Bayan Jabr and the Chilling Gangs of Iraq

So you know those daily news reports you see about mutilated bodies being found and catastrophic bombings? Well it’s not random.

The choice of “soft targets” like markets -- often selected to maximize civilian casualties -- and attacks against a specific community like the Iraqi Shi’ite Muslims of Sadr City in eastern Baghdad are by design, intended to provoke the genocidal passions of civil war. And unfortunately it often works. The more provocative the attacks, the more difficult it can be to contain the retaliatory violence.

Look what happened on November 23, 2006 and the day after. A series of six car bombs and at least two mortars ripped through Sadr City, killing at least 215 Iraqis and injured another 257. The next morning, Shi’ite militiamen retaliated by carrying out extrajudicial killings of dozens of Sunni Muslims. CBS/AP reported militia men dousing 6 Sunni Muslims in kerosene and burning them alive, and the Abu Hanifa mosque, Baghdad’s holiest Sunni Muslim shrine, came under mortar attack.

An escalating cycle of tit-for-tat violence in Iraq and a loss of public confidence here at home clearly led President Bush to reach for a “change in strategy.” Previously for years, the “we will stand down as the Iraqis stand up” mantra defined the Bush/Rumsfeld approach to achieving “victory.” But they failed to recognize the growing pressures of sectarian politics and civil war, or reverse the decisions (particularly by the unrepentant L. Paul Bremer) that ratcheted up those pressures.

There is no better documentary to see all of these disastrous consequences in full display than Gangs of Iraq, a joint production of FRONTLINE and the America at a Crossroads series. I’ve been talking with our NGO colleagues in Washington about showing the one-hour film, which I also recommend for college campuses and communities. You can watch it online here.

Here’s the opening lines of the transcript:

ANNOUNCER: In a divided country, America set out to train Iraqi forces.
NIR ROSEN, Author and Journalist: They were loyal
to Moqtada al Sadr, to Abdul Aziz Hakim, but not to the Iraqi state and not to
anybody in the Green Zone.
ANNOUNCER: Now Iraq is even more divided.
DEXTER FILKINS, New York Times Baghdad Bureau, 2003-06: We started hearing reports of death squads, kidnapping rings, extrajudicial killings.
ANNOUNCER: And less secure.
MATT SHERMAN, Ministry of Interior Adviser, 2003-05: My
fear is that what we're doing is equipping Iraqis for civil war.

Particularly chilling is the interview with Bayan Jabr, a top deputy in the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), a major Shi'ite political party originally sponsored by Tehran. After his appointment as Minister of Interior following the January 2005 elections, he began staffing commando units with Badr Corps commanders. Soon after, there were reports of death squads operating out of the Interior Ministry. By November 2006, U.S. forces began discovering torture chambers in buildings run by the Interior Ministry. It’s impossible to watch Jabr flagrantly deny all of these reports including the eyewitness accounts of our troops and the bona fide testimonials of torture survivors without shouting at him.

If you only have time to watch one 10-minute chapter, watch chapter four which includes the Jabr interview.

Injury and Insult: How the U.S. is Failing Iraqi Civilians

Back in April, we told you about EPIC's partnership with the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict (CIVIC) and the legacy of CIVIC's founder, Marla Ruzicka. Marla was a great champion for innocent civilian victims of U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, advocating proper compensation for their families. Tragically, she was killed by a suicide bomber in 2005, at the age of 29.

Following her death, Congress established the Marla Ruzicka Iraqi War Victims Fund, giving money to small, community-based projects assisting families directly affected by U.S. and coalition actions. Meanwhile, CIVIC continues Marla's work, and we have teamed with them in promoting the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act (S.594). This act would prohibit the use of U.S.-made cluster bombs in civilian areas, where they cause untold devastation.

However, even with these steps forward, an article in today's New York Times entitled "Sometimes in War, You Can Put a Price on Life," by Jon Tracy, proves we still have a long way to go in protecting and compensating civilian victims of U.S. aggression.

Tracy, a military lawyer who spent 14 months working with Iraqis claiming various combat- and non-combat-related injuries, points to the shocking Pentagon failure to adequately compensate Iraqis for deaths and injuries clearly resulting from the wrongdoing of U.S. forces.

In 2005, 24 civilians were massacred in Haditha at the hands of U.S. troops, and their families received only about $1,500 each. Just last year, a teenage girl in Mahmudiya was raped and then murdered along with her family. Their relatives received nothing, despite two U.S. soldiers confessing to the crimes. (read EPIC's statement on this tragedy here.)

In contrast, consider that the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund awarded an average of $1.8 million per family of each victim. Do we really believe Iraqi lives are worth that much less than those of Americans?

What disturbs Tracy more than the meager amounts being offered is the fact that it is in the form of condolence payments rather than official compensation under the Foreign Claims Act. The latter acknowledges wrongdoing, while the former considers the incident an accident of war. "Imagine the feelings of the families...devastated because a foreign soldier has brutalized a loved one, and then the military grossly insults them by offering a token sum with no acknowledgment of the egregious wrongs committed."

Adding insult to injury in this way breeds even more resentment in the Middle East and further damages U.S. credibility abroad. We can and must do more to fulfill the legacy of Marla Ruzicka, and properly compensate and protect innocent Iraqi civilians.

The Economic Solution

In my last blog, I concluded that any real Iraqi reconstruction effort must focus on three elements: civil society, government reform, and economic development. Today I'd like to expand upon the economic dimension: What must a successful economic reconstruction strategy entail?

To answer this question, I refer you to EPIC's Ground Truth interview with Eric Davis (pdf), professor of political science and Center for Middle East Studies director at Rutgers University. Prof. Davis proposes a three-staged plan for economic development in Iraq:

1. Create jobs in Iraq immediately, using the New Deal as a model. Recreating the National Recovery Administration and Works Progress Administration would create the temporary jobs Iraq needs to put money in peoples' pockets, get them off the street and provide the basic services - such as sewage cleanup - that are essential to health and infrastructure in the short term.
   
