Massive Bomb Burns Market, Kills, Wounds 126;
US Soldier Killed Near Hilla;
Debaathification Law Never Implemented
Guerrillas detonated a massive bomb in a Shiite market in north Baghdad on Tuesday, killing 51 and injuring 75. The bomb levelled a two-story building and set ablaze 20 shops.
(Courtesy Farsnews).
McClatchy says that US military sources suspect a rogue Shiite group of being responsible for the bombing, speculating that the blast may have gone off prematurely and that it had been intended for use against US troops. The evidence given-- a secret Shiite claim of responsibility and the type of explosive-- doesn't seem to me conclusive, and I don't actually think one can rule out Sunni Salafi Jihadis as the perpetrators. I fear that the Pentagon has lied so much in the past, attributing everything bad in Iraq to "al-Qaeda", that their current campaign to blame everything on Shiite extremists linked to Iran seems suspect.
In fact, Hurriya where the bomb went off used to be a mixed neighborhood that is now largely Shiite, and a Sunni revenge bombing in reprisal for the ethnic cleansing that drove Sunnis out seems to me a plausible motive.
Guerrillas deployed a roadside bomb to kill a US soldier south of the Shiite city of Hilla.
McClatchy also reports on efforts in the Iraqi parliament to curb the activities of the Mojahedeen-e Khalq (MEK or Holy Warriors for the People), which has 4,000 fighters at Camp Ashraf in Diyala Province. Iran considers the MEK a terrorist organization.
Al-Zaman refers to the Shiite deputies who pressed for the action against the MEK as Iraq's "Iran Lobby."
It is rumored that the US Pentagon deploys the MEK to spy on and conduct covert operations against Iran, despite the State Department's having designated it a terrorist organization. Shiite and Kurdish MPs in Parliament have now banned dealings with it and demand that Iraqi troops be permitted to guard the camp entrances.
Turkey claims to have killed the bulk of 21 members of a guerrilla cell in Iraq of the Kurdish Workers Party that had been moving toward the Turkish border. PKK guerrillas have killed dozens of Turkish troops and civilians in the past year.
The law revising treatment of former Baathists, which Bush and McCain had hailed as meeting a "benchmark" for political progress in Iraq, has never been implemented. The law is so ambiguous that how it is put into effect would determine if it could actually reduce the resentments of Sunni ex-Baathists. It was denounced when it was passed this winter by ex-Baathists such as Iyad Allawi and Salih Mutlak in the Iraqi parliament, which I thought a bad sign.
Although this important Reuters story is itself a refutation of the whole Kagan-Bush-McCain victory narrative of the "surge" or troop escalation, it will not even be mentioned on American television. The troop escalation had been intended to lead to political reconciliation, not just to temporarily tamp down violence in some neighborhoods. In fact, it led to a massive ethnic cleansing of Baghdad's Sunnis. There is no evidence that most of the Sunni Awakening Councils, who take money from the US to fight the Salafi Jihadis, are eager to reconcile with al-Maliki's government, by the way.
Patrick Cockburn reports that the US side has backed down on the issue of extraterritoriality for American security contractors in Iraq. Initially Washington, in its negotiations with the al-Maliki government for a Status of Forces Agreement, had demanded that private security guards such as those of Blackwater be immune from prosecution in Iraqi courts. This demand was unacceptable to the Iraqi side and almost led to a complete breakdown of the negotiations, but Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari (from the Kurdistan Alliance) insists that the talks are ongoing and will succeed. Of all Iraqis, the Kurds most want the SOFA; it is viewed with suspicion by most Arab Iraqis. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani has insisted that the text be voted on by parliament, and al-Maliki has acquiesced. Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr says that it must be subject to a national referendum, for which there appear in fact to be no plans; the US is said to vehemently reject this idea.
A controversy is raging in the Arabic press over whether the 4 Grand Ayatollahs in Najaf will present their own electoral lists in the provincial elections scheduled for this fall. Three of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani's deputies, in Basra, Karbala and Kut, ran on the United Iraqi Alliance list in January, 2005, apparently because the resulting interim parliament was charged with drafting the Iraqi constitution and Sistani wanted his own men there. The three did not run again in December, 2005. One of them, Ali Safi of Basra, is now apparently saying that an "Ayatollahs' list" may run in the provincial elections. This allegation has been denied by Sistani's own office. If such lists were fielded, they would be serious competition for the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, which has run as part of the United Iraqi Alliance and used Sistani's picture and endorsement to enhance its appeal to voters. Many Iraqis are disappointed with ISCI's performance in office, especially with regard to the provision of services.
Half the world's growing refugee population is displaced from Afghanistan and Iraq. There are an estimated 2 million displaced Iraqis abroad, primarily in Jordan and Syria, with about 50,000 each in Lebanon and Egypt. There are an additional 2 million internally displaced. The Iraqis abroad for the most part decline to come back and UNHCR polling among them suggests they don't intend to any time soon. This datum suggests that they don't believe Iraq is stable enough to permit their return. If the hundreds of thousands of Sunnis displaced from Baghdad in the past 18 months did come back from Syria en masse, I suspect it would revive the civil war in the capital, because the Mahdi Army now occupies their homes.
