Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Friday, November 24, 2006

233 Dead in Civil War Carnage
Health Ministry Besieged
3,000 Widows Created Each Month


So as Thursday began, Sunni Arab guerrillas surrounded and attacked the Ministry of Health, which is dominated by followers of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. The guerrillas trapped 2,000 employees in the compound and threatened to kill any who came outside. They also subjected the building to mortar fire. The ministry guards, who are probably Mahdi Army, kept them at bay but lost 7 men doing it. It took US and Iraqi forces 2 hours to respond, and the guerrillas were only finally dispersed by helicopter gunships. The siege probably came in revenge for the Mahdi Army attack on the Sunni-run Ministry of Higher Education two weeks ago.

Then US troops searching for a kidnapped US soldier in Sadr City were a approached by van traveling at a high speed, which did not slow as they instructed it. They shot up the van, killing 4 civilians and creating some unhappy families in Sadr City; then this incident was overshadowed by several big attacks.

Steven R. Hurst of the Associated Press reported that the death toll in the string of car bombings targetting Sadr City and other Shiite neighborhoods on Thursday has risen to 161, with 257 wounded. Altogether, he says, "Counting those killed in Sadr City, at least 233 people died or were found dead across Iraq on Thursday." Oh, my. Since Iraq is 11 times smaller in population than the US, that would be like the deaths of 2,563 Americans. On September 11, on the order of 2,783 Americans were killed, and several hundred of other nationalities.*

Armed Shiites came into the streets amid the charred and bloody corpses, says al-Hayat, cursing Sunni Muslims and firing their automatic weapons in the air in frustration and rage. They were taking mortar fire. The footage from Sadr City on Aljazeera looked like the seventh level of hell, with vehicles burning, the air thick with smoke, and mortar shells and small arms fire boiling in the background.

KarbalaNews.net reports in Arabic that after the car bombs were detonated in Sadr City, the Sunni Arab guerrillas set up checkpoints and attacked ambulences and rescue crews, stopping further ambulances from getting through. The Sunni Arab guerrillas also surrounded hospitals near to Sadr City and prevented cars bearing the wounded from getting through, firing on them.

The Iraqi government imposed a curfew on Baghdad and closed the Baghdad and Basra airports, cutting the country off from the outside worlds. Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that Basra ports were also closed "until further notice."

How bad the situation is in Iraq is suggested by this email I just got from a professional who used to be in Iraq but now is in a nearby country:


' It is desperate in Iraq, worse then ever and there is no end in sight. I had lunch with [a former high ranking medical educator in Iraq] two days ago. [He]noted that Iraq no longer has neuro-surgeons, no cardiac surgeons, few pediatric doctors - they are all gone, killed or fled to neighboring countries like him. He was given seven days to get out or be killed. He is one of the lucky ones. He and his family have an opportunity for a new life in the US. But what about all the others. Where are they to go?

Another friend, a Sunni sheikh of the Shammar tribe noted to me that thousands of former officers are prepared to assault the G[reen] Z[one]. It is no longer a matter of can they do it, they are only mulling over the timing. The breach of the Green Zone security the other day was a test of their ability to get in, and not a real attempt at a coup, though it is reported as such. Every Iraqi I talk to says unambiguously that the resistance attached to the former regime would take out the Shiite militias with barely a fight, but that the resistance will not commit wholesale revenge against the Shiite population. They just want to get rid of the "carpet baggers" from Iran. '


Muqtada al-Sadr, the young Shiite nationalist cleric, is said to be afraid that he cannot constrain his Mahdi Army militiamen from taking revenge on the Sunni Arab community for Thursday's mass slaugher.

AP reports:

' In a TV statement read by an aide, al-Sadr urged unity among his followers to end the U.S. ``occupation'' that he said is causing Iraq's strife. Al-Sadr said the attacks coincided with the seventh anniversary of the assassination of his father, Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr, a revered Shia religious leader. The anniversary reckoning was by the Islamic calendar. ``Had the late al-Sadr been among you he would have said preserve your unity,'' the statement said. ``Don't carry out any act before you ask the Hawza (Shia seminary in Najaf). Be the ones who are unjustly treated and not the ones who treat others unjustly.''

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the pre-eminent Shia religious figure in Iraq, condemned the bombings and issued condolences to family members of those who were killed. He called for self-control among his followers. '


In fact, Shiite guerrillas went ahead and took some revenge on Thursday, lobbing mortar shells at the HQ of the hardline Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars as well as at the mosque and shrine of Imam Abu Hanifa, which they damaged. Most Turks, Pakistanis, Indian Muslims, and many Lebanese and Syrian and Iraqi Sunnis follow the Hanafi legal rite founded by Abu Hanifa. His is an important shrine, an attack on which will inevitably produce a Sunni backlash of some severity.