   
2. Engage local leaders/businesses in communities to develop sustainable industries and services. Every report of successful programs emphasizes the necessity of involving local level Iraqis so they will have a vested interest in the outcome. You'll have to read Prof. Davis' example of the "temporary housing industry" in Iraq, which creates makeshift shelters out of palm fronds and is in such high demand it actually can't find enough workers. With the investments of local leaders, such programs could provide hundreds more jobs.
   
   
3. Establish middle-range business and service projects, including oil refineries ad construction projects. The model here would be the Iraqi-American Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which focuses on sewage and electricity and has met with success to scale in several regions.

The overall message Prof. Davis communicated in our interview was that of a "bottom-up" approach to Iraqi reconstruction. Top-down strategies just won't work; large-scale programs empirically aren't completed or are attacked by insurgents. But NGOs and even U.S. government-sponsored programs working with Iraqis in hands-on projects focused on putting people to work are the ones EPIC and Prof. Davis can point to with hope for a better, stronger Iraqi economy.

Seriously - go back and check out the interview for all the details about successful economic programs in Iraq and why they work. It's an incredibly insightful read.

Successes in Iraq: How NGOs and Iraqis are Building Peace Together

Is anything actually going right in Iraq?

If you listen to the mainstream media, you might think the country has nothing going aside from violence, hatred, corruption, squabbling and failure. But the reality on the ground is that several institutions - including Depaul University's International Human Rights Law Institute (IHRLI), CHF International, and the American Development Foundation's Iraq Civil Society and Independent Media Support Program (ICSP) - are seeing success in helping Iraqis strengthen civil society, improve their economy, and advance human rights and the rule of law.

On Friday, May 11th, EPIC joined representatives from over 20 distinct NGOs for an Open Society Institute-hosted event titled, "Overlooked Successes in Iraq: Rebuilding communities, strengthening civil society, and advancing human rights despite the violence." We'll be releasing a summary later this week detailing the specific programs and qualitative success stories described by conference participants, but for now, I'd like to highlight a few particularly interesting points from the discussion.

First, talented, educated Iraqis are never in short supply in the work of the NGOs reporting. Iraqis all over the country are excited about justice reform, improving infrastructure, and playing an active role in their communities. Only a very small percentage of people participate in violence, and many more take huge risks to be involved in change. They are passionate and dedicated despite the dangers of being associated with a U.S.-funded venture. They are ready to identify and throw out the corrupt, and they aren't rooted to a single position. They want and are willing to work for change.

Second, several conference participants questioned accountability measures determining which programs receive U.S. funding. Right now, our government seems to throw money at organizations with the sole mechanism for accountability being a return of numbers. But does it matter how many people you can claim to have helped if what you're doing doesn't result in sustainable development, or build the capacity for lasting change once you're gone? The most successful programs are those paying attention to the needs of Iraqis and giving them a vested interest in the process. But to truly determine what works and what doesn't, we need the kind of evidence we can only get after a program has been around for years and had a chance to take root, not meaningless numbers and statistics just because they're easily organized into talking points.

In the final Q & A period, the participants engaged in a heated debate over U.S. funding priorities. What are Iraqis most in need of: civil society, economy or government reform? You have to have a middle class in order for civil society and government to function; you have to have civil society in order for government to be representative and an economy to function; and you have to have some level of government security in order for economic development and civil society to approximate stability. So what comes first - the chicken, or the egg?

At the conclusion of the event, I realized from the important points made by all the participants that it won't do to focus on any one component more than the others. Iraqi government, economy and civil society are like three points of a triangle, each one essential to the integrity of the whole.

We must equally fund programs in all three fields, and use the experiences and advice of successful programs to determine future funding.

Iraqi Refugees and the Administration's (Lack of) Response

Military preemption and unilateral action are the centerpieces of the Bush Doctrine, a policy that has landed our country in the deadly quagmire that is Iraq. Having prompted a civil war, it follows that the United States bears the moral responsibility for handling the humanitarian situation and, by extension, the regional refugee crisis.

The Iraq Study Group says the U.S. should “take the lead in funding assistance requests from the UNHCR and other humanitarian agencies.” Rather than tackling the refugee problem directly, U.S. embassies do rely on the UNHCR’s referrals for immigration. But of the 3,000 UNHCR referrals, the U.S. has taken only 68 since the beginning of fiscal year 2007 (as I mentioned in my last entry).

Do a bit of research and you will find that, in nearly every way the U.S. could help Iraqi refugees, the government has fallen severely short. Even regarding Iraqis who have assisted the U.S. military and embassies - who seemingly everyone agrees should be a priority--we have set too low a standard. Murthy Law Firm notes that special immigration visas for translators were capped at fifty per fiscal year. This quota was reached just over a month after the beginning of fiscal year 2007.

The refugee crisis is all the more urgent given that Iraq’s neighbors are beginning to make flight from Iraq more difficult and, in some cases, are turning Iraqis back at the border. According to Refugees International and Human Rights Watch, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are placing increasing entry requirements for Iraqis. Syria and Jordan have taken in far more Iraqis than any other country in the Middle East, but new restrictions leave fewer options for those in greatest need.

Internally displaced persons (IDPs) number at 800,000 since February 2006 alone. A March 2007 Congressional Research Service report notes, “Iraq’s internal population displacement appears to be accelerating into a humanitarian crisis that is well beyond the current capacity on the ground.”

In particular, it appears the Department of Homeland Security has fallen short. The DHS, which gives the final green light for refugees to immigrate, “has yet to come up with a new screening process so that refugees can be vetted for security purposes,” says Al Kamen in today’s Washington Post. Kenneth Bacon, President of Refugees International, adds, “Until this is a top-level government concern, not much is going to happen.”

The U.S. has begun acknowledging its obligation toward Iraqi refugees. As I wrote in my last entry, Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR-3, right) proposed legislation to bring 20,000 Iraqis into the country this year. Bills such as this represent the first step in addressing the refugee crisis. There remains much work to be done in other parts of government. The Department of Homeland Security must, at very least, determine its new screening protocol and make the immigration process as efficient as possible while still maintaining security. The government also needs to earmark more than the meager $100 million promised for refugees by Paula Dobriansky, and much more than the $17 million appropriated for IDPs. Finally, the U.S. needs to work closely on the ground with the UNHCR, Iraq and its neighbors to alleviate this crisis.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR-3) (EPIC Photo/Chris Breuer - 5/10/07)

Reconciliation IS Possible - A Political Solution for Iraq

I read a disturbing article in last Thursday's Roll Call (a DC publication read mostly by Hill staffers; sorry, you have to sign up to read it online) arguing the Iraqi civil war can only end by Shias brutally suppressing Sunnis, and the U.S. has no choice but to back the Shias and hope the genocide isn't too bad. The author, Morton Kondracke, believes that otherwise the violence will be worse and might result in a regime unfriendly to U.S. interests. At least if we support the Shias now, he argues, we can take some credit when they inevitably win, and continue playing a role in the country.

