10 Coalition Troops Killed
Dems set Withdrawal deadline
Iraqi crowds Reject Security Wall
It was with a heavy heart that I read that 10 Coalition troops were killed on Monday, 9 of them Americans. The guerrillas who attacked the US outpost also wounded 20 other soldiers, 5 of them seriously.
Militiamen in Basra killed a British soldier.
I'm sad about all this because we won't have round the clock cable television coverage of them, or lower the flag to half mast for them. And although we do not yet know the names of those killed, we know who they are like.
They are like Christopher North of Sarasota, Fl., a hero who aspired to be an FBI agent and who as a teenaged boy loved fast cars and motorcycles.
They are like Wade Oglesby, a painfully shy teenager with a "British sense of humor," an "incredibly nurturing" young man who dropped out of high school to care for his ailing mother and then his sister. When his mother died, he joined the army. His stepbrother said of him, "That kid would bend over backwards and go to the ends of the earth if you needed anything."
They are like Michael Rojas, and Army Staff Sgt. Jesse Williams, of Santa Rosa, "who died on April 8. Williams was killed by a sniper's bullet . . . Williams was 25 years old and on his second tour of duty. He leaves behind a wife, Sonya, and an 11-month-old daughter, Amaya. His wife said Amaya was the pride of his life." Scroll down for the Williams family photos.
They are like Michael Slater, just out of high school in West Virginia, who had all along wanted to join the army to serve us. We are told, "Rachelle Atkins graduated with Slater and described him as energetic, funny and happy. In high school, they worked together at the Red Line Diner in St. Albans, where he was a busboy. “He was really fast,” Atkins said. “I never had to worry about tables needing cleaning because he was always on top of things.”
They were like Kristen Turton, whose mother said of him, "If either of us were ill, he would look after us. I would always get flowers on Mother's Day and we would get lovely presents for birthdays and Christmas. "He was our life and our sunshine. Now he has gone, the sunshine has gone out of our lives."
Saddam is gone. There was never any threat to the US or UK from Iraq, and there is not now one. What is the mission, for which these young people have given their lives this spring? What do we tell their children about why their daddy is no longer there for them? Is it just Karl Rove's best guess about what will win the next election? Better business for Dick Cheney's golf buddies among the Big Oil CEOs? George W. Bush's cokehead emotional shallowness and inability to admit he ever made a mistake? What?
We ask our men and women in uniform to risk their lives, sometimes to sacrifice them, for the security of our nation. But the security of our nation is not in doubt. We ask defense attorneys to defend someone who might be guilty, and prosecuting attorneys to attempt to convict someone who might be innocent, since justice requires a fair trial, and guilt and innocence are seldom clear. In the same way, we sometimes send our military into a war, the justice of which is not clear. They have done their job, the job the American and British publics gave them, uncomplainingly. But if the prosecuting attorney suddenly finds evidence that the defendent is innocent, he has to drop the charges. Iraq is innocent. It isn't a threat to the US. It may now be a threat to itself or its region, because of the civil war. But it and its region will just have to deal with that. And they will deal with it better if we don't keep getting in their way.
That is why the Democratic majority in the House and Senate agreed on a date by which they want US troops out of Iraq. Because enough sunshine has gone out of our lives, enough children are without a parent, enough lives have been blighted, for a mission that no one has been able to define with any clarity.
Monday began with an attempt by the US military to forestall a demonstration in the Sunni Arab district of Adhamiya in northeast Baghdad. The attempt failed, when many hundreds (looked like well over a thousand to me on Arab satellite television) residents nevertheless marched in the streets to protest the building of a wall around their neighborhood as part of the security plan.
There was a great deal of uncertainty Monday about whether the wall building around Adhamiya would be halted. Some local Iraqis likened and its effect to what the Israelis have done in the West Bank, making everyone's life miserable because it is so hard to move around through crowded or mysteriously inactive checkpoints. An Iraqi general insisted that the building works would continue. US Ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, affirmed that the US would respect the wishes of the Iraqi government in this regard.
