Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Dabbagh Rejects Bush Pressure Tactics on Iraq;
Al-Haeri Declares Security Agreement Illicit;
Irrelevancy of Al-Qaeda on McCain

Iraqi government spokesman Ali Dabbagh reacted sharply on Wednesday to comments of US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen last Tuesday that Iraqis did not have much time to pass the agreement and might not understand the full consequences of failure to do so. Dabbagh said, "It is not correct to force Iraqis into making a choice and it is not appropriate to talk with the Iraqis in this way."

Spence Ackerman points out that McCain is attempting to spin the draft security agreement as "conditions based," but that it is not in fact. Rather the agreement stipulates US troops out by 2011 barring major unforeseen factors. I would add that not only is the agreement not very conditions based, but precisely because it does have some of that language it is not viable in Iraq, where most parliamentarians want to tinker with it to make sure the withdrawal deadline is absolute rather than conditioned on the security situation.

One way or another, As of Jan. 1, US troops will not be able to act at will in Iraq but rather will have to get assent from Iraqi authorities for campaigns.

Grand Ayatollah Kadhim al-Haeri issued a formal religious ruling or fatwa denouncing the proposed security pact between the Iraqi government and the US as humiliating and infringing Iraqi national sovereignty. (The tradition of Muslim clerical thinking is hostile to the political subordination of Muslims to non-Muslims.)

Al-Haeri tends to be followed by members of the Sadr Movement, the leader of which is Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr, who is too junior to issue fatwas. Al-Haeri is sometimes called Iraq's "fifth Grand Ayatollah," and is a rival to Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani of Najaf. Al-Haeri declines to live in Iraq under US occupation, and

The Arabic text of al-Haeri's statement says:

"We have learned of the pressures exerted by the Occupation forces on the Iraqi government for the purpose of obtaining its assent to a humiliating agreement termed "a long term security agreement," which leads to Iraq's loss of its national sovereignty, and its acceptance of humiliation and abasement."

He added, "Whoso aids the Occupiers in achieving what they desire, God shall not forgive his sins, nor will the oppressed Iraqi nation go easy on him, norwill the blessed centers of Islamic learning nor any Muslim with a conscience who believes in the Judgment Day."

As for the pro-al-Qaeda internet bulletin board that urged support for McCain because he is hotheaded and would keep large US troop contingents in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would not pay much attention to it. It was a posting from one guy, so we don't know if the leadership feels this way. But even if he were not obscure, we should not let al-Qaeda play mind games with American voters. Al-Qaeda hates and wants to kill both Democrats and Republicans; it hates America in general. We don't even know why this posting to the internet supports McCain; for all we know they are trying to help him, expecting blow back from the public. The important thing is what McCain's practical plans are, not some 'gotcha' post from some scruffy fundamentalist vigilante on the internet.

McClatchy reports political violence in Iraq on Wednesday:


'Baghdad

- An adhesive bomb detonated under a civilian car in Mansour neighborhood (west Baghdad). Two people were killed.

- An adhesive bomb detonated under the head of the Diwaniyah Facility Protection Service’s car, Colonel Mohammed Abu Atra, in Nidhal Street in downtown Baghdad. The colonel was injured with two of his guards.

- An adhesive bomb detonated under an ambulance car in Andalus intersection in central Baghdad. One person was killed and three others were wounded.

- An adhesive bomb detonated under a civilian car in Zafaraniyah neighborhood (east Baghdad). One person was injured.

- Police found one dead body in Saidiyah neighborhood (southwest Baghdad).

Mosul

- A car bomb detonated in Thawra neighborhood in Mosul city. Four people were killed and four others injured.

Diyala

- A roadside bomb targeted a police patrol in Balad Ruz (east of Baquba). One policeman was killed.

Kirkuk

- People found a head cut off its body in the Imam Hussein neighborhood in Tuz Khurmatu (south of Kirkuk), police said. The dead man was identified by police as a Turkman person who was kidnapped about a month ago from Inkija village of Tuz Khurmatu.

