Mortar, Rocket attacks in Baghdad;
in aftermath of Militia Campaign
Baghdad has been roiled for the past three days with major fighting between Iraqi government/ US forces and the Mahdi Army militia in east and north Baghdad, leaving 45 militiamen dead and an unstated number of Iraqi troops. At one point on Sunday, the a Mahdi Army company nearly took a government checkpoint in the northeast, and the US had to bring in a tank to save the Iraqi army unit.
Guerrillas launched numerous mortar and katyusha rocket attacks on Monday. Reuters reports: "A mortar round landed behind the Rashid Hotel in the Green Zone government compound, wounding five people including a child, police said . . . Five people were wounded in a mortar attack in Abu Nawas street in central Baghdad . . . Three mortar bombs landed on a police station in Jazair district, eastern Baghdad, wounding three policemen . . . A mortar blast wounded one person in the Mansour district, western Baghdad . . ."
On Monday,
Two mass graves have been found in Iraq in the past two days, each with about 50 bodies in them. Sunni Arab guerrilla groups made "collaborators" or rivals disappear this way as an object lesson.
The alleged flow of arms from Iran to south Iraq has not in fact increased in recent months (and my own suspicion is that US authorities mistake some black market arms selling for Iranian-government supplied weaponry). So why does the Bush administration and Pentagon stridency about Iran go up an down without reference to any facts on the ground? Seems to me that they deploy charges against Iran in an Orwellian way, as a tool of diplomatic pressure, when it suits them.
McClatchy profiles Brg. Gen. Qassem Suleimani of the Quds Force within the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. It is a good story, but it reflects the breathlessness of Green Zone conspiracy theories. For instance, some American alleged to the reporters that Suleimani engineered the victory of the Shiite religious parties in January 2005 over Iyad Allawi. Allawi had been appointed by the US, was an ex-Baathist, and a known CIA asset. He was defeated by a coalition list of Shiite parties that had struggled against Saddam Hussein and were endorsed by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. Attributing their defeat of Allawi to the Quds Force is just silly. Likewise, the allegations of extensive Iranian spying on Iraq or of bringing in "Hizbullah" from Lebanon (for which there is no good evidence) are unproved and the premise is unnecessary. If the Badr Corps was until recently part of the Iranian military, as the authors concede, then you don't need to posit a lot of phantom Iranian agents who are providing intelligence on Iraq to Tehran. Badr, Ahmad Chalabi, and other supposed US assets are double agents, guys. If Iraq were crawling with Iranian agents, the US would have more Iranians in custody than it does (last I knew, it was like 5 diplomats).
AFP draws aside the curtain on the micro-economy of the struggle between the Islamic State of Iraq of Abu Omar al-Baghdadi and local clans in Iskandariya south of Baghdad, which centered on the region's fish farms. The article also gives evidence that al-Baghdadi, who the US military maintains is a fictive personality created by foreign fighters to give themselves Iraqi legitimacy, is a real Iraqi person with a history in the Iskandariya area. The US is mostly fighting Iraqis in Iraq, but is reluctant to have this fact become known.
A lot of money was wasted on phantom reconstruction projects in Iraq left incomplete because of poor contractor performance. In other words, US tax payers made an involuntary contribution to Friends of George, which would be a good way of summing up the Iraq occupation in general.
The US Pentagon is suspending a campaign to influence the retired military talking heads who come on television in the US, after the NYT blew the whistle on it. Reuters notes: "Sen. Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, also said some of the analysts appeared to be working for defense contractors, raising a potential conflict of interest." You always suspected these things about corporate media coverage of Iraq, but seeing it in cold black and white is bracing. I have more than once been put opposite some sunshine peddler on radio or television and wondered whether the person was on the take.
McClatchy reports political violence in Iraq on Monday:
' Baghdad
- Around 11 pm Sunday, 4 mortar shells hit the Green Zone (IZ) in central Baghdad. No casualties reported.
- Around midnight, 3 mortars hit the intelligence headquarters in Baladiyat neighborhood (east Baghdad). No casualties reported.