Setting aside the obvious fact that supporting genocide or brutal repression on ANY scale is morally unpardonable, I still think Kondracke is wrong. First, his solution would only further antagonize and radicalize Sunni Jihadis, resulting in more violence against the U.S. and its allies. Second, there is an alternative. Reconciliation between Sunnis and Shias IS possible, and it's up to the international community to facilitate it.

I pointed out in my entry Radicalization Spillover last week that Sunnis and Shias do live in peace in some countries, and the Michigan example - however far removed from the realities of the Middle East - at least sets a precedent for a formal peace agreement between the sects in the wake of violence. But commenters questioned just how realistic such a solution was, and who could possibly implement it.

To answer those questions, I highly recommend an article in last Thursday's Washington Post called "A Dayton Process for Iraq," by EPIC friend and peacebuilder Rend Al-Rahim. We haven't always seen eye-to-eye with Rend on every issue, but on this one, we feel she got it spot on. Rend's extensive knowledge of her native country as the founding director of the Iraq Foundation and Iraq's representative to the U.S. from 2003 to 2004 should not be taken lightly. This woman knows what she's talking about.
Rend proposes a peace process modeled upon the Dayton Accords, which effectively ended major violence in Bosnia even after a brutal ethnic war leaving hundreds of thousands dead. Although important differences exist in the two cases, Rend argues they should not deter us from using this model, which - if properly implemented - could result in an Iraqi reconciliation.

Rend's solution includes seven elements:

1. A strong and credible driving force behind the process. The U.S. is in the best position to play this role, but need not do so alone.
2. A credible sponsor. The United Nations or another organization with high-profile, skilled facilitators must be involved.
3. The single objective of producing a Sunni-Shiite agreement. No questions of international troops, oil, regional conflicts or other concerns should be involved.
4. Representation of Iraqi groups at the highest level of decision-making. Nobody can make peace for Iraq. We can help, but if the Iraqis don't see it as their own, it will be doomed from the start.
5. Sustained discussions until compromise is reached. There need not be a time-table; if the final solution is to be truly final, it must be thorough and agreed upon by all.
6. Implementation mechanisms and a timetable. While we can't put a timer on the process, we can upon its implementation. The how and when of enforcement must be spelled out.
7. Ratification by concerned countries, including Iraq's neighbors. The final agreement will only be credible if it is linked to other agreements and accords, and agreed upon and respected by all with concerns in the nation.

"The attention the United States pays to legal aspects of national reconciliation puts the cart before the horse: Laws and constitutional revision must be outcomes of a national agreement, not conditions for one," Rend states. This ties in well to Erik's argument that "reconciliation is not something that ends wars, but rather helps societies heal after wars."

Although we have a moral obligation to help the vulnerable Iraqi people in the meantime and do what we can to build economic and political infrastructure, an agreement must be forged between Iraqi Sunnis and Shias before we can hope for real, sustainable peace.

With Rend's plan, we have that hope.

EPIC and NGO Colleagues Visit Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Office

Last week, EPIC Director Erik Gustafson and I joined our NGO colleagues on Capitol Hill to meet with the staff of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The meeting was one of more than a dozen that our friends at NETWORK (a National Catholic Social Justice Lobby) scheduled with Congressional leaders as part of the Iraq Peace and Development Working Group (IPDWG).

IPDWG is a new effort to gain support in Washington for peacebuilding through emergency relief and development in Iraq. The NGOs first came together in an emergency meeting in early December to respond to the world's fastest growing refugee crisis and (except possibly Darfur) deadliest conflict. By early February, the NGOs formed a working group and began meeting regularly to coordinate advocacy. With an emergency appropriations process for FY 2007 underway in Congress, and FY 2008 appropriations coming thereafter, the top priority was clear: reverse cuts in U.S. aid to Iraq.

By March, IPDWG had grown to more than 40 national organizations, and more join every month. EPIC co-chairs the working group with NETWORK. I was at the February meeting, and it is encouraging to be part of a community of NGOs sharing EPIC's mission and supporting responsible and constructive U.S. action to help civilian Iraqis.

With so many different kinds of groups and mandates, IPDWG covers a lot of ground. There are groups working to: (1) help Iraq’s war refugees and internally displaced persons, especially those who are most vulnerable; (2) better protect Iraqi civilians and assist families harmed by U.S. military operations; (3) increase U.S. support for peacebuilding through development; and (4) promote responsible global engagement to end the Iraq crisis and prevent the conflict from escalating beyond Iraq’s borders into a full scale regional war. Since EPIC is one of the only Iraq-specific organizations in Washington, we're finding ways to add value to the efforts of many of our fellow IPDWG members.

Our meeting with Speaker Pelosi's office included (from left to right in the photo): EPIC Director Erik Gustafson, Raad Jarrar with American Friends Service Committee (AFSC); Zahir JanMohamed and Sarnata Reynolds with Amnesty International USA; Sister Simone Campbell with NETWORK; and Jerrold Keilson with America's Development Foundation (ADF).

In the meeting, Jerrold explained how ADF, funded by USAID, is strengthening the role of Iraqi civil society in the country’s economic, political and social development, serving 1,900 Iraqi civil society organizations (CSOs). He made an appeal for U.S. funding so ADF can continue supporting programs vital to the international community's mission in Iraq.

Erik, a Gulf War veteran, made it clear that Gen. Petreaus and the officers and enlisted soldiers and Marines with whom he corresponds all say the same thing: what the U.S. military can achieve in Iraq is limited. At best, they can buy time for an economic and political solution. He passed on EPIC's Ground Truth Interviews with Professor Eric Davis, who advocates an economic plan for stabilizing Iraq; Professor Lisa Schirch, who champions a 3D (Development, Diplomacy, Defense) approach; and Khaldoon Ali, an Iraqi peacebuilder who directs a Baghdad-based humanitarian organization.

