By Barry Rubin
President Barack Obama’s speech to the UN, September 23, 2010, is revealing on several levels. Indeed, I learned something very important about his foreign policy. But that’s at the end.
He began by discussing terrorism as if it is carried out by faceless, doctrineless, causeless mystery men who have no sponsors, ideology, or goals and attack everyone equally.
Obama explained:
by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi*
Did the U.S. spending of $53 billion on reconstruction efforts, or “nation-building,” work in Iraq? According to New York Times’ columnist David Brooks, it did. Unfortunately, however, his argument is flawed on numerous counts by selective evidence.
To begin with, he cites the International Monetary Fund’s report that Iraq will have the twelfth fastest growing economy in the world with a projected 7% economic growth this year, but such a statistic is misleading because, as in Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela, this expansion is almost entirely due to rising oil prices, and has nothing to do with development projects funded by U.S. taxpayers. Indeed, Iraq has become increasingly oil-dependent like its neighbors in the Gulf region, such that petroleum revenues account for about 70% of GDP and around 90% of government revenues.
By Andrew L. Jaffee
President Bush was right about Iraq, sticking to his guns, and helping plant the seeds of democracy there. Even John Murtha admitted that Bush’s troop surge was working. More importantly, Iraqis agree:
… A new poll by an Iraqi company found that nearly 60 percent feel it is the wrong time for U.S. soldiers to leave and 53 percent oppose President Obama’s ending of the combat mission. A little more than half believe the withdrawal will hurt the country and only one-fourth view the development positively. And in a statistic that is sure to bother those that boast of Obama’s worldwide popularity, nearly 42 percent feel the president does not care about the situation in Iraq.
Back in September 2006, the year when Iraq nearly fell to civil war, 71 percent of Iraqis wanted U.S. forces to leave their country in a year or less. There was a widespread perception that U.S. soldiers were the ones responsible for their misery. Most disturbingly, 61 percent of Iraqis felt attacks on U.S. soldiers were legitimate, a 14 percent increase from the beginning of 2006. But by March 2008, only 38 percent wanted U.S. forces to leave immediately and a majority wanted them to stay until the country was secured.
What happened? The surge is what happened. Contrary to what opponents of the surge said, the increased presence and aggressiveness of U.S. forces did not trigger a popular backlash because security visibly improved. The increased exposure to American forces likely also led to a certain degree of affection and respect as the anti-American myths were busted by reality. …
by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi*
With the official end of U.S. combat operations in Iraq, what bodes for Iraq’s future in terms of its relations to other nations in the Middle East? One useful way to examine this question is through the lens of what Daniel Pipes describes as the present “Middle Eastern Cold War.”
This new Cold War represents the current ideological division in the Middle East between the “revolutionary bloc,” led chiefly by Iran, Syria, and more recently Turkey, and the “status-quo bloc,” led by Saudi Arabia and Egypt. While most Sunni Arab states align themselves with the “status-quo bloc,” there are notable exceptions in that Qatar and Oman back the “revolutionary bloc,” while Libya simply sits on the sidelines.
Screaming, “Allahu Akbar” (”G#d is great!”), while trying to kill people?!?!?! Should we call it “religious murder?” Well these Iraqi terrorists got nailed in the act — instantaneously — and filmed themselves getting sent to “heaven?!?!?.” Watch the video, then read the description of the tactical details provided by Jeremy Buff (below):
Bob Dylan wrote that “you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.” With great respect to Dylan, however, if you are truly looking to ascertain the direction of the winds in a particular place and time, it doesn’t do any harm to listen to what the most experienced local weatherman is saying and to watch what he’s doing.
The small and dispersed Druse sect has over time developed the most sensitive instruments in these parts for knowing in which direction the winds of political power are blowing. This ability derives from necessity. The Druse strategy for survival has been to spot which trend, leader, country or movement is on the way up, and to ally with it in good time. This explains, for example, the long alliance between the Druse of the Galilee and the Zionist Jews.
