More Bombs Kill 11, Wound 40
Muqtada Damns Rumsfeld
There was more violence on Monday in Baghdad, according to AP:
' Bomb blasts in Baghdad and north of the capital - many of them targeting Iraqi police patrols - killed at least 11 more people Monday and wounded more than 40. They included a U.S. soldier killed in a roadside bombing in east Baghdad, the military said. A U.S. Marine was reported killed Sunday in the western insurgent-plagued province of Anbar. '
Angry Shiites in Sadr City appear to have strung up 4 Sunni Arabs and hung them from lamp posts, after the attacks on Sunday.
The governor of largely Sunni Arab Salahuddin Province barely escaped assassination on Monday.
Young Shiite nationalist leader Muqtada al-Sadr said Monday that Iraq is in a state of civil war. He responded to guerrilla provocations against Sadr City, with bombings and mortars having killed over 50 persons there Sunday, by ordering his Mahdi Militia not to engage in reprisals.
Like many Iraqi and Arab observers, Muqtada was shocked when US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said last week that the US military would not intervene in an Iraqi civil war, leaving that to Iraqi forces.
' "May God damn you," Sadr said of Rumsfeld. "You said in the past that civil war would break out if you were to withdraw, and now you say that in case of civil war you won't interfere." '
Cole: I have to admit, it is hard to see what use it is to have US soldiers in Iraq if they won't be deployed in a genuine national emergency.
Al-Hayat reports [Ar.] that Sunni Arab leaders Adnan Dulaimi and Salih Mutlak have begun speaking of a convergence of interests between them and the United States. Al-Hayat say its sources tell it that the US now feels that aligning with the Sunni Arabs against the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance is a way of offsetting Iranian influence in Iraqi affairs.
Mutlak said he was sure that the Americans are serious this time, and would seek a government of national unity.
The British are withdrawing 800 troops from Iraq. They had about 8,000 there, so this is ten percent. Although the Blair government is being careful not to depict the drawdown as the beginning of a complete British withdrawal, that seems the only possible interpretation. Although it is being implied that Iraqi army troops can pick up the slack, that seems highly unlikely. Iraqi troops stationed in the south where the British are, are probably overwhelmingly Shiites, with local loyalties. The police are even more highly infiltrated.
Given how close Iraq came to civil war in late February, the British are probably eager to get their soldiers out of there. If there were a bloodbath, there is some danger that they would just be massacred. Even a well-armed force of 8000 could not stand against millions.
The memos of John Sawers from April-July of 2003 in Baghdad show the alarm of the British at what seemed to them the chaotic American administration of Iraq.
posted by Juan Cole @ 3/14/2006 12:30:00 AM
|
Facebook
13 Comments:
I think Chomsky said it best - before we can talk about an exit strategy we have to be honest about why we're there. OK - once we get most people admitting that the reason we're there is for oil, then we can talk about how to leave, with Bushco reasonably certain that he'll still control Iraq's oil. Once the debate moves to sanity, we can talk about the true trade-offs - how many lives per gallon?
US Policy: Weathervane or Backstabber?
Sadr actually believed something Rumsfield said?
Now Sadr believes another, contradictory, statement Rumsfield has said?
Sadr, Sadr, reflect.
Of course one has to listen to what high US officials say, but to believe it? Come on. One says one thing, another, the other. Whippets of wisp, gusts of dust, bands of sand. Ephemeral.
The US will be in Iraq for a long long time, but not for you, not for the Kurds, not for the Sunnis. For US interests, as defined by the NSC or whatever locus decisions fall to at a given time. Maybe the Prezzidint. Hard work.
The US isn't going to stab the Shiites in the back again, at least not fatally. Just enough to keep them dependent.
The US isn't supporting the Sunnis definitively, just enough to keep them hopeful. Think Charlie Brown, Lucy, and the football.
The US isn't going to support the Kurds in everything, and Kirkuk certainly won't go to them, definitively, just always, over the horizon.
The US, with its ever-deft touch, will always keep things in delicate balance. Any apparent lurching is just a defect in the observer.
It is up to each Iraqi player to bring gifts to lay before the US to entice and elicit its support.
Just as you expect the US to provide goodies to you and yours, to court your approval and support.
The dance goes on and on.
Let's see who winds up with a chair when the music stops on Thurs, if that's when it does. One never knows, does one?
But the bill just keeps growing and growing. Tough luck, taxpayer.
British Draw-down
Don't go alarmist at this late date.
8,000 British troops are not going to be overrun by any over-wrought mob. Not even any 800.
Shiites have mobs and militia, both of which can be handled by British forces, and neither of which can be concentrated in numbers much over 10,000 to 100,000 at any given time.
From the other end, 8 British soldiers could conceivably be overrun by a mob, though it's doubtful that any British force that size has succumbed to any attack this invasion in Iraq mounted so far. 80 is really doubtful, unless they were the last 80, which they wouldn't be.
The most Shiites could do to the British would be to cut off mail, milk and pizza deliveries, and any local utilities. But British bases have their own utilities, and are only dependent on convoys getting through, which they could if determined and supported by air, which they would be.
Hold the panic.
Cole: I have to admit, it is hard to see what use it is to have US soldiers in Iraq if they won't be deployed in a genuine national emergency.
That only applies if one assumes that they are in Iraq to help the Iraqi's.
If the reason the US is in Iraq is oil, territory, hastening the return of Jesus, protecting the petro-dollar or protecting Israel then it's not hard to see their use.
