Street Battles, Bombings in Baghdad;
Less Wealthy Candidates Cannot Campaign
Baghdad was wracked with violence on Monday, witnessing a major carbombing at a police station, another carbombing in a southwest suburb, the discovery of four bodies of kidnapping victims, and two running street battles in Amiriyah and Ghazaliyah districts--with at least 43 persons wounded or killed in the fighting. Guerrillas killed another US GI, in Baghdad, as well, and another in Ramadi.
According to a recent poll, 58% of Americans want President Bush to set a timetable for bringing home US troops.
Paul Starobin of the National Journal explores at length and with analytical rigor the question of civil war in Iraq.
The CSM points out that since the security situation is so bad in Iraq, most campaigning is being done via television. In turn, that guarantees that only the rich parties have the opportunity to campaign. As with the Jan. 30 elections, the Dec. 15 elections are not being held in accordance with international standards of fairness, and cannot be. Proper elections would require that security be provided to voters and candidates. But there is no security. Several candidates have already been assassinated or attacked, and most of the 7000 or so cannot come out in public or they would be killed, too. In many parts of the center-north, voters will have no guarantee of coming home alive. The only way the vote will happen at all is that the US military has forbidden all vehicular traffic, so everyone has to walk for the next few days. This tactic prevents carbombings from disrupting the elections, but it is a desperate measure and not a sign of an election that could be certified as free and fair.
Radical Muslim groups have denounced the elections as "satanic". They pledge to continue to fight their jihad against the Western forces in the country. (It is too bad that mostly these groups are not in fact fighting like men, but instead are blowing up little children at ice cream shops.)
Bush's strategy of Iraqizing the military tasks in that country is being undercut by religious and ethnic militias, according to the Bloomberg news service's interviews with knowledgeable observers like Pat Lang.
I am going to be traveling again for the next week or so. Postings will get made, but perhaps at different times than usual, and there will be delays in posting comments.
posted by Juan Cole @ 12/13/2005 06:30:00 AM
Click to join Infoco
11 Comments:
re: islamists blowing up icecream shops then posting on web forums.
As if the same people who posts these messages are the same ones who are doing the bombings... puh-leez.
There are two usual interpretation fallacies on secular and religious revolutionary rhetoric.
(a) Taking it literally. For example, this way, one can think that Bolsheviks really wanted cooks to run the Soviet state and now Khomeinist tanks can be expected in Tel Aviv.
(b) Discarding it as "crazy / cowardly / incompetent" rhetoric. Usually, this suggests demonstration of "moral resolve" by direct condemanations on moral grounds. The alternative is humorizing the hostile statements: "Gee, look at these fanatic chimps".
So, the meaning of recent radical condemnations of Iraqi elections as "ungodly" is that radical Sunnis are determined to oppose them by force. No, it is higly unlikely that "Iraqi Al-Queda" - whatever it is - is behind Dulaimi's assassination. This can be the work of Baathists - or, more likely, - Sunni Islamists.
BBC. Iraq Sunni politician shot dead
Iraqi Free Progressive Party leader Mizhar Dulaimi was killed while campaigning in Ramadi in western Iraq.
Mr Dulaimi had appeared on television the previous night urging Iraqis to take part in the elections.
It seems to me that the US jumpstarted the civil war right after the invasion. Anyone who loved us, presumably the Kurds and Shiites, was naturally on our side, and anyone who opposed us was not only on the other side, but but also worthy of elimination by military means.
So the Shiites and Kurds sat on their hands and enjoyed the show for the first year or so. Having gained our full confidence, we proceeded to arm them to the teeth (at least for the purpose of breaking down doors are carting people away to who knows what).
Now the Shiite/Kurd military/militia is ready to take over the operation using their own "rules of warfare" book (Rumsfeld/Cheney will seem like kittens). If vietnamization is any clue congress and the administration will be only to happy to load the military/militia with all the weapons and logistics that can fit, as long as it helps us extricate.
A concievable scenario is for us to have to extend our stay to protect the poorly armed Sunnis against their better armed bloodthirsty countrymen. Its not who you bomb, its when you bomb them.
