Today's Stories Behind the Chatter: India, Iraq, and Iran

INDIA: HOLDING BREATH AND CROSSING FINGERS

US intelligence officials are letting it be known that evidence is pointing to the responsibility of Lashkar-e-Taiba, the militant group formed to pursue the Pakistani cause in Kashmir, for the attack. This assessment is in line with that being put out by Indian officials.

This, of course, ratchets up the temperature in relations between India and Pakistan. The Pakistani Government made clear on Saturday that it had no hand in the Mumbai assault, as President Zardari said, "My heart bleeds for India." Indian suspicions of involvement by the Pakistani military and/or intelligence services continue, however, and Pakistan has indicated that it will move forces towards the border. Islamabad also withdrew the offer to send the Pakistani head of intelligence to assist with the investigation, after opposition party protests, although "a lower-level intelligence official would go to India...at an undetermined time in the future".

On the comment front, The Observer of London, which used to be a paper of editorial sense and dignity, dismisses local and regional issues to proclaim the fight for "democracy" against "jihadists". Juan Cole's heart-felt plea to India not to repeat the mistakes of the Bush Administration, while still caught up in the context of 9/11 and the War on Terror, is far more valuable reading.

IRAQ: THE MANOEUVRES BEGIN ON THE STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENT

While the editors of The Washington Post indulge in fatuous back-slapping (the "its success in greatly reducing violence around Iraq", "the new democratic system is gaining its footing", "the Bush administration worked patiently and tirelessly to negotiate the new agreement") and Thomas Friedman reduces the country to "moderate Iraqi Sunnis against Al Qaeda and Iraqi Shiites against pro-Iranian extremists", Sudarsan Raghavan and Saad Sarhan offer one story of note:

Iraq's preeminent Shiite spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, has expressed concern about the country's security agreement with the United States, saying it gives the Americans the upper hand and does not do enough to protect Iraqi sovereignty.

Meanwhile, a rocket fired into the Green Zone in Baghdad, landing near the United Nations compound, killed two and wounded 15 others.

LAYING OUT THE "CORRECT" IRAN NARRATIVE

In the category of "I say it, therefore it must be true", David Ignatius in The Washington Post:

Iran moves closer every day to becoming a nuclear-weapons power. It views America as an aggressive adversary that wants regime change, no matter what Washington says. Dialogue is worth a try, but Obama and his advisers should start thinking about what they will do if negotiations fail.

Agreement in Iraq: Half-Full, Half-Empty

The optimistic view of the Iraq Parliament's passage --- by 149-35 with 14 abstentions and 77 not present --- of the Status of Forces Agreement with the United States comes from US and British papers that headline passage with "a substantial majority" and "an overwhelming show of hands".

The not-so-optimistic view? Well, that would come from a bit of detailed reading and some basic reflection. Only The Washington Post, at the end of the sixth paragraph of its report, mentions those 77 Parliamentarians who didn't show for the final vote. That means --- and here the Post deserves a bit of credit --- that "just over half" of the members voted for the Agreement.

Interpretation? For that, you have to bypass the glowing headline, "31 December 2011: day the last US soldier leaves Iraq". The politics are far more complex: in effect, the Government of Nouri al-Maliki and leading Shi'a parties, as well as supporting Kurdish parties, have a bit of breathing space because they bought abstentions from Sunni and some uncertain Shi'a members.

Because of those abstentions, the al-Maliki Government can present the vote as a ringing Sadrists, with only recalcitrant Sadrists opposing the Agreement. Had those abstentions been votes against, however, the final tally would have been 149-136, far from the "consensus" demanded by Ayatollah Sistani and some other key political figures in Iraq.

The Government paid a price for the clear victory, giving assurances to Sunnis that they would have input into future legislation. More importantly, at least in the short term, al-Maliki gave way to the Sunni demand for a national referendum on the agreement in the middle of 2009.

Perhaps the most telling comment on that referendum came --- buried in The New York Times report --- from the veteran politician Adnan Pacachi: the referendum will ensure that US leaders are “more careful and they will not make mistakes that will cause the Iraqi people to reject the agreement". In other words, this is a marker that the Obama Administration shows good faith both in drawing down US forces and in not re-interpreting the Agreement, say, for US military operations without Iraqi approval and for the continued use of private contractors immune from Iraqi law.

There is, in other words, a dual negotiation going on here. One is the negotiation between factions in Iraq for influence, notably the Sunni struggle to retain some say in political affairs at national level, and one is the negotiation to limit and possibly remove the American presence. Neither of these negotiations came to an end on Thursday.

Fatuous commentary of the day:

The report in The New York Times maintains:

"Throughout the government’s negotiations on the pact, ...neighboring countries, especially Iran, have been invisible but influential players. As recently as Wednesday night, lawmakers said messages came from Iran expressing disapproval of the political deal that was essential to the pact’s ratification.

But lawmakers nevertheless pushed on with the negotiations, and the final compromise, arrived at less than an hour before the Parliament vote, differed little from the version rejected by the Iranians."

