An injured Iraqi is treated after a stone-throwing mob -- blaming the United States for the deadly explosions -- attacked U.S. forces outside Camp Bonzai in Baghdad. (John Moore/AP)
"It is you Americans you have done this!" said a man in the yard outside a Baghdad hospital, moments after he had found his brother lying dead inside. Doubled over in grief with his fists balled in rage, he lurched at three U.S. military police standing nearby as his friends held him back. Other Iraqis lashed out at U.S. journalists and smashed photographers' cameras. "Why have you Americans done this to us?" shrieked a woman draped from head to toe in black as she followed a reporter down the street near Baghdad's Kadhimiya shrine, where at least 58 people were killed.As one of my military sources told me this morning, "it's a bad time to be in Iraq."
Indeed. And it's likely to get worse, despite officials' call for calm and a three-day mourning period. Yesterday's attacks, Iraq's deadliest day since last May, were sophisticated and brutally effective. Three suicide bombers penetrated two security perimeters in Kadhimiya in Baghdad near the Shi'ite shrine. A fourth was arrested before his suicide belt went off. At almost the exact same time, attackers used suicide bombers and mortar attacks on the shrine in Karbala, killing at least 85 people. But it could have been even worse. In Basra, British troops arrested two women suicide bombers, who were apparently on their way to blow themselves up among tens of thousands of Shi'ite worshippers. A car bomb also was found outside Seyed Ali al-Musawi Mosque. A 22-pound TNT bomb was found on a road near Kirkuk where Shi'ites planned to march.
This was a direct assault on Shi'ite Islam's holiest holidays, Yom Ashura, which the Shi'ites venerate as the day that the Prophet's grandson, Husayn ibn Ali, was killed in the Battle of Karbala in 680. Shi'ites revere Ali as the Third Imam and the rightful successor to Muhammad. Attacking Shi'ites and their holy shrines on this day is a direct attack on Shi'a Islam itself.
These attacks will encourage the local militias to keep their weapons and Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, the most powerful openly politically active Shi'ite in Iraq, has said his Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) will not disarm and should have been allowed to provide for security. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, whose words carry enormous weight with Iraq's Shi'ites, blamed the Americans for lax security.
“We call on all dear Iraqi sons to be more vigilant against the schemes of the enemy, and ask them to work hard to unite and have one voice to speed up regaining the injured country’s sovereignty and independence and stability,” Sistani said in a statement. “We put responsibility on the occupation forces for the noticeable procrastination in controlling the borders of Iraq and preventing infiltrators, and not strengthening Iraqi national forces and supplying them with the necessary equipment to do their jobs.”
He's right. While nearly 10,000 members of the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps, 67,000 Iraqi Police and about 9,000 border guards are on the job, that's not nearly enough. And their rushed training, in an effort to boost numbers, has produced poorly armed, if well-meaning rent-a-cops. These guys don't have the equipment or the training to deal with suicide bombers, and 105,000 American G.I.s along with 20,000 British and other troops won't be enough to provide the security that Iraqis crave.
The most likely mastermind suspect for the attacks is, of course, Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi. A Jordanian Sunni who may or may not have ties to al Qaeda via Ansar al-Islam, he is widely regarded as the author of a letter captured last month detailing plans for increased attacks against Iraqis in the hopes of sparking a sectarian war. Astonishingly, the U.S. appeared to have had several opportunities to attack Zarqawi and destroy his operations in Iraqi Kurdistan but didn't do it.
"People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.
Bush's Ahab-like quest to invade Iraq has been proven time and again to be a failure of monumental proportions with the real victims the Iraqi people. And they know this. They grow angrier toward the United States with every attack. Not helping the matter, Vice President Dick Cheney again brushed off yesterday's attacks as a sign of "desperation."
"What it is more than anything else is major desperation on [the insurgents'] part, as we get closer and closer to standing up a new government in Iraq," Cheney told MSNBC yesterday. He also pointed to a "fairly significant decline in American casualties in the last couple of months."
I'm sure the Iraqis are pleased the number of American deaths has declined. (More or less true; February saw 20 American deaths instead of January's 47.) But here's something to ponder. Since Sept. 11, 2001, al Qaeda and its possible affiliates such as Ansar have killed almost 1,200 people, according to an NBC News analysis.
Iraqis are the single largest nationality killed in terrorist attacks. Before yesterday's attacks, 593 Iraqis have died since August 2003 in more than 40 attacks. If al Qaeda or Ansar al-Islam is shown to be behind the Baghdad and Karbala attacks, at least 738 Iraqis will have been killed, well over half of the worldwide total al Qaeda death toll.