NETWORK Lobby’s Executive Director, Simone Campbell, brought to the forefront how important it is that Americans be seen as peacebuilders. She also appealed to Congress to restore full funding for successful relief and development programs reducing suffering and creating stability. Jerrold provided examples of successful projects operating throughout Iraq. Without continued funding, ADF's civil society program will run out of funds in June.

Amnesty International’s Sarnata Reynolds and Zahir Janmohamed took a different approach in support of a surge in humanitarian, peacebuilding assistance. They talked about the people of Iraq and their displacement due to escalating violence. Sarnata discussed the desperate measures refugees must take to survive and avoid returning to Iraq, where they fear persecution and death. In some cases, women have even been forced into prostitution. These individuals are in desperate need of humanitarian relief which the Emergency Supplemental can provide.

The meetings on Capitol Hill continue in the coming weeks, as the peace and development NGO community fights for the funding that aid agencies -- both government and non-government -- need to help meet the humanitarian, development and protection needs of Iraq's citizens and war refugees.

New legislation to help refugees

Yesterday, on my first day as a volunteer for EPIC, Erik Gustafson handed me George Packer's New Yorker article about Iraq's refugee crisis, telling the story of Iraqis once employed by U.S. agencies who have had to flee or go into hiding because of threats against their life. Currently there is no mechanism to protect Iraqis who have helped America.

This is the first in a series of blog entries centering on the Iraqi refugee crisis in light of Packer's article and the stories therein.

It is not only our Iraqi allies who face danger, but other groups as well. Minorities, women and children are in particular danger. This has not gone unnoticed by peacebuilders in our government. Today, my second day of volunteering, I attended a press conference for Congressman Earl Blumenauer's (D-OR-3) bill, the Responsibility to Iraqi Refugees Act of 2007. This crucial legislation recognizes the moral obligation of the United States to assist Iraqi refugees and promises to bring 20,000 of them into the U.S. We praise Representatives Chris Shays (R-CT-4) and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL-9) for joining Congressman Blumenauer in support of his bill.

Some Iraqis are coerced or extorted into paying for the release of a family member from militias and rival sects. Under the "material support" clause of the Patriot Act, such individuals are barred from seeking refugee status in the United States. Recognizing the perversion of this law, Blumenauer's bill will grant refugee status even if aiding and abetting an enemy occurs under duress. The bill calls for "20,000 unallocated refugee admissions...to be used for Iraqi refugees." In addition, the bill will provide 15,000 special visas each year for the next four years for those Iraqis who are in particular danger as a result of working for American and coalition forces and international organizations in Iraq.

One such Iraqi was Yaghdan, who worked with USAID. After receiving death threats and waking up a butchered dog in front of his home, he petitioned American forces to provide for his safety. The U.S. was unable to provide a safe place for both he and his wife, either through a transfer or by providing shelter in the Green Zone, so the couple fled to Dubai. But even in Dubai he was seen as a traitor, and so was unable to find work. Eventually, with their visas expired and unable to seek refuge in Jordan, Yaghdan and his wife faced having to return to Iraq. Fortunately, Yaghdan's former colleague in USAID, Kirk Johnson, convinced the pair to try Syria, where they are working toward resettlement in the U.S.

Not all Iraqis have been so lucky. In fact, the U.S. only admitted 68 Iraqis into the country in the last seven months. This is inexcusable given the enormous scope of the calamity, which Congressman Blumenauer called "the worst humanitarian crisis next to Darfur." EPIC recognizes that the Iraqi refugee crisis will only worsen in the years to come. We are encouraged by this new legislation that will establish a mechanism to protect our Iraqi allies. Personally, I am excited to advocate for the safety of Iraqi refugees with the EPIC team members, who, like myself, have a passion for altruism and the energy to address the issues surrounding Iraq.

From left to right in the foreground are: Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL-9), Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT-4), West Point graduate Terron Sims (speaking) and Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR-3). (EPIC Photo/Chris Breuer - 5/10/2007)

Radicalization Spillover

The UN refugee agency, UNHCR, estimates 50,000 refugees flee from Iraq to Jordan each month. But some cross the border in the other direction as well.

The Jordanian city of Zarqa, for example, has become a breeding ground for Sunni Islamic militants seeking Jihad in Iraq. A May 4th article in the New York Times, "In Jihadist Haven, a Goal: To Kill and Die in Iraq," describes six men, all under 25 years old, who represent a growing shift towards radicalism in Zarqa.

Their teenage years might be considered typical even in the United States; they enjoyed pop music and sports, and considered careers in physics and professional soccer. But these activities were interrupted and dreams decimated soon after the U.S. invasion of Iraq. A young woman from Narqa sums up the change: "Religion was something we just got from our parents. But after the war started, we decided we have to show the world we are Muslims."

Abu Ibrahim (who spoke on the condition of anonymity) and his five friends, each driven by his own circumstances and radicalized by one another, hired a smuggler to get them across the border from Syria. But while the other young men killed themselves in suicide bombings and shootings, Ibrahim was detained in a Syrian prison and eventually sent back to Jordan where he continues to dream of "fulfilling the rules of God": "It is our duty. If we don't defend our religion who should do it?"

Perhaps even more disturbing than the increasing numbers of young Sunni men seeking Jihad in the wake of the Iraq war is their intensifying anger towards Shiite Muslims. Ibrahim listed his targets as "first, the Shiites. Second, the Americans. Third, anywhere in the world where Islam is threatened." With videos of Shiite militias torturing and killing Sunnis circulating on the internet, more and more Sunni radicals echo Ibrahim's priorities.

The rift between the religious sects is deepening not only in the Middle East, but is also spilling over into the rest of the world. In my home state of Michigan, for example, vandals targeted Shiite-owned businesses and mosques earlier this year, and the Muslim Student Association at my own University of Michigan adopted rules preventing Shiites from leading prayers.

