*Three guerrillas fired AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades at a US military convoy near Tikrit, killing a US citizen working as a translator, and wounding two US soldiers on Wednesday.
*Still no firm clues in the truck bombing of the UN HQ. Now there is some question about whether it really was a suicide bombing, or whether the driver managed to escape before impact. The munitions were not the fancy plastic stuff, but the FBI says that "the bomb was made up of about 450kg of old ordnance, including mortar rounds, artillery shells, hand grenades and a 225kg bomb," according to the wire services. I'd have to say that this materiel is more likely to come from Baath storehouses than from al-Qaeda suppliers, who almost certainly could have afforded somethng less cumbersome. I heard some speculation that the Lebanese Hizbullah may be operating in Iraq, but I think that sort of thing is simple minded. A modus operandi is not the only element in identifying a criminal. You also have to look at motive and opportunity and other evidence. There is no evidence that Hizbullah would have wanted to hit the UN in Baghdad. Just because they also do truck bombing is no basis on which to bring them into the picture as suspects. They've mainly been fighting with the Israelis over Israeli occupation of Arab land in recent years, and although they have made fiery pronouncements against the US presence in Iraq, there is no evidence I know of that they have any systematic presence in the country. Certainly, their main Iraq contact in the past was the al-Da`wa Party, most members of which are cooperating with the US administration; indeed, al-Da`wa-linked figures have some 4 of the 25 seats on the Interim Governing Council. This bombing was almost certainly done by Sunni Arabs, whether nationalists or Islamist radicals. From what I'm seeing, the Baathists are looking more and more plausible.
*Colin Powell is reportedly trying to get Italy and the UK to commit more troops to Iraq, and to convince France and Germany to join the effort. He almost certainly will not succeed with the latter two, despite the sympathy generated by the bombing, without a new UN Security Council Resolution that devolves more decision-making power in Iraq on the United Nations. Why should other countries put their troops in harm's way to support a solely US administration of Iraq? (A lot of international leaders may be asking why they should put their troops in harm's way at all.) The Bush administration made a very major mistake in blowing off the United Nations last spring. It just wasn't necessary. If Bush had delayed the start of the war 45 days, he could have had a majority of votes on the Security Council in favor of a war. If he had delayed 2-4 months he probably could have gotten France and Russia aboard. It wouldn't have cost $4 billion a month to wait a bit, which is what it does cost the US every month its 140,000 plus troops are in Iraq. A Security Council Resolution in favor of the war would have brought billions of dollars and thousands of troops from the international community, and made it far easier to provide security to post-war Iraq. The downside? Bremer wouldn't be able to just award contracts to Halliburton and Worldcom with no oversight or bidding. How would that constraint have hurt the American public? What if, you ask, the US had waited, and France and Russia had still refused to go along, because the inspectors could not find weapons of mass destruction? Well, the WMD wasn't there, so maybe there was not a casus belli. The war could have been called off, or the US could have gone ahead on the basis of the UNSC majority. Either outcome would have been preferable to the chaos and expense we see now.
*International Monetary Fund and World Bank officials attached to the UN in Baghdad are going home. This development will substantially delay some rebuilding projects in Iraq. In other words, the guerrilla attack achieved one of its goals.
*Iraqi labor relations: Most of Baghdad's 130 printing presses went on strike in Baghdad Wednesday, preventing all but 6 newspapers from appearing. The employees of the city's presses are upset that the Ministry of Education has contracted with foreign presses to print new Iraqi textbooks. This is the first printer's strike in 30 years. The strike was universally agreed upon by a meeting of printers, but a few presses reneged. That allowed the 6 newspapers to be published. I have to say, that given the danger of deflation in Iraq and the need to get money and employment to the people, it does seem wrong to farm major projects like Iraqi textbook production out to foreigners. I suppose one question is whether the Baghdad printers actually could do the job. If so, the contract should have gone to them.
*Muhammad Bahr al-`Ulum, a member of the Interim Governing Council, says that there will be 23 ministries and that ministerial appointments will be announced within 3 days. He also said that a law has been drafted to allow the trial of 2,000 high ranking Baathists, and part of a program of de-Baathification. (-Al-Hayat). He said that a committee charged with making suggestions about the drafting of the Iraqi constitution began work last Monday, and would issue a report in about a month. He added that the recent United Nations according of some sort of semi-recognition to the IGC had allowed many Arab states to deal with it. The IGC has received invitations from several Gulf states, and now from Jordan [and Saudi Arabia], in the aftermath of the UN decision. (This anecdote should be read out loud to US administrators of Iraq: the UN equals legitimacy, whether you like it or not.)
*Ibrahim Jaafari, President of the IGC (for August), told Kuwaitis on Weds. that Saddam had occupied and harmed the Iraqi people even before he occupied and harmed the Kuwaitis. (-Al-Sharq al-Awsat). He hoped for the reestablishment of friendly relations between Baghdad and Kuwait City, such as had existed before the 1990 Iraqi invasion. I was favorably impressed by the forthrightness of Jaafari's comments. He came out with it, and did not beat around the bush. As a member of the al-Da`wa Party who opposed Saddam for decades, he has some standing to speak this way.
*Iraqis in the street are angry at the perpetrators of the UN bombing, but are also furious at the US for not providing better security. So says al-Sharq al-Awsat correspondent in Baghdad Nasir al-Nahr. He says Iraqis he talked to are convinced that the true target of the bombing was the Iraqi people, and that it was perpetrated by outsiders.
