Sistani threatens to turn to Militia
Sadr Calls for Calm
The shoe seems to be on the other foot now, with Muqtada al-Sadr attempting to cool Iraq's Shiites down and Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani threatening to create a paramilitary to protect Shiites.
Al-=Hayat says that [Ar.] the Sunni cleric Abdul Ghafur al-Samarra'i led a demonstration of Sunnis in Samarra' in protest against the "Excommunicators" for having attempted to set off a sectarian civil war in Iraq by bombing the shrine. They also blamed "the Americans". Al-Samarra'i asked for restraint and the avoidance of civil war. Sunni and Shiite demonstrators in the city (but presumably mostly Shiite) chanted "With our spirits and our blood, we sacrifice ourselves for you, O Imam!" [Bi'r-ruh wa'd-dam nufdika ya Imam!]
The ministers of defense and the interior made a joint announcement that the Iraqi armed forces had been put on alert for any contingency.
Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani was shown on Iraqiyah television meeting with the other 3 grand ayatollahs in Najaf, among whom he is first among equals. They include Bashir Najafi, Muhammad Ishaq Fayyad and Muhammad Sa`id al-Hakim. Sistani called for self-discipline and for peaceful demonstrations. He said Shiites must not attack Sunni mosques, but called for them to demonstrate peacefully. He laid responsibility for security on the Iraqi government, saying that it "is called today more than at any time in the past to shoulder its full responsibilities in stopping the series of criminal actions that have targeted holy spaces. If the security apparatuses are unable to safeguard against this crisis, the believers are able to do so, by the aid of God."
Astonishingly, Sistani seems to be threatening to deploy his own militia, Ansar Sistani, if the Iraqi government doesn't do a better job of protecting Shiites and their holy sites. One lesson Sistani will have taken from the bombing of the Askariyah shrine in Samarra is that he is not very secure in Najaf, either. But all we need in Iraq is yet another powerful private sectarian militia!
Muqtada al-Sadr had been in Lebanon. He cut short his trip and went overland to Iraq. He told the Syrian news agency that he condemns this "despicable crime" and called the Iraqi people to "unity and solidarity so as to deny any opportunity to those who wish to ignite public turmoil."
Abdul Aziz al-Hakim said during a press conference in Baghdad that the statements of the US ambassador in Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, had "contributed to greater pressure [on the Shiites] and gave a green light to terrorist groups, and he therefore bears a part of the responsibility." Al-Hakim has long wanted to unleash the Badr Corps, his Shiite paramilitary, the Badr Corps, but has been checked by the Americans so far.
The Association of Muslim Scholars [hardline Sunni] called for calm but then blamed the Americans for the downward spiral of conditions.
After Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei blamed the US and Israel for the bombing on Wednesday, Shiites all over the world staged demonstrations in some of which they burned US and Israeli flags.
On the other hand, the thousands of protester in Bahrain blamed Sunni "excommunicators" instead.
posted by Juan Cole @ 2/23/2006 12:34:00 AM
|
Facebook
16 Comments:
We have an 'inverted hysteria' in Iraq. The common Sunnis and Shiias are (and have been since Bush gifted Iraq with huge scale death and destruction)watching calmly the politicians and the media in a frenzy about a civil war that is just not happening.
The only likely war over the bombing is that between slimey politician offering to rebuild the mosque to gain an advantage for themselves.
I think only C. Rice can "condement", Dr. Cole.
The Sunni demonstration in Samarra sounds like a sweet gesture. They blamed the blast on the "excommunicators," which I assume is your translation of what other news sources called takfiris. So if I understand this correctly, religiously tolerant Sunnis were blaming intolerent Sunnis for the attack on the Shiite holy place. This is the kind of attitude most Iraqis would have to display if Iraq were to pull together. No doubt it tooks some courage for the Sunni cleric.
It is amazing that with the turmoil going on in Iraq, Rice really believes the food fight among self-serving politicians in Lebanon is the most pressing issue facing the ME. That, and being embarassed to discover that noone in the ME agrees with the US on Hamas. Mark Twain, where are you, we have yet another "innocent abroad."
I don't think it's a necessity to have a ME expert as SoS much less President, but if we're to have such naivete, they could at least do us the favor of not meddling in other's business. Ah, but now I'm wistful for Bob Taft. I guess it's all on Khalilzad now from the US standoint. Hope he's up to the task.
