Maliki and Al Sadr Punk America
I will say it simply--the Iraqi Government of Prime Minister Maliki is taking part in an information operation to help Republicans in the upcoming election. The evidence? How about the repeated claims that "we have killed or captured" the number two in Iraq? (And no, my reference to "number two" is not a euphemism for defecation.) I refer instead to the steady drumbeat of breathless anouncements about the "latest" capture of a senior Al Qaeda operative in Iraq. The frequency of these claims is not a simple consequence of stepped up U.S. and Iraqi military operations. It is a deliberate effort to manipulate U.S. public opinion into believing real progress is being made in Iraq because the truth--that we're losing the ground war in Iraq--is unpalatable grist for the November elections.
Consider the following news flash:
On Sunday (3 September 2006), Iraq’s national security adviser announced the arrest of Hamed Jumaa Farid al-Saeedi, also known as Abu Humam or Abu Rana, and said that had left al-Qaida in Iraq suffering a “serious leadership crisis.”
A few days later, however, the U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, General William Caldwell, admitted that the U.S. had captured Hamed three months earlier:
Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell said Hamed Jumaa Farid al-Saeedi, also known as Abu Humam or Abu Rana, was captured on June 19. He also said other suspects had been arrested and were in custody, but that their names had not yet been made public.
Since then we've had two other similar claims:
14 September 2006. Iraq's Interior Ministry has said its forces have killed a senior figure of the al Qaeda militant group in Baghdad. The ministry described the slain militant, Abu Jaafar al-Liby, as the number-two leader of al Qaeda in Iraq behind Abu Ayyub al-Masri who succeeded Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, killed by US forces this year.
23 September 2006. Meanwhile, authorities said a leader of Ansar al-Sunnah, a group linked to al-Qaida in Iraq that is responsible for kidnappings and beheadings has been captured by Iraqi and U.S. forces. Muntasir Hamoud Ileiwi al-Jubouri and two of his aides were arrested in Muqdadiyah, 56 miles northeast of Baghdadlate Friday, Brig. Qassim al-Mussawi, spokesman for the General Command of the Armed Forces, told The Associated Press.
And let's not forget how the death on 8 June 2006 of Al Qaeda's leader in Iraq--Abu Musab Al Zarqawi--affected the level of violence in Iraq: the number of attacks in Iraq soared in July and August. According to none other than our UN envoy, John Bolton:
Sectarian violence and insurgent attacks increased throughout Iraq over the past three months. . . .The average number of weekly attacks increased 15 percent over the previous reporting period, and Iraqi casualties increased by 51 percent.
Insurgent and terrorist attacks reached an all time high in July and declined slightly in August, but those two months represent the highest level of violence recorded in Iraq since the U.S. invasion. And no relief appears in sight. The U.S. military spokesman in Iraq is warning that the violence will get worse in September and October as part of a Ramadan offensive.
The time has come for the The U.S. military to rethink its strategy and tactics in Iraq. So far it has focused on the futile strategy of degrading the leadership of Al Qaeda. We have been plowing this field for two years and have not stopped the violence. The facts show the opposite. Despite having killed and captured a large number of alleged Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq, the number of daily attacks has skyrocketed. That's a fact, not an opinion.
From the standpoint of Prime Minister Maliki and his Shia allies, Moqtada al-Sadr in particular, the U.S. strategy is a blessing from Allah. Why? Because we are killing terrorists who support Sunnis. The more the United States can kill Sunni insurgents/terrorists, the fewer Sunnis left to fight Shias. But, that theory is not working out so neatly in practice. The various Sunni groups in Iraq are not going away quietly. They are striking back repeatedly and viciously because they believe their very survival as a people is at stake.
Rightly or wrongly, the United States is perceived as having taken a side in this civil war. We are fighting to bolster Shia control. The mullahs in Iran are also happy for this gift from Heaven--the Shia in Iraq are consolidating their control over areas considered sacred to all Shia.