*Shiite leaders in Najaf condemned the bombing vigorously. Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim denounced it, along with sabotage against gas pipelines and water mains, as aimed at preventing Iraqi political life from returning to normal. The office of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani and the son of Ayatollah Bashir al-Najafi also issued denunciations. From a Shiite point of view, the current political process is carrying Iraq toward a Shiite majority in an elected parliament and toward a Shiite prime minister, and they don't want that process delayed or disrupted. (-AFP)
*Ahmad Chalabi, chairman of the Iraqi National Congress and member of the Interim Governing Council, says that the IGC had prior indications that a truck bombing was being planned against a soft target, and passed the information over to the Americans, according to UPI. I think Chalabi is just grandstanding and trying to make it look as though he has better internal intelligence than do the US and the UK in Iraq, in hopes of making himself indispensable to them and coming to power. The Coalition authorities have already denied that they had any indication that an attack of this sort was coming, so he is calling them liars. And, if all he knew was that there might be a bombing against a soft target, he didn't know much. Any of us could have predicted that. Chalabi has no internal support and almost certainly has no better intelligence about the guerrillas than anyone else, and I hope that Paul Bremer will not fall for this power play. See http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?Story
ID=20030820-111847-1945r
*I remember just after the bombing of the UN HQ, I saw US civil administrator Paul Bremer on television, saying that he thought the truck bomber may have been attempting to assassinate UN diplomat Sergio Vieira de Mello in specific, since he struck so close to the latter's office. De Mello was trapped in rubble, and was able to make a cell call before he died. I didn't think about it at the time, but it had to have crossed Mr. Bremer's mind that "there but for the grace of God go I." The guerrillas may have hit Vieira de Mello only because they just could not get to Mr. Bremer, who is very well guarded if, from all accounts, rather isolated from the Iraqi people. The realization made Bremer's observation more poignant for me. I hate to think about all the thousands of Americans who are in danger in Iraq, because of key mistakes made by Pentagon planners before the war.
Wednesday, August 20, 2003
Tuesday, August 19, 2003
For my reaction to the tragic bombing of the UN Headquarters in Baghdad, see the breaking news item below.
*Bahraini officials met with Iraq Interim Governing Council President Ibrahim Jaafari on Tuesday (- Al-Sharq al-Awsat). They expressed their support for the IGC (not the same as recognizing it as a legitimate government) and for Iraq reconstruction. Bahrain has recently liberalized a bit, holding elections, and so may hope that Iraq can move in the same direction. Bahrain is a largely Shiite country with a Sunni ruling elite, but its new monarch is said to be relatively tolerant toward the Shiites. The two countries can benefit one another. There is an old connection between Bahrain and Iraqi Shiites, which is now likely to be revived.
*The Iraqi Ministry of Industry has announced that electricity for Iraqis will be free from April 9 of this year and until the formation of a new (elected?) Iraqi government. This step seems a wise one in trying to get Iraqis on the side of the Bremer adminsitration.
*Electricity has been restored to Basra on a fairly reliable basis (-al-Zaman). (There were riots recently against British forces in protest of the loss of electricity and the lack of fuel for automobiles). Some 20 new generators are also being used at an oil refinery in the South to ensure the availability of more fuel. But Basra water pipelines have been unreliable because of their age, and British officials are advising the populace to boil water before they drink it. (Last week during the blackout we were doing that in our house. But we had reliable access to a gas stove; I'm not sure the Basrans are in the same position).
*Iranian pilgrims sneaking into Iraq to visit sacred Shiite shrines ran into a landmine. Three were killed, 17 wounded. Eventually the Iranian pilgrim trade will reemerge as a feature of Iraqi culture and commerce, with implications for Iran-Iraq relations.
*The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, led by Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim, is profiled by Mahan Abedian. I don't think, though, that SCIRI is sincere in speaking about a pluralistic Iraq. I think they secretly plan ultimately to try to take over the country and make it a clone of Khamenei's Iran. Abdul Aziz al-Hakim has more or less admitted as much, saying that at first Iraq may have a pluralistic government, but over time its Muslim majority would institute an Islamic state. I also think the alliance between the US and SCIRI is purely tactical on both sides, and is unlikely to last.
See
http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/
2003%20Opinion%20Editorials/August/19%20o/
Iraq's%20SCIRI,%20caught%20between%20Tehran%
20and%20Washington%20Mahan%20Abedin.htm
*The US administration of Iraq is setting up a media service on the model of the BBC, which would be government-funded but retain its editorial independence. Or so the Washington Post reports. I'll believe it when I see it. The Voice of America also had a charter of independence, but Jesse Helms and other officials have put pressure on it in the past. The relatively independent Arabic service was gutted altogether recently, apparently in part because it was felt to be insufficiently enthusiastic about Ariel Sharon's policies in Israel and Palestine. It was gotten rid of in favor of a "Radio Sawwa" that is run by radio mogul Norman Pattiz and purveys Brittany Spears and sanitized Fox Cable News-style news bits to the Arab public in the few countries that will let it broadcast (it uses FM rather than shortwave). Radio Sawwa from all accounts is little more than propaganda, and it remains to be seen whether the people who brought that to you can really create a "BBC". (The BBC is among the more professional news services in the world, and proved willing to take Blair on about Iraqi WMD despite enormous political pressure).
*Bahraini officials met with Iraq Interim Governing Council President Ibrahim Jaafari on Tuesday (- Al-Sharq al-Awsat). They expressed their support for the IGC (not the same as recognizing it as a legitimate government) and for Iraq reconstruction. Bahrain has recently liberalized a bit, holding elections, and so may hope that Iraq can move in the same direction. Bahrain is a largely Shiite country with a Sunni ruling elite, but its new monarch is said to be relatively tolerant toward the Shiites. The two countries can benefit one another. There is an old connection between Bahrain and Iraqi Shiites, which is now likely to be revived.
*The Iraqi Ministry of Industry has announced that electricity for Iraqis will be free from April 9 of this year and until the formation of a new (elected?) Iraqi government. This step seems a wise one in trying to get Iraqis on the side of the Bremer adminsitration.
*Electricity has been restored to Basra on a fairly reliable basis (-al-Zaman). (There were riots recently against British forces in protest of the loss of electricity and the lack of fuel for automobiles). Some 20 new generators are also being used at an oil refinery in the South to ensure the availability of more fuel. But Basra water pipelines have been unreliable because of their age, and British officials are advising the populace to boil water before they drink it. (Last week during the blackout we were doing that in our house. But we had reliable access to a gas stove; I'm not sure the Basrans are in the same position).
*Iranian pilgrims sneaking into Iraq to visit sacred Shiite shrines ran into a landmine. Three were killed, 17 wounded. Eventually the Iranian pilgrim trade will reemerge as a feature of Iraqi culture and commerce, with implications for Iran-Iraq relations.
