20 Dead in Bombings, Gunfights Including GI
Guerrillas set off several bombs in Baghdad on Saturday, targetting policemen. They also bombed Tikrit, Baqubah and Fallujah. Deaths in these bombings and in other gunfights came to at least 20. One American soldier was among those killed. Four bodies of persons killed execution-style showed up in Baghdad streets, probably the victims of sectarian reprisal killings.
Guerrilla attacks and sabotage cost the Iraqi petroleum industry $6.25 billion in lost revenues in 2005. They launched 186 assaults on petroleum facilities, killing 47 engineers & technicians & workers, along with 100 police guarding pipelines and other installations. The guerrillas directed most of the sabotage and attacks at the northern facilities centered at Kirkuk. They took offline some 400,000 barrels a day. Iraq only produced an average of 1.8 million barrels a day in 2005, mostly from the southern Rumaila fields and exported through the southern port of Basra. This amount was down from 2.8 million barrels a day before the 2003 Bush invasion of the country. (The US press continues to give the average production in 2005 as "about 2 million" barrels a day, magically adding an imaginary 200,000 barrels a day to the real average. At $65 a barrel, that is $13 million at day! I'd suggest they stop rounding up in this case.)
Guerrillas are undermining US overtures to Sunni clan leaders in Ramadi and government officials in Anbar province by killing them or their relatives.
As regular readers know, I find the idea that a large coalition of Kurds, Sunnis, Secularists and religious Shiites could be formed that outmaneuvered the United Iraqi Alliance implausible. It would require that secular Kurds dedicated to taking over Kurkuk cooperate with fundamentalist Sunni Arabs only one step away from al-Qaeda (and who object to Kirkuk joining Kurdistan) and with unreconstructed Baathists. That would go over well in Halabja. And then they have to draw in a big bloc of religious Shiites, as well. If all Sunni Arabs and all Kurds voted together with the Allawi list,they'd need some 45 Shiites to defect to have the 2/3s needed to elect a president.[revised 2/19/06].
I can't imagine in what universe Saleh Mutlak, the Baathist with 11 seats, dreams of marginalizing the religious Shiites (130 seats) and installing Iyad Allawi (with 25 seats) as prime minister! Except as a way of putting pressure on Ibrahim Jaafari to compromise on some issues, I can't even imagine why anyone takes this talk seriously.
The intrepid Nir Rosen profiles the Jordanian jihadis.


7 Comments:
Any reaction to Professor Fukuyama's essay in todays NYT magazine?
More ME dreams from WaPo
Recent facts in the ME have absolutely nothing to do with neoconservative "democratic" theories. For example, recent WaPo editorial on Hamas “transformation” sounds nothing short of desperate. For anybody familiar with I/P, it makes no sense whatsoever, Hamas has absolutely no reasons to “transform” itself into nothing as neocons want.
Now we have more of the same. Mr. Hernandez provides some random mix of facts and names which makes an impression that certain grand coalition between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds is possible, and it will defeat Jafari as a future Iraqi PM. Well, on the ground, it is pretty clear that such coalition is simply impossible.
So, one explanation for this piece of grey PR is that neocons are very unhappy that radical Islamists not that different from Khomeinists and Hamas keep flourishing in Iraq. So, as usual, they produce yet another ME dream of positive political developments. Meanwhile, Rice’s "transformational" diplomats keep themselves busy bullying the locals into bizarre political schemes - just to delay inevitable complications.
Professor Cole: All roads in Iraq seem to lead back to Kirkuk (or Kurkuk). It's on the border of Kurdish and Arab regions, has oil, was subject to brutal social engineering under Saddam, etc. Have you come across any good coverage of the current situation on the ground in this fateful city?
From today's NYT
After Neoconservatism
By FRANCIS FUKUYAMA
As we approach the third anniversary of the onset of the Iraq war, it seems very unlikely that history will judge either the intervention itself or the ideas animating it kindly. By invading Iraq, the Bush administration created a self-fulfilling prophecy: Iraq has now replaced Afghanistan as a magnet, a training ground and an operational base for jihadist terrorists, with plenty of American targets to shoot at. The United States still has a chance of creating a Shiite-dominated democratic Iraq, but the new government will be very weak for years to come; the resulting power vacuum will invite outside influence from all of Iraq's neighbors, including Iran. There are clear benefits to the Iraqi people from the removal of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, and perhaps some positive spillover effects in Lebanon and Syria. But it is very hard to see how these developments in themselves justify the blood and treasure that the United States has spent on the project to this point
Juan you dodged a bullet. Looks like history hasn't ended after all.
The Western Media commentators are, once again, getting it wrong when trying to explain away the rise of Islamist parties in the Middle East... The Washington Post news report today focuses exclusively on the Oritentalist concerns regarding the differences in attitudes between pro-U.S. Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, and the newly-elected rejectionist Hamas parliamentarians...
So, the newsworthy question now for many American Views commentators is whether an elected Hamas government can work against the supposed mandate of the previously elected president...
If these editors had the capacity for any empathy at all, they would be stunned by their own hypocrisy... This line of reasoning is similar to saying that a sweeping Democrat majority in Congress in 2008 SHOULD NOT change any of the Bush administration's policy, as they MUST respect Bush's 2004 mandate... That is a load of horse hooey...
The New York Times also hits the head on the nail by its report, which claims that Hamas's victory, as in the victory of Islamists in all recent elections, was a result of faulty election laws...
In all its wisdom, the Times' learned correspondent fails to address the central issue in these elections - the United States, through its "advisors" and "experts" and "consultants", FIXED these electoral procedures to ensure that its allies in Fatah would win in 1996, and the Kurdish allies would deny the Shiite a vast majority in any Iraqi elections...
The SAME apparatus was at work this time around, its just that the PEOPLE, the godly voters of the sacred democracies that Bushiites claim to have killed thousands of civilians for, these same VOTERS decided overwhelmingly to reject the pro-U.S. candidates who they judged to be corrupt... And the corruption is not just monetary, it is also moral and spiritual, wherein these erstwhile pro-U.S. leaders have proven to be more loyal to their Ummrikkan bosses than to the people they were elected to serve...
Given a free and fair elections, no supporter of the neoconned agenda can win a democratic election in the Middle East, except in Israel where the neoconned are sure to win a Great Victory.
Even Turkey has gone gaga over The Valley of the Wolves-Iraq - and THEY are supposed to be the secular candle to ALL Muslims!
Hi
When you added up the votes for a possible but unlikely Sunni, Kurd Allinace why did you not include Allawi's 25 or so secular votes in
this coalition?
Neal
Neal,
This is an important question for the professor. In fact, while I agree it is virtually impossible that any group, exept by collaboration with the Shiites, can form a government, this is not the only thing to discuss.
If we combine Salih Mutlak's party, Adnan Dulaimi's, Allawi's, the main Kurds, and the Kurdish Islamists, we have 138 votes, just over half the seats in parliament.
This number is enough to sink Mr. Jaafari's nomination. I think it's certainly possible that the Kurds will oppose Jaafari, as a backroom collaboration with those members of the UIA who don't want to see Jaafari continue as Prime Minister.
Furthermore, the Kurds are closely allied with the United States, who certainly doesn't want to see Jaafari nominated. At the end of the day, the US is still the main authority in Iraq.
Its also important to note that Jaafari signed an agreement to withdraw himself if his nomination is nullified in the Parliament. Its a gambit, and could go either way, but its possible.
Post a Comment
<< Home