Over 1300 Dead in Sectarian Violence
Mortar Strike on Sunni Mosque Kills 4
Violence Subsides
Ellen Knickmeyer and Bassam Sebti of the WaPo reports that since last Wednesday rioters and militiamen have killed over 1300 Iraqis on a sectarian basis. They add,
' Hundreds of unclaimed dead lay at the morgue at midday Monday -- blood-caked men who had been shot, knifed, garroted or apparently suffocated by the plastic bags still over their heads. Many of the bodies were sprawled with their hands still bound -- and many of them had wound up at the morgue after what their families said was their abduction by the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. '
The pace of killing slowed on Monday despite the end of the curfew, but there was still some violence.
Reuters reports that on Monday in Iraq, guerrillas fired a mortar shell on Shola, a Shiite district in West Baghdad, killing 4 and wounding 17.
In Nahravan, police commandos from the Interior Ministry fought a battle with Sunni Arab guerrillas. The guerrillas killed 8 police and wounded 6. The police killed 6 guerrillas and said they captured 25.
In the Shiite holy city of Karbala, Iraqi police captured three men planting bombs near the shrine of al-Hurr al-Riyahi.
Robert Worth of the NYT reports, "South of the capital, in Mahmudiya, nine bodies were found blindfolded and shot in the head, police officials said. Four more bodies were found to the north, in Baquba."
The Iraqi Army deployed a few of its 77 tanks in northern Baghdad.
The LA Times reports that the recent violence in Iraq has provoked a debate in the Pentagon about planned troop draw-downs in Iraq. Some officers think it is crazy to reduce the number now. Others believe that the Iraqis will never step up to the plate as long as they can call in US soldiers. The article quotes Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute (Likud Branch), who is a civilian chickenhawk even though he is young enough so that he could have joined the military and served in Iraq, as saying that it is not the right time to bring home the troops.
Someone should explain to me why last week's events are an argument for keeping US troops in Iraq. What did they do? Did we hear about any US military units guarding Sunni mosques as they were being attacked by Shiite mobs? The LA Times reports on how US troops were caught between two sides in the rioting, and because they could not enter mosques, were often not able to investigate violent attacks against them.
Al-Zaman/ AFP report that [Ar.] hundreds of Iraqis from both the Sunni and Shiite branches of Islam prayed in unison at the Grand Mosque of Tikrit, responding to a call by clergymen. Worshippers streamed to the service from all over Salahuddin Province, including the cities of Baiji, Samarra, Blad, Dujail and Sharqat. Representatives of the Sadr Movement attended, as did those of the Association of Muslim Scholars.
The governor of Salahuddin hailed the joint service as a moment of national unity, and blamed the destruction of the golden-domed Askariyah Shrine in Samarra last Wednesday on "outside forces."
Sadrist cleric Shaikh Muhammad Taqi pledged that this service was just the beginning of many coming such joint worship sessions. He complained, "It is wrong for us to say, this one is a Sunni and that one is a Shiite. We are all Muslims and we are all children of this nation."
posted by Juan Cole @ 2/28/2006 12:37:00 AM
|
Facebook
11 Comments:
Time To Re-Double Our Commitment!
If we are really going to stay the course in Iraq, it's clear we should be doubling or quadrupling our forces, not reducing them.
The Kagan and Eisenstadt reports linked in yesterday's 6:27 post make clear that the insurgency has been gaining ground over the past three years. Another Kagan piece linked to his article links the level of violence directly to the numbers of US troops, a point which is backed up by the recent slight reduction in troops and the sobering body count of the past long weekend.
Put these together, and you come to the conclusion that we should have 300,000 or 500,000 or more troops, and they should probably each plan on staying 3-5 years, maybe longer, instead of rotating in and out every year. This level might stabilize the growth of the insurgency, or who knows, maybe start to reduce it.
After all, we currently only have about 40 US soldiers for every armed insurgent. Sure, the old rule of thumb was to outnumber guerrillas three to one, but obviously there is an incompetency factor thrown in here, probably both at the command level and and lower levels down to the individual, so the paradigm has to be adjusted. With 80 or 150, or 200 US soldiers per insurgent, we are sure to be able to win.