*The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, led by Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim, is profiled by Mahan Abedian. I don't think, though, that SCIRI is sincere in speaking about a pluralistic Iraq. I think they secretly plan ultimately to try to take over the country and make it a clone of Khamenei's Iran. Abdul Aziz al-Hakim has more or less admitted as much, saying that at first Iraq may have a pluralistic government, but over time its Muslim majority would institute an Islamic state. I also think the alliance between the US and SCIRI is purely tactical on both sides, and is unlikely to last.
See
http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/
2003%20Opinion%20Editorials/August/19%20o/
Iraq's%20SCIRI,%20caught%20between%20Tehran%
20and%20Washington%20Mahan%20Abedin.htm
*The US administration of Iraq is setting up a media service on the model of the BBC, which would be government-funded but retain its editorial independence. Or so the Washington Post reports. I'll believe it when I see it. The Voice of America also had a charter of independence, but Jesse Helms and other officials have put pressure on it in the past. The relatively independent Arabic service was gutted altogether recently, apparently in part because it was felt to be insufficiently enthusiastic about Ariel Sharon's policies in Israel and Palestine. It was gotten rid of in favor of a "Radio Sawwa" that is run by radio mogul Norman Pattiz and purveys Brittany Spears and sanitized Fox Cable News-style news bits to the Arab public in the few countries that will let it broadcast (it uses FM rather than shortwave). Radio Sawwa from all accounts is little more than propaganda, and it remains to be seen whether the people who brought that to you can really create a "BBC". (The BBC is among the more professional news services in the world, and proved willing to take Blair on about Iraqi WMD despite enormous political pressure).
*Breaking News. A suicide bomber set off an enormous truck bomb at the Canal Hotel in Baghdad, which was serving as the United Nations Headquarters, beneath the office of UN special representative Sergio Vieira de Mello. De Mello and 17 others are confirmed dead, with 100 or more injured, and much of the front of the hotel was reduced to rubble.
The big question on people's minds is, 'why target the UN?'
There are two main suspects in the bombing, it seems to me. One is Baathist remnants fighting a rear-guard guerrilla war against what they see as the US occupation. If it was Baathists or ex-Baathists, they may have gone after the UN in bitterness over those years of economic sanctions, which weakened the Baath military and government. Although the UN did not go along with the Anglo-American invasion, United Nations agencies and NGOs have been providing aid to Iraqis of a sort that helps the reconstruction effort and therefore implicitly helps the Bremer administration of the country. And, it could just be that Baath agents noticed that the Canal Hotel did not have much in the way of security and so was an ideal soft target. De Mello is an unlikely symbol of the US occupation, but he is a symbol from a Baath point of view of the way world institutions have asserted themselves in Iraq since 1991.
The other possibility is Sunni Muslim radicalism, whether al-Qaeda (i.e. people who have sworn fealty to Osama Bin Ladin) or other, shadowy organizations that have some affiliation to al-Qaeda. One is Ansar al-Islam, a radical Sunni organization in Iraq that has al-Qaeda links. This bombing has some similarities to that of the Jordanian embassy in Baghdad recently. Suicide bombings are not unknown among secular groups, but it seems to me that a religious terrorist is more likely to choose that path. And, al-Qaeda has a long-standing beef against the United Nations going back to the tension between its aid organizations and the Taliban in the late 1990s. Bin Laden denounced Muslims who cooperate with the UN in fall of 2001. Since the Sunni radicals operate in failed states, they often butt heads with the UN, which is the main international agency charged with getting failed states back on their feet. They may fear that the US will eventually hand Iraq off to the UN, and wish to forestall such a move. Or they may want revenge for past slights, like the UNSC resolution authorizing the US war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. The Kurdish party, the PUK, has said that al-Qaeda fighters from Afghanistan who escaped from Iran are now infiltrating into Iraq, and that the Kurds have intercepted some of these. Al-Sharq al-Awsat reported that Saudi security officials are concerned about the disappearance of some 3000 young men in Saudi Arabia, suspecting that they went off to Iraq for jihad against the Americans. Since al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan, who formed the 55th Brigade of the Taliban, are estimated to have been about 5,000 strong, it may well be that there are now as many Arab and al-Qaeda guerrillas in Iraq as there were in Afghanistan before September 11, 2001.
I don't think there is any doubt that the various guerrillas fighting the Bremer administration of Iraq are at the very least succeeding in creating the impression that the US does not control the situation. I personally think that the US is not in control, anyway, and that it would take 500,000 troops to get control. But it probably is the case that things on the ground are not quite as bad as the guerrillas try to make them seem. Still, the conflict has moved to a public relations phase, in Iraq, in the US, and in the wider world. There seems to me little doubt that the guerrillas are winning the public relations war, and that it is fairly easy for them to do so. All they have to do is commit symbolic acts, the import of which is that the US is not in control. And, their ability to sabotage oil pipelines, electricity generators, water mains, and so forth, makes it difficult for the US to look to the Iraqi public as though it is in control. I don't personally see an easy way for the US to get out of all this gracefully, and fear that things will end in fiasco. The only question is whether it will be a Haiti or Somalia-type fiasco, where things go bad again after the US leaves, but life limps along; or whether it will be an Iran-type fiasco (1978-79) where there is a revolution against the US fueled in part by nationalist resentment of US intervention. If the latter, I would concur that it is still some time off.
A profile of de Mello is at the Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/
Story/0,2763,1021870,00.html.
The big question on people's minds is, 'why target the UN?'
There are two main suspects in the bombing, it seems to me. One is Baathist remnants fighting a rear-guard guerrilla war against what they see as the US occupation. If it was Baathists or ex-Baathists, they may have gone after the UN in bitterness over those years of economic sanctions, which weakened the Baath military and government. Although the UN did not go along with the Anglo-American invasion, United Nations agencies and NGOs have been providing aid to Iraqis of a sort that helps the reconstruction effort and therefore implicitly helps the Bremer administration of the country. And, it could just be that Baath agents noticed that the Canal Hotel did not have much in the way of security and so was an ideal soft target. De Mello is an unlikely symbol of the US occupation, but he is a symbol from a Baath point of view of the way world institutions have asserted themselves in Iraq since 1991.
