Iraq Returns To Blame Game Over Baghdad Bombings

The day after the October 25, 2009 bombings of the Justice Ministry and provincial council buildings in Baghdad, the U.S. military praised how the government was handling the situation compared to the August 2009 attacks. After that event, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki started a major diplomatic row with Syria, blaming Baathists there for masterminding the bombing. Baghdad aired a taped confession of a suspect on TV who said that he had made one of the truck bombs on orders from two Baathist officials in Damascus. That was contradicted by the fact that Al Qaeda in Iraq was the only group to officially take responsibility for the attack, and after the confession appeared, Iraqi security forces arrested an Al Qaeda cell that they said made the explosives. U.S. officials are also now telling the press that they don’t put much credibility behind the confession. This time a U.S. military spokesman said that Baghdad was being more pragmatic and deliberate in their response, by launching an investigation rather than making wild accusations.

Since then Al Qaeda in Iraq’s Islamic State took responsibility for the bombings, Iraqi forces with U.S. advisers conducted raids in Baghdad looking for a suspect they believed was behind both the August and October bombings, extra security was added to the capital, and 61 soldiers and police officers were arrested for incompetence in stopping the attack. That period may be ending however.

Spurred on by public dissatisfaction with the government’s inability to stop the bombings, Iraqi officials have begun blaming foreigners, and each other once again. Iraq’s Foreign Minister called for a U.N. investigation into the bombings, a request that started after the August attack. Baghdad’s governor accused the security forces of negligence, while the provincial council voted to dismiss the Interior Minister and the Baghdad Operations Chief. Most recently, on October 30, the Foreign Minister said that Syria and Baathists that resided there were involved in this attack as well. Iraq is also compiling a portfolio on foreign support for terrorists that it will present to a new United Nations envoy soon.

In August, Prime Minister Maliki tried to defer blame and distract public opinion from a domestic security failure by turning it into an international event. This time, the Iraqi government’s response was better at first. That didn’t last long as more and more politicians are beginning to turn on each other, and pointing fingers at foreign interference again, even though Al Qaeda in Iraq is the only one that has publicly come out saying they were behind the bombing, just like they did in August. Syria has definitely allowed a plethora of militants to operate out of its country against Iraq, but no convincing evidence has been publicly aired to imply that either Damascus or the Baathists were behind either the August or October attacks. With Iraq caught up in campaigning for the 2010 elections, and the Prime Minister’s reputation on the line with the security lapses, it is easier for officials to accuse others than admit that they have made mistakes.

SOURCES

Alsumaria, “Iraq prepares evidence for UN Chief envoy,” 10/31/09
- “Security Forces blamed for Baghdad attacks,” 10/28/09
- “Zebari accuses Syria of implication in Iraq attacks,” 10/31/09

Arraf, Jane, “Baghdad bombings: Iraqis at scene blame political parties,” 10/25/09
- “Iraq bombings: US military spokesman praises Iraqi response,” Christian Science Monitor, 10/26/09

Al Jazeera, “Iraq seeks UN inquiry into blasts,” 10/27/09

Leland, John, “Iraq Makes Sweeping Arrests Over Baghdad Blasts,” New York Times, 10/30/09

Sly, Liz, “Iraq beefs up security in Baghdad after bombings,” Los Angeles Times, 10/27/09

Iraq-Syria Dispute Update

While Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has said that talks with Syria have gone nowhere over the August 2009 Baghdad bombings, and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani called for an international tribunal to investigate the attacks while at the United Nations in New York City, behind the scenes things actually seem to be making some progress. On September 9, 2009 it was announced that the Syrian and Iraqi foreign ministers had agreed to stop the media campaigns against each other, return ambassadors, and form security committees. On September 25, Iraq’s Foreign Minister told the media that Syria had agreed to form a joint Iraqi-Syrian-Turksih committee to look into terrorist camps in Syria.

SOURCES

Alsumaria, “Damascus approves to form Turkish-Syrian-Iraqi investigation committee,” 9/25/09

Aswat al-Iraq, “Maliki says Arab efforts to patch up differences with Syria did not work out,” 9/22/09
- “Talabani stresses importance of int’l probe into Baghdad bombings,” 9/25/09

Xinhua, “Iraq, Syria agree to stop media campaigns, speed up returning ambassadors,” 9/9/09

Request For U.N. Investigation Into August Baghdad Bombings Said To Be Turned Down

On August 19, 2009 two large truck bombs struck the Iraqi Finance and Interior Ministries in Baghdad. The Iraqi government was quick to accuse Baathists based in Syria as the main culprits. A taped confession of an alleged member of the bomb cell responsible aired on state-run television accused two Baathists in Damascus as the masterminds. This started a war of words between the two capitals that reached its peak at the end of August when Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told Turkey’s Foreign Minister that 90% of the foreign terrorists in Iraq came through Syria, that Damascus hand over the two Baathist that were behind the bombings, and demanded that the United Nations form a special tribunal to look into the August bombings. Larsa News recently reported that the Security Council rejected the idea of an international investigation due to lack of evidence.

