|
BROOKINGS:
IRAQ INDEX
|
Want to subscribe
to the Global Beat?
Send an e-mail to:
gbeditor@gmail.com
with the word "subscribe" in
the subject line.
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail
with "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
Any problems, comments or mail,
click here:
CONTACT:
GLOBALBEAT
|
|
Ariel Sharon's doctors have said he is unlikely to recover sufficiently
from a massive haemorrhagic stroke to be able to resume office as Prime
Minister |
The Fall of
a Giant
The wave of shock and sadness that swept
over Israel on the news that a massive stroke has incapacitated Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon --apparently permanently -- is understandable: It
was to the aging warhorse that the Jewish State had often turned for
security in its hours of greatest need, relying on his courage and
skill as a tank commander to turn the tide of the October 1973 war
against Egypt and Syria, and electing him prime minister in 2000 to put
down the Palestinian intifada. His resurrection as a political
contender had seemed improbable after an official Israeli inquiry found
him "indirectly responsible" for the massacre of hundreds of
Palestinians by falangist militiamen in Beirut's Sabra and Shatila
refugee camps in 1982, and he had been forced to resign as defense
minister. When he was elected Prime Minister in 2000, the event seemed
almost accidental, a product of the combined errors of Bibi Netanyahu,
Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat. Where many of his detractors had expected
only harsh tactics from Sharon, the former general instead proved to be
a master strategist -- his withdrawal from Gaza earlier this year
signaled a victory not only over recalcitrant right wingers from his
own party, but also in burying the Oslo Peace process and winning
unprecedented U.S. support for the principle of Israel acting
unilaterally. He rejected the Oslo idea outright, and paid lip-service
to the "roadmap," but insisted there was "no Palestinian partner" and
instead, via the Gaza withdrawal and the West Bank security wall,
sought to unilaterally "disengage" from the Palestinians along
boundaries of his own choosing. And at the moment of his collapse, he
had looked set to break the mold of Israeli politics, having created a
new party, Kadima, in his own image, that had looked set to trounce
both Labor and Likud in the March 28 election.
But it is the to his passing from the political stage that
reveals more of the qualities that made Sharon unique among Israeli
leaders. As much as they loathed Sharon, many Palestinian leaders and
analysts clearly respected him as a man of action, willing to act
decisively in pursuit of his own vision even when that involved taking
unpopular decisions at great risk. While extremist elements expressed
joy at his passing from the scene, the
response from much of the Palestinian political class was fear.
That's because no matter who succeeds him, it is unlikely that any
Israeli leader in the near future will muster Sharon's ability to take
bold steps. (Haaretz, January 5, 2006)
Veteran Yediot Aharonot columnist Nahum Barnea assesses
Sharon's legacy and the vacuum he leaves, writing that
his self-confidence, composure and courage put him in the rank of
historic actors as Israel's founder, David Ben-Gurion. (YNet, January
5, 2006)
Jerusalem Post editor David Horovitz offers a thoughtful
assessment of the
secret of Sharon's political success, noting that he cast himself
as the answer to the desires and fears of Israeli voters: "He had a
vast middle ground of confused Israelis wanting to believe that he knew
what he was doing - that he, and only he, could steer the country to
security and tranquility," writes Horovitz. "He achieved this following
despite never fully detailing the course he was pursuing; indeed, that
very vagueness was one of the secrets of his popularity. Trust me, the
implicit message ran. Keep me in power, and everything will be all
right."
(Jerusalem Post, January 5, 2006)
Graham Usher, in a piece published days before Sharon's
stroke, details the extent of
Sharon's victory over the Palestinian national movement, rolling
back not only the Oslo Accord but even the very expectation from the
U.S. that Israel is required to negotiate with the Palestinians at all.
(Al Ahram, December 27, 2005 -January 4, 2006)
The political analysts of Haaretz offer
a range of views on how Sharon's demise will affect the forthcoming
election. They see a poll whose outcome had once been a relative
certainty -- a resounding victory for Sharon's new party -- suddenly
thrown wide open. (Haaretz, January 5, 2006)
Chris McGreal sees
Sharon's departure leaving Israeli voters no clear choice. They
supported Sharon because he made clear that he had no intention of
negotiating with the Palestinians despite paying lip service to the
idea, but they are unlikely to be convinced by any of the potential
successors from within his own party. Likud likely leader, Bibi
Netanyahu, remains implacably hostile to a Palestinian state and to
Sharon's Gaza withdrawal. And Labor's Amir Peretz wants to negotiate a
final agreement along Oslo lines, which many Israelis remain wary of.
