Fighters for Shiite Messiah Clash with Najaf Security, 250 Dead
Over 60 Dead in Baghdad, Kirkuk Violence
Well, a big battle took place at the Shiite holy city of Najaf on Saturday night into Sunday, but there are several contradictory narratives about its significance. Iraqi authorities, claimed that the Iraqi army killed a lot of the militants (250) but only took 25 casualties itself. The Shiite governor of Najaf implied that the guerrillas were Sunni Arabs and had several foreign Sunni fundamentalist fighters ("Afghans") among them. He said that they based themselves in an orchard recently purchased by Baathists. Other sources said that the militants were Shiites. I'd take the claim of numbers killed with a large grain of salt, though the Iraqi forces did have US close air support. I infer that the guerrillas shot down one US helicopter.
That's one narrative. Here is another. The pan-Arab London daily al-Hayat reported that the militiamen were followers of Mahmud al-Hasani al-Sarkhi. It says one of his followers asserted that the fighting erupted when American and Iraqi troops attempted to arrest al-Hasani al-Sarkhi. The latter tried last summer to take over the shrine of al-Husayn in Karbala. It may have been feared that he would take advantage of the chaos of the Muharram pilgrimage season to make a play for power in Najaf. Al-Hayat says that although As'ad Abu Kalil, governor of Najaf, said the attackers were Sunnis, the director of the information center in Najaf, Ahmad Abdul Husayn Du'aybil, contradicted him. The latter said, "At dawn, today [Sunday], violent clashes took place between security forces and an armed militia calling itself "the Army of Heaven," which claims that the Imam Mahdi will [soon] appear." He added, "The goal of this militia is the killing of clergymen and the grand ayatollahs." The group follows Ayatollah Ahmad al-Hasani al-Sarkhi, called al-Yamani, who is said by his followers to be in direct touch with the Hidden Imam or promised one. In the fighting 10 Iraqi security police were killed and 17 wounded. One official said that the death toll among the militants was not known.
Al-Hayat, however, quotes a member of the group, Abu al-Hasan, who is said to be close to al-Hasani al-Sarkhi. He said that the rumors that the group intended to conduct a campaign of assassinations inside Najaf was "devoid of truth." It says that an attempt had been made to arrest al-Hasani al-Sarkhi, who was present in the al-Zarkah, an agricultural area east of Najaf, which caused his followers to revolt.
Al-Hasani al-Sarkhi's followers had earlier burned down the Iranian consulates at Basra and Karbala, and demonstrated in Hilla and elsewhere.
Sawt al-Iraq in Arabic says that a number of al-Hasani al-Sarkhi's aides were arrested early last week as part of the current crackdown in preparation for the American surge.
Then there is yet a third narrative. Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that on Saturday night into Sunday morning, a Shiite millenarian militia calling itself "The Army of Heaven" (Jund al-Sama') attempted to move south from the Zarqa orchards just north of Najaf to assassinate the four grand ayatollahs of Najaf-- Ali Sistani, Bashir Najafi, Muhammad Ishaq Fayyad and Muhammad Said al-Hakim. The holy city of Najaf, where Ali is buried, is the seat of Shiite religious authority in Iraq. The militiamen, devotees of an obscure religious leader named Ahmad Hassaani, are said to have infiltrated the area from Hillah, Kut and Amara. The well-armed, black-clad militiamen were heard to call upon the Mahdi, the awaited Promised One of the Muslims, to return on that night.
This group is not the Mahdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr, which bears no enmity toward the grand ayatollahs, but rather a separate and different sect altogether. Shiite clerics told the NYT that the sect is the Mahdawiya of Ahmad al-Basri (possibly Ahmad Hassaani al-Basri?). Although the NYT was told that this millenarian sect (it believes that the end of time is around the corner) was supported by Saddam, you can't pay any attention to that sort of allegation when it comes to Iraqi sectarianism.
It seems most likely that this was Shiite on Shiite violence, with millenarian cultists making an attempt to march on Najaf during the chaos of the ritual season of Muharram. But who knows? It is also possible that the orthodox Shiites in control of Najaf hate the heretic millenarians and the threat of the latter was exaggerated. Darned if I know. The reports of the Army of Heaven being so well armed make no sense if it was a ragtag millenarian band. But those reports could be exaggerations, too.
