2 US Troops Killed, 21 Wounded;
37 Iraqis Killed in Baghdad Clashes;
According to BBC television, AFP is reporting that Mahdi Army militiamen killed 2 US troops in northern Baghdad on Wednesday morning. US Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates admitted on Tuesday that the reduction in US troop casualties in recent months had ended in the past few weeks, because of the fighting in Sadr City in the capital. Over 40 US troops have been killed in April. Gates also brandished a second aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf at Iran, which the US accuses of supplying the Mahdi Army with arms that are used against US troops. Recent US press reporting in the New York Times and elsewhere has raised questions about the allegation. Sadr spokesman Salah al-Obeidi (al-Ubaydi) in Najaf bitterly attacked Iran, accusing it of seeking to share with the US in influence over Iraq. He pointed to the Iranian's regime's failure to condemn the long-term mutual security agreement being crafted by the Bush administration and the al-Maliki government. Al-Obeidi's angry denunciation suggests that Iran is backing PM Nuri al-Maliki and his current chief ally, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim against the Sadr Movement of Muqtada al-Sadr.
The sandstorm continued in Baghdad on Tuesday, and so did the fierce fighting between the US military and the Shiite Mahdi Army (paramilitary of the Sadr Movement), leaving 37 dead and 6 US soldiers wounded. The dead were said to include 9 civilians, including 3 women and a child. The sandstorm was an essential context for the fighting, since it prevented the US from deploying helicopter gunships and so left a ground patrol vulnerable to militia attack. The Mahdi Army was apparently attempting to prevent further US wall-building in the Shiite slum. Snipers also shot at US troops from rooftops. It is hard to believe that such complex assaults (involving a combination of ambush, small arms, and roadside bombs) are still going on after 5 years of US military occupation of the capital. AFP reports:
'Several rockets or mortar rounds . . . struck the Iraqi capital's heavily fortified government compound, as militants took advantage of the absence of US air cover during the storm, witnesses said. In one of the most intense firefights in weeks, the American soldiers killed 28 militants in Sadr City, stronghold of anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, the military said. Four US soldiers were also wounded in the fighting that began at around 9:30 am (0630 GMT). The fighting erupted when a US patrol was targeted with small-arms fire that wounded one soldier, Lieutenant Colonel Steven Stover told AFP. As the soldier was being evacuated, a US vehicle was struck by two roadside bombs, small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. The "complex" attack damaged the vehicle and wounded three other soldiers, Stover said, adding that another US vehicle was later damaged by a third roadside bomb. The US military said its soldiers defended themselves and "killed 28 militants in a four-hour" battle. Residents said US forces also launched two air strikes in the area which heavily damaged four houses. Pictures taken by an AFP photographer showed a number of bodies buried under the debris of the four houses. But Stover denied that aircraft had been used. The sandstorm had largely grounded US helicopters. Instead he said US troops used heavy rockets against the militants.'
It is now being revealed that on Monday, "Shi'ite militants hit a U.S. military station in southern Sadr City with explosive canisters, badly damaging a tactical operations center and injuring 15 troops."
Up in the oil city of Kirkuk, the focus of competition between Kurdish Peshmerga on the one hand and Arab and Turkmen guerrillas on the other, "around the oil city of Kirkuk four people were killed and 15 wounded in two bomb attacks."
McClatchy reports political violence in Iraq on Tuesday:
' Baghdad
Gunmen killed the director of the projects in the ministry of labour and social affairs Dheya al Jodi while he was leaving his house in Atifiyah neighborhood in north Baghdad around 7:00 a.m.
Around 1:00 p.m. two mortar shells hit al Jaish club building (the Army Club) in Karrada neighborhood in downtown Baghdad. No casualties reported. Another mortar shell slammed into the area near the neurosurgery hospital in Bab al Sharj neighborhood in downtown Baghdad at the same time. No casualties reported.
Two civilians were injured when a mortar shell hit al Muheet Street in Kadhemiyah neighborhood north Baghdad around 2,45 p.m.
Three civilians were injured when a mortar shell slammed into a house in Karrad Maryam neighborhood in downtown Baghdad around 3:00 p.m.
Two civilians were killed and five others were wounded when a Katyosha rocket hit New Baghdad neighborhood in east Baghdad around 3:15 p.m.
Diyala
A female suicide bomber wearing an explosive vest detonated herself among members of Sahwa (awakening council members) in Abo Saida village north of Baquba city around 7:50 a.m. one sahwa member was killed and five others were wounded
Three members of the Iraqi army were injured when a roadside bomb targeted their vehicle in Baladroz district east of Baquba city around 10:30 a.m.
