Iraqi Guerrillas Kill 4 US GIs
al-Hakim Supports Regional Confederacies
(Don't miss the second part of my interview with Rajiv Chandrasekaran on Iraq, below.)
The US military announced the deaths of 4 GIs in Iraq on Tuesday. AP reports, "A Baghdad-based soldier died at about 2:15 a.m. (2315 GMT) from wounds received when his patrol was struck by a roadside bomb in central Baghdad, the military said. Earlier, the miltary said a sailor and two Marines were killed during combat in the insurgent stronghold of Anbar province in fighting on Monday."
Reuters reports on other political violence on Tuesday:
' BAGHDAD - A carbomb killed two people and wounded 11 in the Hurriya district of northwestern Baghdad . . .
BAGHDAD - Clashes erupted between gunmen and police in Baghdad's southern Zaafaraniya district, killing two civilians and wounding eight others . . .
BAGHDAD - A bomb inside an ice-cream shop killed one person and wounded seven others in Baghdad's central Sadriya district . . .
FALLUJA - U.S. troops pulled over a fire truck and killed four Iraqi firefighters in a case of mistaken identity on Monday after a report that a fire truck had been hijacked in western Falluja . . .
KIRKUK - Two roadside bombs exploded in quick succession in the northern oil city of Kirkuk . . .
KIRKUK - A roadside bomb targeting an Iraqi army patrol killed two soldiers and wounded another one in central Kirkuk . . . '
The US GI who went missing Monday has still not been found. Al-Hayat is reporting that he is an Iraqi-American. Reuters says: "A U.S. soldier missing on Monday was kidnapped by gunmen while visiting a relative's house in Baghdad outside the fortified Green Zone compound, the U.S. military said on Tuesday."
Al-Hayat reports that the US military [Ar.] has launched a major operation to assert itself in downtown Baghdad. The London daily writes that the stated reason for the reoccupation of the area by US troops is their search for the missing US soldier. "But the operation appeared bigger than that by far."
Iraqi Shiite cleric Abdul Aziz al-Hakim defended provincial confederacies in his sermon on the occasion of the breaking of the Ramadan fast. He is the leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and of the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance, the largest bloc in parliament. He led the charge to ram through a law 2 weeks ago permitting the Shiites of the south, after 18 months, to merge their southern provinces into a regional confederacy. He said that opponents of the plan for loose federalism are implicitly supporting a return to a dictatorial central government.
The US ambassador in Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, is demanding that the Mahdi Army, loyal to young nationalist Shiite cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, be disbanded and decommissioned. Al-Sadr appears increasingly to have lost control of the militia, as he has become identified with the mainstream political institutions.
Tom Engelhardt on Bush's war on images.
posted by Juan Cole @ 10/25/2006 12:25:00 AM
|
Facebook
2 Comments:
The main reason for Iraq's current political plight is that the Iraqi constitution was never hammered out to guarantee the rights of minorities... This skip-to-my-loophole constitution was hurried through by the offices of Zal Khalilzad, who now huffs and puffs over the inability of the Iraqis to govern in tune to Bush's aspirations...
Due to Zal's quickity-flickity fix of the Iraqi constitution, the majority parties can create laws that enslave the minority... This is the reason why Sunnis refuse to accept the current political framework...
Now Zal asks that the Jaish Mahdi be disarmed... This is a tall order from a man who could not even disarm the Taliban in his own country, Afghanistan.
But, then again, since when did any neoconman in this Bush War have to present any record of accomplishment.
Engdahl connects the dots and updates us on Russia's latest moves in the current edition of The Great Game, http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics___Eurasia/Russian_Giant/russian_giant.html
Here's an excert about the Game's "Iraq Play":
"Buried in the debate leading to the US bombing and occupation of Iraq in March 2003 was a lawsuit under the US Freedom of Information Act brought by Sierra Club and Judicial Watch, initially to find data on Cheney`s role in the California energy crisis. The suit demanded that Vice President Cheney make public all documents and records of meetings related to his 2001 Energy Task Force project.
The US Commerce Department in summer 2003 ultimately released part of the documents, over ferocious Cheney and White House opposition. Amid the files of the domestic US energy review was, curiously enough, a detailed map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as two charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and ‘Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.’ The ‘foreign suitors’ included Russia, China and France, three UN Security Council members who openly opposed granting the US UN approval for invading Iraq.
The first act of post-war occupation by Washington was to declare null and void any contracts between the Iraqi government and Russia, China and France. Iraqi oil was to be an American affair, handled by American companies or their close cronies in Britain, the first victory in the high-stakes quest, ‘where the prize ultimately lies.’
This was precisely what Cheney had alluded to in his 1999 London speech. Get the Middle East oil resources out of independent national hands and into US-controlled hands. The military occupation of Iraq was the first major step in this US strategy. Control of Russian energy reserves, however, was Washington`s ultimate ‘prize.’"
There's a seemless nature to modern US Empire Elite behavior going back to Teddy R. that is somewhat easy for those few of us who research and keep up-to-date with the subject. In an item yesterday, Murtha said "The big problem in the Middle East is Iran,... We went to the wrong place," http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/15817001.htm
It is a comment that reveals far more than the words on the surface. It begs these questions, Did Cheney/Bush really think Iraq had a nuclear program, or did they really think the whole play would be a walkover? Given info provided by Wolfowitz that WMDs were used as the pretext because they made it easier, I'm inclined to think it the latter.
I'm now wondering if SCIRI will cut a deal with BakerIII to pass the oil law in return for a rapid troop withdrawl. From Baker's POV, that would "finish the job."
Post a Comment
<< Home