Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Assassinations of High Officials;
36 Killed, Wounded in Baghdad;
Iraqiya Rebuffs al-Maliki

Signs that things weren't that calm in Baghdad on Wednesday: Guerrillas assassinated Colonel Abdul Kareem Muhsin, the director of the protection department in the ministry of transportation, in East Baghdad.

An attempted assassination by car bomb of an Iraqi court judge who has his seat in Abu Ghraib left him severely wounded.

Then "Four civilians were injured in a bomb explosion in Beirut intersection in east Baghdad around 8:00 a.m."; and "Three civilians were killed and nine others wounded in a parked car bomb near Sa’a restaurant in Mansour neighborhood in west Baghdad around 3:00 p.m."; and "Four civilians were wounded in a parked car bomb in Harthiyah, part of Mansour neighborhood in west Baghdad around 3:00 p.m."

Police found five bodies in the streets of the capital.

In al-Obeid near Sadr City,, militiamen hit a US convoy with a roadside bomb, prompting US retaliation, which left 11 militiamen dead.

Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, head of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, on Wednesday regretted the attack earlier this week in Kadhimiya on Iranian embassy personnel in Iraq. He said that such an attack is an assault on "the new Iraq." The Iraqi ambassador in Tehran visited the wounded and expressed his hopes for more cooperation between the two countries. Gee, they don't sound to me as though they are worried about Iranian influence in Iraq.

At the same time, Iraqi army troops moved into the southern edges of Sadr City. They did so by agreement with Mahdi Army militiamen, who faded away and promised not to maintain heavy weaponry. In return, the al-Maliki government gave representations that US troops would not come into the slum. Apparently Bush hasn't actually won hearts and minds. It is not envisaged that the troops will go beyond the southern corner. This geography suggests that the main goal of the operation is to keep the Green Zone from being subjected to mortar fire from nearby Sadr City, as was happening in March. I wonder how many of the troops being sent in are actually drawn from the Mahdi Army, from which al-Maliki recruited a lot of soldiers in 2006.

The US military is saying that violent attacks are down 85 percent in Mosul. But this conflict is a guerrilla war, so wouldn't you expect guerrilla forces melt away when conventional ones confront them? Al-Maliki's "campaign" in Mosul appears to have involved not one major battle with the enemy. So the guerrillas are lying low for the moment. So what? Can al-Maliki keep his conventional forces in Mosul at that strength for a long time? Can they actually win a battle if they have to fight one? When will the guerrillas begin striking again?

And, how significant is it that al-Maliki just hired 5,000 former Baath troops, putting them back into the army? Are things quieter in Mosul because the guerrillas are now being paid off?
If so, all well and good; but then it isn't exactly a measure of military prowess on al-Maliki's part.

The other thing you wonder about is whether $130 a barrel petroleum has finally given al-Maliki the financial superiority over his enemies to begin bribing them and the rest of the population. That is after all the way it is done in oil states. But, last I knew, al-Maliki was declining to spend what must be increasingly impressive reserves.

Apparently the provincial elections scheduled for October have had to be postponed to November because the Iraqi parliament hasn't been able to get it together to pass an elections law. If Bush was hoping to give McCain a bounce with the good news story of these provincial elections, he can probably forget about it. The upside? At least the papers won't be reporting that Muqtada al-Sadr took over most of the provinces in the Shiite South.

Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that negotiations are ongoing between the (Sunni fundamentalist) Iraqi Accord Front and the government of Nuri al-Maliki about their coming back into the government. The negotiations are said to be not far from success, though the cabinet suggestions of one of the three components of the IAF, that of Khalaf al-`Ulyan, have been rejected by al-Maliki and his Da`wa (Islamic Mission) Party.

Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that, in contrast, the Iraqiya List has refused another invitation to come back into the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, according to MP Usama al-Nujayfi. He said that the party, which has 19 seats in parliament (and includes former interim PM Iyad Allawi) does not consider the overtures serious. Instead, The Iraqiya List is exploring a coalition with a set of opposition parties, including Fadhila (the Islamic Virtue Party), the Sadr Movement, Khalaf al-`Ulyan's Dialogue Council, and the Arab Dialogue Front of Salih Mutlak.

Those talks have been going on forever, and it is a little difficult to imagine such a coalition of secular, Sunni fundamentalist and Shiite fundamentalist parties lasting for more than a day or so even if they managed to strike an agreement.

Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that the Iraqi government wants to conduct a census in Iraq, preferably before the November provincial elections. It argues that the security situation would now permit it, and that it would increase the legitimacy and transparency of the provincial elections.

One problem is that it is not clear that the security situation really would allow a proper census. And, those 4 million displaced persons will be a challenge to count. Another problem is that the census requires enabling legislation, and the parliament isn't exactly quick on the draw.

