[R-G] Real News & Sabah al-Nasseri: Controlling Iraq

[Anthony Fenton]

Controlling Iraq  	
Written by The Real News
Monday, 28 July 2008
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=1911

by The Real News
In an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel published on the  
weekend, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said about moving US  
troops from Iraq, "Barack Obama talks about sixteen months ... that,  
we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal with the  
possibility of slight changes."

He added, "Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in  
Iraq today are being more realistic . . .. Artificially prolonging the  
tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems." (July 20, 2008)  
This reiterated calls for a definite timetable for withdrawal made two  
weeks ago by al-Maliki and the Iraqi National Security Advisor  
Mowaffak al-Rubaie. Iraq's top Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al- 
Sistani, has also called for a pullout and opposes a long-term  
security pact with the United States.

"They are instrumentalizing the internal resistance within the Iraqi  
Parliament, within the Iraqi societies, against the United States,  
against the presence of US troops in Iraq, and so on, to actually  
negotiate new deals concerning securities agreement, oil agreement,  
etcetera, by saying, "Look, we cannot signs all of these kind of  
agreements. Otherwise we'll commit political suicide."
- Sabah al-Nasseri

In a dramatic shift from he previous insistent refusal to talk about  
any kind of deadline or timetable, President Bush, after a  
videoconference meeting with the Iraqi prime minister on Thursday,  
agreed to "a general time horizon" for bringing more US troops home.  
Democratic presidential hopeful, Senator Barack Obama, has said that  
he wants most US combat troops out of Iraq by mid-2010, and is not in  
favor of permanent US military bases there, but says he will leave a  
residual force in Iraq for an unspecified amount of time. Republican  
John McCain, who has always favored a long-term presence, restated  
that any withdrawal must be conditions-based and that the troops would  
come home with victory and not through a set timetable. But how  
serious are al-Maliki's statements about withdrawal of all US forces?  
What does John McCain really mean when he says "no withdrawal without  
victory"? And how big is Barack Obama's residual force, and how  
ambiguous its mission? The Real News senior editor Paul Jay spoke with  
Iraqi-born Sabah al-Nasseri, professor of political science, Middle  
East politics, at York University in Toronto.



Transcript:


PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR: Sabah, the situation in Iraq is perhaps not  
what we would have expected two years ago, three years ago. The  
predictions that, if the Americans were to withdraw, there would be a  
massive civil war and bloodbath appears not to be something that might  
happen. The oil contracts that look like a locked-in sweetheart deal  
for American oil companies are maybe not quite so locked in. Now,  
looks like there will be more of an open bidding process, although we  
still haven't seen the oil legislation. The oil minister says there  
could be $100 billion of revenue flowing through the Iraqi government  
within a year. This situation is different. Maliki has called for a  
timetable of American withdrawal. The American administration for some  
time has been saying Iraqis must stand up. Is this a bit of a  
situation of be careful what you wish for? Maybe this administration  
doesn't quite look at what's standing up.

PROF. SABAH AL-NASSERI, POLITICAL SCIENCE, YORK UNIVERSITY: Okay. Two  
things I would say. About the horror scenario—civil war, sectarian  
war, and etcetera—it was part of this threat scenario. It was  
constructed last year or the year before to suggest there is a civil  
war, sectarian war in Iraq. There was never civil war, sectarian war  
in Iraq. And all the Iraqi knew, if the US troop would withdraw, there  
will be no civil or sectarian war. You will have violence, of course,  
internal violence, but they knew they could control this kind of  
violence. So it was part of this scenario. Now what we are witnessing,  
actually, what the Iraqis are capable of doing without the US mission  
or without US troops, without US expertise, and so on. So the thing  
is, right from the beginning, there was this black scenario, horror  
scenario that without the US troops in Iraq the whole country will be  
in chaos and violence, etcetera. This is the first part. The second  
part is, as you know, the Iraqi government is not a puppet regime of  
the United States. They have their own agenda. And I was arguing with  
a class project. So that means they are instrumentalizing the internal  
resistance within the Iraqi Parliament, within the Iraqi societies,  
against the United States, against the presence of US troops in Iraq,  
and so on, to actually negotiate new deals concerning securities  
agreement, oil agreement, etcetera, by saying, "Look, we cannot signs  
all of these kind of agreements; otherwise we'll commit political  
suicide." So they tried to maneuver, to use the internal resistance  
within Iraq like a card to achieve more political capital within Iraq,  
actually—think about the next election in October—to win more  
credibility and legitimacy within the Iraqi societies vis-à-vis the  
United States.

