Bush Sneaks In and Out of Baghdad Again
24 Dead in Kirkuk Bombings
Iraq's civil war claimed at least 55 lives on Tuesday. Guerrillas detonated a coordinated set of car bombs in Kirkuk on Tuesday, killing 24 persons and wounding nearly 50. Among the targets were senior police officers, and the offices of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (led by Jalal Talabani). Although the press is trying to tie this operation to the Zarqawi group, Kirkuk is such a complicated political scene that it is unwise to speculate on the identity of the guerrilla group that targeted the city. Kurds, Turkmen and Arabs are competing for the oil capital of the north, and Kurds have taken over the police force and are flooding the province with settlers, creating enormous discontents.
In other violence, an intelligence officer was assassinated in Karbala, guerrillas targeted a police convoy in Samarra with a bomb but killed 4 civilians and wounded 7 others; two university professors were assassinated, one in Baghdad and one in Basra, and 14 corpses were found in the capital.
This Reuters report has to be read carefully to see how parlous the situation in Iraq really is. The president of the United States, who supposedly conquered the country three years ago, had to keep his visit secret even from the prime minister he was going to visit, until five minutes before their meeting. That tells me Bush's people don't trust Nuri al-Maliki very far. In fact, apparently Bush's people don't trust Bush's people very far-- only Cheney, Rumsfeld and Condi are said to have known about the trip in the US. And, Air Force One had to land after a sharp bank, to throw off any potential shoulder-held missile launchers in the airport area. The president couldn't go to the Green Zone in a motorcade, for fear of car bombs, but had to be helicoptered in. This ending says it all: "Bush left after night fell to return to Washington. The plane left at a steep angle with its lights out and the shades drawn." See also this photo.
In almost surreal rhetoric, Bush said Iranian interference in Iraqi affairs must be curtailed. He said this after the Iraqi vice president and the head of the biggest bloc in parliament both went off to Tehran and praised Iran's stabilizing role. If Bush thinks that Shiite Iranians are the problem in fanatically Sunni Ramadi and Adhamiyah, we're in even bigger trouble than I thought.
Bush tried to define down victory to a general ability of people to go about their lives. He said it was unreasonable to expect to end "all violence." But Mr. Bush, no one suggested that you end "all violence." The goal here is to win the guerrilla war.
During a guerrilla war, people always go about their daily lives, except when a bomb is going off in their specific neighborhood. So if the goal is that Iraqis should be able to buy bread and go to school and drive to work, most of them have that already most of the time. It is just that little problem of some 12,000 people a year being blown up, assassinated, or beheaded and their heads wrapped in cellophane and stored in banana crates along the side of the road that remains.
In other words, Bush defines the main weapon in the guerrilla war, carbombings, as ineradicable, and declares that he can win that war without actually ending its main weapon. It is a cheap trick of rhetoric, a prestidigitation of the lips. "These are not the 'droids you're looking for."
Meanwhile a new security sweep will be launched in an attempt to make Baghdad more secure. Let's see if this one is more successful than Operation Lightning, a similar set of sweeps launched last year this time to no apparent lasting effect.
US troops are under enormous strain in Iraq. They cannot most often tell friend from foe. When they first arrived, they were encouraged to make friends with local Iraqis, but now often are told to keep to themselves, just because it isn't clear who the guerrillas are. They are apparently constantly taking mortar or sniping fire, most of it ineffectual and so never announced to the press. If they go out on the road, they are in substantial danger of being blown up. Few units haven't lost a dear friend and colleague. They are fighting for a local government that often seems not much to want them and clearly wishes them gone sooner rather than later (Maliki says at most 18 months). Some high ranking members of the government have been scathing about them. The Europeans see US troops in Iraq as a bigger threat to stability in the Middle East than is Iran. Some 60 percent of Americans think their being there was a mistake in the first place, which cannot be good for morale, which is slipping inside the military according to polls. They signed up to fight for their country and their country asked them to fight in Iraq, and in the military you do as you are told, so it is a raw deal for them to end up being so unappreciated when they are doing brave things every day. So I get it that they are frustrated. But, it just is very bad politics for them to sit around singing songs about killing Iraqis, and worse politics to videotape it.
It is hell to be stateless. 200 Palestinian refugees are stuck at a border camp, trying to flee Iraq for Syria. They fear going back to Baghdad. Some 20,000 Palestinians in Baghdad are now in danger; some fear the general violence and insecurity, others fear reprisals. Some Iraqis identify them with the former regime (stateless people are often forced into parlous political compromises). Palestinians were expelled from their country by Zionist settlers in 1948, who refused to let them back in or compensate them for their lost property. Israel continues to insist that millions of Palestinians remain stateless by refusing to recognize the Palestine Authority as a state. In the modern world, there are substantial similarities between statelessness and slavery.

|
Facebook




10 Comments:
Bush's trip is pure desperation. He has maintained some support in the American establishment for the occupation on the basis that Iraq is a bridge-head to dominate the Gulf.
The Iraqi leaders before Maliki either wanted the occupation to continue, in order to keep them in power, or could be shrugged off by the domineering and ignorant Americans in Iraq.
Now the game is up. The American public is rightly focused on troop levels because the are paying for it in blood and treasure. However, the damage to Iraq is mainly from the American saboteurs pretending to be advisors and trainers.