It seems most likely that the Mahdawiya is the sect of Sheikh Mahmud al-Hasani al-Sarkhi and that al-Basri was the founder of the sect. That would be a way of reconciling al-Zaman with al-Hayat.
The dangers of Shiite on Shiite violence in Iraq are substantial, as this episode demonstrated. Ironically, given Bush's mantra about Iran, the trouble makers here are a sect that absolutely hates Iran.
According to Reuters, Sunday would have been a horror show in Iraq even if you hadn't had the Najaf clashes. Three US troops were killed Sunday, and more were announced killed. Police found 29 bodies in the capital, victims of sectarian violence. Over 20 people died in bombings in the capital, including a mortar strike on a girl's school. More deadly bombings in the northern oil city of Kirkuk.
NYT strikes me as being a little breathless about Iranian plans for investment and development aid in Iraq. These plans were negotiated by two Iraqi prime ministers, Ibrahim Jaafari and Nuri al-Maliki on trips to Iran where wreaths were laid on the tomb of Ayatollah Khomeini. They were reported on at length at the time of those visits, and there is nothing new here. As for American officials, when asked about such plans in the past, they said that they hoped Iraq would have good relations with all its neighbors and understood that there would be economic relations with Iran. I can't see what the big crisis is. By the way, the Iranians are building an airport at Najaf to bring in the Shiite pilgrims, too.
Hillar Rodham Clinton made the reasonable point that George W. Bush has a responsibility to get the US back out of Iraq and end the quagmire by January 2009, instead of bequeathing this disaster to his successor.
Unfortunately, Cheney, who really decides these things, thinks the US will be there for decades. Of course in the 1940s Winston Churchill thought Britain would be in India for decades. Dreams of empire die hard; empire, that goes away quickly.
Sabrina Tavernise of the NYT says goodbye to Iraq and to any illusions she might have had. She's done a great job there, and has illumined the situation for us in a clear-eyed way. She also told us more about the situation of women and families than most other reporters.
You have to wonder whether Iraq can any longer be reported on in any ordinary sense of the word.

|
16 Comments:
The press reports sound "proud" that 250 were killed; they seem the same as the proud sounding body counts I remember from the 1960s. The Arabic news reports are enlightening for the extra detail they provide regarding the splinter groups/sects; time to update the players section of the program.
It's clear that Clinton is picking the low-hanging political fruit with her Cheney bashing. I'll pay attention to her when she comes up with an original, progressive idea.
Professor Cole,
I keep coming back to "the numbers".
The numbers of American dead for starters. On the 20th of January there were 12. A couple of days ago it was seven. There are lots of threes. Etc. A website called the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count says the average for this month is nearly three per day. For last month it was nearly four per day. And so on.
Now if you're of a certain age - and I am - Vietnam is the yardstick for this sort of thing. For a long time there were half a million American soldiers there and approximately a hundred of them being "wasted" every week was par for the course.
Now fit the numbers together. There's what, approximately 140k American soldiers in Iraq today. You have to multiply that figure by three and a half to get the half million soldiers in the Nam. The which means that to get a fair comparison you need to multiply the number of American KIA in Iraq by three and a half.
Do that and you make a chlling discovery. Namely that on a per capita basis our youngsters are being killed at more or less the same rate that American kids were dying in the Nam.
And when you bear in mind that many more of them are "surviving" injuries that would have been fatal in the Nam - surviving because of improved battlefield medical treatment - well, there's no question that this thing is as filthy as Vietnam was at its worst.
And speaking of the "wounded", those figures are also nightmarish. As per my above - the point's often been made that there are thousands of GI "survivors" who would have died in Vietnam. Terrible brain injuries. Multiple amputees. Etc. They're the "living dead" - and there are far more of them - at least on a per capita basis - than there were in Vietnam.
Also, does anyone really know what the true figures are? Both for the injured and for that matter for the dead. The figure for the injured that gets bandied about most regularly is somewhere in the 20,000 region. But there are other claims that push it up to way over 50k. And certainly there are indications that the figures are being "massaged" by the Pentagon. A little bit of creative accounting in order to put the best possible face on that aspect of this catastrophe.
We desperately need for this "new" congress to set up some hearings that drill right down - get people in there and get them testifying under oath as to what the true figures are.