The implication that Iran was the main obstacle to ratification is misleading, ignoring the internal Iraqi dynamics. It also is inaccurate and misses the key point. As Juan Cole documents, Iranian state-run radio indicates Tehran's approval of the Agreement and the associated referendum:

"The agreement of the Iraqi government and parliament with holding a referendum shows that Iraqi officials, who are under pressure from America, will be in a better position to express their views by referring to the general consensus and the support of the Iraqi people, and will be able to free themselves from the pressures of the American statesmen."

Journalism 101: Today's Awards for Incisive Comment

HONOURABLE MENTION: THE ALL IS WELL IN IRAQ COMMENT

Marine Captain Giles Clarke writes in The New York Times of running a half-marathon in Baghdad:

As I sprinted across the finish line, though, I knew it was all for a greater good. I knew that I was contributing to something much bigger than myself. How did I know this? I just ran a half-marathon in Baghdad.

Totally Irrelevant Fact (1):

Three bombings targeting Iraqi government employees and the U.S.-fortified Green Zone killed at least 20 people and left scores wounded Monday.

Totally Irrelevant Fact (2):

Number of US military personnel who ran the half-marathon: More than 200
Number of Iraqis who ran the half-marathon: 0

BRONZE MEDAL: I LOVE YOU, YES, I DO COMMENT

David Ignatius gets misty-eyed over Condoleezza Rice in The Washington Post:

Condoleezza Rice may be the most disciplined person in this town of workaholics. She has always been the perfect young woman, pleasing and impressing others.

Dave's Afterthought:

Now the issue of U.S.-Iranian relations will be handed over to the Obama administration. "We ran out of time," says one administration official.

The Question Dave Did Not Ask Condi:

Why?

SILVER MEDAL: THE BETTER LATE THAN NEVER COMMENT

The Washington Post celebrates Presidential justice:

THE BUSH administration acted fairly and responsibly this week in deciding to release Osama bin Laden's former driver from the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and return him to his home country of Yemen.

Suggestion made by The Post:

The White House has another opportunity to do the right thing, this time in the case of 17 Chinese Uighurs held at Guantanamo.

Suggestion not made by The Post:

Anything to do with the other 235 detainees at Camp X-Ray

GOLD MEDAL: THE TRIBUTE TO CONSERVAPEDIA COMMENT

In The Washington Post, George Will joins Conservapedia's vigilant defence against Dangerous Professors, reviewing Stanley Fish's book, Save the World on Your Own Time:

Fish's advocacy of a banal proscription -- of explicit political preaching in classrooms -- may have made him anathema to academia's infantile left. The shrewder left will, however, welcome his book because it denies or defends other politicizations of academia that are less blatant but more prevalent and consequential -- those concerning hiring and curricula.

For those who can't quite make it through that paragraph, here is Conservapedia's translation:

Professor values are currently one of the most prevalent forms of Liberal indoctrination.

Breaking News: Iraq Parliamentary Vote Delayed Again

Al Jazeera's English-language website is reporting, "Iraq's parliamentary vote on a wide-ranging accord that would allow US troops to stay in the country for another three years has been delayed" for another 24 hours. Al Jazeera is still holding to the line that the agreement will be ratified but adds the latest spin from Khaled al-Attiya, the deputy speaker of the Parliament, that "the government and the UIA [Shi'a United Iraqi Alliance] were making a last-minute push to assemble a broader coalition".

What Al Jazeera does not state is why that broader coalition is essential. There was a clear risk that Sunni parties would oppose the Agreement or abstain, leaving passage in the hands of Shi'a and Kurdish groups. Ayatollah Sistani, the most important cleric in Iraq, has already made clear that, in the absence of consensus, he could not support the outcome.

The spokesman for the main Sunni bloc, the National Concord Front, is indicating that the postponement of the vote has occurred because of a deal in which the Sunni would suppose the Agreement in exchange for concessions on other issues by the Government: ""The reason for the delay is that the presidential committee of parliament and the presidential council have reached an agreement that includes a set of political reforms." The Los Angeles Times indicates that those concessions include guarantees against Shi'a-Kurdish domination of decision-making and "amnesty for detainees in U.S. custody".

Meanwhile, the McClatchy News Service has obtained and published an English translation of the Agreement, which the Bush Administration has refused to release.

And why has the US Government not allowed publication and discussion of the Agreement, even as the Iraq Parliament votes on it? McClatchy's sources give pause to any who think this is a clear-cut settlement leading to US withdrawal:

The Bush administration has adopted a much looser interpretation than the Iraqi government of several key provisions of the pending U.S.-Iraq security agreement, U.S. officials said Tuesday....These include a provision that bans the launch of attacks on other countries from Iraq, a requirement to notify the Iraqis in advance of U.S. military operations and the question of Iraqi legal jurisdiction over American troops and military contractors.

Unintentionally Ironic Statement of the Day

William Kristol in the New York Times: "So I hope the best and the brightest who will be joining the new president will at least entertain the possibility that a lot of what they think they know is wrong."

Forget about those around the new Prez, Mr Bill. What about those who advised the current one?

Fun Statement from the Past --- Mr Bill on 14 January 2008: "[There is] a refusal to admit real success because that success has been achieved under the leadership of ... George W. Bush."