Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Amara Explodes in Violence Again
US Raids Sadrist Offices in Diwaniyah, Hillah


2 GIs were announced killed on Monday and one has disappeared, presumably kidnapped. The US military has launched an intensive manhunt for him.

Reuters reports further political violence on Monday.

The Mahdi Army militia engaged in a military operation in Amara, killing 4 policemen (presumably actually members of the rival Badr Corps militia that was trained in Iran). They also attacked a police station with bombs and mortar shells, causing extensive damage to it. Al-Hayat reports that [Ar.] the renewed violence was set off when the body of the brother (named Husain al-Bahadili) of a major Mahdi Army leader was found. It was headless and showed signs of torture. He had earlier been detained or kidnapped by the police (which has been infiltrated by the rival Badr Corps militia). By the way, Bahadili is a Marsh Arab name, which suggests that there is an ethnic dimension to the fighting. The Maadan or Marsh Arabs are viewed by many Arab Iraqis as a lower caste and looked down on, rather as Gypsies are viewed in say Hungary. Many Marsh Arabs have become followers of nationalist Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who poses as a champion of the poor.

Authorities again imposed a curfew in the city. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki condemned the militia violence in Amara and said his army should confront it, but he has not appeared to do anything practical about it. AP maintains that the Iraqi soldiers in the area set up some road blocks but did not interfere with the Mahdi Army's killing spree.

Al-Hayat also said that the Sadr Movement complained that US and Iraqi forces had raided the home of a Mahdi Army commander in the southern Shiite city of Diwaniyah. In Hillah, US soldiers raided the home of a Sadrist leader and that of a deputy of radical Shiite cleric Sheikh Mahmud Sarkhi al-Hasani.

Al-Hayat says that the Iraqi Army 4th Division in Mahmudiyah raided the offices of the Iraqi Islamic Party. The IIP is part of the Iraqi Accord Front, a fundamentalist bloc with 44 seats in the federal Iraqi parliament. The IIP issued a statement asking that the 4th Division be transfered out of Mahmudiyah because it was pursuing a sectarian and partisan policy. (I.e. these Sunni fundamentalists were saying that the army is functioning to support the Shiites). Mu'ayyad Fadil al-Amiri, the governor of Mahmoudiyah, rejected the charges and said that the raid on the IIP had discovered explosive stores at their HQ. Mahmudiya is a mixed Sunni-Shiite area where Saddam Hussain had given Shiite land to transplanted Sunnis. Shiite families displaced to the slummy parts of Hilla and elsewhere in the South have been coming back up to reclaim their property, producing a great deal of sectarian violence in this area.

Robert Reid of AP asks the good question of whether Iraq's electoral and parliamentary system has made the country's political crisis worse than it need have been. In a country with a clear ethnic majority like Iraq, the minorities are in danger of being forever outvoted. This prospect of always being defeated in parliament is one of the things that led Indian Muslims such as Muhammad Ali Jinnah to support a Muslim-majority region, and ultimately, Pakistan. Addendum: I had meant to go on to say that something like a Connecticut compromise would have been desirable, right off the bat, with, say, a two-chamber legislature, one house of which over-represented the Sunni Arabs and worked by consensus so that it was not easy to just run roughshod over them-- on analogy from the US Senate, which operates to protect Wyoming and Rhode Island from California and New York.

This article on Iranian strategy toward the Iraq situation by Dr. Mustafa al-Alani of the Security and Terrorism Programme at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai makes some suggestive points. I disagree with him on two things. First, I don't believe Najaf and Qom are close. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani does not like the Iranian regime and told someone I know, "Even if I have to be wiped out, I will not allow the experience of Iran to be repeated in Iraq." He was referring to Khomeinism. Second, I don't believe Iran wants Iraq to fragment. It is as afraid as Turkey of an independent Kurdistan. But the piece is worth reading and gives an idea of what Gulf Arab intellectuals are thinking about this problem.

Patrick J. McDonnell of the Los Angeles Times reports on how, during the past year, Iraq has gone from bad to worse-- "Night of the Living Dead" worse.

Ma'ad Fayyad reports on the Sunni Arab guerrilla movement, which insists that neither the US nor the al-Maliki government are offering anything toward negotiations that would make it worth their while to lay down their arms and talk.

