Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Saturday, February 24, 2007

Khalilzad Apologizes for Arrest of Ammar al-Hakim
Maliki Government stalls Changes in Debaathification


The US has released Ammar al-Hakim and US ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad apologized profusely for his arrest. The US military is giving three reasons for his arrest: He entered Iraq at a closed border station, his passport was expired, and his party was armed to the teeth. In fact, however, his passport was valid until September 17, 2007, and nobody travels overland in Iraq without being armed. It is most likely that the US doesn't want Shiite leaders slipping over to Iran in this way, because it is trying to reduce Iranian influence with US allies in Iraq. That is, al-Hakim's offense was probably his trip itself, though that cannot be admitted by Washington.

Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that al-Hakim complained of being hooded and treated roughly while in US custody. Al-Zaman says that al-Hakim's cell phone was confiscated, and hints broadly that the real reason for the arrest was to get access to his telephone records and the documents he had with him. The US suspects the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq of getting aid from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, and Washington wants it stopped.

Al-Zaman provides two other interesting but unconfirmed narratives. One is that al-Hakim's party came under fire as they entered Iraq near Kut and one or two of his guards were actually killed. The paper also reports an allegation that the US in arresting al-Hakim was acting on a tip from the Sadr Movement of Muqtada al-Sadr, which is popular in the Kut region and is a rival of the al-Hakims.

In contrast, al-Hayat reports that the US may have been hoping that the convoy coming from Iran was that of Muqtada al-Sadr, whom they have determined to arrest. In that case, the incident would be a case of mistaken identity.

Al-Hakim says his guards were abused and still have not been released. US military sources say that they were following procedure in verifying his identity, since passports can be forged, and that the issue had to go to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki for resolution since the latter had prohibited lower-level officials from just releasing detainees.

I am unconvinced by this explanation, since there was not good reason to doubt al-Hakim's passport, and it can't have taken 12 hours to call al-Maliki. There is also the question of why US troops were even in the area, since it is a Polish sphere of operations. They had to have come over for some specific purpose. The likelihood is that it was an intelligence operation of some sort.

The incident, which produced a small demonstration in Basra and a lot of bad feeling among Iraqi Shiites, demonstrates the dangers of Bush's cowboy policies in Iraq, such that he recently urged suspected Iranian agents be shot on sight. If Ammar had been killed instead of arrested for 12 hours, there would have been hell to pay.

The same al-Zaman article says that the security plan in Baghdad has been altered because of guerrillas increasing successes in shooting down US helicopters, and their recent use of attacks on chlorine gas trucks. Without as much chopper support, and facing the possibility of being gassed, US and Iraqi troops have been forced to change their tactics (obviously, the details are not specified).

Guerrillas in Hilla, a Shiite city south of Baghdad, set off a bomb under an automobile, wounding 6. There was scattered mortar fire in Baghdad, and five bodies were found there.

Paul Richter of the LA Times reports that a keystone of Bush's surge policy, reconciliation between Shiites and Sunni Arabs, is being impeded by the refusal of the Iraqi parliament to reconsider the guidelines for Debaathification. Since most Sunni Arabs had family members with Baath ties, they have been hurt economically and politically by the firings. When you systematically screw over 20% of the population, you create a civil war.

Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that the Sunni Pious Endowments Board has suspended its activities in protest against the firing, by Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, of its head. The former head had pushed for an international investigation into the alleged rape of a Sunni woman by Shiite security personnel. A strike by the endowments board is potentially powerful symbolic politics. Sunni religious foundations in Iraq are numerous and often wealthy and influential. Al-Maliki seems just to have lost their confidence.

Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that six Sunni Arab guerrilla groups have vowed to take revenge for the rape. (Presumably by attacking Shiite police).

Even voters in the southeastern states (Georgia, the Carolinas, Virginia), which have in recent decades been strongly Republican, have turned against Bush and against the Iraq War. Personally I think certainly Virginia and maybe North Carolina is there for the taking by the Democratic candidate for president in 2008, if the candidate conducts a good campaign. If I were in charge, I'd put about posters showing the schools in those states that haven't been painted while Bush has been pouring money into the Iraq maelstrom the way a drunk gambler pours money into the gaming tables at Las Vegas.

Sarah Smiles reports in The Age that even the Defense Minister of the hard line Howard government in Australia, Brendan Nelson, has admitted that a conventional victory in Iraq is elusive. This is like saying that a successful landing of The Titanic in New York was elusive.

Some 800 civilian contractors (many of them functioning essentially as military police) have been killed by guerrillas in Iraq, and over 3,000 have been wounded. This is a "hidden cost" of the war that most news stories and politicians' speeches ignore.

Barbara Karkabi on the differences between Sunnis and Shiites and on Sunni-Shiite relations, both in the US and Iraq.

