Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Saturday, April 29, 2006

Iraq VP Warns Bush against Iran Attack
Ramadi Fighting Leads to Evacuation of One District


Adil Abdul Mahdi, whom the Americans wanted for the prime minister of Iraq, warned Washington Friday not to attack Iran. “We will not allow anyone to attack anyone," He said. (Since Iraqi politicians can't keep bombs from going off all around them, this comment is somewhat grandiose). Abdul Mahdi is one of two vice presidents in Iraq, a largely ceremonial post. He is a member of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which was hosted by Iran from 1982 through 2003. Its leaders are generall close to the hard line clerics of Iran, but they have also made a fairly close marriage of convenience with the US Pentagon.


Reuters reports guerrilla violence in Iraq on Friday, including three killed in Falluja and a US soldier killed north of Baghdad.

The NYT reports that US military deaths have spiked to their highest level in 5 months. It also reports more on the battle for Baqubah. Apparently the guerrillas consider western Diyala province with a fertlie plain that opens onto the capital, to be analogous to Panjshir Valley north of Kabul, the control of which usually had implications for control of the capital.

Al-Zaman reports that there was renewed fighting between guerrillas and Marines in Ramadi on Friday. The US military forced an entire downtown city quarter to evacuate, so they could make it their HQ inside the city, apparently in preparation for moving against the guerrillas. I am pessimistic that the Marines are ever going to subdue the guerrillas in Ramadi, without just destroying it the way they did Fallujah (which still isn't safe). These search and destroy missions and displacement of populations just anger the locals and drive them into the arms of the guerrillas.

Well, so much for "fly-paper" or "fighting them over there" or attacking Iraq to end terror. The US government is now admitting that the Bush war in Iraq is generating anti-Western Terrorism. So far Madrid and London have been hit over it, and that is only the beginning. The jihadis getting training fighting Marines in Iraq will be a threat for decades, all over the world.

Ayman al-Zawahiri, the number 2 man in al-Qaeda, whom Bush and Cheney have left at liberty to taunt us after it planned and arranged for the implementation of 9/11, is at it again. He tells the radical Muslims that the guerrillas have broken America's back in Iraq. He also calls for the overthrow of Perverz Musharraf, the General-President of Pakistan.

Al-Zawahiri lies when he tries to take credit for 800 suicide bombings in Iraq. He had nothing to do with them. But his claim will be widely believed in the region, and an image of al-Qaeda as resurgent is being created. Such an image itself endangers US national security. Meanwhile, I don't see Bush going to Congress to ask for a special appropriate to get Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri. It doesn't seem very important to him, compared with his unconnected drive to reduce the small city of Fallujah to rubble.

Al-Zaman reports insider speculation on negotiations over the shape of the new government. Since Iyad Allawi got no high posts (his list only got 9% of seats in Parliament), he is making a play for head of the national security council, a body envisaged to work like the one in Pakistan, constraining the civilian prime minister on security issues. There is some resistance to Allawi filling this post, among the Shiite religious deputies and among the Sunni hard liners of the Iraqi Accord Front. Al-Zaman says that the United Iraqi Alliance (Shiite) is increasingly tending toward claiming the ministries of petroleum and of finance, and relinquishing the ministry of the interior, which they say has caused them so many headaches. (I cannot imagine that this report, sourced to Sami al-Askari, who is said to be close to PM designate Nouri al-Maliki, is true.)

A Japan/Iraq timeline is now available via the Shigetsu Institute.

2 Comments:

At 9:57 AM, Blogger Dr. Mathews said...

...the Bush war in Iraq is generating anti-Western Terrorism...; I don't see Bush going to Congress to ask for a special appropriate to get Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri. It doesn't seem very important to him, compared with his unconnected drive to reduce the small city of Fallujah to rubble...
Excuse me sounding like a broken record but I don't think Bush & Co. want to reduce the terror threat. As cynical as this may appear, they have the most to gain from a new 911-type terrorist attack on US soil (It doesn't even have to be on US soil). As Chris Floyd puts it: "...the Bush Faction considers such an unspeakable horror as an 'opportunity'." As for Bush himself, with ratings hovering in the thirties and considering his demeanor and personality, I think we are living in increasingly dangerous times (now more than ever before).

 
At 7:37 PM, Blogger JHM said...

(( I see "Coaching Coverage" has noticed basically the same point I have, but without explaining exactly what went wrong. ))

"Well, so much for 'fly-paper' or 'fighting them over there' or attacking Iraq to end terror. The US government is now admitting that the Bush war in Iraq is generating anti-Western Terrorism. So far Madrid and London have been hit over it, and that is only the beginning. The jihadis getting training fighting Marines in Iraq will be a threat for decades, all over the world."

==

If you look at that article

<< http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2157116,00.html >>

closely, I believe you'll find that Rupert Murdoch's employees have engaged in accidental or deliberate twistification and that there was not in fact any claim that "The US government is now admitting that the Bush war in Iraq is generating anti-Western Terrorism."

What the incompetent or tendentious Tory journalists warped out of shape began life as follows:

"But Ambassador Henry Crumpton, the US special co-ordinator for counter-terrorism, came close yesterday to suggesting that the war was exacerbating the terrorist problem, saying that for some international recruits 'Iraq is a cause'."

In that form, it is quite clear that the invasion fans are "admitting" only that a certain number of international recruits have traveled to neo-Iraq on behalf of some faith-crazed "cause" of their own fantasizing, some religionist or Baathist Holy Grail. That proposition is scarcely worth affirming, of course, for who on earth ever supposed otherwise about any significant group of guerillas/resisters/insurgents/terrorists? Neocomrade Crumpton did _not_ "admit" that the Bush-Blair aggression has now become one of the efficient causes of global terrorism, yet after the Murdochites mangle what the wretched turkey really said into

"[T]he war has become 'a cause' for Islamic extremists worldwide and there is a risk of the country becoming a safe haven for terrorists hoping to launch fresh attacks on America"

and then abbreviated that version down into the headline

US ADMITS IRAQ IS TERROR 'CAUSE',

there's hardly a chance that even one reader in a hundred will not be hoodwinked. It was only on my second pass through Crumpton's exact quoted words that I noticed he spoke of "a cause FOR Islamic extremISTs" and not "a cause OF Islamic extremISM" as Rupert's wreckers had predisposed me to anticipate.

As for that "safe haven for terrorists hoping to launch fresh attacks on America" baloney, the _Times_ seems to have made it up out of thin air. Neither Crumpton nor the State Department white paper on terrorism in 2005 nor any other source whatsoever is indicated.


(( "Coaching Coverage" at least makes clear where the "safe haven" phrase comes from verbally. But obviously I had better read the State department report through before saying more about this little fuss. ))

 

Post a Comment

<< Home