The other possibility is Sunni Muslim radicalism, whether al-Qaeda (i.e. people who have sworn fealty to Osama Bin Ladin) or other, shadowy organizations that have some affiliation to al-Qaeda. One is Ansar al-Islam, a radical Sunni organization in Iraq that has al-Qaeda links. This bombing has some similarities to that of the Jordanian embassy in Baghdad recently. Suicide bombings are not unknown among secular groups, but it seems to me that a religious terrorist is more likely to choose that path. And, al-Qaeda has a long-standing beef against the United Nations going back to the tension between its aid organizations and the Taliban in the late 1990s. Bin Laden denounced Muslims who cooperate with the UN in fall of 2001. Since the Sunni radicals operate in failed states, they often butt heads with the UN, which is the main international agency charged with getting failed states back on their feet. They may fear that the US will eventually hand Iraq off to the UN, and wish to forestall such a move. Or they may want revenge for past slights, like the UNSC resolution authorizing the US war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. The Kurdish party, the PUK, has said that al-Qaeda fighters from Afghanistan who escaped from Iran are now infiltrating into Iraq, and that the Kurds have intercepted some of these. Al-Sharq al-Awsat reported that Saudi security officials are concerned about the disappearance of some 3000 young men in Saudi Arabia, suspecting that they went off to Iraq for jihad against the Americans. Since al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan, who formed the 55th Brigade of the Taliban, are estimated to have been about 5,000 strong, it may well be that there are now as many Arab and al-Qaeda guerrillas in Iraq as there were in Afghanistan before September 11, 2001.
I don't think there is any doubt that the various guerrillas fighting the Bremer administration of Iraq are at the very least succeeding in creating the impression that the US does not control the situation. I personally think that the US is not in control, anyway, and that it would take 500,000 troops to get control. But it probably is the case that things on the ground are not quite as bad as the guerrillas try to make them seem. Still, the conflict has moved to a public relations phase, in Iraq, in the US, and in the wider world. There seems to me little doubt that the guerrillas are winning the public relations war, and that it is fairly easy for them to do so. All they have to do is commit symbolic acts, the import of which is that the US is not in control. And, their ability to sabotage oil pipelines, electricity generators, water mains, and so forth, makes it difficult for the US to look to the Iraqi public as though it is in control. I don't personally see an easy way for the US to get out of all this gracefully, and fear that things will end in fiasco. The only question is whether it will be a Haiti or Somalia-type fiasco, where things go bad again after the US leaves, but life limps along; or whether it will be an Iran-type fiasco (1978-79) where there is a revolution against the US fueled in part by nationalist resentment of US intervention. If the latter, I would concur that it is still some time off.
A profile of de Mello is at the Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/
Story/0,2763,1021870,00.html.
*Guerrillas killed a US soldier in Baghdad on Monday with a bomb. In a separate incident, guerrillas attacked a US Army convoy with rocket propelled grenades east of Tikrit, wounding two American soldiers.
*Paul Bremer admitted that sabotage was costing American-administered Iraq billions, but told CNN: "I think these bitter-enders that we are faced with live in a fantasy world, where they think somehow the Baathists are going to come back. They are wrong. We'll leave when the job is done. They are not going to chase us out, they are not destined to succeed." I don't know whether he believes this or it is just political rhetoric, but I doubt very much that very many of the Iraqi guerrillas have any fantasy of the Baath coming back. They are mostly just nationalists, and their main goal is to end what they see as an American occupation. To the extent that they are Sunni Arabs in the main, they may also wish to forestall a Shiite- and Kurdish- dominated Iraq and ensure the continued predominance of their ethnicity. But, this is just not about Saddam's Baathism for most of them. I agree that the Baath Party is finished in Iraq. But whether the guerrillas can force the Americans out is still up in the air. I'd say they have an even chance of succeeding. And, it seems to me contradictory to admit that the guerrillas can deprive the Bremer administration of billions in desperately needed revenue, and then to say that the guerrillas are failing and are doomed. Hunh?
*As Abu Aardvark noted in his Blog (http://abuaardvark.blogspot.com/
2003_08_17_abuaardvark_archive.html#106123766227537514, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani gave an interview on Monday to al-Zaman newspaper on Monday. Asked his position on the forthcoming Iraqi constitution and issues in pluralism, he said that the constitution must be based on the religious principles of the Iraqi people. (This is a stealth way of saying that he thinks it must be based on shariah or Islamic canon law). He did not actually use the word "pluralism" in his reply, I now see--that was part of al-Zaman's question. Asked about the role of the Object of Emulation or highest religious leadership, he replied that the leading Shiite jurisprudent should write religious rulings (fatwas) for people, and encourage them to an ethical life by his own moral example, and forbid them from infringing against the rights of others. This is a more traditionalist role than that of the political Supreme Jurisprudent (Ali Khamenei) in Iran. But note that the upshot of Sistani's replies is that Iraq must be ruled by Islamic law and he will interpret it. That isn't pluralism or even really democracy. He doesn't come right out and say it, but he is against the separation of religion and state. That is one reason he insists that the constitutional convention be elected. If it is, there may be enough Islamists among the delegates to put in shariah. If the delegates are appointed by Paul Bremer, then the constitution might separate religion and state.
Shariah can be interpreted and implemented in all kinds of ways, including progressive ones. But I fear that Sistani's interpretation of it would make women second-class citizens, and it is not clear that the rights of Christians and other minorities as equal citizens can really be preserved in such a system. I personally think that only a separation of religion and state can hope to provide tranquillity to a diverse country like Iraq (even the Sunnis will not want the Shiite version of Islamic law imposed on them). But I am pessimistic about Iraq getting a First Amendment, since Islamism is so obviously strong and the American position has turned out to be relatively weak.
*Ayatollah Muhammad al-Khaqani, a senior cleric of Najaf close to Sistani, is being guarded by townspeople and tribesmen after he received a death threat. Someone sent him a package containing a bloody rag. Najaf clerics have been threatened, and their aids beaten, by ruffians aligned with the radical Muqtada al-Sadr. The bloody rag is not quite a dead horse in a bed, but these tactics remind one of mafiosi more than they do of religious pastors.
