Shiite Pilgrims, US Troops Killed
Parliament Meets to no End
Two Shiite pilgrims were shot dead in Baghdad on Wednesday, among other killings and bombings in the capital, in Baqubah and in Anbar province, which include the killing of two US soldiers.
It is the season of Arba'in in Iraq, the 40th day commemoration of the anniversary of the martyrdom of Imam Husayn, the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad. Pilgrims are walking to the holy city of Karbala, seat of Husayn's tomb. They are in danger of being killed by Sunni Arab guerrillas seeking to provoke Sunni-Shiite violence. In order to deal with this threat, the US military is sending nearly 1,000 extra troops, with armor and tanks, up to Iraq from Kuwait. A Sunni politician told al-Hayat that because the United Iraqi Alliance [Shiite fundamentalist coalition] is not completely united behind Jaafari, it might be possible to have the matter settled in a meeting of the whole parliament. He said that if the UIA stickes with Jaafari, "He will fail . . .'
He said that the Sunni Arabs are not holdin things up in Iraq, but that they feel that the Shiites have decided instead to support their co-religionsts in Iran.
Al-Hayat quotes Fadil Mirani, the secretary general of the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Massoud Barzani, as saying that the crisis over the nomination of Ibrahim Jaafari as prime minister has not ended. He maintained that the Americans do not want Jaafari to be put forward, "because he has misbehaved." He said that the Americans are applying enormous pressure to form a national unity government.
The Iraqi parliament will meet on Thursday, but it won't actually do anything. It will literally just meet. It won't even choose a speaker of the house, as it is required to do by the constitution during its first session. How will it get away with this lapse? It will declare that the first session lasts . . . until a speaker is chosen.
Veteran journalist Bob Scheer looks at Bush's fantasies about Iraq. Scheer, among the most clear-sighted of our journalists, was an early critic of the Vietnam War. His criticisms of the Iraq War and of the Bush administration appear to have gotten him fired from the Los Angeles Times, possibly because the owner wanted an exemption from the FCC allowing to own a newspaper and a television station in the same market, and did not want to anger te administration. He now edits Truthdig.com, for which I write.
Sidney Blumenthal is less charitable, dissecting what he calls the Big Lie of George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld on Iraq and the "war on terror," contrasting their somewhat strange allegations with the more sober positions of their actual ambassadors and generals on the ground.
Question: Why aren't more Democratic politicians talking about Bush's Iraq fantasies and his big lie?
The Open Source Center translates a Kurdish article from Hawlati alleging that the Iranian government pressured the Kurdish leaders to accept Ibrahim Jaafari as prime minister. Jalal Talabani has long been a close client of Iran, and this report seems to me plausible.
If the report is true, the implication is that Iran was able to over-rule the United States. Reportedly, the Bush administration did not want Jaafari as PM.
' Iraqi Paper Says Iran Pressured Kurdish Leadership To Accept Al-Ja'fari
Unattributed report: "Iran pressurizes Talabani and Barzani to accept Al-Ja'fari, Al-Sadr militias threatens Kurds in Baghdad"; p 1
Hawlati
Wednesday, March 15, 2006 T19:57:29Z
Journal Code: 8278 Language: ENGLISH Record Type: FULLTEXT
Document Type: OSC Translated Excerpt
Word Count: 221
As a new round of talks began between the political factions in Iraq, Iran started to pressurize the Kurdish leadership to support the re-election of Al-Ja'fari.
The Iranian Ambassador Kazimi Qumi held closed door sessions with Barzani and Talabani in the recent few weeks. He asked them to re-elect Al-Ja'fari for the post of prime minister.
A well informed source told Hawlati: "Iran dedicated all its resources (for re-election of Al-Ja'fari), and so they have been able to cool off Talabani and Barzani." (Passage omitted) "The effect of Iran's pressure was apparent, as all participants were calm regarding Al-Ja'fari's re-election" in yesterday's meeting at the home of the United Iraqi Alliance leader Abd-al-Aziz al-Hakim.
In the context of forcing Kurds to change their stance on the re-election of Al-Ja'fari, many Kurds living in Baghdad received threats from Shiite militias. The threats said: "If the Kurdish leadership insists on their stance, you must leave your homes." Moreover, Hawlati phoned many Kurdish families in Baghdad and they all confirmed these reports. They said: "A number of black dressed young armed men threatened to evict them if the Kurdish leadership insists on going up against Al-Ja'fari's re-election."
