At least 26 Dead in Kirkuk Bombings
32 Bodies Found in Baghdad
Early reports said that a massive truck bombing downtown Kirkuk killed 19 and wounded 65. With three other bombings and other acts of violence, altogether 26 were said to have been killed and nearly 100 wounded in the northern oil city on Sunday. (The death toll is likely to rise, and al-Zaman is reporting three times this rate). Kirkuk is an object of rivalry among Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen (and Sunnis and Shiites). The bombing took place near the headquarters of the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the two major Kurdish parties, which suffered damage. The Kurds are trying to annex Kirkuk province to their regional confederacy, which already groups the provinces of Irbil, Dohuk and Sulaymaniyah. Most Arabs and Turkmen reject this prospect. Kurdistan has also provoked anger among other Iraqis by refusing to fly the Iraqi national flag.
One of the bombers targeted the "Organization for Tolerance and Love" in Kirkuk, killing one woman and wounding other persons.
Al-Hayat says [Ar.] that Arab tribes in Kirkuk and its environs had renewed their calls for Saddam Hussein to be released from imprisonment as part of an over-all reconciliation program. Shaikh Abdul Rahman of the al-`Ubayd tribe said a number of Arab tribal leaders in Kirkuk had been targeted for assassination attempts, but that they were undeterred.
Another 34 bodies were found in Iraq on Sunday, 32 of them in Baghdad. They were victims of sectarian reprisal killings. The guerrilla groups battling in the capital appear to have switched to nighttime kidnappings and killings because car bombings are harder to pull off in the face of a big sweep by US and Iraqi troops. It is not clear that the death toll from the two tactics is different.
In Fallujah, a bombing and mortar strikes killed four and wounded 10.
Reuters notes some other incidents.
Stories about Sunni Arab tribes in al-Anbar province taking on the radical Muslim fundamentalists began surfacing in al-Hayat newspaper last January. I didn't find them plausible then and don't much find them plausible now. Some tribes may develop feuds with some fundamentalists, but the likelihood of it amounting to much on a province-wide scale strikes me as low. Most Sunni Arab tribes are as opposed to the US presence as the fundamentalists. And most "tribes" aren't any longer that well organized, efficient or powerful. Iraq is an urban country, where urban formations such as political parties are the leading forces. And, yes, secret cells and intelligence tradecraft are also urban.
Two armed Iraqi Sunni Arab groups threatened reprisals against Pope Benedict for his citation of a medieval Byzantine ruler's negative remarks about the Prophet Muhammad. Grandstanding.
Iraq's famed al-Mutanabbi Street, named after a great medieval poet, was once the center of bookbuying and intellectual life in Baghdad. WaPo says it is a shadow of its former self.
Veteran Middle East reporter and commentator Trudy Rubin makes impressive sense in her estimation of the dangers facing the US in Iraq and what Democrats might say about them.

|
Facebook




6 Comments:
Regarding the recommendation
Veteran Middle East reporter and commentator Trudy Rubin makes impressive sense in her estimation of the dangers facing the US in Iraq and what Democrats might say about them.
I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. In the article she identifies the crux of the problem as hard-core Sunni ex-Baathists and jihadis. She implies that more US troops (of the "right kind") would stablilize Iraq and save the "unity government."
I'm sorry but I found a few problems with her arguments: 1) US troops are also the problem (whether through bungling, racism, brutality, etc) in creating hard-liners, death, and chaos. 2) Unity Government? Does she mean the fragmented, mixed-up-with-death-squads, holed-up in the Green Zone government? 3) And what of the Shiite hard-liners? and 4) What about Kurdistan?
Trudy Rubin says "to enhance a program that is showing success, that embeds U.S. units within Iraqi units and helps them fight." Do any of these Iraqi units become self-functioning? Or do they revert to uselessness? Rubin blames Sunni neo-baathists for violence, but aren't Shia militias also a problem? How can any revision of public works or contracting matter so long as violence and graft are rife? Revise policies towards Iran? In what way?