*How did Saddam used to curb sabotage of the oil pipelines? According to AFP, he paid tribal leaders and hundreds of tribesmen very well to guard the oil. The US has adopted the same tactic, but pays much less and has left 600 tribesmen off the payroll (some of them may even have turned to sabotage). The Sunni Arab tribes are trying to use their ability to guard the pipeline to extract more resources from the Americans, and to recover their old position under the Baath, of a minority so privileged it might as well be a majority. See http://www.arabtimesonline.com/arabtimes/
breakingnews/view.asp?msgID=2453
*For who the guerrillas really are, see Ahmed Hashim's excellent analysis, "The Sunni Insurgency In Iraq," a Middle East Institute policy brief. It is at:
http://www.mideasti.org/html/perspective20030814-hashem.html.
(Further refutation of the silly idea that US academics specializing in the Middle East make no contribution to US security).
*And, a good summing up of where things stand in Iraq and how we got here is given by Roland Flamini of UPI in his article, "Infighting over Iraq persists," at:
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030817-103508-4100r. The lack
of Arabic-speakers among the 1,000 US administrators in Iraq is constantly remarked on. I reiterate that Daniel Pipes, Martin Kramer, and other neocons
who pushed this war are Arabists and they ought to be over there helping Mr. Bremer; they helped get him and us into this, after all.
*Paul Bremer admitted that sabotage was costing American-administered Iraq billions, but told CNN: "I think these bitter-enders that we are faced with live in a fantasy world, where they think somehow the Baathists are going to come back. They are wrong. We'll leave when the job is done. They are not going to chase us out, they are not destined to succeed." I don't know whether he believes this or it is just political rhetoric, but I doubt very much that very many of the Iraqi guerrillas have any fantasy of the Baath coming back. They are mostly just nationalists, and their main goal is to end what they see as an American occupation. To the extent that they are Sunni Arabs in the main, they may also wish to forestall a Shiite- and Kurdish- dominated Iraq and ensure the continued predominance of their ethnicity. But, this is just not about Saddam's Baathism for most of them. I agree that the Baath Party is finished in Iraq. But whether the guerrillas can force the Americans out is still up in the air. I'd say they have an even chance of succeeding. And, it seems to me contradictory to admit that the guerrillas can deprive the Bremer administration of billions in desperately needed revenue, and then to say that the guerrillas are failing and are doomed. Hunh?
*As Abu Aardvark noted in his Blog (http://abuaardvark.blogspot.com/
2003_08_17_abuaardvark_archive.html#106123766227537514, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani gave an interview on Monday to al-Zaman newspaper on Monday. Asked his position on the forthcoming Iraqi constitution and issues in pluralism, he said that the constitution must be based on the religious principles of the Iraqi people. (This is a stealth way of saying that he thinks it must be based on shariah or Islamic canon law). He did not actually use the word "pluralism" in his reply, I now see--that was part of al-Zaman's question. Asked about the role of the Object of Emulation or highest religious leadership, he replied that the leading Shiite jurisprudent should write religious rulings (fatwas) for people, and encourage them to an ethical life by his own moral example, and forbid them from infringing against the rights of others. This is a more traditionalist role than that of the political Supreme Jurisprudent (Ali Khamenei) in Iran. But note that the upshot of Sistani's replies is that Iraq must be ruled by Islamic law and he will interpret it. That isn't pluralism or even really democracy. He doesn't come right out and say it, but he is against the separation of religion and state. That is one reason he insists that the constitutional convention be elected. If it is, there may be enough Islamists among the delegates to put in shariah. If the delegates are appointed by Paul Bremer, then the constitution might separate religion and state.
Shariah can be interpreted and implemented in all kinds of ways, including progressive ones. But I fear that Sistani's interpretation of it would make women second-class citizens, and it is not clear that the rights of Christians and other minorities as equal citizens can really be preserved in such a system. I personally think that only a separation of religion and state can hope to provide tranquillity to a diverse country like Iraq (even the Sunnis will not want the Shiite version of Islamic law imposed on them). But I am pessimistic about Iraq getting a First Amendment, since Islamism is so obviously strong and the American position has turned out to be relatively weak.
*Ayatollah Muhammad al-Khaqani, a senior cleric of Najaf close to Sistani, is being guarded by townspeople and tribesmen after he received a death threat. Someone sent him a package containing a bloody rag. Najaf clerics have been threatened, and their aids beaten, by ruffians aligned with the radical Muqtada al-Sadr. The bloody rag is not quite a dead horse in a bed, but these tactics remind one of mafiosi more than they do of religious pastors.
*How did Saddam used to curb sabotage of the oil pipelines? According to AFP, he paid tribal leaders and hundreds of tribesmen very well to guard the oil. The US has adopted the same tactic, but pays much less and has left 600 tribesmen off the payroll (some of them may even have turned to sabotage). The Sunni Arab tribes are trying to use their ability to guard the pipeline to extract more resources from the Americans, and to recover their old position under the Baath, of a minority so privileged it might as well be a majority. See http://www.arabtimesonline.com/arabtimes/
breakingnews/view.asp?msgID=2453
*For who the guerrillas really are, see Ahmed Hashim's excellent analysis, "The Sunni Insurgency In Iraq," a Middle East Institute policy brief. It is at:
http://www.mideasti.org/html/perspective20030814-hashem.html.
(Further refutation of the silly idea that US academics specializing in the Middle East make no contribution to US security).
*And, a good summing up of where things stand in Iraq and how we got here is given by Roland Flamini of UPI in his article, "Infighting over Iraq persists," at:
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030817-103508-4100r. The lack
of Arabic-speakers among the 1,000 US administrators in Iraq is constantly remarked on. I reiterate that Daniel Pipes, Martin Kramer, and other neocons
who pushed this war are Arabists and they ought to be over there helping Mr. Bremer; they helped get him and us into this, after all.
