Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Tuesday, January 02, 2007

Apocalypse II in Samarra
US Kills 6 at National Dialogue Front Office


CBS/AP report that an angry crowd of Sunni Arab demonstrators in the northern city of Samarra, protesting Saddam's execution, broke "broke the locks off the badly damaged Shiite Golden Dome mosque and marched through carrying a mock coffin and photo of the executed former leader."

Folks, this is very bad news. The Askariyah Shrine (it isn't just a mosque) is associated with the Hidden Twelfth Imam, who is expected by Shiites to appear at the end of time to restore the world to justice. (For them, the Imam Mahdi is sort of like the second coming of Christ for Christians). The Muqtada al-Sadr movement is millenarian and believes he will reveal himself at any moment.

The centrality of the cult of the Twelfth Imam, a direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad who is said to have vanished in 873 AD, helps explain why the bombing of the Golden Dome on February 21 of 2006 set off a frenzy of Shiite, Sadrist attacks on Sunni Arabs. Last February, stuck in a Phoenix hotel because of a missed flight and without an internet connection for my laptop, I blogged from my Treo that it was an apocalyptic day. Sadly, it was, kicking off a frenzy of sectarian violence that has grown each subsequent month.

For Sunni Arabs to parade a symbolic coffin of Saddam through the ruins of the Askariya shrine won't be exactly good for social peace in Iraq. Can't that site be properly guarded or something?

Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that hundreds of demonstrators marched in Dur, near Tikrit on Monday, protesting the execution of Saddam Hussein. Young men carried machine guns and fired them in the air, chanting "Muqtada, you coward," and "Hakim! Yellow-belly! Agent of the Americans!" They unveiled an enormous mosaic of Saddam Hussein inscribed, "The Martry-Hero."

There was also a demonstration in the northern Baghdad district of Adhamiya, at which protesters shouted condemnations of Muqtada al-Sadr, according to al-Zaman. Some of those present at Saddam's execution shouted "Muqtada, Muqtada, Muqtada!" Saddam mocked them, asking if this was their sign of manliness. (Personally, I believe this is Saddam's reference to rumors in Iraq that Muqtada's wife left him, saying that he is actually gay. He is saying that chanting Muqtada's name is a sign that they are also not real men.)

KarbalaNews.net gives in Arabic the sermon preached on Saddam's execution by Ayatollah Muhammad Taqi Mudarrisi, an old-time Shiite activist in Karbala. He called the dictator "the graven idol of Iraq" and said that the punishment was just given Saddam's long years of tyranny.

Sudarsan Raghavan of WaPo reports that many Iraqi Shiites fear that the US is turning on them. Money graf:

' "Who are the secularists?" demanded [Ali] Adeeb, the Shiite lawmaker, his eyes tightening. "The secularists are the Baath Party. . . It means the base of their thinking is not stable," he continued, referring to the Americans. "They are going to lose the Shiites. And they won't win the Sunnis back, because they attacked them at the beginning. So now both sides will lose confidence in the United States." '


AP adds, "Police reported finding the bodies of 40 handcuffed, blindfolded and bullet-riddled bodies in Baghdad on the first day of the New Year."

Reuters reports on political violence on Monday, and gives the most plausible brief account I have seen of the fighting between US troops and members of the National Dialogue Front. Reuters says that the US soldiers were raiding a Salafi ("al-Qaeda") safe house when they came under fire from the nearby offices of Salih Mutlak's National Dialogue Front party. They say they counter-attacked and killed 6 paramilitary fighters. Mutlak insists that they killed 2 security guards, wounded 2 more, and killed members of a civilian family in an adjacent building. Some press reports got mixed up and suggested that Mutlak was harboring al-Qaeda. He is a representative of secular Sunni nationalism, and much closer to the Baath than to the fundamentalist Salafis. Indeed, if his guards fired on US troops, it was likely because they were driven by Baathist sympathies to want revenge for Saddam's execution. The LA Times has a longer treatment.

The Iraqi government closed the al-Sharqiya television station, headed by Saad al-Bazzaz, accusing it of instigating sectarian hatred during its coverage of the execution. It was also accused of carrying a report of the killing of three female college students that turned out to be false (I summarized that report at the time; I don't know if it is false or not and a government practicing censorship is an untrustworthy arbiter of such things.)