JAY: Let me play you a little clip. Patrick Cockburn spoke recently on  
a panel at Frontline, and here's what he said.

(CLIP BEGINS)

July 16, 2008
Frontline Club, London, UK

PATRICK COCKBURN, JOURNALIST: About Obama and McCain is that they both  
haven't learned [inaudible]—what seems to me the main thing that comes  
out of Iraq over the last five years is they both assume that America  
can decide what's going to happen in Iraq, that they make the  
political weather in Iraq. But this simply isn't true. If, for  
instance, McCain, whether it's Senator McCain or President McCain,  
decides to stay forever, but let's say somebody goes to a small  
alleyway near Najaf and goes and consults with the grand ayatollah,  
Ali al-Sistani, who says, "No. The occupation must end," then the  
occupation will end. These people don't have the power to do it anymore.

(END OF CLIP

So is Cockburn right? Is this process really unraveling out of  
American control?

AL-NASSERI: Exactly. I was arguing years ago that the United States is  
not capable of controlling the situation in Iraq. The situation is out  
of their control—years ago, not only today. So it's basically  
[inaudible]. They cannot control the situation. So they're trying to  
do the best they can to get kind of agreement with the Iraqi  
government with this government, because they are not sure what kind  
of a government we will have, probably, next year, etcetera. So they  
want to make sure that they will have current deal with this  
government concerning the US military bases and the presence of US  
troops in Iraq and the oil concession. And they know they cannot push  
the old agenda they had before, like signing a security agreement on  
the long run, keeping the US military bases permanently in Iraq,  
getting hold of the Iraqi oil, etcetera. They can't do this. And, as I  
said, the Iraqi government instrumentalizing the resistance within  
Iraq against the US.

JAY: we're hearing that the Iraqi government was even talking about  
something like 2010 as the date they want US troops out. This does not  
jive, certainly, with John McCain's plan for Iran, but it really  
doesn't jive with Obama's plan, either, about a residual force. Is the  
US really willing, capable of giving up this control? And do they have  
any choice?

AL-NASSERI: Well, my argument is the Iraqi government realized the  
last few weeks they cannot actually sign a security agreement with the  
United States. They have enormous resistance even within not only the  
Parliament, but within the executive itself and outside the  
Parliament. So they cannot sign an agreement. Sistani declared a few  
weeks ago he is against signing a security agreement with the United  
States, etcetera. So the Iraqi government actually can't sign this  
kind of agreement. So what they are trying to do now is to construct a  
so-called memorandum of understanding, a short-term security agreement  
until 2010, by saying, "We will sign this with the United States if  
the United States would accept our demands for withdrawals or  
timetable for withdrawal of the troops, then we'll sign this  
memorandum of understanding." But now you have a conflict within the  
Iraqis. Some of them are saying, well, the UN mandate will end  
December 2008, and all foreign troops should leave Iraq. Why do we  
need memorandum of understanding? It means nothing but keeping the US  
troops beyond the end of the UN mandate. Actually, you're extending  
the presence of the US troops in Iraq.

JAY: And there's another important date coming up. It's planned in  
October. Whether it happens, we will see. It's provincial elections,  
which will be very influential. And there is the question on the  
horizon: who will be running the Iraqi government if and when the  
Americans leave? So in the next part of our interview, let's talk  
about who is in power in Iraq and who might be in power after the next  
elections? Please join us for the next segment of our interview with  
Sabah al-Nasseri.




DISCLAIMER:


Please note that TRNN transcripts are typed from a recording of the  
program; The Real News Network cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.