Major Bridge in Kurdistan Destroyed
Guerrillas Kill 4 US Troops
Amiriya Clashes
The US military death toll in Iraq for May was actually 127.
On Saturday morning, guerrillas blew up a major bridge linking the northern cities of Kirkuk and Irbil. Irbil is the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan and the seat of power for Massoud Barzani, who wants to annex the ethnically mixed oil city of Kirkuk to Kurdistan (which is a regional confederacy inside Iraq). The Turkmen and Sunni Arabs of Kirkuk don't want to be annexed to Kurdistan, and the Sunni Arab guerrillas have their eye on Kirkuk's petroleum as a future resource. Blowing up this bridge was a major strike against Kurdistan.
If Turkey does launch an attack on PKK guerrillas in northern Iraq, whom it accuses of terrorist acts in eastern Turkey, it could devastate the Kurdistan economy-- one of the few bright spots in Iraq. As the previous item made clear, there are signs of trouble at the fringes of that region already.
Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, clerical Shiite leader of the largest bloc in the Iraqi parliament (the fundamentalist United Iraqi Alliance), has returned to Najaf in Iraq after initial chemotherapy in Tehran.
Reuters reports civil war violence in Iraq for Friday. Major incidents:
'* BAGHDAD - One U.S. soldier was killed by small arms fire in Baghdad on Friday, the U.S. military said. . .
* BAGHDAD - One U.S. soldier was killed and one wounded when their patrol was attacked with small arms fire in Baghdad on Wednesday, the U.S. military said. . .
BAGHDAD - Ten people were killed and 30 wounded when mortar rounds landed on a residential area in Um al-Maalif, a Shi'ite district of southwestern Baghdad, police said. . .
* BAGHDAD - Fifteen bodies were found in various parts of Baghdad in the past 24 hours, police said. . .
KIRKUK - A suicide truck bomber in Uweidla village near Kirkuk, 250 km (155 miles) north of Baghdad, killed five people and wounded 25, police said.
BAQUBA - Six decomposing bodies were found dumped together in the Tahreer district of Baquba, 65 km (40 miles) north of Baghdad, police said. . .
FALLUJA - Six suspected insurgents were killed during U.S.-Iraqi raids targeting al Qaeda in Falluja, 50 km (30 miles) west of Baghdad, on Thursday, the U.S. military said. Another suspected insurgent linked to al Qaeda was detained during a follow-up raid on Friday. . .
'
There were Sunni on Sunni clashes in the Amiriya district of Baghdad between Salafis and others, with US troops intervening agains the Salafis. Such reports are murky and I am suspicious of the whole "Iraqi Sunnis rallying against al-Qaeda" trope. There are always such internal struggles in any guerrilla war, and we say them big time in Afghanistan. They don't necessarily lead to stability and don't necessarily translate into Sunni support for the Shiite al-Maliki government. Sunni guerrillas internally divided and busy with each other is a temporary tactical advantage for al-Maliki and the US, but it is unclear if it has any long term implications.
Guerrillas robbed and occupied a Christian convent.
More at McClatchy.
Iran says it is ready to help resolve the crisis in Iraq.
Former British army commander Sir Michael Rose argues that since "we can't win" in Iraq, and since the British military presence in Basra is actually exacerbating the conflict, multinational forces should gradually withdraw.
Rice is complaining that the Spanish decision to withdraw from Iraq in spring of 2004 was made hastily and did not provide the US and its other allies with time to prepare for it. But as Spain's then defense minister told the story, the US Coalition Provisional Authority had demanded that the Spanish troops in Najaf (I think there were only 1200) try to "kill or capture" Muqtada al-Sadr. The Spanish officer corps had a much better grasp at that time of Muqtada's significance and the likelihood that any such attempt would throw all of south Iraq into turmoil. And they looked around Najaf province and imagined a million enraged Shiites. I think the Spanish military and defense ministry decided that the US was using them as a fall guy and said 'no thank you' by pulling out. When the US itself went after Muqtada and his aides . . . It threw south Iraq into turmoil for 2 months and there as very hard fighting by the US military. The Spanish might well have been massacred if their small force had attempted the same thing. So Rice should give it a rest.
Those drawings of the new US embassy in Baghdad that showed up on the Web?. Major security breach? Or embarrassing elephantiasis?
Immanuel Wallerstein on Bush's plan for Iraq (partial disengagement and long-term bases) and Muqtada's plan for Iraq (an Iraq nationalist alliance gradually to push the US altogether out). The only quibble I have with this lucid piece is that Muqtada has no intention of making up with Baathists. Ex-Baathists like Salih Mutlak, maybe.