(The Guardian, January 5, 2006)
Palestinian-American commentator Ray Hanania sees
an ironic symmetry between Israel without Sharon and the Palestinians
without Arafat . "Israelis may find themselves in the same
situation as Palestinian’s after Arafat’s death," he writes. "It is
possible that no other Israeli successor will enjoy the same power or
popularity that Sharon enjoyed, and that may empower his foes to block
further withdrawals." (Ynet, January 5, 2006)
Palestinians
in Disarray
Even before Ariel Sharon's demise,
Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas had found himself in an
increasingly untenable position. Violent chaos was mounting both in the
West Bank and Gaza as Palestinian militiamen staked their claims to
authority creating an increasingly treacherous environment for the
January 25 legislative election. The situation highlighted the limits
of Abbas's political authority, but that looked set to deteriorate even
further as a result of the election: Hamas has swept recent West Bank
municipal election, and many analysts believed it could carry a
plurality of the Palestinian vote in protest against the corruption of
the ruling Fatah party. Even within the party, Abbas has been forced to
cede a considerable amount of the political spoils to a younger, more
militant generation that has challenged his own for primacy. Abbas has
come under increasing pressure in recent weeks from the Fatah old guard
to postpone the election, using as a pretext the chaos and the Israeli
threat to prevent Jerusalem residents from voting. But forces as
diverse as Hamas and the U.S. government are insisting he proceed with
the poll. If the Palestinians fear that the changes in Israel will
create paralysis in any moves towards peace, the looming election
highlights the same problem on the Palestinian side. (The
Daily Star, January 5, 2006)
Robert Blecher offers a detailed exposition
of the contending factions and possible outcomes of January's vote,
and warns that it may presage a fundamental reimagining of the
Palestinian national movement.
(MERIP, January 1, 2006)
Palestinian editor and Hamas candidate Ghazi Hamad argues
that holding the election is an essential step towards achieving a new
Palestinian consensus, and that cleaning
the Palestinian political house will have a positive impact on Israel's
forthcoming elections. (Daily Star, January 5, 2006)
One piece of hopeful news for the long-suffering residents of
Gaza: Turkey
has initiated a plan to invest in revitalizing Gaza's industrial zone,
and hopes the move will eventually create 100,000 jobs. (Daily Star,
January 5, 2006)
Iraq:
The Endgame Begins
The talk from the Bush administration and
its British ally on the situation in Iraq has become relentlessly
positive, even amid a
new round of vicious bloodletting and mounting sectarian tension
that may have been exacerbated in the recent elections. The upbeat
assessments may be designed to prepare the public of a substantial
withdrawal of coalition forces -- a declaration of victory based on an
understanding that things in Iraq right now may be as good as they're
going to get. (The Bush administration has already declared
an end to its own financial investment in Iraq's reconstruction by
seeking no new funding for that purpose from Congress.) Veteran British
correspondent Simon Jenkins noted this trend in Tony Blair's Christmas
visit to British troops at Basra "to tell them how much things were
improving." Blair told troops the security situation was “completely
changed” from a year ago, Jenkins writes. "What he meant was unclear.
It was as if Gladstone had visited Gordon during the siege of Khartoum.
Did it not seem strange to Blair that he could not move outside his
walled fortress, could not drive anywhere or talk to any Iraqis? Did he
wonder why British troops have withdrawn from two anarchic provinces?
Was he really told that security is transformed for the better? If so
he is horribly deceived."
Whle the Coalition presence is essential for the negotiation
of a compact that can hold Iraq together, it also impedes the emergence
of an independent Iraqi government. And even U.S.
commanders on the ground fear that the newly minted security forces may
become sectarian militias. Still, he argues, a move to withdrawal
may be for the best: "The next stage in Iraq is no longer within the
capacity of America or Britain to determine," writes Jenkins. "All they
can do is postpone it. The country is about to acquire its third
government in as many years. Left to its own devices this government
might just find enough authority to hold its country together.
Imprisoned in its green zone castle as a puppet of the Pentagon, it
will certainly not. That is why withdrawal needs a date, and an early
one." (The Sunday Times, January 3, 2006)
Jill Carroll and Dan Murphy write that the planned
withdrawals and reconstruction funding cuts, together with the recent
election results, will sharply
accelerate the erosion of the Washington's ability to influence events
in Iraq. (Christian Science Monitor, January 5, 2006)
General John Abizaid, the commander of U.S. forces in the
region, has made clear that the
U.S. plans to accelerate the transfer of security responsibility to
local forces. At the same time, President Bush has indicated that
the
role of U.S. forces in Iraq is to change substantially to one of
supporting local forces, and that this will allow a significant
draw-down. (LA Times, January 5, 2006)
An early indication of the nature of the changing U.S.