(Description of Source: Al-Sulaymaniyah Hawlati in Sorani Kurdish -- weekly independent newspaper) '
Other Open Source center paraphrases of Iraqi news, for March 14:
' Al-Bayyinah [Shiite religious] carries on the front page a 100-word report citing special sources saying that Iraqi Al-Tawafuq Front is conducting a campaign to stop the political process. The report cites Adnan al-Dulaymi saying that Al-Sadr City's and Al-Shu'lah's inhabitants are the origin of evil . . .
Al-Bayyinah carries on page 7 a 1,300-word article by Salman al-Shammari commenting on the attempts of political forces to "deny" the majority's electoral representation. . .
Al-Dustur publishes on the front page a 500-word report citing Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr calling on Arab Sunnis to stay away from Zarqawis and takfiris following the bombing in Al-Sadr City which claimed the lives of 50 persons and injured over 200 others. . .
Al-Mashriq publishes on the front page a 340-word report citing member of Unified Iraqi Coalition Ali al-Adib informing the newspaper that the sectarian war is underway but it is not widespread, adding that he has lost confidence in the security forces. . .
Al-Da'wah runs on the front page a 220-word report on Mujahidin-e-Khalq organization's reaction to the recent deployment of Bulgarian forces in Ashraf Camp . . .
Al-Da'wah publishes on the front page a 200-word report citing SCIRI confirming that it will sue Iraqi newspapers for publishing false news about the SCIRI leader. . .
Al-Furat runs on the front page a 120-word report citing sources in Baghdad confirming that two of Ahmad Chalabi's bodyguards were killed during accidental clashes with staff members of a security company in Al-Mansur district in Baghdad yesterday, 13 March. . .
Al-Mu'tamar publishes on the front page a 600-word report entitled "Al-Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr: Iraqis Do Not Want Civil War; Al-Mahdi Army Arrests Terrorist Trying To Attack Blood Donors." . . .
Al-Ittijah al-Akhar on 11 March carries on page 3 a 70-word report on a statement by Ba'th Party warning of federalism aimed at fragmenting Iraq.
Al-Ittijah al-Akhar on 11 March carries on page 4 a 600-word report on the agreement between Al-Sadr trend and Association of Muslim Scholars to unify Shiite and Sunni Waqfs [pious endowments].
Al-Mada publishes on page 2 a 500-word report citing the minister at the British Foreign Office saying that the goal of his visit to Iraq is to find investment opportunities in oil and gas sectors. . .
Tariq al-Sha'b publishes on the front page 750-word report entitled "Large Number of British Tanks on Streets in Basra; Armed Attacks on Civilians; Defense Ministry Arrests 108 Insurgents." The report outlines the recent security developments in Baghdad and other governorates. . .
Al-Zaman carries on page 5 a 300-word report citing Health Minister Undersecretary Sabah al-Husayni saying that he will file a lawsuit against IRAQNA Mobile Company for stopping all communication following the [Sadr City] bombings. . .
Tariq al-Sha'b publishes on page 2 a 100-word report citing Hasanyan al-Safi, member of Basra Advisory Council and chairman of Council's Investigation Committee, confirming human rights violations in Al-Ma'qal Prison. . .
Al-Mada publishes on page 7 a half page report that 20 percent of Iraqi families are under the poverty line. . .
Al-Sabah al-Jadid publishes on page 4 a 300-word report on the cooperation between Iraqi and Iranian investors to build brick factori es and two plastic factories in Al-Nasiriyah Governorate. . .
Al-Zaman carries on the front page a 300-word report citing British state minister for foreign affairs saying: "We could not convince British companies to invest in Iraq due to the security situation", during a press conference in Basra. (OSC plans to process this item) . . .
Al-Mashriq publishes on page 5 a 400-word report that Mosul has refused to supply Arbil with gas. . .
posted by Juan Cole @ 3/16/2006 12:30:00 AM
|
Facebook
8 Comments:
"He said that the Sunni Arabs are no holdin things up in Iraq, but that they have decided instead to support their co-religionsts in Iran."
Prof Cole. I have problems understanding a) who "He" is and the meaning of this sentence. Sunni's support for Sunnis in Iran? I didn't know there was a large number of Sunni in Iran.
Prof Colde asks "Question: Why aren't more Democratic politicians talking about Bush's Iraq fantasies and his big lie?"
Answer: because they are deep in it themselves. It was the Democrats who voted to give him unlimited powers to invade and occupy. The Democrats in general are even bigger agents of Israel, and that tells you something.
The Republicans have all this on record which they will sure advertise if Kerry and Co dared to criticise the war itself rather than its management.
