Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Thursday, December 28, 2006

Thousands Demonstrate in Najaf;
Sunnis Clash with Gov't in Baghdad over Saddam Sentence;
Ford blasts W., Cheney on Iraq


Iraqi guerrillas killed three US GIs on Wednesday in two separate bombings.

Thousands of protesters came out into the streets in the holy Shiite city of Najaf on Wednesday, protesting the killing by US troops of Sahib al-Aamiri in a raid on his home. The US military accused him of being involved in setting roadside bombs. Shiites in East Baghdad also protested, but the demonstrations turned into bloody clashes between Mahdi Army militiamen and US troops.


Najaf Demo courtesy KarbalaNews.net.

Al-Aamiri was a leader of the Sadr Movement in Najaf, which follows young nationalist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. KarbalaNews.net in Arabic quotes a leader of the Sadrist bloc in parliament, Nassar al-Ruba'i, expressing condolences for the death of this "martyr" who "was killed by the American forces," after he had performed his dawn prayers, "in front of his wife and children." He added, "This action is considered a clear violation of Iraqi sovereignty, especially coming only days after the security file in Najaf was surrendered last week." He demanded that the Iraqi government open an urgent inquiry into the killing. Family members said that US troops assaulted his home in the wee hours and killed him, accusing him of resisting capture. Al-Ruba'i accused the US of trying to bring down the government of Nuri al-Maliki, whose Da'wa Party is allied politically with the Sadrists.

Another Sadrist MP, Baha' al-A`raji, said, "We demand that political forces take a united stand against the Occupation forces and in favor of a timetable for their withdrawal, because silence will lead to a timetable for the expulsion of Iraqis from their own country by the Occupation, and to the Americans remaining in Iraq."

WaPo reports that the US military is saying that the raid was led by the 8th Iraqi Division. But the article also implies that the political leaders of Najaf were unaware of the planned raid. The Iraqi army still reports to US officers [An informed reader points out that 3 divisions do not, and that the 8th is one of these; regret the error]. And, the 8th Army is largely Shiite and likely linked to the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and its Badr Corps paramilitary, which means that the decision to raid the home of a Sadrist rival might not be purely a matter of law enforcement.

Mark Santora of the NYT explains what is meant by "civil war" in Iraq. There are two sides and they are fighting each other over territory and political power. They kill many more of each other than of the US troops, who willy nilly mainly take the side of the Shiites and Kurds, who dominate the elected government.

By the way, the October 2005 referendum on the new constitution demonstrates conclusively that the Shiites are a majority in Iraq. The Sunni Arabs participated heavily in that voting, and they were universally against the constitution, but they were only able to reject it in three provinces. Sunni Arab Iraqis widely believe that the Sunni Arabs are a majority, or that Sunnis are a majority if you count the Kurds. None of the ways we have of measuring these things (including the Dec. 2005 parliamentary elections) points to this conclusion.

The LAT on Sunni Arab snipers in al-Anbar province that manage to pick off US troops.

Saddam Hussein, condemned to death and with all appeals exhausted, is trying to turn his death into a "sacrifice" for the Iraqi nation. In April 2003 Saddam was universally reviled but the country is now in such a horrible state that some Sunni Arabs do see Saddam as a symbol of the united Iraqi nation. Saddam, however, spoke in his typical racist way of the need to fight the "raiders and the Persians", according to al-Hayat in Arabic (i.e. the Americans and the Shiites). Sadr Movement spokesmen demanded that he be executed on the eve of the Day of Sacrifice (Eid al-Adha)--i.e. this weekend.

Al-Hayat reports that several Sunni Arab districts of Baghdad saw armed men come out into the streets and engage in bloody clashes with Iraqi security forces, apparently in protest against the confirmation of Saddam's death sentence.

Al-Hayat also says that a communique from the Baath Socialist Party of Iraq posted at a web site threatened to hit US interests around the world if Saddam was executed. So like the Baath Socialist Party of Iraq would be nice to the US if only Saddam were kept alive? Really.

Bob Woodward reveals in WaPo that the late President Gerald Ford deeply disagreed with George W. Bush's Iraq War. Excerpts:


' "Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction," Mr. Ford said. "And now, I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do . . ."

Mr. Ford took issue with the notion of the U.S. entering a conflict in service of the idea of spreading democracy. "Well, I can understand the theory of wanting to free people," Mr. Ford said, referring to Mr. Bush's assertion that the U.S. has a "duty to free people." But the former president said he was skeptical "whether you can detach that from the obligation No. 1, of what's in our national interest." He added: "And I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security. . ."

"He was an excellent chief of staff. First class," Mr. Ford said of Mr. Cheney. "But I think Cheney has become much more pugnacious" as vice president. He said he agreed with former Secretary of State Colin Powell's assertion that Mr. Cheney developed a "fever" about the threat of terrorism and Iraq. "I think that's probably true."

"I don't think, if I had been president, on the basis of the facts as I saw them publicly," he said, "I don't think I would have ordered the Iraq war. I would have maximized our effort through sanctions, through restrictions, whatever, to find another answer."


Ahem. I wrote yesterday, "The blowback from that Reaganesque era of private armies of the Right helped push the US after 2001 toward an incipient fascism at which Ford, the All-American, the lawyerly gentleman, the great Wolverine, must have wept daily in his twilight years."

