Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Thursday, December 21, 2006

76 Bodies found in Baghdad, Dozens More Killed
Attacks on Teachers Roil Education


Raed Jarrar argues that the Bush administration's plans to ally with the Kurds and the Shiites and crush the Sunni Arabs in Iraq won't work. He is right. He also points to the continued political alliances across sectarian lines, which show that sectarianism can't always be taken for granted.

The Sunni Arabs are themselves deeply divided into many different groups. But one thing they have proved is that they can be spoilers, and nobody will get to enjoy the new Iraq unless their minimal demands are met. They can't be crushed without a genocide. They should be negotiated with.

AP says that Muqtada al-Sadr, the young nationalist Shiite cleric, is considering calling a one-month cease-fire in the struggle of his Mahdi Army with Sunni guerrilla groups, and asking MPs loyal to him to resume their participation in parliament.

AP reports of Tuesday that "Two American soldiers were killed and six injured in separate attacks today in Baghdad."

CENTCOM commander Gen. John Abizaid will step down in March. Abizaid has been remarkable among US generals in his knowledge of the region and his conviction that too big a US military footprint is undesirable.

As for Bush's new fascination with "surging" ever more troops into Iraq, Justin Raimondo compares it to Napoleon's Russia campaign. Some readers complained about comparing Bush to Napoleon because the latter was a military genius. I think they are missing the point. Bush is Napoleon without the tactical brilliance-- but the recklessness, sense of divine mission, willingness to use up masses of people, and a sort of authoritarian revolutionism-- they have these in common.

Reuters reports political violence in Iraq's ongoing civil war. Some notable excerpts:


' BAGHDAD - Iraqi police found 76 bodies around Baghdad, all with gunshot wounds and most with signs of torture . . .

MOSUL - Police said they found 11 bodies, all with gunshot wounds, in the northern city of Mosul. . .

BAGHDAD - A car bomb in the parking lot of an Interior Ministry office charged with issuing identity cards killed four people and wounded eight in Adhamiya district in northern Baghdad, police said. . .

BAGHDAD - A suicide car bomber rammed his vehicle into a police checkpoint near Baghdad University in the southwestern Jadriya district, killing 11 people and wounding 31, including some students, an Interior Ministry source said. . .

BAGHDAD - Gunmen killed university professor Muntathar Mohammed Mehdi in his car, along with his brother and cousin, relatives and hospital sources said. Relatives said Mehdi was a member of Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's political movement. . .'


The LA Times adds:
' Gunmen opened fire on a bus terminal about 3:10 p.m., concentrating on buses headed to the mostly Shiite areas of Sadr City, Talibiya, Husseiniya and Shaab, police said. Three people were killed and at least seven injured, police said.

Gunmen also targeted three teachers yesterday.

Palestinian teacher Mahmoud Mohammed Rasheed, brother of Iraqi television star Zuhair Mohammed Rasheed, was killed in an eastern Baghdad neighborhood where he taught middle school, police said. Investigators say Rasheed might have been targeted for being Palestinian, or attackers might have mistaken him for his famous brother, who stars in a popular sketch comedy.

Gunmen also attacked professor Ali Arnoosi, deputy dean of the college of law at the University of Baghdad, and fellow law professor Mohammed Hamdani, police said. The two were slain at 3 p.m. as they were on their way home. Their driver and guard were also killed. '


McClatchy reports that the al-Maliki government is threatening to fire professors at Iraq's beleaguered universities who cancel classes because of poor security. But the government is not offering to provide better security. Nancy Youssef writes:
' Iraq's universities have been a target for insurgents and militias alike almost since the war began in 2003. Professors tell of armed gangs taking over buildings and classrooms and even issuing threats about grades. Thousands of students have requested transfers to campuses where their sects - Sunni Muslim or Shiite Muslim - are in the majority. Thousands of professors and students, seeking to avoid violence and threats, have fled the nation to pursue their studies in neighboring countries.

Around Baghdad, many campuses are desolate. Many families refuse to let their children, particularly women, finish their education for fear of what will happen either en route to class or once they get there.

According to the Iraq Students and Youth League, a university advocacy group, at least 10 violent incidents racked Baghdad's two main universities in the first week of this month, when Maliki issued his order. Among them were attempted kidnappings in front of Iraqi police officers, who didn't try to stop the attacks.

At Baghdad University, only 6 percent of student and professors attended in early December, the group found. The highest attendance level was 59 percent at private universities. '


Given that 4 teachers were announced killed on Tuesday alone, it isn't hard to understand why education is in such a state.

Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that half of Baghdad was without electricity on Tuesday. The report says that some districts, such as Bayya`, have been in the dark for days. The Ministry of Electricity has not given any explanation for the lack of service, and it isn't clear what the cause is (though sabotage by guerrillas is high on the list.) The low in Baghdad today was 42 degrees Fahrenheit (5 C.), and Sunday the low will be 35 (1 C.). Not having electricity in such temperatures is not comfortable, and for some (the young, sick or elderly) could actually be dangerous.

11 Comments:

At 7:09 AM, Blogger JHM said...

The Stumblebum-in-Chief on Native Politics


Thirdly, I appreciate the fact that the Prime Minister and members of the government are forming what you have called a moderate coalition, because it's becoming very apparent to the people of Iraq that there are extremists and radicals who are anxious to stop the advance of a free society. And therefore, a moderate coalition signals to the vast majority of the people of Iraq that we have a unity government, that we're willing to reconcile our differences and work together, and in so doing, will marginalize those who use violence to achieve political objectives. And so we support the formation of the unity government and the moderate coalition. And it's important for the leader Sistani to understand that's our position. He is a -- he lives a secluded life, but he knows that we're interested in defeating extremism, and we're interested in helping advance a unity government.


Mere mortal sarcasm must fall silent before such a specimen, but it is mildly interesting that the word "terrorism" seems to have vanished lately from their received Party Chinese, with "radicalism" or "extremism" coming in to replace it.

 
At 8:18 AM, Blogger Spin proof said...

The anti/pro occupation setup is now largely meaningless because the American people do not want to occupy Iraq anymore. A candidate like McCaine need not apply in the 2008 camaign if the mid-term is anything to go by. The difference between American pro and anti war boils down to few months for the withdrawl date.

The other point is that apart from a handful, all the Iraqi "politicians" represent a grave danger to the future of the Iraqis, whether the players are lunatic fundamentalists; theiving "seculars", or foriegners' tools.

The solution is to end the bloodshed and instability with total disregard to the politics. These monsters will face the electorate, if elections are allowed that is, with the worst record in history. Their future is non-existent. Even the seemingly safe Kurdish warlords are nothing but [visit
http://www.kurdmedia.com/articles.asp?id=13509
to see what the normal Kurds think.]

 
At 9:10 AM, Blogger John Koch said...

Abizaid was purported to speak Arabic. How well? Ancestry is no guarantee of fluency. Did Abizaid ever give interviews or speeches on Arabic TV? Or was his proficiency of the awkward sort as that displayed by W in English or, even worse, in Izpanyowl?

Abizaid was long on the AEI-PNAC hit list of "must go" targets. Was he in the "light footprint" school favoring limited US troop presence because he believed Iraqi forces would soon "stand up," or was he simply skeptical that US troops could ever perform counter-insurgency without doing more harm than good?

Its astonishing how many multi-star generals retire after any military engagement, no matter how small. Might this justify suspicion that there would be fewer wars or dittohead behavior if, so long as any troops are in combat, there be no promotions or retirement packages for anyone with rank above major?

Abizaid's memoirs will probably not reach print for several years and be contaminated by hindsight. Grant wrote a very candid story, but had the advantage of recounting a victory. It will be more difficult and contentious for Abizaid to explain what went wrong.

 
At 10:39 AM, Blogger satchmo said...

Only a quibble: while this escalation does have as little chance of success as ill-considered invasions of Russia, I do concur with those who are puzzled by Bush-Napoleon parallels. If we must look for a parallel in the revolutionary era, isn't Bush more of a Metternich or Pitt without the muscle, intelligence, or character? Kissinger of course has attempted to compare himself to Metternich, but we could look at W as a sort of juvenile, profoundly incompetent version. The first time as tragedy, the second time as tragic farce.... Attempting to engineer the legitimacy of Global Corporatism via poorly-understood schemes for "regime change" and so on.

I hope the Americana Translation Project is going well, Juan. No doubt you won't be using that "translation" software the Defense Dept. just invested $22 million in!

 
At 11:03 AM, Blogger ent lord said...

