Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Saturday, November 29, 2008

12 Killed in Mosque Bombing;
Controversy Rages over Security Pact

A suicide bomber detonated his payload outside a mosque in the largely Shiite town of Musayyib on Friday, killing 12 and wounding 23. Musayyib is in Babil province, and the US turned over security duties there to the Iraqi government last month. The Sadrists plamed the bombing on the security agreement and continued US presence in the country.

Hamza Hindawi of AP asks whether Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was weakened by the deal-making in which he had to engage to get the security pact through parliament. He had to agree to a national referendum, and to a package of reforms aimed at making Iraqi government more consensual and less concentrated in the executive, as for all practical purposes, it has become under al-Maliki. I am quoted as wondering whether the current alliance between al-Maliki's Islamic Da'wa (Mission) Party and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim will survive. If not, the two will square off against one another in December, during the next federal parliamentary elections. The constitutions stipulates that the largest single bloc in parliament gets first shot at forming a government, and that might not be the al-Da'wa Party.

Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that controversy continues to rage around the security pact, dividing communities against one another. The Association of Muslim Scholars condemned the Iraqi Islamic Party and other Sunni Arab parties for "selling Iraq" with their votes in its favor. Muqtada al-Sadr announced three days of mourning in protest against its enactment, but he did not order his supporters to engage in confrontation to overturn it, "in order to safeguard the unity of the country. One of the aides to Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani called it a "diminution" of Iraq's sovereignty.

Muqtada asked his followers to mourn formally in mosques for three days, and to hold wakes (for all the world as though someone had died in the family). Muqtada all by himself will leave behind enough material to keep symbolic anthropologists busy for centuries. He sent out a statement expressing his "condolences" to Iraqis at this calamity, an agreement of abasement and humiliation. Hundreds of Sadrists managed to demonstrate after Friday prayers, despite strict security, and to burn American flags.

In Karbala, an aide to Sistani, Sheikh Ahmad al-Safi, said he had two concerns. First, would the Iraqi government actually exercise sovereignty to the degree stipulated in the agreement? And, second, he regretted the lack of any guarantee that Iraq would be removed from Chapter 7 of the UN Charter (and thus regain its independence from the UNSC). He pointed out that as long as US troops were on Iraqi soil, the government in Baghdad would not be truly sovereign, since it could not inspect the mail of American residents of Iraq, and US troops retained freedom of movement.

Ayatollah Muhammad al-Ya`qubi expressed his "disappointment" that the pact was enacted. (He is the spiritual leader of the Islamic Virtue Party or Fadhila, which is strong in Basra).

The Bush administration finally released the official English text on Friday. Some parliamentarians have expressed fears that it is not exactly the same as the Arabic text.


The European Union on Friday urged member states to take in 10,000 of the most vulnerable Iraqi refugees in Jordan and Syria. While it is a praiseworthy step, it cannot in itself resolve a massive crisis of 1.5 million Iraqis displaced abroad.

14 Comments:

At 4:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maliki and Hakim are fighting the local elections on separate lists. Maliki's list includes 18 parties but most are rag-tag tiny groups driven by the PM's patronage. Hakim has registered his party alone in some provinces, and with minor figures in others.

"Allies" in Iraq's Green Zone are similar to those in Israel: bitter enemies agreeing a temporary truce to gain immediate benefits. Hakim and Maliki are fighting in public about the attempts to buy tribes in the south, by both. The other "allies", the Kurds, are doing the same in the north and east (regarding the Isnad, or support, councils.)

There are also major ideological differences between Maliki and Hakim on the super-provinces and the relationships with Arab countries (which Hakim opposes.)

It is safe to predict that neither Hakim and Maliki will feature in the Iraqi government in few years time, and will more likely have fled the country.

The American media was promoting Maliki as a Strong Man until yesterday, because he is pro-American and they are hoping for a Mubarak (of Egypt) figure. But Iraq is not like the US, where the media successfully promoted ignorant freaks like Palin and W to the highest offices.

 
At 5:13 AM, Blogger Shirin said...

"Controversy Rages over Security Pact"

Could we please refrain from using the Bush regime's propaganda term? Surely, whatever it is, it is not a "security pact". Whatever it is about, it is not about security, now, is it? So, let's call it something else, please, and preferably something that is a bit less panderish, and a bit closer to reality.

 
At 5:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I'd like to be a president (known) as somebody who liberated 50 million people and helped achieve peace," Bush said in excerpts of a recent interview released by the White House Friday.

Yes, he's definitely "liberated" millions. Liberated them from their lives, from their homes, from their futures, from their hopes.

Hunter Thompson described him as "a baffled little creep". I'd throw in another couple of adjectives: "an evil, vile, baffled little creep".

 
At 9:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

why doesn't the glorious european union take these displaced Iraqis into Europe? Europe was supported this Holocoust! Did the European Union think to as the US to take in these refugees? The US designed and carried out this Holocoust !!!

I am so proud of the West for continually putting all the repair responsiblity on Arabs.

 
At 3:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

While we talk and talk about the Occupation agreement foisted upon the Iraqis by Bush/Obama and their compradors in country the final solution continues slouching toward Bethlehem in the Palestine.