Sunday, August 17, 2003
*A second pipeline blast in the north of Iraq further damages the country's ability to export petroleum, costing Iraqis $7 million a day. Guerrillas showered mortar fire on Abu Ghurayb Prison near Baghdad, killing six Iraqi prisoners and wounding 59. Skittish US troops then accidentally killed a Reuters cameraman at the site. It is not clear whether the guerrilla attack was meant to free the prisoners or meant to hit American guarding the facility. Saboteurs also hit a water main and left Baghdad without water much of Monday. Monday was marked by battles in the "Infrastructure War," wherein anti-American forces are attempting to ensure that the US fails in its rebuilding efforts and that Iraqis increasingly resent the US presence and inability to improve their lives. It appears that the US administration is particularly vulnerable to this tactic. It was also announced that a Danish soldier was killed near Basra by friendly fire. Some of these acts of sabotage, according to Al-Hayat, may have originated with a well-armed and well-funded new group, "The Islamic and Nationalist Iraqi Resistance Movement." The operations suggest technical sophistication.
*The spokesman of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Akram Zubeidi, said Saturday, "America does not want to acknowledge it is incapable of controlling the situation and rebuilding Iraq. Every day, we receive dozens of complaints from Iraqis asking us to declare a fatwa against the Americans and we say no. But this 'no' will not last forever." He was speaking on behalf of Sistani, according to Selim Saheb Ettaba of Agence France Press, who broke the story. Apparently the Najaf establishment was very upset about the incident on Weds. Aug. 13 in East Baghdad when US troops fired on Shiite protesters unhappy that their banner had been removed from a telecom tower. (Or, the 4 more staid, elderly clerics, are being forced to compete with firebrand Muqtada al-Sadr in moral outrage). Sistani's apparent conviction that the US cannot run Iraq, and the very mention that his patience with the Americans isn't infinite, is extremely significant. Sistani does not believe in the clergy getting involved in politics, so if he is saying this sort of thing he is really upset.
*Iraqi Interim President Ibrahim Jaafari said Monday that his country's relationship with Israel would have to be put to a national referendum, and that the Interim Governing Council does not have the authority to make that decision. He also promised once again that the Iraqi ministers would be appointed this week. (al-Zaman)
*Kurdish leaders maintain that over 1,000 radical Sunni fighters, mainly Arabs, have infliltrated into Iraq via Iran in recent weeks. The PUK says some may actually have come from Afghanistan, i.e., they are al-Qaeda remnants. See http://www.bakutoday.net/view.php?d=5846.
*A poll taken by the Scripps Howard News Agency and by Ohio University (ending Aug. 12) found that 42% of Americans now say they are "not certain" that commiting troops to Iraq was the correct course of action. This number is up from less than a third in May.
*The US is having to pay to have a small contingent of Polish troops supporting the effort in Iraq. But it turns out, according to AFP, that this is not the first time Polish soldiers have been deployed to Iraq. There were 75,000 of them there in WW II, supplied by the Soviet Union, then an ally of Britain and the US. Apparently they did not actually do much in Iraq. But it is another piece of evidence that "globalization" did not start in the 21st century. See
http://www.arabtimesonline.com/arabtimes/
breakingnews/view.asp?msgID=2435.
*The spokesman of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Akram Zubeidi, said Saturday, "America does not want to acknowledge it is incapable of controlling the situation and rebuilding Iraq. Every day, we receive dozens of complaints from Iraqis asking us to declare a fatwa against the Americans and we say no. But this 'no' will not last forever." He was speaking on behalf of Sistani, according to Selim Saheb Ettaba of Agence France Press, who broke the story. Apparently the Najaf establishment was very upset about the incident on Weds. Aug. 13 in East Baghdad when US troops fired on Shiite protesters unhappy that their banner had been removed from a telecom tower. (Or, the 4 more staid, elderly clerics, are being forced to compete with firebrand Muqtada al-Sadr in moral outrage). Sistani's apparent conviction that the US cannot run Iraq, and the very mention that his patience with the Americans isn't infinite, is extremely significant. Sistani does not believe in the clergy getting involved in politics, so if he is saying this sort of thing he is really upset.
*Iraqi Interim President Ibrahim Jaafari said Monday that his country's relationship with Israel would have to be put to a national referendum, and that the Interim Governing Council does not have the authority to make that decision. He also promised once again that the Iraqi ministers would be appointed this week. (al-Zaman)
*Kurdish leaders maintain that over 1,000 radical Sunni fighters, mainly Arabs, have infliltrated into Iraq via Iran in recent weeks. The PUK says some may actually have come from Afghanistan, i.e., they are al-Qaeda remnants. See http://www.bakutoday.net/view.php?d=5846.
*A poll taken by the Scripps Howard News Agency and by Ohio University (ending Aug. 12) found that 42% of Americans now say they are "not certain" that commiting troops to Iraq was the correct course of action. This number is up from less than a third in May.
*The US is having to pay to have a small contingent of Polish troops supporting the effort in Iraq. But it turns out, according to AFP, that this is not the first time Polish soldiers have been deployed to Iraq. There were 75,000 of them there in WW II, supplied by the Soviet Union, then an ally of Britain and the US. Apparently they did not actually do much in Iraq. But it is another piece of evidence that "globalization" did not start in the 21st century. See
http://www.arabtimesonline.com/arabtimes/
breakingnews/view.asp?msgID=2435.
Saturday, August 16, 2003
*Guerrillas lightly wounded two US soldiers with near Baquba on Saturday when they set off a roadside bomb made of four 155 mm artillery shells, ambushing a patrol of Abrams tanks, armored personnel carriers and Humvees, according to D'Arcy Doran of AP. The shrapnel wounded two of our guys (according to al-Sharq al-Awsat; early wire service reports just said one). They then opened fire with rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns. The police chief of Mosul was wounded in an ambush on Saturday, as well (al-Hayat says 4 others around him were killed, though other reports say just that two were wounded). I'd say that is pretty bad news, when the pro-American police chief of a major city like Mosul is not safe.
*And, to top it all off, saboteurs blew up the oil pipeline to Turkey, which had just started working a few days ago. The US and US-appointed administration of Iraq desperately needs the income from such petroleum exports to rebuild the country. It will takes days or even weeks to repair the pipeline, and pipelines are so vulnerable that I can't see how you could stop saboteurs from just blowing it up again later.
