Dangers facing the World
As if Iraq was not enough to worry about, some important political developments in Lebanon, and even in the Yemen have raised the temperature of the Middle East . . .
A roadside bomb targeted Abu Qutaiba, a local leader of an Awakening group a U.S. sponsored militia, in Al Lehaib area north east of Fallujah killing him with two bodyguards and killing two children were passing by the bomb.
A ceasefire was formally signed on Monday between the Al-Maliki government and the Sadr movement,, which allows Iraqi forces to search Sadr City in Baghdad for medium and heavy weapons. Arabic press reports suggest that the government will need a court-ordered warrant for such searches.
The political alliance between the Pakistan People's Party and the Muslim League-N in Pakistan has fallen apart. Nawaz Sharif is withdrawing his cabinet ministers because PPP regent Asaf Ali Zardari refuses to press ahead quickly with reinstating the court judges dismissed last fall by Pervez Musharraf. Sharif knows that the Pakistani Supreme Court would, if restored, depose Musharraf. So does Zardari but he is more afraid of a military coup than is Sharif.
Pakistan will not return to stability any time soon, since Sharif and his party want to see Musharraf deposed, and the military may or may not allow that to happen.
Then in Lebanon, street fighting subsided on Monday in Beirut and in the Shouf mountains. But it flared up in the northern port city of Tripoli between Sunnis and Alawites (a folk Shiite sect to which the Syrian top leadership belongs).
Aljazeera on Lebanon's army:
"Dozens of people have been killed or wounded in renewed clashes between the Yemen army and Shiite rebels in the north-west of the country, tribal sources said. "Fighting killed or wounded dozens of people, including many civilians," on Sunday and Monday in several regions across the Shiite Zaidi rebel stronghold of Saada, one source said.
posted by Juan Cole @ 5/13/2008 06:36:00 AM
Click to join Infoco
9 Comments:
The Alawites: "(a folk Shiite sect..."
That means indigenous?
...or is it just a derogatory slam at non-westernized Syrians?
wikipedia: "...The French tried to pressure leading Alawite shaykhs to declare Alawiyya a separate religion during the early 1920s,"
Yup...
Or perhaps they're just sort of 'folksy', like Andy Griffith and Don Knotts, or Bob Dylan?
the government will need a court-ordered warrant for such searches.
What does this mean?
How and under what circumstances are court ordered warrants issued in Iraq?
In theory?
In practice?
Which Iraqi political factions actually run the courts? Is this a Sadr capitulation which means that the government can pretty much do as it pleases, or is it a governmental capitulation that means that warrants will effectively be impossible to obtain? Is it a covert agreement between Sadr and the government to target certain rogue Sadrist elements that neither like?
Excuse me, but this warrant provision is entirely to precious to pass without scrutiny.
Yemen seems an interesting story. This map has numerous insets detailing much about the country, particularly the distribution of Shiite/Sunni. One can then look at the distribution of economic activity as shown by two insets, and infer that the Shiites have greviences along those lines, as is the case elsewhere in the Middle East.
Wikipedia has information relating to the economy and politics, and reveals it was targeted by the IMF for Structural Adjustment, but the attempt seems to have failed. Also at Wiki is a History of Yemen and a page about the rebellion in Sa'dah, which mentions recent terror bombings outside Shiite Mosques.
The troubles in Yemen go back many decades, with some responsibility for them resting on Colonialism, both Ottoman and British. As this ASPO Newsletter points-out, Yemen's oil production was never large and is now in decline. Yet with the supply margin so tight, even a contribution of about 400Kbd, exports being 370Kbd, is very important, and Yemeni pipelines are bombed, successfully in Nov. 2007, with an alledged attempt "foiled" in Feb 2008.
ref : “A ceasfire was formally signed... which allows Iraqi [Army = BADR Shi'ite militia : "Iranian"] forces to search ‘Sadr City’ [ = Shi'ite Zone, non-aligned with either American or Iranian Zones d'Occupation] in Baghdad for ‘medium and heavy weapons’...”