The number of Americans killed by al Qaeda since the World Trade Center attacks? 25.
I continue to shake my head wondering why can’t our government get it right? If they’re going to stick their noses into other’s business, at least have the decency to do a proper job. I’m embarrased…not to mention ashamed.
but what are the us soldiers doing now in baghdad? are they being redeployed, reenforced, relocated? what precautions are now being taken for them and the securities of those in baghdad?
Oh, this is the US government’s fault? There are faults, bad decisions, questions of ultimate legality, but finding fault – or self-blame - gets us nowhere. The situation is as it is and the questions should be, what more can be done and what will happen next? Most likely nothing will go according to plan. A state of semi-war will be our staple, it will be our routine and even with Iraq out of the way, Israel and Palestine will fester on with no foreseeable solution.
It is a sad state of affairs but I draw hope from the following quote from the last paragraph of William Dalrymples’s book White Mughals:
‘East and west are not irreconcilable, and never have been. Only bigotry, prejudice, racism and fear drive then apart. But they have met and mingled in the past; and they will do so again.’
The book draws its proof from the love affair between an English official in Hyderabad India and a muslim Mughal princess during the late 18th century. Incidentally the period was notable for the fact that there were few divisions – great mingling - between races, unlike the case later during Victorian times.
thanks chris this is really exciting and infomative, however I’m still slightly confused as to what a iraq civil war would entail (other than random civilian homocides), and other than a means to an end in itself, achieve.
where would funding and militarty organisation come from? what would the objectives/goals of such a conflict be and how would this affect/influence the iraq government to be.
if this situation errupted would the us, au, uk and pl forces then be required to leave? or would it simply be a loose-ended security of the us led war there.
i’m not an ignoramus (or maybe I am ;-) but these issues are largley left untouched by main stream media - i’m interested in b2i subscriber/reader speculation also.
I can only hope that this was a poor choice of syntax, and not an admission of our goal in Iraq: “What it is more than anything else is major desperation on [the insurgents’] part, as we get closer and closer to standing up a new government in Iraq,” Cheney told MSNBC yesterday.
At least he said “standing” in lieu of “propping”. It’s slightly less blatant.
How many Iraqi’s would have died in this same time period had Sadam still been in power? Thousands of children were rotting in jails set up by Sadam.
Politically, America is now between a rock and a hard place; but what we are doing for Iraq in the long run is helping to give them a better future — if they want it.
The horrors and destruction in Iraq continues and the immoral justifications for this war is heralded by Americans who cannot distinguish between right and wrong. Saddam Hussein was not Iraq and neither was Iraq Saddam Hussein. Iraq in its entire history as a nation was never a threat to the powerful United States, to believe so is beyond absurdity. America has decided as the polls attest that it has the right to invade other nations in the name of security and subject other people to a hatred built into its psyche after decades of myths spread in popular culture that left Arabs and Muslims with no redeeming value and thus a perfect target for butchering. Yes, there are evil Arabs and people who profess to be Muslims who are equally evil, but why do the rest have to suffer? America needs to look into her soul.
Hey…bit off topic. Noticed that you use John Moore’s AP image from March 2, 2003 on your site.
“An injured Iraqi is treated after a stone-throwing mob — blaming the United States for the deadly explosions — attacked U.S. forces outside Camp Bonzai in Baghdad. (John Moore/AP)”
Do you subscribe to the Associated Press for the use of their images? Or are the images on this sight pulled from other sights?
Just wondering if you had any copyright concerns regarding using photos on your site.
I read the article “Iraq deaths and future troubles” and one sentence says the U.S. had opportunities to take out Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists prior to the invasion of Iraq. A friend of mine said Bush had the opportunity but did not take it because the plans involved nuclear weapon strikes. Is there any truth to this, or has anyone heard the same thing?
I read the article “Iraq deaths and future troubles” and one sentence says the U.S. had opportunities to take out Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists prior to the invasion of Iraq. A friend of mine said Bush had the opportunity but did not take it because the plans involved nuclear weapon strikes. Is there any truth to this, or has anyone heard the same thing?
I read the article “Iraq deaths and future troubles” and one sentence says the U.S. had opportunities to take out Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists prior to the invasion of Iraq. A friend of mine said Bush had the opportunity but did not take it because the plans involved nuclear weapon strikes. Is there any truth to this, or has anyone heard the same thing?
I read the article “Iraq deaths and future troubles” and one sentence says the U.S. had opportunities to take out Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists prior to the invasion of Iraq. A friend of mine said Bush had the opportunity but did not take it because the plans involved nuclear weapon strikes. Is there any truth to this, or has anyone heard the same thing?