The first judge in the trial of Saddam, Rizgar Amin, a Kurd with no brief for the dead tyrant, complained Monday that his execution was illegal in Iraqi law:

' The implementation of Saddam's execution during Eid al-adha is illegal according to chapter 9 of the tribunal law. Article 27 states that nobody, even the president (Jalal Talabani), may change rulings by the tribunal and the implementation of the sentence should not happen until 30 days after publication that the appeals court has upheld the tribunal verdict. The hanging during the Eid al-Adha period (also) contradicts Iraqi and Islamic custom. "Article 290 of the criminal code of 1971 (which was largely used in the Saddam trial) states that no verdict should implemented during the official holidays or religious festivals," he said.'


David E. Sanger, Michael R. Gordon, and John F. Burns of the NYT report on how Bush administration strategy went bad in 2006.

Al-Hayat says that the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood, once allied with Iran, has demanded that the government of King Abdullah II close the Iranian embassy in Amman. The MB, which is an opposition party in Jordan, blamed Iran and the US for the execution of Saddam Hussein. Al-Hayat calls this demand "an index of the depth of the political changes in the Arab world."

Also in Amman, the MB joined several political parties and professional unions at a protest rally where Raghad, Saddam Hussein's daughter, made a brief appearance. She thanked those assembled for remembering her father, "the martyr." The Minister of Political Development attended this rally, but when al-Hayat asked about his presence, the government hastily replied that it did not express the position of the Jordanian government. His presence will be a sore point in Jordan's relations with the Maliki government, though. Many speakers at the rally vehemently condemned Iran, blaming "the Safavid magi" for the "assassination of Saddam." They shouted slogans condemning Iran, Israel and the United States. One speaker denounced Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, a Sunni Arab fundamentalist, as a "cowardly agent," which caused a disturbance that had to be calmed before the rally could continue.

(There are an estimated 800,000 Iraqis in Jordan, a country of 5.4 million; they are mainly Sunni Arabs and some are wealthy ex-Baathists who have brought enormous amounts of money into the Jordanian economy. Many others, though are destitute refugees.)

A mourning ceremony for Saddam was held by Iraqi expatriates in Damascus, al-Hayat reports, attended by thousands of mourners and by some of Saddam's relatives.

In Egypt, the Journalists' Guild began a mourning session for the late dictator.

12 Comments:

At 2:54 PM, Blogger John Koch said...

A riddle: how can the Mahdi Army protect the life of Muqtada, but not defend a Shiite holy shrine from desecration. The march through the Askariyah Shrine was a public event, not an act of stealth. Did the police act to shield the marchers and deter defense of the shrine or retribution by Shiite militia? Or has Muqtada replicated the talents of both OBL and VP Cheney's for operating from unknowable locations?

 
At 5:34 PM, Blogger wardog100 said...

Civil war in Iraq is the immediate objective of the Bush strategists. Why? Because they believe that in the long term, unwavering presence of a US occupation will receive submission from the exhausted, depleted and decimated Iraq society. In the end, they believe, the US will achieve its objectives of a neo-liberal economy and a government that is not unfriendly to Israel. As was the case for the Nazis and the Italian fascists, they think nothing of destroying an entire population, government and society of inferior human beings to achieve their goals.This, my friends, is merciless and brutal race-war for international supremacy. Happy New Year for almost no one! Heil Bush! Heil Blair!

 
At 6:36 PM, Blogger dancewater said...

The Askariyah Shrine is in Samarra, and I don't think there are many Shi'ites around. I don't think Sadr's militia is in the area.

 
At 7:08 PM, Blogger Nell said...

For Sunni Arabs to parade a symbolic coffin of Saddam through the ruins of the Askariya shrine won't be exactly good for social peace in Iraq. Can't that site be properly guarded or something?

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but it's my understanding that Samarra is an almost entirely Sunni city. Before the bombing of the shrine last February, most of the Shiite residents, who lived in the streets surrounding the shrine, were driven out.

