10-20 Dead in Failed Terrorist Prison Break
Sunni Arabs Demonstrate Against Election Results in Samarra
Prison guards killed between 4 and 16 inmates when some of them attempted a jail break from a special facility for terrorists in Kadhimiyah, northeast Baghdad, on Wednesday, according to AFP. An inmate got hold of a weapon and began shooting indiscriminately, then attracted fire from the guards. Four guards are also said dead, along with a translator. The reports of the number of dead inmates varied, with the US military estimating 4 prisoners dead. High police official Abdul Aziz Muhammad gave the number of dead inmates as 11, while anonymous Iraqi sources in the Ministry of the Interior alleged that 20 prisoners were killed. Al-Zaman/AFP accepted that the number of dead inmates was 16.
Al-Zaman/ AFP/ DPA report other violence. In Baghdad, a former officer in the Iraqi army was assassinated in Baladiyyat, east Baghdad. A roadside bomb set by guerrillas wounded three policemen near Mustansiriyah Mosque. Iraqi police discovered 5 corpses in Baghdad on Wednesday.
US troops killed one civilian and wounded two others at a checkpoint in Khalidiyah. Guerrillas killed two policemen in Tikrit, while guerrilla missiles fell on in a civilian neighborhood in Dhuluiyyah on Tuesday night, killing 3 civilians and wounding 9 others. In Baqubah to the northeast of Baghdad, guerrillas attempted to assassinate the mayor; they failed, but wounded two of his bodyguards. Guerrillas in Samarra killed 3 policemen with a car bomb, according to some reports. Others say that 4 special police died, along with 4 civilians.
The Association of Muslim Scholars condemned the Iraqi police for invading the home in Najaf of Ayatollah Ahmad al-Baghdadi, a Shiite cleric who opposes the US military presence.
Al-Zaman/ AFP: Hundreds of Sunni Arabs demonstrated in Samarra against what they viewed as electoral fraud in the December 15 elections. The demonstrations follow much bigger ones in Baghdad and some other Sunni cities on Tuesday and the previous Friday.
The Iraqi prison population held by US forces is rising toward 15,500. In the absence of a Status of Forces Agreement, and with the passage of the new constitution (which requires warrants for arrests), these prisoners are probably being held illegally.
al-Zaman/ AFP say that the US embassy in Baghdad has advised the incoming government to privatize the hundreds of companies and factories owned by the state (the Baath Party was actually the Baath Socialist Party), selling them to investors. The US administration of Iraq attempted to move toward privatization under Paul Bremer, but the issue was rendered moot by the poor security in the country, which makes investing in it at the moment unattractive.
One of the least attractive aspects of the US government is its fanaticism about privatization. I mean, is this really the time? The good Lord knows how many of those companies or factories are actually operating. And who is going to buy them? Wouldn't it be better at this juncture for the government to use them in a way analogous to FDR public works projects, to put people to work? Al-Zaman estimates that 1/4 of Iraqis live in dire proverty, and the real unemployment rate is still probably 50 percent. Corporations are far less efficient than Washington believes (see: Enron), and some state-owned enterprises have prospered (ask Californians if privatized electricity worked out well for them; and see: Enron). It is no doubt better in the long run to move away from bloated state-owned industries in Iraq, but I just wouldn't have made that a priority.
Al-Sharq al-Awsat says that the lawyers' guild is protesting the decision of the ministry of justice to dissolve it and place a counsellor over it. Guild spokesman complained that the move contravened a 1965 (pre-Baath) law and damaged the independence of the organization from the government. (It is hard to tell what is going on here, but guilds and unions in Iraq were arms of the Baath Party, now dissolved and despised.
posted by Juan Cole @ 12/29/2005 06:30:00 AM
Click to join Infoco
8 Comments:
Dear Professor,
I wonder if economic concerns, including access to oil reserves and mandating privatization, are not the main, or even the only, reasons for this war. All of the national security rationales have been proven wrong, and many were laughable on their face (e.g., since when do wannabe absolute dictators like Saddam give away their most secret and valuable weapons to people they loathe, like Osama bin Laden?)
Meanwhile, even in 2003, when Iraq was in a state of chaotic mass looting, Bremer took time off from mass firings of Baathists to "modernize" the rules on trade and investment. His coalition authority and the subsequent governments have been tearing their hair over such matters as the monthly allotment of basic groceries given to every Iraqi family, a popular legacy of Saddam, which he instituted years ago because of sanctions. (The rich sell off the inferior products.)
Every few months the New York Times, on its op-ed page, publishes a chart of progress or lack therof in Iraq. The authors seem to refrain from undue optimism, but their pro-war bias is evident, most notably when they tout, among the numbers of dead, wounded, unemployed, such progress as "reform of the banking regulations". I can't help but see that used as a recruiting tool for the military, ours or Iraqi: Make the world safe for improved banking regulations!