But even as this violence and discrimination pales in comparison to recent events in Iraq and just beyond its borders, perhaps Michigan's experience provides a small ray of hope. Today, May 10th, Muslim leaders from across Michigan will come together in Dearborn to sign a Unity Agreement. Imam Mohammad Ali Elahi of the Islamic House of Wisdom in Dearborn Heights wrote this in Tuesday's Detroit News:

Let us behave like the prophet with compassion, courtesy, sincerity, humbleness, patience, dignity, fairness and understanding, recalling that our prophet created the bond of brotherhood among citizens and immigrants in Medina. Despite their differences, he took serious steps against prejudice based on nationality, race and culture.

Differences in opinion are not only allowed in Islam, but critical thinking is vital in dealing with new developments. When thinkers disagree with piety and sincerity, and if the goal is solving problems, variation in thinking leads every side of a debate closer to the truth.

Peacebuilding measures, grassroots movements and economic aid towards Iraqi reconstruction should likewise focus on the common ground between Iraq's ethnic and religious groups. Reconciliation may be, as Erik points out, extremely difficult - but at least the Sunni/Shiite honor code in Michigan provides some evidence that it is not impossible.

Is Reconciliation possible during Civil War?

Responding to my May 2 post Where are the Benchmarks for U.S. Progress? Bruce Wallace (aka PT Witte in Second Life) asks...

Where is the reconciliation benchmark? How long are the Iraqis going to wait before they get a strong reconciliation program going? It's not like we don't know how to do this. Great work in connecting divided people has already been done in South Africa, Northern Ireland, Rwanda. It's time for the Iraqis to stand up to the forces that seek to divide.

Bruce is right. More ought to be done to promote conflict resolution, peacebuilding and national reconciliation in Iraq. I also share his view about the utility of increased pressure on Iraqi parliamentarians and Prime Minister Nuri Kamal Maliki's government to achieve political benchmarks. However, I disagree with the popular notion that deadlines will magically compel Iraqis to act. While deadlines might help, other factors, such as the small matter of Iraq's civil war, present major stumbling blocks.

Thus, my answer to Bruce's question "how long are Iraqis going to wait before they get a strong reconciliation program going?" is simple: they will wait until they feel secure enough to do so.

As long as Iraq's civil war continues, national reconciliation will be difficult if not impossible. But Iraqi leaders (and the U.S.) have no option but to try, and plenty of Iraqis can't be blamed for not trying. I think of an Iraqi colleague killed by an unknown gunmen last year. His crime? He was trying to advance peace and reconciliation between Sunni and Shia neighbors in the midst of rising sectarian violence.

Reconciliation is not something that ends wars, but rather helps societies heal after wars. South Africa’s truth and reconciliation process did not begin until after apartheid came to an end. Rwanda, on the other hand, is relatively stable, yet far from national reconciliation. The Tutsi-dominated government is still holding countless Rwandans in prison camps, including many denied due process. Rwandans expressing human rights concerns are often accused of "genocidal thinking." Meanwhile, 10,000s of Rwandan refugees and remnants of the Interahamwe, informal Hutu-dominated militias that participated in the genocide, remain just across the border in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. To heal Rwanda’s divided society, a lot of reconciliation work remains.

So if national reconciliation doesn’t end civil wars, how do they really end? According to the literature, civil wars end when either one side wins outright or when combatants reach a stalemate, realizing no side is strong enough to prevail and hold onto power.

Returning to Bruce (aka PT Witte), his choice of countries -- Rwanda, Northern Ireland and South Africa -- offers an interesting range of case studies. In Rwanda, the civil war ended with one side (the Tutsi-dominated Rwandan Patriotic Front) winning outright. Northern Ireland’s long civil war between Protestant Unionists and Catholic Nationalists ended in stalemate, making the 1998 Good Friday Agreement possible and leading to the formation of a power-sharing government. In the case of South Africa, decades of violent apartheid ended when the ruling National Party began negotiating itself out of power and the African National Congress (ANC) won the country’s first multi-racial elections in 1994. When the ANC came to power, the government was not purged of civil servants from the previous regime (an example one would wish L. Paul Bremer and Iraqi expatriates had followed back in 2003).

Unfortunately, the combatants of Iraq’s civil war appear to be far from both stalemate and a decisive victory by any one side. Based on their rhetoric, factions among the various insurgent groups and militias clearly believe they can seize power through force of arms –- at least, once the Americans are out of the way.

In his recent Foreign Affairs essay, James Fearon writes:

Even if an increase in the number of U.S. combat troops reduces violence in Baghdad and so buys time for negotiations on power sharing in the current Iraqi government, there is no good reason to expect that subsequent reductions would not revive the violent power struggle. Civil wars are rarely ended by stable power-sharing agreements. When they are, it typically takes combatants who are not highly factionalized and years of fighting to clarify the balance of power. Neither condition is satisfied by Iraq at present.

In other words, barring a massive outside intervention that only Sen. McCain seems to support, it’s far more likely that Iraq's civil war will get much worse before it can get better.
Pro-withdrawal Democrats like Rep. Murtha seem to recognize this. Rather than pull U.S. forces from the Middle East, he advocates "strategic redeployment" to "contain" Iraq's civil war. Likewise, less talk in recent months has centered on "ending the war." Instead, Congressional leaders talk about "ending U.S. military involvement in Iraq's civil war."

In their January report When Things Fall Apart, Kenneth Pollack and Daniel Byman of Brookings put it this way:

President George W. Bush has staked everything on one last-chance effort to quell the fighting and jumpstart a process of political reconciliation and economic reconstruction. Should this last effort fail, the United States is likely to very quickly have to determine how best to handle an Iraq that will be erupting into Bosnia- or Lebanon-style all-out civil war. The history of such wars is that they are disastrous for all parties, but the United States will have little choice but to try to stave off disaster as best it can.

Until a lasting peace can be negotiated between Iraq’s warring factions, we have an obligation to do what we can to protect innocent civilians, assist war victims, and help refugees and internally displaced persons, especially those who are most vulnerable. We also have a responsibility to work with our Iraqi and international partners to prevent the conflict from escalating beyond Iraq’s borders into a full scale regional war. That ought to be something the Bush administration and both parties in Congress can agree on –- regardless of differences over military surges and troop withdrawals.