In the weeks after the bombing, there was an announcement by Moqtada al-Sadr that hundreds of thousands of his followers would go to repair the shrine. I thought to myself, "This will be interesting. I'll believe it when I see it." My cynicism appears to have been warranted.

Neither the 'Mahdi Army' nor the Iraqi government appears to have the military strength, organizational capacity, or religious commitment to protect, much less rebuild, the Al-Iskariyah shrine, given its location in a sea of enraged and threatened Sunnis.

 
At 8:41 PM, Blogger earl said...

Prof Cole- I cannot believe that a crowd was allowed to break into the ruins of that shrine, and a Sunni crowd at that! There is something ugly afoot, make no mistake about it. For Bush and the neocons to keep walking into the worst mistakes they could make in the area is just pathetic. Karl must still be calling all the shots, just feed the base and to hell with policy.

Best wishes for the new year, and many thanks for the excellent page.

 
At 8:52 PM, Blogger Tom Gartner said...

Bush seems to have taken Churchillian pugnacity and resolve as his models. Unfortunately, his insistence on winning unwinnable battles is more reminiscent of that other WWII leader.

 
At 9:59 PM, Blogger Steve said...

Is there really any such thing as an "Al Qaeda safehouse" in Iraq? Is this not just an invention of the U.S. military to cover any bombing that they do? By "Al Qaeda safehouse," do they mean any house that might contain someone who is part of any of the various participants in Iraq's civil war? Considering the small number of fighters that actually associate with Al Qaeda, even according to U.S. estimates, isn't it unusual that most of their bombing is of alleged Al Qaeda members? It would seem to me that that the U.S. bombs whomever they please, and if they end up knocking off a family or two in the process, they use "Al Qaeda safehouse" as a rationalization for their Guernica-like strategy.

 
At 10:52 PM, Blogger gandhi said...

So let's see... The USA now (again) sees Moqtdada Al-Sadr as their biggest problem in Iraq. The Washington press repeatedly suggest Bush's coming escalation (confirmed by the BBC) is aimed at toppling al-Sadr. Then Saddam is hanged by supposed supporters of al-Sadr, and a "secret" video is leaked with voices chanting his name. And then Sunnis go dancing through the Samarra mosque... And hey! There are even rumours spreading that al-Sadr is gay!

But if I dared to suggest that the USA (and/or al-Maliki) might have framed al-Sadr for Saddam's lynching (during Eid, no less), I would be a crazy Conspiracy Theorist. Right?

Well, guess what folks? We crazy Conspiracy Theorists have a pretty good strike rate these days. Unfortunately.

I have to agree with wardog100 above: Cheney wants a failed state where money does all the talking. Nothing else makes sense. Al-Sadr is getting too powerful, so he must be brought down.

 
At 11:53 PM, Blogger Snerd Gronk said...

Wardog, I continue to be amazed at the sustainability that spin has in the MSM. It is truly Orwellian.

The failure of spin to really explain anything from empirical standards (or maybe I should use the (R)hetroical perspective and say, the successful 2 week life span of spin), just does't seem to trip the MSM up at all. After all, when not taking dictation as Colbert points out, they are offering up 'debate' in the form of 'Crossfire' shouting matchs, as Stewart demostrated.

Amidst all this, like so many others, I have tried to figure out what the actual Bush Admin motives and objectives really were, going into Iraq ... what the relationship between their (R)hetoric and their intentions really are. This still remains unclear, since nothing more coherent than their spin emerges.

Possibly this is because Bush's motives were/are different from Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz of the PNAC cabal, which are different from Haliburton's, which are different from Israel's, which are different from the (R)eligious (R)ight, etc., who all support the wa(R) for their own peculiar reasons ... And who sustain their sense of coherent gravitas by telling one another stories to keep themselves 'together'.

Despite numerous logical and empirically based analysis that thread their way through historical facticity and draw 'reasonable' conclusions, I still don't get an overarching (R) vision for invading Iraq, other than implementing PNAC ideology. It is an ideology which states, 'only girlie-men restrict themselves to reality-based politics ... (R)eal men alter reality in their own image', especially if someone has unintentionally given them the keys to the US military.

