In Syria's shadow, Iraq violence presents new test for U.S.

WASHINGTON Sat May 25, 2013 1:05am EDT

Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki (L) and U.S. President Barack Obama (R) hold a joint news conference in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House campus in Washington, December 12, 2011. REUTERS Jonathan Ernst

Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki (L) and U.S. President Barack Obama (R) hold a joint news conference in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House campus in Washington, December 12, 2011.

Credit: Reuters Jonathan Ernst

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Saddled with Middle East problems ranging from Iran to Syria and beyond, President Barack Obama now faces one that is both old and new: Iraq.

Unresolved sectarian tensions, inflamed by the raging civil war in neighboring Syria, have combined to send violence in Iraq to its highest level since Obama withdrew the last U.S. troops in December 2011, U.S. officials and Middle East analysts say.

A Sunni Muslim insurgency against the Shi'ite-led Baghdad government has also been reawakened. The insurgents' defeat had been a major outcome of then-President George W. Bush's troop "surge" in 2007.

The deteriorating situation - largely overshadowed by a Syrian civil war that has killed 80,000 people - has prompted what U.S. officials describe as an intense, mostly behind-the-scenes effort to curb the violence and get Iraqis back to political negotiations.

The United States spent hundreds of billions of dollars and lost nearly 4,500 soldiers during an eight-year war to try to bring a semblance of democracy to strategically placed, energy-rich Iraq.

But Iraqis have failed to agree on a permanent power-sharing agreement, threatening the country's long-term stability.

Vice President Joe Biden, who has been Obama's point man on Iraq, called Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, Iraqi Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani and Osama Nujayfi, the head of Iraq's parliament, in a round of calls on Thursday and Friday, the White House said.

To Maliki, the vice president "expressed concern about the security situation" and "spoke about the importance of outreach to leaders across the political spectrum," Biden's office said in a statement on Friday.

U.S. diplomacy is aimed in part at persuading Maliki, a Shi'ite, and his security forces not to overreact to provocations. Maliki's opponents accuse him of advancing a sectarian agenda aimed at marginalizing Iraq's minorities and cementing Shi'ite rule.

The latest uptick in violence began in late April at a Sunni protest camp in Hawija, near the disputed city of Kirkuk, where a clash between gunmen and Iraqi security forces killed more than 40 people.

A U.S. official said the Obama administration was "very actively engaged" after the Hawija clash in preventing a further escalation, when Iraqi forces surrounded insurgents who had seized control of a nearby town. Washington urged the Iraqi forces not to go in with massive firepower, and the stand-off was settled through a deal with local tribal leaders.

"I don't want to exaggerate our influence, but this is the kind of stuff we do behind the scenes," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "When there is a real crisis, they all run to us. ... We're a neutral party."

Others say Washington's influence in Iraq, which began waning even when U.S. troops were still there, has plummeted.

"What is lacking is the lack of confidence of trust among the politicians," Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told CNN on Tuesday. "And we have lost the service of an honest broker. Before, it used to be the United States."


Most worrying to U.S. officials and analysts who follow Iraq closely is the rebirth of the Sunni insurgency and of groups such as al Qaeda in Iraq, thought to be behind lethal suicide bombings aimed at reigniting civil conflict.

"What you're really looking at here is a kind of zombie insurgency - it's been brought back to life," said Michael Knights of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who has studied Iraq for years and travels there frequently.

By his count, violent incidents have escalated to about 1,100 a month from 300 monthly at the end of 2010.

After the Hawija clashes, the U.S. official said, "For the first time really in a few years, we saw people with their faces covered and RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades) and heavy weapons, coming into the streets in a very visible way."

The official called the increase in suicide bombings by al Qaeda in Iraq "very concerning," adding that such sophisticated insurgent groups could "wreak havoc" on political efforts to solve the conflict.

"I wouldn't call it a strategically significant increase, yet," the official said of the violence. "We're in this post-civil war, pre-reconciliation interregnum, gap, period, in which Iraq can tilt either way."

