Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditWhat does the start of a new civil war in Iraq look like? It looks a lot like this:
The Times reports today matter-of-factly on the pattern of assassinations of Sunni members of the Sons of Iraq militia by Shiite death squads:
American military leaders disagree among themselves about whether the assassinations are increasing or whether some of the killings are merely criminal acts. But they are "watching the numbers closely," said a military official who attends briefings on attacks.
Yesterday I wrote a lengthy piece for The Nation about the likehihood of a new civil war and a new Sunni resistance movement stemming from the sectarian Shiite government's refusal to make a political deal with Iraq's Sunnis. The American military may indeed be "watching the numbers" of murdered Sunnis "closely," but there's not much that they intend to do about it. (Here's a clue for the vaunted US military intelligence people "watching" these assassinations: they're not "criminal." They're political.)
In a major feature this week on the handover of the Awakening movement and the Sons of Iraq to Prime Minister Maliki's bloodthirsty regime, the Post cited the fears of Ibrahim Suleiman al-Zoubaidi, one of the movement's leaders in Baghdad:
"They will kill us," Zoubaidi declared. "One by one."Across Baghdad, leaders of the groups speak about the transition in similarly apocalyptic terms. Some have left Baghdad, saying they fear that the Iraqi government will conduct mass arrests after the handover. Others are obtaining passports and say they will flee to Syria.
Reports Leila Fadel of McClatchy, one of the very best reporters in Baghdad:
The Sons of Iraq worry that putting them under the control of Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki is a ploy to detain and disband them. Already, Sons of Iraq leaders in the northern province of Diyala are hiding in neighboring Syria.
Others aren't fleeing at all. They'll fight.
It's going to get uglier. Here's an excerpt of an important story in the
The Sons of Iraq said they feared for their future. Mohammad Idan, 42, a former shopkeeper related a rumour he had heard about the Iraqi security forces kidnapping and "disappearing" a Sons of Iraq member."We will never feel safe with them," he said. ...
Alarm has spread through the militia group in recent weeks after the government issued arrest warrants for dozens of members around the country. Under US pressure, the Iraqi government has agreed not to arrest any members without a warrant issued during the past six months, and not to fire any without cause.
In The National, a newspaper in the United Arab Emirates, the warnings from the Awakening movement -- called sahwa in Arabic -- are a little more explicit:
Sunni fighters who once battled US troops in Baghdad, before turning their guns on al Qa'eda, have warned the Iraqi government it must continue to support them or risk a return to chaos. ...The Sahwa themselves are concerned that the Iraqi government may simply disband the councils and push the former insurgents back into the role of active insurgents. In essence it would be a repeat of a former devastating mistake, when America disbanded the Iraqi army in 2003, leaving thousands of trained soldiers without jobs and a score to settle against the US military. ...
Sheikh Abdul Mohammad, a Sahwa fighter in Taji, to the west of Baghdad [said], "If we are treated properly we can stand with the government and Iraq will be strong, can stabilize and prosper. If not the country will fall again. The future is not in our hands it is in the government's." ...
In the notorious Diyala province, one Sahwa leader said government security forces contained too many people who took orders from Iran – again a reference to distrust many Sunnis have for the Shiite dominated security forces.
"The security services have too many elements which are loyal to Iran. We need to see those cleaned out, and then the Sahwa can think about being integrated."
He's right, in case you're wondering. Iran pretty much runs the show, through its teams of death squads, its influence of the powerful Badr Brigade of the Iranian-created Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), and its strong influence over Maliki.
It's having an effect, across Baghdad and much of Iraq. From an Italian source, here's one account about Adhamiya, a neighborhood in north central Iraq just east of the river:
In al-Adhamiya in recent days, gunfights have broken out of a sort not seen for some time: two people were killed at a checkpoint on Sunday, and a civilian was killed on Monday when a car bomb exploded. There have also been rising tensions between local leaders and government officials. The situation will have to be carefully managed to keep al-Adhamiya and similar neighborhoods from descending into sectarian violence once again.
