Sadrists Threaten Civil Disobedience
Da'wa Leader Slams Bush for Base Visit
Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that the Sadr movement is complaining bitterly about the ongoing detention of its leaders. A spokesman for the Sadr office of Muqtada al-Sadr in Diwaniya threatened a campaign of civil disobedience if the arrests do not stop and if those arrested are not let go. Someone should tell Sheikh Abu Zaynab, the Diwaniya spokesman, that after everything Iraq has been through, the threat of mere civil disobedience is perhaps not very daunting.
Paul Bremer, the former US viceroy of Iraq, shot back Tuesday when Bush alleged that he had not known that he intended to disband the Iraqi army. Bremer shared a letter he sent to then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announcing his intention to disband the army, along with Bush's reply praising his leadership. Bush's reply, however, does not prove that he read Bremer's letter, only that Rumsfeld passed it on to him. You have a sense that Bush gets a lot of memos he doesn't read, in response to which he pats people on the head and names them Turtle Poo. The real question, on which Bremer has never come clean, is who ordered him to disband the Iraqi army. It wasn't Bush. Was it Cheney? I guess they don't bother to tell George everything.
The LAT reports on the reconvening of the Iraqi parliament with only 151 MPs in attendance. They don't appear ready to do any real business. Some Sadrists called for an investigation of the attack they alleged was launched on the Mahdi Army at Karbala last week. (In all likelihood, it was the other way around). They said Iraqi PM Nuri al-Maliki himself should be investigated.
The LAT says that leader of the Islamic Call (Da'wa) Party - Iraq Organization, Abdul Karim al-`Anizi-- an ally of al-Maliki's Islamic Call Party-- expressed his disgust at Bush's visit to an army base on Monday, by-passing the politicians in Baghdad:
' I want to mention my reservation and abhorrence as the meeting was held in an American base in a country having sovereignty . . ."
The Islamic Call Party - Iraq Organization stayed in Iraq during the Saddam years, unlike the Tehran, London and Damascus branches, which have generally dominated politics on their return after 2003.
Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that Sattar Abu Rishah, the chairman of the Council for the Salvation of al-Anbar, said that Bush promised to release innocent Sunni Arab detainees and to provide compensation for damages caused by military operations. He called Abu Rishah a "hero" and urged him to spread the tribal council model to other provinces (i.e. to fight Sunni radicals with tribal militias).
Al-Hayat says that the US military is arming tribal militias in the 'triangle of death' south of Baghdad, with the cooperation of Sunni guerrilla groups such as the Army of Islam, the 1920 Revolution Brigades, and the Army of Holy Warriors (i.e. the very guerrilla groups that had earlier fought the US and Iraqi troops).
The al-Maliki government takes a dim view of the new US policy of promoting Sunni Arab militias, for fear that eventually they will turn on the Baghdad government. Among Abu Rishah's demands, which Bush said he would study, were complaints about Shiite militias and about Iranian interference in Iraq. Al-Maliki depends on both things.
David Walker of the Government Accountability Office is a clear-sighted and brave man. His congressional testimony, that Iraqi security forces are unlikely to be able to hold the neighborhoods being cleared of guerrillas by US troops, has drawn howls of outrage from US officers in Iraq. The GAO sees little progress toward the accomplishment of Congressional benchmarks, including ridding government security forces of militiamen.
Among GAO findings was that the troop escalation the Bushies call 'the surge' has not cut down on Iraqi civilian deaths this year.
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 9/05/2007 06:31:00 AM
10 Comments:
Dear Professor Cole
I do hope he has his pension sorted out
As David Walker, U.S. Comptroller and head of the nonpartisan Government Accounting Office, pointed out recently, the American government has also, in a remarkably short period of time, taken on the look of a faltering imperial Rome with "an over-confident and over-extended military in foreign lands and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government." And imagine -- it was only a few years ago that neocon pundits were hailing the U.S. as a power "more dominant than any since Rome." Think instead: The Roman Empire on crack cocaine.