Questions about the validity of Maliki’s accusations against Syria and the Baathists have been growing in number. First, as reported before, shortly after Iraq aired the taped confession accusing Baathists of being behind the August bombings, they announced the arrest of an Al Qaeda cell they said actually carried out the attack. Baathists in Syria have condemned the attacks, while Al Qaeda’s Islamic State of Iraq is the only group that has publicly claimed responsibility. The United States has said that the incident has the hallmarks of Al Qaeda in Iraq as well. Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi also stated that Maliki was blaming others for his own security failures, while the Presidential Council that includes Iraq’s president and two vice presidents, called for calm and complained that the Prime Minister was acting unilaterally in accusing Syria of culpability. Middle Eastern analysts have questioned why Syria would knowingly allow such a direct attack upon the Iraqi government a day after Maliki visited the country, and the two were improving ties. A few days before the bombing for example, Iraq’s ambassador in Damascus said that the Assad government was making positive steps to improve security. There have been signs that Syria has stepped up its patrols along its border, agreed to cooperate with the United States on Iraq after a delegation visited the country in August 2009, and has told some Baathists to leave the country and others to lay low. For all of these reasons it appears that Maliki’s real purpose behind attacking Syria is to defer responsibility away from himself for the lapse in security, and keep up his image of maintaining law and order before the January 2010 parliamentary elections.

SOURCES

Aswat al-Iraq, “90% of terrorists came to Iraq through Syria – PM,” 8/31/09

Barnes-Dacey, Julien, “Iraq-Syria dispute jeopardize progress on stability, trade,” Christian Science Monitor, 9/19/09

Dagher, Sam, “2 Blasts Expose Security Flaws in Heart of Iraq,” New York Times, 8/19/09

Hendawi, Hamza, “Analysis: Al-Maliki’s quarrel with Syria over Baghdad bombings backfires on Iraqi premier,” Associated Press, 9/12/09

Worsnip, Patrick, “Iraq PM asks for UN inquiry into Baghdad bombings,” Reuters, 9/3/09

Syria-Iraq Dispute Could Be Ending

On August 19, 2009 twin bombings occurred at Iraq’s Foreign and Finance Ministries. Three days later, the Baghdad Operations Command announced that it had arrested a suspect, and his taped confession was later played on television. He said he was a Baathist and former policeman who put together one of the truck bombs in the Muqdadiya district of Diyala under orders from two Baathist officials in Syria. On August 25, Iraq demanded that Syria turn over the two alleged masterminds, and withdrew its ambassador, with Damascus following suit. That was the beginning of a war of words between the two countries. Baghdad demanded that Syria turn over or expel all terrorists in the country, it showed another confession on television of an Al Qaeda member who said that he was trained and financed by Syrian intelligence, called for the United Nations to conduct a criminal investigation into the bombings, and sent troops and police to patrol the Syrian border. On September 9, however, at a meeting of the Arab League, it was announced that the Syrian and Iraqi Foreign Ministers had come to an agreement to ease tensions, stop the recriminations, return the ambassadors, and form a joint security committee.

This dramatic escalation of tensions between Iraq and Syria covered over the fact that Baghdad issued two contradictory stories about the bombings. On August 29, the Interior Ministry reported that it had arrested 14 Al Qaeda members in Baghdad who it said was responsible for the August 19 attack. Al Qaeda’s Islamic State of Iraq also claimed they carried out the bombing four days earlier on a website. The government has never reconciled these two versions of events.

The Arab and Iraqi press however, were full of ideas about why Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki chose to confront Syria. What seems most likely is that Maliki wanted to defer blame for the bombings on a believable target, Baathists in Syria. First, the Baath Party and insurgents openly operate in Syria. For example, in 2008 Baath members and insurgent groups held a televised conference in Damascus, and in July 2009, militants held a summit in Syria. That made Damascus an easy target for Maliki. The Prime Minister is also running on law and order again for the 2010 elections, so he needed to blame someone other than himself for the attack. Another possible reason is that Maliki has been upset that the United States has held off and on negotiations with Baathists in Syria. It was reported that Baghdad demanded that Syria deport over 200 Baath members, which would’ve disrupted any deals with Washington as well as gotten rid of some of the most militant opponents of the Iraqi government.

If the Arab League announcement is followed through with, then this whole episode may be wrapping up. Maliki will have achieved his goal of distracting public attention away from his rule and the Iraqi security forces, to Syria and the Baathists. With all the fury and announcements, people will also probably forget that the government came out with two contradictory stories of who was responsible for the August 19 bombings. Maliki will then be able to return to the campaign trail claiming that he stood up for Iraq against the terrorists, even if he probably accused the wrong ones.

SOURCES

Alsumaria, “Qaeda militant says trained in Syria for Iraq attack,” 8/31/09

Aswat al-Iraq, “90% of terrorists came to Iraq through Syria – PM,” 8/31/09
- “Cabinet urges Syria to hand over suspected bombers,” 8/25/09
- “Footage of “confessions” by Wednesday bombings’ prime suspect broadcast,” 8/23/09
- “URGENT/Syria rejects Iraq’s remarks, recalls ambassador,” 8/25/09
- “Wednesday attackers Baathists – BOC,” 8/22/09

Dagher, Sam, “2 Blasts Expose Security Flaws in Heart of Iraq,” New York Times, 8/19/09
- “Iraq Presses U.S. on Pact With Sunnis in Turkey,” New York Times, 7/24/09

Iraq The Model, “Iraq has satellite imagery of Syria training camps,” 9/7/09
- “Iraq postpones census until October 2010,” 8/31/09

Lynch, Marc, “The Syrian-Iraqi spat,” Foreign Policy, 9/1/09

Raphaeli, Dr. Nimrod, “Al-Maliki Turns His Back on Iran, Embraces Iraqi Nationalism,” Middle East Media Research Institute, 9/2/09