A wake-up call has gone out from Robert Weitszel:

Israel's Settlement on Capitol Hill
The imprisoned Palestinians—50 percent of whom are younger than 15—are slowly starving. They lack the fuel to generate electricity for lighting, water purification, and sewage treatment. The erratic, intermittent electrical power puts the lives of patients in intensive care wards and those who are connected to live-sustaining equipment in grave peril. The lack of basic medicines such as antibiotics and insulin pose an equally fatal threat.

Obama’s unconditional support for Israel’s policy of “self defense,” preemptive attacks, and repressive occupations is not one iota different from that of George W. Bush, an internationally recognized war criminal. This is not an encouraging beginning for a man whose battle cry was “change we can believe in.”

By any rational, humanitarian standard, Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians amounts to collective punishment and crimes against humanity. Perpetrators of such crimes, whether they are individuals or governments or willing allies, are criminals who should one day sit in the dock of the International Court of Justice in The Hague—just as defendants sat in a Nuremberg court 60 years ago—and be held accountable for their crimes.

Until Israel’s hilltop settlement in our nation’s capital is dismantled, allowing for the possibility of a just and lasting peace in Palestine-Israel, its influence on both branches of our government and its insidious affect on US Middle East policy will continue to make willing—or unwitting—kibbutzniks of all Americans. We will be held as complicit, and as culpable, as the citizens of the country whose leaders sat in the dock at Nuremberg.

 
At 3:50 PM, Blogger Shirin said...

Transforming en masse displaced Iraqis and their children and their children's children into Americans or Europeans is absolutely the wrong thing to do. The correct thing to do is to support them until they can return to a liberated Iraq and pay them reparations so that they can reestablish their lives as Iraqis in Iraq.

Isn't it bad enough to have destroyed Iraq without robbing it of its greatest resource by permanently removing its people?

 
At 6:37 PM, Blogger Dancewater said...

want to know what it is like to be a teenager in Mosul when a bomb goes off near your home?

read here:

http://livesstrong.blogspot.com/

And someone (or someones) went to the trouble of listing ALL the academics killed in Iraq since March 2003. Go here to read that one:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11187


And another US soldier with a conscience speaks up:

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=469031

 
At 6:45 PM, Blogger Dancewater said...

I counted 165 people killed by violence in Iraq this week, and it was supposedly a quiet week. And this has been going on for over 5 and a half years in Iraq - now compare that to the attacks in India...... then listen to Bush's remarks on Iraq and the attacks in India and throw up.

 
At 9:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ultimately, the question is: "What comprimise will be acceptable to both the United States and Iraq?" Are we converging on an answer? Can that convergence be sped up? Were I not persona non grata, as an Iraqi-American, I would offer more (I've really been beaten down by the Bush years.)

 
At 9:09 PM, Blogger karlof1 said...

Well, as reported, Sistani is in a pickle; he either lies to back Maliki, or he tells the truth and dooms the referendum to lose. I think it was better to run out the clock to escape from Chapter 7, but then I wasn't bribed by millions of dollars.

I expect (have now for awhile) to see a Mumbai in the USA

 
At 9:11 PM, Blogger Shirin said...

And Dancewater, add to that the uncounted and unreported number of Iraqis killed by American violence each week. Yes, the Americans are still killing Iraqis on a regular basis.

When I heard what Bush said about the attacks in India, my mind turned immediately to Falluja, and Tal A`far, and Samarra, and Sadr City, and Najaf. It is beyond hypocrisy, is it not?

 
At 10:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

" The European Union on Friday urged member states to take in 10,000 of the most vulnerable Iraqi refugees in Jordan and Syria."

While I can sympathize with this instinct (and agree that the refugees need help), it is the responsibility of the combatants in the Iraq War to take in those refugees-- in rough proportion to their participation. That means, in the EU, Britain (first and by far foremost) should have responsibility for taking in Iraqi refugees, since the UK has was one of the original invaders of Iraq.

Otherwise, it should be the USA (which should be taking in by far the most refugees) and Australia (also one of the major participants).

France and Germany should not be required to take on this burden since they opposed the Iraq War from the beginning-- and rightfully so. The same for Sweden.

Although I'm an American, I'm sick of tired of sensible countries like France and Germany-- the Cassandras whose advice we did not heed-- effectively being badgered to take on the costs for our mistakes. We-- the USA, UK and Australia, chiefly-- wanted this war in Iraq, and it is we who should be taking on the responsibility to care for the refugees, who deserve our help out of sheer compassion as well as a sense of responsibility.

 
At 2:26 AM, Blogger Shirin said...

"it is the responsibility of the combatants in the Iraq War to take in those refugees..."

No. It is the responsibility of the instigators of the invasion and occupation of Iraq to support those refugees and make sure they are secure and reasonably comfortable until they can be safely repatriated, and then to pay them reparations sufficient to rebuild their lives in Iraq. It is not right to permanently separate them from their country and to rob their country of its vital human resources.

"France and Germany should not be required to take on this burden"

The Iraqi refugees are human beings and should not be viewed or spoken of treated as a burden. They are victims of the ultimate crime against humanity, a war of unprovoked naked aggression, and are entitled to care, repatriation, and full reparations, not permanent exile and second class status.

 
At 6:29 PM, Blogger An English European said...

I'm interested to hear your thoughts on who would have the most seats if the PUK-KDP alliance stayed intact and the UIA split into Dawa, SIIC, Fadhila and Sadrist lists?

The detailed results listed here would suggest the Kurds would end up the largest group. Who knows, if Allawi recruited the IIP and some UIA independents he might even end up on top again!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home