Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Monday, August 24, 2009

Regime Broadcasts Baathist Confession re: Bombings;

Wissam Ali Kadhem Ibrahim was put on television in Iraq confessing his role in last Wednesday's bombings. The former Baathist official described an operation that drew on old-time Baathist assets in Diyala province to Iraq's northeast. The official spoke with cold, clinical precision. He showed no signs of torture. I found the confession at least plausible. In fact, I argued that something like this scenario lay behind the bombings last Wednesday. That, as Ibrahim says,the Baathist cells were operating in Diyala, that makes a lot of sense. Sunnis demonstrating in favor of Saddam Hussein came out in large numbers in Baqubah in fall of 2006, and were put down brutally by the Iraqi security forces.

The Financial Times argues that the US should prepare a realistic withdrawal timetable from Iraq, and perhaps a shorter one than envisaged in the Status of Forces Agreement between Washington and Baghdad.

Renewed violence in al-Anbar province, once al-Qaeda-in-Iraq Central, is threatening Obama's withdrawal timetable.

When the Iranian government decided to campaign against the spread of the swine flu by cutting back on pilgrims going to Iraq, it plunged the economies of shrine cities Najaf and Karbala into economic stagnation. Iran has also been disturbed by the decline in security in Iraq and by the tendency of Iraqi politicians to blame Iran for violence there.

Iraq faces immense challenges such as the clearing of 25 million land mines laid in the course of the wars the country has faced in the past 40 years.

Arwa Damon reports for CNN on the investigation of the bombings:




End/ (Not Continued)

9 Comments:

At 4:34 AM, Blogger gdamiani said...

Wissam Ali Kadhem Ibrahim -> They managed to get him and make him confess without torture (or the threat of it) so quickly !? Mind you not even the people who confessed on Iranian TV for their role in the coloured revolution seemed to have been tortured... I thought though this was against due process

 
At 4:41 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Torture is not the only way to extract false confessions. Threats against family members are common in Iraq, by both the Americans and the Iraqi regime.

While one cannot rule out revenge as Ba'th cell motive for the attack, it does not make sense for the Ba'th in general to allienate the public by murdering so many innocent people.

It is widely accepted that the attack was against Maliki. But the Ba'thists' qualms are with the entire system. It makes no difference if abdul-Mahdi won in the next general election.

 
At 4:46 AM, Anonymous Alex_no said...

Yeah, and the previous week there was yet another confession, also televised, to the Samarra bombing. Televised confessions are getting popular in Iraq.

Blaming the Sunnis has the great advantage for Maliki of diverting blame into a void. There are no consequences. Mention the Kurds, and it might lead to war, which Maliki wisely doesn't want.

Did you actually see the video, Juan? I had the impression you were just commenting the WaPo report.

 
At 8:33 AM, Anonymous Steve said...

There were two stories running concurrently over the weekend in the English language Iraq coverage: the first was the confession by the Ba'athist and the second - related to the first - was that the US appointed head of intelligence Mohammed Abdullah al-Shahwani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Abdullah_al-Shahwani)had been forced into retirement due to old age, days before the bombings.

As to the confession; true enough there seem to be no signs of torture on the man - he has just been persuaded to cough to what seems to me something of a tall story. To have an operation like this depend on the bribing of the guards at the security barrier seems like a bit of a wing and a prayer approach to concluding such an otherwise professionally planned job. Were they bribed beforehand or at the time? Unclear. Has any enterprising news organization followed up on this, gone to Diyala with a view to getting more background on this man? I haven't seen anything. Don't they want to have some kind of confirmatory sourcing on such a "mastermind"? Curious.

What on earth was the relevance of the Shahwani's retirement to all this? Why was that story being talked up so heavily by the Iraqi government? Did the whole security apparatus fall apart in a couple of days of his absence? A preemptive strike perhaps?

Because now we have a second narrative that Shahwani - no Ba'ath sympathizer - had been forced out of office following a row with Maliki who, he claims, was refusing to reveal the identities of the real culprits of last weeks bombings.
H/T Ladybird: http://www.roadstoiraq.com/2009/08/23/us-appointed-head-of-the-iraqi-intelligence-forced-to-retire/

The Iraqi website reporting this also says Shahwani will be revealing dozens more such incidents when he gives a press conference in Amman, Jordan.
http://www.iraq-ina.com/showthis.php?type=1&tnid=41540

I gave my own response to Juan's whodunnit analysis in the comments section. Unfortunately only part three of my rather lengthy thoughts made it onto the site itself though the other two can be viewed by clicking on the "post a comment" link. It seems there had been some kind of programing error.

Steve

 
At 9:55 AM, Anonymous Alex_no said...

When I looked at the CNN video, I was very struck how antagonistic Zebari was towards the Maliki government, of which he is of course a member. He was speaking in English, so naturally addressing an American audience.

It is a very convenient atrocity, providing a justification to attack Maliki. Too convenient, I would say.

On a previous bombing, Reidar Visser has good stuff on differences between the Shabak and the Kurds

The Shabak React to the Atrocities of Khazna Tepe

It goes quite a long way to explain what happened there.

 
At 1:10 PM, Anonymous Alex_no said...

Thanks, Steve, for an excellent analysis, including the hidden bits on the Whodunnit thread. I'm sure that's pretty close to correct (I would say so, wouldn't I, as the analysis is similar to my thoughts.).

I do think, though, that there may be sub-issues to Shahwani's resignation. I would think Maliki has been moving to get rid of him for some time. He was appointed by the US, and that's a big black mark in Maliki's book. I am certain Maliki would have been looking for a justfication to replace him with someone more pliable, and not reporting directly to the Pentagon.

Secondly the Iraq-ina link mentioned is a pretty ripe verbal report of a blazing row between Maliki and Shahwani. A threat to spill the beans in Amman, made in heat, may not be followed by actual action. Particularly after the US embassy in Baghdad, who would not at all want the beans spilled, has calmed him down.

 
At 1:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/24/headlines#7

August 24, 2009

Census: Contractors Outnumber Troops in Afghanistan
By Amy Goodman

New figures meanwhile show military contractors in Afghanistan are now far outnumbering US troops. A Pentagon census shows there were nearly 74,000 contractors in Afghanistan in June, compared to the estimated 58,000 troops there at that time. * In Iraq, there were nearly 120,000 contractors and around 132,000 US troops.

* http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125089638739950599.html

 
At 10:03 PM, Anonymous Steve said...

I agree on all points Alex, though as far as Shahwani spilling the beans: well, hope springs eternal:)

That said, there is a possibility - think of the Americans meeting with the politicals of the resistance groups - that some in US State may have had enough of covering for the sins of the exiles. History will tell, I hope.

Steve

 
At 6:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"He showed no signs of torture."

I don't know whether or not he was physically tortured. There are many ways of torture which don't leave "signs". Ask the CIA for instance. They are experts in psychological forms of torture.
But that's not the point. "Televised confessions" are by definition propaganda, even if they contain elements of truth (which is by definition impossible to know). To talk about them as if they are something different than propaganda is not only irrational; it's immoral.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home