US Military Numbers brought into Question
40 Dead in Saturday Violence
Al-Hakim Demans 8-Province Region
The McClatchy News Service has cast doubt on the numbers of killed in Baghdad for August as announced by the US military. The report finds that the "count" of declining "murders" in Baghdad for August had been intended to exclude victims of suicide bombings and mortar attacks!
Some may conclude that since the US miltiary is not making any real progress in stopping the civil war, they have now begun attempting to manipulate the numbers.
If the allegation is true, it is a further detraction from the credibility of the Pentagon in Iraq. Since it would be much better for the US war effort if what the Department of Defense said about things was generally found to be true and credible, this development is actually quite sinister.
The murders the Pentagon did report, for July, were increasingly cold-blooded political executions.
The LA Times gives more bad news about death statistics in Baghdad:
' One of the most reliable barometers of the bloodshed here has been the monthly numbers from the Baghdad morgue, where coffins strapped to car roofs arrive hourly, and residents trying to identify loved ones look through gruesome autopsy photos.
Just last week, health officials unveiled a change in morgue policy: All requests for statistics henceforth would be routed through the Health Ministry. Morgue officials who previously provided details have abruptly "retired" or left the country.
Iraqis worry about a sinister turn. Al-Sadr loyalists head the ministry. In effect, then, al-Sadr controls an agency in charge of putting out accurate information on killings reportedly committed by his own gunmen.
Even as information sources have been squeezed, Iraqi authorities have cracked down on the media, threatening to close newspapers and TV stations whose reporting falls afoul of the government line. Last week, the Iraqi government closed the widely watched, U.S.-style satellite network station Al-Arabiya for a month, dispatching police to the network's Baghdad offices. The Shiite government charged that the station, based in Sunni-dominated United Arab Emirates, had aired "sectarian" reports. '
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki will visit Iran on Monday. His Islamic Da'wa Party was hosted in Tehran during the Saddam years, when being a member was a capital crime, and some branches of the party have good relations with the clerics that rule Iran. Al-Maliki's predecessor, Ibrahim Jaafari, received a very warm welcome in Iran during his visit of early summer, 2005, and at that time Tehran pledged $1 bn. in foreign aid and help with refining Iraqi petroleum.
There are rumors that Iran was behind the closing of al-Arabiyah offices in Baghdad.
The most pro-Iranian politician in Iraq, Shiite cleric Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, is the titular leader of the United Iraqi Alliance, the largest bloc in parliament. He issued a communique Saturday underlining two main points. First, national reconciliation could not include forgiveness for Baathists. Second, it is illogical to allow the Kurds to have a provincial confederacy but to deny it to other groups. Al-Hakim is seeking a huge 8-province union that would have its own parliament, prime minister, and security forces, but would owe some sort of vague, light loyalty to Baghdad, to which it would cede a few duties such as foreign policy. The Shiite confederacy would also have a special claim on all new oil and gas finds in the south, which is probably rich in such commodities.
Al-Sharq al-Awsat reports [Ar.] al-Hakim demanded a superprovince stretching from Kut to Basra, encompassing 8 provinces. He said this arrangement constitutes "a guarantee that there will be no return to the dictatorship."
Adnan Pachachi, an old time Sunni Arab nationalist and member of parliament in the National Iraqi List, condemned the plan as "inappropriate to the present circumstances." Salih Mutlak, leader of 11 secular Sunni MPs in parliament, warned that "insisting on achieving this confederacy means civil war." Adnan Dulaimi, a leader of the religious Sunnis in the Iraqi Accord Front (44 seats) said that "there is no justification for it save sectarianism."
Al-Hakim spoke on the occasion of the birthday of the Twelfth Imam, saying, "Whoever accepts the Kurdistan Region must accept the Region of the Middle Euphrates and the South, and that of Baghdad, and other regions . . . Federalism is a demand of the masses that we strongly support, for it is a guarantee that there will be no return to the dictatorship and everyone will enjoy this right. Federalism leads to stability in Iraq, and is the hope of Iraqis . . . The example of federalism in Kurdistan, which is witnessing a big renaissance, is a proof of the success of this form of government."
[Iraqis do not mean just "federalism" when they use the word, but rather the erection of provincial confederacies where you take several provinces and make a superprovince with its own parliament and prime minister.]
Al-Hakim continued, "Reconciliation has become necessary, but its signposts must be known. It must not become a bridgehead for the return of killers [i.e. Baathists] to Iraq."
