Hobson's Choice

free script provided by

Chronology of Some Major Events in Iraq

(Iraq Links)

Iraq Factions form Ruling Council (11 Jul '03)
Deadly Day in Iraq (29 Aug '03)
Intelligence and Post-War Iraqi Politics-1 (31 Aug '03)
Betrayal of the Marsh Arabs (22 Oct '03)
Monday, Bloody Monday (27 Oct '03)
Elections in Iraq (21 Jan '05)

Iraq Factions form Ruling Council

July 11, 2003

Well, it's on: today's lead in the NY Times is Iraqis Set to Form an Interim Council With Wide Power:

In a private meeting today with Iraqi political figures, Mr. Bremer sought a commitment from all seven of the main Iraqi political groups to nominate their top leaders to serve. In turn, those leaders sought from Mr. Bremer a written commitment on the scope of the council's powers.
One political group, the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, told Mr. Bremer that it would not make a final decision on whether to participate until Saturday. The group's spiritual leader, Ayatollah Muhammad Bakr al-Hakim, was expected to decide by then whether his brother, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, would join the government. Mr. Bremer would not comment.
Other Iraqi political figures said they believed that Ayatollah Hakim would sanction the Shiite group's participation after having received a pledge from Mr. Bremer that a majority of the governing council members would be Shiite Muslims and that the council's executive powers would be guaranteed in writing.
In addition to Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the core of the governing council would include Massoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani, leaders of the two main Kurdish factions in northern Iraq; Ahmad Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress; Iyad Alawi, head of the Iraqi National Accord; Nasir Kamel Chadirchy, a Baghdad lawyer whose father founded the first democratic party in Iraq in the 1950's; Ibrahim Jafari of the Shiite Daawa Party, and Adnan Pachachi, who was Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations in the 1960's.
An extraordinary level of secrecy has attended the negotiations over the roster of additional members. Last week, Lena Aboud, a 28-year-old gynecologist and women's rights advocate said she had been invited to join the government by Mr. Bremer. At least two other women were expected to be named, along with a Chaldean Christian, a Turkmen representative and one or more prominent tribal leaders.

(Permalink | Iraq Links)

Deadly Day in Iraq

August 29, 2003

This morning a bomb outside the holiest Shi'a shrine killed at least 80 people, including a leading Shi'a politician, Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim (NYTimes profile here). Here is the BBC report. An-Najaf is a city in southern Iraq, south of Kerbala; it's also the name of a province in Iraq. It includes the grave of 'Ali bin 'Abu Talib, the 4th khalifa of Islam and first Shi'a imam.

The bomb injured at least 100 other people and can be regarded as a desecration of this holy site. If it was intended to make a shahid of Ayatollah Hakim, it certainly did.

So far today at least one American soldier has been killed in an attack on a convoy about forty miles north of Baghdad. Also, Bulgarian troops came under fire for the first time.

The Ayatollah Hakim was the leader of the Iranian-affiliated Supreme Council for Islamic Resistance in Iraq (SCIRI); he was directly associated with the creation of the Badr Corps inside Iran. It would not be surprising if a "neo-Ba'thist" movement targeted Ayatollah Hakim, but murdering a huge number of followers and bystanders would certainly do nothing to unify opposition amongst disaffected Shi'a and Sunni Iraqis. Moreover, the allegation that there is a significant neo-Ba'thist resistance in Iraq seems implausible to me. It's far more likely that Iraq is a mushroom farm of unrelated, ideologically inchoate organizations. The bombings of supply lines might serve some plan of making the country ungovernable, but it seems more likely to me that attacks on water mains or bombings like this absurd, dreadful crime in an-Najaf represent a cluster of entirely petty actions.

Be advised (you newcomers to this site) that Hobson's Choice regards the invasion of Iraq as immoral, illegal, illegitimate and mendacious in the execution. The Occupation has done virtually everything to validate the worst fears the Muslim community might have had about US intentions in the region. It is entirely understandable that resistance would be violent, widespread and passionate. Indeed, the occupation could be expected to ultimately unify all components of Iraqi society, secular and ecclesiastical, Kurd and Arab, Sunni and Shi'a, against us.

But violent resistance and insurgencies are opportunistic affairs. Saddam was a horrible leader, and yet he did succeed in quelling opposition to his regime. Whereas, we have imposed a system which is chaotic, incompetent, high-handed, nepotistic, illegitimate and indifferent. Violence will likely tend to be criminal in character: criminal gangs will most likely have an enormous advantage in the post-war division of power.

UPDATE: Just noticed this al-Ahram article on the bombing of UN headquarters in Baghdad (19 August).