6 Comments:

At 10:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Prof Cole, something I haven't seen reported anywhere but have wondered about is the possibility that we are actively behind death squads in Iraq. Maybe I should be wearing a tinfoil hat, but since the Phoenix program in Vietnam and the support and funding of the contras and others in Central America are established fact why would the same MO not be in effect in Iraq? I can certainly see us using Shia militias to eliminate and terrorize Sunnis. Thank you for your blog.

 
At 12:50 PM, Blogger sherm said...

Somalia is not Iraq but the narrative in this New York Times article illustrates the modus operandi of the CHENEY/bush military machine. Go anywhere, do anything, and don't worry about consequences. The arrest of al-Hakim is just another illustration.

After 9/11, with enthusiastic support from congress and the nation, CHENEY/bush developed a doctrine of limited sovereignty that applied to the rest of the world. Any intelligence that could somehow include the term al Qaeda, terrorism, or radical Islam, (and now Iraqi "militia") even in a footnote, is grounds for offensive action anywhere.

Iraq was never really granted sovereignty. It was granted official scapegoat status. The US mess could be blamed on the "sovereign" nation of Iraq. We would never had detained Ammar al-Hakim if the Iraqi passport office hadn't been so careless as to make it appear that his passport had expired. (smudged ink?)

 
At 1:34 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

Could this situation be pointing to a situation similar to the Iraq Revolt of 1920?

 
At 7:02 PM, Blogger Dancewater said...

info on the death squads in Iraq

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021307J.shtml

 
At 3:10 AM, Blogger larkrise said...

If it were not for the appalling death toll, the blunders of the Bush Administration throughout the Middle East would be akin to the Keystone Cops. It is SO apparent that they consult no one who knows anything substantive about the differnet ethnic groups, tribal ties and animosities, webs of intrigue, customs, religious differnces, an on and on, in the region. They blunder about like an elephant in a china shoppe smashing everything in their path. They continue to believe they can bully, bomb, and coerce and entire ancient civilization to do their will. I can barely follow the alliances, the differing sects of Islam, and the complexity of players in the Middle East.I honestly believe the Bushlites have not bothered to make the effort. I recently watched the movie "Syriana," on DVD, having missed it on the Big Screen. I had a very difficult time following it, and had to go online and read the synopsis. I have a feeling it only touched the tip of the iceberg, when it comes to governmental and corporate corruption. It is not at all surprising that young people from Muslim countries are filled with hatred against the United States. The lust for black gold has become the world's nightmare; and leads directly to the dark and bitter roots of terrorism. As long as we meddle and manipulate in the Middle East, we increase the threat of more mayhem here. Our involvement in Iraq has definitely been Al-Quaeda's most effective recruiting tool. I keep reading about a spring offensive; and wonder just what that really means.

 
At 1:42 PM, Blogger Kevin said...

Reading Barbara Karkabi's explanation of the origins of the difference between Sunni and Shia, I am still wondering, why exactly is it that this particular difference is one that people are willing to kill over? Or more the point, what would actually be necessary to stop the killing.
If I asked why Catholics and Protestants had been killing each other until recently in Northern Ireland, knowing about the origin of the Presbyterian and Anglican churches would not tell me much about why then (1970s through 1990s) and why there (Northern Ireland, not even elsewhere in the U.K.)
I have not yet found a good explanation of this and find that very absence itself intriguing. When I see this question addressed, the answer often draws from one of two poles. Either "Islam is a religion of peace, all divisions among Muslims are created by (external) enemies of Muslim. Left to their/our own devices, Sunni and Shia are brothers." For me, this is simply not plausible in the face of what is going on in Iraq. (And anti-Shia terrorism in Pakistan proves it is not just a product of the US invasion). The claim is often used to blame all problems in the area on the United States and its invasion.
The other argument goes something like. "Sunnis and Shias have been killing each other for over a millenia." Sometimes this is said with sadness, sometimes with contempt, especialy when it is used to excuse the US of blame for the impact of our invasion of Iraq and to blame Iraqis for American failures. But this argument does not explain all the long years and many places where Sunnis and Shias get along fine. At least fine enough for them to have chosen to live in the mixed neighborhoods that have been de-mixed recently.
If anyone knows of a work that really tackles the relationship of Sunni and Shia, please let me know. I think there is a real need for one. If you are a scholar who could write a good explanation, please do so.
Here are some of the factors that I think would need to be included:
1) Rivalry between Persian culture/people and Arab culture/people for leadership of Islam, played out within the constraints created by the fact that the Prophet, his language, and the Koran are all Arab.
2) Shifting political borders of Sunni and Shia states, particularly the Safavids and Ottomans.
3) The social structure of modern states in the Middle East.
4) The role of petroleum in giving certain social forces in the area enormous power over others.
5) The role of unity and disunity in Islam. As a casual student of history, it seems to me that Islam places a great emphasis on avoiding disunity but winds up with a great deal of it.
I have been hunting for an answer to this question and have learned some, but I begin to suspect that perhaps this is a topic that ties into so many taboos, that we as a species are not yet capable of fully answering it.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home