Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Sunday, October 15, 2006

Over 90 Dead in Civil War Violence
Shiite Militiamen Kill 27 Sunnis at Balad


Two more US troops were announced killed on Saturday.

Enraged by the kidnapping and killing of 17 Shiite farm workers at Dhuluiyah by Sunni Arab guerrillas, Shiite militiamen came up to nearby Balad (a Shiite city with a Sunni minority near Dhuluiyah) and massacred the Sunnis. Some 27 corpses had been brought to the hospital by the time Sunday's WaPo had been put to bed.

Aljazeera early Sunday morning is reporting that the people of Dhuluiyah are defending themselves from invading militiamen. It appears that the Shiite militias marched on Dhuluiyah after their massacre of Sunnis at Balad. WaPo reported that the former had been arming themselves and preparing for such an attack.

This sort of open militia violence between cities such as Dhuluiyah and Balad was the sort of thing I was afraid would happen if the US withdrew precipitately. If, however, 141,000 US troops are actually in the country near to these events and they cannot stop company-sized attacks, then they really should depart. Their presence is causing a lot of resentment and violence to begin with, and if it isn't offset by effective action to stop militia reprisal killings, it is a net negative.


Al-Sharq al-Awsat reports that
Iraqi authorities announced the deaths of 30 more persons in political violence around the country by late afternoon Saturday. Some 8 of them died in a suicide bombing at a market in al-Qaim, on the border with Syria. In addition, patrols discovered 25 cadavers in Baghdad, bearing the evidence of having been tortured. 7 bodies were found in other cities.

In south Baghdad, gunmen killed a family of 10 in the al-Sayfiyah district. 5 women and 3 children were among the dead.

In a village south of Baqubah, 7 persons were killed in a firefight between gunmen and security forces. Police say 6 of those killed were guerrillas. The 7th was a woman. In Baqubah itself, guerrillas killed 2 persons.

Also in Baqubah, police found 3 corpses. In Suwayrah, 4 headless bodies were found.

A former director of legal affairs in Maysan was kidnapped and killed by gunmen. A drive-by shooting in Diwaniyah killed a teacher. In Samarra, gunmen shot a shopkeeper.

In Nasiriyah police claimed to have captured 38 persons specializing in abducting women, one of whom is also accused of laying roadside bombs against British patrols.

Reuters reports further political violence.

Clashes between guerrillas and police in Kirkuk left two guerrillas dead.

Borzou Daragahi of the LA Times profiles an Iraqi professional charged with plugging the holes in Iraqi dams, whose life has been made a mess by the situation produced by the US occupation, and who relaxes by watching Dr. Phil with Arabic subtitles.

The US commitment to rebuilding Iraq has faltered, and many projects have been left unfinished. As the American contractors leave, the Iraqis seem likely to have trouble keeping up the repairs. The $18 bn. Congress appropriated for this purpose seems likely to end up having had little effect, in the face massive guerrilla sabotage and insecurity.

With regard to the controversy over the remarks of the top British general about the need to get British troops out of Iraq, where they are probably provoking more problems than solving them, an informed reader wrote me on Friday:


'

A BBC reporter in Baghdad said on the Today programme this morning that 1) Donnat's bombshell reflects the view of the senior British officers in Iraq; and 2) were it purely a British decision, purely a military decision the Brits would have got out a long time ago.

So why haven't they? Again, in the phrasing on the Today programme this morning, that "would leave the Americans without their wing man".

Blair was up in Scotland last night concerning himself with the Northern Ireland intransigencies. So much for his stiff brandy and chance to put his feet up. Radio 4's political reporter Nick Robinson said on the Today programme that the government was thrown into such a tizzy by the Dannat bombshell that the hastily arranged [damage limitation] teleconference went on late into the night...and that - and this may be the most important point of all - "the Americans wanted to take part in the teleconference but had to be dissauded from doing so."

Now, think this one through. There is no question at all that the Brits would have contacted the White House to tell them that they were going to have a late night, emergency teleconference. It will have been the other way around. The Bush operation will have jumped down Blair's throat about this - "what's all this shit about, what are you going to do about it?" Wetting himself, Blair would have squeaked out something about his "teleconference"...the Americans would have tried to "kick that door in", as in "we're gonna take part in that teleconference"...and somehow, it'll be a first, needless to say, Blair found the cojones to say no to them. "Dissauded them".

What also needs to be highlighted is Donnat's use of that word "break". In the sense that the British army is so overstretched that it is in danger of breaking. The BBC report said - and I'm quoting - what was in question was "the survival of the British army if it stays too long in Iraq".

As the Today programme said shortly after 8 am, in its interview with the Lib Dems leader, the bombshell "goes right to the heart of the mission". The Lib Dems leader, needless to say, hit that one out of the park: "exactly, on every count: the circumstances in which it began, the preparations not made for the aftermath, and the fact that we are today very much part of the problem." Game. Set. Match.

Update. In the News at One the General is now saying that he and the Prime Minster are in full agreement. In other words, he's been got to. But the damage has already been done. No way they're going to be able to spin this one . . . the levee's been breached. Disastrously so. '

5 Comments:

At 9:46 AM, Blogger wardog100 said...

Remember, not so long ago Juan thought that American troops might do some good in Iraq. Now he is beginning to get the idea that they are there to create a new right wing empire by means of "creative destruction".

 
At 11:16 AM, Blogger JHM said...