The notion that the bombing of the Canal Hotel was an "inside job" was based on the fact that the device exploded beneath the office of the UN's chief representative Sergio Vieira de Mello, who was killed along with more than 20 other staff members. However, it is just as likely that the bombers simply chose the only route open to the flatbed lorry which delivered the crude device made of a Russian bomb wired to explosives: the paved roadway into the parking lot alongside the UN compound wall. So far, none of the strikes on foreign troops and military facilities and sabotage operations against infrastructure have involved sophisticated intelligence, great military expertise or equipment beyond that available from Iraq's looted army stores.
It would seem that this is true, also, of the 7 August hit on the Jordanian Embassy in Baghdad as well as the UN bombing. This means that almost any of the resistance groups now operating in Iraq could have carried out the operation. Since armed resistance began at the time of the regime's collapse in early April, some three dozen groups have either claimed responsibility for attacks on the occupying forces and other targets or issued communiqués declaring their determination to take up arms against the occupation.

Your humble correspondent forgot to mention that Ayatollah M. Baqir al-Hakim's uncle, Muhammad Sa'id al-Hakim, was assassinated earlier this week:

A power struggle amongst Shi'ite clerics has also led to killings and bomb attacks like that of 24 August on Ayatollah Mohamed Said Al-Hakim, uncle of the head of the Iran-backed Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq Ayatollah Mohamed Baqer Al-Hakim.

Al-Ahram believes the armed resistance is acting out of explicit political aims:

The main cause of the emergence of so many resistance factions is US mishandling of the post-war political and economic situation. The US has alienated Iraq's influential Sunni Arabs by favouring the Shi'ite majority and the Kurds. The disbandment of the Iraqi armed forces and dismissal of thousands of civil servants with Ba'thist connections has created a large pool of recruits. And the US failure to provide security and essential services to the Iraqis has made many feel that Washington is interested only in oil.

Whereas I suspect it's mainly opportunistic. But this administration's incompetence has certainly furnished so many opportunities and grievances for Iraqis that it's probably impossible to ever know for sure.

UPDATE: Remember Bernard Lewis' What Went Wrong? I read his book and was largely disgusted with the way he used a wide body of irrelevant erudition to promote an insidiously neo-conservative agenda. But I suspected I was being harsh. No, I was too trusting. Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall points to this column by Lewis on neo-con plans for Iraq (The column is in the Wall Street Journal. Registration is required). Some of you might find my rueful knee-slapping exasperating. I understand, but IMO Lewis is a pretty good example of how imperialist notions are introduced and made acceptable. Well, at least he's the compassionate type.

(Permalink | Iraq Links)

Betrayal of the Marsh Arabs

Oct 22, 2003

Afghan Voice covers the region of Southwest Asia and some of North Africa; Arash is very level-headed, very well-informed and he posts often (JRM, 9 Oct '05: not anymore).

THE BETRAYAL OF THE MARSH ARABS: Do you know who Marsh Arabs are? The chance is small, and if you don’t than you should either read Wilfred Thesiger’s “The Marsh Arabs” or look at the front page of Saturday’s Washington Post. Titled “;'A Gift From God' Renews a Village,” it brings the story of Shiite Marsh Arabs (marsh dwellers), who’s marches are revitalized by Iraqi engineers and by U.S. soldiers after they were drained by Saddam Hussein after the first Gulf War. Out-of-job journalist Andrew Sullivan brings it up and asks:
How can you not be moved by such a story? How can you not be proud of what we have done?
Sure Sully, I am happy. But not incredibly happy. I was before though, but something ruined the mood. You know what it was? It was this article titled: “House GOP Cuts ZIP Code, Garbage Truck Funds From Iraq Plan”;. In the article, the following is mentioned:
[D]ropped from Bush's request is $100 million for restoring Iraq's marshlands, systematically emptied and destroyed by deposed President Saddam Hussein's government to punish Shiite Muslims who live there.
It seems that the House Appropriations Committee, led by representative Bill Young (R-Fla) decided to not “waste” money to restore what Saddam Hussein has taken away from some 300,000 people. Representative Young calls it an “improvement.” Restoring the marshes take more than just opening gates smashing dams, but it’s a damn good start. What the Marsh Arabs really need is that $100 million was for.

(Permalink | Iraq Links)

Monday, Bloody Monday

Oct 27, 2003

Photo: Reuters Today the newswires are crammed with reports of the bloodbath in Baghdad today (Reuters; NYT).

Iraq's police chief and deputy interior minister, Ahmad Ibrahim, said at a news conference that 34 people had been killed and 224 had been wounded in the attacks. He said 26 of the dead were civilians and 8 were police officers; 65 police officers and 159 civilians were wounded.