I heard you on CBC Radio the other day Professor. Well done.
I guess it just shows that though Sistani has been trying to keep the Shiites from rising to the bait, even he has limits. If the Sunni insurgents want a fight bad enough, and are willing to commit this level of insult, then civil war may be unavoidable.
The After Saddam Hussein era has an appropriate acronym - ASH.
I wonder if the Pentagan is already using it?
Enjoyed your cover story in the Metro Times yesterday. Excellent reporting.
But, I think that your "worst case scenario" might look quite worse if we bring other countries into it.
First, there are the many threats the U.S. and Israel have given Iran, hinting about a strike in March. This Telegraph article, for example.
Then, there are these headlines:
China rushes to complete $100B deal with Iran.
Russia confirms missile defense contract with Iran.
Which are two among many suggesting that Iran will have the backing of Russia and China.
So, with those in mind, here's a "worst-case" scenario worth consideration:
1. U.S. or Israel strikes Iran
2. Iran retaliates against Israel with missiles
3. In between Iran and Israel? Our boys in Iraq
4. Israel or U.S. escalates war with Iran. Since the U.S. can't control Iraq, only option for U.S. escalation is bombings.
5. Iran cuts off all west-bound oil pipelines. America/Europe go into economic crisis.
6. All of those worthless paper notes the U.S. has been giving China in payment for Chinese goods suddenly becomes worthless. China furious at U.S., cuts trade. U.S. has now lost oil and trade supply.
7. Russia explains neocon plan to China, explains Zionist element of neocon movement, explains why Wolfowitz is head of World Bank, Israeli/Rothschild global banking connections, etc. China becomes the new Germany.
8. Final World War-- U.S./Britain/Israel vs. Iran/China/Russia. Use of depleted uranium and mini-nukes leaves planet poisoned.
Sounds worse than having to wait at a breadline to me!
I read some comments, in the Los Angeles Times today, from an Iraqi that the American military should have done more to protect the mosques -- both Sunni and Shiite. A false checkpoint was created yesterday, and almost four dozen lost their lives after protesting in Baghdad.
A government must maintain the authority to use force as well as secure the peace. The entire process of force-to-peace goes hand in hand when considering governance. America has never maintained that legitimacy in Iraq, and the priority should have been the construction of such legitimacy in the Iraqi forces. The attacks on the Shrine of the 10th and 11th (12th as well, in a sense) Imams have severely undermined the legitimacy of the struggling Iraqi government. I think this explains Sistani's comments to a great extent. He already sent signals before the recent election that he was not pleased with the security situation and would not express an endorsement for a single party.
Similarly, the Sunnis are now outraged that they were not better protected by the Shiite government leaders, and this has resulted in an impasse in the government formation talks.
This absence of safety for one of the holiest of places in Shiite Islam and for the Sunni populations that must rely on nonsectarian security formations is the legacy of these tragic few days. I fear that this legacy cannot even be overcome by cooler heads prevailing.
I laugh at the way that this is being portrayed as a religious war. The secular Sunnis controlled oil revenue BTW.
Terror my ass.
"If the Sunni insurgents want a fight bad enough, and are willing to commit this level of insult, then civil war may be unavoidable."
And just what makes you think that it was "the Sunni insurgents"? Are you really that naive? The vast majority of the insurgents (Sunni and Shiite), even the foreign fighters, have little interest in blowing up Shiite shrines or Shiite civilians. They are nationalist, and their ire centers on the foreign (mostly American) forces on Iraqi soil. To the extent that the current Iraqi government is seen as a puppet state kissing up to the US, they also attack Iraqi troops, police, commandos, National Guard members, and government officials, as well as any contractors (Iraqi or foreign) who are seen as supporting the Coalition forces. But in the many interviews that have been conducted with Iraqi guerrillas recently, especially among the Sunnis, there has been little interest in attacking civilians, Shiite or Sunni.
You seem to be forgetting that the shrine attacked here was holy to *Sunnis* as well as to Shiites, even if it was more central to the latter group. Which means that the shrine was bombed by the small foreign ultra-extremist al-Qaeda Salafi branch of fighters in Iraq, or perhaps by someone else. But a supposed attack by Iraqi Sunni Arabs on the mosque simply does not add up, either in the target itself or in the anticipated effects.
