Iraq Special: Obama Declares Victory. Sort Of. Depends How You Look at It. (The Onion)

Amidst all the chatter about the claimed withdrawal of US combat troops from Iraq and whether it means "We Won" --- The Wall Street Journal may get the award for hyperbole with "Somewhere down the road, we trust that August 18, 2010 will be remembered as Victory in Iraq day" --- let's leave it to The Onion to set matters straight.

Or Not So Straight. Quite Muddled, Really:

Iraq Special: When a Withdrawal Is Not a Withdrawal (Alaaldin)
Iraq Special: When a War is Not Over (Bacevich)
Iraq: The Political Worries Beyond the US “Withdrawal” (Shadid)

Addressing troops at Andrews Air Force Base Tuesday, President Barack Obama claimed victory in Iraq, saying that formal combat operations in the region would end Aug. 31, and that the United States had emerged from the seven-year war triumphant, kind of.

"For nearly a decade, our mission in Iraq has been to root out those who would choose violence over peace, to create a stable Iraqi government, and to transfer power to an incorruptible civilian police force," Obama said. "And, in a manner of speaking, we sort of did some of that, right? More or less?"

"Granted, this is not the definitive, World War II–like victory most of us expected," Obama continued. "But there's a military triumph in there somewhere, I swear. You just have to look at it from the right angles."

According to the president, the relative victory could be credited to a number of achieved benchmarks, depending upon how strict one's definition of "achieved" is. Obama pointed to the democratic election of an Iraqi parliament currently being held together by a thread; the streets of Iraq being slightly less hellish than they were in 2006; and the fact that women are now, for the most part, free to move around the country so long as they don't make a big production out of it.

Obama also noted that during the war more Iraqi insurgents died than American troops, which, he admitted, isn't necessarily the best way to determine a war's victor, but is nonetheless still preferable to the other way around.

"By the end of this month, victory, to a certain extent, will be ours, and we can finally welcome our troops back home," Obama concluded. "That is unless they are one of the 50,000 U.S. soldiers who will have to stay in the region for the foreseeable future."

Following the president's address, a car bomb ripped through an outdoor market in Baghdad killing eight Iraqis and wounding 32.

Pentagon officials also declared the mission, in a sense, kind of sort of accomplished Tuesday, citing the handful of Iraqi hearts and minds that may have been won over by the U.S. occupancy, and the fact that Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki had not yet been assassinated.

"In cases where we were unable to rebuild infrastructure or quell violent civil unrest, it wasn't for lack of trying," Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said during last Sunday's taping of ABC's This Week. "And trying your best, one could argue, is technically a triumph in and of itself."

"And hey, Saddam Hussein isn't in power anymore," Odierno continued. "So that's something."

With the cessation of combat operations, and the declaration of what sources said couldn't be called a complete and utter failure because to do so would be to admit that the U.S. wasted $750 billion, lost 4,400 troops, and killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians for absolutely nothing, both Democrats and Republicans have attempted to take credit for the quasi-victory.

"President Obama deserves zero praise for this borderline accomplishment," Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told reporters. "After all, if it weren't for President Bush ordering the initial invasion of Iraq and making it his central foreign policy initiative, we wouldn't be here right now awkwardly celebrating the muddled outcome of whatever the hell it is we've been doing over there for the past seven years."

Pentagon and White House sources said the American people should expect more wince-inducing victory-if-you-can-call-it-that celebrations 10 or 15 years from now when we kind of, but not really, win in Afghanistan.

Iraq Special: When a Withdrawal Is Not a Withdrawal (Alaaldin)

Ranj Alaaldin writes for The Guardian of London:

The last US combat brigade in Iraq has left the country, seven years after the US-led invasion. Martin Chulov was there to witness the process for the Guardian and he describes the marked difference between the "shock and awe" US entry into Iraq with its silent, somewhat depressive, trickle out.

The media and commentators alike have hailed the so-called US withdrawal as the end of the US in Iraq. It is, however, no withdrawal – combat or otherwise – no matter how many times you call it that.

Iraq Special: Obama Declares Victory. Sort Of. Depends How You Look at It. (The Onion)
Iraq Special: When a War is Not Over (Bacevich)
Iraq: The Political Worries Beyond the US “Withdrawal” (Shadid)

Fifty thousand US troops will stay in Iraq until 2011, down from 96,000, ostensibly to play a supporting role and advise Iraqi forces. That is, however, 50,000 armed US troops, backed up by major military hardware and artillery and who will operate in "self-defence" and could intervene in armed combat at the request of the Iraqi government.