Three civilians were killed in three attacks by insurgents in three different neighborhoods in Jalawla town northeast of Baquba city around 11:15 a.m.
The director of Sadiyah town Samir al Sadi was injured in an IED explosion that targeted his convoy while he was leaving the building of the directorate in downtown Sadiyah town around 12:20 p.m. one of the guards were killed and two other civilians were injured.
The supporting office of Qazanya district tribes east of Baquba found six unidentified bodies in a deserted house in one of the villages of Qazanya.
Nineveh
A suicide truck bomb tried to attack one of the centers of the Iraqi army in Nahrawan neighborhood in west Mosul city around 7:00 a.m. the soldiers launched an RBG7 shell and exploded the truck before it could reach the center. The driver of the truck was killed and an Iraqi soldier was injured.
An Iraqi soldier was killed and five others were injured when a suicide car bomb attacked their check point in al Yarmouk neighborhood in west Mosul on Tuesday afternoon. '
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 4/30/2008 01:04:00 AM
|
Facebook
16 Comments:
The Iraq War Morphs Into the Iran War
It is 1939 all over again. The world waits helplessly for the next act of naked aggression by rogue states. Only this time the rogue states are not the Third Reich and Fascist Italy. They are the United States and Israel.
The targeted victims are not Poland and France, but Iran, Syria, the remains of the Palestinian West Bank and southern Lebanon.
The American mass media is overjoyed. War coverage attracts viewers and sells advertising.
The neoconservatives are ecstatic. Hegemony uber alles is back on track.
The US Air Force can’t wait “to show what it can do.”
Defense contractors see no end of the profits...
Are we just going to let this happen? Condi Rice is incontinent.
Hamas serving as Iran's 'proxy warriors,' Rice says
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Palestinian Hamas militants are serving as the "proxy warriors" for an Iran bent on destroying Israel and destabilizing the Middle East, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said here.
In a speech Tuesday to the American Jewish Committee in Washington that underscored growing US concerns about Tehran, Rice mentioned Iran as not just a threat in the Palestinian territories, but also in Lebanon, Iraq and even in Afghanistan.
Israel's Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz said after talks with Rice on Monday that an Iran-led radical front in the Middle East is becoming more powerful and weaknesses in it need to be found.
Rice vowed to pursue US efforts to isolate Hamas which she said refused to renounce violence, recognize Israel's right to exist and respect all previous Palestinian agreements with Israel.
"But perhaps of deepest concern, the leaders of Hamas are increasingly serving as the proxy warriors of an Iranian regime that is destabilizing the region, seeking a nuclear capability and proclaiming its desire to destroy Israel," Rice told the group's annual meeting.
She did not elaborate.
In her speech, Rice spoke of a new "belt of extremism" that ranges from Hamas, to the Lebanese Shiite Muslim movement Hezbollah in Lebanon to radicals in Iraq and "radicals even increasingly in places like Afghanistan."
It is "supported overwhelmingly by Iran and to a certain extent Syria, but particularly Iran, gives this conflict a regional dimension it has not had before," Rice said.
THEY... ARE... GOING... TO... ATTACK... IRAN...
One more thought on yesterday's article about Brig. Gen. Suleimani, the Iranian supposedly in charge of Iran's efforts in Iraq.
Unless rank is quite different in the Iranian army, a brigadier general would seem to be a fairly low-ranking officer to put in charge of what would be such an enormous and important responsibility. A brigadier general is a one-star general, who normally would not even be assigned command of a full division. He would command, as the title indicates, a brigade. So while this is possible, I certainly would not give complete credence to the idea that he really is the one in charge. More likely, he is the point man for someone higher, probably a general carrying two, or three stars.
He pointed to the Iranian's regime's failure to condemn the long-term mutual security agreement being crafted by the Bush administration and the al-Maliki government. Al-Obeidi's angry denunciation suggests that Iran is backing PM Nuri al-Maliki and his current chief ally, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim against the Sadr Movement of Muqtada al-Sadr.
It's interesting to put that in parallel with all the US aggressive talks against Iran, including the move of the second aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf : it is usually interpreted as a way to intimidate Iran and force him to stop his pretendiously nuclear weapon programm. But is that the real goal ? or could it also be a way to intimidate Iran and force him to accept the US long term presence in Iraq ? Suppose Iran stopped backing Al'Hakim, denounced the longterm mutual force agreement between US and Al'Maliki's government and supported Al'Sadr instead, suppose the resistance supported by Iran would then get momentum in Iraq : then the US would have the nuclear pretext to attack Iran and would in fact punish Iran's leaders for supporting Al'Sadr and the resistance movement. One has to wonder whether Iran supports Al'Hakim because of his links with Iran and the revolutionary guards, or rather because they fear what the Americans would do them if they were supporting the Iraqi resistance.