Are American Citizens Safe In Neo-Iraqi Courts? Two Cases In Point

EXHIBIT A

A story called "Lawyers Seek to Free U.S. Citizen Held in Iraq" in this morning's New York Times begins

An American citizen who was tried in an Iraqi court on charges that he had assisted in the kidnapping of three Romanian journalists last year has been sentenced to death, along with five Iraqi co-defendants, a spokesman for the United States Embassy in Baghdad said Saturday. The spokesman, Lou Fintor, did not identify the American by name, but according to officials in Baghdad and his own legal team, he is Mohammed Munaf, 53.

The Crawfordite position on this case is as follows:

Because Mr. Munaf is a United States citizen, Mr. Hafetz and his other lawyers have asked Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the United States District Court here to order the military to maintain custody and not give him to the Iraqi criminal court. In papers filed with the court, Mr. Hafetz said that United States military officials had intervened with the Iraqi judge and insisted that Mr. Munaf be convicted and sentenced to death.
Earlier, the Justice Department said that Judge Lamberth should not intervene in the case for several reasons. The department said that Mr. Munaf’s claims that he could face torture and physical harm if transferred to Iraqi custody were only speculative and based on news reports of abuse in the government’s prison system. The Justice Department also argued that Mr. Munaf was not actually in United States custody but was being held by a multinational force that was helping the Iraqi government in detention operations. A judge in another case rejected an argument by the department that an American was being held by a multinational force.


At the moment Mr. Munaf is being held by the American military at Camp Cropper near the Baghdad International Airport.



EXHIBIT B

The Beirut Daily Star mentioned the other case in an editorial (probably by M. Rami Khouri) on Thursday

The most recent example of Iraqi irrelevance in the eyes of US officials occurred on Wednesday, when US troops whisked away former Iraqi Electricity Minister Ayham al-Samarraie after a Baghdad court sentenced him to two years in jail for misusing public money. Samarrai, a US citizen who served in the first post-war interim government of Iyad Allawi, faces charges of managerial and financial corruption in five other cases apart from the one in which he has already been tried and convicted. But US officials have chosen to ignore the sovereign decision of the Iraqi judiciary.

Professor Cole himself cited an article in Al-Sharq al-Awsat which was about two unconnected subjects. JC was interested in "the Iraqi cabinet has demanded that Iraqi security forces be given a bigger role in security operations, and that that of the multinational forces be reduced", but the other item intermixed was about M. al-Samarrá’í. If you'll pardon my schoolboy Arabic,

Concerning the case of Ayham al-Samarrá'í, former electricity minister, and the ruling issued by an Iraqi court specializing in charges about wasting public money and financial corruptionin with reference to him , [Green Zone spokesman] al-Dabbágh said "The American embassy at Baghdad stated emphatically that it respects Iraqi jurisdiction and respects the control of the Iraqi government over its judicial authority. Violation of any aspect of this country's sovereignty is not going to happen. That would be absolutely impermissible. The Iraqi judiciary decides independently."

Al-Dabbágh went on to say "At present Samarrá'í has American nationality and therefore he is an American citizen, so the American embassy has a right to make sure he stays alive until he is transferred into whatever imprisonment he shall be sentenced to." He added "There is not the slightest indication that 'the others' -- he meant the Americans -- are in disagreement with the Iraqi government," emphasizing that al-Samarrá'í is now in the custody of Iraqi police. He will be handed over to the appointed agency, which is the justice ministry, so that in a short time the prison sentence [already] against him will be excuted; it is set at two years.


Presumably that means in the technical or legal "custody of Iraqi police," for it seems clear that the US military detains the man physically. But God knows best.

 
At 12:19 PM, Blogger MonsieurGonzo said...

Iraqis Call for Five-Man Junta : “Dr. Saleh al-Mutlak, a prominent Sunni politician, travelled to Arab capitals last week seeking support for the replacement of the present government with a group of five strongmen who would impose martial law and either dissolve parliament or halt its participation in day-to-day government... Mutlak, who leads the Iraqi National Dialogue Front, the fifth largest political group in the national assembly, vowed to press ahead with his plans... for the formation of a hardline "government of national salvation."

“We think Iraq is now in a tragic state,” he said. “Maliki must step down. He has done nothing up to now. Hundreds of Iraqis are being killed almost daily and thousands are being removed from their homes in sectarian purges, and he takes no action.”

The main focus of a new regime, Mutlak said, would be to bring security back to Iraq by “cleaning out” the ministries of defence and the interior, widely seen as having been infiltrated by sectarian militias. He said he had the support of four other parties including al-Fadila, a Shi’ite party based in Basra.

 
At 2:31 PM, Blogger almustashriq said...

Tony Blair's on his way out, just a matter of time. And the British are too. In the meantime the civil war rages on, and casualties mount. Never mind the Iraqi losses, it seems not to matter to the American public. But American losses, that's another story. It's jumped to 3.56 a day with no sign of tapering off. Which raises a point; is it Ramadan that leads to the higher losses? Every American general chimes in with that line, as if to reassure the public that all will be well after the fasting is over. What? People are more willing to fight for their country simply because they're hungry? Dying in Ramadan increases the likelihood that one will join the houris? I haven't analysed the numbers precisely, but I'd bet the increase is simply due to the focus on Baghdad - casualties as before in Anbar, increase in Baghdad. And it looks like we're staying in Baghdad for the duration. Something's got to give.

 
At 7:28 AM, Blogger AlsoBobFromCT said...

If the Iran nuclear standoff is mishandled and Bush ends up attacking, Iranian troops presumably would fall on the British forces around Basra. Does the British commander see this coming?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home