As volatility continues to grip northern Iraq and the south experiences an increase in attacks, those triggers for American intervention could come sooner than most think, rendering the whole withdrawal of "combat" troops a meaningless, public relations stunt that makes a mockery of the intelligence of the Iraqi and American people.

Of course, the US already plays a largely hands-off role in military operations in Iraq – meaning that despite some of the apocalyptic expectations out there, security and stability should not dramatically deteriorate. However, the Iraqi government is still dependent on American military expertise, equipment and intelligence and this could continue in the decades to come, much like the Sultanate of Oman in the aftermath of the British so-called withdrawal that followed the end of the Dhofar war in 1975.

On my last trip to Iraq, when I spoke to senior Iraqi officials, there was a feeling that a new security agreement will be signed in 2011 and that it will establish a sizeable US presence. Sources suggest a 400-man advisory mission in 2012, under the auspices of the US embassy. Other forces would then operate periodically in the area on rotational exercises and training curricula with Iraqi forces. Combined with this force would be the private security contractors, who expect to see a rise in profits as the US scales down. In total, expectations are that there will be a permanent Saudi-scale US footprint of 1,000 to 2,000 personnel.

The sad reality, of course, is that little attention is paid to the fact significant numbers of Iraqis actually want the US to stay. Fears of increased Saudi and Iranian encroachment into Iraq still abound, while Iraq's political players, unable to form a government five months on since March, remain blinded by the lure of power. The terrorists are indeed taking advantage of the political vacuum, as attacks in recent weeks have shown. Some might say that even they want the US to stay, given that the impetus for damage and destruction is somewhat dependent on the American presence.

Iraq Special: When a War is Not Over (Bacevich)

Andrew Bacevich writes for The Daily Beast:

Within hours of the much ballyhooed withdrawal of the last U.S. combat brigade from Iraq, Wikipediadeclared that the Iraq war had “ended on August 19, 2010.” Although no doubt reflecting the fondest hopes of the Obama administration and of the American soldiers who have for so many years fought in Iraq, that judgment is unlikely to stand.

The Anglo-American forces that invaded Iraq in March 2003 did so for the purpose of deposing Saddam Hussein. The war’s architects expected this to be an easy and straightforward task, one that they approached with a surgeon’s expectations: They planned to cut open the diseased organ, remove the cancer, close, pat the patient on the head, and be done, moving on to the next sickly Muslim nation requiring Washington’s saving ministrations.

Iraq Special: Obama Declares Victory. Sort Of. Depends How You Look at It. (The Onion)
Iraq Special: When a Withdrawal Is Not a Withdrawal (Alaaldin)
Iraq: The Political Worries Beyond the US “Withdrawal” (Shadid)

They miscalculated badly. In fact, once exposed to the elements, the organ became the site of virulent infections. As chief surgeon, George W. Bush—not especially adept to begin with—ended up with a much bigger problem than he had bargained for.

The war launched to achieve regime change in Baghdad metastasized into three wars. First there was the war to replace Saddam Hussein, imposing a pro-Western Iraqi government in his place. Second was the Iraq civil war, touched off as a result of Saddam’s overthrow, Iraqi tribes, sects, and ethnic groups vying for power in the resulting vacuum and more than happy to use violence to achieve their ends. Finally was the jihadi war, radicals from across the Islamic world seizing on the chaos created by the Americans to convert Iraq into a new battlefield in their campaign to purge the umma of occupying Western infidels.

Seven and a half years later, what can we say of these three wars?

The war to replace Saddam with a legitimate, pro-Western government remains, to be generous, a work in progress....

Read rest of article....

The Latest from Iran (20 August): What is Going On Over Nuclear Talks?

2000 GMT: Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, and Talks with the US. Really, what is going on???

The English translation of the Ahmadinejad interview with the Japanese newspaper Yomiuri Shimbun (see 1145 and 1445 GMT) --- in which the President said, "We are ready for the talks...about Iran's proposed package from around the end of August or the beginning of September" --- makes clears that the discussion took place on Thursday. (hat tip to EA readers for their assistance on this important point)

In other words, Ahmadinejad gave the statement welcoming discussions and offering the prospect of a suspension of Iran's uranium enrichment --- "If the fuel exchange is accomplished and we are assured that our 20 percent fuel [uranium] will be guaranteed, the situation will change" --- a day after the Supreme Leader had thundered:

If one side intends to act like a superpower, threatening the other side, putting it under pressure, and imposing sanctions on it — and showing an iron hand — and at the same time offering talks, this cannot be called talks. We will not hold such talks with anybody.

So is this a case of Khamenei the "bad cop" and Ahmadinejad the "good cop" as Tehran manoeuvres for position ahead of any discussions? Indeed, do the different statements point to private haggling --- directly or indirectly --- with Washington to set up some basis for public talks?