Meanwhile, our troops are caught in a figurative no-mans land with no plan to escape and no plan for victory. For Maliki and his crowd, the only election that matters is the upcoming U.S. vote. If they can keep a Republican Congress who will "stay the course", the Shia plan to control vital areas of Iraq will remain on track. America's sons and daughters who are being killed and maimed in Iraq are sacrificing so that Shias can run Iraq and, with the backing of Iran, change the strategic face of the Middle East. And that new face will not be smiling on the United State or Israel. Mission accomplished?
So we're supporting the group in Iraq that is connected to Iran. Iran is happy about this. But the Administration is beating the war drums to attack Iran. Does this mean that if the US attacks Iran, our allies in Iraq will let it go, or will we be fighting the Iranians and our allies in Iraq? So our forces in Iraq will be vulnerable to attack from the terrorists, Sunnis, Shias in Iraq and Iran.
This sounds like a good plan to me......not
September 25, 2006 6:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
The British are plucking a few off the assembly line as well:
British forces have killed a senior al-Qaeda fugitive in a raid on a house in the southern Iraqi city of Basra, security sources say.
Officials named the dead man as Omar Farouq, a top lieutenant of Osama Bin Laden in south-east Asia.
Farouq was captured in Indonesia in 2002 but escaped from a US military prison in Afghanistan last year.
Security sources say he was hiding in Basra and al-Qaeda was not known to be actively operating in the area.
September 25, 2006 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
In my mind, Maliki is spinning himself right out of any and all credibility. He panders to Bush on progress against al Qaeda and the insurgency, but when he comes to the US and speaks to Congress he refuses to condemn Hamas or Hezbollah. The next week he's visting Iran to make nice with Ahmadinejad before making a big deal out of Britain transferring control of two provinces to Iraqi security forces.
Not that I'm not sympathetic to realpolitik, but Maliki has too many disparate interest groups to answer to. He will never be able to please everyone. Perhaps instead of focusing on garnering media attention and cozying up to international heads of state, he should apply himself to the nuts and bolts of Iraq's seemingly hopeless security crisis.
September 25, 2006 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
So what? America deserves it. The US has done worse to Iraq than 'punk it'.
Maliki and al Sadr didn't make the decision for the US to invade Iraq. Bush put us there. To Bush the war is just a 'comma' in the history of The New Middle East.
September 25, 2006 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gosh, trying to make talking points for Freepers about the wacky liberal blogosphere? I remember several threads here trying to convince everyone that the liberal blogophere is not anti-American, but you're bound and determined to prove them wrong, ain't ya? Let's see, Larry argues the theory that Maliki is trying to help the GOP win the election, that our soldiers will then be stuck there, implying that Iran will benefit and Iraq will continue to spiral into sectarian violence, and you say you think that's fine because "America deserves it"? Lots more Iraqis get to die so you can see America get what it deserves?
September 26, 2006 1:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Larry,
sorry to hijack the thread for such a minor question, but was that you interviewed on KTRH in Houston this morning?
Just wondering. . . .
Marc
September 26, 2006 6:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've gone lurking in Freeperland from time to time. It's my considered opinion that you could roll the wisdom of St. Thomas Aquinas, the benevolence of Mahatma Ghandi and the devotion of Mother Theresa into one saintly package... and they'd still foam at the mouth.
They're a group collectively who make Fred Dobbs look sane and thoughtful. On that basis, anyone on this site, even the conservatives would only make them outraged and hysterical.
Bronto's comment might be a little harsh. But the truth of the matter is that America is in Iraq by choice, not necessity. That Maliki does the Republicans bidding. And that the Iraq people did not deserve what America did to them. Simple as that. So you might consider cutting the lad a break.
And frankly, I don't think that bringing the words 'anti-American' into any discussion adds any credibility. Anyone who calls someone else anti-american is simply announcing that they're uninterested in any other viewpoint but their own, and have no tolerance for anyone but themself.
It is an insult that has no place in American life, but has become commonplace. There's no equivalent in other countries. What is Anti-Canadian?
What it really seems to be about, is one American telling another that he or she is not really an American, and therefore that his or her views, their existence, is foreign, worthless and antithetical to 'America' as the accuser on their own defines it.