Sands, Phil, “A safe haven in Damascus,” The National, 8/29/09

Santora, Marc, “Iraqis Demand Syria Turn Over Suspects,” New York Times, 8/25/09

Sly, Liz, “Al Qaeda-linked group claims two recent Baghdad bombings that killed 95,” Los Angeles Times, 8/26/09

Xinhua, “Iraq, Syria agree to stop media campaigns, speed up returning ambassadors,” 9/9/09

Refugees International Report On What Needs To Be Done About Iraq’s Displaced

The following originally appeared in Musings On Iraq

Refugees International released a report on October 30 on Iraq’s refugees calling for increasing international aid to assist them. The major thrust of the paper was that most of Iraq’s two million refugees are not ready to go back to Iraq any time soon, so the international community and the Iraqi government need to make long term plans on how to deal with this population that is facing dire circumstances. Refugees International said the main priority of this effort should be aiding the host countries where Iraq’s displaced now reside.

Refugees International argues that Iraq’s displaced are stuck between a rock and a hard place. In countries like Syria and Lebanon that have over one million Iraqis in total, refugees face high unemployment because most cannot legally work, increasing prices for food, fuel, and rent, and are running out of money as a result. The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has not helped the situation. Some in his administration believe those who fled the country are traitors. That was why Baghdad encouraged Syria in October 2007 to demand visas to stem the tide of Iraqis going there. When the Maliki government finally did offer aid to host countries, it was only $25 million, and took a year to be delivered.

Now Iraq is trying to encourage its citizens to return. As American officials like General David Petraeus and others have said, the situation in Iraq is still tenuous. Refugees International and the United Nations both don’t believe it is time for Iraqis to come back. A survey by the U.N.’s High Commissioner for Refugees found that 70% of those that went back became internally displaced. A more recent survey by the International Organization for Migration and the Iraqi Ministry of Displacement and Migration found hat 86% of those that returned were able to go back to their homes, but 42% found them damaged. There are also groups like religious minorities and former Baathists that might never return. At the same time, thousands of Iraqis still want to leave the country as Iraq has the most asylum seekers in the world for the last two years. For all of these reasons, it is unlikely that many will be back in Iraq any time soon.

Refugees International believes that the Iraqi government’s response to the crisis is wrong. Instead of calling for refugees to return, the authorities should be improving the conditions within the country so Iraqis will want to come back on their own. That means providing security, basic services, and settling property disputes. Iraq, the U.S., and the international community also need to provide aid to refugees and their host countries to help relieve their problems. Refugees International believes that it will take U.S. leadership for this to occur, but that won’t happen until the presidential election is over. Even then, the new U.S. president needs to make Iraq’s refugees a priority otherwise nothing is likely to change.

SOURCES
International Crisis Group, “Failed Responsibility: Iraqi Refugees In Syria, Jordan and Lebanon,” 7/10/08
LaFranchi, Howard, “US more cautious in Iraq appraisals,” Christian Science Monitor, 10/16/08
Ministry of Displacement and Migration & International Organization for Migration, “Returnee Monitoring and Needs Assessments Tabulation Report,” September 2008
Refugees International, “Iraqi Refugees: Plan For Ongoing Support In An Unstable Region,” 10/30/08
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, “Asylum Levels and Trends In Industrialized Countries, First Half 2008,” 10/17/08

Reports: 8/6/2008

Key reports on the Iraq relief and development:

Stabilizing and Rebuilding Iraq: Iraqi Revenues, Expenditures, and Surplus
Government Accountability Office (GAO)
August 2008
From 2005 through 2007, the Iraqi government generated an estimated $96 billion in cumulative revenues (mostly from oil sales). For 2008, GAO estimates that Iraq could generate as much as $86 billion in total revenues. From 2005 through 2007, the Iraqi government spent an estimated $67 billion on operating and investment activities. The Iraqi government spent only 1% of total expenditures to maintain Iraq- and U.S.-funded investments such as buildings, water and electricity installations. From 2005 through 2007, Iraq was unable to spend all its budgeted funds. In 2007, Iraq spent 80% of its $29 billion operating budget and 28% of its $12 billion investment budget. For 2008, GAO estimates that Iraq could spend as much as $35.9 billion of its $49.9 billion budget. As a result, GAO estimates a cumulative budget surplus of about $29 billion from 2005 to 2007 and projects an additional $38 to $50 billion budget surplus for 2008 (although a proposed $22 billion Iraqi budget supplemental could reduce this projected surplus). U.S. and international officials identify the shortage of trained staff, weak procurement and budgeting systems, violence and sectarian strife, and other factors affecting the Iraqi government’s ability to spend more of its revenues on capital investments.

Failed Responsibility: Iraqi Refugees in Syria, Jordan and Lebanon
International Crisis Group (ICG)
July 2008
Although the security situation in Iraq shows progress, Iraqi refugees remain stranded, jobless and deprived of essential services, while the Iraqi government and the wider international community have failed in their responsibilities and are ill prepared to cope with a new refugee crisis, should it occur. While initially welcoming their Iraqi brethren, ICG reports that Syria and Jordan have put tough restrictions on entry. They provide few basic services and inadequate opportunities for jobs, health care and children's education. If the host countries can be faulted for unfriendly treatment of refugees, they deserve credit for receiving so many at great cost to their societies. By contrast, it is difficult to give the Iraqi government any credit. Flush with oil money, it has been conspicuously ungenerous toward its citizens stranded abroad. The attitude of Western nations also has been deeply troubling.