I am trying to imagine GWB as FDR or Winnie or Abe. FDR was an out and out New Deal Liberal so that is out (and isn't GWB entranced with himself as Truman at the moment?) and Churchill was elected PM as a Liberal, having bolted the Conservative Party over disagreements with Chamberlain's Conservative isolationism. On the other hand, Winnie was the guiding hand in the Gallipoli disaster so maybe the comparison could work. Abe did suspend habeas corpus but he also let his generals be generals once he got Grant (and Sherman and Sheridan) in charge. When told of Grant's incessant drunkeness as grounds for dismissing the general, Lincoln replied, "Find out what he is drinking and send a keg to all our generals". No tightmouthed, Elmer Gantry Administration would say that.
The picture of Napoleon and Hitler pouring men and resources into the Russian war without regard for the Russian winter may be the best analogy but at least Napoleon had the common sense to finally admit failure and retreat, saving 10% to 20% of his Grand Army.
Hitler, on the other hand, did not supply his troops for winter, saying they would fight harder and win sooner if they realized they had to win before winter (sound familiar?) and when the Russians were encircling the Germans, he refused to let them try to break out and salvage part of the force because Germans didn't retreat. When the Russians were overrunning the German command, he promoted Paulus so he would fight to the last man in a type of Teutonic Gotterdammerung.
The question now is if we get the troops out as they now are more hostages to fortune than a true offensive force. The Victorians faced a similar problem in Afghanistan as they argued between policies of "Butcher and Bolt" and "forward policy". In 1842, a force of 4500 Brits and Indians were massacred by Afghan tribesmen. While we have not had an disaster of such proportions in Iraq, does anyone really have a withdrawal strategy for our forces if they should have to withdraw suddenly or will they be like the Brits in 1842 or the Wehrmacht in Russia? At least Napoleon salvaged some of his army and suffered with them. Our professional keyboard soldiers don't seem very keen on actually experiencing the vissicitudes of the every day groundpounder.

 
At 3:09 PM, Blogger Wild Bill said...

Prof. Cole:
Ruel Marc Gerecht has an op-ed piece in today's NY Times perhaps worth your review. I agree with Gerecht that confronting Sadr won't work and is asking for trouble, but he seems to intepret that as a step in not confronting the Sunnis,who he thinks can be "cleared"--whatever that means. No one outside of you, that I've seen, advocates a negotiated withdrawal from the Sunni triangle. It would seem the only "hope" (and I doubt there is any), is to withdraw from Anbar/Triangle, redeploy troops to Baghdad in an effort to get control of the capital and establish basic services on a reasonable level while stopping the disgusting acts of violence occurring.

But is that even possible? Perhaps we should just leave. Would Sistani tacitly approve (and Sadr tolerate) and large redeployment to Baghdad that did not involve an offensive against Mahdi, but a "clearing" of insurgents from the capital and securing of the capital to prevent kidnappings, death squads, etc.? Seems to me, if Sistani doesn't approve and Sadr doesn't agree to remain aloof from such an action (not actively oppose it), then there's no chance at all since Sadr would need to call off his death squads.

 
At 4:50 PM, Blogger Frank said...

Chaps

I take it back. We are talking about the nephew aren't we?

The similarities are striking!

From Wikipaedia

Demise

Napoléon III paid the price for his Austrian blunder in 1870 when, spurred by the diplomacy of the Prussian chancellor Otto von Bismarck, Napoléon began the Franco-Prussian War. This war proved disastrous for France, and was instrumental in giving birth to the German Empire, which would take France's place as the major land power on the continent of Europe until the end of World War I. In battle against Prussia in July 1870 the Emperor was captured at the Battle of Sedan (2 September) and was deposed by the forces of the Third Republic in Paris two days later.

Napoleon spent the last few years of his life in exile in England, with Eugenie and his only son. He died at Chislehurst (Kent), on 9 January 1873. He was haunted to the end by bitter regrets and by painful memories of the battle at which he lost everything; it is said that his last words, addressed to the doctor standing by his deathbed, were: "Were you at Sedan?" ("Etiez-vous à Sedan?") [[1]]

 
At 4:55 PM, Blogger Frank said...

Oh this is delicious! :-)

Napoleon's adventurism in foreign policy is aptly demonstrated by the French intervention in Mexico (January 1862–March 1867). Napoleon, using as a pretext the Mexican Republic's refusal to pay its foreign debts, planned to establish a French sphere of influence in North America by creating of a French-backed monarchy in Mexico, a project which would be supported by Mexican conservatives tired of the anti-clerical Mexican republic. The United States would be unable to prevent this contravention of the Monroe Doctrine due to the American Civil War, and if, as Napoleon hoped, the Confederates were victorious in that conflict, he believed they would accept the new situation in Mexico.

The monarchy was established under the Habsburg prince Maximillian, with the support of Mexican conservatives and French troops, in 1863. However, the former President Benito Juarez and his Republican forces retreated to the countryside and fought against the French troops and the Mexican monarchists. The Mexican monarchist/French forces won victories up until 1865, but then the tide began to turn, partly due to the fact that the Civil War had now ended in the U.S. and the U.S. government was now able to give practical support the Republicans, supplying them with arms and establishing a naval blockade to prevent French reinforcements arriving from Europe. Napoleon withdrew French troops from Mexico in 1866. This left Maximillian and the Mexican monarchists doomed to defeat in 1867. Despite Napoleon's pleas that he abdicate and leave Mexico, Maximillian refused to abandon the Mexican conservatives who had supported him, and remained alongside them until the bitter end, when he was captured by the Republicans and then shot on 19th June, 1867. The complete failure of the Mexican intervention was a humiliation for Napoleon, and he was widely blamed across Europe for Maximillian's death, having induced Maximillian to accept the Mexican throne on the understanding he would always have French support and then abandoning him when the situation became difficult.