This is Blair's true legacy.
It is long past the time for both Bush and Blair to be impeached. Since the start of the war they have feigned shock and dispair over the spiraling situation.
Anyone who had even a basic understanding of Iraq knew this was the logical and obvious outcome to an illegal invasion without a post war plan.
We really needed regime change far closer to home in 2003. I am ashamed of my country (UK).
The quote of the day over at Today in Iraq is worth repeating:
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. ": U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, U.S. representative to the International Conference on Military Trials, Aug. 12, 1945
Juan,
I am interested to hear your analysis of where Sistani would come down on this, could he maintain his hands off approach?
Here is what I see My crystal ball on Iraq.
Any thoughts on the matter?
Intent is always rather opaque, but isn't it quite possible that the bombing of the Shrine in Samarra was directed less at fomenting sectarian violence than at undermining the legitimacy of the occupation authority and the current Iraqi government.
If I recall, protection of holy places is one of the foremost roles of the political sovereign in Islamic societies. An Iraqi insurgent would be far less surprised than the U.S. appears to have been that there would be a popular transference of blame toward the Americans.
If that is the case, might it be more likely that this event is the work of secular/nationalist insurgents than takfiris- who to date haven't demonstrated an inclination to the type of sophisticated tactics used in the destruction of the Shrine.
Meanwhile, in other ME news, Condi delivers boiled rice to Hamas. As the US seeks to promote "democracy", only state-sponsored terror will be allowed.
"U.S. Hypocrisy Hangs Over Rice's Middle East Trip." With headlines like that in Lebanon's Daily Star, it appears that no matter how many millions of U.S.-taxpayer dollars the Bush administration throws at its public-relations effort to alter Arab attitudes about the United States, it's Washington's decades-old, inconsistent policies that will have to change before "they" ever stop "hating us."
...
in Egypt's Al-Messa, commentator Tareq Aglan noted: "Condi has come here to ask for support in the war to starve the Palestinians and cut off their aid because they dared choose Hamas. She erroneously believes that Egyptians will agree to international sanctions against their brothers." (Cited by Al-Gomhuria/Egyptian Gazette)
...
Speaking at Tehran University, Hamas leader Khalid Mashal again insisted: "Our resistance will continue as long as the occupation and aggression continue...There [will be] no recognition of Israel, no matter what the cost...."(Reuters)
...
The London-based, pan-Arab Al-Quds al-Arabi noted that, at the same time Rice was heading to the Middle East with the aim of "incit[ing]...Arab governments to stop their financial support to the Palestinian government formed by [democratically elected] Hamas," Washington had been busy funneling money to opposition groups in Syria and Iran "on the pretext of democratic reforms." "This scandalous contradiction in American foreign policy," the newspaper noted, "is what makes the Bush administration hated so much in the Arab and Muslim world and makes many not believe...repeated American claims [about support for] democratic reforms and fighting corruption." (Cited by UPI)
You seem to be forgetting that the shrine attacked here was holy to *Sunnis* as well as to Shiites, even if it was more central to the latter group. Which means that the shrine was bombed by the small foreign ultra-extremist al-Qaeda Salafi branch of fighters in Iraq, or perhaps by someone else. But a supposed attack by Iraqi Sunni Arabs on the mosque simply does not add up, either in the target itself or in the anticipated effects.
Your scornful tone was uncalled for.
The Sunni insurgents have attempted to provoke the Shiites on a number of occasions. I wasn't aware the shrine was considered holy to Sunnis too, so that would be a valid reason to doubt they did it, except, someone did it, and if it wasn't the Sunnis, and it definitely wasn't the shias, who was it? Would the site not also be holy to the Salafi branch you mention? What is their motive in provoking a civil war? I expect they don't approve of Shiite Islam, but would they engage in a struggle for religious purity with infidels still in the country?
My point is, this was almost certainly perpetrated by Muslims, against a Muslim shrine. Certainly I don't doubt that Christians have burned other Christian churches in history, and just because a group is ostensibly muslim doesn't mean they're really all that devout.
The Sunnis were in charge of Iraq, and the Oil. Now they are not. They are the aggrieved party with the most to gain from winning a civil war. I picked them on motive here.
Post a Comment
<< Home