Harith al-Dhari, a leader of the Association of Muslim Scholars [Sunni revivalist clerics], told al-Sharq al-Awsat that he had not sought out Arab states as mediators between himself and the Iraqi government. Baghdad issued a warrant last week for his interrogation on suspicion of instigating terrorism. The Arab League has intervened on his behalf. He is visiting Egypt for a conference but resides in Jordan and has not been taken into custody. In Thursday's interview, al-Dhari insisted that he would travel back to Iraq at a time of his choosing, undeterred by the warrant. He said that those who have taken up arms against the American occupier would not relinquish them for the sake of entering the political process. He expressed pessimism that the establishment of diplomatic relations with Syria would change the situation in Iraq.

Al-Sharq al-Awsat says that Raja' al-Khuza'i, a secular Shiite woman physician and the head of the National Council for Iraqi women, announced Thursday that Iraqi women are subjected to increasing violence and that 3,000 become widows each month. Al-Khuza'i served on the Interim Governing Council during the tenure of US proconsul Paul Bremer and had fought against the imposition of religious law on Iraq's women. Speaking in Vienna, al-Khuza'i said that a large number of female activists had been assassinated, along with large numbers of school teachers, female physicians, and woman police officers. She said the 100 new widows every day were often left with no means of supporting themselves and their children.

Ed Wong reports on sophisticated training camps in Diyala for Sunni Arab guerrillas of a Salafi or Sunni revivalist bent (they are not actually Wahhabis for the most part, i.e.-- Wahhabis predominate in Saudi Arabia). The guerrillas were able to stand and fight US troops in a pitched battle, deploying platoon-sized units.

Aljazeera reports that ex-Baathist Sunni fighters of the Awda [Return] Party have asserted control in the region near the Syrian border, driving Salafi Sunni revivalists out. Awda's paramilitary is called the Army of Muhammad even though it is secular.

---
*Corrected text; thanks to a kind reader-- see comments.

20 Comments:

At 10:14 AM, Blogger GD said...

Is it not time for the west to eat humble pies by if not freeing Saddam Hussein after striking a deal with him to at least strike a (secret) deal with the Baath by permitting his return to power ?

This is the only way it seems the over the horizon (out of sight redeployment with an oversight) strategy could work. That's is if the west is seriously interested in stopping the carnage and in the future in Iraq, which unfortunately it does not seem to be the case.

As posted sometime ago the partition talks and the continued occupation (to allow the training of future militias – cannot believe that any sane u.s. officer believe otherwise) seems to follow, since at least 1948, the will of forces that never wanted a strong and united Iraq under any colour or shape (and better if Iran is drawn in the quagmire too).

 
At 12:23 PM, Blogger PRS said...

America went in to behead the beast and headless, the minions poured out, waiting. It wasn't the U.S. that stimulated this civil war, it was Al Qaeda by their own professions and the resources of former Baathists, amongst others. Al Qaeda is winning in Iraq by causing death and horror for Iraqis of all persuasions. Seventh level of Hell is an apt description. These warriors of God walk with the Devil himself.

 
At 12:40 PM, Blogger Spin proof said...

Muqtada al-Sadr is now the highest threat to Iraq and its people, not only is he running a massive sectarian killing machine, he is asking to be allowed to run a state a within a state in order to satisfy his lust for power.

This may sound insane, but Sadr is a simple man, and for him it sounds normal: he want a monopoly on the public services ministries in Iraq as a whole to multiply his support by acting as the provider, and to be in charge of the people of Sadr city (around 10% of the population.)

The Iraqi grown-ups are hoping to manipulate him, but his lust for power can not be repressed.

He must be taken out ASAP. The Americans can do that easily but that creates bigger problems. First, they would like to turn Sadr city into rubble in the process. Second, it would look like foriegn oppression. He must be destroyed by the Iraqi forces once they get the armor they desperately need.

 
At 2:50 PM, Blogger Arnold Evans said...

Every Iraqi I talk to says unambiguously that the resistance attached to the former regime would take out the Shiite militias with barely a fight

I didn't know the militias were perceived as this weak compared to the Sunnis.

I wonder if this perception holds in Southern Iraq as well as in Baghdad.