It is hard to believe that such complex assaults (involving a combination of ambush, small arms, and roadside bombs) are still going on after 5 years of US military occupation of the capital.
Personnally, I don't see why it is so hard to believe ?
1) The Iraqi are fighting for their independance and sovereignity, but for what are fighting the US troops ? do they still believe they are avenging 9/11 ? or do they fight for the oil companies ? do they intimately know what they are doing in Iraq ? Do they believe that they are fighting for the security of their homes ?
2) The US may have the most sophisticated and the most powerful army, but why on earth would you accept that Iraqi are so primitive as to be unable to imagine complex assaults and resist the US supremacy ?
3) The Iraqi have the advantage of the number, they are millions while the US only has 160'000 troops or so. Further the Iraqi have the sympathy of the civilian population and they know the ground.
4) No colonial occupation can be victorious in the long term. There is no military solution to this situation. The US should get out of Iraq and pay compensations for the destructions and deaths she has caused to the Iraqi.
Perhaps this is the reason for Condi Rice's incontinence :
Iran stops conducting oil transactions in U.S. dollars
"The dollar has totally been removed from Iran's oil transactions," Oil Ministry official Hojjatollah Ghanimifard told state-run television Wednesday. "We have agreed with all of our crude oil customers to do our transactions in non-dollar currencies."
"In Europe, Iran's oil is sold in euros, but both euros and yen are paid for Iranian crude in Asia," said Ghanimifard.
The Military Option
It seems that the political leadership in Washington foresaw the dramatic rise of the world-wide demand for oil. They decided, therefore, to strengthen their hold on the oil of the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea basin. The war was intended to turn Iraq into an American satellite and to station there, under a friendly regime, a permanent American garrison that would keep the whole area under control.
The results, up to now, have been the opposite. Instead of consolidating Iraq as a united country under a stable pro-American regime, a civil war is raging, the state is tottering on the brink of disintegration, the population hates the Americans and considers them a foreign occupier. The output of oil is less than it was before the invasion, the immense costs of the war undermine the American economy, the price of oil is increasing incessantly, America's once elevated position in world public opinion has reached rock bottom and the American public is demanding that the soldiers be brought home.
There is no doubt that American interests could have been safeguarded far better by diplomatic means, using the economic clout of the US. That would have saved thousands of American soldiers and ten times as many Iraqi civilians, and trillions of dollars. But the problematic ego of George Bush, who hides his hollowness and insecurity behind a bluster of noisy arrogance, caused him to prefer war. As to his cerebral prowess, a world-wide consensus has been achieved even before the end of his term in office.
Uri Avnery neglects to mention that it was and is the Neocons who furnished the apology and rationale, such as they were, for their act of pure destruction, not only of Iraq but of the United States, their host country, as well.
Now... onward to Iran!
"It is hard to believe that such complex assaults (involving a combination of ambush, small arms, and roadside bombs) are still going on after 5 years of US military occupation of the capital."
why is this hard to believe ?
the Anti-Occupation Freedom Fighters are continuing the fight to repel and oust the Oil Stealing Occupiers. Any Nationalist would do so and should consider it a test of their citizenship and patriotism.
The Sunnis had better step up to the plate and also contribute to the fight to repel the Oil Stealing Occupiers instead of taking the Occupiers' bribe money - that is shameful and disgraceful. don't care about their stratergy of re-arming and waiting to attack the Shi'ites - the Sunnis should jump in with both feet right now.
the Shi'ites and Sunni should have joined forces from the git-go to attack, repel and oust the Invaders instead of this piecemeal crap. they played right into the hands of the Infidel Oil Stealers.
Because Two Failed Wars Is Never Enough
US Prepares ‘New Options’ To Attack Iran, Deploys Second Carrier To Persian Gulf
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/30/cbs-report-iran-attack/
cheney is determined to take out Iran and seize its Oil before his pacemaker goes kaput.
That President Bush failed, after the attack on 9/11, and more recently ~ to make "conservation of energy", in particular, 'petroleum products' of all kinds ~ a national policy imperative (i daresay, THE cornerstone of The Global War On Terror)... well, i suppose we're all so damn cynical now that we just assume the man ddidn't do it then, and won't do it now because he's in bed with BigOil.
But, why the Democrats have not made PATRIOTISM = PETROLEUM POLICY this linkage or, for that matter: why there is no independent, "grass roots" movement in America, remains a mystery to this writer.
forget the warmongers => if you SUPPORT THE TROOPS, then for goodness sake: tie those 'yellow ribbons' around the hoses of your petrol station pumps, folks.
