Another Shrine hit, with 6 Dead
Mubarak Warns on Civil War, US Withdrawal
Reuters reports that guerrillas hit yet another Shiite shrine on Saturday this one at Musayyib, killing 6 and wounding 21 (-Al-Sharq al-Awsat). Guerrillas ambushed police in Baquba, wounding 4, along with 4 civilians. In a separate attack in that city, they managed to kill a Lt. Col. in the new Iraqi military. There were several attacks in and around Kirkuk, leaving a number of police and others wounded. Four bodies of Iraqi military men were found in Riyad south of Kirkuk; they had been captured in Tikrit earlier. Another 7 bodies were found in Karbala.
In Basra, gunmen fired on workers leaving a mill, killing 2 and wounding 3.
Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the clerical leader of the Shiite fundamentalist United Iraqi Alliance, warned Shiites on Saturday not to turn to reprisal killings against Sunni Arabs for the atrocities guerrillas are visiting on Shiites.
AP reveals that a senior Iraqi official has admitted that Iraq has been in a civil war for at least a year:
' Despite the violence, U.S. officials have discounted talk of civil war. However, a senior Iraqi official said Saturday that an ``undeclared civil war'' had already been raging for more than a year. ``Is there a civil war? Yes, there is an undeclared civil war that has been there for a year or more,'' Maj. Gen. Hussein Kamal told The Associated Press. ``All these bodies that are discovered in Baghdad, the slaughter of pilgrims heading to holy sites, the explosions, the destruction, the attacks against the mosques are all part of this.'' Kamal said the country would still be spared from all-out sectarian war ``if a strong government is formed, if the security forces are given wide powers and if they are able to defeat the terrorists.''
The only reason it is even controversial that Iraq is in civil war is because the Bush administration spinmeisters are resisting the term, for PR purposes. Why doesn't the US press just ignore them when they start saying ridiculous things like that?
And now you have this big food fight between Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice over her admission that the US has made a thousand tactical errors in Iraq. The US has made tens of thousands of tactical errors in Iraq. Rice was underestimating the problem. And, the US has made large numbers of strategic ones, too. Both Rice and Rumsfeld are responsible for the strategic ones. In a system with any accountability, their government would lose a vote of no confidence at this point and they would be history. Rice's attempt to maintain that there were lots of little errors (Rumsfeld's and the troops) but that the over-all strategy was sound (i.e. her's and Bush's) is absurd. A sound strategy will usually survive some tactical errors. A bad strategy is doomed even if the tactics are gotten right.
The leaking of an internal, realistic assessment of how bad things are in Iraq, generated by the US government, has sent Bush administration officials scurrying to put the best face on it. As I have pointed out several times, the problems are not in three provinces, they are in seven. And, they are among the more populous provinces in the country, including Baghdad, which has 6 million or almost a fourth of the country. And they are very serious problems and getting worse.
I argue at the New York Daily News that the US should stop trying to pretend that Muqtada al-Sadr and his movement don't exist, and stop trying to cut them out of the political deal, and should engaged them politically. You can't have stability in Iraq if one of the major forces is sidelined.
Muqtada denied Saturday [Ar.] that the Mahdi Army is a militia. He said it was an "army based on belief."
President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt said on Saturday that Iraq is already in an ethnic civil war; that the problem with the country is that it is too diverse ethnically; that the current crisis was caused by Saddam not having ruled more justly; that the United States must not leave, or all hell will break loose; and that Arab Shiites a secretly more loyal to Iran than to their own countries. The degree of ignorance and prejudice revealed by the last phrase is mind boggling, but it is a very common sentiment in the Sunni Arab world. Nor is it a good sign, since the Shiites are becoming empowered in the eastern Arab world, and the Sunnis are going to have to get used to it.
As for Mubarak's caution against a US withdrawal, it strikes me as self-serving. If the US withdraws, regional leaders may have to step up.


10 Comments:
I suspect, and I'm sure a lot of people in the Middle East suspect that the original US plan, vetoed by Sistani, was to have Chalabi or Allawi play a role similar to Mubarak's in Iraq.
I wonder how Mubarak's statements play in the Middle East where he seems to be one of the few people who can't find anywhere to assign blame on the United States.
Also everytime he, or government officials from Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Jordan speak I wonder to what degree they are speaking for their people. Could Mubarak beat Sadr in a fair election held in Egypt? When these governments speak of their fear of Shiites, is that what their people feel or is that a justification for their cooperation with the United States?