Iraq Displacement 2008 Mid-Year in Review
International Organization for Migration (IOM)
July 2008
During the first half of 2008, trends of decreased violence and a declining rate of displacement continued throughout the country. Yet the deteriorating conditions facing the 2.8 million Internally Displaced People (IDPs), as well as the limited returnee population, remain one of the most serious humanitarian crises in the world. The report finds that about half of the population continue to get their water from unsafe sources -- 53% from nearby rivers and streams and 52% from open or broken pipes. Meanwhile, shelter is consistently among the highest-priority needs cited by IDPs, and eviction threats coupled with rapidly rising rental prices have created an even more precarious housing situation in recent months. Food access was also poor, only three in ten had regular access to food rations. About half had intermittent access and 21% no access at all. In addition, approximately two million Iraqis are refugees, mostly in neighboring Syria and Jordan, resulting in a total of 5 million internally and externally displaced.

Assessment on Returns to Iraq Amongst Iraqi Refugee Population in Syria
United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR)
April 2008
A survey of nearly 1,000 Iraqis currently staying in Syria has shown that 95 percent fled their homeland because of direct threats or general insecurity and that only 4 percent currently had plans to return to Iraq.

Consolidated Appeal for Iraq 2008
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
February 2008
Conflict in Iraq has exacerbated chronic problems that stem from the past two decades. An estimated four million people in the country are in need of food assistance as the Public Distribution System is weakened, and only 40 percent of the population has reliable access to safe drinking water. As part of the global Consolidated Appeal Process (CAP) for 2008, the $265 million Emergency Appeal for Iraq brings together 14 UN agencies and 10 NGOs to deliver urgent relief to vulnerable people in Iraq over the next 12 months. Priority areas include health and nutrition, education, water and sanitation, housing and shelter, food, and protection. These operations are designed to move into recovery programs and are part of a wider effort to support Iraq’s own goals for stability and recovery.

Progress on the Syrian Front

The New York Times recently reported that Syria will allow U.S. officials from the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to visit Damascus in order to screen and process Iraqis who have taken refuge in the Syrian capital.

Prior to the visit to Syria that brought on this new agreement, only the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees was allowed into Syria to process Iraqi refugees. UNHCR could then refer refugees to the U.S. for resettling, but many of these refugees were unable to reach State Department or DHS offices outside of Syria due to a severe lack of funds.

“This is obviously very good news,” said Jacob Kurtzer, a Congressional advocate for Refugees International. “We’re very happy, but it really does draw attention to the need for a continuous high-level diplomatic presence in Syria and the rest of the region.”

I agree wholeheartedly with Jacob here. Lori Scialabba, who was appointed Associate Director of Refugee, Asylum and International Operations for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services just over a year ago, and James Foley, a career diplomat, deserve praise for speaking directly with Syria. We should also praise Syria, the UNHCR and UNICEF for accommodating 100,000 Iraqi schoolchildren in Syrian schools, a three-fold increase from last year's 33,000.

These developments are small victories for all of us, most importantly for the refugees themselves. But we need to keep an eye on the numbers and stay on top of the administration on this issue. There are 150,000 Iraqi schoolchildren in Syria who still need the education every child deserves. And bear in mind that in October, the first month of fiscal year 2008, the U.S. resettled just over 450 Iraqi refugees out of an expected 12,000 for the fiscal year. Already we're behind on our projections, but continuous pressure on Congress and the administration will get us the results we want.

Caption: Iraqi school children in a cramped basement in the Damascus district of Sayyida Zainab, a hub for Iraq refugees; M. Bernard for the UNHCR

The Iraq Crisis in Numbers: An Update

Recently, the Baltimore Sun ran an article on the refugee crisis. I was happy to see a local newspaper tackling the issue; I take it (with a heavy dose of optimism) as an indication that more and more people are paying attention to the crisis.

The article focused on one of the six Iraqis resettled in Maryland in fiscal year 2007, a woman named Ban Saadi Abdallattif, who came to the States with her nine-year-old son Sajad Mokhalad Bashar. Ms. Abdallattif was a teacher when she lived in Diyala. But the February, 2006 Samarra bombing of Al-Shi'a Al-Askari mosque marked a dramatic spike in violence that took the lives of her uncle and cousin, and which nearly led to her brother's kidnapping. Theirs is a mixed Shi'a and Sunni family, making them targets for both sides of the conflict. She fled to Syria with her entire family just over a year ago and arrived in Laurel, Maryland, this September.

Ban Saadi Abdallattif is awaiting a Social Security number so that she can begin work. Her son is in school in Laurel. She is relieved to be in the safety of the U.S. and does not plan to return to Iraq.

Sadly, Ban Saadi Abdallattif and her son represent only a fraction of the displacement crisis, and a remarkably lucky fraction at that. This fact is starkly indicated by the following stats, which clearly demonstrate the concerted effort that is required to address the crisis:

Internally Displaced Persons in Iraq: 2.3 million (UN High Commissioner for Refugees)

Refugees outside of Iraq: 2.4 million (UNHCR)

Total number displaced: 4.7 million (UNHCR)

UNHCR referrals to the United States as of Oct 5: 11,911 (Baltimore Sun)

Total number of Iraqi refugees admitted in the 2007 fiscal year: 1,608 (Human Rights First)

Of these, number referred by the UNHCR in FY07: 1,510 (HRF)

Number referred by a U.S. embassy program for Iraqi employees in FY07: 98 (HRF)

Special immigrant visas issued to translators and their family members in FY07: 820 (HRF)

Iraqi governorates with restrictions on internal movement: at least 11 of 18 (UNHCR)

UNHCR Syria: 1.4 million Iraqi refugees; 128,000 registered, nearly 36 percent with specific needs (UNHCR)

UNHCR Jordan: 1 million Iraqi refugees; 48,833 registered, 14.4 percent with specific needs (UNHCR)

NPR Morning Edition reports on the plight of Iraqi School Kids in Syria

Among broadcast media, National Public Radio is the leader in its coverage of Iraqi refugees. This morning, NPR foreign correspondent Deborah Amos filed a powerful report on Iraqi school kids in Syria. I highly recommend listening to Deb’s report if you’re looking to better understand the plight of Iraqi refugees.