Some of Ford's points would have made good additions to my Top Ten Myths about Iraq 2006.

5 Comments:

At 10:50 AM, Blogger Tommy Times said...

With all due respect, the fact that the Constitution was rejected in only two provinces says nothing conclusive either way about whether Sunnis are a majority. A 2/3 supermajority was required to reject the constitution. If the Sunnis were 60% of the population in every province, and no non-Sunnis voted against the Constitution, it would have failed in all provinces.

On the other hand, the Wikipedia page on the referendum says that nationwide, 21% voted against the constitution, which is consistent with the usual estimates of the size of the Sunni Arab population.

 
At 11:33 AM, Blogger Anand said...

The 8th, 3rd and 4th Iraqi Army Divisions (IADs) report to the Iraqi Ground Force Command (IGFC), which in turn reports to the Iraqi Joint Force Command, which in turn reports to the Iraqi Defence minister.

These three divisions do "NOT" report to US commanders. Note that the 2nd IAD will come under IGFC on January 15th, and that the 10 original Iraqi Divisions will complete their transition to IGFC in June 2007. (The Iraqis recently announced that they are creating 3 new Divisions using their own funds. It is uncertain when these division headquarters will be fully operational [my guess is by December 2007])

It is hard to imagine that an operation of this significance by the 8th IAD commander was not approved by Iraqi higher ups, although they probably preferred
that Sahib al-Aamiri was captured alive.

What is not certain is if Najaf's Governor and State police chief were consulted (I strongly suspect that they were). Since they are political rivals of Sahib al-Aamiri, they may not wish to emphasize their involvement.

Note that Sadrists are reluctant to take on the 8th IAD and its commander directly. This suggests that the 8th IAD retains substantial popular support among Shiites.

 
At 3:07 PM, Blogger Cernig said...

Reuters has statements from both the governor's office and the local Iraqi army spokesman saying that they knew nothing of the raid and that it was planned by US intelligence.

Further, Amiri's son (aged 13) says he was unarmed when shot.

The Reuters article keeps disappearing from their site, but Deepikaglobal has it too.

http://www.deepikaglobal.com/ENG4_sub.asp?ccode=ENG4&newscode=149496

Regards, Cernig @ Newshog

 
At 5:49 PM, Blogger Barbara said...

One of the virtues (?) of proportional representation is that it provides clarity, basically because there are no gerrymanders.

The Sunni Arabs recorded a two thirds plus No vote in two governorates, Anbar (97%) and Salahaddeen (82%), a majority in a third, Ninewah (55%) and a substantial minority in a fourth, Diyalah (48%)and a fifth Kirkuk (37%). In Baghdad their proportion was 22%.

In the 9 Shiite Governorates, which all recorded 95% plus Yes vote, the Sunni Arabs polled between 1.35 and 4.30%. With an even smaller vote in the Kurdish Governorates this gave them about 20% for the whole of Iraq.

The proportions across the Governorates were basically confirmed two months later in the general election. In Baghdad the two major Sunni parties polled about 20%. Going by the vote, Baghdad is a majority(Sadrist) Shiite city.

 
At 3:30 AM, Blogger Arnold Evans said...

About the nominal independence of some Iraqi divisions:

For a long time I've complained about the lack of Western press interest in the tools remaining in US hands to influence nominally independent Iraqi institutions.

When Khalizad was orchestrating the opposition to Jaafari, nobody would discuss the levers at Khalizad's disposal to motivate Iraqi parliamentarians to cooperate with the Americans. Khalizad, with zero votes in Parliament, early on stated to the press that Jaafari was not tolerable and would not be prime minister. There was no discussion about what tools he could use to back that up. Secretary Rice flew into Baghdad. No discussion about what she could say that would matter to anybody. Did she offer money? Did she make threats, to whom and what threats?

This illusion of nominal independence was to be maintained at all costs, even in news sources relatively hostile to the occupation.

Now we see the 8th Army kill a major leader in probably the single most popular political organization in Iraq. Three shots in the chest and one in the head. Unbelievably we are told that the action was probably approved by Iraqis but the Iraqis wanted the leader taken alive. The family says he was unarmed. Three shots in the chest and one in the head means it is impossible that they were trying to take him alive. The family reports that it was US soldiers who fired the shots.

What is going on? The US military obviously has mechanisms of control over the 8th Division. Now that the division is nominally independent we cannot even discuss what those mechanisms are? Is it that the US embeds are the actual commanding officers with Iraqi counterparts trained to act as rubber stamps? What is the chain of command for the US embeds? It seems we are to believe these embeds have a chain of command that does not even include the US general of the Iraq theater, they supposedly also ultimately report to Maliki. What authority do the embeds have over lower ranking Iraqi soldiers?

Somehow Iraqi army operations have taken Maliki by surprise, operations that Maliki says he would never authorize seem to happen leaving Maliki try to reverse events already in motion. Yet, that never happens to Bush or the US authorities - they never are at a loss to explain how an Iraqi operation could have happened against their wishes. US press complicity with this state of affairs is dishonest.

Who is the press keeping the secrets from? Sadr knows exactly what levers of influence Khalizad has over which members of parliament. He knows exactly what Rice said to whom and why they voted as they did. The Iranians know exactly what the limits of the independence of the 8th division from the US are. The only people who are in the dark here are the US population.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home