In that sense, its somewhat like a Nazi calling someone a Jew, or an Islamic person claiming that another member of the faith is 'not a good muslim.' Or simply calling someone's mother a whore.
An appropriate response is called for.
September 26, 2006 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I said America deserves what it gets from the Iraq fiasco, because America created the mess. The Iraqi's are the victims of Bush policy. It's not anti-Americanism, it is called accountability for actions taken, or not taken or not planned well, in this case a 'pre-emptive' war and occupation. Accountability for starting wars is not like a trip to Disneyland.
Frankly, I doubt folks like 'artappraiser', or Bush supporters, care one whit about Iraq or Iraqi's.
"I for one will continue to speak out until there is accountability,"
September 26, 2006 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
It sounds as if you are asking for collective punishment for Americans, including those lied to by the Bush Administration. Are you?
I've known Bush supporters with whom I disagree completely on policy, but that I wouldn't want to suggest don't know the area quite intimately, some having spent time there. Don't assume all soldiers serving there support Bush; I know many who do not.
Artappraiser has shown a sufficient knowledge of many subjects that I wouldn't challenge AA to a geography contest. Indeed, don't assume that someone that disagrees with you -- and I think both the justification for the invasion and the planning for the occupation were piss-poor; the invasion itself was competent -- doesn't know the subject. Did you want to get into the significance of Umm Qasr versus Balad, for example?
What do you mean "care" about Iraq or Iraqis? I have nothing against Iraqis, but I don't know any, or any Mongolians, or, to the best of my knowledge, anyone in North Dakota. Yes, I have a generic concern for humanity, but I can't really say I "care" for Iraq in the sense that I do, say, for Sierra Leone. I have extended family here from there, and also still in-country. I have friends in Sweden and Denmark. While I've been to Norway, should I feel as close to it as where I've been taken into homes?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
September 26, 2006 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
HC-when your country engages in what a very eminent former prosecutor at the Nuremburg trials of Nazi war criminals says may be war crimes, there is a price to be paid by folks in that country. Any student of history, a group I am sure you and artappraiser would be included, knows of the human and financial costs of war. Call it 'collective punishment' if you must. What war has not entailed such costs?
link
Ferencz said that after Nuremberg the international community realized that every war results in violations by both sides, meaning the primary objective should be preventing any war from occurring in the first place...
He said the atrocities of the Iraq war--from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the massacre of dozens of civilians by U.S. forces in Haditha to the high number of civilian casualties caused by insurgent car bombs--were highly predictable at the start of the war.
September 26, 2006 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Geneva Conventions have certain requirements for the Occupying Power. Those would be relevant. The Nuremberg Principles are informative, but they were never enacted by a treaty and involved initially invoved highly politicized decisions of a four-power subset of the winners. Can we say Katyn Forest? Sorry, while I'm something of an admirer of Telford Taylor -- and disagree with him on some points, the 14 Nuremberg tribunals; only the first and only four-power one seems to be known to non specialists, are not normative.
I do not believe there have been real independent investingations of Haditha or Fallujah, and I am not willing to prejudge that there were US massacres. There may have been, and there is a time to investigate them. In some cases, US forces have done some reasonable investigations in the middle of a war. Some clearly need more investigation.
At the same time, I've seen too many pictures, shocking to a layman, as "evidence" of chemical warfare, or of mystery agents that burn flesh but not clothes. With physician friends, we've looked at some that actually conveyed information. Most of the "skin melting" described was consistent with normal decomposition in a hot climate. Horror pictures do not convey useful information; forensic autopsies do. Competent pathologists may be able to get definitive information from long-dead corpses, but this needs to be done scientifically.
Yes, there are costs of war. What you seem to be asking for is reparations, for which there is no relevant international structure to demand them. Yes, it would be nice if there were no wars, but Ferencz does not seem to have a way to prevent them. The most useful thing is for the US to get out in a phased manner, with the focus on training Iraqi security forces, within real constraints.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
September 26, 2006 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink