Guerrilla Violence Kills 58
Khalilzad Accuses Iranians
A suicide bomber detonated his payload outside the major crime unit of the Ministry of the Interior on Thursday, killing 15 policemen and 10 civilians and wounding 35 others.
Then guerrillas blew up a market outside a Shiite mosque, killing 6 and wounding 20, with women and children among the victims.
Six bodies were found in Baghdad, and 8 were found in Fallujah, victims of night-time raids, kidnappings and killings.
There were other bombings of and firefights with Iraqi police in Baghdad that killed several people.
Interior Minister Bayan Jabr announced on Thursday that only a few hundred foreign jihadis (he called them "al-Qaeda") are left in Iraq, down from as many as 2000 in late 2005. The foreign element in the Iraqi guerrilla movement has long been over-estimated. Most of the violence is committed by Iraqi insurgents.
Thousands of Iraqi families have been internally displaced by sectarian violence or the threat of it.
Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari called on Thursday for the US and Iran to expedite the holding of joint talks on Iraq. He clearly believes that these bilateral negotiations on the limited subject of Iraq might lead to better US-Iranian relations on other issues, including the nuclear one. He said, ' "I hope the US and Iran will start their meetings and talks as soon as possible and the knot in relations between the two countries would be untied through the negotiations." '
US Ambassador in Baghdad Zalmay Khalilzad accused Iran on Thursday of training and supplying both the Mahdi Army militia of Muqtada al-Sadr and elements of the Sunni Arab guerrilla movement. Neither allegation is plausible in context. Muqtada's men are mostly nativist Iraqi ghetto youth who often do not like Persians. The major force in Iraq trained by the Iranians is the Badr Corps of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a relative American ally. It is bizarre that Khalilzad should tie Iran to the Mahdi militia but not bring up Badr. Then to turn around and say that Iran is helping the Sunni Arab guerrillas who are blowing up Shiite Iraqis is just self-contradictory and wholly implausible.
Worse, I can't see why Khalilzad thinks the Iranians will talk with him while he is badmouthing them.
Al-Hayat reports that [Ar.] Adnan Dulaimi of the (Sunni fundamentalist) Iraqi Accord Front has pushed the dissolution of Shiite militias as a key issue in his negotiations with the (Shiite fundamentalist) United Iraqi Alliance on the formation of a national unity government. He says that American information suggests that entire units of the Interior Ministry are composed of militias. He said that the Americans have a responsibility to shut down the militias.
In response, Sadrist leader Amir al-Husayni said that the existence of the Mahdi Army militia is tied to the issue of the terrorist groups."
Abdul Karim Muhammadawi, an old-time fighter against Saddam, warned that the existence of such organized militias is paving the way to civil war.
posted by Juan Cole @ 3/24/2006 12:30:00 AM
Click to join Infoco
13 Comments:
Talks With Iran? -- Ha, Ha, That's A Good One!
Where did you get the idea that the US wants to talk with the Axis of Evil about anything?
From a WH statement? The same WH that wanted to work with the Democrats on a bipartisan basis? Hee, hee, hee, some people never learn.
Our pal Zal making crazy talk about the Iranians and thus spoiling the atmosphere for the talks? First, the WH writes the points, he only reads them; second, why would he care if he never has to talk with Evil Incarnate, especially as the talks would never go anywhere anyway? Look at his picture--is he going to let facts get in the way of his career?
The Iranians working with Iraqi Shiite militias and Sunni guerrillas? There are 131,000 US troops there to stop them if they tried.
The US will continue to work with all groups in Iraq--Sunni, Shiite, secular, Christian or near-Christian, government, anti, middle of the road, army, SCIIRI, national guard, police, Takfirim, special police, armed special police, UIA, railroad police, Kurds, pipeline police, Ministry of the Interior, SWAT, major case unit, riverine patrol, border guards, guerrilas, Iraqi Accordions, airport guards, customs, camel troops, Mahdis of the potty and the padi, forest service, mountain troops, Saladinistas, Petroleum Ministry, Customs, Badr Corps, agricultural inspection service, Turkmen, the Alliance of the Offspring of Mixed Marriages, police units in small towns, etc., until someone emerges from the pile of bodies as a strongman, whom we will then back. The background mayhem merely proves how much our presence is needed, 'cause think how much worse it would be if we weren't there.
This process may take a decade or two.
We and our troops will be there, waiting patiently, having trained everyone in sight or out of.
That's what W means by staying the course.
Worse, I can't see why Khalilzad thinks the Iranians will talk with him while he is badmouthing them.
Answer is he doesn't. You see when Bush "agreed" to the talks last week, I don't think the US quite expected Khamenei to respond as he did. The Iranian government was reportedly divided with significant hardline opposition, and I think they called Bush's bluff because within 48 hours Scott McClellan was back tracking
Further I suspect that the Ambassador got chewed out because I think he got Al-Hakim to go public with a request for negotiations, before that there was a "leaked" cable or letter of some sort reported.
I think the Ambassador has been free-lancing a bit and I think that the Bush administration has never of been of one mind on this issue. There's a hardliner split again just like before the Iraq War. Bolton, Cheney et al were taking positions wholly at odds with this one.
And as I've said - too many factions, too many conflicting and hidden agendas, and no way in hades can the nuclear issue be separated out
Always was DOA. Fun to watch. That's about it.
US Ambassador in Baghdad Zalmay Khalilzad accused Iran on Thursday of training and supplying both the Mahdi Army militia of Muqtada al-Sadr and elements of the Sunni Arab guerrilla movement. Neither allegation is plausible in context.
I agree with you that Iran financing the Suni insurrection doesn't make sense. But why won't she finance the Mahdi Army of Al Sadr' ? The fact that Muktada's followers don't like Iran is not a sufficient argument IMO. The youngs of Al Sadr' city don't need to know where the money comes from. Al' Sadr's is emerging as a powerful political force in Iraq and Iran may want to secure good relationships with him. Iran IMO doesn't have any interest in a chaotic Iraq. If the Iranians view Al'Sadr as a potential peace broker between Sunis and Shiites, they may see an interest in offering him some funds. If this alliance of Suni/Shiites is able to ask and obtain the withdrawal of the US troops, then that would be all benefit for the Iranians. May be they bet that investing in the Mehdi army will lead to a more disciplined militia, one which they could somewhat control if they pay. It doesn't mean that Iran will continue to give money to Al'Sadr for ever. But it may be something they have interest to do now at this step : at the first step the Iranians let the US occupy Iraq without intervening, but taking advantage of the Shiites' alliance with the occupation; now during this step they may support forces calling for a US withdrawal; next step, they may finance and ally with whom in the Iraqi society has the power and is most favourable to their interests. As for Muktada, of course he is more nationalist than the SCIRI leaders, but does that imply he will ignore the benefits Iraqs can draw from good relationships with the Iranians ? he probably knows that the best bet for Iraq's economy rebuilding goes through Iranian help.
Well, all I mean is that financing the Mehdi army is a possibility to consider, not the same nonsense as with the Sunnis. I find it funny that the two are put at the same level by Khalilzad. After all, if US and Iran are beginning to hold talks, it may just be pre-negotiation rethoric, in which the US makes clear whom the Iranians allies can be in Iraq and whom they can't.
maybe zalmay is doing it on purpose so iran pulls out of the talks and the US can say that the iranians arent serious partners yadda yadda yadda
The relationship between the USA and the Iraqi Shiia factions is horribly complex and dynamic.
Prior to the invasion, the Brits were grooming Khoei to lead Iraqs Shiia, and the Afghan Hound was given the task of converting Badr.
Initially, the Iranians refused all approaches, then they accpeted the invitation to the 2002 London conference (presumably realizing that the US players are amateurs they can have for breakfast.)
Khoei was murdered when he returned to Iraq, so the US was stuck with Badr. The Americans were led to believe that there is a monumental power struggle between Qum and Najaf, and that Badr, being Iraqis, are on the side of Najaf.
The Americans played along, either because they fell for that, or more likely hoping to work on Badr to convert them over time. So, they have been funding, arming, and training what is basically an Iranian terror group!
Hakim has been exploiting the naiive/desperate Americans to the full, but has been beaten by Sadr on the popularity stakes in Iraq.
Meanwhile, Sadr's Mahdi Army has been infiltrated by all and sundry. Very easy given that it is informal and its members are desperately poor and simple. Sadr also needs funds and better training in case of big scale conflict. Iran comes to the rescue.
Then comes a closed meeting between Sadr and Hizballah in Lebanon. One can only imagine W hitting the roof and issuing imperial orders to "take'em out". Worse still, Sadr buildt an alliance with Jaafari. The Arab press reports that the Afghan Hound has told Jaafari simply that he will not be the PM. Period.
So, rather than the Americans trying to end the deadlock, they are responsible for it, and Hakim, the Iranian agent, is laughing all the way to the bank.
I believe that Khalilzad is obviously wrong in accusing Iran in such a way-though his claim is not unfounded. At very least Iran finances Jaysh al Mahdi and I wouldn't put it past the IRGC Qods forces to train up some leutenants. Granted 90% of JAM members are poor Shiites, but leaders have to be trained. It is difficult to track training because ever since many of Sadr's leutenants were captured in the AUG 2004 uprising, they stay out of any spotlight.
Dear Professor Cole
From the Mearsheimer Walt paper
"As for so-called rogue states in the Middle East, they are not a dire threat to vital US interests, except inasmuch as they are a threat to Israel. Even if these states acquire nuclear weapons – which is obviously undesirable – neither America nor Israel could be blackmailed, because the blackmailer could not carry out the threat without suffering overwhelming retaliation. The danger of a nuclear handover to terrorists is equally remote, because a rogue state could not be sure the transfer would go undetected or that it would not be blamed and punished afterwards. The relationship with Israel actually makes it harder for the US to deal with these states. Israel’s nuclear arsenal is one reason some of its neighbours want nuclear weapons, and threatening them with regime change merely increases that desire."
It looks like The US Ambassador might have gone in the wrong direction by talking to the Iranians, and is now backtracking. This will allow the Iranians to be painted as a completely hostile force, about to develop nuclear weapons next week to turn over to Hizb' Allah the following week.
Somewhere in Alice in Wonderland someone says "If I say it often enough it becomes true"
I blogged on this today, but I'd like to place these resources someplace where people may actually read them...
3/24/2006 Los Angeles Times: "Bush's Requests for Iraqi Base Funding Make Some Wary of Extended Stay"
3/20/2006 A.P.: "Iraqis think U.S. in their nation to stay"
2/4/2006 Washington Post: "Biggest Base in Iraq Has Small-Town Feel"
3/7/2006 Philadelphia Inquirer: "U.S. bases hold clue in Iraq"
Rumsfeld indicated yesterday that the U.S. combat role in Iraq will decrease. This is exactly what Seymour Hersh reported late last year: America will replace combat troops with airpower to bolster the Iraq army. The Washington Times: "Rumsfeld vows Iraq drawdown will continue"
"Hussein - Al-Queda link" is back
For those who follow the war in Iraq attentively, "Hussein - Al-Queda link" is beyond any serious discussion, it belongs to the same realm as IWMD. However, exactly like with IWMD, neoconservative PR machine does not stop working on it.
So, recently there was yet another Iraqi documents dump, and ABC News returned to this sad old theme again - with a number of caveats. As for Russian liberal Gazeta.ru, it reported same development with 100% certainty, their readers are supposed to believe that Hussein - Al-Queda link is nothing less than a proven fact. Even further, Gazeta suggests that ABC dump can help prosecution of Hussein trial in some way - as if the trial and Al-Queda issues have anything to do with each other.
