Security Plan Mocked by Massive Explosions
Al-Hashimi Seeks "Terrorist" Status for Sadr Movement
Reuters reports that 2 US soldiers were killed by guerrillas on Saturday. In addition to the massive bombings at a Shiite market in East Baghdad that killed 70 and wounded 150 (- al-Hayat) on Sunday, another bomb, detonated in a restaurant in Sadr City, killed 2 and wounded 11. Police found 5 bodies in Baghdad and another three in Balad. In Basra and Mosul, clashes broke out with local militiamen.
Many Iraqis lack safe drinking water and are forced to resort to river water high in bacteria. In al-Anbar Province, where the US destroyed the city of Falluja, water pipes and all, and created hundreds of thousands of displaced persons, the incidence of diarrhea in children rose 70 percent in 2006! Diarrhea in very young or in sick or malnourished children is often fatal and contributes to high infant mortality rates. 60 percent of Iraqis in the Baghdad and al-Anbar Provinces use river water!
Iraqi Vice President (Sunni fundamentalist) Tariq al-Hashimi called Sunday for the US government to classify the Sadr Movement of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr as a terrorist group. Sadrists form a key component of the ruling bloc in parliament, the United Iraqi Alliance, and they run Maysan Province. It is a little unlikely that al-Hashimi will get his way. The other day, in contrast, he praised the Sunni Arab guerrillas as noble and sincere. If the top echelons of the Iraqi government are this divided over the nature of political reality, it isn't a good sign for the country's future.
Iran has again denied that Muqtada al-Sadr is in that country. Bush spokesman Tony Snow has admitted that the US does not know where Muqtada is.
Here is what I told friends who inquired:
Muqtada al-Sadr is *highly* unlikely to be in Iran.
1. The al-Sadrs, Muqtada and his father, made endless fun of the al-Hakims for fleeing Iraq to Iran under Saddam. Muqtada's claim to greater legitimacy would be undermined were he now to flee to Iran from the Americans.
2. Muqtada successfully hid out from Saddam in Kufa for 4 years. He can hide from the Americans. He has tunnels, safe houses, and trustworthy aides who won't inform on him. He also escaped this way from Najaf and the Marines in Aug. 2004.
3. No Sadrist source says Muqtada is in Iran.
4. No Iranian source says Muqtada is in Iran.
5. A UN source says he is hiding out in Kufa, which is what he used to do under Saddam:
6. Al-Hayat says he is hiding out in the southern Marshes, also plausible. The Marsh Arabs are now mostly Sadrists.
7. The story of his being in Iran has three sources: Gen. Caldwell of the US military, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, and Jalal Talabani. All have an interest in Muqtada being humiliated and undermined, and all have an interest in removing his Iraqi nationalist credentials by tying him to Iran. For al-Hakim and Talabani, both with strong Iran ties themselves, it levels the playing field. None is likely actually to know where Muqtada is.
It is sort of old news, but by 2004 the UN found that one third of Iraqis had fallen into poverty and 5 percent were in dire poverty. Iraq in the 1970s had had a fair standard of living but Saddam's wars, the UN/US sanctions, and the disruption of society caused by Bush's invasion, had clearly driven people into substantial poverty by 04. It must be worse, now.
Raed has a translation of the new Iraqi petroleum law.
Petty Larseny says we should declare victory and leave. An ironic reading of Mission Accomplished.
Labels: Iraq War
posted by Juan Cole @ 2/19/2007 12:30:00 AM
|
Facebook
11 Comments:
Declaring Jaish al-Mahdi a terror group is a bad idea.
There are actually three distinct Mahdi groups:
1) Social workers
2) Criminals: kidnappers; theives; thugs ..etc, who have nothing to do with religion or ideology
3) The military wing, for both protection and the death squads
Clearly the first group are not terrorists, and should be praised.
The other groups are best punished under the criminal law since terror groups often get pardoned as a part of a political deal.
By the way, the Marsh Arabs do not live in the Marshes anymore. Western propaganda were claiming that drying up the Marshes destroyed a way of life, and was a calamity. The reality is that most of the people who lived there could not wait to leave. A lot of the falks in Sadr City came from there decades ago looking for city life and away from the primitive life and the insects of the Marshes.
"Many Iraqis lack safe drinking water and are forced to resort to river water high in bacteria."
Bacteria can be removed by sand filtration. They need to get some sort of metal container, install an outlet pipe, fill it with sand, and SLOWLY filter drinking water through it.
If a surface scum layer of bacteria forms, all the better. This will remove dissolved organics.
Following Petty Larseny's link to a Rumsfeld-Woodward interview, I read Rummy speaking about occupation as a double-edged sword:
"And I always felt that foreign troops are an anomaly in a country, that eventually they're unnatural and not welcomed really. I think I used the characterization of a broken bone. If you don't set it, everything grows around the brake and you end up with that abnormality."