- Around 3 am, three mortar shells hit Mamil neighborhood. Five people were injured in that incident.
- Around 8 am, a mortar hit the Green Zone (IZ) in central Baghdad. No casualties reported.
- Around 10 am, a mortar hit the area beyond the Sa'aa restaurant at Mansour neighborhood (west Baghdad). Two civilians were injured in that incident.
- Around 1 pm, 3 mortar shells hit Al-Jazaer police station in Sadr city. Three policemen were injured with some damage to the building.
- Around 1:30pm, An American warplane targeted a Hino truck which was carrying Katyusha missiles at Al-Qanat street (east Baghdad). Two people were injured in that incident.
- Around 2 pm, a motor bicycle bomb targeted Sahwa members (also known as Sons of Iraq). One member was killed and three others were injured.
- Around 2 :15 pm, a roadside bomb targeted a civilian car (Toyota Pick up ) which was carrying technicians employees of the power supply service on the high way of Nahdha neighborhood (north Baghdad).Three of the employees were injured in that incident.
- Around 2:30 pm, a roadside bomb targeted the Sahwa members check point at Adhamiyah neighborhood (north Baghdad) near Qasim Abu Al-Ghas restaurant .Three members were injured in that incident.
- Around 4:30 pm, a Katyusha missile hit Al-Sadeer hotel in Karrada neighborhood (central Baghdad).No casualties or damage recorded as it was in the garden of this hotel.
- Around 5 pm, a mortar shell hit an area behind the Rashid hotel in the green zone (IZ) which is a residential compound .Five people were injured in that incident including a child.
- Around 5 :30 pm, a roadside bomb targeted an American patrol in Amil neighborhood (west Baghdad) .No casualties reported on the American side .While we have four civilians injured in that incident including a child and woman.
- Police found 6 dead bodies in Baghdad today: 4 were found in Karkh bank of Baghdad ; 1 in Kadhimiyah, 1 in Hurriyah, 1 in Dora and 1 in Yarmouk. While 2 were found in east Baghdad (Risafa bank); 1 in Ur and 1 in Jisr Diyala.
Diyala
- Around 4:30 pm, gunmen of the Qaeda attacked Al-Bayjat village (south of Baquba ). The residents of the village who join the Sahwas (Sons of Iraq) councils resisted them and killed five gunmen including a leader.
Kirkuk
- Sunday night, gunmen opened fire on an Iraqi army soldier at Tuz Khurmatu (south of Kirkuk).The soldier was killed at once and the gunmen ran away.
Basra
- Before noon, gunmen killed a Sadrist leader at Timimiyah neighborhood downtown Basra. Also his wife was injured as she was with him walking home. '
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 4/29/2008 12:58:00 AM
|
Facebook
10 Comments:
Juan,
There is no doubt that the Bush administration and its nutty neocon shills in the media have been itching for many months for an excuse to attack Iran; the many public statements of men like Kristol and Podhoretz advocating military action go back several years.
The only reason we have not already done so is that up until recently there have been military men in top positions such as Fallon who realize the insanity of an attack. Now that Fallon has been replaced with the malleable and eager-to-please Petraeus, the only task left is to gin up public support for an attack. Hence we have your appropriately termed breathless accounts of Suleimani's nefarious activities.
Needless to say, the mainstream media are every bit as pliant as Petraeus, and are eagerly looking forward to the ratings bonanza an air campaign against Iran would bring.
And, timed appropriately in the late summer or early fall, a new war will put the reliably feckless Democrats in a political bind, and Karl Rove & Co. are nothing if not adept at befuddling the public with flag pins and video-game-quality images of smoldering buildings. Coming to a wide-screen TV near you.
Don Hammond
Sir, would it be impolite if, given the disclosure of this organized propaganda campaign, you cited it as a reason for asking your adversary in debate to disclose any business arrangements they may have with the Pentagon or defense contractors?
"Two mass graves have been found in Iraq in the past two days, each with about 50 bodies in them. Sunni Arab guerrilla groups made "collaborators" or rivals disappear this way as an object lesson."
I read the link and there was no mention of who the killers might be,or why they might be doing this. There was no mention of the victims being Sunni or Shi'a either.