Once upon a time, Iraqi oil revenue was supposed to pay for the occupation. Remember when Europeans were miffed that their companies weren't going to get to bid on Iraqi projects? I think the neocons really believed their own propaganda about how easy and cheap this war would be. Why else would we hear so much happy talk about how many more people now own air conditioners (but no electric power) and cell phones (useful for detonating bombs) than under Saddam?
Privatization is a scam. It's just a way for U.S. government sycophant corporations to "buy" another country's assets, while the people in the country work for near slave wages. This has been going on for decades. Of course the U.S. wants privatization. It's a cash cow.
The push for privatization comes as no surprise to me. Policy regarding Iraq has largely been motivated by ideology rather than pragmatism.
Most of the bigger screw-ups which have come back to haunt the US have been as a result of this. Think de-baathificatation, the disbanding of the army, and the whole destroy Falluja to liberate it campaign. All of these happened not because it was good policy, but because it made good politics for Washington.
Privatization is just another example of this. The rabbid capitalists of the Republican Party can see this as yet another example of the good news that the media will not report on. And Bush can go on the stump and claim that this will somehow turn Iraq into the model democracy that was promised two years ago.
>US fighter jets dropped two 500-pound bombs on suspected insurgents in a northern Iraq town, killing 10, the US military said in a statement on Thursday. The F-16 jets were on a routine patrol near Hawija, southwest of the northern oil hub of Kirkuk on Tuesday when they noticed suspicious activity. "The pilots saw three men digging holes near the road emplacing an IED," said the statement, using the military's acronym for roadside bomb. "The men fled the area in a vehicle when they heard the aircraft flying overhead and were soon joined by a second vehicle." <
The F-16 can fly 1,500 mph at an altitude of 50,000 feet. It costs about $30 million. High technology goes Highway Patrol.
>The vehicles attempted to hide "by parking between two buildings" in a nearby village, but they were killed when the jets dropped their bombs - "While causing only minimal damage to the surrounding structures", it said. A follow up US army patrol destroyed the roadside bomb and performed a search of the village, seizing assault rifles, a machine gun, ammunition and bombmaking materials. <
"Minimal damage to the surrounding structures" -- does that mean that out of 500 buildings in the village, only the mosque and school were destroyed?
Where is the Iraqi army while all this is happening? I thought the idea was for the United States to supply air support for their ground operations.
Anyone interested in gauging the probable success of privatization might want to look at the website for the Iraq Stock Exchange.
http://www.isx-iq.net/
Foreign investment is not yet allowed, so you can only look, not buy. I'm not financially literate enough to make an evaluation, but I was not encouraged by the following item, the only one under "News and Event." I am not someone who wants to make fun of anyone for their struggles with a foreign language, but is this the public face of an institution you would trust with your money?
"Ladies and Gentilmens who they are caring in Iraq Stock Exchange activity
Iraq Stock Exchange Programme in its new permanent building
Good Greeting:-
We would like to take your care that Iraq Stock Exchange was moving to its new permanent building after its finished its activity building for that its stopping its trading from 27/10/2005 to 6/11/2005, first trading session its hold in its new permanent building in Monday 7/11/2005."
Juan is right to ask who will be investing in these newly privatized companies.
Transfer of wealth is one of the main results of war. Some claim it is one of its primary functions.
Why are you surprised that individuals or corporations would want to buy Iraqi assets on the cheap via privatization? Think of their potential value in the medium-range future--not of their current or short-term value.
A persistant underlying theme of Bush economics is to concentrate wealth and power. On the other hand true liberals want wealth distributed somewhat through social programs and progressive taxation. The Concentrators vs the Distributors.
Privatization is a concentrator. The new private owner works to maximize personal wealth whereas, ideally, the state wants to create jobs and spread the wealth around.
Remember that Bremer also proposed a flat 16% income tax for Iraq. This makes it easy for smart operators (usually using anyones money but their own) to amass fortunes.
A trickle down economy in a poor country like Iraq is a recipe for an even poorer country.
"One of the least attractive aspects of the US government is its fanaticism about privatization. I mean, is this really the time? The good Lord knows how many of those companies or factories are actually operating. And who is going to buy them? Wouldn't it be better at this juncture for the government to use them in a way analogous to FDR public works projects, to put people to work? Al-Zaman estimates that 1/4 of Iraqis live in dire proverty, and the real unemployment rate is still probably 50 percent. Corporations are far less efficient than Washington believes (see: Enron), and some state-owned enterprises have prospered (ask Californians if privatized electricity worked out well for them; and see: Enron). It is no doubt better in the long run to move away from bloated state-owned industries in Iraq, but I just wouldn't have made that a priority."
Duh! Homer Simpson's response is quite appropriate here. Since the beginning of this war, the administratioin has not acted with integrety or rationality in any form, specifically in regards to the needs of the Iraqi people. Why would you be surprised at the focus on privatizaton? This war was about globalizing the economy,
stealing their oil, establishing a major military garrison in the region.Privatization is not some sort of minor-trend, nearly random
decision by a low-level functionary.
Post a Comment
<< Home