Proposal to Arm Sunnis Adds to Iraqi Suspicions of the U.S.
|
Version 0 of 1. BAGHDAD — Despite stepped-up military assistance to Iraq to fight Islamic State militants, and President Obama’s public commitment to keeping Iraq unified, Iraqis have long suspected a nefarious plot by the Americans to break up their country. Their suspicions are intensified by a century of painful experience with Western intervention, much of it recent, and are embellished by a cultural fascination with conspiracies of all stripes. So when news came out this week that congressional Republicans were proposing to directly arm Iraqi Sunnis and Kurds without the involvement of the Shiite-led central government, it was immediately and widely taken as proof that the American plot against Iraq had entered a new phase. The front page of one Iraqi newspaper on Thursday showed a map of the country, wrapped in a chain to symbolize the grip of the United States and divided into three nations: Shiastan, Sunnistan and Kurdistan. A headline in red declared, “Congress proposes to deal with Kurds and Sunnis as two states.” The firestorm of Iraqi outrage at the proposal, part of the Republican version of a defense authorization bill, has sent American diplomats scrambling to assure Iraqis that the United States is still committed to a unified Iraq under a national government. “U.S. policy toward Iraq has not changed,” read a statement the United States Embassy here issued to the Iraqi news media. “We support a unified Iraq. All of our military assistance and equipment deliveries are provided through the government of Iraq and the Iraqi security forces.” Noting that the plan is a draft, and not a law, the statement concluded, “U.S. foreign policy is determined by the president.” Although the plan as written would seem to have no chance for survival, the upheaval demonstrates an American struggle to retain influence in Iraq. For much of Iraq’s Shiite majority, the recent months of progress by Iranian-backed militias in fighting the Islamic State have added to a sentiment that Iran, not the United States, is the more trustworthy ally. Although many of those victories came with the help of American airpower and financial aid, Shiites still see Iran as their essential protector. An adviser to President Hassan Rouhani of Iran recently reflected the country’s growing influence in the region — achieved through proxies in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen — and called Baghdad the capital of a new Persian empire. The comment stoked some controversy within Iraq, but nowhere near the opprobrium generated by the congressional plan to arm Sunnis. Another Iraqi headline on Thursday, referring to an old proposal that Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. made as a senator to divide Iraq into three autonomous regions, read, “Biden’s project has become real and the knife is cutting our limbs.” Talk shows, news outlets, clerics and government officials were all preoccupied with the issue. A spokesman for Representative Mac Thornberry, a Texas Republican and the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, which drafted the plan, said that the intent was not to interfere with Iraq’s sovereignty. But he did not back away from the idea, which calls for Iraqi Kurds and Sunnis each to be deemed a “country” to comply with American laws on direct military aid. The spokesman provided comments Mr. Thornberry made in a committee meeting, in which he said, “The committee does not mean to make internal decisions for Iraqis and their sovereignty.” In Iraq, some Sunnis welcomed the proposal. Dhafar al-Aani, a Sunni politician, said that the Americans should give direct aid to the Sunnis because the Iraqi government is unwilling to do so. But arming the Sunnis directly is an idea that Iraq’s Shiite majority opposes, believing it would be a violation of Iraq’s sovereignty and could help fuel sectarian violence by building up a Sunni army. Iraqi lawmakers on Thursday established committees in Parliament to explore the issue and draft a law that would forbid outside powers to provide arms to any factions without the approval of Baghdad. In a statement, Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi of Iraq said, “Any arming will only be done through the Iraqi government,” and added that if the proposal became law, it would lead to “more divisions” between Iraq and the United States. Ammar al-Hakim, a Shiite cleric and political leader at the head of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, saw the proposal as an American effort to redraw the map of the Middle East, just as France and Britain did after World War I. “Iraq will determine the boundaries of the new Middle East,” he said. At the same time, Moktada al-Sadr, a Shiite cleric whose militia once fought against the Americans, threatened violence. In a statement, he said that the United States was preparing to divide Iraq and that if it did so, he would reactivate his militia to “start targeting American interests in Iraq and outside Iraq, if possible.” Even as the American officials here sought to contain the controversy, it nevertheless highlighted an issue that is central to American policy in Iraq: how to arm and support Sunni tribesmen to fight the Islamic State. The Americans have pressed Iraq’s Shiite-led government to provide more arms and training to Sunni tribal fighters, essentially recreating the American-led program of several years ago that helped pacify the country by paying Sunnis to switch sides in the fight against Al Qaeda in Iraq. But efforts by the Iraqi government to arm the Sunni tribes have been minimal. Mr. Abadi has suggested he is willing to do so, but he is constrained by hard-line Shiites, many with strong connections to Iran. The issue has crystallized in recent weeks as the Iraqi government has sought to wage an offensive against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, in Sunni-dominated Anbar Province. The campaign there so far has stalled, as the Iraqi Army has proved largely ineffective. On other battlefields, such as Tikrit, which was recently taken back from the militants, the most effective forces on the ground have been Shiite militias, some of which are directed by Iran, while others are more directly controlled by the government. The presence of the militias in Anbar, American officials fear, could be counterproductive and help stoke sectarian divisions. In an effort to revitalize the Iraqi Army, which collapsed last year in Mosul in the face of the Islamic State’s onslaught, Mr. Abadi on Thursday declared amnesty for soldiers who had deserted, provided that they rejoin their units within 30 days. Many of those who deserted were Sunnis, and they say they did so only because their commanders fled first, and they feared that the Islamic State would kill them if they did not run. Since then, some say that they have sought to rejoin, wanting to help liberate their areas, but that they have been prevented from doing so because of fears of prosecution. “When I heard this today, I was very happy,” said Ali Khassim Omar, who was a captain in the army stationed near Kirkuk last year. “Most of our officers were Sunnis, and they want to participate in the battles against ISIS. We are really grateful for this decision.” |