US Air Strike kills 49 in Sadr City
PKK Kills 17 Turkish Soldiers
Turkey Shells Iraq
Ferit Demir reports (via The Scotsman):
' Kurdish rebels [of the PKK/ Kurdish Workers Party] killed at least 17 Turkish soldiers, wounded 16 others and took several hostage in an ambush near the Iraqi border yesterday . . .
Turkey's military general staff said 32 rebels were killed in continuing clashes. Its artillery also shelled areas inside Iraq yesterday morning but no casualties were reported. In response to the ambush, [Turkish PM Tayyip] Erdogan said: "We are very angry. ... Our parliament has granted us the authority to act and within this framework we will do whatever has to be done. The Turkish defence minister, Vecdi Gonul, speaking in Kiev after talks with the US defence secretary, Robert Gates, said that 17 soldiers were killed, 16 injured and ten others were still missing. The PKK said it had taken a number of soldiers hostage. Asked if there would be a military response to those attacks, Mr Gonul said: "Not urgently. They are planning a cross-border [incursion]." "We'd like to do these things with the Americans." Abdul Rahman Jaderji, a senior PKK official said the rebels had killed 40 soldiers. The pro-PKK Firat news agency, which is based in western Europe, said eight soldiers had also been taken hostage. '
So the US military went into Sadr City or the Shiite slums of East Baghdad in search of the leader of a "special group" or cell of the Mahdi Army whom they suspected of being part of a kidnapping -for- ransom ring. Then they took hostile fire from, well, hostile Shiite slum militiamen. The troops called in an air strike on the building from which the fire came. You can't, obviously, avoid killing civilians if you bomb a heavily populated slum from the air. So the real question is how many civilians they killed this way. The Iraqi government maintains that the victims were mostly children and innocent non-combatants, and PM Nuri al-Maliki has ordered an investigation-- to mollify the very angry Iraqi Shiites who saw the bombing as a war crime.
The US military did not catch the cell leader they were originally after.
The USG Open Source Center translates or paraphrases how the US air strike on East Baghdad was reported on the satellite news channels:
' Al-Jazirah, Al-Arabiyah Highlight Civilian Deaths in US Operation in Baghdad
Iraq -- OSC Summary
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Both [Aljazeera and Alarabiya] channels reported the US version of events, which states that US forces entered the area in pursuit of Al-Mahdi Army elements suspected of masterminding the abduction and murder of US soldiers, but were forced to open fire and call in air support when a bomb targeted them, ultimately killing 49 gunmen and no civilians. The channels, however, were more interested in the Iraqi version, which speaks of multiple civilian casualties.
Injured Iraqis (Al-Jazirah)
Al-Jazirah was the first to carry images of the aftermath of the operation in a video report it aired during its 1200 GMT newscasts. The report conveyed both the US and Iraqi accounts of the incident, but noted, against the backdrop of images of wounded citizens being treated in a hospital, that "regardless of what triggered the clashes, they ended in the killing and wounding of a total of 60 people. The US Army says it has no evidence that any of these people were civilians, and that coalition forces are doing their best to protect innocent civilians." The report was repeated in later newscasts.
The report was followed by an interview with Iraqi Journalist Falah al-Sharqi, who said that Apache gunships attacked residential neighborhoods in Al-Sadr City "contrary to their claims of confrontations between the Al-Mahdi Army and US forces," and insisted that the entire operation targeted only civilians. Al-Jazirah's anchorwoman commented: "Indeed, these pictures (of wounded civilians) support what you are saying, contrary to what the US Army said about there not being any civilian victims in this operation."
Mourning Iraqis (Al-Arabiyah)
Al-Arabiyah reported civilian casualties as early as 0800 GMT, and carried its first video report in its 1300 GMT newscasts. In it, the channel showed an Iraqi man saying: "We were asleep when US forces came here with their planes and attacked us. We were sleeping. We have no weapons or any bad people here." The report showed Iraqis examining damage to their homes and a man mourning his children and said: "The US forces said that the raid led to the death of a group of gunmen, but it did not mention the death of civilians and children." It also notes that officials in the Al-Sadr trend deemed the operation "barbaric." The report was repeated in later newscasts.
Al-Jazirah carried a second report in its 1800 GMT newscast. The report was an expansion on the first one and contained footage of two dead infants, and it noted that the US Army says it has no evidence of civilian casualties and is keen on protecting them, "words that the father of one of the two dead children would contest as he gazes upon the beds and pictures of his children" -- the video shows a tearful man holding a picture of his children.
The footage used by both channels came from the same source and was virtually identical.
Al-Jazirah dedicated its "Behind the News" talk show to discussing tensions between the United States and the Al-Sadr trend. Iraqi analyst Dr Liqa Makki, a frequent guest on the channel, opens with the following remark: "As is known, Al-Sadr City is very crowded, and any bomb falling from the sky is destined to kill many, if not all, of the civilians in its blast area. What the Americans said is yet to be corroborated, but they always do this -- they bomb civilian areas under the pretext of gunmen presence there."
At 2039 GMT, Al-Jazirah interviewed Shaykh Salah al-Ubaydi, head of the media branch of the Martyr Al-Sadr Office, who maintained that there were no clashes with the Al-Mahdi Army, that US helicopters bombed residential neighborhoods on the outskirts of Al-Sadr City, and that most of the casualties were civilian.'
McClatchy adds:
'Six dead bodies were found in Baghdad. 4 in Ameriya, 1 in Sadr, 1 in Sleikh.