Or could it be that the Supreme Leader and the President are not exactly in agreement on the way forward?

NEW Iran Document & Analysis: Supreme Leader’s Speech on US-Iran Relations & Internal Situation (18 August)
NEW Iran: Obama Administration Dampens Down War Chatter (Mazzetti/Sanger)
Rewriting Iran’s History: The 1953 Coup, the CIA, the Clerics, and “Democracy” (Emery)
Iran Cartoon of the Day: 1953 Speaks to 2010
The Latest from Iran (19 August): Freedom & Detention

1520 GMT: Shutdown. Rah-e-Sabz reports that the blog of former Vice President Massoumeh Ebtekar has been filtered.

1510 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Human rights activist Laleh Hassanpour, currently free from detention on bail, has been arraigned on new charges.

1505 GMT: Iran MediaWatch. Reporters Without Borders has condemned this week's closure of three newspapers, including the economic publication Asia and the imposition of a six-year sentence on Badrolsadat Mofidi, the secretary-general of the Association of Iranian Journalists.

RWB notes that more than 20 newspapers have been banned since the June 2009 election.

1455 GMT: A Friday Prayer Admission. Wow, it looks like Tehran Friday Prayer Leader Hojjatoleslam Kazem Seddiqi gave away a bit of nervousness today, at least in the account from Fars News:

Addressing a large and fervent congregation of people on Tehran University campus, Hojjatoleslam Sediqi called on Iranian officials and policy makers to close their ranks and get united.

Hojjatoleslam Sediqi further noted that lack of solidarity among special social strata is a problem which should be removed.

This line follows the one set by the Supreme Leader's speech on Wednesday (see analysis in separate entry), and it is effectively an open admissions of tensions within the Iranian Government.

1445 GMT: Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, & Nuke Talks. Oh, dear, some "Western" media are publishing before reflecting on President Ahmadinejad's supposed declaration to a Japanese newspaper (see 1145 GMT), headlined "Iran Says Might Halt High-Level Uranium Enrichment": both Reuters and Agence France Presse are promoting the story, and it is being pushed by outlets like the National Iranian American Council.

As we noted earlier, timing is critical here: if the interview took place before Wednesday, it has been superseded by the Supreme Leader's line of "Sanctions = No Talks". And no Iranian state media outlet is running the report; to the contrary, the fervent line of Press TV is that Iran will continue uranium enrichment in defiance of US objections.

1440 GMT: Sanctions Watch. Deutsche Welle is quoting Turkish newspapers that a delegation from the US State Department and Treasury have warned Ankara about trade with Iran.

1150 GMT: Tough Talk Today. Iranian Minister of Defense Ahmad Vahidi has said during today's Friday Prayers that Tehran has test-fired a new surface-to-surface missile, Qiam 1, "with new technical specifications and exceptional tactical powers". Footage was shown on state television, although it is unclear when the test took place.

On another front, Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov said Moscow does not plan to supply S-300 missiles to Iran: “We are not supplying anything. There is no decision on supplies.”

The S-300 deal has been held up for months amidst Western pressure on Russia to refrain from delivery of the missiles.

1145 GMT: Nuke Talks Confusion. Less than two days after the Supreme Leader ruled out an immediate resumption of discussions on Iran's uranium enrichment, the Japanese newspaper Yomiuri Shimbun has quoted President Ahmadinejad, ''Iran is ready to resume [talks] in late August or in early September'' with the "5+1" powers (US, UK, France, Russia, China, Germany). Ahmadinejad supposedly added, "We promise to stop enriching uranium to 20 per cent if fuel supply is ensured."

Now, was the interview with Ahmadinejad conducted before Wednesday, which indicates that Ayatollah Khamenei vetoed the President's wish for resumed talks, or did it occur after Wednesday, which indicates that Ahmadinejad is still not on the same wavelength as the Supreme Leader?

Meanwhile, Islamic Republic News Agency claims that the director of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, Ali Akbar Salehi, has said --- citing the Supreme Leader's comments --- that the country will continue enrichment of uranium for nuclear plants despite Western objections.

1140 GMT: Oil Squeeze? US National Public Radio reports on the supply of oil from Iraq's Kurdistan into Iran, which continues despite sanctions.

0930 GMT: Karroubi Watch. Radio Zamaneh has more on Mehdi Karroubi's on-line discussion with readers this week, including the take-away quote: “People must decide whether they want a religious or non-religious government and they must be allowed to choose their own form of government....The republic aspect of the government must take precedence [over the religious aspect] and people’s will must be accepted.”