Business as usual. Bush's numbers are way down. They must renew their strategy to take over the airwaves to get our minds off of all their blunders. BREAKING NEWS! On the eve of the third anniversary of Bush's illegal war, the largest air "assault" since the beginning of the war has been launched. How many times must this administration restart the war, how many Iraqi civilians and US troops must die or be permanently injured before the people of this country, the world, Iraq stand up and say enough is enough?
Now GU is set to publish stories like as "good news", without anti-war comments.
GU. QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA. U.S., Iraqis Launch 'Operation Swarmer'
U.S. forces, joined by Iraqi troops, on Thursday launched the largest air assault since the U.S.-led invasion, targeting insurgent strongholds north of the capital, the military said.
"More than 1,500 Iraqi and Coalition troops, over 200 tactical vehicles, and more than 50 aircraft participated in the operation,'' the military statement said.
Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, was the site of a massive bombing against a Shiite shrine on Feb. 22 that touched off sectarian bloodshed that has killed more than 500 and injured hundreds more, threatening to push Iraq into civil war.
It is a key city in Salahuddin province, a major part of the so-called Sunni triangle where insurgents have been active since shortly after the U.S.-led invasion three years ago. Saddam Hussein was captured in the province, not far from its capital and his hometown, Tikrit.
Guy Noir from WaPo
It is quite hilarious to take a news article and consider it as a crime story. The first impression of the following WaPo piece is that Mr.Ignatius made quite an investigation, he digged out several very important witnesses, squeezed lots of valuable info from them, and now, lucky and proud, he shares all these treasures with happy WaPo readers.
However, certain research and a few wiki checks tell completely different story. Apparently, at best, Mr.Ignatius met some cherry picked pro-Western Iraqi politicians who fed him with fairy tales they know WaPo readers are supposed to read. At worst, OK, I dare not to go on with my cynical innuendos on WaPo integrity.
For those who follow the ME situation attentively, the idea of Hakim acting as a go-between for Khalilzad and the Iranians is especially ironic. There is no doubt whatsoever that both Iraqis and Iranians are rolling on the floor laughing at silly folks who can believe for a single second that something, anything can come out of the US-Iranian talks in the current situation! So, what really happens is that Hakim politely sends Khalilzad straight to hell.
Now where is the modern Dashiell Hammett to make a real good crime story based on this material?
WaPo. David Ignatius. Steps Toward Unity in Iraq
The U.S. ambassador's upbeat account is believable because it is echoed by Iraqi political leaders. Adel Abdul Mahdi, Iraq's vice president and a representative of Hakim and his powerful Shiite party..., told me Wednesday: "We have a common understanding on major issues -- on the need for consensus and on a national security commission. What makes me confident is that I think we are building up a sense of understanding among different communities."
One seeming obstacle to unity has been fear about the role of Iran. To finesse that issue, Hakim said he is urging Iran to talk with the United States about Iraq's political future. Khalilzad himself has been quietly exploring what he calls the "modalities" for such U.S.-Iran talks on Iraq.
One hint of the new spirit of accord (and also of the political jockeying taking place) emerged when I visited Ahmed Chalabi...
Today's news has left us wondering if there is a sea change in the administration dealings with Iraq. A theory we came up with was this: Iraq is about to be traded to Iran for whatever the administration can get. What is the evidence for this about face? Small article in LA Times in which Condi says there will be a stable democracy in Iraq and we will hold talks with Iran. Khalilzad is going to talk to Iran. A massive US air assault in the Sunni area above Samarra. Deploying a US armored battalion to protect Shia pilgims headed for Karbala.
The administration approach has changed three times in as many weeks: (Posturing to fight Iran, trying to broker a deal between the Sunnis and the Kurds) Perhaps Rove has been asked to solve the 33% approval problem and realizes that they are going to get creamed in November if they don't get troops out of Iraq. I think the whole world agrees that bombing Iran when there is no nuke crisis is a bad idea and many governments and perhaps the US Military has told the Bush administration so. With that option off the table, they have to admit that they were outmaneuvered by Iran after the invasion of Iraq and there is no way to salvage the oil that they assumed would be theirs. Permanent bases? That will be on the table when they sit down with Iran and see what they can get if they agree to support the elected Shia theocracy unreservedly.
I'd appreciate Dr. Cole's thoughts on this because I am very confused.
Let me try to explain. Apologies for the rambling that follows, but I am very confused, and I think it is because this is a confusing and dangerous situation..the Talks with Iran
Reports today that the US has agreed to direct talks with Iran Good news???
Reports today that the talks are tied to intra UIA power struggles.
Good news? Bad?
