November 30, 2007



Now that all is going so well in Iraq, and the flower strewing appears imminent, the New York Times has discovered what might just be a small problem: As Iraqi refugees begin to stream back to Baghdad, American military officials say the Iraqi government has yet to develop a plan to absorb the influx and prevent it from setting off a new round of sectarian violence. Oops. And according to the reporters on the ground, the recent media hype has been media hype. And despite the recent reduction in violence (all the way to 2005 levels, not anywhere close to the actual levels before Bush invaded), the death toll from sectarian attacks around the country has nearly doubled, this year. At a cost of a record number of American troop deaths, for this war, for a single year. And the coverage has completely ignored the fact that militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr called a unilateral six-month cease-fire, at the end of August, which might just be a factor. But the bigger, and largely ignored, story is the refugee crisis. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates there are more than four million Iraqis who have had to leave their homes; the New York Times reported, in August, that more have fled since the escalation; the San Francisco Chronicle reported, almost a year ago, that 40% of Iraq's middle class had fled; and the Guardian reported, last summer, that a third of the population is in need of emergency assistance. In short, as the Chronicle article pointed out, this is the Middle East's worst refugee crisis since the Palestinians fled Israel, in 1948- and we all know how well that has turned out. As the Times continues: The Iraqi government lacks a mechanism to settle property disputes if former residents return to Baghdad only to find their homes occupied, the officials said. Nor has the Iraqi government come forward with a detailed plan to provide aid, shelter and other essential services to the thousands of Iraqis who might return. American commanders caution that if the return is not carefully managed, there is a risk of undermining the recent security gains. Um, yeah. Potentially millions of people returning to homes that are now occupied by others might just be a problem. Particularly given that ethnic cleansing has left the country utterly Balkanized. As Fareed Zakaria recently explained, on ABC News: (O)ne of the dirty little secrets about Iraq is that Iraq has increasingly been ethnically cleansed. It's sad to say, but the American Army has presided over the largest ethnic cleansing in the world since the Balkans. If you look at Baghdad, it is essentially a very cleansed city. It is, the Shia and Sunni communities have been separated by the river. You look increasingly around the areas that were once intermixed. They're no longer mixed. That explains, by the way, one of the reasons why violence has been reduced ... So, it seems unlikely, when people say bad things are going to happen if we leave, bad things have already happened, where were you for the last four years. It doesn't seem that likely that we're going to end up seeing some kind of massive genocide. The ethnic cleansing has happened. So, many of those returning refugees might just be returning to homes occupied by people they consider enemies. And here's the kicker, also from the Times article: Ahmad Chalabi, a Shiite politician and former Iraqi exile who made common cause with the Americans against Saddam Hussein, has been charged with developing a plan to provide services. Yes, him. Wherever there is a problem in Iraq, he can be sure to show up and make it worse! And, of course, there's also this little problem, as reported today by the Washington Post: But according to interviews with more than two dozen people in neighborhoods throughout Baghdad, the effort to boost services has been uneven, marked by gradual successes and frequent setbacks. In some neighborhoods, residents have seen government workers spruce up their parks or provide a few more hours of electricity, while residents of other districts report conditions continually deteriorating. Yes, we still haven't managed to get their lights on. Literally. According to a military presentation based on figures from the U.S. Embassy's Iraqi Transition Assistance Office, however, an average of 15.7 hours of power was provided in October nationwide. Maysan province in the southeast received the least, 11.6 hours, while Anbar province in the west received the most, 23.3 hours. Baghdad was on the lower end, with about 11.9 hours per day. State Department figures from six months ago showed the city receiving an average of 5.1 hours a day. No Baghdad resident interviewed by the Post said they had power for more than twelve hours a day. We all wish things would miraculously turn around, in Iraq, and that the war would end and the Iraqi people suddenly have peace and prosperity. But facts are stubborn things. Despite our media's hype, things remain bad, and seem likely to get worse: millions of refugees, many returning to homes now occupied by others, no plan to resettle them, and basic services still failing to rise to the level of basic functionality. As one Baghdad resident told the Post "It was definitely so much better for us before the war," he said. "We were never suffering the way we are now." In a world of media decency, that would be the only story that mattered.