Here's a conclusion from the Pentagon's own quarterly report on Iraq, in typical bureaucratese, about the Iraqi government's unwillingness to take responsibility for supporting (and paying) the Sons of Iraq--not to mention not assassinating them:
"The slow pace of transition is a concern. Continued GoI [Government of Iraq] commitment is required to ensure SoI [Sons of Iraq] are fully transitioned to permanent employment. Recent allegations of GoI targeting SoI leaders in Diyala Province are of concern if they are indicators of GoI reluctance to integrate SoI into the ISF or, more broadly, to reconcile a diverse province."
All this makes mincement of John McCain's assertion that his vaunted "surge" has led to "victory" in Iraq. It hasn't. The country is seething with violence and political fissures that are very deep. It's ready to explode. Barack Obama, who's been defensive about the surge, ought to slam McCain for his support, in 2006, for escalating the war. Obama -- along with the entire US military leadership back then, most of Congress, and the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group -- wanted to start pulling US forces out of Iraq two years ago. Had they won, the war would be over. Instead, the next president will take office with more than 150,000 troops in Iraq.
As AP reported this week:
Six Army brigades, a National Guard unit and three military headquarters have been ordered to Iraq next summer in a move that would allow the U.S. to keep the number of troops largely steady there through much of next year.
RSS
if leaving a happy shiney, perfect iraq is our benchmark for leaving...we will never leave that poor hellhole...
so surge til our heads explode and the government goes bankrupt and prepare for a hundred years of occupation!!!!
Posted by dexter666 at 10/02/2008 @ 09:46am
Of course if John McSame "...were dictator, which [he] always aspire[s] to be..." things would be different.
http://tinyurl.com/3klk2n
Posted by leftofcenter at 10/02/2008 @ 09:53am
I guess it depends on which Obama shows up to be questioned.
The "Get out on Iraq NOW!" Obama...
OR
The "Fight the right war." Obama...
Posted by bleedingheart at 10/02/2008 @ 09:54am
so surge til our heads explode and the government goes bankrupt
Posted by dexter666 at 10/02/2008 @ 09:46am
bankrupter........
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/02/2008 @ 10:10am
Posted by bleedingheart at 10/02/2008 @ 09:54am
Same thing bleeder; Iraq was stupid and had nothing to do with anything except making an oil-friendly middle east. That hasn't gone so well as I hear it. Afghanistan - well, that is where bin Laden has been since 2001 (with occasional vacations in Pakistan) so we should have concentrated our military attention there if indeed we are concerned about radical Islamic extremist types, n'est pas?
Posted by leftofcenter at 10/02/2008 @ 10:38am
Posted by leftofcenter at 10/02/2008 @ 10:38am
a difficult question.
having the military in afghanistan really pisses the people off. so it's bound to create two extremists for every one "taken out".
the real key is to buy people's hearts and minds.
it calmed the sunnis in iraq (for a while).
but, oops!, there's no money left.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/02/2008 @ 10:42am
Will Barak Obama stand up and opppose the BS that's been so successfully fed to the public about the surge? Did he oppose the the bailout? Same answer to both questions, and why? Because he's the biggest disaster in history ever to misrepresent himself to progressive voters. Here something to chew on in that connection from Eric Margolis:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis124.html
Progressives vote Nader!
Posted by john lowell at 10/02/2008 @ 12:26pm
johnlowell-I've noticed that you never go on the McCain/Palin boards and bash them,but only bash Obama.Try honesty for a change of pace and admit that you are a GOP stooge.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/02/2008 @ 12:32pm
johnlowell-I've noticed that you never go on the McCain/Palin boards and bash them,but only bash Obama.Try honesty for a change of pace and admit that you are a GOP stooge. Posted by i'm nobody at 10/02/2008 @ 12:32pm
That's because he is a typical shill. HE isn't going to vote Nader so his endorsements of him are worthless.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2008 @ 12:59pm
Ccc-It's odd that he thinks he is conning people when he is obviously a republican.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/02/2008 @ 1:02pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2008 @ 12:59pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/02/2008 @ 1:02pm
Actually, I think lowell is that rare combination of stupidity and insanity.
