Guerrillas Kill 5 GIs
Security Alert over Saddam Sentence
Al-Aamiri killing Roils Shiite Politics
The US military announced that Iraqi guerrillas killed 5 GIs on Thursday in separate incidents. All but one attack clearly occurred in Sunni Arab areas. One was in the east of Baghdad, but since there are Sunni Arab districts between the Green Zone and Sadr City, it isn't clear what the sectarian coloration of that area was.
There were unconfirmed reports of a US military helicopter going down near Baquba, as well.
As the death toll for US troops nears 3,000, Reuters says, it is provoking more and more vigils and anti-war protests out in the US heartland. In the past three months, the death toll has been running on average over 100 a month, which suggests that next year this time, it will be 4,000-- and that is assuming that there is not a change for the worse or an outbreak of major combat.
Reuters reports that police found 42 bodies in Baghdad, and three more in Mosul. They mostly showed signs of torture and are evidence of the nocturnal sectarian civil war. In addition, there were major bombings in Baghdad, Mosul and Hawija. Reuters says of Baghdad:
' BAGHDAD - A car bomb exploded at a petrol station near the Shaab stadium in central Baghdad, killing 10 people and wounding 25, police said.
BAGHDAD - Two roadside bombs exploded in Bab al-Sharji in central Baghdad, killing seven people and wounding 35, Interior Ministry and police sources said. '
Reuters reports that Iraqi officials in Najaf are complaining that they were not consulted by the US military before the fatal raid on the home of Sahib al-Aamiri, Muqtada al-Sadr's number 2 man in Najaf. The US maintains that the operation was spearheaded by a unit of the Iraqi 8th Division, which had 8 US troops embedded with it, and was directed by the Iraqi Department of Defense. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has opened an investigation.
The killing of al-Aamiri led to a further postponement of any session of the Iraqi parliament, where Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki had hoped to convince Sadrist deputies to rejoin his coalition.
The judgment against Saddam Hussein has been published, and the Iraqi government has formally requested that the US turn Saddam over to it. These are signs of a fast track to his execution, which may come very soon.
Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that Iraq is going on a high state of alert for fear of unrest as a result of Saddam's execution. All leave for Iraqi troops has been cancelled.
The London pan-Arab daily says that there is a split in the Iraqi government over how fast to move. One consideration is that the Sadr bloc in parliament has made Saddam's execution a precondition for its rejoining the government.
There are unconfirmed reports that the US has released the two Iranian diplomats it was holding after a raid last week on a compound connected to Iraqi Shiite leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. Although the US military attempted to tie the Iranians to the importation of shaped charges of the sort use against US troops, its spokesmen never explained how that made any sense. Most roadside bombs are set by Sunni Arabs. The Shiite Iranians are not giving Sunni Arab guerrillas weapons. That would be crazy. They would be used against Iranian clients like al-Hakim (who has been targeted for assassination more than once, and whose brother was blown up by the Baathists in late August, 2003).
If the charge is that the Iranians were giving al-Hakim weapons, then it isn't a very serious charge. Al-Hakim is the leader of the major coalition in parliament. Bush hosted al-Hakim in the White House recently, and al-Hakim has never been tied to attacks on US troops. In fact, he has called for them to stay in Iraq. The whole thing makes no sense, and the US military should explain why they think it does if they want us to believe it. Unfortunately, I have a sinking feeling that the US troops that arrested the Iranians wouldn't be able to distinguish between Sunni guerrillas and Shiite militiamen.
The NYT reports on the problems of housing faced by Iraq's 1.6 million internally displaced persons.
Hannah Allam of McClatchy (formerly Knight Ridder) goes back to Baghdad, and doesn't find the changes encouraging. Her old sources are dead or ethnically cleansed, the shops she knew are shuttered, Shiite militias compete as authors of mayhem with the Sunni Arab guerrillas, fuel and electricity are in short supply, and it is now dangerous to so much as snap a photo.
Al-Sharq al-Awsat/ Reuters report that 108,000 Iraqis were forced from their homes in December.
Baghdad and the Kurdistan Regional Government have reached an agreement on federal revenue-sharing, whereby Kurdistan will receive 17% of the national budget, most of it generated by sales of petroleum from the southern Rumayla oil field, in Shiite territory. This agreement, if it is real, is good news as far as it goes. Anything that gives the Kurds an incentive not to formally secede is good for stability in Iraq and in the region.
The bad news is that the Iraqi government was unable to increase oil production in 2006, and 2007 is unlikely to be better, according to UPI's Ben Lando.
Presidential candidate John Edwards wants to get 50,000 US troops out of Iraq, the same number that Fred Kagan wants to put in.
posted by Juan Cole @ 12/29/2006 12:25:00 AM
|
Facebook
8 Comments:
I guess one shouldn't indulge in speculation too much. But in Iraq, where the picture's so unclear, it seems that's sometimes all we've got to go on. So...
I can't help but wonder about the timing of al-Aamiri's death. The Sadrists are thinking about rejoining the government, elements in Washington - e.g. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley - are talking about separating al-Maliki from the Sadrists, then a prominent Sadrist gets killed in a US-led raid, with the US quick to point out that it had been planned with the Iraqi government. You can't now see al-Sadr risking rejoining al-Maliki in government any time soon. Not after this.
Which reminds me of the suspicions I had earlier in the month following this train of events:
December 15 - GENEVA (Reuters) "The Iraqi Red Crescent accused U.S. forces on Friday of carrying out a spate of attacks on its offices over the last three years"
December 17 - BAGHDAD (AP) "Gunmen in Iraqi army uniforms staged a mass kidnapping on Sunday at the office of the Iraqi Red Crescent"
December 19 - BAGHDAD (Reuters) "Gunmen who kidnapped about 30 people at a Red Crescent office in Baghdad on Sunday have freed 17 hostages, Mazen Abdullah, secretary general of the Iraqi Red Crescent, said on Monday. The group suspended operations in Baghdad."