Both parties seem to agree that the US should go on holding the finger in the dike, while hoping that some policy gimmick will eventually instill security or stability. Were the Dems to take control, failure might still ensue. The GOP would, however, blame them for "fixing" (ruining) something that was not broken. Responsiblity and blame would simply grow more foggy and visceral.
One of the things Rubin seems to be calling for is more troops to Iraq.
That, I am certain, will make things worse. I am also certain that Iraq will meltdown whenever we leave, and the longer we wait the harder and more profound the meltdown will be.
We cannot "fix" a decision that was immoral, illegal and extremely stupid, but no one was listening to me when I went around saying that (REPEATEDLY) in 2002/early 2003. And they have not listened to me for the last 3 years saying we need to get our troops out of there....
so, let me say it one more time
WE NEED TO GET OUR TROOPS OUT OF THERE NOW.
WE NEED TO STOP THIS OCCUPATION OF IRAQ.
AND WE NEED TO IMPEACH BUSH.
Of course, no one is going to listen to me now either - where is there money to be made on being sane and sensible? They will listen to people like Ricks, who cheerfully wrote down what the Cheney administation had to say to promote this war, then writes a book called FIASCO about the outcomes, which any intelligent human being could have easily predicted (but not Ricks) and goes on to make a bunch of money.
We have to make a choice: non-violence or non-existance. That is the road we are heading down. Six years from now, the idiots who ALLOWED the Cheney administration to get us into this (otherwise known as Democrats), and 'journalists' like Rubin, will be saying "we should have just left"
But it will be too late.
The story about the Sunni Arab tribesmen in Al Anbar province reads like it could be the work of the Lincoln Group or other consultants paid by the U.S. If so, they scored big passing it off on Reuters.
Appalled at the disastrous Neo-Con policies of George Bush, The Realists are chomping at the bit to clean up the mess - and not a minute too soon!
So reports the cover story of the current National Journal
Money quote:
Now 82, Waltz (Dean of the Realist School of IR)... "This government is the worst I have ever seen," he pronounced of the Bush regime. "They are explicitly anti-realist. Realists believe that if a country has a great deal of power and abuses it, there will be retribution. How long it will take, one can't say," he continued. But "these guys [in the Bush administration] don't believe that." What about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who in her earlier life, in academia, was generally associated with realist thinking? "I think she is one of the most intelligent and sensible people in this administration," Waltz allowed, "but that's not saying much."
What should America do about Iraq? "Get out!" Waltz bellowed. How? "By withdrawing troops. Bring them home. Reduce the size of the Army. What's wrong with that?"
A lengthy article and well worth the time.
A new/old foreign policy elite. Used to be mostly Republican but now nearly all Democrat
I guess it's in our American genes. We are holding out for the "Home Run" "Silver Bullet" solution. We don't have the patience for fixing one little broken piece of our hostile, brutal occupation at a time. But that's the only success that will ever be available to us, so we ought to grab it.
Lincoln Group. Yeah, that could be their work. But this story is also reminiscent of the parley General Casey held with the leaders of the resistance in ar-Ramadi last November. He offered to replace US troops with Kurds and Shi'a units under his control, if they would lay down their arms. Would they prefer occupation by their ethnic enemies instead ?
Of course not. He cursed them and threatened that ar-Ramadi would end up like al-Faloojah, mostly rubble.
This story, if not another hoax, could be a sign that these leaders of the resistance are trying to break through the Republican lock-down on real news coming out of the al-Anbar. Maybe they naively think that some well-intentioned US Senators will intercede on their behalf, forcing the Occupation and the Ambassador running it to take a chance for peace. Naive. Who in the administration wants peace or resolution ?
This is a cry for help, if its true. The authentic leaders of this region want the occupation authority to grant them the right of self-governance. As if the natives could handle freedom or democracy ! Not on President Bush's watch. To the administration, Iraqi freedom means freedom to sell of the state oil enterprise, and democracy means one occupation commander, one vote.
Post a Comment
<< Home