If the Shiites do not believe they could hold off the Sunnis without the US, that puts a new light on a lot of the interactions we've seen between the Iraqi govt and the US forces.

 
At 3:03 PM, Blogger james_speaks said...

"Another friend, a Sunni sheikh of the Shammar tribe noted to me that thousands of former officers are prepared to assault the G[reen] Z[one]. It is no longer a matter of can they do it, they are only mulling over the timing."

Meanwhile, back at the ranch.....

Not to forget Wolfowitz and Feith, who planned this mess, but now deny involvement.

 
At 3:17 PM, Blogger Leila said...

Dear God in heaven, was it ever this bad on the worst day in Beirut, 1975-1990?

(Excluding the summer of 1982, of course)

 
At 4:21 PM, Blogger ent lord said...

While the American media and BBC are focused on the Iraqi slaughter, IBA and Jerusalem Post are more focused on the effect of the Gemayel assassination on Lebanon's government. The pundits and talking heads on IBA report that Syria is the moving force (with Hizbullah assistance) in the Gemayel killing because events were moving towards a conclusion on the investigation of the Harriri assassination and the trial of those accused of masterminding the bombing.
The IBA explanation is that Syria killed Gemayel in order to derail the Harirri investigation and bring down the current government and throw the country back into a civil war.
When this happens, the Syrians will then be able to move in and install their puppet Hizbullah government.
John Bolton has made recent statements supporting this point of view but it seems impossible that Syria would be able to move into Lebanon without Lebanese support and against Israeli wishes.
These killings do nothing to advance Syria's interests and greatly damages their recent attempts to be a peacebroker in the area.
My guess is the Israelis ideally want a Christian government in Lebanon propped up by the IDF or failing that, chaos and destruction so that Iran and Syria through Hizbullah will not be able to maintain a voice in a legitimate government.

 
At 6:44 PM, Blogger InplainviewMonitor said...

Sadr's next move

In the big game of ME chess, Shiite revolutionary Sadr learns fast how to deal with his counterparts, neoconservative revolution exporters. It is well known that they use to say they want Israeli style "democracy" in Iraq and routinely curse their opponents as "terrorists" and their supporters.

So, in response, Sadr produces a rhetorical outburst a la Lieberman, basically, he blames PM Maliki for "being soft on terrorist Bush" and threatens to withdraw from the Iraqi Government. Sure, this language has very little to do with the everyday interests of Sadr's supporters, but Sadr does not have much fear to lose contact with his base on these issues.

Yes, currently, there is certain recognition in the US and the UK leadership that situation is not good in Iraq, especially after the November elections of 2006. For example, just a few months ago, one could not imagine a cartoon like this in the Telegraph. In fact, it looks more like Aljazeera material while the Telegraph is well known for triumphalist columns by the neocons like Mark Steyn and Barbara Amiel. The problem is, considering the actual dynamics in Iraq, it is really too little, too late!

 
At 6:54 PM, Blogger Indigo said...

Point of information. On 9/11 there were 2,783 American deaths and 243 of other nationalities (source BBC). Please don't perpetuate President Bush's falsehood that only Americans died in those atrocities. Some of them were Brits, and one was a young man from my brother's village.

 
At 7:51 PM, Blogger The Speeding Elephant said...

Ok, I have an idea. We must end our dream of "liberating" Iraq. However since we went in there and broke things it is time to set things right. What if we raise a draft (a la Rep. Rangle) and occupy with one million plus to lock the country down security wise. Next step would be to start providing services to the population and start rebuilding the infrastructure. Then under our guarantee of security the parties could begin work toward a political solution. When things are stable (10-15 years), we would leave. As it stands now, our troops were given an impossible mission as the war dragged on after our token reconstruction elements failed. I feel bad for them.

Comments?

 
At 8:04 PM, Blogger John Koch said...

So Muqtada says all the strife is caused by the occupation? Perhaps freeing Saddam and restoring the old order would be best. Maybe the US was right to avoid occupation in 1991 and let Saddam crush the Shiites. Eh, Muqtada? But, seriously, have US forces or Sunni bombers and insurgents caused more Shia deaths? Is there a valid premise for the idea that US withdrawal would prompt Sunni and Shiite to settle peacefully? Or is this an outright fantasy? I suspect that JC's Sunni contact is right, that the neo-baathists would soon occupy Baghdad much as the North Vietnamese and Vietcong swept into Saigon in 1975. But I doubt the repression of the Shia would be merciful. Muqtada would be among the first to take flight to Iran.