0925 GMT: On-Line. Mehdi Karroubi's Saham News website, which was down at the start of today, can again be accessed.

0801 GMT: Rumour of the Week. Earlier this week we noted chatter on social media about a "Basij attack on Mohsen Rezaei", former commander of the Revolutionary Guard, candidate in the 2009 Presidential election, and Secretary of the Expediency Council.

EA readers point us to the following from Rah-e-Sabz:

Media and eyewitnesses report that on the first night of the month of Ramadan (11 August) Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of the Assembly for the Discernment of Expedience and a critic of the government, was accosted by several people when he was about to participate in prayers for one of the nation's famous panegyrists (formal speaker).

Aftab News reports as Rezaei was entering the courtyard of Tehran's Ark Mosque to take part in panegyrics for Hajj Mansour Arzi, two steps inside the courtyard he was stopped along with his guards by Hoseyn Allah-Karam (a leader of the Ansar-e Hezbollah and of the plainclothes agents) and forced to sit on the ground.

The Jahan News site in a report, quoting one of those close to Mohsen Rezaei, wrote that Mohsen Rezaei was accosted by several people when he was about to attend a panegyrics session for Hajj Mansour Arzi.

Another reader sends us the link to the Jahan story. The claim is that the "attack" may have prompted by the criticism of Ahmadinejad chief of staff Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai.

0800 GMT: We have posted an English translation of the full text of the Supreme Leader's speech on Wednesday and a snap analysis: there were important words not only on US-Iran relations but also on Iran's internal situation.

0630 GMT: Clerical Intervention. Ayatollah Dastgheib has urged that Iranians not be set against each other by dividing them into supporters and opponents of velayat-e-faqih (ultimate clerical authority). He said that Iranian authorities had brought people's disillusionment with religion and isolated society from righteous clerics.

0625 GMT: The Hunger Strike. The last of 17 political prisoners who started a hunger strike at Evin Prison have now been removed from solitary confinement. Advar News reported that Abdollah Momeni, Bahman Ahmadi Amoui, and Keyvan Samimi were transferred to the general section of Evin on Tuesday night.

0619 GMT: Academic Corner. Citing health problems, Dr. Saeed Soharpour, the Chancellor of Sharif University, has resigned.

Soharpour will be replaced by Dr. Reza Roosta Azad, the Vice Chancellor of Research and a Professor of Chemical Engineering. Roosta Azad is a senior member of the central council of the Isargaran Society, which was co-founded by President Ahmadinejad.

In an interview on Sunday with Fars News, Dr. Roosta Azad supported the ban on Mohammad Reza Shajarian's song of the famous prayer "Rabbana" by Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting: "His actions during the recent sedition has upset people. Hence Seda-o-Sima [IRIB] is right to ban him on the national broadcasting network."

Two years ago, Sharif University was highlighted by Newsweek as "one of the world's best undergraduate colleges".

0615 GMT: We have posted a separate feature pointing to an Obama Administration effort, via The New York Times, to dampen down talk of an Israeli airstrike on Iran.

0545 GMT: We awake this morning to find that Mehdi Karroubi's Saham News appears to have been shut down by Iranian authorities. The message, "Forbidden: You don't have permission to access /index.php on this server," greets anyone who tries to access the homepage.

UPDATED Israel-Palestine: US Invites Both Sides to Direct Talks on 2 September

UPDATE 1600 GMT: Sherine Tadros of Al Jazeera English reports that the Palestinian Authority has accepted the invitation.

After 24 hours priming the press, the Obama Administration --- through Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and special envoy George Mitchell --- has formally invited the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority to Washington on 2 September on direct talks.

Clinton, addressing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas, stated, "There have been difficulties in the past, there will be difficulties ahead....I ask the parties to persevere, to keep moving forward even through difficult times and to continue working to achieve a just and lasting peace in the region."

Gaza Latest (20 August): Aid Ship Mariam to Sail on Sunday?, UN Report on Gaza Restrictions, & Hamas v. Fatah
Gaza: UN Releases Report on War “No Judgement”
Turkey’s Israel “Problem”: Analysing the Supposed Threat from Washington (Yenidunya)

Netanyahu has already welcomed the invitation.

Clinton said Obama will have bilateral meetings with Netanyahu, Abbas, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, and Jordan's King Abdullah on 1 September 1 before a dinner with all  of them. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the representative of the Middle East Quartet (US, UN, European Union, Russia), will also be present at the launch.

The US Government has not mentioned any preconditions on the talks, such as a continued moratorium on expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and a halt to construction in East Jerusalem. Hamas and the political leadership in Gaza have not been invited to the discussions.