48 Killed, Dozens Wounded
Basra Tribal Leader Threatens More Violence
2 US GIs Killed
Two more US GIs were announced killed in Iraq on Thursday. Roadside bombings against US and multinational forces spiked during the last month. Some pro-guerrilla web sites have said that they wanted to punish the US for supporting Israel against Hizbullah.
Combining various wire service and Arabic press accounts, I came up with about over 50 killed in Iraq on Thursday. This is probably only about half of the actual number, since about 110 civilians have been being killed each day. Not everything shows up in our wire services, at least all on the same calendar day. For instance, al-Sharq al-Awsat is reporting five bodies fished out of the Tigris River in Baghdad, which I don't think most Western wire services caught.
Civil War violence killed dozens again on Thursday in Iraq. The most deadly incident:
' At least 12 Iraqis were killed and 25 wounded in a remote- controlled car bombing in a busy marketplace in eastern Baghdad's predominantly Shiite district of Sadr City, witnesses said. '
Reuters reviews other civil war violence in Iraq on Thursday. Major incidents include:
' SINJAR - Nine people were wounded, including four civilians, when a suicide car bomber targeting Kurdish security forces blew himself up on a road in Sinjar, northwest of Mosul . . .
DAQUQ - A roadside bomb exploded in the town of Daquq, 45 km (25 miles) south of Kirkuk, killing two civilians and wounding a third . . .
BAQUBA - Nine civilians, including three brothers, were assassinated in separate attacks in Baquba, 65 km (40 miles) north of Baghdad . . .
MUQDADIYA - Several mortars landed on a market near a Shi'ite mosque in the town of Muqdadiya, 90 km (55 miles) northeast of Baghdad, wounding 21 people . . .
BAGHDAD - Three policemen were wounded when a car bomb exploded in Mansour district, west-central Baghdad . . .
NEAR FALLUJA - The bodies of two men with gunshot wounds, bearing signs of torture, were found dead just north of Falluja, 50 km (32 miles) west of Baghdad, police said. . .
SUWAYRA - The bodies of six blindfolded civilians with their hands bound and with multiple gunshot wounds were retrieved from the Tigris river in Suwayra, a town 45 km (25 miles) south of Baghdad . . .
The Melbourne Herald Sun reports that authorities in the Shiite holy city of Karbala have reached an agreement with radical clergyman Mahmud Sarkhi al-Hasani. He is to cease supporting groups openly carrying around weapons and attacking government buildings. Karbala security forces had cracked down on his movement on Tuesday, invading a safe house to look for weapons stockpiles. Although this article says he didn't until recently have a militia, I believe that is incorrect. In fact, I suspect that Hasani's militia is responsible for some of the violence against British troops in the south.
Hasani leads a cult that views the current Iraqi central and provincial governments as puppets of Iran, which he thinks is persecuting him. He also is vehement in calls for withdrawal of foreign troops, and his followers have clashed with US and British military forces.
Al-Sharq al-Awsat reports [Ar.] that Faruq al-Khuyun, the son of Faisal al-Khuyun (sheikh of the Bani Asad tribe who was assassinated the day before yesterday in a market in Basra) has accused the governor of Basra of having targetted his father and their tribe. He said Basra security forces had also assassinated his brother, Ghazwan al-Khuyun, just three months ago. Faruq said that his tribe's attack on the governor's offices was a minor thing, and that they would, tomorrow or thereafter, occupy those offices altogether.
I don't think the security situation in Basra looks too bright.
Iraq has had to double the amount of money it spends on importing petroleum products in August and September. The country is undergoing a severe fuel crisis.
Matthew Rothschild reads the NYT tea leaves and concludes that Bush may be contemplating bringing in a strong man to rule Iraq and giving up on this democracy business.
One quibble. The strong man wouldn't be Chalabi, who is afraid to scuff his Gucci shoes. It would be a Shiite ex-Baathist officer in the old Iraqi army who knew how to make people an offer they couldn't refuse.
As for the merits of the plan, it would not work. The general Iraqi population is politically mobilized and well armed, and the Iraqi state is weak, as are its armed forces. You'd need an army with 6,000 tanks and lots of helicopter gunships, loyal to its leader and willing to kill thousands of innocent oridary Iraqis. None of these prerequisites exist, and probably won't for a while, if ever.
posted by Juan Cole @ 8/18/2006 06:19:00 AM
Click to join Infoco
11 Comments:
How exactly would Bush install a strong man?
There is already a strong man who is democtratically elected. The problem is in the national unity fiasco. The government has virtually no power.
Every position is turned into a council of three: Shia; Sunni; and a Kurd. The Turbans constitute most of the councils and they are incapable of working together because they are Turbans dedicated to their groups. That can not change.
To make matters even worse, the Afghan Hound seems to think that he is a pro-council authorised to overrides the Iraqi institutions.
The solution is to suspend the harmful and pointless parliament and send the deputies home, then dismantle the hideous national unity councils, leaving Iraq just like other countries where the leader make decision, not endless argument.