This is definitely a case where "united we stand, divided we fall." While it has become fashionable and in some cases accurate to blame the Iraqis for zero-sum politics and not moving quickly enough, there is plenty of room for improvement on those accounts here in Washington as well.

Meanwhile in the field throughout Iraq, Americans and Iraqis -- civilian and military -- are risking their lives to do what they can with what they have. Many have little choice in the matter. If efforts at the national level with Prime Minister Maliki’s government stall, much can still be done at the local level. For readers interested in local conflict prevention and peacebuilding strategies for Iraq, I recommend this resource (PDF) from our friends at the 3D Security Initiative.

Thanks for the great questions Bruce, and for giving EPIC a Second Life among PT Witte and friends.

Feingold Sponsors Cluster Munitions Act

I am pleased to report Senator Russ Feingold (WI) is now a co-sponsor of the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act (S.594), joining fellow Senators Dianne Feinstein (CA), Patrick Leahy (VT), Bernie Sanders (VT) and Barbara Mikulski (MD).

EPIC has teamed with the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict (CIVIC) in support of this bill, which would prohibit the use of U.S.-made cluster bombs in civilian areas. The United Nations reported at least 100,000 unexploded cluster bombs in south Lebanon last September, and these deadly weapons litter the landscape in highly populated towns and villages of Iraq as well. Too frequently, the victims of these bombs are innocent children such as Saleh Khalaf.

We applaud Sen. Feingold for stepping up as a peacebuilder in the Senate, and encourage you to take action as well. Learn more about cluster bombs and ask your Senators to co-sponsor the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act (S.594) limiting the use, sale and transfer of these weapons to protect civilian lives.

New EPIC Staff Member

Before I blog further, I'd like to introduce myself: My name is Emily S. (initial to avoid confusion with EPIC's Managing Director, Emily L.), and I am excited to be replacing Matteo as Research & Advocacy Fellow at EPIC.

It's only my second day here and I'm happy to say the work is challenging, yet rewarding. From the moment I walked into EPIC's office, I knew that through this fellowship I will have a real chance to make a difference on an issue about which I am passionate: Creating a better, brighter future for the people of Iraq.

Iraq is more than just victims and victimizers; U.S. actions have a profound effect on the lives of millions of Iraqis. I love that EPIC puts faces on the people who might otherwise seem just statistics in a news report, and that we're working hard to learn about and educate Americans about the realities of life - and death - in Iraq.

You can read about my background and experience in my newly-posted EPIC bio.

I'm excited to be here and hope my entries will live up to the high standard of excellence set by Matteo. Please leave comments so I can gauge your thoughts and provide more of the information and anecdotes that interest YOU.

Thanks,
Emily S.

Where are the Benchmarks for U.S. Progress?

Let's step into our way-back machine and throw the dial to early November 2006. Speculating on potential common ground between President Bush and the coming Democratic majority, I wrote this:

To help stabilize Iraq and repair some of the damage done by the U.S., there will need to be a viable strategy for responsible withdrawal and continued development assistance. In a word: “benchmarks.”

Dial the way-back machine further to the summer of 2003, when EPIC hosted a weekend Iraq Forum and lobbied more than 100 Members of Congress, delivering our Citizens' Humanitarian Pledge to the Peace of Iraq signed by 30,000 Americans. Our message at that time was the same, Congress must establish benchmarks to hold the Bush administration accountable for progress in helping the people of Iraq rebuild after the U.S. invasion and decades of war, tyranny and crippling sanctions.

Four years later and Congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle are finally converging on benchmarks, but sadly they’re not the benchmarks that I had in mind. The benchmarks proposed by Senator Olympia Snowe and other Republicans are one-sided and misguided. One-sided because they focus on “Iraqi progress” and ignore the American side of the equation. Misguided because they seem to suggest that Iraq has a fully functional state and if Iraq’s leaders would simply get on with it, there would be a political solution to Iraq’s multiple conflicts and we'd soon see the country's economy, infrastructure, and government services back on track.

This week the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) released its latest quarterly report evaluating “U.S. progress.” The findings are summed up nicely by the Washington Post: “The U.S. project to rebuild Iraq remains far short of its targets, leaving the country plagued by power outages, inadequate oil production and shortages of clean water and health care, according to a report to be issued today by a U.S. government oversight agency.”

Benchmarks are not a bad idea, but they ought to be realistic and balanced to demand government performance from both Washington and Baghdad.

Bush Vetoes Supplemental Spending Bill

As promised, President Bush vetoed Congress' $124 billion emergency supplemental yesterday, sending congressional Democrats back to the drawing board on the crucial spending legislation.

Since the president largely rejected bill because of its Oct. 1 deadline for beginning troop withdrawal, congressional leaders are now discussing new legislation that would remove the timetables but include specific benchmarks created to urge Iraqi leaders to reduce the violence. Increasingly perturbed by the president but unwilling to back a withdrawal plan, Republicans in the House and Senate seem primed to support a plan that includes benchmarks for Iraq's government, the LA Times speculates.

CNN reports: "'I do think there are some kinds of benchmarks that might well achieve bipartisan support and might actually even conceivably be helpful to the effort in Iraq,' the Kentucky Republican [Senator Mitch O'Connell] said. 'And that's what we're going to be looking for.'"

The benchmarks being discussed include passing laws on revenue sharing for oil output, national reconciliation, and sectarian violence. Interestingly, these are measures that President Bush himself has repeatedly urged Iraq's government to undertake.

The question remains as to how long the new legislation will take to be drafted, passed and implemented. As our leaders here in Washington continue to debate the bill -- and, as many argue, they continue to play out their partisan theatrics -- 100,000s of Iraqis continue to suffer. In addition to supporting our troops, the bill provides desperately-needed funds for relief and aid for millions of Iraqi families. While EPIC is urging Congress and President Bush to increase funding for this important work, we are also articulating the need to implement this legislation in a timely and efficient manner -- keeping partisan politics off the table.

After all, every day that passes means countless more innocent lives lost.

New SIGIR Report Outlines Reconstruction Challenges

As President Bush and Congress continue their stalemate over the 2007 supplemental spending bill, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) released its latest quarterly report today, stating in no uncertain terms that worsening security conditions, ongoing violence and far-reaching corruption will keep Iraqis from managing their country's reconstruction for the foreseeable future. The report echoes the recent sentiments of General David Petraeus, the U.S. military commander in Iraq, who admits that challenges still lay ahead in Iraq and anticipates "an enormous [U.S.] commitment" for some time to come.

The latest SIGIR report cites several trends in Iraq that are contributing to the setbacks in U.S. reconstruction efforts, chiefly:

* Corruption - The report notes that $5 billion is lost every year in Iraq due to fraud "which 'afflicts virtually every Iraqi ministry,' particularly the oil, interior and defense ministries." On a positive note, the report says that the Maliki government is making some strides toward ousting corruption within its ranks, so far weeding out eight ministers and 40 directors general, who are awaiting prosecution for the mismanagement of $8 billion in reconstruction funds.

* Violence & Unrest - Though the frequency of violent attacks seems to be down in Iraq, the scale of each attack has become more devastating, killing more people and crippling rebuilding efforts of desperately-needed public services. According to a BBC article, "The U.S. Defense Department says there are on average 1.4 attacks on critical electricity, water, oil and gas facilities each week." The SIGIR report adds, "Repair teams sent in after attacks continue to face threats, including kidnapping and murder." In a separate report, the State Department noted that in 2006 45 percent of the 14,338 terror attacks around the world took place in Iraq, an increase of 29 percent from the previous year.

* Poor Maintenance & Sustainability - The latest SIGIR report finds that, when projects are finally handed over to Iraqis, they "are not being adequately maintained." This is largely due to poor training and management. Take SIGIR’s evaluation of a hospital in Irbil, for example, where inspectors found that "a sophisticated oxygen distribution system was not used because staff did not trust it.” They also noted that needles and bandages were being tossed into the sewer system, causing it to clog, because the incinerator installed to deal with such waste was not in use. Why? Inspectors say it’s because no one on staff at the hospital was trained on how to operate the incinerator and, on top of that, no one had the key to unlock the incinerator door.

From a policy standpoint, what does the latest SIGIR report really mean? It further reinforces the importance of alternative solutions, pressing our leaders to reevaluate the United States’ current reconstruction strategy and urging them to seriously consider a new approach.

That's exactly what Congress and the White House have the opportunity to do with this year’s supplemental. By using this critical report and considering alternative approaches – such as those advocated by noted experts like Eric Davis and Lisa Schirch – Congress and the White House have the ability to fund a new strategy for peacebuilding in Iraq, leveraging a plan that could significantly and immediately improve the quality of life for millions of Iraqi families.

The challenge now is getting them to listen.

Hope for Compromise

Tension continues to mount in Washington, D.C. as the Senate voted 51-46 today in favor the 2007 supplemental spending bill, which includes a goal for troop withdrawal set for next year. Today's Senate vote follows the bill's narrow passage in the House by a 218-208 vote. Both votes were divided largely along party lines.

Although the measure passed both chambers of Congress, the White House is reiterating President Bush's intent to veto. To override a Presidential veto, Democrats would need 67 votes in the Senate and 290 in the House -- much more support than was secured for this week's votes.

In the midst of all this contention, it is leaving some people to wonder if common ground on Iraq is even possible. The spending bill is crucial, as funds for operations in Iraq will soon run out. For example, U.S. funding for some critical development programs that support Iraqi civil society organizations is expected to run out in June. Which brings us to the question: Can the parties involved reach a compromise?

According to recent precedent, the answer is yes. After 9 months of reviewing all of the available facts and thoughful deliberation, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group was able to reach a consensus. Released on December 6th of last year, the 84-page report provides an honest assessment of the situation in Iraq and outlines key recommendations for a responsible way forward. For more on this report, check out our blog from last December.

Despite pledges from Congress and President Bush to "consider" the recommendations, the Iraq Study Group Report was quickly tabled by both sides. But in the midst the current debate over the FY 2007 supplemental, the report -- and particularly the attractiveness of its bipartisan recommendations -- has begun to resurface. As one barometer, here's a sampling of editorials and op-eds that have appeared on the opinion pages of the Washington Post and New York Times (including op-eds by both of the co-chairs of the Iraq Study Group report):

Standoff on Iraq
Washington Post editorial
Monday, April 16, 2007

A Partnership on Iraq
By Lee H. Hamilton
The Washington Post
Sunday, March 25, 2007; Page B07

A Path to Common Ground
The Iraq Study Group Plan Could Break the Logjam
By James A. Baker III
The Washington Post
Thursday, April 5, 2007; Page A17

Back to Baker-Hamilton
By David Ignatius
The Washington Post
Wednesday, April 4, 2007; Page A13

What About Those Other Iraq Deadlines?
By Leon E. Panetta
The New York Times
Wednesday, April 4, 2007

Student at Baghdad University: "The sky was raining burning paper and body parts."

What defines a crisis as the type that compels media attention?

On April 17th, American and international media attention was riveted on the murders of 32 Virginia Tech students. The coverage was non-stop. It was impossible not to hear or read about what had happened that terrible day. Everyone knew about the massacre.

But did you know that since the end of January, more than 100 students, professors and education professionals have been killed at Mustansiriya University in Baghdad? This past January, Iraqi mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers mourned the lives of at least 60 people who were killed at Mustansiriya University. In February, families mourned again when a suicide bomber killed 39 students and 9 guards at that same Baghdad campus.

Compared to other situations, there has been a lack of awareness about the impact that violence has on the lives of everyday Iraqis. Where is the media coverage?

The more than 100 lives lost at Mustansiriya University this year shows that violence in Iraq significantly impacts the daily lives of Iraqi families, as places like schools and universities continue to get caught in the cross fire.

Iraqi Refugees in Jordan: The View from the Ground

Last Thursday, as I lunched in the stately dinning room of one of Northwest D.C.'s Victorian brownstones, I listened to a fascinating discussion of the refugee situation in Jordan. Sitting at the head of the table was Noah Merrill of Electronic Iraq, who just returned from Jordan, where he spent hundred of hours interviewing Iraqi refugees.