Reuters reports political violence in Iraq on Monday. Among the major incidents:
RAMADI - Three suicide car bombers killed 20 people and wounded 35 others in the Iraqi insurgent stronghold of Ramadi . . .
BAQUBA - A suicide car bomber attacked a gathering of senior police officials in the city of Baquba, killing 10 policemen and wounding 23 . . .
NEAR MOSUL - At least 10 people were killed and 20 wounded when a suicide car bomber rammed his vehicle into the office of the Democratic Party of Kurdistan (PDK) . . .
BAGHDAD - Six people were killed and 14 wounded when a suicide bomber blew up in a restaurant near the entrance to the heavily fortified Green Zone . . .
BAGHDAD - A car bomb killed one person and wounded four others in a parking lot across the road from the Iranian embassy in Baghdad . . .'
My opinion piece on Muqtada al-Sadr and his recent political moves,
"As premier loses stature, radical cleric is gaining it," is available at the "San Jose Mercury News."
Labels: Iraq War
posted by Juan Cole @ 4/24/2007 12:33:00 AM
|
Facebook
17 Comments:
Sardonic Sadr
An interesting correspondence between the two effective leaders in the Iraqi Débâcli, Younger George and Younger Sadr, is that they both have a legacy to carry on, pitting one religously inspired figure against another, one son opposing another. It is true that the American doesn't have a section of his Capital named after him - yet.
The difference between the two is the Iraqi has nowhere to go. He's at home and has nothing to do but bide his time until the 'visitors' make enough errors to turn their presence into a liability and are either asked to leave or are forcibly evicted. Sadr needs only to appeal to his group, addressing an outcome that will ultimately benefit them and the Shi'a overall. While it may seem as though Sadr's working and acting alone, it almost goes without saying that he is in contact and in conference, not forgetting in concert, with others of his particular faith, among whom the decisions are made.
On the other hand, Sadr's American counterpart will eventually have to go. Younger George's appeal to his countrymen have long since fallen on unwelcoming ears, despite the words of warning that he is receiving through his direct lines to the Infinite, suggesting to him (and to all who will listen) that the tewwowists will follow the Americans back to the United States. This, in itself, may already be a 'fait accompli' but only tangentially related to Sadr and the Shi'a. The Ba'athists have a much larger bone to pick, the Sadrists much to thank Younger George for.
Younger Sadr, being - again - at home, has risen following the fall of Saddam Hussein, one who was perhaps the greatest danger to the Shi'a in Iraq for many years. Having survived the Sunni-aligned dictator's regime for so long, the Americans are comparatively benign, too often worried about their release from Iraq. Certainly, the period following the overthrow of the Ba'athist regime might have been tumultuous, but there are better days ahead for those for whom patience is not only a virtue but their strongest suit and asset in what has become a 'conflict of attrition,' the waning will of the American leadership to pursue their foes and goals in Iraq.
The essential point remains: Who has the greater will and devotion to the cause at hand? Younger George or Younger Sadr? With the Shi'a on the ascendancy through the Iraqi's appeal to his people and the American's support plummeting, the momentum is in favour of Younger Sadr who holds the most promise for the future of his people. Obviously, following the decades of abuse by an Iraqi tyrant, the American-styled regime is light-weight set side-by-side. Iraqis have never been a group willing to suffer an invader well, looking not far in the past at how poorly the English fared and were eventually evicted, not only from Iraq but from the Middle East overall. Nearby Iran and the more recent success of Ayatollah Khomeini's rise to prominence is not forgotten, especially by those Shi'a clerics who sought refuge among their fellow coreligionists.