Who is right: Rumsfeld or Muqtada? How to intervene militarily in a civil war? How to take sides or know which way to shoot? There are no conventional targets. Of what good is an air force in targeting this or that house? Why post US soldiers on streets if Iraqis will not police themselves?
To what extent are Muqtada's militia or Interior Ministry minions complicit in the mass murder, execution, and abuse of Sunnis that have been reported? Is he an agent of peace?
If not, time to call a spade: May God damn Muqtada too.
American arrested with weapons in Iraq-official
Tue Mar 14, 5:24 AM ET
An American described as a security contractor has been arrested by police in a northern Iraqi town with weapons in his car, said a provincial official.
Abdullah Jebara, the Deputy Governor of Salahaddin province, told Reuters the man was arrested in Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit on Monday.
The Joint Coordination Center between the U.S. and Iraqi military in Tikrit said the man it described as a security contractor working for a private company, possessed explosives which were found in his car. It said he was arrested on Tuesday.
"Cole: I have to admit, it is hard to see what use it is to have US soldiers in Iraq if they won't be deployed in a genuine national emergency"
I'm pretty sure Mr. Bush and the neocons don't feel that way....
I don't believe they put US troops in Iraq for the welfare or well-being of the Iraqi people.
For months and months we heard stories of US troops torturing Iraqi prisoners.
Then the pictures of Abu Ghraib came out.
For months and months we heard stories of men in Iraqi police and army uniforms rounding up Sunni men and then the Sunni men were 'disappeared'.
Then we had an underground prison full of Sunni men run by the Iraqi Interior ministry.
For months and months now we hear of stories of Brits and Americans being found with explosives in cars. For months and months we hear of Iraqis accusing the Brits and US of setting off some of the bombs in Iraq, including the bombing of the shrine in Sammarra in February 2006.
True? who knows?
We do know that Allawi worked with the CIA to try and get Saddam back in the 1990's by setting off car bombs in Baghdad.
more to the Reuters story, no link:
The man was stopped by police for violating a daytime curfew in Tikrit, a security source said. American security personnel rarely travel alone.
One has to wonder how long it will take for Americans to realize that this is nothing short of a "hostile take-over" (in the corporate sense).
Nothing (morality, lives, law) matters but the profit. Hence, the Administration's threat to veto the original funding for this war if Sen. Leahy's anti-war profiteering amendment to the funding was attached or oversight of Bremer by Congress was added as an amendment.
It's easy to do:
Create a crisis;
Announce that action muct be taken to avoid catastrophe;
Focus on the valuable assets (oil AND water);
Protect that at all costs- using other people's assets (money and, in this case, bodies);
Create "secret" offshore accounts (bases);
Dispose of the rest of the "unproductive" body of the target;
Milk the productive assets for as long as possible; and
Funnel profits to other offshore accounts while fleecing the original small investor.
One need not go futher than Enron, or, for a more graphic, raw view, to Continental Airlines to see that this is how this war plan was drawn.
This is not a geopolitcal move. It is a business move run by those who don't know how to run a business, but certainly know how to raid one.
Unemployed? Lost your pension benefits? Dead? Sorry, the "market" has an invisible hand so it's nobody's fault- besides you invested.
It's all pretty simple and any attempt at trying to analyze it from the perspective of "war", "freedom" and/or "terror" is invited by the orchestrators as it distracts.
Look to Bremer's 100 Orders for a review.
Mutlak said he was sure that the Americans are serious this time
That has to be one of the saddest sentences I've read today, and though it' only midday, I've read some really sad sentences.
The US will not intervene in a civil war? Think "The Salvador Option."
American hardliners think support of death squads (not directly mind you) in Central America was successful because eventually the "insurgency" stopped.
Is it too painful to compare US in Iraq to el Salvador? Hardliner Dick Cheney referenced el Salvador a success during the VP debate 2004.
Is it too taboo to think our president is close to the chaos in Iraq? Is it easier to condemn Iraq and Iran than to look at the footprint in the street? What did the SAS soldier Ben Griffin see?
Yesterday our Alle Hoechste Terrorizing WarLord set a timeline for stand up/stand down ring a round the rosie. I thought that we couldn't do that because it would only embolden the terruhrisses who hate our values and want to add South Carolina to the Caliphate.
Color me confused because yesterday the Emperor of Morons also said that Iran was behind all that trouble in EyeRak and Roll.
Today however, US general says no proof Iran behind Iraq arms ...
Wanna bet that timeline was more BushS*** too?
Go a demonstration this weekend if you are able.
Watching US’s and GB’s foreign politics and actions in Middle East, what happens in Iraq and Israel, one must say that either the politics is planed by complete idiots or the other more likely possibility is that the plan is "no peace" for Middle East. People leading a superpowers foreign policy can’t be as stupid as their performance during the last years indicate. Mistake after mistake - in an endless row - if the plan is creating stability.
USA lets Israel behave in ways that even Saddam (or any other dictator) could not have dreamed that he could do unpunished such actions. USA could any day command Israel back 1967 borders and guarantee its safety. Certainly 99 percent of Palestinians would satisfy with that. The main cancerous focus in the world could be solved peacefully and cheaply in a couple of days. Today’s provocative “prison liberation” makes only the still moderate Palestinians (and other Arabs) joining the extreme groups. Can anybody in Washington and London seriously believe that such violent actions solve anything?
If USA and GB are not going to interfere in the civil war, what is then the sense and excuse in staying in Iraq? Wait for the winner emerges? How can Bush and Rumsfelt market then to the home front holding 130,000 soldiers watching a civil war on the best seats? What if Sunnis and Shias unite and focus the “civil war” against US forces and Kurds?
Post a Comment
<< Home