Baghdad Blues

The devastating terrorist attack in Iraq shows that Prime Minister Maliki’s police force and army are not doing their duty. But President Obama is also putting Iraq’s security on the line.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki knows a thing or two about meaningless melodrama: “Blood stained, dirty hands want to plunge our nation into chaos, stop our political process and prevent our parliamentary election.”

What else could the man say in the face of 155 killed and 500 wounded? Since signing the troop stationing agreement with the United States, he bears full responsibility for security in Iraq. After the attacks, he needed to direct attention away from himself and his responsibilities so now he ambiguously refers to Syria’s alleged complicity in those attacks.

While it cannot be denied that some of the insurgents enter Iraq from Syria and some of their supporters find refuge there, it is the prime minister who is responsible for Iraqi security, not the Syrian president.

Numerous control points are manned by Iraqi police and the military guards government buildings. The bombs had to have made it past these; one of the vehicles was packed with one ton of explosives, the second with over 1,500 pounds. The security personnel had either been bribed or failed to do their jobs.

In any case, Maliki’s troops have again proven to be incapable of carrying out their mission. Apparently, there are also “dirty hands” in the ranks of his own security personnel.

By August 2010, Barack Obama wants to withdraw up to 50,000 soldiers from Iraq, mostly combat troops. While that still leaves some 60,000 American soldiers there, a large number of are already involved with their own logistics, administration and security or are also making preparations for complete withdrawal. Training of the Iraqi security forces will be an additional duty. Should violence again become widespread in Iraq, there will hardly be enough American troops there to come to the aid of Iraqi security forces. Plans for the withdrawal of large numbers of troops have been underway for several months; those plans cannot be reversed in just a few days.

Withdrawal from Iraq will soon become an irreversible process independent of conditions on the ground. Insurgent leaders, from al-Qaeda to the Baath Sunnis know this. Many of them have kept a low profile, knowing that the U.S. Army cannot stay there forever and that the power struggle will then take place between Iraqi factions.

Since Baghdad disappointed the Sunni tribal militias by refusing to integrate them into the ranks of the military, many of them could well go underground again. The situation in Iraq has been whitewashed over the past months.

A new parliament is due to be elected next January. The Chamber of Deputies, however, has been unable to come together on the election reform necessary for a new political landscape. Old alliances have disappeared and new ones are taking their place. The possibility of power sharing would be made possible by new laws, but the establishment is fighting against any possibility of competition.

While it is a fact that Maliki cannot dictate to the Parliament, it is also a fact that he, as leader of the country, shares responsibility for the chaos. He has yet to come up with a realistic solution to the Kirkuk problem: the oil center remains a tribal point of contention. That situation could easily be the spark to ignite open warfare between Baghdad and the Kurds.

Maliki and Obama should ask themselves why security gained by the U.S. Army in Iraq since 2007 should now be put at risk; Maliki because he cannot provide that security himself, and Obama because he is placing himself in a straight jacket that is robbing him of military and political alternatives.