Here’s a short description: Morning Edition, October 16, 2007 · Syria has become a safe haven for 2 million Iraqi refugees, most of them children. Education is important to Iraqis, but their parents can't afford school in Syria, meaning a generation of Iraqi kids may go uneducated. Listen to Deb’s powerful report here.

Be sure to listen for her short interview with Rami, one of the Iraqi children she talks with. It will break your heart. She also talks with Syrian kids like Fadi Sargere who tries to help his Iraqi friends forget the war they fled. Deb's report begins a series of reports on NPR's Morning Edition about displaced Iraqis.

In coming days, I’ll be writing more about what’s needed (and past needed) from the international community, U.S. administration, and Congress to respond to the needs of millions of displaced Iraqis and the overwhelmed governments that are hosting them.

Desperate Refugees Forced Into Prostitution

We've been writing about the Iraqi displacement crisis for some time now, telling you how millions of Iraqis have been forced from their homes by violence and are seeking safe havens in Syria, Jordan and the more peaceful areas within Iraq.

What we haven't told you is the high proportion of Iraqi refugees who are female-headed households and unaccompanied women. With Iraqi men being killed off and kidnapped at alarming rates, many women find themselves not only refugees dealing with unimaginable losses, but also seeking work outside the home for the first time in countries with already high unemployment. In Syria alone, thousands of these women are smuggled, tricked or forced into prostitution. Some just have no other means of supporting their families.

Katherine Zoepf's New York Times piece from Tuesday tells the story of Hiba, a 16-year-old Baghdad girl who used to wear a hijab (Islamic head scarf) and pray five times a day in accordance with her devout Islamic faith. Now living outside of Demascus, she supports her elderly parents by dancing, scantily-clad, in a nightclub frequented by Saudis and known for prostitution.

"We Iraqis used to be a proud people," her mother said, watching young Hiba dance with a flailing middle-aged man. "During the war we lost everything. We even lost our honor."

"Sometimes you see whole families living this way, the girls pimped by the mother or aunt," said Mouna Asaad, a Syrian women's rights lawyer. "But prostitution isn't the only problem. Our schools are overcrowded, and the prices of services, food and transportation have all risen. We don't have the proper infrastructure to deal with this. We don't have shelters or health centers that these women can go to."

With more than 1.2 million Iraqis currently living in Syria alone, the Middle East is suffering its worst humanitarian crisis since 1948. The U.S. and other able nations must dedicate more significant funds to resettling tens of thousands of refugees each year, and supporting Iraq’s neighbors and the greater Middle East.

We simply cannot allow tragedies such as Hiba's to continue, and be repeated, indefinitely.

The 100,000s of War Refugees Outside Speaker Pelosi's Window

Defending her trip to Syria and dinner date with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed she was "assessing the ground truth" to inform spending decisions made by Congress. If that is the case, than how could Speaker Pelosi spend a day and night in Damascus, Syria without noticing the 100,000s of Iraqi refugees right outside her hotel window?

On some days, the queue of Iraqi refugees waiting outside the UN Refugee Agency's Damascus office extends for city blocks. While it is true that many of these refugees are urban ghosts -- trying to keep a low profile out of fear of deportation -- Pelosi could not possibly have spent a day and night in Damascus without learning of the crisis.

The Iraq conflict is generating the worst refugee crisis the Middle East has seen since 1948. More than 10,000 war refugees flee Iraq every month. For those lucky enough to make it across the border, the most likely destinations are Jordan and Syria. Some make it as far as Lebanon, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. Some of these nations are trying to tighten their borders against the flow of war refugees, fearing the political repercussions of increased competition for scare jobs, housing and resources. In Damascus and Amman, the pressure of 100,000s of refugees have raised housing costs and diminished resources in cities that already have struggling economies.

Despite these challenges, the solution is not tighter borders or deporting families who desperately need a safe harbor from the storms of violence from which they have fled. For especially vulnerable refugees, return to Iraq is virtually a death sentence. Their fears are real. They have lost fathers, sons, and even children. They have received death threats. They have been forced to pay ransoms. They are fleeing from death squads or insurgent extremists who seek to kill them simply for belonging to the wrong sect or tribe. No, the solution is not forcing their return before it is safe. The solution is U.S. funding and international assistance for Iraq's war refugees and the countries that are stuggling to host them despite their difficulty in meeting the needs of their own populations.

While all of this goes on, the stories of Iraq's war refugees receive far too little attention in the mainstream media. The coverage they have received in the New Yorker or by CBS's 60 Minutes has been welcome, powerful, and extremely helpful. But in the realm of 24-hour-news-cycles and partisan feeding frenzy of the blogoshere, the world's fastest growing refugee crisis is hardly a blip on the screen.

