Adding to the current tension is the fact that most of Iraq’s Shia population will more than likely believe the bombings were the work of Sunnis in retaliation for their disaffection, according to the BBC’s Jim Muir. He believes Sunni leadership was waiting for a singularly tense moment to unleash this latest wave of violence. Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, former national security adviser and ally of Prime Minister Maliki, attempted to dismiss that notion. “Al-Qaeda try to make use of any political difference and any political dispute,” he contended. “I don’t think this is sectarian motivated. I honestly believe that Iraq has been moving from sectarian to more issue-based politics.”
Such a dismissal would seem to be naive. The last two major attacks in Iraq were October 27th, when twin bombings killed 38 and wounded 78 in a Shia area of Baghdad, and December 5th, when 30 people were killed in attacks targeting Shia pilgrims in central Iraq. Complicating speculation is the reality that Iraq has also been grappling with a resilient, lower-level insurgency of Sunni Islamists tied to al-Qaeda and Shi’ite militias, which U.S. officials say are backed by Iran. These groups stage daily attacks in Iraq.
Parliament has agreed to an emergency meeting today, normally a Muslim day of rest. It remains to be seen whether this fragile coalition of Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds, beset by constant political infighting, can restore confidence.
All of this is occurring only days after the last American troops left Iraq, almost nine years after removing Saddam Hussein. Many Iraqis feared the withdrawal would lead to exactly the kind of violence that took place yesterday. Tribal leader Suleiman illuminated the frustration with an Obama administration willing to withdraw from Iraq before the nation was stabilized. “What did [Americans] all die for if they leave the country like this?” he asked. “There were 1,860 American soldiers killed in Anbar. None of their projects or payoffs were successful.”
He went further. “Iraq is finished also,” he claimed. “The [American] withdrawal represents the end of Iraq. There is no democracy here, there is chaos. Parties rule by sect. Corruption is rampant and so is sectarianism. But more dangerous than anything else is that Maliki is trying to establish a new autocracy.”
The Obama administration’s response? As ever, Vice President Joe Biden represents the perfect point man for an administration attempting to gloss over the base political calculations of a president determined to re-romance the left’s anti-war constituency in time for the 2012 election. “We’re not claiming victory,” Biden said during an interview on NBC’s Today Show December 1st. “What we’re claiming here is we’ve done our job the administration said it would do. To end a war we did not start, to end it in a responsible way…and to leave in place the prospect of a trained military, a trained security force under democratic institutions where the disparate parties for the first time are actually working together.”
Two weeks later, the president himself reiterated the triumph of wishful thinking over daunting reality. “Of course, Iraq is not a perfect place,” he said. “But we are leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people. We are ending a war not with a final battle, but with a final march toward home.”
No victory, no final battle, only a march home. Even as Iraq remains in a state that could lead directly to civil war. The sacrifices made by thousands of American troops? Secondary to the 2012 election. The ultimate fallback position should everything turn to chaos? No doubt the same excuse we hear regarding the economy: it’s all George Bush’s fault.
That’s what “leading from behind” is all about.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
Pages: 1 2