During the coming weeks and months Iraq will regain Command & Control and the logisitics. The US sickening division of battalions on ethnic and sectarian basis will be reversed quickly by redistributing the troops. Those who don't like it will be fired.
The thousands of US civilians (many picked or interviewed by the American Enterprise shit) will be going home.
The American leadership wants Iraq to be a partner in its GWOT /clash of civilisations /Armageddon lunacy, but why on earth would the Iraqis want that?
The incentive is: America will ask Iraq's cousins in the Gulf to help out. Why would the Gulf states, who like all Arabs are on the US hit list, want to keep America in Iraq in order to spread chaos and to remove them? And with their money!
Don't they speak the language of the Iraqis, and have blood and history ties with them? Why should they need a deranged Crusader to mediate?
Regarding Bush,
"In almost surreal rhetoric, Bush said Iranian interference in Iraqi affairs must be curtailed."
Yes, this is surreal, but second to the cover story he gave his staff, that he had retreated to his private quarters to read a book.
Juan – plainly the following doesn’t need pointing out to you, but perhaps it does need pointing out generally given the content of the popular debate about the conduct of the troops.
Its not just bad politics to sing about how “I grabbed [a 'hadji' girl's] little sister and put her in front of me. As the bullets began to fly, the blood sprayed from between her eyes, and then I laughed maniacally”. Its repulsive, sadistic and racist, most of all because it, now quite obviously, reflects the actions of many US troops if not the modus operandi of the occupation itself.
Of course its right to acknowledge and understand the background to any crime and what caused any criminal to act in the way that they did. Its important to empathise (rather than sympathise) with the criminal or wrongdoer in order to understand their actions, the better to prevent them from recurring. However it is possible, eventually, to cross a line between human empathy and intellectual attempts to understand, and enter the territory of excuse making. When acts of similar brutality to Haditha etc are committed in the name of al-Qaeda, Hamas etc, do they receive as much understanding and so many soft words? I’m sure the troops were all born good people, just as all Arabs and Muslims were, so perhaps we need to look at the sins a bit more and the sinners a little less. Perhaps then we can get away from this idea of the fundamental benevolance of the occupation, whatever its flaws and mistakes, and face the reality of what is being done in our name, with our taxes and, via our government, with our collective support.
Its also worth pointing out that the Nuremberg principles (which, if they are principles, must be applied universally) clearly state that “the fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his government or of a superior order does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him”. I realise that soldiers are subjected to masses of propaganda about their mission, and I’m sure leaving armed service is far from a straightforward business, but whilst the moral choice is restricted it is ultimately still there .
David Wearing
London, UK
Loved your Star Wars comment, made me smile despite the daily horrible facts in Iraq.
I sympathize with how badly (cynically, crassly, murderously) US troops have been used by the US government in Iraq, but I have to take issue with the way its described in today's post: "They are fighting for a local government that often seems not much to want them…..They signed up to fight for their country...." I would say that they are fighting for the Neocon Project of projecting American power...and that the US military is historically almost always used to fight for the projection of US power--especially for the benefit of corporate profit. I'd love to see a better job done of educating young people so that they know when they join the US Military, they will probably never be "fighting for their country" and will often be fighting in causes that are ultimately destructive to the lives of the majority of the world's citizens.
I normally cringe whenever I hear Mr Bush speak. This morning hearing him speak to reporters on AF-1 was no different. I predict a desperate attempt to weasel out of Iraq before his term ends, with no guilt, all spin.
Regarding the Marine's song... I think that a little overreaction is happening here. The man has written a story, undoubtably fiction and intended to be interpreted as fiction. He wrote it, sang it for his buddies, got a laugh out of them; like so much fiction it cuts both ways depending on ones point of view, upbringing, faith, etc... that soldier knows his audience and sings for them, any entertainer out of uniform would do the same. I'm imagining these fellows are terrified, that a situation like the one he's singing about is similar to situations faced by soldiers daily, and to sing about that constant panic (waking and in slumber I'd bet) coming to its ultimate conclusion is purely nothing more than blowing off steam.
A reporter with the pool on this trip reported that for the trip back, everyone (all wearing bullet proof vests) had to run to the waiting motorcade which proceeded without any lights to the helipad.
(I take it the motorcade was inside the Green Zone for the trip which is incredible if motorcades in the Green Zone are subjected to car bombs and sniper fire). The helicopter flew without lights, taking evasive action to Baghdad Airport. (The reporter stated that while the President's trip into the Green Zone was secret, once word got out about his trip, there was a fear that terrorists would target him. Their intelligence network is so good that they can present a credible assassination threat to a head of state within a half hour or less of his presence being discovered?)
The reporter noted that when Air Force One left Baghdad Airport, the plane took off in a steep power climb, again without any lights that could attract anti aircraft.
This comment is below the level of discourse that is the norm here, but I'd like to note that I loved the Obi Wan Kenobi quote in this item, and I often say it out loud to myself when I see some administration official on TV weakly offering one obfuscation or another.
This is so funny! We are supposed to be pretending that the Iraqi's are in charge! Yet, King Bush doesn't feel the need to anounce his presence in a "soveign" nation until 5 min before meeing the ruler of that country. It seems that our King now thinks that royalty extends beyond this country!
Post a Comment
<< Home