McClatchy reports political violence in Iraq beyond Baghdad for Wednesday:


' Diyala

Gunmen attacked a checkpoint in Sheikh Baba district, part of jalawla northeast of Baquba city killing four Kurdish security members known as (Asayish). The Asayish forces attacked al Shawathib area in the same district and arrested 15 young men. Two hours later, the bodies of two of the 15 young men were found while no information provided about the others.

An Iraqi army force raided al Gobba area northeast of Baquba. The force arrested three suspects and found a weapon cache in a mosque of Qaida supporters.

Iraqi army found two mass grave yards in al Abbara area south of Baquba city. The first grave included three corpses while the second grave included seven corpses.

Nineveh

Gunmen kidnapped 12 members of the rapid respond near al Ba’aj village southwest of Mosul city on Monday night killing eleven of them and injuring the last soldier in his leg.

Anbar

A member of Sahwa was killed and three others were injured in a suicide attack done by a suicide woman wearing an explosive vest. The woman attacked one of the headquarters of Sahwa councils in the center of Rutba city 280 miles west of Baghdad on Wednesday morning. '

Labels:

12 Comments:

At 3:05 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Cole,

Thank you so much for your blog. It is the best on the web. Your comments are extremely insightful and demonstrate your broad range of knowledge. Men of your intelligence are rare. Truly the world is a better place because of what you do. You are a hero and a great man. We are all in your debt.

 
At 3:22 AM, Blogger Christiane said...

And, how significant is it that al-Maliki just hired 5,000 former Baath troops, putting them back into the army? Are things quieter in Mosul because the guerrillas are now being paid off? If so, all well and good; but then it isn't exactly a measure of military prowess on al-Maliki's part.

The other thing you wonder about is whether $130 a barrel petroleum has finally given al-Maliki the financial superiority over his enemies to begin bribing them and the rest of the population. That is after all the way it is done in oil states. But, last I knew, al-Maliki was declining to spend what must be increasingly impressive reserves.

Your sarcastic tone concerning the Al'Maliki government is really unfair. If Iraqi troups aren't able to fight, it's because the US isn't allowing the Iraqi army to become strong enough. Your second remark concerning Iraqi oil revenue is really shameless and unwelcome. After the US destroyed almost all the infrastructures of Iraq, after the US never really begun to pay for the reconstruction of what she destroyed and after the few help distributed by the Americans mostly benefited to US firms, your invidious remark concerning the fact that Iraq could benefit of climbing oil price is really out of place. Further, because of the war and the US invasion, because of the preceeding long economic sanctions, Iraq isn't really in the situation of benefiting from this oil climb. Last but not least, the revenue of Iraq oil was just enough to support their current expanses. The oil revenues were just a tiny fraction of what was requested for the reconstruction of Iraq about two years ago. Further, it's difficult and useless to try reconstruct a war torn country. Morality : US get out of Iraq and pay due compensations for what you have destroyed.

 
At 3:33 AM, Blogger Christiane said...

Those talks have been going on forever, and it is a little difficult to imagine such a coalition of secular, Sunni fundamentalist and Shiite fundamentalist parties lasting for more than a day or so even if they managed to strike an agreement.
What seems to unite all these movements is that : 1) They want the US out of Iraq. 2) They are nationalists and want to keep their independance from Iran (although keeping good relations with it). IMO, if these talks didn't yet come to an agreement, it's because the US is meddling in and even if the movements were coming to an agreement, the US would use any other means (including force and illegal means) in order to prevent them to win a fair elections.

 
At 4:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The conflict in Mosul is mainly between the locals and the Kurdish Peshmerga militia (who were given Iraqi Army uniforms by Petraeus in 2004.) The Shi'a groups in the province, who are a small minority anyway, are mostly non-Arab and outside the influence of the main Shi'a militias in the rest of Iraq.

Khisro Goran, the Kurdish deputy-Governor, who was also appointed by Petraeus in 2004 has been trying to annex the province which is really a bizarre dream given the demographics, but has been backed by the JINSA-infested US military.

The latest operation coincided with a full reversal of the policy and Goran, who has been boasting to his great many foriegn visitors that he is the real ruler of the province, is currently in Erbil, the capital of Kurdistan.

Without the Peshmerga problem, Mosul does not need a large number of troops, and the size of the current influx seems to be small anyway. The increase in police and army numbers planned to come from the locals will be enough.

The US military, all of a sudden, has claimed ownership of the Mosul operation although it is Iraqi-planned and executed. The US is not worried about hearts-and-minds as much as about relevance. If the Iraqis continue to prove that they are better than the Americans at ending the violence, then the US loses the 'training and support' and 'preventing chaos' justification for staying in Iraq. The other justification, arming the Iraqis, is surreal: countries buy weapons with money, which Iraq has plenty of.

 
At 8:09 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

PBS coverage of Winter Soldier testimony is at:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june08/witnesses_05-21.html

Worth a look.

Subjects include "drop weapons" to make innocent victims look like combatants, highly changeable rules of engagement, massive overuse of firepower, falsification of intelligence reports. Comments by experts give diverse opinion on how credible the testimony is, and how widespread the practices are.

