Tag Archives: iraq

Formation of the Fifth Iraqi Government

Posted on by
Reply

List compiled by Dhafra al-Azzawi and Scott Weiner

Leadership

Prime Minister: Nouri al-Maliki (SLC – Dawa)

Deputy PM – Rouz Nouri Shawees (KA – KDP)
Deputy PM – Hussein al-Shahristani (Shia – Independent)
Deputy PM – Salih al-Mutlaq (Iraqiya – Iraqi Front for National Dialogue)

Head, National Council for Strategic Policy – Iyad Allawi (Iraqiya – al-Wifaq al-Watani)

President – Jalal Talabani (KA – PUK)
Vice President – Adel Abdel Mahdi (INA – ISCI)
Vice President – Tareq al-Hashimi (Tajdeed)

Parliament Speaker – Osama al-Nujaifi (Iraqiya – Iraqi Front for National Dialogue)
First Deputy Speaker – Qusay Abd el-Wahid el-Suhail (Sadrist)
Second Deputy Speaker – Aref Tayfour (KA – KDP)

Ministries – Total: 42

Unassigned
Interior – (acting – PM Maliki)
Security – (acting – PM Maliki)
Defense – (acting – PM Maliki)
Integrity

STATE OF LAW COALITION – 7 Ministries

Ministry of State – Ali al-Dabbagh (SLC – Dawa)
Government Spokesman – Ali al-Dabbagh (SLC – Dawa)
Higher Education – Ali al-Adeeb (SLC – Dawa)
Ministry of State for Foreign Affairs – Ali Abdullah al-Sajri (SLC)
Oil – Abdul Karim al-Lua’ibi (Shia)
Ministry of Electricty – Hussein al-Shahristani (Shia- independent) (acting – position assigned to Iraqiya)
Youth and Sports – Jasim Mohammed Ja’afar (Islamic Union of Iraqi Turkomen)
Human Rights – Mohammed Shayaa al-Soudani (Sadrist)
Ministry of State – Hassan Radhi al-Sari (SLC)

IRAQI NATIONAL ALLIANCE  (INA) – 10 Ministries

Labor and Social Affairs – Nassar al-Rubaie (Sadrist)
Planning – Nasser al-Rubaie (Sadrist) (acting – position assigned to SLC)
Reconstruction and Housing – Mohammed Sahib al-Darraji (Sadrist)
Municipalities and Public Works – Mohammed Sahib al-Darraji (Sadrist) (acting – position assigned to Sadrists)
Ministry of State- Abd el-Mehdi Hassan al-Matiri (Sadrist)
Justice – Hassan al-Shimmari (Fadila)
Ministry of State  – Bushra Hussein Saleh [female] (Fadila)
Transportation – Hadi al-Ameri (Badr)
Tourism and Antiquities – Lua’ Smeesim (Sadrist)
Water Resources – Muhanad al-Sa’idi (Shia – position assigned to Sadrists)
Ministry of State for National Reconciliation Affairs – Ali al-Adeeb (acting – position assigned to al-Mihrab)
Electricity  – Hussein al-Shahristani (Shia- independent – acting – position assigned to Iraqiya)
Ministry of State – Thia Najim al-Assadi (Badr)
Ministry of State for Parliamentary Affairs – Safa’ al-Din al-Safi (Shia)

*Sadrist Ministries of State are: Marshes, Foreign Affairs

IRAQIYA LIST – 9 Ministries

Finance – Rafaie al-Issawi (Independent Patriotic Gathering)
Education – Mohammed ِAli Tamim (Iraqiya )
Agriculture – Az Adin Abdullah al-Doula (Iraqis Gathering)
Communication – Mohammed Tawfiq Allawi (al-Wifaq)
Science and Technology – Abdul Karim al-Sammraie (al-Tajdeed)
Ministry of State – Salah Muzahim Darwish al-Jubouri (Iraqiya – Iraqi Front for National Dialogue)
Culture – Saadoun al-Dulaimi (Iraqiya – al-Wifaq)
Industry and Minerals- Ahmed Nasr Dali (Iraqiya )
Ministry of State for Provincial Affairs – Turhan Muthhar Hassan (Turkomen)
Ministry of State for Tribal Affairs

KURDISH COALITION – 6 Ministries

Foreign Affairs – Hoshayer al-Zebari (KA – KDP)
Health – Majeed Hamid Ameen (KA)
Migration and Displaced Persons – Dindar Najman Shafeeq (KA)
Ministry of State for Civil Society Organization Affairs – Dindar Najman Shafeeq (acting)
Women’s Affairs – Hoshayer al-Zebari (KA – KDP – acting)
Trade – Rouz Nouri Shawees (KA – KDP – acting)

Other – 2 Ministries
Environment – Sargun Slayuh (Christian)
Ministry of State – Yassin Hassan Muhammed

*Ministry of State is not a portfolio in and of itself, and is therefore not included in ministry counts.