Sure, given the state of Iraq at the moment, it could have been just about any one of scores of criminal/terrorist/insurgent groups. But the timing makes it look a lot like a punishment beating provoked by a credible independent organisation criticising the US, does it not?
I'm also reminded of this report from Seymour Hersh early last year, where he says:
"The President has signed a series of findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as ten nations in the Middle East and South Asia. The President’s decision enables Rumsfeld to run the operations off the books—free from legal restrictions imposed on the C.I.A."
Unless we're to believe that the US is above such ruthless, underhand behaviour - in defiance of the historical record – it seems reasonable enough to ask the question: what is the nature of US covert operations in Iraq? Of course you can't come to conclusions on suspicion alone, without proof. But you can ask questions, and look for the answers. In any of these kidnappings, assasinations, bombings etc those of us observing Iraq from a distance are quick to draw up a list of suspects with not a lot of hard evidence to go on, other than the cui bono principle. No reason then why we shouldn't add to that list if reasonable suspicion arises.
But to be honest, even if my suspicions here are correct, I think it'd probably be years or even decades before we found out the truth. For now, all this serves as a reminder that Nir Rosen's description of the US as "just one more militia" in Iraq is a lot closer to the truth than the idea that it can be some sort of disinterested, independent peacebroker.
David Wearing
The Democrat's Diary
Dear Professor Cole
BBC reports Saddam Hussein is to be or has been handed over to the Iraqis and that they expect him to be dead very soon
I wonder if you or any of your readers have read one of the books on edwards reading list. Hard Power: The New Politics of National Security by Kurt Campbell of CSIS and Michael O'Hanlon of Brookings, Normally I would read O'Hanlon without hesitation but I am swamped and the only non publisher/reviewer Amazon review is mixed.
December 29, 2006
See Riverbend's blog today.
And to answer her question, "No, the death of an Amerian soldier is not more important than the death of an Iraqi citizen."
I'll bet that Saddam Hussein's execution will exactly coincide with the death of the 3,000th American service member. Every other stage in Saddam's trial was timed to distract attention from embarrassing news for the Bush administration. One wonders who is pullig the strings.
An informed reader writes:
' You mentioned that 1.6 million Iraqis have been displaced by the US invasion of Iraq. On a percentage basis, the equivalent displaced in the US [about 18 million] would include every resident of Idaho,
Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, Nevada, Utah, Hawaii, Alaska, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, West Virginia and, last but not least everyone in DC.
A death toll of 3000 Iraqis a month equates to about 33,000 dead in the US each month from a foreign invasion.
All this to get rid of one guy?'
Flags were at half-mast over Parliament, the FO, Horseguards, Downing Street, etc. here in London y'day. For all I know they may still be. The reason: Ford's passing.
I can't remember if Reagan, LBJ, Kennedy, etc. got the same treatment. I'll have to check. And for that matter I don't know if Prime Ministers here get the same treatment.
Be that as it may, I'm writing to my MP, Glenda Jackson, to ask her to table the following question, "can the Prime Minister insure the country that the Union flag will not be flown at half mast to mark George Dubya Bush's passing, whenever the blessed release comes".
And here's a suggestion for "our human community" generally. We need artists to get together and produce a design for a flag representing the "loathe this war and loathe this president" community. Get that design Betsy Ross'd and get that flag produced. And get it flying. All over the place. Flying at half mast. And it stays at half mast until the day that shite leaves office. When it goes up to three quarters mast. And it stays there until he drops dead. On that day - the day of blessed release - we (millions of us) run the sucker all the way up the flag pole.
I'm fairly serious about this. We can't seem to get people out onto the streets these days. Marches on Washington seem to be more or less a thing of the past. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if a large percentage of the 89 percent of the American population who think Bush has screwed up big time in Iraq (and a large percentage of the nearly 100 percent of the rest of the world who think he and what's he wrought are an abomination) would be willing to turn the low skies black or whatever color with said flag.
You can't get near him to demonstrate when he's in town because "free speech zones" aren't allowed within a mile of the president - well, how about a half-master flying from damn near every house and building and yard. Nobody's congregating. Sanctity of private property and all that. Let's see the MSM sidestep that "visual". Let's see the "spin-meisters" get to work on that one. First thing they'd do of course would be to get a loyalist flag up. But the thing is it'd be so badly outnumbered that...well, you'll get my drift.
Why not simply fly the U.S. flag at half-mast--rather than surrending it to the neofascists?
No, it's not a case of surrendering it to them. On the contrary, it's a case of taking it away from them.
In short, fly the U.S. flag at the top...and the other one at half mast. On the same pole, ideally. That way you're saying "we're fully, patriotically American...and sod him and his war."
You don't give "them" so much as a sliver of an opening vis-a-vis the American flag. Because if you do you know as well as I do that they'll drive a coach and horses through it. You make the American flag yours - wrap yourself in it every bit as much as they would. And why not, because it's the United States of America that he's screwing almost as much as he's screwing Iraq.
Flying the American flag upside down - or at half mast - that's game, set, match to Rove and co. For every reason, not the least of which is you won't get anything like the numbers you'll get if you link the anti-Bush thing to the simplest possible piece of patriotic shorthand - flying the flag.
It's about out-smarting them. Beating them at their own game. Shutting them down wherever possible - especially with regard to hot buttons like the flag. Keep it simple and keep it flying.
Post a Comment
<< Home