By Barry Rubin
Friedrich Nietzsche famously said, “That which does not kill me makes me stronger.” A good Middle East equivalent, at least among the anti-democratic forces, would be: That which does not scare me makes me bolder.
Can things get worse with the Obama Administration’s foreign-and especially Middle East–policy? Yes, it’s not inevitable but I have just seen personally a dangerous example of what could be happening next. In fact, I never expected that the administration would try to recruit me in this campaign, as you’ll see starting with paragraph seven.
By Barry Rubin
It is important to understand that the current controversy over construction in east Jerusalem is neither a public relations’ problem nor a bilateral policy dispute. It arises because of things having nothing directly to do with this specific point.
What are the real issues involved:
By Barry Rubin
If–and I repeat, if–this story is true it is going to be a very big development that may, as they like to see in the television promos, change the Obama administration forever. According to Thomas Ricks, the former Washington Post military correspondent, General Raymond Odierno, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, is asking for an additional combat brigade to be put into Kirkuk and to stay beyond Obama’s August 2010 withdrawal deadline for all combat forces.
by Michael Rubin*
After the Iraqi parliament banned 500 candidates from contesting the March 7 national elections, Vice President Joseph Biden rushed to Baghdad to urge Iraqi political leaders to reconsider. While the ban has fueled U.S. cynicism about Iraqi democracy, such cynicism is unwarranted, especially now.
The Iraqi parliament’s decision did not wipe out Sunni candidates. Even the majority Shia lists are multi-sectarian. Iraqis say the controversy is really about rule-of-law and sovereignty issues. Across the ethnic and sectarian spectrum — and even in senior Iraqi military circles — Iraqis consider it likely that there will be a Baathist coup attempt following U.S. withdrawal, even if they disagree about its chances of success. Indeed, it is no coincidence the current defense minister is among those banned by parliament.
by Matthew Levitt*
It costs a lot of money to run an insurgency. There are arms to buy, attacks to launch, bribes to pay. The local population has to be won over, and extensive networks have to be actively maintained, often involving members of various groups, criminal syndicates, corrupt officials, and independent operators such as local smugglers. Explosive devices have to be made, guns have to be brought in from abroad, volunteers have to be indoctrinated and trained.
by Michael Rubin*
While the Obama administration and congressional leaders may justify renewed engagement with Syria with their desire to jumpstart the Middle East peace process, they ignore the very issue that lies at the heart of the Syrian threat to U.S. national security: Syrian support for radical Islamist terror. This may seem both illogical and counterfactual given past antagonism between the ‘Alawite-led regime and the Muslim Brotherhood, but there is overwhelming evidence that President Bashir al-Asad has changed Syrian strategic calculations and that underpinning terror is crucial to the foreign policy of the country.
By Barry Rubin
After watching Middle East politics for more than 30 years, it is clear that these events — and the perceptions of them — move in cycles. At times, developments force a more realistic, and at other times a less realistic, understanding of what’s going on. Sometimes, sadly, it is only when things go wrong that people in the West wake up.
Let’s take some “positive examples,” in terms of negative developments, as examples:
by Daniel Pipes*
Highly impressed by the post-9/11 and post-Iraq cohort to enter the field of Middle East studies, I have been predicting for years that by about 2015 the field will begin evolving in a more mainstream direction. The eccentrics and extremists of yesteryear who dominate academic studies of the region will be replaced by individuals with a greater dose of common sense and ambition.
by Daniel Pipes*
American forces departed Iraqi cities last week to parades, fireworks, and chants of “Out, America, out!” and “America has left! Baghdad is victorious!”
They left under a Status of Forces Agreement reached in November 2008 stipulating their “withdrawal from cities, towns and villages” by June 30, 2009. In addition, by December 31, 2011, “All U.S. forces are to withdraw from all Iraqi territory, water and airspace.” The SOFA also grants Baghdad control over American military operations and it defines the U.S. role in such areas as Iraq’s economy and education.
You are currently browsing the archives for the Iraq category.
Articles/Entries