Looking back, it will undoubtedly be clear, if it isn't already, that, with the adherents of the cult of force at the helm of the ship of state, the world of fantasy took over and, even in imperial terms, what resulted was an empire of stupidity, hustling headlong down the slope of decline. That's often the way with blind faith, with anything, in fact, that prevents you from actually taking in the world as it is.
Whether Bush read the memo or not, Bremer's point is still valid. The Iraqi army was not disbanded on a whim, the WH was fully informed and on board with the decision.
Western journalists reported, parrot fashion, that the choice of the Bush-Malike meeting place was to prove that security is improving. How can going to a massive American fortress prove that for God's sake?
The leader of the Dawa party got it right. It was to humiliate Maliki and show him who is boss. Not only was Maliki summoned, and he duly obeyed, to a US military base in Iraq, it is located in a Sunni area. Then was the "little chat in private" which Bush later told us what it was (!!!): he told Maliki that he was his friend. Try "if you ever try your I-am-seeing-other-people again, you are dead meat."
Maliki's visit to Turkey; Syria; and Iran was a huge disaster, just like everything else he tried. He went there to build a regional bloc, so that he can tell the Americans to push off, and get rid of his tormentor, Petraues. He thinks that he is the embodiment of Iraq, and can make long-term promises and deals. The others see him as a desperate man, well pass his sell-by date and with virtually no authority. So, they made him make all the promises, for nothing in return.
The broken Maliki may prove more useful. The government yesterday declared a new four-year strategy called Iraq First, based on reconciliation and providing services and security. This may well be a stunt, but compare that to Maliki's old strategy: to show how brilliant and successful he has been all along.
Arriving at the APEC conference Mr Bush perhaps summed it up best when the Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile greeted him at the airport and asked "How was Baghdad?"
"We're kicking ass" Mr Bush responded.
This will go down just as well as "Bring 'em on!"
It speaks to the hypocrisy, and the oft convenient institutional amnesia of the mainstream American mass media, that the death sentence passed on Ali Hassan al-Majid is reported with nary a discussion of the manner in which the Reagan administration empowered and enabled the al-Anfal campaign.
To do so, of course, would be to directly remind El Presidente Arbusto that his oft parroted chant of "killed his own people" is actually a charge that, to a large degree, lies in the laps of his father Ronald Reagan, and the Reagan administration of the 1980s, represented in the largest part in the body of then Special Middle East Envoy Donald Rumsfeld. (Yes, the correct way of writing that sentence would be - "of his father, Ronald Reagan, and the Reagan administration" - but I wanted to speak to the ideological spawning that the Bushiites have engaged in, in order to anoint El Presidente Arbusto the juicy fruit of the luscious loins of the Great Leader).
But as we hang al-Majid it is only fair to point out how Chemical Ali's monstrous actions, and his contempt for the international community (Fuck them, he reportedly said) was the result of years of protection and appeasement at the hands of the Reagan administration, which verily denied this friendship thrice, and betrayed it twice at the point of the spear in 1991 and, decisively, in 2003.
The best summary of the long intercourse between the estranged bed fellows of the Saddam and Reagan administrations is available in the form of a book review penned by Andrew Cockburn in this week's copy of The Nation, the article itself being a review of the exhaustive book on the topic by Joost Hiltermann titled A Poisonous Affair.
Some of the noteworthy findings in Cockburn's review of Hiltermann's book include such morsels as:
1. Saddam used chemical weapons against Iranian troops in 1983, but the Reaganites refused to sanction these actions because Iran had been turning the tide in the war since 1982 ( a war which the Reaganites had encouraged their Gulf friends to push Saddam into in 1980).
2. Current Iraqi president Jalal Talabani had initially fought alongside Saddam in the 1980 war before he flip-flopped and turned against him. His rival Kurd militia leader, Masood Barzani, had been allied with Iran.