*US troops have suspended patrols in East Baghdad, according to a US military source reported by al-Sharq al-Awsat, who asked not to be identified. The decision comes after troops fired into a Sadrist crowd on Weds., who were protesting US defilement of the banner of the Muslim Messiah, the Mahdi. Sadrist clerics warned the US troops not to come into "Sadr City" after that. I think this is the right decision, but it underscores how weak the US position is. Some ten percent of Iraqis live in Sadr City, and if the US has been effectively excluded from it by some angry demonstrations, it makes one wonder whether with a concerted effort they couldn't be effectively excluded from all large urban areas.
*A US military spokesman confirmed the arrest last Monday of Baathist Shiite cleric Said Ali al-Karim al-Madani, of Baquba, known as "the prophet," by US Marines. He could be charged with inciting violence and funding attacks on coalition troops, as well as weapons possession. A member of the Baath party who received pay-offs from Saddam, he had issued a fatwa last April calling for jihad or holy war against US troops. He is also said to have offerec about $30,000 as a bounty to anyone who killed a US officer in Iraq. (Most Shiites in Iraq hated Saddam because he brutalized them, but there were Shiite collaborators with the regime).
*The People's Gulf Congress, a Shiite activist group based in Kuwait, has warned against Israeli businesses playing any role in Iraqi reconstruction. It said that Iraq dealings with Israel could cause it to be boycotted by the Arab League. - al-Sharq al-Awsat
*As usual, Anthony Shadid's reporting on the situation in Iraq is among the very best. His WP article today discusses the possibility that Sunni fundamentalist Ahmad Kubeisi has funneled millions of dollars to Muqtada al-Sadr. It has been evident for some time that Kubeisi and Muqtada have some sort of tactical alliance, with Kubeisi busing in Sunni fundamentalists from Falluja and Ramadi to Kufa for Muqtada's Friday sermons. Sunni-Shiite cooperation for anti-imperial purposes has a long history in Iraq. It should also be remembered that the Shiite al-Da`wa party was allegedly 10% Sunni in its membership back in the 1960s and 1970s. Shadid also reveals that a third of the seats on the Basra city council are held by Sadrists, something I hadn't seen elsewhere. Sadrists supported the recent anti-British riots there. He says that the US and the senior ayatollahs are both convinced something needs to be done about Muqtada, but neither wants to move on him openly. I think the US in particular should be very cautious about Muqtada; arresting him would potentially cause the East Baghdad slums to explode with demonstrations, and possibly Basra as well. See http://msnbc.com/news/953433.asp?cp1=1.
*And, to top it all off, saboteurs blew up the oil pipeline to Turkey, which had just started working a few days ago. The US and US-appointed administration of Iraq desperately needs the income from such petroleum exports to rebuild the country. It will takes days or even weeks to repair the pipeline, and pipelines are so vulnerable that I can't see how you could stop saboteurs from just blowing it up again later.
*US troops have suspended patrols in East Baghdad, according to a US military source reported by al-Sharq al-Awsat, who asked not to be identified. The decision comes after troops fired into a Sadrist crowd on Weds., who were protesting US defilement of the banner of the Muslim Messiah, the Mahdi. Sadrist clerics warned the US troops not to come into "Sadr City" after that. I think this is the right decision, but it underscores how weak the US position is. Some ten percent of Iraqis live in Sadr City, and if the US has been effectively excluded from it by some angry demonstrations, it makes one wonder whether with a concerted effort they couldn't be effectively excluded from all large urban areas.
*A US military spokesman confirmed the arrest last Monday of Baathist Shiite cleric Said Ali al-Karim al-Madani, of Baquba, known as "the prophet," by US Marines. He could be charged with inciting violence and funding attacks on coalition troops, as well as weapons possession. A member of the Baath party who received pay-offs from Saddam, he had issued a fatwa last April calling for jihad or holy war against US troops. He is also said to have offerec about $30,000 as a bounty to anyone who killed a US officer in Iraq. (Most Shiites in Iraq hated Saddam because he brutalized them, but there were Shiite collaborators with the regime).
*The People's Gulf Congress, a Shiite activist group based in Kuwait, has warned against Israeli businesses playing any role in Iraqi reconstruction. It said that Iraq dealings with Israel could cause it to be boycotted by the Arab League. - al-Sharq al-Awsat
*As usual, Anthony Shadid's reporting on the situation in Iraq is among the very best. His WP article today discusses the possibility that Sunni fundamentalist Ahmad Kubeisi has funneled millions of dollars to Muqtada al-Sadr. It has been evident for some time that Kubeisi and Muqtada have some sort of tactical alliance, with Kubeisi busing in Sunni fundamentalists from Falluja and Ramadi to Kufa for Muqtada's Friday sermons. Sunni-Shiite cooperation for anti-imperial purposes has a long history in Iraq. It should also be remembered that the Shiite al-Da`wa party was allegedly 10% Sunni in its membership back in the 1960s and 1970s. Shadid also reveals that a third of the seats on the Basra city council are held by Sadrists, something I hadn't seen elsewhere. Sadrists supported the recent anti-British riots there. He says that the US and the senior ayatollahs are both convinced something needs to be done about Muqtada, but neither wants to move on him openly. I think the US in particular should be very cautious about Muqtada; arresting him would potentially cause the East Baghdad slums to explode with demonstrations, and possibly Basra as well. See http://msnbc.com/news/953433.asp?cp1=1.
Friday, August 15, 2003
*Guerrillas near Balad , northeast of Iraq, injured two US soldiers and woundeded three Iraqis when they fired two rocket propelled grenades at a military convoy on Friday. Al-Sharq al-Awsat reported eyewitness accounts of another 4 US soldiers wounded in separate incidents, one on the fast road from Falluja to Ramadi, and one 16 km. west of Falluja (road mines). This means 6 were wounded altogether on Friday if the eyewitness reports are accurate.
*Followers of Muqtada al-Sadr in East Baghdad have decided to form 8 brigades (Faylaq al-Sadr) of the Imam Mahdi Army. (- al-Hayat) They will be used for "civil defense" of Sadr City and elsewhere. Four of the brigades will be sited in East Baghad, and four elsewhere in the country. Muqtada al-Sadr himself, in his Friday sermon at the mosque in Kufa, condemned the Coalition for shooting into the crowd in Sadr City on Weds., and for the problems in Basra, Amara, and Diwaniya. He said the Coalition had proven itself unable to govern Iraq. (His reference to Basra is to the riots there last weekend; the reference to Diwaniya is to the civil unrest there produced by a campaign to unseat the American-appointed mayor. There were similar problems in Nasiriya, which he did not mention. I frankly do not know to which incident he was referring in Amara). Sadrist clerics in the Friday Prayers sermons in East Baghdad again called for the US to withdraw from the city. One, at the Al al-Bayt Mosque, preached to a crowd of 20,000 (congregants spill out into the streets and listen by loudspeaker).