Radical against radical, American versus Iraqi, Younger George facing (figuratively) Younger Sadr, it is merely a matter of who has the most sustainable credibility. The invasion and occupation has provided the medium in which the nationalist seeds have been sown and are now beginning to take root and sprouting in the Spring sunshine. A gathering of 20,000 supporters can be seen in comparison to the lack of similar crowds in the United States urging the continuation of the missions in Iraq and elsewhere. In fact, the demonstrations in the U.S. have been more closely aligned with what the Sadrists think, the removal of the Americans from Iraqi soil, the purging of unwanted weeds, as it were. As any gardener knows, cultivation takes time and patience with a dedicated feeling of respect for the soil. Attention and proper care will effect the yield of the best crops.
Sadr can be a bit sardonic, given that his motives and moves are increasingly outwitting his adversaries'.
Alamaine
As concerns the "coalition of the willing," April 2007 is already the deadliest month of the war for British servicemen, since the March 2003 invasion. (Second deadliest overall.)
Compilations such as those at
http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx
are a useful way of tracking cycles in the bigger war picture.
I was saddened to read that more Americans have lost their lives in Iraq, and more saddened to realize they will not be the last, and that no matter how many more lives are sacrificed in Iraq, nothing will bring our sacred dead back to life. Ironically, just as Mr. al-Maliki is demonstrating that the opinion of the Sunni-dominated Arab world can restrain his treatment of the Sunnis in Iraq -- giving the lie to the proposition that a "blood bath" will necessarily follow our withdrawel from Iraq -- we find that he is probably on his way out. But did we ever really expect any government established during the occupation to survive? I am beginning to suspect that the consequences of our failed occupation of Iraq are going to be devastating for the Israelis. Leaving aside the question of any role they may have played in the run up to the invasion and occupation, it must be disturbing for them to realize that the strategy, weapons and tactics developed by guerillas in Iraq will work in the Left Bank and Lebanon. Or maybe Iraq will have reminded all of us that even the most powerful armies cannot occupy and remake other countries and cultures without the moral authority to do so. The fact that the American people are sick of the occupation has far less to do with the number of Americans who have been killed and maimed than it has to do with the feeling that what we are doing is just plain wrong. We're not experiencing a failure of will. We're experiencing a re-awakening of conscience.
"What is the mission, for which these young people have given their lives this spring?"
I am still waiting to hear someone explain exactly why our occupation of Iraq is called a "war." Who are we at war with, why are we at war, and how would we know if we "won?"
Every time someone uses the phrase "War in Iraq" I am forced to conclude that they have no idea what they are talking about.
Two more service men from Virginia were killed recently. It is all wrenching and a horrible waste.
But, Dr. Cole, you are simply wrong that the Democrats "timetable" for withdrawal is sufficient. They must gather the courage to confront the taunts of this Administration by voting to cut off funding by a date certain. Deadlines for withdrawal will not stand. Indeed, the Democratic frontrunner Clinton lists from asserting the troops should be home before Bush leaves office to the troops must remain years after he leaves office.
Only a cutoff of funding to the Somalia mission by Congress forced Clinton to withdraw. Otherwise, his political calculations (including his complete lack of credibility and stature on military and foreign policy--sound like another Southern governor President who's still in office?) would have driven him to remain.
There is little credibility in accusing the President and GOP of political calculus in maintaining the occupation when Democrats are similarly calculating in refusing to cut off funding by a date certain. An immediate cutoff is not the issue, but establishing a date certain, say September 30, 2008, by which no further appropriations for Iraq will be made, is essential. Anything else is simple posturing that will give way when the next "responsible consensus" (in which moderates still waste American lives, but just speak "responsibly" in good David Broder fashion) leads the establishment to agree "it would be irresponsible to withdraw."
Cutoff funding in tandem with a certain withdrawal date. Anything else is just posturing by "progressives" eager to get hold of the pork and patronage powers currently held by Bush, Rove, Cheney and the rest of their corrupt cabal.
I agree that people who say "war in Iraq" do not know what they are talking about.
Also, why is Sadr "radical"? He is a fundamentalist, but is that "radical"? are US fundamentalists radical?