He's trying to pull this con of sounding like a "3rd party booster" with his talk of "Progs need to vote Nader, Cons need to vote Baldwin"...but isn't smart enough or sane enough to make it seem SOMEWHAT reasonable or worthwhile (unlike say a ZERO or CRABWALK Naderite)...
but he's also crazy enough to think that his plan is working and that none of us will know the OBVIOUS outcome of us voting for Nader...which would be McCain winning...
which is JUST FINE with lowell as a Religious Rightie/pro-lifer, since he wants somebody like McCain to pick the next USSC Justices...not Obama (and CERTAINLY not Ralph Nader).
Good news is...come the late evening of November 4th as the polls close in Hawaii.....john lowell will disappear from this blog, nare to reappear for 4 years.
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/02/2008 @ 1:09pm
Mask-He,like the other new Nader ids,will all be gone the day after the election and after they voted for McCain..
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/02/2008 @ 1:11pm
The U. S. government needs to be paying these people until we leave! Just because the Iraqi government has money does not mean that they will use it wisely. It is in America's national interest to provide financial support to the Sunnis at this time. I would also suggest that it is in the national interest of Iraq's neighbors to have an independent Iraq, free of foreign control, that follows it's own national interest. It is in no ones interest to have a failed state on their borders involved in a Civil War that may result in a regional conflict. Unless Iraq's neighbor's recognize these facts a wider regional war may occur. I do not believe the current Iraqi government has the wisdom to take the path toward reconciliation. Therefore the Sunnis need to reach out to the Shia insurgents in Sadr city. There have been some contacts already between them as reported on BBC. Because of their relationship with Iran, Russia might be useful in bridging the Sunni-Shia divide. No reconciliation between these two factions, and there is no Iraq.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 10/02/2008 @ 1:31pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/02/2008 @ 1:11pm
Yes, but he's also nuts, because I think he believed that he was so smart and so clever that nobody would see through his "plan"...and when we did (especially me, with all modesty), he lost his cool and began ranting.
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/02/2008 @ 1:34pm
Please read McCains POV bio on unfitmccain.com. This man is so full of rage and so unfit to run this country.
Posted by MickFlynn at 10/02/2008 @ 2:09pm
Mask-I loved it when he called everyone son and was trying to be our daddy image.Of course,I'm too old to be his kid.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/02/2008 @ 2:15pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/02/2008 @ 2:15pm
He may be in his 70s....and still thinks that he's got the "fooling to get them durn lib'ruls to not vote for Obama and vote Nader and let ol' Maverick win".
Call it a "McCain moment" gone long!
heheh
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/02/2008 @ 3:05pm
Mask-He,still,would not be old enough to be my daddy.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/02/2008 @ 3:20pm
"Mask-I loved it when he called everyone son...."
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/02/2008 @ 2:15pm
and pig, and filth, and snake, and squalid snake, and vile, and...
Posted by Benchrest at 10/02/2008 @ 3:24pm
"It is in America's national interest to provide financial support to the Sunnis at this time."
Posted by P. J. Casey at 10/02/2008 @ 1:31pm
In case you haven't heard, we'll be short about $700Bn to give more money to the Sunni Awakening.
The "success" of the surge has always been about Sadr's ceasefire and Shia death squads in Baghdad, resulting in nothing short of ethnic cleansing.
Posted by HAL9000 at 10/02/2008 @ 3:52pm
Posted by HAL9000 at 10/02/2008 @ 3:52pm
And, of course, all of that never occured to Obama in the debate last Friday. He simply went along with all of McCain's and the moderator's assumptions that the surge has "worked". This shmendrick has even acknowledged that it's worked "beyond our wildest dreams"! What a pathetic worm this clown is. Vote Nader!
Posted by john lowell at 10/02/2008 @ 4:01pm
...and slime, and pathetic worm, and shmedrick, and clown, and molsoncoorsshlemdrivel, and ...