AP ref : “...The Sadrists, meanwhile, rejected calls by al-Maliki to surrender weapons but agreed to allow Iraqi security sweeps, saying "Mahdi fighters have no medium or heavy weapons."”
With the possible exception of a few old relics, obviously the anti-occupation Jaish al Mahdi forces in Sadr City have no armour or big cannon, etc. What "heavy weapons" concern the American occupation forces in Baghdad are: (1) any kind of modern, ground-to-air missile capable of downing aircraft; (2) mortars; and, (3) rockets, though un-guided ~ yet still capable of striking American bases (e.g., the Green Zone).
“"We have agreed on a cease-fire and to end displaying arms in public," said Sheik Salah al-Obeidi, an aide to al-Sadr. "But we did not agree on disbanding the Mahdi Army, [or] to hand over its weapons."”
“The Sadr movement is keen on keeping its 60,000-strong militia force [ ! ] intact.”
That "60,000" number surprised me; fwiw, tracking it down leads us to 11-JAN-2007, The Washington Post: “Intensified Combat on Streets Likely”, an article, now historical artifact talking about the then-new “The Surge” strategy...
“"The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are without conscience, and they will make the year ahead bloody and violent," the president said last night in explaining his revised approach. "Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue -- and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties."”
“The prospect of a more intense battle in the Iraqi capital could put U.S. military commanders in exactly the sort of tough urban fight that war planners strove to avoid during the spring 2003 invasion of the country. The plan to partner U.S. and Iraqi units may compel American soldiers to rely on questionable Iraqi army and police forces as never before. And while the president insisted there is no timetable associated with the troop increase, military officials said sustaining it for more than a few months would place a major new strain on U.S. forces that already are feeling burdened by an unexpectedly long and difficult war.”
“Most of all, the White House's insistence on confronting all insurgents and militias, both Sunni and Shi'ite, may mean that the U.S. military will wind up fighting the Mahdi Army of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. That militia is estimated by some U.S. intelligence officials to have grown over the past year to about 60,000 fighters, and some in the Pentagon consider it more militarily effective than the Iraqi army. Fighting it could resemble on a citywide scale the sharp combat that took place this week along central Baghdad's Haifa Street, in which U.S. jets and attack helicopters conducted airstrikes just north of the U.S. Embassy in the protected Green Zone.”
“"There will be more violence than usual because of ‘the surge’, and a surge with more casualties plays up on the international stage," said a senior Army official. Sadr "is going to have to make a choice, and if he decides on a confrontation, it will be pretty significant," added a senior Pentagon official.”
“Sadr is one of the most powerful figures in the Iraqi government, and he has forced it and the U.S. military to back down in the past. Yet if the Mahdi Army is not confronted, the entire offensive may falter and the sectarian conflict may intensify, because Sunnis will feel it is just one more way of attacking them while letting Shi'ite death squads go free, military experts said. "If our troops do not enter Sadr City, they belittle the notion of a ‘surge’ because they would leave a leading militia unscathed," said Patrick Cronin of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a defense think tank.”
...by which means ‘The Surge’ thinking originally frames the threat, apparent of "~60,000 Jaish al Mahdi forces" in terms of the then, evident Sunni <=> Shi'ite Civil War = “Ethnic Battle for Baghdad”.
now, imho The historical irony is : that we go to war in 2003 to rid IRAQ of "Weapons of Mass Destruction", apparently capable of being an inter-continental threat to The West, including ISRAEL; and here we find ourselves still making war in 2008: to rid IRAQ of "Heavy Weapons" = mortars, flying pipe-bombs, and booby-trap devices... capable, apparent of flying across town and hitting a Green Zone military occupation outpost.
Here are the latest propaganda releases from the White House. The interviewer from 'BBC Arabic' is particularly obsequious:
Interview of George W. Bush by Jacob Eilon and Gil Tamari, Channel 10 TV, Israel
Tuesday May 13, 2:46 pm ET
Here.