When you see that mainly all oil in the middle-east is under Shi'a control (in Saudi arabia as well than Kuwait, Irak and of course iran), if things are ging nasty between Shi'a Sunni or US-Shi'a (attack on Iran).
Sunni can be affraid to lose their share of petrol-dollars and us to be precipited in the worst economical crisis since 1929.
Prof. Cole: Have you also seen that Grand Ayatollah Sistani has been escorted out of Najaf for his "safety" because of possible action by al-Sadr in the defense of al-Jaafari?
"[N]ow you have this big food fight between Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice over her admission that the US has made a thousand tactical errors in Iraq."
Dr. Rice's ideas about the difference between strategy and tactics are amateur and chickenhawkish, so Mr. Rumsfeld need not worry about them a whole lot, and neither need anybody else.
According to the AP account of her performance at Chatham House, the distinction goes like this:
"'I know we've made tactical errors, thousands of them I'm sure . . . [b]ut when you look back in history, what will be judged will be, did you make the right strategic decisions?'''
"She said she remains firmly convinced that it was the right strategic decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq three years ago, and that it required an invasion to do it."
I.e., everthing that has happened since Saddam was deposed has been "tactical" and comparatively unimportant.
It's silly for Rummy to get worked up about that at all, but if he does, he should notice that the dragon lady wasn't just calling him wrong about this or that in particular, she was classifying him and the Pentagon as more or less negligible in general.
If I may add to your excellent article about Sadr that the American hostility is constantly adding to his appeal and powerbase.
The opposite is true of the Shiia leaders who praise the US, like the double agent Mr Hakim.
If Iraq doest get elections in 4 years time, the landscape will be entirely different. But the current US leadership can only thinks short term.
I saw another blog that pointed out the short hand for tactical is military. The bushies want to pretend that it would have all been fine if the military hadn't messed it up. Riiiiight! As if the minds that saw the flowers and candies of a thankful Iraqi public had it all figured out.
Let me weigh in on the perpetual debate over now or later. We need to get out now. There was never any way to have stopped a civil war once we stripped away the only power structure that existed. You can't bottle up that much rage for that long and expect it to just evaporate overnight.
The longer we stay, the more we divert and pervert the settlement process. In spite of the national obsession with fixing and setting 'right', it's time to butt out. It would be nice if that could happen before we make the situation worse by poking a stick at Iran.
Here's a devil's-advocate thought ... if Moqtada is, as you write in the NY Daily News column, "the only major Shiite leader with credibility among fundamentalist Sunnis" -- and backs Jaafari because the latter has endorsed his platform -- why is the religious Sunni coalition part of an alliance that is demanding Jaafari's withdrawal (apparently preferring a SCIRI prime minister)?
Conversely, is this a factor that you think will eventually cause the religious Sunnis to split away from the Kurds and secular Sunnis in favor of forming a governing alliance with the UIA?
Lately, I have been going around the internet and respectable news outlets to find what "respectable" experts feel a good strategy in Iraq might be. I am wondering, since Sunnis feel sidelined, would a Lebanese style democracy work for Iraq where Sunni's and Shia's and ofcourse Kurds share the power (not parliament seats) but actual political, military posts with influence. Lets say 50% for Shias, 35 for Sunnis and 15% for Kurds. Would an arrangement like that help empasse the looming civil war?
Potent article about al-Sadr. Should be mandatory reading for all US news media people. (Bush says he doesn't read the papers so no use urging him.)Almost every mention of al-Sadr is preceded with "firebrand" and "radical". In a country as violent and faction ridden as Iraq is now, who's not a "firebrand" or "radical" in at least someone's eyes.
I think a prefix switch to "popular young leader" might help. Of course if Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld are really attempting to make Iraq into a banana republic, the last thing they'd want to emerge is a true leader.
Ner Rosen's article is certainly interesting, but there is an underlying theme that is depressing. None of the people he talks to ever mention the needs of Iraq's people or the role of government - except as related to security. It seems to me that all of the conflict and brutality is about who gets to run the show, not about the show itself.
Its not reassuring to think that when all the dust settles and all the bodies are burried, the last man standing may not have the competence or desire to improve the lives of the twenty million or so Iraqis.
Rice's "tens of thousands of tactical errors" may correspond to the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis that would still be alive today if there was no invasion.
Post a Comment
<< Home