There's more on this form the ever-watchful Juan Cole:

I suspect that Sunni Arab nationalists are actually the most logical suspects, as they have been all along. The Coalition forces don't have a single proven al-Qaeda operative in custody in Iraq, but have lots of ex-Baathists. (It is also true that once you get away from organizations, there is not that much difference between a lot of Sunni Arab nationalists and Sunni Muslim activists. A lot of people could be mobilized into either one.
By the way, the car bombings of the police stations replicate the sort of attack launched in East Baghdad on October 9, which got blamed on the followers of Muqtada al-Sadr. I suggested at the time it might instead have been the work of Baathists (maybe seeking to provoke a US fight with Shiites). These attacks today make that suggestion even more plausible.

And from Phillip Carter's Intel Dump (by way of Kevin Drum)

It's far too early to know — in the absence of a communique' from these groups — who is responsible for both attacks. However, I think that both attacks represent a paradigm shift in the nature of the guerilla war we face in Iraq, as the Wall Street Journal alludes to in its report. These two attacks are markedly more sophisticated than the hit-and-run guerilla tactics used thus far. Here's how: - The attacks today were time-coordinated so that they would happen with near simultaneity. That's a significant tactical evolution because a) it's tough to do, and b) it means they're sophisticated enough to know that simultaneous attacks work because your enemy doesn't have time to raise his guard after the first attack. (Attacks in series rarely work because the first one always raises everyone's guard) - The attacks today employed suicide bombers, something not frequently seen in Iraq. Part of this owes to the lack of religious fervor on the part of the Iraqi insurgents — they simply don't believe in their cause the way that Palestinian insurgents do. But with the exception of some Fedayeen attacks during the war, we have not seen suicide bombings en masse in Iraq. That trend may be changing. - Today's attacks also were precisely targeted at "soft" symbolic targets of the continuing U.S. occupation. Rather than attack the CPA headquarters itself or other hard targets, they chose to attack the softer Red Cross and Iraqi police stations. These sites have a lot of symbolic value, because of the role that each organization plays in post-war Iraq. I think this is a pretty sophisticated targeting decision. The trend is clear: We are seeing the outbreak of a truly 4th Generation War in Iraq, which pits American-led forces against a loose-knit network of guerillas with increasingly sophisticated tactics, techniques and procedures.

And the White House response? These attacks demonstrate that the terrorists are getting desperate.

ADDENDA: The Druze zaym in Lebanon, Walid Jumblatt, has declared he wishes Paul Wolfowitz had been killed in the missile attack Sunday (Reuters).

Druze leader Walid Jumblatt described Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz as a "virus" who needed to be destroyed, a day after the American emerged unscathed from a guerrilla rocket attack on the fortified Baghdad hotel where he was staying.
The U.S. embassy described Jumblatt's remarks as "outrageous."

They'd better learn to get used to it.

(Permalink | Iraq Links)

Elections in Iraq

January 21, 2005

The elections in Iraq have been held, with no big surprises yet: Shi'a neighborhoods had a broad turnout, while Sunni communities shunned the polls (AP, AFP) Sixteen Iraqis were killed by attacks, including a mortar attack and four suicide bombings. Saturday night two Americans were killed in a mortar attack on the US embassy, and as everyone knows, Thursday was the deadliest day for Americans in Iraq (mostly due to the crash of a CH-53 transport helicopter in Western Iraq—AP). Christopher Allbritten (Back to Iraq 2.0) has a tally of nine suicide bombings; al-Jazeera estimates 24 Iraqis killed. Juan Cole (Informed Comment) has also been posting on the probably outcomes of the vote. Evidently Sunni turnout will be extremely low, perhaps less than 9%. For this reason, the government will be almost exclusively Shi'a and Kurdish, leading to a high risk of the Sunni Arabs rejecting the future government en bloc.

I've been somewhat disappointed with coverage of the elections. However, here, Juan Cole lists some very good stories that outline the problems with the polling: "Army Plans To Keep Iraq Troop Level Through '06" (WP), which supports longstanding fears that Iraq is indeed becoming a permanent quagmire. Prof. Cole, stunned by the announcement, wonders if the Pentagon wants to present the new parliament with a fait accompli. It seems to me, though, that the figleaf of Iraqi sovereignty has worn to something quite translucent.

The White House already knows the elections are a failure. The new government is not going to survive a protracted Sunni challenge to its legitimacy, certainly not without a massive commitment of US troops.

UPDATE: I just noticed this article in Global Guerrillas. John Robb believes the guerrilla movement has become much more efficient at undermining the Iraqi economic underpinnings.

(Permalink | Iraq Links)