We do not hear a lot about US troops killed in Iraq, but we hear WAY MORE about them than we do about the Iraqis killed.
We at least count the number of dead US/UK/other military.
the "epic" element of this tragedy is that the prosecutor had the evidence of innocence BEFORE the arrest and indictment, which only makes the past four years doubly unbearable, and, every day that it continues, totally unacceptable...
http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/
Why do you refer to Muqtada al-Sadr as a "radical" cleric? Exactly what makes him "radical?"
Do you remember, a long time ago, when riverbend spoke of Sadr's thugs taking over the neighborhood Islamic offices? And then she goes to the market for the first time after the initial fighting and she feels intimidated because of the way she's dressed (modestly, but not, you know)?
From the AP article in the Guardian:
Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, a U.S. military spokesman, said there may have been miscommunication.
"Discussions on a local level may not have been conveyed to the highest levels of the Iraqi government," Garver said. "Whether the prime minister saw this plan or not, I don't know. With him in Cairo, it complicates things."
If the US military "doesn't know" if Maliki saw the plan, that means Maliki didn't see the plan.
Maliki is in Cairo which "complicates things". The Bush administration is in Washington DC. I bet things aren't so complicated that the US political leadership didn't know this would happen.
It is always a mistake to underestimate the extent to which the US occupation of Iraq is conceived of and executed as a pure colonial adventure.
The "locals" were told. Does that mean local civilian political leadership was informed? No. That means the sepoys who were tasked with actually building the wall, and who report to the US military were informed.
I hope the walls do not get built, but it is almost comical that the Americans really literally tried to build walls separating Sunnis from Shiites in Baghdad while at the same time claiming they are trying to ensure Iraq does not divide on ethnic lines.
Every few months something happens that says the Americans have no idea what they are doing, and even though competent occupiers would still fail in the post-WII, post-colonialism world, the United States is just not a country of competent occupiers.
This separation wall is the latest example of this.
I think the more appropriate term would be the Bush War in Iraq - because this is, ultimately, Bush's war...
Those who argue that this was a war authorized by the US Congress are misrepresenting the truth - congress was politically blackmailed in the run-up to the 2002 elections to provide Bush with the authority to protect the US against Iraq... The congress did not actually signed off on an order to begin the war against Iraq, and Bush had promised to examine all the evidence and exhaust diplomacy before invading Iraq - he broke both those promises...
Now, in addition to the Bush War in Iraq, we also have the disaster of the Bush War in Somalia, which has been waged through the proxy forces of the Ethiopian military... Another story of interest today is the testimony by Jessica Lynch and Kevin Tillman regarding how the military and the government has distorted stories about their experiences in order to propagandize the war and generate public support... I have been posting reports on these stories on my blog as well.
I can understand the pain and suffering for our soldiers on duty in Iraq. But it is unfair not to mention tens of thousands of poor Iraqi children’s that are left behind orphan in their own home, to me it is about time that a war mongering west starts making tribute to all the fallen in Iraq unless we are all same as the governments we elect
Democrat or republican non publicly has once felt sorry for the innocent fallen civilians of Iraq.
A powerful post, Juan. Were there Romans who saw the end of their civilization the way this American sees his ending?
What was future historians say was more instrumental in our self-destruction? The leaders who abused and used us- or the followers that let themselves glut their own selfish, instantaneous desires in order to avoid the extra effort of saving themselves?
I think I know.
Hi Dr. Cole!
I just wanted to ask is a "timetable" really believable? We're building walls and further invading the Shi'a cities and areas, which is forcing us to invest more time, finances, effort and lives.
I think the saddest part about this entire war is not only the amount of troops who are dying (which is a complete horror), but also the amount who are coming back disabled, not only physically, but mentally and emotionally as well. I can't remember where I read this (maybe you do) but the percentage of troops being severely injured but not killed is the highest we have seen. And I agree with an earlier post, we have yet to hear the "real" answer for why we have put our troops in harm's way.