A far more dangerous threat to Napoleon, however, was looming. France saw its dominance on the continent of Europe eroded by Prussia's crushing victory over Austria in June–August 1866. Due in part to his Carbonari past, Napoléon was unable to bring himself to ally with Austria, despite the obvious threat that a victorious Prussia would present to France.

 
At 5:33 PM, Blogger Tupharsin said...

Very fine writers sometimes tap into something much profounder than what's there to be drawn on in their individual mental makeup. The times, the age seem to speak through them. Truth with a capital T speaks through them. Dickens of course is a case in point. As is Gore Vidal. Virtually every word that man has written over the last three decades has been pure gold. Like Dickens he connected with essences. He got it utterly right over and over again. Predictions he made
nearly three decades ago were spot on. I can't think of another American writer of our time who can lay a glove on him in that telling regard.

Which brings me to Hunter Thompson. Not nearly as great a writer as either of the other two, but he had his music of the spheres moments - flashes of the profoundest insight.Moments when he, like Dickens, like Vidal was in a zone - when something more than what was in his individual make-up was speaking through him. Moments when he coulde see the thing for what it was - not just come close - but get it so spot on that his words "own the thing".

In this instance I'm thinking of Thompson's pitch perfect "assessment" of George W. Bush: "a baffled little creep."

 
At 4:58 PM, Blogger Murteza ali said...

In 2005, PM Jafari gave the sunnis more concessions than most men would have. They boycotted the elections en masse, and got only 17 seats out of around 275. Jafari however gave them more cabinet seats than he did the kurds, 7 in total. He knew the dangers of leaving them out. Yet they insisted that the gun was the best way to deal with their problems. "these here rafidis need to know who's boss". Of course Badr didnt quite see it that way and responded to the violence in kind.

All through Jafaris reign, he tried accomodating the sunnis, holding a top secret meeting in december 2005 with Adnan Dulaimi, which aimed to establish a pan islamic bloc of sunni and shia islamists following the december 15 vote. The Sunnis finally cottoned onto the fact that ballot was better than the bullet, but by this time it was too late. Once the Sammara Bombing took place no one could hold the iraqi people back from exacting revenge against their oppressors. Jafari was forced out and the sunnis now sit on the verge of oblivion and genocide.

Minimal demands? Their demands were never minimal, they couldnt bear being ruled over by the 'rafidi persians'. It was their rule or they'd wipe the shia out. the way they saw it, the shia were too cowardly to fight back, they wouldnt even throw saddam out when the war with Iran gave them the perfect opportunity to do so. But the new generation of shia know whats at stake (oil etc) and the attack on their identity and religion in Sammara was the last straw. Now that they are facing down the barrel of a gun, the sunnis may have lowered their expectations somewhat. But to suggest they are a peaceful community just making 'minimal demands' is an affront to every iraqi who has been killed in a car bombing, suicide attack, beheading or any other delightful sunni treat.

 
At 12:27 AM, Blogger Michael Murry said...

I haven't taken Deputy Dubya Bush seriously since Sheriff Dick Cheney appointed himself the Shrub's running mate in 2000 and snuck out of Texas in the dark of night to have his residence changed back to Wyoming where he hadn't lived in years. And then the farce just devolved further from there.

Even trying to find literary references to similar travesties doesn't offer much consolation since I think we've long since entered pioneer territory (where the trailblazers have arrows sticking out of their backs) in regard to what new lows the Mayberry Machiavellis may have in store for us. Anyway, many of us Vietnam Veterans have felt for years like those mad -- not to mention unsually poor and dirty -- characters who always pop up in the story to try and warn the stupid away from doing again what has spectaculary gone wrong so many times before. We contemporary Cassandras -- or "dirty hippies" as I believe the reactionary wingnuts call us -- never succeed with our warnings, of course, so we sometimes end up writing poetry to while away the time watching it all go south once more. For my part, I tried to put the ineffable idiocy into verse this morning with "The Misfortune Teller" and "A Munificent Travesty." So with due apologies to all the real writers from whom I have drawn my inspiration, I offer:

http://themisfortuneteller.blogspot.com/2006/12/misfortune-teller.html

and

http://themisfortuneteller.blogspot.com/2006/12/munificent-travesty.html

 

Post a Comment

<< Home