 
At 9:38 PM, Blogger Camilo Wilson said...

If an attack on the Green Zone is possible, all-out war on vulnerable American supply lines cannnot be far behind. Ironically, the only potentially unifying force in Iraq today is ending the occupation. Without the humiliating American presence, competing religious forces will have a double duty to live together. As long as the occupation continues, attacking the other faction serves as a proxy for attacking the occupation.

Bush's obscene obstinacy to refuse to leave Iraq continues to create ideal conditions for disintegration. If Bush were to begin an immediate withdrawal, parties would begin realigning and negotiating for the long run. By choosing to stay longer, the parties are further emboldened and will eventually begin the process of routing what is left of our Army through attrition.

As even Kissinger recognizes, the war is not winnable -- a euphemism if we ever saw one for "lost". One way or another, America is on its way out of Iraq already. It's a choice of leaving now on our terms or leaving later on the chaotic, unpredicatble terms dictated my multiple resistances. Any half-way reasonable actor would have started withdrawing long time ago, much less invaded in the first place. With an unreasonable actor in charge, I'm not optimistic that we'll choose the lesser of the evils, and that the choice will be made for us on ignomiminious and unpredictable terms -- causing even further damage to America's credibility.

 
At 10:16 PM, Blogger copy editor said...

Wait! I thought this violence was motivated by the elections to get Democrats elected! What happened?

 
At 4:30 AM, Blogger Chris said...

"...But, seriously, have US forces or Sunni bombers and insurgents caused more Shia deaths?"

Well, according to most death surveys, US Forces are directly responsible for about 1/3 of all excess deaths. Factor in the fact that 100% of excess deaths are a result of the destabilization of Iraq through invasion as well as the fact that around 75% of all attacks by various resistance groups are targeting US Forces but inevitably causing "collateral" damage I think there's a strong case for the US and friends being the main source of Shia deaths in Iraq.

 
At 4:45 AM, Blogger Michael Murry said...

All and any comments about America's continuing military occupation of Iraq occur against a backdrop of increasing fiscal vulerabilty for the United States. To ignore this reality renders any and all prognostications about what to do or not do in Iraq irrelevant at the outset. America will leave Iraq broke and bitter because at no time during the past four years has the American government assessed fees for raising the revenue required to "fund" -- as opposed to "financing" (by "robbing the future") -- unsustainable, free-lunch, guns AND butter, Warfare Welfare or Makework Militarism -- choose whatever term or terms you prefer.

Paul Wolfowitz may have promised it all for nothing and then just walked away later saying "that's not my problem," but the devasted Iraqi and weakened American economies can not walk away from his problem as easily as he has. The piper wants payment and he wants it now.

So, personally, I don't want to hear any more proposals by deadbeat Americans about what to do or not do in Iraq unless such proposals come accompanied by (1) a cost/benefit analysis in favor of the American taxpayer, (2) a veto-proof Congressional bill raising the taxes of America's wealthiest who so very much "support" this disintegrating debacle, and (3) a long list of America's maliciously mendacious civilian/military "leaders" who perpetrated this plundering of two countries and who will forthwith lose their own jobs, incomes, pensions, benefits, and allowances until such time as these funds have alleviated at least a modicum of the suffering inflicted upon the Iraqi people by the malevolent ministrations of these misbegotten miscreants.

Leaving aside the already egregious and unnecessary loss of life, getting out of Iraq will help save the American economy and thus a good part of the world's as well. Staying in Iraq will assure massive economic losses to America as Parkinson's Law and the Peter Principle expand an undefined "mission" to fill the infinite time allotted for its "phased" non-accomplisment by the legion of civilian/military bureaucrats steadily promoted upwards to their levels of incompetence. Ultimately, the Law of Diminishing Returns brings all such hollow edifices crashing down no matter how much anyone cares if the Sunnis and Shiites can resolve the theological question of "the one true god" and whether either of them, or anyone else for that matter, "really believes" (in an anthropocentric, monotheistic way) in "he," "she," "it," or whatever. The "answer" to such a pseudo-"question" in no way justifies wrecking the present and future economic hopes of Americans and Iraqis alike many of whom have not even started to work and earned their first paycheck yet.

So, to all armchair strategists safely removed from having to actually suffer and die in the festering cesspool we have made of Iraq, I say "pay as you go" (after first paying for where you've already taken us) or "no money, no honey."

 
At 5:08 AM, Blogger Simone said...