Where do you get your information from?
I agree with Don. Short of mass demonstrations in the US backed by an ability to launch a general strike, the bombing of Iran will take place late summer early fall. It would help if the Democratic party were against this war, but they aren't. It may, for PR purposes, be initiated by Israel, with follow-up to the Iranian response by the US. All political leaders will then jump to the same side - war.
It is only the people massed that can have any contrary effect, and yet the people are so hostile to collective action and besotted/confused with lies that the likelihood of this is slim.
However, hope must spring eternal, if you value the lives of your children and their children.
Prof. Cole,
Good analysis of the Suleimani article.
The continuing friendly contacts between the Dawa/Badr government and Iran, together with their apparent invitation of Suleimani into the Green Zone, to resolve their own political crisis, and their scuttling off to Iran to resolve the problems in Basra last month, leave little doubt that the current Iraqi government is barely more than a tool of the Iranian government, a tool which is forced to adapt to the continuing U.S. occupation, but also is finding ways to benefit from that occupation.
As you pointed out, I think it was a couple of years ago, or more, in a Salon article, Iran has essentially won the war, and a pro-Iranian government has been installed.
There is still that last issue, though, which is the U.S. occupation. McCain, and I suspect, Clinton, too, (and maybe even Obama) intend to keep permanent US bases in Iraq. Maliki's government hasn't loudly objected to this idea, although as Iranian surrogates, they must want the U.S. out, when U.S. troops are no longer useful.
U.S. troops in Iraq are useful to Iran at the moment, because they are fighting or co-opting the Sunnis, without Iran having to fight them, or even pay them off. But that won't be necessary much longer, as the Dawa/Badr government consolidates it's power and control. Indeed, the final pieces are falling into place so that Iran will be in position to make a serious push to get the U.S. out of Iraq altogether.
The October elections must be worrisome for Iran, because there is the danger that the wrong Shi'ite faction, the Mahdi Army, might win them. Hence, the Iranians probably instigated the Charge of the Knights offensive in Basra, and beyond a doubt, intervened to ensure it's success.
But if the outcome of the October elections is at least acceptable to Iran, they will be followed the next month by the U.S. presidential election, and a new U.S. president in January, which would open up a new set of opportunities for Iran. There is likely to be some turnover in the U.S. Congress as well, which probably will increase anti-war sentiment a bit in Congress.
At that point, Iran will probably push the Mahdi Army into more violent confrontation with U.S. forces. This would have the effect of increasing U.S. casualties back up to an average of three or four fatalities a day, or even higher.
That, in turn would give political cover for the new U.S. administration and Congress to pull out. If a Democrat is president by that time, even the Republicans probably won't block the move, although they will pretend to try. This is because the Republicans will see the opportunity to accuse the Democrats of being the ones who "lost Iraq" in the 2012 election.
On the other hand, if the October Iraqi elections are won by the Sadrists, it will take longer, but the Iranians next logical moves play out fairly similarly. They would still try to provoke conflict between the U.S. troops and the Mahdi Army, but in this case, they would be working for a scenario similar to the U.S. fight to take control of Anbar from the Sunnis, only this time in the Shi'ite heartland. Just as in Basra, the Mahdi Army would be pushed aside with the help of U.S. firepower, and the Iraqi Army/Badr Corps would take control.
Either way, the Iranians would be trying to spark a fight between Sadr and the Americans which would have the effect of forcing U.S. withdrawal, and simultaneously weakening or destroying the Mahdi Army, putting Dawa/Badr/Hakim in full control in Baghdad.
With that done, Iran's Iraqi surrogates would be in a position to demand U.S. troops leave and sign no treaty for permanent bases. The U.S. administration could spin it as mission accomplished, and with a huge sigh of relief (and disappointment at the failure of the colonial venture) pull out, at last.
ref : “discomfort... with the planned Bush-al-Maliki 'agreement' on US-Iraqi relations (which many Iraqis fear will detract from Iraqi sovereignty)...”
