This is not good. Insurgents shouting "Allahu Akbar" (God is Great) staged a daylight raid on a security compound and Iraqi police station today, killing at least 20 and freeing upwards of 70 prisoners. This was the second attack on the station in two days, with Army Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. Central Command and Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., 82nd Airborne Division commander, escaping injury in the previous attack.
The Iraqi police were apparently no match against today's attackers.
The brazen, bloody battle on the heels of the Abizaid attack raised questions about the preparedness of some Iraqi police and defense units to take on security duties as the U.S. administration wants. After the Thursday attack, Abizaid said of the Iraqi civil defense unit in Fallujah: ''Obviously they are not fully trained. They're not ready.''One Iraqi policeman not injured in the attack said he may leave the force if things don't get better. "We joined the police to provide security, but no one wants security, they (insurgents and criminals) want to chaos to continue.'' Police Lt. Col. Jalal Sabri complained that the Iraqi security forces still don't have adequate weapons or training. "We don't have any kind of heavy weapons, no effective weapons,'' just automatic rifles, he said. Today's attackers wore masks, carried hand grenades and used heavy machine guns, mortars and RPGs, according to NPR and the Associated Press. In general, it's been a bad week in Iraq. Six U.S. troops have died since Feb. 9, and eight were wounded in attacks, roadside bomb explosions and accidents. The USAID, the American aid agency, said in a confidential report that violence in general is on the upswing and that the country faces a real danger of "Balkanization." "High-intensity attacks involving mortars, hand-grenades and small-arms more than doubled from 316 in December to 642 in January; non-life threatening attacks including drive-by shootings and rock-throwing rose from 182 in December to 522 in January. The report also recorded a total of 11 attacks on coalition aircraft." The report said some of the civilian violence was ethnic, and noted that that several corpses, probably of ex-Ba'athists, were found in the south "with hands bound and bullet wounds to the head." On the one hand, the attack against Abizaid could be seen as a failure. They didn't kill him. But as Stratfor points out, the chance of success in such an attack was low anyway. Abizaid is well-protected by highly armed, well trained troops. But Stratfor also points out that the attack itself was a gutsy move. The attackers got off three RPGs and the Americans got lucky. And today's prison break, in broad daylight, should be seen for what it is: a major success for the insurgents. This is a real problem. Since September 2003, the Americans have stepped up the offensive against the insurgency by sending intelligence teams into the "Sunni Triangle" armed with cash to buy information. They captured Saddam Hussein in December. The guerillas were thought to have been scattered into smaller groups that weren't able to coordinate. From the USAID report, it seems the guerillas have intensified their efforts and reestablished their communication and coordination networks. In short, it now appears that the U.S. is at best holding steady against the insurgents and could very well be losing ground again 11 months after the start of the war. In a guerilla war, if you're not gaining ground, you're losing. Adding to the volatility, the United Nations said elections were unlikely before the planned June 30 transfer of sovereignty.
"It's not a question of delaying (the handover). It's finding a new timetable," Ahmad Fawzi told BBC radio. "Elections will take place when the country is ready and that will be after the handover of power." Fawzi, a spokesperson for UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, was speaking a day after Brahimi held talks with top Iraqi Shi'a cleric Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who has spearheaded calls for elections before the June 30 handover.Brahimi and Sistani are in a delicate dance, with everyone looking at the Americans to see if they have a handle on the situation. If attacks are increasing both in number, intensity and boldness then it's pretty obvious that the plans for the sovereignty transfer is in serious jeopardy. Looming over all the violence and uncertainty is the spectre of civil war, which was made all the more real by the horrific twin car bombings earlier this week which killed more than 100 Iraqis. And, as noted, the frustrations and tensions are spreading. In Kurdish Suleimaniya, thousands demonstrated for an independent Kurdistan that includes the three autonomous provinces and the disputed Kirkuk province. In an NPR story this morning (sorry, no link yet), one expert warned of a civil war that was "a combination of Lebanon and the Congo," which should send a chill down anyone's back. A massive civil war in the Middle East would mean Turkey, Iran, Syria and possibly Jordan and Saudi Arabia would be forced to intervene. The region is home to 64 percent of the world's proven crude oil reserves. A massive disruption of that supply would send the world economy into crisis that could spark other regional conflicts as countries scramble for reliable crude supplies. It would be better to delay the transfer and prepare for the earliest possible elections that are transparent and fair than rush a transition that could lead to a spiral of violence that could lead to a catastrophe.