Bush and Co must lay off too. Even if they were in charge, they have shown an amazing talent for screwing things up, the last thing Iraq or America needs.
As for the merits of the plan, it would not work.
Thank you.
Not only that, but trying would put the US directly into a fight against at least the Sunnis and the Shiites that would align Iraq even further against the US.
It will not "work" but Iraq will be further destroyed in the process.
Now are we sure that is not the point?
"Matthew Rothschild reads the NYT tea leaves and concludes that Bush may be contemplating bringing in a strong man to rule Iraq and giving up on this democracy business."
A few more quibbles.
Bush doesn't contemplate. If he did, it would be about things such as navel lint or interdigital cheese, toe variety.
The premise floated is that the US would have any effect on the future of Iraq. Apparently Bush had the tv off for the past four weeks. The political force of the future is the minuteman, shiite variety. What happens next in Iraq will be determined by Iraqis.
Had Bush wanted a strongman in Iraq, the time to install one woujld have been in the days after the invasion. Since then the population has learned how to oppose a strong central force.
Bush and Co. might consider letting things in Iraq develop as they will. Or not, not that either option truly exists. The situation is out of their control.
This is the most troubling implication of the NYT article, that is that Bush and Co. harbor delusions they still have influence in the Middle East. Or the Neast East. Or Europe. Or Asia. Or Antarctica. Or Connecticut.
Thank you Mr.'s Wolfowitz, Feith, Hadley, Perle, Cheney, Libby, Luti, Ledeen, Goldberg, Rice...etc.
>The strong man wouldn't be Chalabi, who is afraid to scuff his Gucci shoes. It would be a Shiite ex-Baathist officer in the old Iraqi army who knew how to make people an offer they couldn't refuse.<
Saddam Hussein is waiting in the wings. I realize he's Sunni, but Bush won't know the difference.
WHAT IS THE 'MISSION' IN IRAQ?
FOR IRAQI NATION TO FLOURISH US MUST EXIT
Saddam ruled by brutality.
Inherent in the policy "When they stand up, we'll stand down", is that someday the Shia will be able to rule by force, i.e. brutality.
It seems fair to say that Iraqi nationalism prior to our invasion saw the US as the 'Great Satan' as we are seen in Iran.
Therefore, efforts to form a US backed government, be it a Shia military dictatorship or a US approved and manipulated "democracy", brings you to the same place; either type government will be seen to be the lackey of the Great Satan.
That the Iraqis just danced in the street to cheer the Hezbollah army in its battle versus Israel (and the US) is case in point.
The Iraqis need to have a sense of nation, of nationalism to form a lasting government.
A US backed government is anathematical to the Iraqis and to a lasting solution.
As John Murtha has said or (to me) implied, to a degree we are the enemy: we are the problem: they're shooting at us and those perceived to be our lackeys.
Tis time to go.
A US backed Iraqi government, acceptable to the Iraqis, is an oxymoron. Seen in this light, setting an exact schedule for drawing down US forces will be an empowering act for the Iraqis.
Completing the mission is up to the Iraqis: praise Allah and wishing them good luck. The only alternative is permanent occupation, (’hold the democracy‘), in which case “Stay the Course” actually and honestly entails a US commitment for decades.
.
PS. One technical detail: We do have to stay and keep the peace until ol' Saddam is duly dispatched lest he be freed and re-enthroned.
What of this?
Did Hizbullah capture Israeli soldiers inside Lebanon, not across the border in Israel?
"Turkey and Iran have dispatched tanks, artillery and thousands of troops to their frontiers with Iraq during the past few weeks in what appears to be a coordinated effort to disrupt the activities of Kurdish rebel bases.
Scores of Kurds have fled their homes in the northern frontier region after four days of shelling by the Iranian army. Local officials said Turkey had also fired a number of shells into Iraqi territory..."
You'd need an army with 6,000 tanks and lots of helicopter gunships, loyal to its leader and willing to kill thousands of innocent oridary Iraqis. None of these prerequisites exist, and probably won't for a while, if ever.
Wouldn't the US armed forces suffice if there were a "strongman" candidate that the Bushists decided to back?
Another "idea" pops into the heads of the Bush Administration. So let's get rid of one strong man and let chaos and devastation lead to a civil war, then we can get another strong man to take over. Idiots.
Greatest Strategic Disaster in US History: Kurdistan
Iranian Artillery Opens Up; Turkish and Iranian Tanks at Border
I am sure Olmert whose Mossad's been stirring trouble up there for 3 years and Bush considered the implications of Israel's invasion to take care of that other "state-within-a-state"
Yeah right
The stories about increased bomb attacks mention that about 70% were aimed at "Coalition" (read U.S.) forces. This has been the case all along and reinforces the idea that the presence of foreign troops actually increases the level of violence and destruction.
It's sure taking people a long time to "connect the dots" on this topic.
No doubt the uptick of violence shows that our enemies are desperate and in the final throes...
Post a Comment
<< Home