Cruel Thanksgiving in Iraq
Over 50 Dead
Over 50 Iraqis were killed and 47 wounded in separate attacks on Thursday.
In Mahmudiyah just south of Baghdad, a bomber detonated his payload outside a hospital, killing some 30 persons and wounding 27. Among the wounded were 4 US GIs.
AFP reports, "Also, the US military reported the deaths of two servicemen in a roadside bombing southwest of Baghdad, while four American soldiers were killed in a series of incidents on Wednesday."
Shootings and bombings in Hilla, Baghdad, Baiji and Hawijah accounted for the rest of the day's death toll.
Former National Security Council staffer Daniel Benjamin, among the more knowledgeable observers of al-Qaeda in the US, argues that VP Richard Bruce Cheney's nightmare of an al-Qaeda-dominated Sunni Arab heartland in Iraq is just not plausible. All I would add is that the longer US ground troops occupy Sunni Arab territory, the slightly more likely Cheney's scenario becomes. That is, Cheney is making the argument as a reason to keep ground troops in Iraq. It is the other way around, Dick.
Cheney's hard line speeches are no longer playing well in the hustings, in any case. His approval numbers in polls are even lower than Bush's, and Bush's are very low for a president at this stage of his second term.
The Guardian explains more of the background of Bush's plot to bomb the Aljazeera offices in Doha. It was at the height of the fighting in Iraq, both in Fallujah and the Shiite south, in April of 2004, and the Pentagon and Bush were probably afraid of losing Iraq altogether. Aljazeera was getting out the word of high civilian casualties in Fallujah, creating an outcry and prompting threats to resign among the US-appointed Interim Governing Council politicians. The plot is, of course, odious, if the evidence for it stands up, and I would argue that it was criminal. The FBI has busted mafiosi for plotting out murders over spaghetti in restaurants in Queens. How is this different?
Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV has charged that UK PM Tony Blair was duped by the war party in Washington. They promised him a push to disarm Iraq via the United Nations, he argues, but all along intended to have a war into which they would drag the UK, UNSC resolution or no. Wilson is a Washington insider, and his account undoubtedly reflects conversations with officials or former officials in the know.
With kidnappings and killings of foreign workers in Afghanistan on the rise, some observers are worried about it going the way of Iraq.
posted by Juan Cole @ 11/25/2005 12:30:00 AM
|
Facebook
8 Comments:
If Bush were to bomb Qatar, do you think the Administration would even think of the many Americans living and working there?
Or would they just be 'collateral damage' like the unknown numbers of civilian dead in Fallujah?
I cannot say I am surprised by this story.
Aerial bombing would not be required to take out Aljazeera. The CIA and special forces have plenty of capability to this, especially in a friendly country. They could stage a car bombing, an arson, a midnight raid etc that would appear to be the work of others.
I'm sure that, if Bush was serious, the Pentagon and the CIA had already come up with plans by the time he talked to Blair.
I wanted to point out an interesting website Iraq Casualty Account
The site offers the latest news, deaths, casualties and wounded counts offered by CENTCOM which is gathered by a private source.
We hear so often of casualties coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan. 2,104 so far, although low in military terms, is still drastic. Just as startling though is the number wounded thus far.
By looking at the number wounded thus far (15,568) foundhere and dividing that by the number of soldiers killed (2,104) the number of wounded for each soldier that dies is 7.3.
So for every roadside bomb or incident which kills 5 soldiers, potentially 35 soldiers are wounded (5 killed x 7 ) based on the simple equation above. Moreover, how often does the casual viewer of news information hear about the wounded count? Yet our wounded are just important to hear about as our casualties. These wounded soldiers are persons returning from the war theater possibly limbless, physically impaired, psychologically affected and expected to assimilate seamlessly into the sheltered existence we call American living.
Re Tony Blair being "duped" by DC Bushies: Prime Minister Tony Blair is a big boy, Juan. And a canny one. If he stepped into the cowpie on Iraq, it wasn't because he didn't know where he was stepping.
Sounds to me like friends of Blair in DC are trying to figure out a way to get him un-stuck from the mess he and Bush knowingly walked into. I don't believe he was duped.
Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV has charged that UK PM Tony Blair was duped by the war party in Washington. They promised him a push to disarm Iraq via the United Nations, he argues, but all along intended to have a war into which they would drag the UK, UNSC resolution or no.
Why Blair decided to follow Bush in the Iraq adventure is one of the deepest mystery of this war, at least for me. I can figure out many different reasons why Bush and his clique invaded Iraq. But why did Blair follow ? What kind of benefits did he expect for England and for himself ? I'm only half convinced by Wilson's recent statements. They don't really offer an explanation, because they don't tell how he was duped. The New Zealand Herald doens't give much informations concerning the circonstances in which Wilson made these statements either.
Blair is probably adapting his discourse to the audience he is talking. Here in Europe he has made many allusions against Saddam's dictatorship, his crimes against human rights etc. and the necessity to stop him. On the other hand, unlike US, UK has signed the convention creating the ICC, so Blair could be brought to trial and held accountable for waging an illegal war. It was hence very important for him to get a mandate from the UN/NSC. Blair also saw himself as a mediator between US and the rest of Europe. He thought - wrongly - that he would be able to convince France and Germany to participate to the coalition and that together, they would moderate the US imperial push (or at least that's the argument he used while trying to drag them in the coalition).
But the Americans were too impatient and thus they invaded Iraq before the weapons' inspectors could finish their work. Given the circumstances, the UNSC refused to legitimate the invasion. But why did Blair stay on board with the Americans ? Given the fact that the war was illegal, he had a good argument to refuse the invasion. Why didn't he use this argument ?
I think that the WMD were only the pretext, not the true reason of the Iraq war and that both Blair and Bush knew they were a pretext.
Sometimes I wonder whether the US intelligence wasn't in possession of some secrets which could have ruined Blair's political carreer ? Or is it because of the oil ressources ? Does Blair knows/believe that an oil shortage could succeeds much earlier than expected ?
(sorry for the bad English, thanks for reading)
Christiane
You make an apt point about troops in Iraq. Al-Qaeda is only as good as its newest recruit. What better way to convince a poor, impoverished, unemployed teenager than to point the finger at the US, who is literally right there in front of him.
Of course, the blind neo-CONS will counter by throwing a smoke screen of hypotheticals if troops leave, like the fact that Anti-Americanism would be used as a political tool by unfriendly governments. I guess the US' continued presence can only help (:sarcastic grin:) Of course, by their logic, we'd have to bomb Germany because their political candidates use Anti-Americanism in their campaigns. Ever wonder why Cheney's poll numbers are down? There is nothing more childish than to use force to get what you want. Have we stoooped to a more refined and organized version of terrorists, then?
I'm not sure I'm ready to call Joseph Wilson a "Washington Insider" or even a "Bush Administraton Official". As a career ambassador, who more often than not was out of the country, he really is neither.
There is little in this article that suggests "inside information" or any special authority. Any person who had read the press on these issues over time could make similar pronouncements. Most, however, aren't famous. Famous people publishing unremarkable blather is a feature of all media.
Tony Blair is a canny and well educated leader who made a decision based on what he felt were the facts at hand--an awesome and horrifying decision for any leader. It may well turn out to be a poor decision, but I find it hard to believe that he was "fooled" as many Democrats and Republicans now would have lus believe.
Stick with the John Le Carre novels, Sherm, blowing up a major TV network station in a foreign country is a little more complicated than "arson" or "a car bomb".
Professor Cole's hard work deserves more thoughtful readership.
For anyone wondering why Tony Blair has made the choices he has, the answer is simple: he's a neocon.
When six of the country's leading experts on Iraq went to Downing Street in November 2002 , they sought to warn Tony Blair about the dangerous consequences of his actions.... [One expert] said: "I was staggered at Blair's apparent naivety, at his inability to engage with the complexities. For him, it seemed to be highly personal: an evil Saddam versus Blair-Bush. He didn't seem to have a perception of Iraq as a complex country." He recalled that the Prime Minister had interjected only occasionally and cryptically. At one point he had exclaimed: "But he [Saddam] is evil, isn't he?"
Me, good; him, bad. That's the childish level our leaders operate on.
Cal
Post a Comment
<< Home