The bloody consequences of civil war in Iraq have flowed from America's military invasion and occupation of that country. Arguing that "an even worse" civil war will occur as a consequence of America ceasing its invasion and military occupation of Iraq only seeks to shift the burden of accountability from those who instigated and abetted the disaster to those who argued against it and wish to conclude America's disastrous part in it forthwith. The "consequences" of a civil war result from beginning one, not from de-escalating and then eliminating the foreign military component of it.
The "Vietnamization" of Iraq has now begun: a desperate American stall for time until the "responsible" parties in Washington D.C. can "stand up" some Iraqi mercenaries who will fight and die for America's interests rather than their own. The fatal flaw in this inherently conflicted policy should appear obvious to the casual observer.
If on the other hand the bad puppet mercenaries decide -- as one should suspect -- to fight for their own interests rather than America's, the Kurds and Shiites will continue with the targeted political arrests and assassinations of their Sunni countrymen while leaving the large scale, "industrial grade" arresting and slaughtering of their Sunni countrymen to the Americans. What a great pogrom for enraging the world's billion Sunni Muslims and filling them with a hatred for America that will last for generations to come!
I wanted to draw attention away from Iraq and request you to address the situation in Lebanon.
The political situation in Lebanon is grim following Gebran Tueni's assassination on Monday, with Reuter's describing Lebanon as showing "cracks" and the AFP reporting the Lebanese state to be in "political turmoil."
At the crux of the crises is the fact that the Lebanese parliament is divided in how to react to the recent killings, with both Shiite parties, Amal and Hizbollah, opposed to further international investigations into Lebanese affairs.
The strong Shiite divide from the anti-Syrian opposition creates a political rift that is disturbingly similar to the ethnic divisions that sprang up in 1975 - The issue then was of supporting the Palestinians, the issue now is of supporting Syria.
The political divisions are troubling because the Lebanese military is also split to a large degree between officers loyal to President Emile Lahoud, who is pro-Syria, and others in the ranks who are loyal to their ethnic political parties.
In 1975, the Lebanese military split when it was ordered to crack down on pro-Palestinian demonstrations. It would be wise for President Lahoud and the political institutions to not engage the military in any aspect of the current crises as it may well split the ranks - and that may lead to civil war.
The problem is escalated by the pressure on Syrian critics, who are dodging assassins, and the supporters of Syria who are dodging the U.S. pressure to corner Syria into a situation that would enable a regime-change operation.
While Syria has been able to lay some seeds of doubt regarding its role in the killings and bombings, its critics are convinced that Syrian assassins are out for their blood. Sooner or later the militias loyal to the Syrian critics may decide to strike back by killing pro-Syrian Lebanese or Syrian officials.
It is extremely difficult to pin the blame on these assassinations as Lebanon has always been fertile ground for false flag operations. Among the U.S.-allied countries that have organized bombings in the past to kill enemy leaders in Lebanon are Saudi Arabia (with U.S. direction) and Israel (not always with U.S. direction).
When radical Palestinian groups started blooming in Lebanese refugee camps in 2003, specifically in Ain el-Hilweh, the theory was that Syrian intelligence officials were using the radicals to curb the power of Fatah in the refugee camps. When Palestinian radicals became suspects in assassinations, the theory was that rogue Syrian intel officers were using the Palestinians to kill Lebanese opponents.
The problem, of course, is that any foreign agent might pose as a Syrian official and recruit assassination teams in Lebanon from a large pool of mercenary talent and arm them with untraceable explosives from a flourishing weapons black market. It is also possible to inject assassination squads into Lebanon covertly, over land or by sea - the Israelis have had some successes in this, but it could be done by any country in the region as Lebanon's land and sea borders are porous.
Irrespective of who is behind these killings, the level of violence is escalating, and with that comes an escalating level of fear that may soon turn into anger and generate revenge attacks. Once that happens, we shall be looking at a possible breakdown of government and a return to civil strife.
I read the article by Starobin, and the reference to vengeance being the critical element of civil war, jogged a memory of Bush declaring after 9/11, "we will get revenge". He must have forgotten that his Bible says, "vengeance is mine thus saith the Lord."