And as an American citizen I don't just want a "body count", I want a dollars and cents count as well. Both the cost of this war - and some straight talk as to how it's going to be paid for. And, indeed, to what extent it's lined Cheney's pockets. For example. It's fairly common knowledge that he had stock options there were worthless prior to the war. Options to buy at 50 dollars a share (this is from memory so the figures are an approximation). But not much point in buying at 50 bucks when the shares were languishing at 28 bucks. And then of course he got the war going - "we won the election, we're owed" (what DOES that comment mean? what's its "deep structure"?) - and lo and behold his options suddenly went from worthless to very valuable.
I came across a piece last night that claimed that claimed there was a 3000 percent increase on some of his "blind trust" holdings in one year - I think it said it was from 2004 to 2005. 3000 percent! Can that be true? Does anybody know? I mean, when you consider that "ordinary" investors are hugely pleased if a stock makes a 20 percent gain over the course of a year.
The time has come to turn this stone over properly and see what's crawling around in there. It's time for congress to do its job properly. I wouldn't even bother summoning him - well, I might do just to see what line he takes this time. I would certainly subpoena the folks who are handling his "blind trust" and get them testifying under oath.
Come on Conyers and the rest of you. The time has come.
Now deep pause.
The ghost at the banquet of course - in relation to all of the above - is the figures for the devastation, the mayhem, the deaths for the Iraqi people. Those figures, needless to say, are off the scale horrific.
What have we done? What have we turned into?
The Najaf Governor, like most of our New Iraq leading freaks, suffers from the Dick Cheney Syndrome.
They constantly come out with howlers only their closest followers or the most moronic of the general public would buy, which seems completely pointless. They have no connection to law, common sense, or any other norm.
A little while ago he declared with complete seriousness that he had just signed a deal with an UAE company to dig for oil in the province on a 50-50 profit share basis. The name of the company and the details are, of course, secret!
Few days ago, he declared that a huge chunk of the Anbar Province will become part of his. This is to protect the Shiia Pilgrims to Mecca. How? Anbar would no longer have access to the Saudi border. So there.
Dear Dr. Cole,
I read the most interesting op/ed piece in the Lebanese Star last week. I think the author's points address very well the change in attitude toward Iranian aid to Iraq.
Given that the unintended rise of Iranian power was a natural byproduct of the war in Iraq, the US faces how it will deal with the destabilization of the system. If you watch the patterns of money and weapon flows, it seems that the US has established a news means.
It was the author's perception, that watching these flows, that the US is using several groups in the Middle East to fight proxy wars against Iran. Since Hamas has attained new backers, monies have been freed to the Fatah officials. I remember an article by Amira Hass addressing Israel's role in weapons procurment as well. The author felt this is was also the situation in his own nation of Lebanon.
"As for American officials, when asked about such plans in the past, they said that they hoped Iraq would have good relations with all its neighbors and understood that there would be economic relations with Iran. I can't see what the big crisis is." I suspect perhaps you didn't mean exactly what you said here. "The big crisis" is the one the Bush admin. is ginning up about Iran and the NYT is doing something very like what they apologized for doing about the run-up to the Iraq war, being "breathless" cheerleaders.
Vietnam deja vu -- multiply "enemy" losses by 5, divide your own by 5.
Well if the US helped Mr.Deputy Maliki wipe out a Shiite sect, which was really a security operation to prevent chaos next week then it makes lots of sense that Malikiand the Sunnis would vote for it.
If this is related to coming US/Kurdish operation to wipe out Al Sadr then it makes no sense that if Maliki is hoping to maintain the Shia bloc he should support this operation.
Since I dont know to whom the brigades that fight alongside the US that make up the cannon fodder in Iraq are allied to, then its hard to say if Maliki really has ANY say at all.
All of a sudden, a new Most Wanted appears: an Army of Heaven of [in WAPO] The Army of the Sky. Is it plausible that 250 Shiite End of Times fanatics were about to kill Shiite pilgrims or desecrate religious sites? Where is there any prior reference to this or similar groups? Certainly, there must be all kinds of splinters and rivalries within the Shiite camp, but is this particular one real, or perhaps 85 percent psy-op fabrication? Did Shiites in the ranks of the "Iraqi troops" in the operation need a special excuse or inspiration to launch the attack? Or were the troops troops primarily Kurd and Sunni, making it urgent that the public be informed that the Shiite targets were bizarre fratricidal heretics?
