Shiite Pilgrims Slaughtered
US losing Battle of Baghdad
Guerrillas on rooftops let loose barrages of machine gun fire at Shiite pilgrims on foot as the moved through northern Baghdad to the shrine of Imam Musa al-Kazim in Kadhimiyah on a pilgrimage to commemorate his martyrdom. They killed at least 20 and wounded an astonishing 300. Mind you that this happened when there are an extra 3500 US troops in the Sunni Arab areas of Baghdad conducting sweeps against guerrilla groups, and when everyone in Baghdad new full well that the Sunni Arab guerrillas would target the pilgrims. Vehicular traffic was just banned, so as to stop car bombings.
If this incident, which will inspire rage and reprisals by Shiites, can occur in the midst of an enormous crackdown in the battle for Baghdad, I fear the evidence is that that battle is already lost. What Shiites will willingly disarm after today? And if they don't neither will the Sunni Arabs. The armed faction fighting will go on. The US appears powerless.
posted by Juan Cole @ 8/20/2006 09:56:00 AM
|
Facebook
11 Comments:
Sami Moubayed, a Syrian political analyst, reaches the same conclusion in the Asia Times: "The United States stands in a helpless situation."
Even GOP Senator Chuck Hagel thinks the USA is powerless in Iraq now:
"We've got a very unstable Middle East, I think the most unstable Middle East we've seen since 1948, and you can measure that any way you want. The fact is the future of Iraq will be determined by the Iraqi people, just like it was in Vietnam. The answer, in my opinion, is not to just keep feeding more American troops into it"...
"We, in fact, are in probably in a low-grade, perhaps very defined civil war. You've got corruption, everywhere, as bad as it's ever been. You've got uncontrolables that we can't control, we can't deal with. Iran probably has more influence in Iraq than we do...".
Juan,
You said: " US losing Battle of Baghdad"
In your comment you mention that growing sectarian violence as an indicator that US is losing. What if US wants the sectarian violence. It seems to me that the new neocon strategy is that to encourage civil war. They seem to think with an strong military presence in Baghdad they can control civil war, and take advantage of it.
Isn't that what Israel was hoping in Lebanon?
We know even after destroying many of the Sunni cities (e.g. Fallujah, Ramadi..)the ground troops in Iraq haven't been able to achieve much, we also know that Bush administration is not serious about any rebuilding effort in Iraq. Isn't the only other option to start a civil war, count on your military superiority to keep your head above water while the other groups destroy each other?
It seems to me you would have a better explanation of the events if you make assumption that Bush administration has decided that it can use a civil war to its advantage.
Of course, if the disorder continues, it justifies permanent US bases in Iraq.
>The armed faction fighting will go on.<
Just when everyone else is starting to admit it's a civil war, you start using a phrase that makes it sound like some sort of Extreme Sports event?
To agree with Daryoush and maybe go further:
If the US had to choose between a stable Iraq that actively opposes US regional priorities or a civil war it seems obvious to me that the US would choose civil war.
Whether they could have at the time or not, the US did not install Chalabi as dictator of Iraq. (I think there is a good chance that would have failed though so not trying was the right move.)
After that decision was made, it has been inevitable and predictable that any democracy in Iraq would not be amenable to US interests.
Then "miraculously" a civil war breaks out. The US blames Iran, but Iran would love a stable Iraqi ally. Cash and goods could flow directly from Iran through Iraq to Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to increase or buy Iranian influence in all of those countries.
I've read predictions that an independent Iraq would one day develop a rivalry with Iran. More of a rivalry than Syria? Iran does not need a satellite. Just friendly enough to wave trucks through and allow planes to fly over. It is certain to get that from a 60% Shiite democracy with only one mainstream Shiite neighbor.
I think it is clear that civil war is better for US interests than stability in Iraq.
Maybe it still is all accidental. I can't imagine why the US would try its hardest to prevent something that is in the US strategic interest.
Maybe the US is just really poor at strategic thinking. Maybe.
"I fear the evidence is that that battle is already lost. What Shiites will willingly disarm after today? And if they don't neither will the Sunni Arabs. The armed faction fighting will go on. The US appears powerless."
And of course Fearless Leader wants to bomb Iran. Something needs to be done about this horrible situation. Something needs to be done right now. We need an enormously chaotic response, uncontrolled civic participation,an event of stupendously meaningless action.
[Animal House mode on]
To-ga! To-ga! To-ga!
[Animal House mode off]
Naturally, as with everything this administration does, satire fails by comparison. How many Road Trips to Baghdad as W taken?
I digresss.
We need to develop a new board game. Call it anti-Boardwalk or perhaps, The Greatest Flying ClusterFuck Ever!
Proceeds go to Lebanese, Palestinian and Iraqi victims of war.
It works like this. Players start with hotels on all their propertries and all railroads are owned, too. Cards are from two piles, either "Things Rumsfeld has said and done" or "Things W Believes." As you might guess, as the game the progress, players lose property, there are no "get out of Guantanamo free" cards, and the game ends when all our civil rights have been forfeited.
Oh yes, the Banker is called "Osama."
What kind of "throes" are these? Ask the Dick.
I hate to say it but if there is some intentionality here it may be to allow the only tactic that is likely to succeed in the face of a determined insurgency - local death squads.
There has been a lot of chatter recently about the "El Salvador" option going around and, come to think about it, the guys in charge now where in charge some 30 years ago.
Go figure - the definition of insanity and all that.
The American military occupation of Iraq, like the American military occupation of South Vietnam can only prolong and exacerbate the interregnum of violence. It can only delay the point in time when one "faction" or another in the civil war wins. And since the current government of the United States cannot arbitrarily declare itself the "winner" of Iraq, it does not want to withdraw and allow someone else to straighten out the mess it has created. That would not make the American government look too good in the eyes of American voters whom that very same government has duped, defrauded, and dishonored.
reference to the comments by Mr. Daryoush
i hope Prof. Cole will certainly give his informed comment on this.
i can said definitely about Pakistan, and with almost surety about the south asia in general that the majority here, whose source of info is restricted to the local newspapers or news media, have strong opinion that whatever is going on iraq is a US conspiracy. they don't have strong arguments for this, and there isn't a culture of such discussions either, but this is what the general perception is.The reasons of this feeling, as far as i can guess, are:
1. general hostility people have about US for all it is doing in the world in general and with the muslims in particular.
2. majority, which do not have extremist religious feelings, can't digest that salafi extremists can kill shi'ites, or they aren't willing to admit (though they have been seeing the same in their own country for years .... even convictions from courts).
3. about possibility of baathist's behind the iraq's situation, none has any idea of their abilities and aims.
this leaves the US conpiracy factor alone to blame at.
My personal opinion is that by now, marje'a (Sistani and fellows) in iraq is not for the US conspiracy. they still beleive that it is a combination of salafis and baathists. let's see when their opinion changes and that probably will be the end of occupation, not surely the end of sufferings of iraqis.
Post a Comment
<< Home