Depends on how you look at it I suppose. The Bushies added a meaningless qualifier - we won't talk about nukes. Fine. If Iran's smart they won't fall for the shape of the table bait. It is impossible to enter negotitations in any power conflict situation and put matters off the table where the connection is as here so transparently obvious. In other words, all options are on the table cause Iran has Bush by the short and curlies. The possibilities for mischief are superabundant.
The really weird thing though is that the old split Cabal v. the Professionals maybe erupting again..this may be evidence. Can't square Administration actions, Bolton, Israeli pressure, domestic warmongering, with engagement.
The contradictions will assert themselves...goo d news? Bad? who knows...one thing is for sure..major NEWS will come out of this
Then there's the Iraqi goverment in chaos...
Major Mischief!
Possible Iran-US talks reveal Iraq Shi'ite rivalry
Would be a major opportunity if both sides at the table and the 3 or 4 additional sides not at the table were on the same page or close and acting in good faith...but that ain't so.
"A Fool Lies Here..."
Now it is not good
For the Christian’s health
To hustle the Aryan brown,
For the Christian riles
And the Aryan smiles
And he wearth the Christian down;
And the end of the fight
Is tombstone white
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear,
“A fool lies here
Who tried to hustle the East."
— Rudyard Kipling
Dangerous. Very
I think...
revised
"Good news" from GU
Remember hilarious Blair the poodle cartoons by Steve Bell? Just a year ago, Blair's support for the war in Iraq was considered ridiculous, but these days are gone.
From guerilla war prospective, large scale counter-insurgency activities like operation Swarmer do not look particularly good for the occupation forces. All major resistance is supposed to be suppressed in the regular phase, so it is not clear what air force is supposed to accomplish. Their purpose is to destroy the enemy's infrastructure and heavy weapons, but rebels don't have all this. So, any significant air strikes in a guerilla conflict inevitably result in heavy collateral damage. Also, air strikes sideline the local pro-occupation forces, they have nothing to do with peaceful reconstruction.
Another problem is with human intelligence. Usually, air strikes are used to avoid excessive involvement on the ground. But air strikes need targeting info which is available only from friendly locals on the ground. With weak local connections, they are doomed to hit the sand, innocents or contribute to local interfactional conflicts.
To keep the war going, it needs to be sold to the public. The problem is, detailed objective coverage of guerilla conflict in the media involves lots of "bad" news which are unfavorable for war supporters. Here come more or less crude pro-war PR operations which bring "good" news on what progress in the military effort is made.
This explains why GU is conditioned to present stories on anti-insurgency activities like operation Swarmer as "good news".
For this to happen, anti-war comments are removed, GU language becomes more and more neoconservative, they even discover "anti-war mob". Watching GU site attentively, we find crude neoconservative PR like Kramm's article. No, this is not a satire. One reasonable explanation is that, using paleo-Bolshevik language, GU repents before the New Labour for their old anti-war sins.
1. GU. QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA. U.S., Iraqis Launch 'Operation Swarmer'
U.S. forces, joined by Iraqi troops, on Thursday launched the largest air assault since the U.S.-led invasion, targeting insurgent strongholds north of the capital, the military said.
Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, was the site of a massive bombing against a Shiite shrine on Feb. 22 that touched off sectarian bloodshed that has killed more than 500 and injured hundreds more, threatening to push Iraq into civil war.
2. GU. Police repel anti-war mob at US embassy
Britain's biggest anti-Vietnam war demonstration ended in London yesterday with an estimated 300 arrests: 86 people were treated by the St John Ambulance Brigade for injuries and 50, including 25 policemen, one with a serious spine injury, were taken to hospital.
It was only after considerable provocation that police tempers began to fray and truncheons were used, and then only for a short time. The demonstrators seemed determined to stay until they had provoked a violent response of some sort from the police. The intention became paramount once they entered Trafalgar Square.
3. GU. Oliver Kamm. We were right to invade Iraq
With the advantage of three years of hindsight, politicians' failed predictions about Iraq make dispiriting reading. "Any war will cause a refugee crisis of huge proportions," insisted Charles Kennedy. Iraqis proved him wrong by distinguishing perfectly well between a war on tyranny and a war on them, and stayed put.
The notion that terrorism has been brought to Iraq uniquely by the west's overthrow of Saddam, who bankrolled it and was the most likely conduit for Islamist groups to obtain WMD, is astonishingly ahistorical.
We no longer have to bear one major risk: a psychopathic despot overcoming a porous sanctions regime, and using oil sales to pay for resumed WMD production. The absence of WMD was a huge intelligence failure; so it is fortunate that we are no longer reliant on Saddam's word.
Post a Comment
<< Home