In fact, more radical members of both the Sunni and the Shiite clergy on Friday preached the need for the US to get out of Iraq.
Meanwhile, Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, criticized the US for trying to push the Interim Governing Council away from Islamic principles, and trying to isolate it from friendly Muslim states (read: Iran). Al-Hakim has been among the major allies of the US in the past year!
*A delegation of Chaldean Christians and Sabeans (Gnostics) met with Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani in Najaf on Friday, to discuss with him the rights of minorities in the new Iraqi constitution. (-al-Zaman) He stressed to them the need for Iraqis to be united, and to put Iraqi nationalism (al-wataniyyah) over sectional interests. Sistani's spokesman further denounced the letter allegedly from Saddam Hussein that called upon the Shiite clerics to declare jihad or holy war on the Americans. Murtada al-Kashmiri insisted that the letter was a fake, and was intended to embarrass the Shiite religious establishment, which has declined to call for violence. Kashmiri said that the grand ayatollahs in Najaf had as their purpose to end the American occupation by unifying the Iraqis.
*A chilling profile of an Iraqi guerrilla is painted by Ferry Biedermann of IPS. She argues that he is not a Baathist nor a Muslim fundamentalist, just an Iraqi nationalist embittered by some of the actions and attitudes of US troops in Iraq. See http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=19690.
*21 truckloads of relief aid were sent to Iraq from Qom on Friday by the Qom office of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, according to IRNA. The aid included food, clothing, blankets, Shiite books, and even air conditioners! The shipment is worth one billion Iranian rials ($120,000). But as I read the IRNA report, half of that billion was accounted for by a single magnificent chandelier that will grace the shrine of Imam Ali in Najaf. His Qom spokesman, Sadeq Dehsorkhi, said that Sistani's office has sent over 9 billion tumans ($10 million) worth of aid to Iraq from Iran since April 9. Of course, all this raises the question of where the aid is really coming from, since Sistani has been based in Najaf since 1952. Some of it may come from Shiites in Iraq who follow his religious rulings. But it seems likely that some of it, at least, is from the Iranian government and is aimed at having an influence on Sistani and the Shiites of Iraq. It is not a lot of money in US dollars, but there are a lot of poverty-stricken Shiites in Iraq for whom this aid would be munificent. It is an example of how unrealistic it is for the US to think that it can limit Iranian influence in Iraq.
*Followers of Muqtada al-Sadr in East Baghdad have decided to form 8 brigades (Faylaq al-Sadr) of the Imam Mahdi Army. (- al-Hayat) They will be used for "civil defense" of Sadr City and elsewhere. Four of the brigades will be sited in East Baghad, and four elsewhere in the country. Muqtada al-Sadr himself, in his Friday sermon at the mosque in Kufa, condemned the Coalition for shooting into the crowd in Sadr City on Weds., and for the problems in Basra, Amara, and Diwaniya. He said the Coalition had proven itself unable to govern Iraq. (His reference to Basra is to the riots there last weekend; the reference to Diwaniya is to the civil unrest there produced by a campaign to unseat the American-appointed mayor. There were similar problems in Nasiriya, which he did not mention. I frankly do not know to which incident he was referring in Amara). Sadrist clerics in the Friday Prayers sermons in East Baghdad again called for the US to withdraw from the city. One, at the Al al-Bayt Mosque, preached to a crowd of 20,000 (congregants spill out into the streets and listen by loudspeaker).
In fact, more radical members of both the Sunni and the Shiite clergy on Friday preached the need for the US to get out of Iraq.
Meanwhile, Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, criticized the US for trying to push the Interim Governing Council away from Islamic principles, and trying to isolate it from friendly Muslim states (read: Iran). Al-Hakim has been among the major allies of the US in the past year!
*A delegation of Chaldean Christians and Sabeans (Gnostics) met with Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani in Najaf on Friday, to discuss with him the rights of minorities in the new Iraqi constitution. (-al-Zaman) He stressed to them the need for Iraqis to be united, and to put Iraqi nationalism (al-wataniyyah) over sectional interests. Sistani's spokesman further denounced the letter allegedly from Saddam Hussein that called upon the Shiite clerics to declare jihad or holy war on the Americans. Murtada al-Kashmiri insisted that the letter was a fake, and was intended to embarrass the Shiite religious establishment, which has declined to call for violence. Kashmiri said that the grand ayatollahs in Najaf had as their purpose to end the American occupation by unifying the Iraqis.
*A chilling profile of an Iraqi guerrilla is painted by Ferry Biedermann of IPS. She argues that he is not a Baathist nor a Muslim fundamentalist, just an Iraqi nationalist embittered by some of the actions and attitudes of US troops in Iraq. See http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=19690.
*21 truckloads of relief aid were sent to Iraq from Qom on Friday by the Qom office of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, according to IRNA. The aid included food, clothing, blankets, Shiite books, and even air conditioners! The shipment is worth one billion Iranian rials ($120,000). But as I read the IRNA report, half of that billion was accounted for by a single magnificent chandelier that will grace the shrine of Imam Ali in Najaf. His Qom spokesman, Sadeq Dehsorkhi, said that Sistani's office has sent over 9 billion tumans ($10 million) worth of aid to Iraq from Iran since April 9. Of course, all this raises the question of where the aid is really coming from, since Sistani has been based in Najaf since 1952. Some of it may come from Shiites in Iraq who follow his religious rulings. But it seems likely that some of it, at least, is from the Iranian government and is aimed at having an influence on Sistani and the Shiites of Iraq. It is not a lot of money in US dollars, but there are a lot of poverty-stricken Shiites in Iraq for whom this aid would be munificent. It is an example of how unrealistic it is for the US to think that it can limit Iranian influence in Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