Clinton's demand that Bush leave Iraq before leaving office is unserious. Whether one thinks we should leave now, or in a phased withdrawal, or in ten years, one's assessment should be rooted in the interests of the US and the region, not in a child's notion of fair play.
Republicans play politics with Iraq constantly, but I find it no more appealing when a Democrat does it. As much as we want to see Bush pay for his mistakes, we cannot accept a mere personalization of the problem around him. We must insist that Democrats and other congressional leaders take forceful, politically risky and resolute steps to contain this catastrophe, which most of them, including Clinton, helped to create.
The NY Times is reporting on its website that the battle was between Iraqi forces "Shiite cultists" from the solder is heaven force. Who knows the truth?
I am curious though, since most Shiites are "twelvers" and have a clearly millenarian cast to their theology (as evidenced by Ahmanadinjad's speech to the UN), how would a "millenarian" group among Shiites be "heretical"? There are disputes about which hidden Imam will return (the twelfth or seventh, for example), but why would millenarians by heretics, when Shiism seems to be predominantly a millenarian religion?
Previous commenters here used the word "success" to argue for or against certain strategies for US in Iraq without defining the term. Prior to outbreak of US attacking Iraq, President Cheney said in Tampa, FL that US aimed to create in Iraq a democratic, secular, and free market government, and society.
With typical disrespect for the concept of "democracy," the administration assumed (fantasized/wished/psychotically and pathologically presumed) establishent of democracy in Iraq would lead to people voting as US proscribed rather than realize actual voters might vote for religious parties and wish to retain control of oil resources.
Looking at history of thirty year war in Europe with emerging Lutheran political provinces and even newer Calvinist regions in conflict with established Catholic authority of the Holy Roman Empire, success in Iraq lies in containing civil war there and avoiding regional warfare in the Mideast with conflagration that could disrupt oil supplies, re-arrange nearly every government in the area, and lead to worldwide economic depression. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_years_war
Tactically, 20,000 more US troops ain't gonna do it.
The only logical solutions involve flooding Baghdad with massive numbers of UN/Nato troops to quell orgy of secular violence, trying to come to regional non-interference agreements with nations bordering Iraq, fostering Islamic accords between al Sadr, Al Sistani, and Sunni clerics, and political accords from parties who now see violence as best option for them in Iraq.
The Cheney administration which, having never served, fetishes violence and believes it can solve all political problems.
Perhaps the government of Iran with knowledge of the horrors of war will prove more reasonable than neo-cons; knowing not history, neo cons cannot wait to make even worse mistakes in the rest of the Cheney Administration.
"The reports of the Army of Heaven being so well armed make no sense if it was a ragtag millenarian band." for some reason this description argues for even another read based upon Christ's arrest in the garden with his small band of pitifully armed followers. A few swords and and, if memory serves, a hacked off ear. Its been going on for two millenia and will continue. The description matches the apostles. Trying to grab the temple and set up god's kingdom.
Professor Cole,
Just saw your comments on CNN. Could you post a link to the transcript?
As for Tupharsin's comment on US casualties the numbers of dead and injured contractors probably need to be included. The Houston Chronicle has this account
Contractor deaths in Iraq nearing 800
Though there are 100,000 contractors in Iraq the figure is an estimate because, nearly four years into the war, the Pentagon is just now conducting its first survey to determine the exact number.
"but there are several contradictory narratives..."
I believe it's refered to as "the fog of war"
"You have to wonder whether Iraq can any longer be reported on in any ordinary sense of the word.
Juan, I'm not sure if you'd call what we're doing reporting in the "ordinary sense" but certainly it would benefit your readers to see our weekly program on life in Baghdad.
I know you've been critical, alleging that we are primarily producing stories about Sunnis, but you'll no doubt be glad to hear that we've finally retained a Shi'a correspondent and are actively seeking other partners, Shi'as, Kurds, and others in different neighborhoods of Baghdad and elsewhere to expand our coverage.
If you have any suggestions for possible Shi'a contacts in Iraq, don't hesitate to let me know.
And for your viewers who haven't already heard of our work, check out a weekly video about life in Baghdad, produced by Iraqis!
www.aliveinbaghdad.org
"You have to wonder whether Iraq can any longer be reported on in any ordinary sense of the word"
Amen. It is extremely difficult to find anything worth knowing in the reporting these days. No solutions, no good news.
Post a Comment
<< Home