Atrios catches Joe Lieberman contradicting himself on Iraq.

Josh Marshall suggests to Bush a strategic retreat as the best policy in Iraq.

Susie Madrak relays an AP story pointing out that if the Dems take back Congress, they'll likely put a stop to the plot to destroy net neutrality. Those who like being able to get this blog to come up on their browser in less than 5 minutes should just keep that in mind when they go to the polls.

6 Comments:

At 10:50 AM, Blogger Filostrato said...

If that GI has been kidnapped, he will probably be tortured and pictures will be everywhere.

A UN official said yesterday that countries who use torture on prisoners and others in their custody now justify their techniques by citing the U.S. use of such methods, on the order of "If the U.S. does it, then it must be alright." Is this going to be the first incident of this since Bush signed the unlimited seizure and torture bill?

For the sake of that soldier, I hope not.

 
At 12:09 PM, Blogger JHM said...

Maybe Structure Matters?

Robert Reid of AP asks the good question of whether Iraq's electoral and parliamentary system has made the country's political crisis worse than it need have been. In a country with a clear ethnic majority like Iraq, the minorities are in danger of being forever outvoted. This prospect of always being defeated in parliament is one of the things that led Indian Muslims such as Muhammad Ali Jinnah to support a Muslim-majority region, and ultimately, Pakistan. [JC]

Mr. Reed of the AP quotes two authorities to back him up in what I consider an important and sound position, but he doesn't notice that neither of them really does support him, only something vaguely like it. One of them dismisses it as basically idle to worry about scraps of paper and speeches in "parliament" and all that sort of thing at all. The other offers the correct, but not relevant observation, that proportional representation makes back-room party bosses more important than they are in American or British politics. (The consideration is positively perverse in context because it is the constituents, not their elected "deputies," who run out to form militias and death squads and kangaroo courts and private-sector Thought Police. Perhaps the wheelers-and-dealers are stronger under the Khalilzad Constitution than they'd otherwise be, but to complain that they are too strong rather than not strong enough? -- is that supposed to be a joke?)

In the end, then, it is Mr. Reed contra mundum, for he is the only one who perceives clearly that the faults of PR are an important factor in the existing Green Zone mess, and that far the most important fault is the way it produces gridlock and ineffectuality. He has a far stronger case than he realizes, in my opinion, but let us congratulate him for noticing that the problem exists at all, since that is farther than most analysis gets.

==

Professor Cole's last sentence about Jinnah and Pakistan leaves one waiting for the other shoe to drop. Obviously post-British India is not a shining example of the merits of communitarian partition, but are we supposed to wish that the palefaces never left at all? Or what?

To write "In a country with a clear ethnic majority like Iraq, the minorities are in danger of being forever outvoted" is to raise a serious problem without giving the faintest hint how to cope with it, unless perhaps we are supposed to infer from India that it doesn't really matter that you are outvoted forever.

Happy days.

 
At 1:10 PM, Blogger MonsieurGonzo said...

McLuhan's War : “Whatever the eventual outcome of the war in [Iraq], historians may argue for years about just why the U.S. became involved. Marshall McLuhan, the 1960s' mystagogue of the media, has proposed something of an explanation—or at any rate, a suggestive metaphor for the collision that has occurred in [Mesopotamia].

By McLuhan's reasoning, "there are no raw materials [other than OIL] in that area that could possibly tempt American imperialists, and there is no meaning to 'containment of [Terrorism],' since Terrorism in Iowa and in Cairo and in Peking and in Moscow has totally different meanings." In an unpublished article, McLuhan sees [Iraq] as a "resonant interval" or a "massive interface between a Westernizing [Arabia] and an [Arabianizing] West."

The entire Western world, McLuhan argues, is now turning inward upon itself ~ in the old [fundamentalist / tribal] pattern ~ while the [Middle East] "has been increasingly engaged in an outer trip, aided by Western technology." McLuhan believes that "as the complementary areas of the [Middle East] and the Western world reverse their immemorial roles, the area of interface between them has necessarily become agitated in the extreme."