Another factor to consider changing is privatizing the command function. The current army leadership has not been able to organize the capture or elimination of Jordanian Zarqawi, a zealot outsider, disavowed by nearly all Iraqis and therefore presumably an easier-than-average target. So Southcom should hand over command of a company to AEI, with Kagan as point squad leader, to personally demonstrate his concepts, as befits a warrior. As the terrain he is able to clear and hold expands, he will command more and more resources as grateful Iraqis commit their lives and treasure to his safe-keeping and wise guidance. US budgetary expenditures will soon not be needed, and tax cuts at the upper end can resume and accelerate.
With these slight course adjustments we can probably all agree that staying the course is worth serious consideration until the tipping point is reached this summer or fall, or possibly later.
On the question of when a competent and democratic Iraqi government can assume the burden, we could consider the cases of Chiang Kaishek (1927-49) and South Vietnam (1954-75), and presume a mean-time-to-failure of about 22 years.
If we don't want to cut and run, we've got to be in this for the long haul, right. If we do win, we are good for 60-80 years there.
Finally, a word about the unthinkable, because the naysayers may prevail: We can expect an Iraqi fleet of our shores, but only after a decent interval, i.e., when Hell freezes over. A bridge over which Zarqawi can drive his suicide cars to bomb our shopping malls will take considerably longer, i.e., when Heaven fills to capacity with politicians. And the worst, when Iraq builds those laboratories full of skilled WMD-makers, will take even longer, when Muslims en masse give up studying the Koran and turn to science, unless they are diverted to improving their own livelihood along the way.
The International Crisis Group now has their report up.
.pdf full text and html executive summary
The Next Iraqi War? Sectarianism and Civil Conflict
Middle East Report N°52
27 February 2006
Finally – and regrettable though it is that this is necessary – the international community, including neighbouring states, should start planning for the contingency that Iraq will fall apart, so as to contain the inevitable fall-out on regional stability and security. Such an effort has been a taboo, but failure to anticipate such a possibility may lead to further disasters in the future
Prof Cole wrote "Someone should explain to me why last week's events are an argument for keeping US troops in Iraq. What did they do?"
Actually the official line is they are there for the (perpetual) training of the Iraqi military, not to prevent a civil war. In fact, a continued low level civil war is a plus for the Likudist who still have the biggest say in the US foriegn policy. They want as many US troops to stay as long as possible to prevent a strong and united Iraq from emerging, and not to prevent sectarian conflict.
aljazeera.net today specifically refutes the claim of 1300 dead in Baghdad in about 3 days, citing by name a manager of the central morgue. It's 300. Somebody's typo?
--nbm
When Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, says, "It was a serious crisis. I believe that Iraq came to the brink and came back," the swiftness of his prognosis sounds like little more than wishful thinking. Less than a week after an event that has already resulted in 1,300 deaths, it seems way too early to be declaring that Iraq has clearly pulled back from the brink of civil war. Moreover, when US military spokesman, Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, says, "The violence did not escalate, because of the measures [the Iraqi government] took. We had forces standing by if needed. Fortunately, that need wasn't realized," he is exaggerating the influence of elected officials, overestimating the capabilities of Iraqi and US forces, and minimizing the role of clerics in controlling the violence. While the US military and Iraqi government clearly want to sustain the impression that they have everything under control, a much more credible view of the situation comes from Capt. Gregory Stone, who said, "It felt -- at times -- like someone else's war."
A war against an insurgency is one that the US Army can attempt to fight and conceivably delegate to homegrown security forces, but a war between militias will mark a watershed in the conflict. It will render US forces impotent -- unless, that is, they unambiguously take sides. The suggestion that they should do so is increasingly being voiced, though given the inevitable boost in US casualties that would ensue, it hardly seems like a credible option.
So far, the Lebanonization of the war is incomplete in as much as while Shia and Kurdish militias/government forces are arrayed on one side, they have thus far only been opposed by a loose mix of Sunni insurgents with diverse affiliations. Yet the required conditions for full-blown civil war now appear to be coalescing. (more...)
72% of US Troops Want US Out by 12/31/06 - Zogby
When the troops hate our values, you know we're in the deep doo.