Wiki: Iraqi sovereignty: “Supporters of the Iraq war tend to agree with the view that Iraq regained its sovereignty in June 2004, and that ‘the occupation’ [by American Forces] has thus ended. These [war] advocates regard ‘the insurgents’ as rebels against the [sovereign] Iraqi authorities.”
“[on the other hand,] Some opponents of the war regard the continued presence of the multinational forces in Iraq as constituting an "occupation". Accordingly, they describe ‘the insurgents’... as "resistance" fighters, whose main aim is to expel the foreign, [occupation] forces.”
“[further, Iraq War/Occupation] Critics may make comparisons to the Vichy regime in France, [or] the 1980s Kremlin-backed regime in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan (which was considered a ‘puppet regime’ by Britain and America, who backed mujahadeen guerrillas against the Russians and Afghan [‘state’] forces). These claims would be disputed by those who consider: "Iraq is now sovereign".”
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Sovereignty : “though its meanings have varied across history, also has a core meaning: "supreme authority within a territory". It is a modern notion of political authority. Historical variants can be understood along three dimensions -- the holder of sovereignty, the absoluteness of sovereignty, and the internal and external dimensions of sovereignty. The ‘state’ is the political institution in which sovereignty is embodied. An assemblage of states forms a ‘sovereign states’ system.”
imho, The question is not so much, “Is ‘IRAQ’ a sovereign state?”
Because: if Iraq is NOT sovereign, then the Americans are clearly an Occupation Force; and, if Iraq IS a sovereign state (as War supporters would have it), iow, if Iraq already has ‘sovereignty’ = "supreme authority within its territory", then what the hell is the purpose of the presence of American Forces in this so-called sovereign state?
imho, future scholars, looking back at this period of history will see the charade of "Iraqi sovereignty" : as a means by which the American Forces absolved themselves of responsibility for their failure to govern Iraq effectively; that neither ‘The State of Iraq’, nor ‘The Iraq Occupation Forces’ did achieve "supreme authority within the territory". And the historians will wonder: “Why did the Americans refuse 'to occupy' Iraq, responsibly ~ yet choose to remain there, without exercising their de facto sovereignty ~ with no other purpose apparent, Over There?”
And imho some future Professor will probably tell his young scholars that the purpose of 'IRAQ' had to do more with process, than place ~ the political necessity of war-making, some where ~ That is, the importance of the appearance of "War, apparent", Over There ~ to sustain a War Economy, and enable American leaders to presume sovereign War Powers = "supreme authority within the territory", Over Here.
William Schaap as an expert witness in the 1999 Martin Luther King conspiracy trial revealed the $100's of millions are spent by the US government and intelligence agencies manufacturing "news." Sometimes out of outlets owned and operated by the government, sometimes by paid operatives placed in media companies, sometimes by "friendlies" working for the news outlets.
Historically, the effort was directed primarily at foreign governments, but since the end of WWII increasingly toward the American public. When there is such a worldwide outcry against actions such as invading Iraq, and the American press fails to cover the outcry, deferring to the administration's reasons and justifications, no matter how dubious, it is hard to ignore the bias.
There is some very, very important work being done by one subcommittee of the House Foreigns Affairs Committee, under Rep. Bill Delahunt.
On April 10th - while Congress as a whole was fawning over General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker - Constitutional experts were spelling out to this subcommittee the war powers Congress has to unilaterally end our involvement in Iraq.
I can't recommend the testimony of the expert witnesses enough - their opening statements are available, along with a webcast, here:
http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/sub_oversight.asp
One witness in particular - Professor Michael Glennon, author of Constitutional Diplomacy - has a clear, straightforward solution to rescinding authorization and funding for our involvement in Iraq without need for presidential approval or a veto override. Yes, you heard that right. Congress is not hamstrung into "supporting the troops" because unable to override a veto of a withdrawal of troops. The reason Congressional "leaders" will not acknowledge this is presumably akin to the reason so many "Pentagon Pundits" on television refuse to acknowledge the realities of Iraq - they have a hidden, personal, vested interest in continuing the status quo.