Although there are approximately one million Iraqi refugees in Jordan, the interviewees were not easy to locate, Noah told us. Despite the UNHCR estimated 50,000 refugees fleeing to Jordan every month, there are no refugee camps; newly arrived refugees disappear into the densely-populated urban landscape of Jordan's biggest cities.

The untraceable existence of these refugees has several worrisome causes. First among these is Jordan's ability to shirk the responsibility, mandated by international law, to recognize and protect refugees within its borders. Jordan never signed on to the 1951 Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees for fear that in doing so, it would be committing itself to granting residency to the large numbers of Palestinian refugees within its borders. With 60 to 70 percent of the Jordanian population made up of these Palestinian refugees, Jordanians, who are the minority in their own country, view the influx of Iraqi refugees as a genuine existential threat to their country's national identity.

Refugees, therefore, are not seen by the Jordanian government as, well, refugees. To paraphrase as senior Jordanian official: "Jordan does not have a refugee problem; Jordan has an illegal immigration problem." Thus viewed as illegal immigrants, Iraqi refugees are prohibited from working. Forced by financial circumstances to defy this prohibition, Iraqis try their best to stay under the radar. If caught, they face deportation back across the border, into the lawless terrorist haven of Al-Anbar province.

Other factors also make the climate inhospitable to Iraqi refugees. For example, the UN Refugee Agency, under pressure from the Jordanian government, has stopped issuing refugee certificates to Iraqis, and instead grants them refugees cards with the largely hollow "temporary asylum seeker" status.

Also, Noah continued, the Jordanian government, echoing a similar threat it made last year, has stated that it will expel all Iraqi children from schools - public and private. Amelia Templeton, an Iraqi refugee advocate and former NPR correspondent, said that when she interviewed Jordan's Minister of Education, he cited the cost and pressure on classroom size caused by the refugee influx as the rationale behind such measures. Yet Jordanian officials have begun to shut down schools operating out of churches - independent, informal schools which have no presumable impact on public classrooms. Noah pointed out the devastating effects such measures are having on the Iraqis, a people whose culture deeply prizes education.

In order for Iraqi refugees to ensure that they will not be deported back to Iraq, they have two options: leave Jordan and flee to a more hospitable country like Egypt, or try to gain residency status. This second option is only available to Iraqis that have the ability to put a certain amount of money into Jordanian banks. Essentially, says Noah, the Jordanian government is following international conventions to protect one type of refugee: the wealthy refugee.

A final factor threatening many Iraqi refugees in Jordan is a virulent and "intentionally constructed" anti-Shia sentiment, says Noah. State-led propaganda campaigns spread the belief that the Iraqi Shia community is responsible for bringing Americans into Iraq and for the "assassination" of Saddam Hussein. As a result of these sentiments, Iraqi Shia refugees that try to form self-help communities are deported back to Iraq.

Noah Merill ended the discussion by saying that the refugee crisis represents a political problem. As such, humanitarian aid is necessary - but not sufficient - when it comes to dealing effectively with this problem. He says that a plan that helps get Iraqi refugees back into Iraq should be fundamental to any proposed solution. This is, he said, what the refugees he interviewed truly desired - to go home.

With American NGO participants just coming back into town from last week's UN-led conference to address the Iraqi displacement crisis, I am trying to track down any information about whether such a plan is in the works. But with the fragile security environment in Iraq constantly undermined by ongoing violence, I have to wonder what the prospects for such a plan really are at this point.

For more information on Iraq's refugee emergency, be sure to check out EPIC's interview with refugee advocate Sean Garcia of Refugees International.

An Update on Kirkuk

Following-up on a blog entry last week where I discussed the sensitive situation in Kirkuk, there has been yet another update worth checking out. Along with last week's ICG report, today's Washington Post has a piece that supports what Ignatius was saying last week. Al Kamen explains that:

"While everyone's been focusing on Baghdad as the key to getting things calmed down in Iraq, the situation in Kirkuk to the north is edging toward serious trouble."

The Arabs are a third party involved in the dispute over Kirkuk, which makes matters even more complicated. The history of an Arab presence there dates back to the Saddam regime, when he had them relocate from the south to occupy the oil rich city. Today, Kurds are worried about the impact the Arab vote will have on the upcoming referendum to decide who will control the city. Kamen explains that, "Arabs are being encouraged to go back 'home,' wherever that is. Kurds whom Saddam kicked out are coming back...and Turkey continues to be concerned about the large Turkmen population in the city."

The army is trying to deal with the potential problem, and has put forth a "request for information" from contractors and urban planners for "the design of the Kirkuk Master Plan" according to Kamen. This plan is meant to target problems concerning land use and "other developments." There is still no mention of conflict resolution strategies and as Epic has said before, there must be a diplomatic effort for real reconciliation to take place. It seems Kamen agrees that there is more to the problem in Kirkuk than just devising a plan that urban planners and contractors can address:

"'Other developments'? Well, unless the tensions can be defused, this might include congestion created by troop movements, tank routes and battery placements...Planners might want to widen streets for evacuation routes...But at least there'll be a plan."

Again, a diplomatic resolution is long over-due for the complex situation in Kirkuk. A diplomatic resolution will ensure that all parties can be content with the outcome, and that these tensions don't spill over into more destabilization in the country. Washington should be a leader in fostering that dialogue between all parties. "If a ray of hope shines through this dismal tangle, it is that all sides in Kirkuk currently seem to agree on the need for dialogue" (ICG 2007).

GROUND TRUTH PROJECT UPDATE: Nadje discusses her latest book on Iraqi women

Nadje Al-Ali, EPIC’s first Ground Truth Project interviewee, is back in the DC area promoting her latest book. Tomorrow at DC's famous Busboys and Poets Bookstore, she will discuss her latest book, Iraqi Women: Untold Stories, in which she challenges the myths and misconceptions which have dominated debates about Iraqi women. In her Ground Truth Project interview, released last fall, she also touched on this theme, noting the historically dynamic role women have played in Iraq. In her book, she traces the political history of Iraq from post-colonial independence to the present day. Nadje delves into why there has been an increase in social conservatism, domestic violence, and prostitution following the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Through it all, Nadje argues that Iraqi women are not passive victims; they are political players and discussion makers. If you are in the DC area, be sure to stop by Busboy and Poets and meet the amazing woman behind this powerful book.