 
At 10:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Iraq, Afghanistan: Will the US Ever Get Out?

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21431

Ths US is are committed in Afghanistan. The US is not ready to leave Iraq. In both countries the US' friends are in trouble. The pride of American arms is at stake. The world is watching. The logic of events seems inescapable. Unless something quite unexpected happens, four years from now the presidential candidates will be arguing about two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, one going into its ninth year, the other into its eleventh. The choice will be the one Americans hate most — get out or fight on.

 
At 11:41 AM, Blogger empireofdirt77@gmail.com said...

Pic at this link sure to, in Michael Gordon's mind, win over the hearts and minds of the Irai people.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/05/20/sadr_city_3.jpg

 
At 12:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I cannot help but recall a prescient person being interviewed by Dianne Rehm in 2003 before the war began. He said that the US would quickly win the war, that there would be a brief honeymoon period during which the US would have to do everything just right, and that if the US didn't do everything right, it was going to get worse before it got worse. "It's going to get worse before it gets worse" is the most succinct description of the Iraq war, and of the fallout from the toxic Bush administration, that I've ever heard from anyone. And yes, it's still getting worse.

 
At 1:34 PM, Blogger John Koch said...

You ask whether "$130 a barrel petroleum has finally given al-Maliki the financial superiority over his enemies to begin bribing them and the rest of the population."

But isn't that what power is about in an oil state? Oil money is the fuel, lubricant, scorch shield, or unguent for just about everything else. The more oily and slick the leader, the better. A politician with unblackened or dry palms could scarcely survive a day.

The fundamental weakness of any oil state is that much of the population becomes unwilling to pay taxes and insists on a cut of oil moneys. Furthermore, oil exports support an exchange rate that makes it cheaper to import than to farm or to make. The state and its oil monopoly become autocratic or oligarchic. The national attention focuses on getting each group a share of the extracted goodies, which entails much lobbying but little productive labor. It is far better to be a country with few natural resources, or a diversity of them, but never to be oil rich, except possibly in the case of micro states with tiny populations.

 
At 3:30 PM, Blogger MonsieurGonzo said...

imho, Christiane makes some good points, Professor. fwiw ~ there really is no reason for the "sarcastic tone" (e.g.,'Gee, they don't sound to me as though...'), or the overabundance of "rhetorical questions" ('wouldn't you expect..?') in what is, for most of us ~ quite precious news from our quite serious wars. (While we common commenters are free to rant and rave as vulgar sophomores, we do expect our Professor = de facto war reporter to resist that temptation to which we, ourselves do snark :)

Written war correspondents have existed as long as journalism. Before modern journalism it was more common for longer histories to be written at the end of a conflict. The first known of these is Herodotus's account of the Persian Wars, however he did not himself participate in the events. Thucydides, who some years later wrote a history of the Peloponnesian Wars was an observer to the events he described...

...further modernization came with the development of newspapers and magazines. One of the earliest war correspondents was Henry Crabb Robinson, who covered Napoleon's campaigns in Spain and Germany for The Times of London. William Howard Russell who covered the Crimean War, also for The Times, is often described as the first modern war correspondent. The stories from this era, which were almost as lengthy and analytical as early books on war, took many weeks from being written to being published...

...It was not until the telegraph was developed that reports could be sent on a daily basis, and events could be reported as they occurred ~ that the short, mainly descriptive stories of today became common.

 
At 3:59 PM, Anonymous Mark Konrad said...

Here's another example of why the U.S. government and military wanted to get Petraeus out of Baghdad while his fair-haired-boy, war-hero reputation was intact.

- - - - -

Powerful Iraqi cleric flirting with Shiite militant message

22 May 2008

Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric has been quietly issuing religious edicts declaring that armed resistance against U.S.-led foreign troops is permissible — a potentially significant shift by a key supporter of the Washington-backed government in Baghdad.

The edicts, or fatwas, by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani suggest he seeks to sharpen his long-held opposition to American troops and counter the populist appeal of his main rivals, firebrand Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia.

But — unlike al-Sadr's anti-American broadsides — the Iranian-born al-Sistani has displayed extreme caution with anything that could imperil the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Full story Here.

.

 
At 3:15 PM, Blogger Joseph Sixpack said...

Mr. Cole,

You pointed out that the movement of Iraqi Army into Sadr City was the result of an agreement with Sadr's militia. That is an odd characterization. Do you not think that it has anything to do with the fighting that took place for ISF and MNF-I to gain a foothold? And what do you make of today's reports that the ISF has found caches of EFPs in Sadr City (among other caches found recently)? Do you think that Sadr's militia really made an agreement or that their hand was forced?

Rather than simplistically stating that it was just the result of an agreement, it seems more realistic and honest to recognize that the hand of Sadr's militia was forced by a superior ISF/MNF-I effort and their reluctance is demonstrated by the caches that have been discovered and destroyed.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home