Assad's old mates pull the strings in the shadows of his son's regime. This fighting is the latest in a series of attempts by Syria to meddle in Lebanon's affairs - the most significant being the assassination of Lebanon's former PM (and anti-Syrian) Rafik Hariri.

Just as one side-effect of the invasion of Iraq has been to produce a far stronger Iran, it also seems to be leading to a stronger Syria. If Damascus continues to feel it can do whatever it likes in Lebanon, that's not a good thing at all, least of all for the Lebanese people.

It's The Politics, Stupid

There's reportedly growing concern in Washington that Gordon Brown will change British policy on Iraq once he becomes Prime Minister. White House officials are apparently briefing President Bush that Mr Brown will quickly reverse Tony Blair's now-familiar 'shoulder to shoulder' stance, possibly announcing British troop withdrawals shortly after taking office.

The main argument against it is to avoid upsetting the Bush administration. But the Bush administration won't be there for too much longer, and with no control in Congress, is just about as lame a duck as we've seen in the US in decades. Although Mr Brown surely won't go for a Zapatero-style 'troops out now' gambit as soon as his feet are under the desk in Number Ten (that would risk annoying everyone in Washington, rather than just the Bushies), I think there's a good chance of an early announcement of a gradual pullout.

With Labour still lagging in the polls, Mr Brown needs to produce some bold moves once he finally takes over to wrest the initiative from the Tories. All we've heard so far - those various mutterings about constitutional reform - won't be enough. A quick declaration on Iraq would achieve the double whammy of immediately distancing himself from Tony Blair's most unpopular policy, and proving (not unlike when he made the Bank of England independent on his first day as Chancellor in 1997) that he's a man who takes big decisions. If things go well and Labour rise sharply in the polls, the odds on a snap election this autumn may start to narrow. The decisions Mr Brown makes on Iraq will be all about the politics.

Uncivil War

There are conflicting reports over whether the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, has been killed or not. The US and Iraqis can't confirm stories saying he died while fighting against a group of Sunni Arab insurgents.

Whether he's dead or not isn't particularly significant. If he is, there'll be someone ready to take his place in a job that doesn't exactly have great prospects for a long and successful career. What is important is the manner of his reported death. The US and Iraqis have long claimed that Al Qaeda isn't welcome in Iraq, and its operations are mostly carried out by terrorists who have gone to Iraq from other countries. The apparent fact that groups of Sunni insurgents are actually fighting against Al Qaeda, presumably because of anger at their random attacks on civilians, proves the Americans and Iraqis are largely right about that.

Not that who's killing who makes much difference to the Iraqi civilians who are dying in the civil war. Twenty percent fewer Iraqis were killed last month than in March. But that's still 1,506 people. If Al Qaeda is on the wane in Iraq, its battle with the US in the 'war on terror' will doubtless continue elsewhere. However, the war between Sunni and Shia Muslims in Iraq will outlast the withdrawal of US and British forces, and there'll be many more months ahead when fifteen hundred innocent civilians are killed. The death of one Al Qaeda terrorist won't change that.

Why Bush Doesn't Want A Timetable For Withdrawal

The House of Representatives has voted to approve a bill that'll provide extra cash for the US military in Iraq. It also uses that T word - timetable - to call for American forces to withdraw by next March. Because of that, President Bush says he's going to veto it.

On the face of it, this seems a faintly bizarre way of reacting to things. Bush has been given the extra money he wants to give the so-called 'surge' - the additional security effort in Baghdad - a chance to work. And he's also been given a deadline by which the troops should be home, something that should be popular with just about everybody.

But no, Bush is going to use his veto for just the second time since he took office. He and his Republican friends are talking darkly about not wanting to sanction a "surrender" in Iraq. That kind of language isn't really helpful in getting to the heart of what's going on there. The US (and Britain for that matter) won't be leaving because they've been defeated militarily, they'll be leaving because they can't do anything much about the situation on the ground - which is now a civil war, rather than a war between 'us' and 'them.' So the "surrender" argument is pretty bogus.

The real main reason why Bush doesn't want a timetable for withdrawal is because it will make him look a failure. Not only will it make him look a failure, but it will make him an actual failure. Because that's what he is, at least when it comes to Iraq. Over the last four years, there's always been the glimmer of hope that a corner might be turned, and that Iraq might gradually improve to the sort of stable democracy Bush and the rest had in mind in the first place. Pulling the troops out and leaving it to the Iraqis to sort out amongst themselves, would remove that hope, and finally condemn Bush to spending the rest of history in the bargain bucket of failed presidents.

But there's a second reason too I think. Not one that Bush is probably that bothered about, but one that I believe diplomats and some politicians and military officials are. The Republican leader in the House, John Boehner, put it like this: "We can walk out of Iraq, just like we did in Lebanon, just like we did in Vietnam, just like we did in Somalia and we will leave chaos in our wake." Somalia's been without a stable government in 16 years, ever since a dictator was deposed. As the latest battle for control of Mogadishu continues, with neighbours such as Ethiopia heavily involved, the prospect of Iraq remaining a failed state in bloody anarchy for the next decade and more seems horribly likely. Whether keeping US troops in Iraq for longer can avert that seems pretty doubtful. But the lesson of Somalia is that standing by and watching Iraq destroy itself is not an option.

"No Thanks"

The Washington Post reports that President Bush is looking for someone to oversee America's involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. But the paper says three retired generals have already refused to be Mr Bush's "war czar" which is a bit embarrassing for the administration to say the least.

The fact they want someone to come in to handle the operations shows the Bush team have realised they're on the wrong track, and are pretty much out of new ideas. But a remark from one of the men to have turned the job down indicates most people in Washington believe an outsider wouldn't be able to sway those hardline members of the administration (led by Vice President Dick Cheney) who apparently still wield the real power. Retired Marine General Jack Sheehan is quoted by the Post: "Rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, 'No, thanks,'"

Unless Cheney and his mates release their grip on policymaking, in favour of the more pragmatic Defence Secretary Bob Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, it seems "no thanks" is the only answer Bush will get. Gates and Rice don't have all the answers to help solve the crises in Afghanistan and Iraq, but they'll find it easier to bring together people who might have a better inkling. Cheney's refusal to admit he was wrong on Iraq, and Bush's unwillingness to overrule him now, stands in the way of progress both there and in Afghanistan.

The Choice

The US and Iraqi Government have given a pretty big warning to Moqtada al-Sadr, the Shia cleric who leads a large militia blamed for much of the sectarian violence that's been tearing Iraq apart. The strength of his private army and his popularity among many Shias has been enough to get him a say in government. But it's clear even those who sit at the table for him have been carrying out his military bidding. The arrest of the deputy health minister is the latest in a series of operations carried out by the US against al-Sadr, and it presents him with a choice.

He could completely cut off the more extreme elements of his movement, and urge his followers to ease back on the attacks against the Sunnis. That might seem like the best way forward, but it's difficult to see how he could sell that to his people, many of whom see him as their best chance of protection. I think it would be better for Iraq in the long term if al-Sadr does what he has to do to remain the most popular Shia paramilitary leader. That'll involve more violence against the Sunnis - but the cleric's credibility among Shias offers the best hope of his leading his people into a peaceful solution further down the road. It's an extremely crude comparison, but the clearest route to peace has al-Sadr turning out as Iraq's Gerry Adams.