Pachachi said that unlike the Kurds,w ho had had their own Region for a decade and a half, the Shiites in the south had no experience in administering themselves. He warned that a federal region "like the region of Kurdistan would mean that they would have armed forces and foreign relations and control over petroleum resources, and that means the partition of Iraq into weak statelets that will be threats from large, powerful neighboring states. He said it would be a matter of great regret "if a great and powerful country such as Iraq should become weak statelets when the age of the modern state is about a century. It has lived through a distinguished experience of national unity. We see today how Europe is uniting to become a single entity, while a country such as Iraq is dividing up. It is a shame, and utterly regrettable."
Al-Hakim is among the more powerful politicians in Iraq. He has become among the more pernicious, as well. You'll never get social peace as long as the ex-Baathists are discriminated against so badly. And Iraq will not survive as a country if the Shiite super-province is created-- it is just too overwhelming to any central government to have a rival prime minister in charge of half of its provinces.
Reuters reports at least 40 dead in civil war violence on Saturday, with 14 bodies found in Mahmudiyah, a mixed Sunni-Shiite area south of Baghdad, and another 16 in Baghdad itself. There were in addition numerous bombings, mortar strikes and shootings all over the country, including Baghdad and Kirkuk, as well as a firefight in Samarra.
The Sunni tribes of Fallujah are saying that a recognition of the Resistance [Ar.] is a prerequisite to their joining any process of national reconciliation.
Rupert Murdoch's hyping of the imaginary Iraq-al-Qaeda connection: David Cole once caught Bill O'Reilly in the act.
The Independent estimates that "the War on Terror" has cost over 60,000 lives. The bulk of the deaths have been in Iraq.
Joseph Nye argues that a combination of hard and soft power is necessary to win the war on terror, and that Bush erred in resorting to main force as his primary tool.

|
Facebook




11 Comments:
Just so i have this right. Juan admits regularly that the brutal insurgency to the brutal occupation is made up in large part of baathists, as opposed to foreign fighters.
He then criticises al Hakim for discriminating against the baathists 'so badly'! Hakim and his militias are the only thing stopping a wholesale slaughter of the shias.
Your inconsistency is astounding. The general shia population have been subjected to an unbearable reign of terror and cant live with it anymore. All they want is to live in peace, and if that means putting a border between them and the sunnis then so be it. No one made the sunnis harbour zarqawi and the other excommunicators, and now it looks like they are gonna lose out on all the loot.
by the way al arabiyah and al jazeera are notorious for their sectarian coverage of the Iraq war. When sunnis die they say 'sunnis killed by shia death squads' but when shias die they say 'iraqis killed in blasts'. And that rumour (which is all it is) that Iran had something to do with it is completely baseless.
Tortured screams ring out as Iraqis take over Abu Ghraib : "Staff at the jail say the Iraqi authorities have moved dozens of terrorist suspects into Abu Ghraib from the controversial Interior Ministry detention centre in Jadriyah, where United States troops last year discovered 169 prisoners who had been tortured and starved.
An independent witness who went into Abu Ghraib this week told The Sunday Telegraph that screams were coming from the cell blocks housing the 'terrorist suspects.'
Prisoners released from the jail this week spoke of routine torture ...and on Wednesday, 27 prisoners were hanged in the first mass execution since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime."
:: Access to the part of the prison containing terrorism suspects was denied, but from that block came the sound of screaming. The screaming continued for a long time.
"I am sure someone was being beaten, they were screaming like they were being hit," the witness reported. "I felt scared, I was asking what was happening in the 'terrorist' section.
"I heard shouting, like someone had a hot iron on their body; screams. The officer said they were just screaming by themselves. I was hearing the screams throughout the visit."
The witness said that even in the 'thieves' section prisoners were being treated badly. "Someone was shouting 'Please help us...' "
_
For God's sake, Americans: DO SOMETHING : STOP THIS MADNESS !
About the confederation and the super province, I don't think enough is made of the Shiite comparisons to Kurdistan. The Shiites are asking for nearly the exact thing that is being given to the Kurds.
Secondly, I continue to hold that Iran does not need or prefer a divided Iraq to a united one. A 60% majority Iraq that asks the US to leave if the US does what is asked fulfills all of Iran's strategic fantasies.
Iran would have a legitimate, democratic member of the anti-Israel coalition as an example for bringing Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia into that coalition. It would have road access to Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. It would have overflight rights. It would have a long porous border with a country that would hesitate before enforcing even UN mandated sanctions and that would ignore voluntary sanctions and that is sanction-proof itself.
My suspicion is that Southern Iraqis have done the math and decided that if Iraq will break up anyway, then they are better off themselves taking a piece rather than remaining with the poor Sunni section. I don't see this position as proof of Iranian influence any more than Kurdish independence is caused by US influence.