Mark Danner at Tomdispatch.com on the Age of Rhetoric.
Labels: Iraq

|
Facebook





6 Comments:
"...Muqtada has no intention of making up with Baathists. Ex-Baathists like Salih Mutlak, maybe."
Wouldn't you think, with all the physical and cultural destruction our presence has wrought, that al-sadr might think driving the US out of Iraq slowly (or quickly) is more imperative than his disputes with the *Iraqis* who were, for the most part, indirectly involved in killing his father, as an American Rethuglican who voted for the current administration is indirectly involved in the continuing war crime called the occupation of Iraq?
Personally, I think he'll come about to that position, if he isn't there already when he figures out that *all* US forces are NEVER completely leaving because the US military is there to defend against anyone who interferes with the flow of oil from Iraq, the region or anywhere in the world. Those elements, by U.S. energy security policy definition, are terrorist to be hunted down and killed by US forces. That includes al-sadr, unless he decides to sell *all* the way out and become a mouthpiece for Western oil interests
I will readily admit, it's not a war & occupation ALL about the oil... Just 99% of it.
The other 1 percent is about the right of muslim women to wear bikinis on the beach instead of burquas.
Just ask any American woman...
[the buffalo extracts tongue from cheek)
There seems to be a change in the weather at the US national VFW. This is the only 'good news' on the home front that I've seen recently.
Operation First Casualty, IVAW, Has A ‘Posse’ - National VFW Backs Vet In Trouble Over Protest
"Marine Cpl. Adam Kokesh had already received an honorable discharge from active duty before he was photographed in March wearing fatigues — with military insignia removed — during a mock patrol with other veterans protesting the Iraq war.
A military panel in Kansas City, Mo., will hold a hearing Monday to decide whether he should be should be discharged from service and, if so, with what type of discharge."
[In Full, with video of the recent Manhattan patrol]
Well, unfortunately, if Wallerstein is wrong about Muqtada and the Baathists, his entire analysis of Muqtada's strategy falls apart. Essentially, he's said nothing. As for the so-called Bush plan, what good are bases in Iraq without control of the oil? The Democratic Congress has been telegraphing the final resolution of the Iraqi occupation for some time now. Redeployment of American military power back to Afghanistan, Suadi Arabia, etc., essentially the pre-invasion posture. Does that mean America will have "lost?" I suppose that depends on your point of view. I wonder how many regimes in the Middle East are anxious to share the fate of the Baathists in Iraq.
Re Immanuel Wallerstein: Interesting, but wonder how any Iraqi govt of any complexion is going to permit a US base in Arab Iraq without it attracting continual attack? Why would the Sunnis and Sadrists agree to it? Why would the Dems permit a US base if the US has been forced to withdraw and has "lost" the war?
The other factor he doesn't mention is the Iraq constitution. If we are to accept the stated policies of the Sunnis and the Sadrists, both sides are committed to its overthrow/rewriting in favour of a "winner take all" system. Isn't Muqtada committed to the impositon of a Sharia state, presumably on the Shia interpretation with himself playing the leading role?
This would be anathema to the Kurds, to the Sistani Shiites and to the secular parties, currently a majority in the parliament via two democratic elections on proportional representation and a constitution voted in by 77 % of the Iraqi electorate. If the constitution is abandoned the Kurds will quit won't they? Leaving the Arabs to fight it out?
So isn't the crucial divide here between the "winner take alls" and the "compromisers"?
I don't think it's prudent for the US to start fighting against Salafi's. I've lived around them most of my life (granted only in the US) and they are usually very close, or have a strong affinity for the Saudi government.
Given how close the Saudi's work with the US, I would expect this relationship would be expoited rather than attacked. Unless the writer of the article is just throwing out the word 'Salafi' because it's now en vogue.
I will soon write an article on the history of Salafism on my website www.islamiclearningmaterials.com. I will try to stay as unbiased as I can, but I'm sure some will be offended no matter what.
If anybody wants more information, send me an email at admin@islamiclearningmaterials.com.
P.S. I'm Muslim and somewhat of an amateur historian.
For the sake of accuracy - Tuz Khurmatu, where the bridge was blown up, is SE of Kirkuk and is not on the road between Kirkuk and Erbil.
So the article either gets the town wrong, or the significance wrong. If the article names the wrong town but has the significance correct - i.e. that the insurgents are cutting off links between the KRG and Kirkuk - then the incident must have happened in Altun Kupri (Gold Bridge). If the town is right, then the significance is less. Tuz Khurmatu is not totally under KRG control and one would expect that the community would be vulnerable to bombings of this sort.
Post a Comment
<< Home