Share

Bowen and Biddle: Corruption Causes COIN Complications

Posted on by
Reply

On November 2, 2010, the Elliot School of International Affairs at The George Washington University hosted a panel on corruption in Iraq and Afghanistan.  In attendance were Stuart W. Bowen, Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) and Dr. Stephen D. Biddle, Roger Hertog Senior Fellow for Defense Policy and the Council on Foreign Relations.  In his prepared remarks, Bowen pulled no punches on the importance of defeating corruption.  He referred to it as “the second insurgency” in Iraq, and said “corruption has like a cancer spread” in the country.  Iraq’s oil and gas resources are government owned, allowing only a privileged few to benefit, and to skim profits off the top.  He pointed to a lack of services and corruption as the major reasons Iraqis lack confidence in their government.

Dr. Biddle discussed corruption as it relates to Afghanistan and emphasized the role of the US to combat it.  When Afghan farmers are being preyed upon by corrupt government leaders and see the US aiding the government, they often turn to the Taliban as the only body that will protect them from corruption.  Biddle emphasized good governance as key to successful counter-insurgency, and characterized corruption as the “hydraulic fluid” making the machine of Afghan government run.  He proposed a pragmatic middle-ground solution in which corruption would not be defeated completely but rather brought down to a “reasonable” level.

Both Bowen and Biddle advocated greater unity of effort in the US government to fight corruption.  Bowen called for unifying anti-corruption agencies.  Biddle urged “cooperation among a variety of government sectors,” noting that this is “unusually hard in COIN” because of the complex environment.  Nonetheless, Biddle pointed to the cooperation during the Iraqi troop Surge of 2007 between Ambassador Ryan Crocker and General David Petraeus as a successful model of the unity of effort.

Both speakers hit on a key point, which is that support (which includes the perceptions) of Iraqi and Afghan citizens are critical in America’s ability to win the fight in both theaters.  Counterinsurgency is not only a military campaign for security, but a political campaign for confidence and trust.  The appearance that the US is indifferent to or complicit with regard to corruption activities not only damages morale, but is a strategic liability in the war effort.  As Dr. Biddle succinctly put it, “If we fail in this…we lose the war.”

One lingering question after the event, however, is the role that cultural differences play in this issue.  Many practices considered here in the US to be corrupt are well-accepted as legitimate in counterinsurgency theaters.  These are cultural differences with which commanders on the ground are forced to pragmatically deal.  Achieving the kind of tolerable corruption which Dr. Biddle advocates will require understanding the cultural norms surrounding corruption in COIN theaters, and dealing with them in ways that most successfully enable our troops to accomplish the mission.

Share

Al-Manar: Hizbollah’s Version of Must-See TV

Posted on by
Reply

“If it was not for Al-Manar, the victory would not have been achieved.”[i]

- Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah commenting on the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Southern Lebanon in May 2000

One of the most important weapons that the Lebanese terrorist group Hizbollah has in its arsenal for its struggle against its adversaries is not a rocket launcher or an anti-tank missile or a suicide bomber.  It is a TV station called al-Manar, which is Arabic for “the beacon.” Al-Manar serves as a platform for the group to disseminate its views to the people of Lebanon and other parts of the Middle East.  Al-Manar has been so successful at reaching Hizbollah’s target audiences that it seems to have become a model for extremist Shia groups in Iraq which have launched copy-cat versions of al-Manar.

A screenshot from an al-Manar TV clip. Note the Hizbollah logo in the top left of the screen and how it appears to be co-equal with the al-Manar logo in the top right.

Hizbollah launched al-Manar TV as a small terrestrial TV station in 1991, just as the group started becoming active in Lebanese politics.  The station initially focused on programming that helped Hizbollah make a political issue of the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon.  Since then, its reach and its content have expanded significantly.  It is now a major satellite station with significant viewership not just in Lebanon, where it is generally believed to be the third most-watched station in the country, but other parts of the Middle East.

Al-Manar resembles other major Arab satellite TV stations in its broadcast of a variety of content, including news programs, sports, entertainment shows, family programs, and talk shows.  But the station also displays a very clear bias reflective of Hizbollah’s political outlook.  For example, it is strongly anti-Israeli and anti-US; it is openly supportive of Hizbollah’s fighters and military operations; it openly promotes “resistance” to include violent attacks in response to Israeli control of the Palestinian territories and the US military presence it Iraq.[ii]

Programs that Al-Manar has aired in recent years include The Spider’s House, an anti-Israeli talk show which emphasizes how Israel can be defeated over time through a combination of low-intensity warfare and population growth in Arab communities. Returnees is a program dedicated to the issue of Palestinian refugees. Terrorists is a weekly documentary highlighting what the station refers to as “terrorist acts” that Israel has committed against Arabs. My Blood and the Rifle is a documentary series that glorifies Hizbollah fighters.  The station also airs “filler material” which come in the form of short segments aired during commercials, like this one which glorifies Hizbollah fighters.