"Every Iraqi I talk to says unambiguously that the resistance attached to the former regime would take out the Shiite militias with barely a fight, but that the resistance will not commit wholesale revenge against the Shiite population. They just want to get rid of the "carpet baggers" from Iran."

This comment is delusional at best and is just an excuse for the murder of innocent Shiite men, women and children. The Sunni militias are slaughtering the Shiite population right now. They are clearly will to kill thousands if not hundred of thousands of Shiites to keep their minority in charge of Iraq. I don't know if they can defeat the Shiite militias, maybe they can, maybe they cannot. The Israelis were also confident when they invaded Lebanon and fought against Hizbullah and the Lebanese resistance.

In any case with every death, the Sunnis are just digging their own graves. Even if it takes 100 years, the Americas will eventually have to give up their bases, the oil and leave. And when faced with the wrath of the Iraqi Shiites, Iranians and Syrians, those Sunni militias will discover that payback is indeed a bitch.

 
At 5:12 AM, Blogger sherm said...

If it is a priori that Sunni forces would quickly dispatch the Shiite forces, then one of our biggest mistakes was to go after the insurgents/guerillas/rejectionists/terrorists/sour grape Baathists with such ferocity in the early stages of the war - Sunni triangle 24/7, Fallujah, the dirty 55 on the GI playing cards, Saddam's son's etc.

We were angering a tiger we couldn't catch and kill, while empowering prey. So when we leave the angry tiger goes after the prey with a vengance. (That's about it for this metaphor.)

But we instinctively hate strength that isn't under our control, and cultivate weakness because it takes such little effort to control. These are really bad instincts. Maybe progress could be made if the Sunni/Baathist strength could be channeled into more constructive, less violent actions. A first step might be to back off a bit militarily - send a signal that we see them as part of the solution. Probably won't work any better than the several hundred thousand suggestions already out there, but its my duty to add to the growing pile of "stay the course" alternatives.

 
At 7:41 AM, Blogger artappraiser said...

Shi'ite militia burn Sunnis alive in revenge attacks
Sydney Morning Herald, Australia
November 25, 2006:

"Revenge-seeking militiamen seized six Sunnis as they left prayers and burned them alive with kerosene in a savage new twist to the brutality shaking Baghdad...."

 
At 10:11 PM, Blogger michael said...

What if we raise a draft (a la Rep. Rangle) and occupy with one million plus to lock the country down security wise. Next step would be to start providing services to the population and start rebuilding the infrastructure. Then under our guarantee of security the parties could begin work toward a political solution. When things are stable (10-15 years), we would leave. As it stands now, our troops were given an impossible mission as the war dragged on after our token reconstruction elements failed. I feel bad for them.

Comments?


Here's my comment, remember, you asked for them.

Let me see if I have this straight: Start a draft, raise 800,000 more troops (roughly), stay in Iraq 10 to 15 more years which means at least 10 to 15 more years of compulsory military service, not to mention tens of thousands more casualties, probably reaching into six figures.

On one hand, that's probably what it would take to restore Iraq. John McCain's 20,000 troops are not even a down payment to find the magic ponies.

On the other hand, a 15 year long draft and a million soldiers in Iraq for 15 years is a far, far cry - I mean light-years - from what we were sold in 2003. The American people simply aren't going to pay that price, and any politician who advocates anything like this plan - even if you reduced it by a third in all its dimensions -would instantly become radioactive.

And returning to my first point, it becomes ever clearer as I read Prof. Cole's blog and other news from Iraq, that this simply is not a conflict which can be 'won' by the US, if 'winning' is defined as ending the insurgency and restoring a measure of peace, law and order to Iraq (democracy is out the window for another generation, AFAIAC). This is all-out anarchy. It is a fight for the considerable power and resources of an oil-rich nation, and there's no shortage of people in Iraq who think that's worth fighting and killing for, no matter how bloody it gets.

How can we possibly settle a situation like that, short of wiping out entire factions? Which I'm sure is something which certain media commenters like Rush Limbaugh has advocated.

 
At 10:25 PM, Blogger michael said...

With an unreasonable actor in charge, I'm not optimistic that we'll choose the lesser of the evils, and that the choice will be made for us on ignomiminious and unpredictable terms -- causing even further damage to America's credibility.

Dear Leader has already made clear that it will be up to a future president to clean up the mess he's made. If the GOP is lucky, the Democrats will win the White House in 2008 and then the lying liars in the Right Wing Noise Machine can blame the Democrats for 'losing' Iraq because they did the sensible thing and withdrew.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home