I'm sure al-Hakim is a hard liner on deBaathification I think he has reasons outside of Iran. But a more important obstacle to reconciliation is the US refusal to leave. Sistani asked for a withdrawal timetable and was rebuked by Khalizad's pressure on Maliki. Sistani is leaving politics but Sistani's support was what prevented the perception of the the government as collaborators with the occupiers. Sistani is now retracting that to the detriment of the government's prospects.
Another obstacle is the Maliki was willing to offer amnesty and forgiveness to Sunnis who say they only fought Americans. The US veto of that while good for US pride, was terrible for Iraq's prospects for reconciliation.
Sunnis and Shiites do not need the United States to reconcile. The United States legitimizes fringe extreme groups on both sides that make the situation worse. If the US was willing to leave, which it is not, then Parliament could probably vote for a reconciliation and deBaathification plan that would be acceptable to the Sunnis. Sadr would favor a more moderate plan than Hakim, as would the Sunnis and probably the Kurds if the US had left or was leaving.
But since the US is not willing to leave, it doesn't make much sense to discuss a post-US order. The resistance and militias will insist on remaining armed to counter the Americans and armed parties on both sides run by extremists will, as a side effect, also lead to Iraqis fighting each other.
Local morning news is reporting that Sunnis boycotted the Parliamentary debate on the creation of a Shiite SuperRegion. Tensions are running so high that the Government of National Unity banned political meetings
I have read that the mortuary workers in Baghdad are overwhelmed by the number of bodies they have to care for every day and the city has had to build new mortuaries to handle the flood of the dead. I don't think this is the type of construction Baghdad wanted, even though they need it.
With such monstrous numbers, how can people handle it day after day without going crazy? Maybe the lucky ones have just gone numb.
The game is simple with most of the articles: change and shift the meanings of events and words/terms. Define the situation before someone-else does. The Greek General Thucyides warned that language is one of the first signs that the body-politic is unwell, and that a minority have hijacked the military for their own narrow-aims.
http://chickasawpicklesmell.blogspot.com/
A bit off subject but nonetheless a good example of the consistancy of the Bush administration's reverse Mida Touch, i.e. everything it touches turns into fecal matter of one sort or another.
CDC Moralezpa
President Bush has told us that the "War Against Terror" will be a long war. His strategy is one part military, one part democracy. The question the Bush Administration has not answered is how will democracy tame a traditional, historic Islam which seeks to dominate the world? Read this article here: http://www.saneworks.us/Is-Democracy-the-Answer-to-Islam-article-176-1.htm
We have no chances of stopping the war since it is not our war we indulged with in the first place. How many more American soldiers' lives are at risk? When will our government ever realised that no matter how many lives we try to gamble in Iraq is not worth it. Or is it? Worth it?
It seems the point needs to be made over and over that the war is all about OIL not Terrorism or Democracy. Bush et al don't give a damn about the troops (check GOP bills forwarded and voting behavior regarding the VA and veteren's benefits) or about the international image of the USA--they adopted the motto: We don't care if they hate so long as they fear us. Remember chrissy2006 that it was already deemed "worthy" that our policy toward Iraq killed hundreds of thousands even before Bush was selected. Indeed, Cheney has yet to kill as many as Clinton in Iraq.
As for the future political boundaries in Mesopotamia, I tend to be a bit Wilsonian and defer to self-determination: Kurdistan; Shia Babylon, allied with Iran; and Baghdad/Palestine--a Sunni state (including Jordan, West Bank, Gaza) that becomes the "second" state to Israel. I even think the Saudis would accept this. The Israelis won't accept anything, but they don't control the situation. I would say that Egypt, Turkey, and Saudi need to reach some sort of conclusive arrangement of this sort soon; otherwise, they will eventually be overthrown. (In this regard, Pakistan is worth watching closely as the Taliban intensify.)
Now if such a territorial adjustment were made by the habitants participating in a democratiic process of self-determination--a process they have never had since the desolution of the Ottoman Empire--the former subjects could overthrow Sykes-Picot. And just where would that leave the USA?
We can actually have relevent insightful discourse on a site! (But I already knew this). We (US) already know three (3) important facts about the ME:
1) We (US) had a "NO-FLY-ZONE" over two main parts (North/Kurds and South/Marsh-Shiite) of Iraq for over 14 yrs; mostly stable, "independent" areas. Why the increasing violence and animosities in these areas and what is/are the wider implications?2) We (US) ordinary folks rarely "witness"(MEDIA) any "positive" personal,daily- life, Iraqi perspective or what they percieve as the future for their country. Probably because there are very few or insignificant cases, otherwise we would have already "witnessed" them. We (US) need this site to present, in the "Colenesque" and collabarative way, recurrent Iraqi perspectives of personal struggles and HOPE. 3) We ( Cole siters) understand that the best objective arguments about the ME can be found here.
Post a Comment
<< Home