Anyway Bush's vengeance is the catalyst for the vengeance that now is taking place in the civil war in Iraq. Many commentators claim what is happening now is at least incipient civil war.
Read your blog religiouly. Thank you.
Bob
"(It is too bad that mostly these groups are not in fact fighting like men, but instead are blowing up little children at ice cream shops.)"
While it is reprehensible that children are being blown up it bothers me when enemies of the U.S. are called cowards for not "fighting like men", etc. Are Iran/Iraq war human wave assaults more manly and brave? If our soldiers were out there without body armour, weapons and air support then I wouldn't have a problem with them calling our enemies cowards. They could challenge the Jihadis to wrestling matches. To even things out even more though we'd have to cut down on the nutritional value of rations and access to exercise equipment, etc.
Specifically targeting enemy soldiers (as opposed to children) with a suicide bombing at least raises the odds that they could take some enemies to the afterlife with them. I don't see such tactics as cowardly compared to a foolhardy rush across open ground against superior firepower and armor. Either way they're dead. Calling in an airstrike, firing a Barrett .50 cal. sniper rifle from over a mile away, triggering the main gun on an M-1 Abrams or any other high-tech death dealing method doesn't qualify as "fighting like a man" either.
One could argue that asymetrical warfare sometimes calls for targeting civilians and was used effectively in Algeria for instance. That one who uses such tactics could claim the moral high ground is questionable to say the least but such dilemmas haven't stopped the U.S. from justifying their 'means' with the hoped for 'end', all the while proclaiming their righteousness.
Sorry to keep jumping on little nitpcking details. The comment just inspired me to get that off my chest.
On desertion
In a demoralized army, soldiers may agree to serve on 3 conditions: timely pay, convenient deployment not far from home, no particular fighting. Otherwise, they desert.
Typical solutions for the desertion problem include army counter-intelligence (informants), special repressive units, military police.
1. ANTONIO CASTANEDA. Iraqi Army endures desertions
Desertion has now become a problem too: Of 209 Iraqi soldiers from their battalion on leave or vacation at the time of the attack, 49 have not returned to duty since, Hall said.
The untested Iraqi soldiers attacked that day, mostly Shiites who had just relocated from a relatively peaceful area south of Baghdad, were scouting places to build a base in this Sunni Arab-dominated area that serves as a region to smuggle stolen goods from nearby cities.
2. LEON TROTSKY. Deserters Help Kolchak
64% of Soldiers in Iraq think we will win if we stay.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/13/AR2005121301502.html
As Major Connable says, "We know the streets, the people and the insurgents far better than any armchair academic or talking head. As military professionals, we are trained to gauge the chances of success and failure, to calculate risk and reward."
Makes you feel kind of stupid, doesn't it?
Major Conable's op-ed was 100% supportive of the Administration's position on the war. It could be no other way.
If a major with a viewpoint contrary to the Adminstration's (a 36 percenter) had written an op-ed his/her career would be over and disciplinary punishment would be a real possibility. When in uniform, openly critisizing the cammander-in-chief is not an option.
I don't doubt Major Conable's sincerity, but using his own percentages about 50,000 troops disagree with him. They are the ones that talk to reporters on the condition of anonymity.
Old Chinese proverb: To make ranks don't break ranks.
"I don't doubt Major Conable's sincerity". Oh really?
Then it's sorta hard to grasp your point here.
Is it that you contest his contention that nearly 2/3rds of noncoms and junior grade officers agree with him? And if so, why? Presumably he speaks privately with more fellow soldiers than you do?
I have to do some inferring here, but are you also implying that the same "to make ranks don't break ranks" chilling effect also applies when responding to polls, (or speaking privately with colleagues)?
If you are, then I think you're mistaken. And if not, then you are indeed questioning the sincerity... if not of this one major, then of the >100,000 colleagues the poll he references says broadly share his perspective.
Thanks for the parapsychology, and for your assistance in channeling their "real" views for us. But pardon me if I choose to take him -- and them -- at their word.
Post a Comment
<< Home