Interview of George W. Bush by Lukman Ahmed, BBC Arabic
Tuesday May 13, 2:54 pm ET
Here.
.
Reuters UK quietly reported this story late yesterday and the passive/aggressive Establishment media are doing their best to ignore it. The American "news" organisations are agitating for war with Iran while pretending to be aghast at the very thought. A brand new war would be very good for ratings dontcha know.
Iran shifts attention to brokering peace in Iraq
Details from a secret meeting between top Iranian and Iraqi officials signal Iran's aim to 'stop arming' militias.
By Scott Peterson and Howard LaFranchi -- Staff writers of The Christian Science Monitor
from the May 14, 2008 edition
Istanbul, Turkey and Baghdad, Iraq - Iran's role in helping broker a cease-fire in Baghdad's Sadr City may be the first sign that it is acting to fulfill recent promises to stop arming Iraq's militias and help stem their attacks.
While the deal inked Monday was tested Tuesday as militants in Moqtada al-Sadr's Baghdad stronghold launched overnight attacks on US forces, Iraqi officials say that Iranian influence was key to reaching the deal with the anti-American cleric aimed at ending weeks of deadly fighting.
Iran's intervention comes as previously undisclosed details are emerging of a secret meeting between Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, other senior Iraqi officials, and the commander of Iran's Qods Force, Brig. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, in April, after clashes with Sadr's Mahdi Army in Basra. In that meeting, General Soleimani "was deeply concerned" and "promised to stop arming groups in Iraq and to ensure that groups halt activities against US forces," according to a description given by a US official to the Monitor.
Full story Here.
.
Among threats to the world , consider -
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080513.wkhadr_dallaire0513/BNStory/National/home?cid=al_gam_mostview
Can the USA still produce generals like this ?
Slaughterhouse Beirut
Lebanon's chances for meaningful reconstruction are diminishing by the day. And despite bush's bravado, it's going to be the same in Iraq.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/136788?from=rss
If you want to know what Iraq will look like 25 years from now, look at Lebanon today. The similarities and differences — but mainly the similarities — raise a lot of painful memories and questions for americans.
How empires fall
The distinct American hubris that we are “the indispensable nation” and the braggadocio that we are an “omnipower” has us overcommitted in alliances that we cannot fulfill. Despite 25 percent of the Iraqi population killed, injured or displaced, the “world’s only superpower” cannot even control Baghdad. To deal with the pointless war we started in Afghanistan, we have had to sucker our NATO allies into a conflict that is no concern of theirs. Militarily overextended and with a faltering economy and collapsing currency, the cabal of morons that rules America still hopes to attack Iran, Syria, and to drive Hezbollah from Lebanon. American idiots in think tanks are busy at work drawing up plans about how the US is going to check China and prevent her emergence as a power beyond US control. The Republican presidential candidate has boasted that he will challenge Russia and bring Putin to heel.
Amazing.
The world’s greatest debtor is going to take on the two powerful countries with the largest trade surpluses. According to the World Factbook, an annual publication of the CIA, Russia’s 2007 current account surplus is $465 billion and China’s is $363 billion. In contrast, the US current account deficit is $987 billion--an amount larger that the total deficits of all other countries in the world combined. The out-of-pocket and already incurred future cost of Bush’s wars of aggression is between $3 and $5 trillion, every dollar of which must be borrowed. That comes on top of the unfunded liabilities of the US government totaling $53 trillion. By any account the US is the world’s worst credit risk. The “mighty” US relies on foreigners to finance its consumption, its wars, and the daily operations of its government.
That's from an article penned by Ronald Reagan's Assistant Secretary of the Treasury and quoting Pat Buchanan! When what used to pass for the "far-right" agrees with the so-called "far-left" and the people in between... why haven't we simply stopped the Neocons?
We're transfixed. Watching them fill the glasses with Kool Aid. Waiting to be ordered to drink from them.
Post a Comment
<< Home