Posted by Benchrest at 10/02/2008 @ 4:05pm
...and slime, and pathetic worm, and shmedrick, and clown, and molsoncoorsshlemdrivel, and ...---Posted by Benchrest at 10/02/2008 @ 4:05pm
Yes, very odd.
lowell supposed to be a Christian, but seems to not know
Titus 3:2.
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/02/2008 @ 4:08pm
"... spare this board the judgements and the posturing with accompanying reference to scripture. You're an embarrassment."
Posted by john lowell at 07/17/2008 @ 11:05am |
Yes, very odd.
lowell supposed to be a Christian, but seems to not know
Titus 3:2.
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/02/2008 @ 4:08pm
We tried it before, remember?
It not work. He crazy.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/02/2008 @ 4:16pm
Posted by Benchrest at 10/02/2008 @ 4:16pm
True, but always like pointing out Titus 3:2 to guys like lowell or LVLIB (or other "every word is God's word" flingers of ad hominems) and watch them squirm to say essentially "Well, it's DIFFERENT when I do it!"
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/02/2008 @ 4:35pm
I like when he tried to threaten me with his e-violence or whatever.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2008 @ 4:39pm
"Don't you ever make the mistake of replying to any other post I make here or I'll work you over regularly in a fashion you won't come to appreciate, count on it. In the meantime, wipe the slime off your antenna and find a crevice into which to crawl."
Posted by john lowell at 07/16/2008 @ 2:13pm
I like when he tried to threaten me with his e-violence or whatever.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2008 @ 4:39pm
You mean that?
I see you're still here and not in a crevice.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/02/2008 @ 4:54pm
I see you're still here and not in a crevice. Posted by Benchrest at 10/02/2008 @ 4:54pm
Haha. I'm cowering in my John Lowell Protection Bunker. Rated to take up to 13 E-Blasts.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2008 @ 6:15pm
Posted by john lowell at 07/16/2008 @ 2:13pm
whattajerk.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/03/2008 @ 11:55am
It is in America's national interest to provide financial support to the Sunnis at this time.
who are the Sunni? why they're Saddam's Baathists.
we are paying both sides, with borrowed money, of course.
surge my ass.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/03/2008 @ 12:00pm
Afghanistan - well, that is where bin Laden has been since 2001 (with occasional vacations in Pakistan) so we should have concentrated our military attention there if indeed we are concerned about radical Islamic extremist types, n'est pas? Posted by leftofcenter at 10/02/2008 @ 10:38am | ignore this person | warn this person
Bin Laden is swimming in a sea of like minded Islamists.
in a country the size of Texas. Bush never wanted to find him. the Afghanistan war was just the vehicle for invading Iraq.
our national interest is here in the USA, and definitely NOT in Iraq, or Afghanistan.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/03/2008 @ 12:27pm
I'm terribly sorry, my figures on the size of Afghanistan have been wrong for some time, and no one caught my error.
Afghanistan is actually more than TWICE as big as Texas. it is actually close to Alaska in size.
Texas 268,601 sq. miles
Afghanistan 652,000
Alaska 656,425
this of course amplifies my points double.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/03/2008 @ 12:55pm
Paying the Sunni's is cheaper than fighting them! When we get out of Iraq, we can "think" about not funding them!
Posted by P. J. Casey at 10/03/2008 @ 3:10pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/warn.mhtml?pid=368190
those are NOT the only two alternatives.
we cannot afford the payoffs and we cannot afford the occupation. end the war and bring the troops home.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/03/2008 @ 4:17pm
how absurd is it to pay off both sides in a civil war? and if it's such a good idea why did we not just send the money and spare the troops?
Posted by emile duBois at 10/03/2008 @ 4:21pm
afghanistan was where the enemy was. it was relegated to the backwater front and as a result our enemies escaped and still are out there. justice was delayed and resources were squandered.
here is the recipe for invading countries and not getting quagmired in a black hole of baghdad...
1. make sure its the country you need to invade. very very very important factor.
2. hit as surgically as possible, hit hard and don't hold back.
3. dump a lot of money and assistence with strings attached, give credit to the locals for their effort, and...
4. get out while they still like you.
Posted by dexter666 at 10/04/2008 @ 7:51pm