The new US propaganda as to Iranian helping the insurgency in Iraq is interesting in that:
a) Regardless of what else the Generals are saying, the surge has been a failure. If it was a success, why do they need a scapegoat?
b) As is customary in Bush administration the reward for failure is promotion.
c) Satellite picture of Iran-Iraq border on Google Earth essentially shows open desert. There has never been any evidence of weapons crossing these boarders. If this was a real issue you would think US military would have dealt with it long time ago!
" 'But perhaps of deepest concern, the leaders of Hamas are increasingly serving as the proxy warriors of an Iranian regime that is destabilizing the region, seeking a nuclear capability and proclaiming its desire to destroy Israel,' Rice told the group's annual meeting...."
Completely nutty....
My computer repair guy has just come back here (London) from a month's "vacation" in Baghdad. He's an Iraqi; he has family there.
He says, "Baghdad is a prison".
"They've turned Baghdad - all of it - into a prison...there are walls everywhere."
------------------
Every day one reads here - or at antiwar.com - or wherever - 40, 50, 60 newly dead Iraqis. Every day.
The blowback that's surely going to "come round" from this abomination doesn't bear thinking about.
JFLee: "THEY... ARE... GOING... TO... ATTACK... IRAN..."
No, WE Americans are going to attack Iran, because WE Americans are not giving any evidence that WE are going to stop a demented leadership from a demented attack. That's the way the rest of the world will see it, and the blowback will be on all of us. If you don't want Bush to attack Iran, you'd better do something about it. George is counting on you not doing anything.
Anonymous' computer repair guy should be listened to. It turns out the counter-insurgency strategy of the US was not to win over certain groups like the Awakening Councils, but to put the whole country into a concrete prison - like Gaza.
See Gorilla's Guides on this subject:
http://gorillasguides.com/2008/04/29/the-new-walls-of-baghdad-un-security-council-global-policy-forum/
I can confirm it. Last week, I heard last week that Samarra has been divided up with concrete walls, particularly a kind of concrete corridor leading from the barrage to the Askariyya shrine. In this case though, it is Maliki who has done it, according to my reports. Of course, the US is the occupier, so they control what goes on.
Anonymous at 2:28... well of course you're right. I'm open to suggestions.
At least I sign my name to my posts, to signify that I am a living, breathing, specific, identifiable, American human in absolute disapproval of all that my government is doing in the Middle East.
I have made the point you're making many times myself. In fact it is not you or I who are going to attack Iran, we could not do so if we wanted to. The US is our country and we are all certainly responsible for its actions. We're the only ones here.
I have sent thousands of emails to senators, my congressman, George Bush and Dick Cheney... I am as vocal as I can be with my revulsion at the state of the Union... if you have a specific plan please advise.
Signing your posts as something other than anonymous would be a good start. It makes a difference. The first thing that happens is that you own up to your own incontinent outbursts.
I have had to do so myself.
Sadr City fight fuels Iraq bloodshed in April
April was also the deadliest month for the US military since last September.
Maliki accused the militiamen of using civilians as "human shields" while fighting the security forces elsewhere.
"Criminals and lawless gangs are using human shields in Sadr City... They are following the steps of the Baathist regime," he told a news conference.
"They are trying to gain sympathy but they are using the lies and the values of the former regime" of executed dictator Saddam Hussein.
The reduction in the violence during the six months to January this year was attributed to a "surge" of an extra 30,000 US troops, the formation by Sunni leaders of anti-Qaeda fronts, and Sadr's standing down of his Mahdi Army militia the previous August.
More people of all stripes are being killed in Iraq.... since when? Since Maliki began "his" offensive which is now unmasked as the US' offensive. Yet Maliki claims the people he and the US are killing are following in the footsteps of Sadam Hussein!
The previous "reduction in violence" is at an end because the US Occupying force and its compradors have chosen to kill Iraqis.
That sounds just like Sadam Hussein to me.
"THEY... ARE... GOING... TO... ATTACK... IRAN..."
Well, "they" like to think so, and they're probably thinking that a woman won't have the nerve, and a black won't have the guts, to take on Iran. Hence it is quite on the cards that "they" will manufacture a "national emergency".
But history is against them; The US only attacks and invades weak third-world countries. The list, as many here know, is quite long, and goes right back to Mexico.
I personally think it's all thud and blunder; Iran is no pushover and never has been in the last 2500 years (does anyone need reminding about the fate of Valerian?). If "they" bring out the Big Stick, it will be the worst war crime in history, and all of the US will pay the price for letting it happen. Good luck with that.
Post a Comment
<< Home