Of course, responsibility does not only rest with the media and self-obsessed lonely girls of the blogoshere. It also rests with Speaker Pelosi who's honest assessment of the "ground truth" in Damascus can inform Congress regarding the Emergency Spending Bill for FY 2007, ensuring that host nations like Syria and agencies like the UNHCR receive the assistance they need to help Iraq's war refugees. Her assessment of the deteriorating situation in Iraq can also inform emergency humanitarian funding for Iraqis who have fled violence for safer parts inside Iraq.

Every reader of this blog -- especially you -- can help raise the alarm. You can become one of the blips on the radar that awakens our national conscience and alerts the world to the humanitarian emergency of more than 3 million displaced Iraqis -- many of whom desperately need our help and protection. Call the Congressional switchboard at 202-224-3121. Ask for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Tell her the "ground truth" about Iraq's war refugees, including the ones she may have passed in the streets of Damascus without knowing. They need our help.

3D Security Strategy and US Iraq Policy

Today, the Senate passed their version of the Iraq spending bill that the House passed last week. The Senate legislation includes some hopeful signs that Congress is changing its focus on America's Iraq policy, including a $130 million allocation for Iraq’s refugees and internally displaced persons and an appropriation of $500 million above and beyond the President’s request in economic assistance to foster development and job creation.

No question that these are hopeful signs. Their inclusion in the spending bill means that the Senate listened to what many, including America's top general in Iraq, have been saying: the US cannot and will not bring stability to Iraq simply by flexing its military muscle; economic and diplomatic work must be done along side military operations. By sending money to bolster humanitarian efforts and development projects in Iraq, the Senate has brought important and too-often underfunded peace building tactics into America's Iraq strategy.

Hopeful signs are starting to come from the administration as well. Just this week Secretary of State Rice travelled to the Middle East to help thaw the currently frozen Israeli-Palestinian peace process, which the Iraq Study Group correctly assessed as a destabilizing force throughout the Middle East. Any diplomatic efforts that seek to find solutions to the crisis in Iraq must also address the half-century long animosities between Palestine and Israel, said the Study Group. Another good sign on the diplomatic front is America's willingness to engage in talks with Syria and Iran about stabilizing Iraq. You should keep an eye out for further collaboration, because UNHCR will be hosting a conference next month on Iraq's humanitarian and refugee crises.

These positive changes don't happen spontaneously. They are the product of hard work by people like Dr. Lisa Schirch, interviewed by EPIC for our Ground Truth Project series, who helps our leaders to broaden their conceptions of how to achieve national security. Her organization--dubbed the "3D Security Initiative" for the three "d's" of defense, diplomacy, and development--seeks to promote the encorporation of all three of these tools into American foreign policy, not only to stabilize Iraq, but to also to reinforce US domestic security.

Secretary Rice: “Success in Iraq requires the positive support of Iraq's neighbors.”

BBC reports a sharp change in US-Iraq strategy: US leaders have agreed to sit down with Syria and Iran in regional talks to address the situation in Iraq:

"The administration of President George W Bush has been under pressure in Congress and from the findings of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group to include Syria and Iran in dialogue to stabilise Iraq.

"Ms Rice said: 'Success in Iraq requires the positive support of Iraq's neighbors. This is also one of the key findings of the Iraq Study Group.'

"Leon Panetta, a member of the [Iraq Study Group], said the announcement was an important step towards bringing stability to Iraq."

Bear in mind that the first round of talks will only be an "ice-breaker," involving "non-ministerial level" representatives. Even still, the surprise announcement of the regional talks is a very heartening development to those seeking an end to the crisis in Iraq. Just a few months ago, whether the administration would enact any of the Iraq Study Group recommendations was a matter of concerned speculation. The recommendations calling for the US to engage Iraq's neighbors, which include Syria and Iran, seemed particularly likely to go unheeded. For the last three years, the US has been diplomatically estranged from Iran and Syria, never once engaging them in dialogue.

Luckily, the chorus of voices calling for diplomacy and other non-military solutions for Iraq is being heard in Washington. Let's hope our leaders continue to listen.

Beyond the Surge

Instead of focusing on Bush's plan to send 20,000 or so more troops to Iraq as pretty much everyone else seems to be doing, I'd like to discuss the economic and regional dimensions of his "new" strategy.

Economic
In his speech President Bush pledged to aid the Iraqi government in creating more jobs with longer term sustainable programs. In fact, the Pentagon has already begun making good on this pledge having refurbished tens of factories all over Iraq to ready them for operation at the hands of Iraqis. Unfortunately, Bush continues to stress the importance of Provincial Reconstruction Teams or PRTs which have been criticized by the U.S. government’s own agencies as being largely ineffective.

Instead of doubling the number of PRTs, as Bush intends to do, more funds and resources ought to be directed towards the Community Action Program (CAP). CAP works to develop Iraq’s economy from the bottom-up, by employing local Iraqis in community-based initiatives devised by the Iraqis themselves. CAP has operations all over Iraq, including in its more volatile regions and, according to the U.S. government’s own auditors, has a 98% success rate.

This is where the money needs to go, but sadly Bush seems content throwing money at the proven failures that have been the Provincial Reconstruction Teams.

Regional
Whether we like it or not, Iran and Syria are an inextricable part of the Iraqi conflict. Beyond the levels of influence they hold over the vast majority of Iraqis, the two countries, Syria and Iran have a real interest in ensuring that the Iraqi civil war does not escalate to the point of an all-out regional conflict. Both countries, Syria more so, have already began suffering from the conflict in their capacity as hosts to hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees. Their economies are being hit hard by the sudden influx of Iraqis, and it is unclear whether they will continue to accept refugees. (For more on the refugee crisis, I suggest you read our interview with Refugees International advocate, Sean Garcia). The United States must at least talk to Iran and Syria in order to coordinate a strategy that will address the needs of these refugees. Of course the U.S. has yet to accept responsibility for the crisis, much less recognize it so...

