Bombings Roil Diyala;
Driving ban Imposed;
US Soldier Killed
Radio Sawa reports in Arabic that Iraqi members of parliament dismiss the pledge of US presidential candidate Barack Obama to end the Iraq War and withdraw US troops from the country. They say it is just campaign talk and that if Obama were elected he would swiftly become more realistic. (It is my firm impression that the Iraqi political class has unrealistic expectations of the US public. The likelihod is that most US troops will be out by summer 2010 no matter who wins, and if Iraqi politicians want to avoid being taken out and shot in the aftermath, they had better cut some deals locally soon.
Frank Rich, perhaps our most perceptive political commentator points to a continuing public discontent over the Iraq War as a key causal factor in the Iowa primary results, where the two candidates least associated with the war did best. I made a similar argument on Friday.
The LA Times reports on demonstrations in Buhriz and Muqdadiya by members of Awakening Councils who are protesting the US arrest of two of their number. The Awakening Council members are often former insurgents or criminals who now take $10 a day to fight the Salafi Jihadis. But some are double agents, or just can't shake criminal habits. The problem is that those who join the councils develop a tribal solidarity with one another, which is likely to bedevil the US and the Iraqi government. In the capital of Diyala Province, Baquba, the security situation is so bad that the US and the Iraqi government imposed a ban on the driving of private vehicles. Likewise, they banned traffic in two other cities. Such bans have worked in Fallujah and in Baghdad neighborhoods to cut down on car bombings, but they typically produce massive unemployment and hurt the retail sector.
The traffic bans in Diyala, however, did not stop several bombings from being implemented. RTE News writes, "A 24-hour traffic ban was enforced yesterday in major cities in Diyala in a bid to curb violence. Despite this, six people were killed when their minibus was blown up by a roadside bomb near the town of al-Sadiyah, 100km northeast of the provincial capital, Baquba. In Baquba itself, a roadside bomb killed one person and injured another."
Also in Baghdad, Reuters says, "BAGHDAD - Four mortar bombs wounded three rubbish collectors and a girl in Adhamiya district in northern Baghdad, a hospital source said."
Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that a Baghad commander of Awakening Council troops insists that a majority of the Council members are former Baathists.
McClatchy reports more details on political violence in Iraq on Saturday:
'7 civilians were wounded in an IED explosion inside a mini bus on al Salam bridge that links between Doura and New Baghdad neighborhoods around 3,00 pm.
Police found 12 anonymous bodies in Baghdad today . . .
Diyala
Six civilians (3 men, 2women and a child) were killed and three others (2 men and a woman) were injured in an IED explosion that targeted a mini bus on Sa’adiyah- Khanaqeen Street northeast of Baquba today morning.
A civilian was killed and another was injured while a carriage was passing near the IED near the Silo in the center of Baquba city today morning. When the members of Sahwa (the awakening) council came to help, another IED exploded in the same place injuring three members of Sahwa.
18 civilians were injured when an IED exploded inside a local market in Jalawla city northeast Baquba city around 5,00 pm. Two of the injured people were moved to Sulaimaniyah hospital because of their critical conditions.
An American soldier was killed in an IED explosion that targeted his vehicle while conducting a military operation in Diyala province. US army confirmed the news in a press released issued today.
Kirkuk
Police found a body of a young man near Sargaran area west of Kirkuk city. Police said that the body is of a young man from Arbil province and his name is Mohammed Ali.'
Baghdad, Diyala, al-Anbar, Salahuddin and Ninevah provinces were the most dangerous for US, Coalition and Iraqi troops in 2007, according to this op-ed in the NYT. I.e. the provinces where Sunni Arabs predominated (though that is no longer true of Baghdad itself, which now is probably 80% Shiite). Coming next was Kirkuk Province (Tamim), a center of civil war between Kurds and Arabs.
Labels: Iraq

|
13 Comments:
The Iraqi politicians can't lose. They will leave Iraq, to spend more time with their stolen billions, before the Americans do, whenever that might be. Meanwhile they are having a fantastic time stealing more money and rubbing shoulders with the world's leaders.