The Iraqi Parliament is hoping to move out of the heavily fortified Green Zone in September, on the grounds that violence has dropped so much in the capital that it is safe to do so.
McClatchy reports political violence on Tuesday:
' Baghdad
- Around 9 a.m. a man riding a motorcycle rigged with a bomb targeted a local awakening council, a U.S. backed Sunni militia, in Sleikh neighborhood killing four members of the militia and injuring two civilians.
- Around 10 a.m. a roadside bomb exploded beneath Al Ghadeer bridge. The blast targeted Iraqi national police vehicle injuring one policeman and three civilians.
- Around 4 p.m. A roadside bomb targeted civilians in Zafaraniyah neighborhood injuring one civilian.
- Around 5 p.m. gunmen attacked two employees of the prime minister's office in Al Nisour square killing one and injuring one in their car.
- Around 6 p.m. a parked mini-bus rigged with explosives ripped through a busy market in the northwest Baghdad neighborhood of Hurriyah, killing 51 and injuring 75.
- Police found three dead bodies throughout Baghdad, one in Palestine Street, one in Haifa Street and one in Atifiyah.
Diyala
- Around noon a parked car bomb targeted a police checkpoint near the Diyala police headquarters in central Baquba injuring 4 policemen and 14 civilians.
Nineveh
- Gunmen killed Muhyee Al Deen Abdul Hameed, a newscaster at a local station called Nineveh Television, in Al Ziraa neighborhood in northern Mosul. The gunmen fled after they shot Abdul Hameed.
Wasit
- Around 12:30 p.m. gunmen attacked two vehicles, a mini-bus and a truck, in the town of Aziziyah. They kidnapped 6 men from the vehicles and then set the vehicles on fire. Police headed to the scene and a roadside bomb detonated in the area of the kidnapping killing police Colonel Ali Mohammed and injuring 6 other policemen.'
Labels: Iraq

|
9 Comments:
The US has not confirmed that it accepts ending the immunity of the foriegn contractors. The Kurds are using misinformation to nudge the US to do that. They want an end to immunity because they too get killed and injured by the mercenaries, in the Kurdish areas. The Kurds also hope to show that progress is being made.
The US concession is .. not. They said that they will allow the Iraqi's to prosecute contractors working for the Iraqis only!!!!
R.I.P. SOFA.
"MEK Fighters, courtesy Al-Zaman."
That appears to be a miscaption by al-Zaman, if you run a search for it on Reuters' site you'll see that they caption that photo as follows:
"Police applicants wait outside a police recruitment centre in Samarra, 100 km (62 miles) north of Baghdad, June 17, 2008. REUTERS/Sabah
al-Bazee (IRAQ)."
If you check this report from Aswat Al Iraq you'll see that Interior Ministry troops in Samarra opened fire on men who were trying to apply for jobs with the police there.
That somewhat terse report doesn't do the episode justice.
According to an email we got from a resident in Samarra a scuffle broke out when some of the applicants tried to push their way to the head of the queue. At which point the interior ministry troops opened fire.
I fear that the Pentagon has lied so much in the past...
They lie when they don't "have to". Just to keep in practice. In the bizzaro world of the pentagon they view lying as a virtue.
The Iraqi Parliament is hoping to move out of the heavily fortified Green Zone in September, on the grounds that violence has dropped so much in the capital that it is safe to do so.
That would be a good move. Then the ordinary Iraqis could deal with these exotic imports, these compradors, as the need to be dealt with, and then institute a real government of their own which could send the US packing instead of inviting the whores, robbers, and the Aristocrats into the house and performing unspeakable acts on the SOFA.
Dr. Cole,
You frequently post article from Al-Zaman. Can you provide some background on it, including its editorial leanings? It is a Lebanese paper. I (perhaps unfairly) am circumspect of Lebanese newspapers as beholden to a particular faction in the country. Al-Zaman appears to be a Sunni paper that is an organ of the Sunni political establishment (as well as favoring Sunnis elsewhere in the ME.) Is that correct? It would appear its characterization of the Iraqi MPs moving against the MEK as agents of Iran would support my characterization. (Since the MEK is designated a terror organization by the US, curtailing their activities in one's country would hardly seem to require that one by the agent of a foreign power.)