Here is what Bush had to say about Iran and Syria:

"Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

The U.S. recently acted on this threat by storming an Iranian consular building in Iraq and detaining several employees. Fact of the matter is that regardless of whether the U.S. and Iran have a relationship at the state level, there are many low-level negotiations going between coalition forces and Iranians or at least those sympathetic to the Iranians. Acts such as this one will obviously jeopardize these much-needed negotiations.

Dealing with Iran

One of the key proposals of the Iraq Study Group's report was that the U.S. engage Syria and Iran over Iraq. Syria has come out saying it supports this proposal whole-heartedly, only because complementary to this recommendation is the notion that Israel give the Golan Heights back to Syria. Israel of course is not to happy with the idea of the U.S. undermining its negotiations with Syria, nor with the idea of handing back the Golan Heights in the first place.

Iran, unlike Syria, seemingly has no reason to negotiate with the U.S.; its influence in the region continues to grow, the majority population of Iraq (Shia) have a close connection with Iran giving Iran considerable power within Iraq, its nuclear enrichment program continues undeterred and its President is certain that the 12th Imam will soon return- "a certitude that leaves little room for compromise" as Scott Peterson of the Christian Science Monitor explains. Besides which, many Sunnis in Iraq will surely frown on increased Iranian intervention. (The same can of course be said of the Kurds in regard to Turkey and the Shia in regard to Jordan.)

Secretary Rice has repeatedly declared that the U.S. will not negotiate with Iran, arguing that the "compensation required by any deal might be too high." And that, ""If they have an interest in a stable Iraq, they [Iran and Syria] will do it anyway."

The U.S. doesn't want to engage Iran and vice-versa, so what's the point? Well Flynt Levrett, Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation argues that the United States must deal directly with Iran in order to prevent Iranian development of nuclear weapons and to resolve other political and security issues. He recommends a "grand bargain" that would include economic incentives and a guarantee that the U.S. not attack Iran. In exchange the U.S. would gain limits to Iran's nuclear activities and a termination of Iran's support for terrorism in Iraq. This deal could also provide the foundation for a establishing a regional security framework in the Persian Gulf.

He makes an interesting argument and I suggest those interested read the full report; however, I believe the points I make above are still valid. Even if the U.S. does for some reason extend its arm to Iran, who is to say that Iran will reciprocate. Everything seems to be going Iran's way as far as Iran is concerned anyway. Also, when one is pursuing a course of action based on one's messianic beliefs, it seems unlikely that logic will hold much sway.

What do you think? First off, should the U.S. engage Iran over Iraq and secondly how successful do you think said negotiations would be? Should Iraq's neighbors even be involved in the peace process?

Bush Discusses the ISG Proposals

In a joint press conference with PM Blair, President Bush discussed the findings of the Iraq Study Group.

"The thing I liked about the Baker-Hamilton report is it discussed the way forward in Iraq. And I believe we need a new approach. And that's why I've tasked the Pentagon to analyze a way forward. That's why Prime Minister Blair is here to talk about the way forward, so we can achieve the objective, which is an Iraq which can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself and be an ally in the war on terror."

In other words: thanks, but no thanks. He goes on to say:

"The Congress is not going to accept every recommendation in the report, and neither will the administration. But there's a lot of, you know, very important things in the report that we ought to seriously consider."

Regardless of whether the proposals suggested by the ISG have merit, one thing is clear: the study is meant to be taken as a whole. It addresses issues that are inextricably tied together and as such a strategy that favored only select recommendations is liable to fail.

It's not really news at this point, but Bush went on the record again to reject the idea of negotiating with Iran and Syria. On Iran specifically, Bush declared that he would not even begin to consider entering discussions with Iran as long as it pursues its nuclear enrichment program. While it is certainly true that negotiations with Iran are likely to go nowhere at this time, success in Iraq must involve its neighbors, and the U.S. cannot afford to slam the door on Iraq's most influential neighbor. I intend on posting more about the difficulties of negotiating with Iran and Syria later.

addendum: Many newspapers have been reporting that Bush has also rejected the report's other main recommendation, namely the pullout of troops in early 2008. The thing is, the report doesn't actually recomend that the U.S. redeploy its troops in Iraq at this time. It only states that it would be nice if the U.S. "could" do so.

"By the first quarter of 2008 … all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq. At that time, U.S. combat forces in Iraq could be deployed only in units embedded with Iraqi forces."

Certainly all of their proposals seem geared towards achieving a responsible withdrawal in the near future; however, they never give a timetable for when the U.S. "should" withdraw its combat troops from Iraq.

Iraq Study Group Releases Report...Will Bush Listen?

After 9 months of deliberation the Iraq Study Group finally released its report today. You can view the full text here.

The report's makes 2 fundamental recommendations: Change the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq to allow combat forces to leave the country responsibly and, adopt a new regional diplomatic approach. The keyword in the former recommendation is "responsibly."

A quick withdrawal from Iraq would almost certainly result in an all-out civil war that could destabilize the entire region. Instead the report suggests that combat troop remain in Iraq until early 2008 after which only a smaller force responsible for training, rapid-response operations and advising would remain. According to a New York Times article printed yesterday, US troops in Iraq have already began shifting to advisory roles. Unfortunately, as incidents such as this demonstrate, it could take a while before the Iraqi army will be ready to secure their country without the combat support of US troops. Whether approximately two years will be enough time is questionable; however, there is no question that if there is any chance for the US to withdraw combat forces responsibly in this time-frame, Iraq's neighbors must be included.