military role comes in the form of a
five-fold increase in the monthly total number of air strikes by U.S.
planes in November and December. But reports of
civilian casualties highlight the danger of using air power
against insurgents in urban areas. (The Times, January 5, 2006)
Former Democratic presidential contender Senator Gary Hart
points out that the
Bush administration has consistently evaded calls to declare that it
seeks no permanent military bases in Iraq, and warns that this
creates a dangerous mistrust of U.S. intentions among important Iraqi
constituencies. (The Financial Times via Huffington Post, January 5,
2006)
Iraq's Finance Minister Ali Allawi offers a fascinating look
at the economic policy of the U.S. occupation authority in the first
months following Saddam's overthrow, arguing that it failed because it
was based on a crude free-market dogma and required "shock therapy"
that would have been politically suicidal. Now, he says, there's a
great danger that once the U.S. withdraws from the reconstruction
process, the
problems of corruption and cronyism will intensify. (Foreign
Policy, January, 2006)
|
Improvised
Explosive Device, as described by Globalsecurity.org
Dealing with Iraq's IEDs
The insurgent weapon that has
claimed the most American lives in Iraq is also one of the simplest:
The Improvised Explosive Device or IED. Recognizing that these homemade
charges assembled from a variety of easily accessible munitions poses a
grave threat to U.S. forces not only in the current war in Iraq, but as
insurgents share knowledge across borders it will likely become the
norm in anti-American insurgencies elsewhere, the U.S. military has
called for the equivalent of a Manhattan Project to counter the danger.
But, says Center for Defense Information researcher Hannah Levine, that
may be the wrong approach. The IED threat is always evolving as
insurgents adapt their technology to U.S. responses, she notes. The
only effective counter must be similarly adaptive. The analogy, she
suggests, is combatting a mutating flu virus. If vaccine programs are
based on an earlier version of the virus, they are ineffective. (Center
for Defense Information, January 4, 2006)
A cemetery at Asmara for Eritrean victims of the last
border war with Ethiopia
Ethiopia, Nepal and Sri Lanka to ICG's Conflict
Watch List
As a troubled world entered 2006,
the International Crisis Group identified the insurgencies in Sri
Lanka's Tamil areas and in Nepal, as well as the potential for a new
border war between Ethiopia and Eritrea as the most dangerous looming
conflicts. In the latest edition of its extremely useful "Crisis Watch"
summary, it described 11 conflict situations as having deteriorated
over the past month, including the usual suspects in the Middle East,
Bangladesh which has recently become an al-Qaeda target, Chad, China,
Colombia, North Korea, Pakistan and Peru. The group did, however, have
some good news to report: "The Democratic Republic of Congo held its
first democratic vote in four decades as an overwhelming majority of
the population approved a draft constitution. In Afghanistan, the first
elected parliament in 30 years was inaugurated by President Karzai.
Bolivia saw the election of its first indigenous head of state in a
free and fair poll. And in Côte d’Ivoire, after months of
political deadlock, all parties accepted Charles Konan Banny as interim
prime minister." (International Crisis Group, January 4, 2006)
Artist's rendering of a hypothetical 'bullet hitting a
bullet' scenario
It Doesn't Work, But That's No Reason Not to Deploy
It: Missile Defense Update
The Pentagon's multibillion dollar
missile defense program is in full swing, with the tenth interceptor
missile having been deployed in California last month. Soon, the U.S.
will begin seeking a European host for parts of the system, currently
confined to California and Alaska. One small problem, writes Victoria
Sampson, is that so far, the system has failed to prove itself viable.
"The interceptors fielded in Alaska and California are part of a
weapons system that suffered two flight test failures within three
months. In December 2004 and February 2005, the interceptor rockets not
only failed to intercept their test targets -- they could not even
leave the launch pad. The United States has been launching rockets for
decades now; while missile defense requires an accuracy that has been
likened to 'hitting a bullet with a bullet,' rocket launches should be
well within our capabilities.
"Following these recent setbacks,
MDA officials took a hard look at their testing program and scaled
things down. On Dec. 13, 2005, a test of the interceptor rocket was
held, and finally it managed to get off the ground. No target was used;
nor will a live target be incorporated in the tests for some time.
"Yet somehow, the Pentagon argues
with a straight face that this system can provide a 'limited' defense
for the United States against missile attack. It is theoretically
possible that it may do so in the future, but missile defense, as it
stands today, tomorrow, and really, for the next few years, does
nothing more than divert funding and resources from programs that
actually do work. Still, it continues to grow." (Center for Defense
Information, January 4, 2006)
|
U.S.
Central Command's website and Newsletter
Updating Info on Iraq, Afghanistan. the Middle East and the Horn of
Africa
|