The setbacks in Iraq have revived criticism from those who opposed Obama's decision to withdraw all U.S. troops from the country, rather than leave behind a residual force. The White House has said it could not secure political agreement from Iraq's Sunni, Shia and Kurds for a law allowing a continued troop presence.

At a Senate hearing last month, Senator John McCain, who opposed the troop withdrawal, asked Assistant Secretary of Defense Derek Chollet how things turned out in Iraq. McCain, an Arizona Republican, cited Obama's dictum that "the tide of war is receding."

"I think Iraq is more stable today than many thought several years ago," Chollet replied.

"Really? You really think that?" McCain pressed. When Chollet said he did, the senator shot back, "Then you're uninformed."

The violence, which includes confrontations stemming from the Sunni protest movement, near-daily car bombings and attacks on mosques, is nowhere near the level of Iraq's 2006-2008 civil war.

Still, Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA and White House official now at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy said: "I think we're going to see great sectarian violence. The question is, how bad does it get?"


Syria's increasingly sectarian civil war, pitting mostly Sunni rebels against the government of President Bashar al-Assad, is not the prime cause of Iraq's troubles, officials and analysts said.

Iraq's failure to find a stable power-sharing deal among the country's ethnic and sectarian groups is to blame, they said. Iraq's Sunnis, ascendant during dictator Saddam Hussein's rule, feel excluded and threatened, and started staging protests in December.

But Syria's war "is an accelerant" in Iraq, Pollack said.

"We're seeing both Shia and Sunnis going over to fight" in Syria, the U.S. official said. "It's kind of encouraging this sectarian polarization in a way."

Iraqis often experience the Syrian conflict via YouTube video clips, he said.

Sunnis see the violence perpetrated by Assad's government, dominated by members of the Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shia Islam, he said. Iraq's Shia see often gruesome excesses perpetrated by the rebels.

"They're seeing two entirely different parallel universes," the official said.

(Additional reporting by Phil Stewart; Editing by Alistair Bell and Peter Cooney)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (10)
Fromkin wrote:
This is a conflict between the oil companies which are pumping Irak oil in Kurd areas without authorization and the Iraki government. But instead of reporting what’s really going we’re being told some bs about unresolved sectarian tensions and sectarian violence.

May 25, 2013 2:35am EDT  --  Report as abuse
COindependent wrote:
Fromkin. Take a history lesson. Why do you think all of these governments are totalitarian? It’s because given their own designs, the tribes kill one another. Without martial law they self destruct.

The oil companies, provide jobs and income to the people. Granted it’s an extraction of resources, but the royalties they pay (upwards of 40% on every barrel) fund virtually the entire society. Do you really think the Iraqi’s can develop the expertise and technology to produce and manage their assets? Obviously not. It’s inherent to Islam that one faction destroys the other due to their differing interpretations of the Koran. The only thing they can agree on is hatred–it’s been this way for 1,000 years. It’s just a matter of who gets victimized.

We sacrificed 4,000 young lives to give them an option to Saddam Hussien. They made their final choice when they told us to leave. 4,000 American lives for literally nothing. America needs to remember this whenever we think about getting involved in tribal areas. There is nothing in it for us to sacrifice our young people.

Why is it always someone else’s fault? Where are the oil companies in Syria? Same show, different location. The Iraqi’s need to look in the mirror. Perhaps then they might figure out where the problem lies.

May 25, 2013 8:57am EDT  --  Report as abuse
majkmushrm wrote:
Everything has proceeded pretty much as I had foreseen. The Brits, who pretty much had most of the Ottoman empire’s territory under their control after the empire’s collapse after WWI, did their usual stellar job of hacking territory into arbitrary bits without the slightest concern for ethnic/tribal/sectarian content (the same thing happened in India). So you have countries that contain multiple, mutually antagonistic groups. This is not a prescription for a society that will be democratic. Yet Shrub, who couldn’t find a clue if it came up and kicked him in the a$$, decided that we were going to bring democracy to Iraq. Like that was going to work out. Then you have idiots like McCain who think we can put US troops anywhere we want without regard to the sovereignty of the nation involved. When will we learn to keep our noses out of other people’s business?

May 25, 2013 10:13am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.