3. The CIA issued a report in 1986 noting that Saddam would continue to use chemical weapons because there was no international outcry against him - and the Reaganites made sure the outcry did not take shape. In 1988, Saddam went on to bomb Halabja and use chemical weapons against "his own people."
4. In order to muddle the waters and protect Saddam from criticism, the Reaganites falsely blamed the 1988 chemical bombing of Halabja on Iranians. They lied to protect Saddam.
5. In his visits with Saddam in the years that the monster killed his own people and Iranians with chemical weapons, Rumsfeld rarely broached the subject, being more interested in convincing Saddam to build an oil pipeline to Israel. Yes, Israel.
6. In 2003, after its "liberation," Colin Powell opened a memorial in Halabja, touting it as proof of Iraq's WMD. The disgusted residents of Halabja, angered by the manner in which their plight had been exploited and then ignored in the three years of the Bush occupation, marched on the memorial in March 2006 and burned it down. The town of Halabja is now a haven for Islamic radicals.
Links to related materials are available on my blog.
Dear Professor Cole
Isn't it the Russians that are supposed to lose nuclear weapons?
Strangelove
Is it slam dunk that, without disbanding the army, Iraq would be "better" or simply more peaceful? First, Bremer, Kagan, Keane, and others had insisted that the old army melted away and the Shiite conscripts would never report back to the Saddam officer corps. Second, imagine the howls if the US had resorted to the existing authority structure to maintain a status quo. Third, there is no proof that the existing officer corps would cede loyalty to an elected Shiite majority.
It is doubtful that the old army could have been reassembled without prompting Shiite secession. The bigger dilemma is that the "new order" has been unable to assemble any legitimate monopoly of force.
Perhaps the military could serve as the backbone of the state in the era when urban population was low, rifles were few, and officers shared a common Ottoman or British training. It is not clear whether the new forces trained by Petraeus will last any longer than the ARVN as US forces pull back. There are too many contending factions, available AK-47s, and IED materials.
Re: "The al-Maliki government takes a dim view of the new US policy of promoting Sunni Arab militias, for fear that eventually they will turn on the Baghdad government."
In Taji there was a recent "gathering" it was called of 1,500 people including Sunni and Shiite sheiks from the area, and some members of this "Critical Infrastructure Security" - the "Sunni militia" as Juan called. A representative of the Ministry of National Security, Abu Ahmed, spoke at that gathering about them - the minister of Ministry of National Security belongs to the Da'wa-Iraq party. According to a military press briefing - yes they are biased - Ahmed said:
“This is a historic event, you are making history today. The government supports you and greets you with open arms. The government has no issues with anyone as long as you do not have blood on your hands. Some of you fought the government and Coalition Forces in the past, because you thought, in the beginning, that you were fighting for your country. I think you now realize that it wasn’t really for your country that you were fighting, and on behalf of the government, you are welcomed back.”
The reference to "blood on your hands" is to al-Maliki's policy that no one who has killed an Iraqi or member of the Coalition forces may serve in the Iraqi security forces. Link to US military press release with photo's of the Taji gathering (pdf):
http://www.mnci.centcom.mil/Releases/200708/20070829/20070829-01-MND-B-Taji%20awakens%20to%20celebrate%20reconciliation.pdf
Dr. Cole,
Was the Iraqi Army disbanded or did the looting of vehicles, weapons, and infrastructure from the bases cause it to dissolve.
While I would love to read the notes of the meeting where a "vote" was taken whether or not to disband.. it doesn't appear the decision was taken so purposfully.
Also..does anyone know of a list or summary of the dozen or more plans that were done by the White House, Congress the military, ngo, and Iraqi dissident groups where they suggest guarding the borders, museums, weapons stockpiles etc & what to do with the Bathists, and the military ?
151 passes the quorum in the Iraqi Parliament (138) - does this mean the oil law could be passed 76 - 75? If so the recent Sciri/Dawa/Kurdish bloc would have the numbers if they were all attending?
Post a Comment
<< Home