Thanks
Good Op-Ed in the nyt
Another Bad Deal for Baghdad
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/opinion/17meyer.html
With only perfunctory debate, the cheney / bush administration is pressuring a divided Iraqi government to approve a security agreement that could haunt Washington’s relations with Baghdad for years to come. The "strategic alliance" that cheney / bush is proposing eerily resembles, in spirit and in letter, a failed 1930 treaty between Britain and Iraq that prompted a nationalist eruption in Baghdad, a pro-Nazi military coup and a pogrom that foreshadowed the elimination of Baghdad’s ancient Jewish community.
cheney / bush Administration Rewords Security Agreement With Iraq To ‘Avoid’ Having to Obtain Congressional Approval
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/18/zebari-iraq-sofa/
Iraqi Official: Security Pact Altered
Change Aimed at Bypassing Need for Congressional Approval
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/17/AR2008061702596.html
Al-Ani and Al-Amiri debating the MKO in Parliament -- Al-Sharqiyah Television
---------------------------------
- "A number of members of the Iraqi Council of Representatives raised in today's session the issue of the presence of the Iranian opposition Mojahedin-e Khalq [MKO] on the Iraqi territories. The deputies who raised this issue called for expelling MKO from Iraq, saying that its presence violates the Iraqi Constitution. It is worth mentioning that the Iranian government has recently pressured its supporters in the Parliament to raise this issue every now and then after its failure to pressure the Iraqi Government into expelling the Organization from Iraq."
- "An altercation erupted between Zafir al-Ani, member of the Council of Representatives for Accord Front, and Hadi al-Amiri - head of the Security and Defence Committee, member of the United Iraqi Alliance, and leader of Badr Organization - after Al-Ani expressed an opinion contradicting the opinions of the pro-Iranian Government deputies in the Council of Representatives."
Al-Ani is then shown making the following statement during the Council of Representatives' session: "Mr Speaker: I want to ask: Who does this talk serve? Does it serve an Iraqi national interest? Does it serve the good-neighbourly relations which Iraq is demanding? Does the other side adhere to the principles of good-neighbourly relations with Iraq? Does the Iraqi Government not discover pieces of evidence on a daily basis about the extent of the bad Iranian interference in the Iraqi security file? Stockpiles of weapons are found in Iraq everyday. There are now rockets which are being used by the criminal and terrorist militias affiliated with Iran and by special groups to attack Iraqi citizens. I do not know what MKO is doing exactly. Does it exercise any military activity in the present time? As far as I know, MKO is now unarmed. There is a US monitoring and even umbrella for protecting MKO's presence. Iraq has commitments and pledges enshrined in the Constitution. Some have demonstrated zeal in raising this issue. I wish that they had showed a similar zeal with regard to the Iraqi national interests. Regrettably, the talk of some brothers shows a clear political bias that has nothing to do with the national interest at all. Politically, is it in Iraq's interest to give up a pressure card?"
Al-Ani adds: "Why do we not hear this loud national voice when Iran shells Iraqi border villages and areas on a daily basis?"
For his part, Al-Amiri says: "First of all, we were not defending Iran. We have not even mentioned Iran in this regard. We have not defended Iran. We said that we have nothing to do with the conflict between Iran and MKO. We did not say that MKO carried out operations against Iran. We do not interfere in this file or in this card which is being used by the United States against Iran. However, we reject the presence of an organization that harms Iraq. Second, this organization works against the Iraqi people. Third, the activities of this organization disrupt the political process. I am not astonished at brother Zafir al-Ani's statement, because this is the way Ba'thists defend people and this organization. This terrorist and criminal organization killed Iraqis. I am not defending Iran. Let them go and attack Iran now. We have nothing to do with this. We are talking about the interference of this terrorist organization in the Iraqi affairs. Anyone who defends this organization contributes to shedding the Iraqi blood and is far from patriotism, the Iraqi people's interests, and national interests."
Saleh al-Mutlaq -- Al-Sharqiyah TV
----------------------------------
"A squabble erupted when Salih al-Mutlaq, head of the Iraqi National Dialogue Front, pointed out that during all of his visits to Camp Ashraf, used by the Iranian opposition Mojahedin-e Khalq [MKO] as its premises, he has not noticed any gun in the hands of any of the organization's members. When Al-Mutlaq started talking about the issue of Iranian interference in Iraqi affairs, a number of the UIA members started interrupting him in public, which made Council of Representatives Speaker Mahmud al-Mashhadani intervene and angrily call on everyone to remain silent, to give Al-Mutlaq the chance to speak, and then to respond to his statement. UIA members did not respond to the Council speaker's demand and continued to speak out loudly against Al-Mutlaq's proposals, in which he called for holding an objective discussion with regard to the organization's presence. He also called for presenting proof and documents that point out the organization's interference in the Iraqi affair, and for the reasons behind the MPs' silence with regard to the daily Iranian shelling of Iraqi Kurdish villages."
Not many iraqis are crying about the fact that salah mutlak is finding it hard to get back into power. Or Allawi for that matter.
Baathis are like the con men who prey on the elderly. Open the door to them, leave just one crack open and they'll break in and take everything you hold dear. They will not be satisfied with less than 100% of power, like the old days.
Assuming some form of the proposed SOFA gets completed and signed by both the US and Iraq, why could not the next president, if he chose, invalidate the agreement and/or renegotiate it. Since it would not have been approved by the congress, it would seem that he would have the same authority as the current resident to do this. Can anyone explain why such an agreement would become binding on the next administration?
Post a Comment
<< Home