"Korea and [Iraq] and other 'trouble spots' could then be observed as intervals of dissonance, which actually manifest the perturbations originating elsewhere. These 'trouble spots,' then, are like the interval between the wheel and the axle; they are areas of touch and they are where the action is, but they are not the action itself. The real action is taking place inside the massive [Middle Eastern] and Western entities, which are undergoing total revolution and reversal of roles at very high speeds."

...originally written in 1972 about Vietnam.

 
At 2:26 PM, Blogger Syrian Nationalist Party said...

".....The original goal of the U.S. invasion was......remove Saddam… install Democracy in the heart of the Middle East..."

Nothing in the planning and execution of the Iraq’s invasion, nor actions taken in post invasion shows that this was the real honest goal.

All facts (not endless fictions) points to one plan that was conceived, rehearsed and well mastered. Shock and Awe then get the oil, all those contracts, rush all the loot to a safe heaven, A Crusaders Modus-Opri, right out of the history textbooks.

Someone has amassed volumes about this and secured it in a Lebanon office, now if you still disagree, go ahead and state the top Ten proofs you have that it was all for the sake of removing Saddam and bringing Democracy to Iraq.

All those lives 20,000+ Americans, 500,000+ Iraqis and Hundreds upon Hundreds of Billions of American Taxpayers cash could have been saved if the Bush Administration co-paid few thousands Dollars to the many groups that vile Saddam, including ours to take him out. After all, doubtful the One-man show that he ran as the Baathist regime will survive him.

Furthermore, there is not a single evidence that the United States has cared or now cares about Freedom and Democracy in the Middle East, this ploy is even obvious to first graders in the region because it came packaged with the same wrapping paper that flood the region since the fall of the Ottomans, only to discover that it contain a shrapnel charges, that is all.

Have evidence to the contrary, please state it and don’t throw MEPI in please, respect this forum and our intelligence.

 
At 5:36 PM, Blogger Deep Trunk said...

--AZ-Sen: Jon Kyl
--AZ-01: Rick Renzi
--AZ-05: J.D. Hayworth
--CA-04: John Doolittle
--CA-11: Richard Pombo
--CA-50: Brian Bilbray
--CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave
--CO-05: Doug Lamborn
--CO-07: Rick O'Donnell
--CT-04: Christopher Shays
--FL-13: Vernon Buchanan
--FL-16: Joe Negron
--FL-22: Clay Shaw
--ID-01: Bill Sali
--IL-06: Peter Roskam
--IL-10: Mark Kirk
--IL-14: Dennis Hastert
--IN-02: Chris Chocola
--IN-08: John Hostettler
--IA-01: Mike Whalen
--KS-02: Jim Ryun
--KY-03: Anne Northup
--KY-04: Geoff Davis
--MD-Sen: Michael Steele
--MN-01: Gil Gutknecht
--MN-06: Michele Bachmann
--MO-Sen: Jim Talent
--MT-Sen: Conrad Burns
--NV-03: Jon Porter
--NH-02: Charlie Bass
--NJ-07: Mike Ferguson
--NM-01: Heather Wilson
--NY-03: Peter King
--NY-20: John Sweeney
--NY-26: Tom Reynolds
--NY-29: Randy Kuhl
--NC-08: Robin Hayes
--NC-11: Charles Taylor
--OH-01: Steve Chabot
--OH-02: Jean Schmidt
--OH-15: Deborah Pryce
--OH-18: Joy Padgett
--PA-04: Melissa Hart
--PA-07: Curt Weldon
--PA-08: Mike Fitzpatrick
--PA-10: Don Sherwood
--RI-Sen: Lincoln Chafee
--TN-Sen: Bob Corker
--VA-Sen: George Allen
--VA-10: Frank Wolf
--WA-Sen: Mike McGavick
--WA-08: Dave Reichert

 
At 8:01 PM, Blogger Jaraparilla said...

On the question of of whether "Iraq's electoral and parliamentary system has made the country's political crisis worse than it need have been", it seems to me that the same could be said of the USA, Britain and Australia.

In all three countries, a party with a clear majority has ridden roughshod over the opposition, totally ignored the democratic wishes of anti-war constituents and made a mockery of the very concept of Democracy.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home