Extensive poll..a must read
Also an international poll from the Program in International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) University of Maryland people in 33 of 35 countries believing that the war in Iraq has made global terrorism worse, not better
Think they know something our Glorious Leader doesn't? I think so.
The recent elections made it plain that the Iraqis were voting for their percieved piece of Iraq whether it be physical territory, or religious and ethnic groupings.
The message sent by the Shiites to the Sunnis was "we dominate, get used to it". The Kurds message to all other parties was "goodbye and we're taking Kirkuk with us". The Sunni message was "we're in trouble, who can help us".
For the US forces to have a long term affect they will have to be prepared to turn their helicopter gunships, F-16's, and all their other paraphinalia on the Shiites and Kurds.
Just like we keep about 15,000 insurgent "suspects" in our Iraq prisons, we will have to start rounding up Kurd and Shiite "unity-rejectionists/Iran-standins
/anti-secularists and throw them in the slammer (no judicial review, of course).
Then, when we discover that the Iraqi army we have trained never intended to buy into killing Kurds and Shiites, we'll have 230,000 armed sodiers pissed off at us.
If national unity is our "stay the course" objective, the first step we have to take is bringing back the draft. (Canada, get ready for the influx.)
Someone should explain to me why last week's events are an argument for keeping US troops in Iraq. What did they do? Did we hear about any US military units guarding Sunni mosques as they were being attacked by Shiite mobs?
I guess that the line of thought is that there were no US troops in Samarra and if there were, if we hadn't pulled them out for the third time and for purely political purposes, then the security in the city may have been enough to deter or stop the attack on the mosque there. I do not completely agree with this, but I don't know what to believe...
But you are correct, there was no (or very little) US protection in Iraq during the aftermath and I guess currently. This seems to be a result of politics, had we stepped in-between the Iraqis, with force, one must assume we would have taken casualties. Bush and co. don't want that, so just "hang out" let tempers boil, et cetera...
I'm really stuck right now. Leave or stay? None-the-less, we need a fundamental change and it can't wait on American domestic politics if we value the 'hearts and minds' and human life.
Unclaimed dead, blood caked men... Over 1300 Dead... It strikes me that pert of the problem is that we just have trouble seeing beyond our narcissistically oriented self interest...
I just posted this, and sent it in as a tip to Huffington Post as well...
According to numbers tallied on icasualties.org, Coalition casualties today surpassed the 2500 mark with the deaths of 4 British soldiers by roadside bomb. Regardless of one's stance on the war, that merits a moment of silence and, for those inclined that way, a prayer.
more on Snipes, Logomancy & So So Psychosis
I hope the fact that we are asking others to die for us will get the attention it deserves (and ask pardon in advance if this comment is deemed too off-topic.)
There is an interesting article in Time Magazine this week that notes al-Sadr's unique standing as the one Iraqi leader well-positioned to avert Civil War and bring peace to Iraq as a consequence of his unyielding opposition to the U.S. "Occupation" (or "Liberation" depending on ones's point of view)
It occurs to me that the more things change, the more they remain the same. Isn't opposition to U.S. "Occupation" (or "Liberation" depending on ones's point of view) what started this all in the first place? Isn't that the basis of bin Laden's popularity?
Ah, will we never learn? "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" George Santayana once noted. That notion was inscribed upon the pages of history by William L. Shirer when he made it the epigraph for "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" (1959). But never no mind. We're the good guys.
Al-Sadr is no angel. If he rises to power, we may well find that we have sacrificed thousands upon thousands of lives to horrify ourselves with a grotesque twist on an old game. Musical Chairs becomes Musical Scares with Secular, Sectarian, Sunni and Shiite proponents of violence everywhere vying for the last spot standing when the music stops.
And if the music stops, it may well be because fundamental Islam has pulled the plug.
P.S. Correct link for icasualties.org is http://icasualties.org/oif/
nbm: There is nothing like what you describe at the English Al Jazeera site, so I'm assuming the report you saw about the number from the Iraqi morgue being 300 is at the Arabic site.
Please provide a link, and a translation.
Post a Comment
<< Home