If so, then the reason people like myself can not determine actual Bush Admin policy from amid the (R)hetoric, it that there is no difference ... that for the Administration, reality is just another tactical issue, like supply lines, troop levels, etc. If so, then it explains why 'not leaving' is 'not defeat', and so is ''winning, or minimally 'on the way to winning ... if they stay the course'.

In which case, the (R)hetorical is the real, even when it flip flops all over the place, every 2 weeks ... Policy is not a function of the facts on the ground, but is designed to over-(R)ight it.

And if that is so, then there isn't even a bubble in which (R)hetorical ideology lives, surviving because it is able to separate itself from facticity, from the toxicity of the real world. There is no silver bullet to crack the bubble, because there is no bubble, there is no separation, as Jr.'s 'Stay the Course' response to the mid-terms shows. There are just different bits of rhetoric at play, as in a 'collide-o-scope', to be rearranged into some new form ... to support a belief about the way you want it to be!

The only reality based 'thing' then, is power, since it is the only factual 'thing' necessary for the practice of (R)adical (R)ight politics. For me, that is '(R) vision', literally in a Nutshell ... everything else is secondary.

Snerd

 
At 2:28 AM, Blogger johnMccutchen said...

The New York Times A-Team in their report on the Great Unraveling discloses that Bush intends to fire Gen Casey for his 06 plan for troop withdrawal.

Some dismissed Casey's comments at the time and similar noises in 2005 as part of some grand Bush plan to defuse Iraq as an election issue. I demurred believing that Casey was sincere; that he didn't buy Bush claims of a planned victory; that he was very concerned that Bush was wrecking US ground combat forces, and that he intended the entire exercise to force the issue on exit strategy.


Looks like he forced more than that. He forced Bush to pink slip him

 
At 10:34 AM, Blogger Christiane said...

Concerning the way Saddam was executed and in particular, the reported role of Al'Sadr supporters. I'd handle it with some caution for these reasons :
1) Al'Sadr seems to be the Shiite current with the most popular support.
2) Al'Sadr current is very nationalist and has already requested a timetable for the US withdrawal several times.
3) Al'Sadr is the only Shiite current to stretch a hand to the Sunnis and to insist on a united Iraq.
4) Points 1-3 explain why this Shiite current looks very ominous to the US and why they have already tried several times to sideline it in different ways : militarily in Aprile 2004, politically lately, with the US idea of a new coalition (Sistani once more stopped the Americans and prevented a Shiite's division).
5) Since neither the military, nor the political attempts to sideline it failed, I'm sure that they are now trying to use more covered means, like propaganda and manipulation of the opinion.

Point 3) seems to be in contradiction with the numerous accusations voiced against the Mehdi Army, that she practice sectarian violence against the Sunnis. But what about the Badr brigades ? are they saints ? or are they protected because of their support of the Americans ? I'd take any accusations of Sadrists' sectarian violence with a grain of salt, because it's in the interest of the Americans to prevent a strong coalition between them and the Sunnis.

I'd also look at the execution of Saddam with this context in mind, in particular because in the process of Saddam, nothing occurs without the permission of the Americans. It's well possible that the US lured the Sadrists into a trap, encouraging their participation in order to prevent any alliance between Al'Sadr and the Sunnis. Shortly before the execution, it was suddenly heard that the Sadrists made their return to parliament conditional to the fast execution of Saddam. Such a condition sounds very suspect to my ears, because I don't see what kind of benefit they could await from it ? They just looked like bloodthirsty revenchists, which makes any alliance with the Sunnis much more difficult if not impossible, but this outcome suits perfectly the American goal to stay indefinitely in Iraq. May be, even, that the unofficial cellphone video which circulated after Saddam's execution is a made up, a propaganda tool aiming at discrediting the Sadrists, especially in the eyes of the Sunnis.

 
At 12:36 PM, Blogger Barbara said...

Reading jmccutchen et al: It always surpises me when commenters here react from a perception that US absolutely controls everything that takes place in Iraq(and elsewhere), the latest being Saddam's execution?

This when the chronology of the last 3plus years recorded on this site by Dr Cole has daily demonstrated the total opposite.

Compared to Romans and Brits the US has to be the most pathetic, idiotic and useless Imperial power in the whole of recorded history.

Has anyone published a book on this yet?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home