Karbala
- Two mortar shells slammed into holy city of Karbala on Saturday, targeting a police center in the Saif Saad area and another building near a shrine yesterday night. One man was killed and two others were injured. Iraqi authorities imposed a curfew in fear of more attacks.
Mosul
- Gunmen killed Yousef Ibraheem, a coach of a local team, eastern Mosul today. . .
At the Global Affairs blog, Barnett Rubin looks at the way Afghan President Hamid Karzai finds himself caught between Iran and the US, and he tells us that the Iranians have explained exactly how they will reply to a US attack-- with rocket attacks of their own on US bases. I.e. they will behave as Hizbullah did during the Israel war on Lebanon in summer of of 2006.
At the Napoleon's Egypt Blog, a letter from the French admiral on the journey to Egypt and the exposed position of the French fleet.
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 10/22/2007 12:30:00 AM
|
Facebook
7 Comments:
I have to wonder, as this is nearly the same thing that happened to Israel the previous summer: Hezbollah's incursion and taking of Israeli soldiers. Now, that the same act is performed by a terrorist group related to US allies, will we still allow as self-defense of a sovereign nation, Turkey to bomb the entire infrastructure of Iraq the way Israel did Lebanon?
I doubt it. I bet they will balk at a limited incursion that is more justifiable to try to retrieve the soldiers.
Professor Cole:
The fact that your blog has chosen to ignore Bigfoot Awareness Week speaks volumes about your lack of commitment to the war on giantopithecus blacki. It is obvious that liberals like you will not be satisfied until our schools, hospitals, churches, and other institutions are overrun by hirsute bipedal cryptid infiltrators. You, sir, should be ashamed.
“……….Kurdish rebels [of the PKK/ Kurdish Workers Party] killed at least 17 Turkish soldiers, wounded 16 others and took several hostage in an ambush near the Iraqi border yesterday . . .”
I wonder what the U.S. game plan is. Obviously, after Turkey Parliament voted to authorize invasion of Kurdistan that this attack occur could not be a decision made solely by this terrorist group alone. A bigger protector fish had given the order.
The Daily Star reacted in an editorial Saturday to comments in Lebanon by Eric S. Edelman, Under Secretary of Defense (Policy), that "I don't see any reason why Israel and Lebanon have to be enemies." The editorial, titled There's a better - and cheaper - way that Washington can help Lebanon, says that the US must use the "ample leverage" provided by annual Israeli aid packages to pressure Israel into respecting international law. Also while Congress debates providing federal health insurance for low-income children, Israel already has a publicly-financed health system to brag about.
Re large US action in Sadr City:
http://portal.myutahjazz.com/newsarticle.aspx?catId=1&articleId=1251239
AP reports that the supporting air bombardment was provided by Polish attack helos. The same report mentions Polish air attack near Diwanah on 10/19. Last weeks Baghdad attack that put the Polish envoy in a coma adds to the drama, as does the election of a new Polish PM that campaigned on a platform of bringing Polish troops home.
The use of Polish attack choppers in combined arms urban combat (posing communication and friendly fire risk to US forces, civilians) raises questions. There have been reports that the US brought in Polish sniper teams i to Ramadi, because they operate under more 'liberal' rules of engagement, perhaps allowing them to shoot cell phone talkers after curfew, without evidence of weapons or other threats.
Heavy weapons target build sized targets, not individuals, and guarantee collateral killing in a crowded slum. Yet the US spokesman says he knows nothing about civilian deaths in this operation. There is an aspect of payback for the Poles, and deniability for the US to this story.
As long-time readers know, I believe that the only reason that the various players don't form brigade-sized units and fight set piece battles with one another is US air power, which would take them out if they tried it. I don't agree with the authors' conclusion that a US withdrawal would lead to social peace, since I believe that the low intensity war is only low intensity because the US military imposes limits on intensity. If the US forces weren't there, the local forces would fight their various wars to a conclusion or a stalemate.
It's interesting to put your statement of yesterday next to to-days entry concerning the fight wiht the Mahdi army in Sadr City :
The troops called in an air strike on the building from which the fire came. You can't, obviously, avoid killing civilians if you bomb a heavily populated slum from the air. So the real question is how many civilians they killed this way. The Iraqi government maintains that the victims were mostly children and innocent non-combatants, and PM Nuri al-Maliki has ordered an investigation-- to mollify the very angry Iraqi Shiites who saw the bombing as a war crime.
The US military did not catch the cell leader they were originally after.
Your argument concerning "set piece battles" between Iraqi factions only serves to justify an indeterminate presence of the US troops in Iraq. On one side the US generals are arming different factions (former the shiite police, now the Sunnis tribal sheiks in Anbar) and on the other the Bush administration uses the tensions she creates herself to justify her occupation. This is a perfect vicious cercle; the trap prepared by the Bush administration is closing. With your kind of reasoning, when the Dems get to the next presidence, they will just continue the same politic the Rep have begun. The last attack on Sadr City shows clearly the flaw : since when killing civilians is a way to to protect them ? What kind of choices are you leaving to the Iraqi ? Can you tell whether it is better to be targetted by the airforce of a superpower or by the AK477 of another faction ? Personnally I think that the US airforce is more letal to the Iraqis than the low intensity war between the different factions and that the US is knowingly dividing the Iraqi, preventing stable alliance between them.
"I.e. they will behave as Hizbullah did during the Israel war on Lebanon in summer of of 2006."
needless to say the weapons the iranians use will be a tad more deadly than the hapless little katyushas hezbullah used to such devestating and morale-sapping effect.
Post a Comment
<< Home