Speaking of Frank Rich's column, he rightly pointed out that "experience" is DOA in post-Bush America. I'm extremely pleased that Americans are now waking up to the faulty assumption that Many Years In Washington, DC EQUALS Good Judgement. if anything, the Bush gang has shown us that past experience is an impediment to future performance when faced with new challenges.
Perhaps Frank Rich can be considered "perceptive," if he agrees with you from time-to-time in his analysis of foreign policy. Nonetheless, some useful criticism of the Frank Rich "perception" of domestic politics can be found on www.dailyhowler.com, wherein they've been analyzing his writings for more than 20 years. Criticism of his writings on foreign policy my be inferred from there.
"Frank Rich, perhaps our most perceptive political commentator."
Juan Cole: superb, insightful, informed (!) helpful, dedicated, admired. Always.
Frank Rich: Not. His occasional insights do not come near atoning for the damage he did writing political silliness in the late 1990s and during the 2000 campaign.
The US has successfully exported US-style "democracy" to Iraq! Their legislature doesn't represent the people any better than the US one does. Iraqis want the US military out, and a majority of them support attacks on US forces.
Seems as if Iraq is returning to its former, violent state of affairs.
"The likelihod is that most US troops will be out by summer 2010 no matter who wins"
I disagree - 14 vast new military bases (your tax dollars at work) says the US plans to remain in Iraq for the next 100 years.
The only thing that will stop that happening is if the US economy pancakes.
Strong point about Iraqi politicians' unrealistic view of US politics and their need to cut deals soon. I think Obama's view is congruent with a solid majority of Americans. If we can get out of there, we have a chance to begin to function as a leader again.
A potentially explosive drama is developing in Mosul, where an Iraqi soldier opened fire on his US colleagues.
It is being widely reported in the Middle East that this soldier, nicknamed "Caesar", opened fire after the US soldiers started beating a pregnant woman.
The Association of Muslim Scholars has confirmed this story, which was also reported in Lebanese newspaper Al-akhbar. Graffiti in Mosul today says "Well done Caesar" And leaflets in support of him are being distributed. This could become a big story in Iraq.
Links here and here and here.
I admire your work tremendously but, seriously, "perceptive political commentator." That's rich.
As noted above see the Howler. But just to give you a recent example from that site:
[Rich]" This time around, with the exception of Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic candidates seem to be saying what they really believe rather than trying to play both sides against the middle. Only Mrs. Clinton voted for this fall's nonbinding Kyl-Lieberman Senate resolution, designed by its hawk authors to validate Mr. Bush's Iran policy.
[somerby]“Analysis” can’t get dumber. Let us explain the principle here: When pols disagree on the merits of something, you say that the pols who share your view “seem to be saying what they really believe.” (The pols who don’t share your view are just faking.) There simply can’t be honest disagreement. In Richville, the pols who agree with you are honest. The other pols, sadly, are not.
No: Commentary can’t get dumber. Readers, don’t you ever tire of getting handed this crap by Frank Rich ?"
----
Well, Obama should read a little more about Iraq before he takes over, even if it cuts into his football watching time.
I heard him say the "surge" was supposed to help the Iraqi's with de Ba'athification???
Checked out the debate transcript, and that's what he said.
Its not just the bases, the embassy, etc., all of which will need to be guarded... it is maintaining an Iraqi government that will maintain the oil partnership laws, the (de)federation, the subservient relation to western/Israeli interests, as well as military bases close to Iran and out of Saudi Arabia.
I would like to see them out of Iraq, think it a malevolent blunder of enormous proportions, but I don't see them moving anywhere soon.
The digging in is on-going. What is the contrary evidence?
Maybe the Sunni jihadis, Shiite militias, and surviving Baathists share your prediction that the US will pull out by 2010. This might explain why they are laying low, saving energies and bombs for when they will count.
However, when Obama or other candidates pledge "to end the war," that is not a promise to end the occupation. Has he ever said he would scuttle the mega-bases? The bases are insurance that the Bush-Cheney legacy will remain intact. No US leader will survive the media spectacle of jihadis and Baathists storming, looting, and dancing amidst the embers of the abandoned bases and embassy.
If Obama starts to parrot Senator Lieberman on Mideast policies, pundits will cease to question his "experience." Opponents will then pick some other issue, perhaps health insurance, for their swiftboat assault.
Post a Comment
<< Home