Al-Manar’s primary target audience is the people of Lebanon, particularly Lebanese Shia Muslims, but the station also makes an extensive effort to appeal to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.  Since 2003, the station has also devoted significant broadcast time to commenting on the US military presence in Iraq.  The station regularly rails against the continued US military presence, accusing the US Forces of committing a variety of abuses and atrocities in Iraq.  The station also openly calls for violent resistance to US Forces in Iraq and airs video clips of attacks against US Forces circulated by Iraqi Shia extremist groups, like Kata’ib Hizbollah (Arabic for “The Hizbollah Brigades in Iraq”) and the Promised Day Brigade, which is the successor to Muqtada al-Sadr’s now-defunct Mahdi Army.[iii]

The growth and success of Al-Manar TV may have provided inspiration for the emergence of at least one relatively new outlet:  Iraq’s al-Ahd TV.  the station’s programming reflects very strong political opinions, one of the most notable of which is strong opposition to the US presence in Iraq.

The picture on the left shows a female broadcaster on al-Manar TV, the one on the right shows a male and female broadcaster from al-Ahd TV.  Note the similarity in the dress of the two women from al-Manar and al-Ahd, which is an indication that both stations embrace relatively conservative social mores and anti-Western political views.  Contrast this with the picture in the center of Al-Arabiya TV correspondent Rima Salha, who is dressed in Western-style clothing, which is much more typical of female correspondents who appear on major Arab TV stations.

While no firm evidence currently exists to suggest that the launching of al-Ahd TV was inspired by al-Manar TV, there are at least on the surface there are some noticeable similarities between the programming of the stations.  These similarities seem to be based on similarities in the political and social views of the forces behind the two stations (see the pictures below for an example of how the social views of the people who control these two TV stations seem to appear on-screen), which may have formed entirely independently of one another, but the creators of al-Ahd TV may have taken inspiration from al-Manar TV as an example of how to use television as a platform to spread their political messages.

The growth of al-Manar and its potential to influence/inspire the creation of copy-cat stations like al-Ahd TV represent a significant challenge for US strategic communications initiatives in the Middle East and the Islamic world.  US policymakers need to be able to monitor the types of messages and themes that stations like al-Manar TV disseminate so that the US can adjust its to account for the impact of such messages if US strategic communications efforts in the Middle East are to be successful.

[i] Zahera Harb, “Aiming at Liberation:  Al-Manar Media Campaigns Against the Israeli Occupation of Southern Lebanon (1998-2000)”, Middle East Journal of Culture and Communications, Volume 2, Number 1, p. 55-56.

[ii] Beacon of Hatred:  Inside Hizballah’s al-Manar TV by Avi Jorisch (Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2004).

[iii] Muqtada al-Sadr announced the disbanding of the Mahdi Army in 2008 and that the group was being replaced by two new organizations:  the Momahidoun, which he stated would be a political, social, and religious organization, and the Promised Day Brigade, a military group which would conduct attacks against US Forces in Iraq to liberate the country from US occupation.  It is believed that the Promised Day Brigade is smaller much more tightly organized than the old Mahdi Army, thus giving al-Sadr greater controller over the group than he had over its predecessor, and that he disbanded the Mahdi Army organization and created the two new organizations at least in part for this reason.

Share

Cultural Understanding in the U.S. Military

Posted on by
Reply

The United States military has greatly increased its cultural understanding within its theaters of war since 2003.  That was the conclusion of Georgetown University Professor Rochelle Davis, at a lecture last week titled “Culture as a Tool of War: US Military Approaches to Occupation in Iraq” at the Middle East Institute in Washington D.C.

Professor Davis asserted that the military’s greater focus on counterinsurgency is the result of Field Manual 324, the highly influential Army/Marines guide whose implementation proved highly successful in the Iraq Surge of 2007.  Professor Davis said that this cultural focus represents dramatic progress in the way it uses culture as a weapons system.   Despite progress, however, she called for the need for more subtle understandings of different ethnic groups in a theater of operation.  She also questioned whether using culture as a weapon was compatible with a “hearts and minds” strategy, in which a military seeks to win over a target population by providing security and civil services.

Professor Davis insisted we re-evaluate how we study, define, and use cultural characteristics for military purposes. She asserted that it is overly simplistic to describe ethnic groups by who they like and dislike, and that we as Americans would never describes ourselves as such.  However, in the theater of operations, cultural understanding is only useful to the extent that it is an asset for victory.  While an in-depth, graduate-level understanding of the nuances of Iraqi politics and culture for every serviceman and woman would no doubt be an asset to the military, such capabilities are neither cost-effective nor necessary to achieve mission objectives.  Davis’ contention did not spend significant time addressing this potential concern.

Professor Davis also questioned whether using cultural understanding as a “weapons system” conflicted with a hearts and minds strategy.  The military tends to think about programs in terms of enhancing specific capabilities and assets of battlefield commanders.  Use of the “weapons system” terminology is a way for commanders who support cultural training to drive home the battlefield effectiveness of such training to their colleagues in the military.  They value effectiveness.   Davis’ presentation ultimately promoted cultural understanding for the sake of greater awareness, and neglected to tie the concept to meeting military objectives. Most would agree the military is best served by cultural understanding which helps troops complete the mission.  Despite this oversight, the otherwise insightful comments Professor Davis made indicate that finding the balance between understanding and efficacy is likely to be the subject of ongoing discussion.

Share