Here's Professor Glennon (be sure to read his whole, superb statement and that of Professor Lobel and the others as well):
"Rather than attempting any fix [of the War Powers Resolution], however, it may be time for Congress to consider another completely different approach, which relies upon the House's and Senate's own plenary rule-making power, which cannot be vetoed by a President, and which will permit the effective exercise of Congress's exclusive power over the purse - which has in recent months proven unwieldy as a check on the Executive's war power. Finally, I would counsel the Subcommittee to focus purposefully upon the most important war powers issue of the day, which is that the war in Iraq is currently being prosecuted without adequate statutory authorization.
[snip]
One alternative to the broad approach of the War Powers Resolution would be patterned on section 106 (b) of Senator Biden's bill. That section would cut off funds for a given use of force if Congress were to adopt a concurrent resolution that contains a finding that -
(1) a use of force abroad has exceeded the 60-day time period;
(2) the President has acted outside the authority to use force that was conferred by Congress; or
(3) a use of force is otherwise conducted in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of the Act.
Once such a concurrent resolution is adopted, a point of order will lie in each House against any measure that contains budget authority to carry out the use of force in question. That will preclude any further consideration of the measure in question until the budget authority is removed.
This is, in my mind, a clean, simple, and effective way for Congress to employ its ultimate check, the power over the purse, to curb unwanted use of force by the President. It is clearly constitutional in that it relies upon the plenary power of each House to set its own rules of procedure. It can be put in place with a concurrent resolution that cannot be vetoed. If Congress is serious about reclaiming the war power, this might be a good place to start." - Professor Michael Glennon
http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/gle041008.htm
Glennon's scenario Number 2 is easily reached, under his interpretation of 2002's Joint Resolution:
"In my opinion, authority to use force in Iraq will not be conferred after December 31, [2008] and is not currently conferred, by any of those sources. To summarize my view, an executive agreement cannot confer authority to use force. A statute can confer such authority, but the Constitution prohibits use of force that exceeds statutorily authorized limits. Force now being used in Iraq exceeds the limits imposed by both the 2002 Joint Resolution and the AUMF. The 2002 Joint Resolution authorizes use of force against Iraq for two purposes: to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq," as its resolution put it, and to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." The first purpose has been fulfilled: the "continuing threat" posed by Iraq was seen as stemming from the government of Iraq — principally the regime of Saddam Hussein, and that regime is gone. The second purpose also has been fulfilled: "all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions" referred to resolutions in effect at the time of enactment of the 2002 Joint Resolution, and, to the extent that they are still relevant, the current Iraqi government is now in compliance with them. A contrary interpretation would raise serious delegation, presentment and appointments problems under the Constitution and should therefore be avoided. ..snip.. Authority to use force cannot lawfully be inferred from either of these two ambiguous statutes, or from subsequent appropriations statutes; such an inference is prohibited under the section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, which requires that use of force be specifically authorized." - Professor Glennon
So when reading stories like this one, about yet another "emergency" supplemental...:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/28/MNCU10BATO.DTL
...Keep in mind that this article recounts a deliberate choice by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Jack Murtha, Dave Obey, Daniel Inouye, et al, to ignore the power vested in Congress to end our occupation of Iraq unilaterally by simple majority vote. A deliberate choice, in the face of overwhelming public opposition to our occupation of Iraq, to not even try to exert the power they hold to fulfill the will of the American people, or to make it clear that the powers to deploy or recall our troops are in the hands, not of a current or future president, but of the United States Congress, alone.
May Day, 2008: Join with citizens nationwide and the longshoremen's union of CA in their protests of the continuation of our hostile occupation of Iraq: visit your local Congressional office and demand that Congress assert its own powers to end our unAmerican and inhumane annexation of Iraq.
WRT PowWow's comments re: rescinding the War Authorization. This was a favorite approach of mine, and if I am not mistaken, is that taken in legislation that Sen Byrd introduced in the Senate (Clinton co-sponsor) last year.
But it is too late now. Whatever chances such a bill had against the GOP Senate filibuster are now reduced to zero as we are in the Silly Season for the duration of this Congress
Many thanks Pow-wow for the link and perspective.
Post a Comment
<< Home