I also have an actual question to ask-- in my class on terrorism with Robert Pape, we have been discussing the multiplying numbers of suicide attacks in Iraq. Do we know who these groups are? He argues that there are four Sunni terrorist organizations and that one is emerging as al-Qaida oriented. I would like to know if we have any information about these other groups, and if any consist of former Guards who served under Saddam. I just want to get a better understanding of their motivations.
I miss your class (and seem to have forgotten much of what I learned...oops)! But I do remember enough to know that something's off when my professors here say something like, "Since al-Qaida has no terrorist members from Iran, we can believe that Islamic fundamentalism isn't as important as we originally thought." (Although since he's my professor, I won't correct him!) I have to say that while studying terrorism in political science, theory or policy circles, I have found that people throw around the term "Islamic," which is somewhat disappointing to see.
I hope all is well in Ann Arbor!
I have listened to those who are promoting impeachment with sympathy, but doubt. The Democrats do not have enough votes in the Senate to impeach Bush and Cheney, and both would need to be impeached. Thus, the death and destruction in Iraq will continue until Bush and Cheney finally leave office. Neither man shows any sign of real compromise nor even a hint of compassion. They are intent only on forcing their will upon the American people. They are obstinate, arrogant, and insolent.I see these traits as inherent in their characters. They, and their supporters in Congress, are the kind of individuals who insist on "winning" at any cost. Nothing else matters; not the death of innocents, not the death of good people, not the devastation of a country, not the destruction of our image abroad, not economic catastrophe, NOTHING else matters but that they impose their will upon us. "Any means to an end" is their mantra. Their actions are obsessive and are not in touch with reality. They have lied so much and so often, that truth eludes them. I wish they could be impeached. It would be an overwhelming relief to be rid of them and their destructiveness.
It was with a heavy heart that I read that 10 Coalition troops were killed on Monday, 9 of them Americans.
Frankly, this leaves me relatively cold compared to the 600'000 to 900'000 of Iraqis who have lost their lives second the Lancet study and compared to the 2 Millions of refugees or displaced persons in Iraq. America is destroying this country. As of now, the US has only lost 3333 troops since the war started (aka in 1498 days), so it's not like during the Vietnam war : the Americans don't really care as long as those who are dying in throves are Iraqis and not Americans. To put this data in perspective, the FBI has announced that the number of violent murders registrated in the US cities totaling more than 100'000 inhabitants has reached 4175 in 2006, aka in only 365 days. Supposing the same rate of death over 1498 days that would be more than 17000 murders, only in the the urban part of the US.
In the same way, we sometimes send our military into a war, the justice of which is not clear. They have done their job, the job the American and British publics gave them, uncomplainingly.
This is pure whitewashing. The facts were clear from the beginning. Preemptive action isn't allowed by the UN chart. The US was very clearly not threatened by Iraq, so she didn't even have a motive for preemptive action. It was perfectly clear from the start that the shallow pretexts used to invade Iraq were entirely made up by the US who was never convincing on the matter. Powell shaking a test tube in front of the UN assembly isn't an argument in itself, neither were aerial photographs of the trucks supposedly containing biological weapons. The US pretended to have intelligence about it, but then why did she never transmitt it to the UN inspectors, who were asking for it, because they weren't finding any mass weapons in Iraq before the invasion. Neither did the American inspectors after the invasion. So writing that the situation wasn't clear is historical revisionism.
Why do u only blame the Mahdi army for death squad killings? have badr simply left iraq? even moktada himself said "why would my men wear their black uniforms to kill? it makes no sense." Political rivals can easily wear black shirts and kill sunnis, then blame the sadrists. Fadila, due to basra situation and Hakim have motives to do such things. And sadr himself admits that if men are really mahdi army and are killing innocent sunnis, then he is trying to root them out. like you said he doesnt have complete control over his army. YET.
Sadr has the chance to eventually become a nasrallah like leader.
Post a Comment
<< Home