A Solution to the Elections Impasse
February 15, 2004
By Sama Hadad and Yasser Alaskary
The lingering stalemate between the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority and Ayatullah Sistani on the issue of elections may have a simple solution that seems to have eluded many owing to the complex nature of the current agreement. The November 15th plan, agreed on by the coalition and the Iraqi Governing Council, would establish 18 selected provincial caucuses, which would in turn choose a transitional legislative assembly. The assembly would then appoint an executive, which subsequently approves a cabinet. Ayatullah Sistani has rejected this plan, insisting on elections to determine the transitional government.
The result of this disagreement has been fierce debates about the feasibility and desirability of holding elections to choose members of the national assembly. A simple solution to the dispute is to separate the currently intertwined processes of selecting the legislature and that of the executive. This would introduce the option of holding elections to choose the executive, whether it be a president or presidential council, and at the same time maintaining the caucus plan to appoint an assembly. Presidential elections do not carry many of the problems and obstacles posed by elections for members of an assembly.
A presidential election would be much simpler than holding general elections for the several hundred seats of parliament. It does not rely on a mature political party system, which Iraq lacks and is often an argument used against elections for the transitional assembly. Extremists or Ba’athists would not stand a chance of slipping through, a real possibility that exists under an assembly chosen by general elections. Moreover, elections for a president do not require as robust a voter registration as elections to choose the many seats of the assembly, as the former allows for a greater margin of error. Furthermore, Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, commander of coalition ground forces in Iraq, addressed concerns of security preventing free and fair elections stating “We will be able to provide for security that is necessary across the country.”
The complexity of the current plan, a fact that has undoubtedly contributed to the current opposition, makes any outcome impossible to predict. The fate of both the legislature and executive rests on this uncertainty. Iraqis calling for elections fear that too much relies on a process which, in their eyes, is vulnerable to being rigged. Sistani’s edicts have never specified that elections must be held to determine the national assembly, but rather the transitional government. A presidential election would allay fears and resolve Sistani’s misgivings.
The exact mechanism for electing the executive can be customized according to whether Iraq decides on a presidency council or a single president. For example, the current draft of the transitional constitution envisages a tripartite presidency council. Under presidential elections this can be formed by the three winning candidates, who between them would likely hold the support of the majority of Iraq.
Separating the two processes for selecting the legislative and an executive can break the current deadlock. The balance between an elected executive, which will give the transitional government the legitimacy Iraqis desire, and a selected legislative, which will aid for a smooth handover of sovereignty, can produce a stable transition for a blossoming democracy.
News Analysis brought to by the Iraqi Prospect Organization: http://www.iprospect.org.uk
Promoting democracy for Iraq.
Extremely interesting, ‘Iraq’ (altho a link would’ve been nice rather than the entire article, IMHO.)
Also interesting that anyone still wonders whether the US administration has “a handle” on the situation.
A massive civil war in the middle east might be the one and only thing which could nudge the US into a little real support for renewable energy sources. But at what cost!!
The Iraqi police are under trained and under armed, jez big suprise. ‘Insurgent’, give me a break, attacks are increasing and civil war is looming. But guess what. Now elections arent, strange that.
Doesnt anyone realise that the powers that be dont want peace in Iraq, they want insurgent attacks, the more the better, and a civil war would be great, as long as they can keep it away from the oil fields, because then they have a reason to stay indefinitely. They dont care how many lives it takes, American or otherwise.
The Iraqi people obviously cant look after themselves so we will have to stay and do it for them and to do it we will need bases, lots of bases, and oil, lots of oil, and of course money for our friends, lots of money.