As Baker, one of the chairmen of the Group explained in today's press conference:

"Both Iran and Syria have a lot of influence... Iran has the single greatest influence in Iraq today. You can't solve these problems without talking to them. You cannot look at Iraq and treat it as separate in the region... For 40 years, we talked to the USSR when they wanted to wipe us from the face of the earth."

These countries are inextricably tied to the conflict in Iraq, and as such any meaningful peace in Iraq will need to involve them. Unfortunately, Bush has repeatedly rejected calls to engaged Syria and Iran, and as long as Cheney and Rove have his ear, this will likely continue to be the case. There may be some hope, however, with the nomination of Robert Gates to the position of Defense Secretary: Gates has long been a proponent of engaging Iran in a dialog. There is of course the possibility that Gates may change his position on the matter as soon as he takes office, after all Cheney also supported talks with Iran before he came to office. I'll give Gates the benefit of the doubt here considering his admission yesterday that the US, contrary to what Bush has said in the past, is in fact losing the war in Iraq- but only time will tell. Either way there is still no telling as to whether Bush would even listen to Gates should he recommend regional diplomacy.

Though Bush originally embraced the Iraq Study Group, as it became clear that the group's recommendations would diverge from White House policy, Bush been downplaying the significance of this report. The report has now become simply one of many others:

"It's very hard for me to, you know, prejudice one report over another," Bush said in an interview Monday with Fox News Channel. "They're all important."

Except this one was drafted by a bipartisan group over the course of nine months and enjoys the support of much of Congress.

Just last week, Bush told PM Maliki that "this business [referring to leaks from ISG report] about graceful exit just simply has no realism to it." It has been reported that Bush is in favor of embedding US troops with the Iraqi army, however, as the report makes clear, the recommendations are offered as a comprehensive approach- one cannot simply pick and choose which ones to apply if one hopes to be successful in Iraq. Then there is the other study group which Bush commissioned in mid-November which is almost certain to recommend Bush stay the course in terms of Iraq policy. This group is due to release the report fairly soon as well, though I haven't heard much since the group's inception. So all in all it seems unlikely that Bush will enact the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, not willingly anyway.

More on this later.

Iraq, Iran and Syria- oh my

Finally some relatively good news out of Iraq: it seems that Syria is willing to help stabilize Iraq. And what’s more, Iran has invited Syria and Iraq to a summit in order to discuss ways to curb violence in Iraq.

As many of you are aware the violence in Iraq has implications beyond the country's borders; A massive flow of refugees from Iraq would likely destabilize its neighbors, the divisions in Iraq are mirrored in its neighbors allowing for the possibility that these groups will react violently in solidarity with their Iraqi counterparts, and neighboring states may intervene militarily in the civil war turning the conflict into a regional one. I’m told Ken Pollack and Dan Byman are coming out with a longer treatment of the subject but in the meantime read this for more details on how an Iraq conflict could spill over into other countries in the region.

Any successful solution must involve neighboring countries, especially Iran and Syria; however, Syria especially, has been very reluctant to help Iraq and by many accounts has in fact been supporting insurgents in Iraq. A little aside: A couple of months ago I was at Brookings listening to the Deputy PM of Iraq Barham Salih speak when someone asked what Iraq’s relations with its neighbors were like. Dr. Salih was most diplomatic in his response, refusing to say a single negative word about Iraq’s neighbors, Iran included, yet he had this to say about Syria:

"We want to have good neighborly relations, but what their [Syria’s] practices are, are not at all consistent with what they claim to be a concern for Iraq. They are getting a lot of Iraqis killed, and that is not unacceptable..."

So it is quite a relief to hear the Syrian foreign minister promising to cooperate with Iraqi officials to help curb the violence in Iraq though I suppose at the end of the day it could be nothing more than posturing. Furthermore, today The Washington Post is reporting that Iraq will restore diplomatic ties with Syria after breaking them about twenty-five years ago.

Naturally any solution to the Iraq conflict will have to involve a country that has 140,000 of its troops in Iraq. Problem is that Bush has been reluctant to hold any high level meetings with Syria, let alone Iran.

Enter the infamous Iraq Study Group. James Baker, its co-chair, has long been an advocate of engaging “unfriendly” states in dialogue . So it no surprise that Baker et al have met several times with Syrian officials to determine how Syria might best cooperate with the United States when it comes to stabilizing Iraq. This seems to indicate that the ISG will recommend greater cooperation with Syria and Iran in its report to the President. Good, right?

Potentially. It seems that Bush has set up his own little Iraq study group. Critics argue that this offers the administration a way out of implementing any unfavorable recommendations that the Baker IWG may come up with such as say starting negotiations with Iran and Syria.

Addendum

Just saw this story in the London-based daily Asharq al Awsat:

"Kurdish lawmaker Mahmood Othman has criticised politicians in parliament and government for courting intervention from neighbouring countries. He said some politicians urge countries in the region to interfere in Iraqi internal affairs while others ask them to provide assistance. Othman said this is unacceptable because it's not in the interests of all Iraqis."

So it appears that not all Iraqis favor assistance from the neighbors. Though its interesting to note that the criticism came from an MP whose region is relatively peaceful and stable at this time, to the point that it is actively pursuing foreign investment.