1.Judy Mathewson. ABC News says Saddam OK'd bin Laden contact
A pre-war Iraqi document obtained and recently released by the U.S. government says an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan in February 1995, ABC News reported.
The document says the meeting was approved by Saddam, ABC said on its Web site. Saddam also agreed to a request at the meeting by bin Laden to broadcast the lectures of a radical Saudi preacher and to carry out ''joint operations against foreign forces'' in Saudi Arabia, ABC said.
U.S. intelligence officials, who last week released the first batch of Iraqi documents out of more than 2 million seized, have warned that the U.S. can't confirm their authenticity.
2. Gazeta. V.Sergeev. Hussein linked with Bin Laden
Sadr appeared a conference in Tehran and said that if the US bombs Iran, the Mahdi Army would fight to defend Islam. (This was in response to a question from an Iranian military official. It may have even been scripted.)
Here is a link
Sadr and the Iranians are allies. Beyond the fact that Sadr believes what he said, he made the statement while visiting Iran in a context that was obviously related to Iran's nuclear issue.
I fully expect that Sadr gets assistance from Iran.
On Khalizad saying that Jaafari will not be prime minister, period: After Iraq's US-approved constitutional process produced Jaafari as the candidate this should end the illusion if anyone was still holding it, that the US believes in democracy in the Middle East.
I'm skeptical that the reason is to protect oil. There is not much oil to protect, and I can't figure out who the oil is supposedly being protected from.
Khalizad's clear implication that the US prefers civil war to Jaafari being prime minister indicates to me and I'm sure to others that the US primary objective in Iraq is to ensure that Iran is prevented from becoming a stronger strategic rival to Israel, which would be the result of Jaafari's Iraq probable alliance with Iran.
But since it seems that everybody in the region sees this clearly, I'm not sure how much leverage Khalizad holds to prevent it.
Is the US a group of good-hearted bumblers in Iraq? What if the United States really is not the good guys?
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Prof. Cole
Commentators on the Right have, as part of their offensive on the media, that one of the good news of the past several months is a drop in American casulaties. However we have seen an increase of civilians and Iraqi security forces casulaties climb (between 60-80 dead per day). Could this mean that the disparate groups that where fighting the U.S. have now switched their focus on the Iraqi forces therefor making the U.S. largely irrelevant?
This is so obvious that it has become. at the same time, both embarrasing and seemingly futile to state yet again.
Today's L.A. Times reports on what has been going on for some time as though it were "news":
"Even as military planners look to withdraw significant numbers of American troops from Iraq in the coming year, the Bush administration continues to request hundreds of millions of dollars for large bases there, raising concerns over whether they are intended as permanent sites for U.S. forces."
Well, what can one truly say except...duh!
Let's see. The equation in the lizard mind must work something like the following:
"The bases are on, or near, Iraq's oil fields. Let 'them' fight. We got the only territory targeted for conquest so, in fact, this has been Mission Accomplished".
One can only wonder how the average taxpayer would feel about paying for the retirement package for those in power and the "no death tax" inheritance of their children.
For the record, the "death tax" referred to above applies to the perverted use of language by the administration- not to the "death tax" paid by both the American soldiers and Iraqi's that have found themselves far, far, away from ever seeing their families again in this world.
Some of those that planned this may think Iran is standing in the way.
With respect to the uninitiated in the horrors of history, so are Russia, China, France, and Germany, not to mention some of the emerging powers hitherto unmentioned (in the MSM) due to their alleged and/or perceived "backwardness".
We are in deep "doo- doo" thanks to some fine short- term retirement planning for the Bushies coupled with a complete disregard for the long- term viability of the U.S. on the world stage.
Post a Comment
<< Home