Iraq violence

Jochen Hippler is a political scientist and research fellow at the Institute for Development and Peace at the University of Duisburg-Essen.

Has Iraq become a side issue in international politics?

Hippler: Well, it appears so. In 2007, 2008 and 2009, the security situation improved, it became calmer. At the same time the Obama administration focused their attention more on Afghanistan. This led to a declining interest in the war in Iraq. However, that doesn't mean the situation there is calm and relaxed. The country is still facing a lot of problems.

So the international community can't afford to look away?

No, there still is a huge amount of violence, which accounts for about 100 deaths per month - that is a whole lot. However, one must say that the number is far less than at the height of the violence in late 2006, because at that time there were about 3,500 deaths per month. But as we saw recently the situation could escalate again. It is possible.

Who is involved in these attacks?

There was a decline and a shift, I would say. The reason for the improvement in 2007, 2008 was related to the fact that Sunni insurgents reduced their ties to al Qaeda organizations because of the increasing competition and that's why terrorist jihadists from abroad have been weakened. This is still the case, even if they prove time and again that they're still there, that they can still strike, and that it's not over.

And we have also seen in recent months a certain tendency that some Shiite groups surrounding the radical preacher Muqtada al-Sadr have hit back with suicide attacks against US troops. In the last six months, five, maybe six US helicopters were shot down. That hadn't happened for a quite a long time. Therefore, those are the two sources behind the violence.

Let's talk more about the conflict between Shiites and Sunnis. Which role does Iran play?

It's quite ambiguous. On the one hand, the Maliki government in Baghdad wants to have good relations (with Iran). Not so long ago, they signed a contract, an agreement with the Iranian government, which focuses on different areas - culture, economics, and so on. We have seen the Iranian government trying to influence the policy agenda in Iraq.

Both sides tried to play a role in helping to establish the current government. That is, Tehran pressured the radical Shiite groups led by al-Sadr into voting for the Shiite Prime Minister Maliki to finally have a working government. At the same time, however, there are also some anti–Iranian tendencies within society. Certainly Shiites from nationalist groups reject the impact Iran has on Iraq.

Are you saying that Tehran is playing, in part, a more constructive role?

Yes, I believe that in the past Tehran has played a double role. On the one hand, it used Iraq to put pressure on Washington. Thus, a certain degree of instability, a certain number of attacks against the United States were absolutely desirable, simply to show that Iran can also apply pressure. On the other hand, of course, Tehran has no interest in Iraq really descending into chaos, because that would also have consequences for Iran.

How important is the presence of US soldiers?

I think that's also part of the current problem. Officially, US troops are supposed to withdraw at the end of the year and probably will. The decision has been made, but now this deadline could be jeopardized due to security problems. Therefore the Iraqi government is thinking about keeping parts of the US troops for training purposes and so on. However, certain radical Shiite groups surrounding al-Sadr and obviously the Iranians are unhappy about that scenario.

This withdrawal of US troops by the end of the year is being compensated by an incredible increase in civilian personnel. That means we are talking about 17,000 American security officers and economic and political officials who are coming into the country. New consulates in Basra and Erbil have been opened and right now it's problematic to fly in and accommodate the people who are planning to work for the American Embassy and other institutions. There are not enough beds, not enough houses to accommodate these people.

That means the withdrawal of the US troops will just be compensated by a massive in increase in civilian security personnel. It will have its own little, let's say, airforce - a civilian embassy airforce, which consists of a fleet of 46 aircraft. So this reshuffle naturally leads to unrest and criticism.

You just said that there is a softening on the issue of withdrawing US troops from Iraq. Is there a chance that President Obama might postpone it - at least in parts?

Actually, both governments want this to happen. The Iraqi government has already announced it wants to talk with Washington and the US military, and the Obama administration is also willing to do so. The problem is that the Shia Muqtada militia has announced that if Americans don't withdraw by the end of December they would strike again. And that's obviously a situation that neither the American nor Iraqi authorities want.

Besides, there is still a risk that this could bring down the Iraqi government, because the militia is represented in government by al-Sadr and his party. In this respect, asking the American forces to stay for training purposes and then having to deal with the possibility that forces represented in government wage war against them, is, of course, political dynamite.

Interview: Dirk Müller, Deutschlandfunk (ce)
Editor: Rob Mudge