Anbar

- A mass grave of 34 dead bodies was found in Al-Qa’im town (about 250 miles west of Baghdad) near the Syrian border. A resident from the town while digging found four dead bodies and then he told police and the local council. They dug and found the mass grave of 34 bodies of civilians who were killed by the Al-Qaida organization.'

Labels:

7 Comments:

At 2:24 AM, Blogger larkrise said...

McCain IS a hothead. It doesnt take terrorists to see that the United States under Bush is self-destructing. If we continue to fight two wars and spend 10 billion dollars a month, without end, we will collapse like a house of cards. Our economy is already a train wreck. McCain has supported Bush 90% of the time. He wants to continue tax cuts for the wealthy. More will continue to go out than comes in. If you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got. Whatever head games the terrorists play is wasted energy on their part. We have been busily digging our own economic grave. It will take years to climb out of it.

 
At 3:40 AM, Blogger karlof1 said...

As reported by McClatchy "Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who was traveling in Latvia, warned that the Iraqi security forces can't secure Iraq on their own."

Now that's a very large assumption, and given that most of the problems are generated by the ocupation, I think quite false. As I've said before, I expect violence to occur after the occupiers leave because that is natural since cultural. And as myself and many others have opined, the US will use every excuse it can to remain for reasons of Empire and no other.

Tens of thousands of people violently die yearly in the USA from multiple causes (mostly auto-related), yet we have no occupier "attempting" to make the citizenry securer. Gonzo's parable from yesterday's thread was very apt. Hey, the Iraqis are trying to support our troops by sending them home. For that, we should thank the Iraqis!

 
At 6:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are right. Al-Qaeda has no like for any Americans. We also don't know if this came from the top of the leadership.

Still, some of the leardership does have a Western education. It was also instrumental in the toppling of another superpower through overextension.

If your goal is to topple a superpower, might not one research what is the way they have fallen in the past? The Roman Empire, the Turkish Empire, the British Empire, ect..... Many researchers employ the idea of overextension to explain the collapse. It is not unreasonable to think they have heard of this idea or have considered using it.

The sad issue is what it was like internal to these nations prior to the collapse. There was extreme economic instability of having military expansion reach beyond the economic sustainability of the nation. It still leaves me with a feeling that this is the pink elephant in the room that no one is discussing.

 
At 7:04 AM, Blogger Peregrinor said...

"We don't even know why this posting to the internet supports McCain; for all we know they are trying to help him, expecting blow back from the public. The important thing is what McCain's practical plans are, not some 'gotcha' post from some scruffy fundamentalist vigilante on the internet."

Yes, but it still makes a nice comeback to wingnuts who want to talk about how Hamas "supports" Obama's candidacy.

 
At 7:16 AM, Blogger El Cid said...

Juan, I would really appreciate your comments on the NYT's editorial page selection of 2 opinion columns on the U.S. co-occupation of Lebanon, giving us the gamut of perspectives from A to B (Gaddo to McFarlane), one telling us 'we' were doing the right thing in Beirut in 1983 and if only we'd stuck with it it woulda worked, the other saying that while we were doing the right thing there, it probably wouldn't have worked.

 
At 7:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, the US could always destabilize or stir up the situation in Iraq again, create more problems in Iraq or across the border in Iran, Saudi Arabia or Turkey. This would create a pretext for the US to stay in Iraq, much much longer. Or let Iraqi Kurdistan secede and move all US troops to that part of Iraq. Don't think the Iraq game is over for the US until it's really really over !

 
At 12:37 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gareth Porter: Final Text of Iraq Pact Reveals a U.S. Debacle
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/19216

The collapse of the Bush administration's ambitious plan for a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq highlights the degree of unreality that has prevailed among top U.S. officials in both Washington and Baghdad on Iraqi politics. They continued to see the Maliki regime as a client which would cooperate with U.S. aims even after it was clear that Maliki's agenda was sharply at odds with that of the United States.

They also refused to take seriously the opposition to such a presence even among the Shiite clerics who had tolerated it in order to obtain Shiite control over state power.

-mauisurfer-

 

Post a Comment

<< Home