That's the problem, isn't it? Bush's legacy will not tolerate leaving an 'abnormality' behind in Iraq. To him, leaving behind unresolved civil strife (worse case scenario) or separate sectarian militia strong men (best case scenario) would be an intolerable mutation of 'his mission'. That is why he thinks we must 'stay the course'.
What of the ever diminishing number of bodies found in Baghdad as reported on this blog? Temporary lull? Shift in tactics? No longer neccessary? Improved conditions?
Dear Juan,
the draft translated by Raed is not "the law". This draft has been leaked but nobody really knows from where. It's circulating. The latest news from the inside is that the Kurds already opposed it and that it has no chance of being passed in this version.
Also, I don't get Raed's concern that this draft allows PSAs when the phrases on the PSAs are (visibly) deleted.
Yours,
--MSK
www.niqash.org
www.aqoul.com
The whole US-generated spin about "Where's Moqtada" also looks very similar to the serious of silly taunts about "Where's H. Nasrallah" that the Israelis launched during last summer's war (and since)... with the presumed intention of forcing the guy to make some kind of a public appearance (to reassure his base) which will give them a chance to shoot at him... I always thought those taunts about him being in Iran were just spin. Why on earth, absent any solid evidence at all, should we believe them??
Dear Dr. Cole,
More and more I am seeing the Iraqi conflict as between tribes -- al Sadr's tribe, etc. I am reminded of the tribes in the mountains of Afganistan. They ruled themselves and had their own rules. They settled things among and between themselves, often violently. Each tribe would rather be in charge than submit to another authority, regardless of the price to its people.
Some tribal regions have been unified but usually by a strongman -- Yugoslavia is an example. When the strongman dies the region falls apart. Apparently the tribes of Afganistan have not been controlled either.
I do not see the Iraqi situation, even in part, as a Shi'a v Sunni battle. People adopt their religions to their needs. (Man creates God in his own image.)
It seems to me that the way to (eventual) peace in Iraq is to get some form of communication with, and between, all of the powerful in Iraq. In business these are called the stakeholders. All past vendettas would have to be set aside. This will be difficult, if not impossible.
I ask two things: One, would you please comment on these thoughts in your column; and two, could you point me to some references on tribalism as it applies here? Internet references preferred, of course, but book titles would be appreciated also.
Thank you, and keep up the good work! I read your blog daily!
Tom
NY Times editorial - martial law in the US. A bit off subject but I thought this was quite interesting and important.
Bullying works?
Knowing about the recent Russia-Belarus gas conflict, it was pretty hard to take Putin's rhetorical outburst in Munich literally. The reason for this is that in this conflict, Kremlin-controlled energy monopoly Gazprom basically followed the well-known line on isolating "the last dictator of Europe" Lukashenko, thinly wrapping it in the Russian ultra-nationalist rhetoric.
Nevertheless, Max Boot reacted to the Russian criticism of the US foreign policy with brand neoconservative provocation: Putin: the louse that roared. Knowing what the neocons really want, it is not hard to conclude that this way, Boot puts extra pressure on the Russians to achieve the neoconservative goals in the ME.
From this prospective, it is not really surprising that now Russia slows construction of the Bushehr nuclear power station. Rhetorical clouds aside, Russia clearly responds to the typical neoconservative blackmail.
Petty Larseny says we should declare victory and leave. An ironic reading of Mission Accomplished.
Hey, if Cheney can say "last throes" and the British withdrawal is proof of progress, why not?
I'm sure that Talabani has a vested interest in claiming that Muqtada is in Iran, because it insults Muqtada's nationalism. However, I disagree with the assertion that he is doing this because it "levels the playing field" - i.e. makes Talabani's time in Iran seem like less of a crime.
Talabani has never tried to hide his fluency in Farsi or his life in exile in Iran - nor should he. I suspect he also doesn't really care about whether his time in Iran offends Arab nationalist sentiment.
Iran protected him; those who complain most loudly about Iranian influence and are quick to label people as "Iranians" tried to kill Talabani on multiple occasions and slaughtered tens or hundreds of thousands of members of his constituency.
I wish the US would tone down the Iran-bashing and realize that Iran is potentially a more important ally than Saudi Arabia. We need to get back to realistic engagement with those politicians and movements in Iran with whom we might eventually find common ground. And Sunni politicians in Iraq may need protection, but they have a lot of nerve complaining about Talabani's Iranian connections, given their Saudi connections.
Spin-proof above says that most of the marsh arabs left of their own accord and are happy to be living in the cities. We work in Majar al-Kabir, Maimouna, Chubaysh and other towns in the marshes. The population in these towns has grown; life in Basra's slums is far worse than life in the marshes, and the marsh arabs are by no means disappearing. They are more or less with Sadr's movement, but really, the politics is more complicated than that. The Sadrists get their support on a national level, but they have to tread carefully in these towns where tribal leaders hold more sway.
Post a Comment
<< Home