The attack in Mosul yesterday was the single worst attack against U.S. military personnel in Iraq to date. U.S. military spokesmen in Baghdad say 19 American soldiers were killed and three other military personnel were killed. (Probably Iraqi military, as I don’t think there are too many other nationalities up there.) Other reports put the number of dead at 24 and include contractors and Iraqi civilians in the toll. Needless to say the situation is confusion and such discrepancies are normal in the “chaos following such events”:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17891-2004Dec21.html.
[UPDATE 1150 +0300 GMT: In a release dated today, the U.S. military says, “Of the 22 people killed, 14 were U.S. military personnel and the remainder four U.S. civilians and four Iraqi Security Forces. Of the 72 wounded, 51 were U.S. Military personnel and the remainder U.S., other country civilians and ISF. Twenty-nine people have been released from the hospital.“
“Other reports”:http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002127159_iraq22.html say 15 U.S. military dead and five civilian contractors. Two Iraqi soldiers were killed. The same report says the attack was a 122-mm rocket, although “some security experts said the extent of injuries indicated that it was possible a bomb had been planted inside the hall.”]
_The Washington Post_ “reports”:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17892-2004Dec21.html: “Before yesterday, the worst incidents were the deaths of 17 soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division in the November 2003 collision of two UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters, also in Mosul, and, two weeks before that, the loss of 15 soldiers when a CH-47 Chinook transport helicopter crashed west of Baghdad. All three occurred after President Bush’s May 2003 declaration that major combat operations in Iraq had ended.“
The insurgent group Ansar al-Sunna claimed responsibility. An offshoot of the Ansar al-Islam group, which operated mainly on the Iranian border near Halabja in the Kurdish areas before the war, Ansar al-Sunna is made up of Salafists and a few nationalists and former Ba’athists. It is friendly with the Wahhabi groups such as Abu Massoud al-Zarqawi’s Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and it has a significant Kurdish membership, reflecting its roots in the north.
I’m doubtful that it conducted a suicide operation, as Ansar al-Sunna has claimed on its Web site, although I suppose it’s possible. It’s more likely it was a mortar or a rocket that finally managed to hit something. U.S. bases are peppered everyday with incoming indirect fire, but they usually fall harmlessly. This time, however…
But a real question is why were these soldiers sitting down to lunch in a soft-roofed structure? They were in a tent with concrete walls while a hardened dining facility (DFAC) was being built nearby. The new DFAC was supposed to be ready by Thanksgiving, I’m hearing from my guys up there, but it wasn’t. Why not? Was there a screw-up? Was it just that some things take longer than expected in the military some times? Was it because of too many attacks that slowed down the construction? I don’t know, and I’ve not been able to get any answers, because the public affairs officer for Camp Marez turned his phone off last night or it was out of the coverage area.
Iraq is beginning to look more and more like Lebanon in the 1980s. Sectarian violence, a brewing civil war and now a large attack on U.S. forces. In 1983, “241 Marines were killed”:http://www.beirut-memorial.org/ in a suicide truck bombing that led to the pullout of U.S. forces from that beleaguered country.
In the same _Post_ article I referenced above, experts are worried that this attack may show either the ability to gather precise intelligence from _inside_ U.S. bases or mark an escalation of violence that could end in a storming or ground assault of a U.S. base.
As the article continues: “If anti-American violence does hit a new level, pressure is likely to increase on the Bush administration to either boost the U.S. military presence in Iraq or find a fast way to get out.“
Indeed. And neither option is a good one for the White House. With the war already “increasingly unpopular”:http://news.ft.com/cms/s/846d780a-5394-11d9-b6e4-00000e2511c8,dwp_uuid=c1a5b968-e1ed-11d7-81c6-0820abe49a01.html, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld even more so, what will the political fallout of this attack be? Especially if it turns out that the Camp Marez dining tent was the equivalent of a “hillbilly armor” humvee?
In all of this, please remember that although for the American public, the deaths of their countrymen and countrywomen obviously hit close to home, it is the Iraqi public that is really suffering. The twin attacks in Karbala and Najaf two days killed more than 70. and literally hundreds of Iraqis die every week month in violence. The security situation is dire and it’s likely to get worse as the elections approach. There will be many more grieving families in America and Iraq before this is all over.
Category Archives: Politics
Options in Fallujah and about those elections…
My friend George over at _Warblogging_ has a post today on the proposed ID system for Fallujans when they return to their shattered city. George is not amused.
In short, the plan — as reported in “various media”:http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/12/05/returning_fallujans_will_face_clampdown/ — will mean that
troops would funnel Fallujans to so-called citizen processing centers on the outskirts of the city to compile a database of their identities through DNA testing and retina scans. Residents would receive badges displaying their home addresses that they must wear at all times. Buses would ferry them into the city, where cars, the deadliest tool of suicide bombers, would be banned.
George, and others, compare this to the Warsaw Ghetto in World War II, along with all the Nazi imagery you can imagine.
I’m not so sure I buy this. While I think the solution proposed is distasteful and highly unlikely to improve Americans’ rock-bottom standing in Iraq, I fail to see any realistic alternative. The problem is this: Fallujah was a nerve center of an insurgency that has killed U.S. soldiers and thousands of innocent Iraqis. (It wasn’t the brain or the hub, but it was an important staging area.) How do you let the citizens back while keeping the insurgents out while keeping it a free and open city? Well, after some thought, I think that you just can’t let it be a free and open city.
Is this a violation of Fallujans’ rights? Or course. But does the good it _might_ do for the rest of the country outweigh the bad that is done in Fallujah? That’s the question. I’m not sure what the equation is, but allowing insurgents back into Fallujah is not really an option.
The real crime here is not the requirement for Fallujans to wear ID badges or even to make the men work at reconstruction. The real crime is that poor planning and wishful thinking regarding the future of 25 million people has narrowed the universe of available options to a series of iron-fisted tactics that range from horrible to truly catastrophic.
The straitjacket election schedule isn’t helping matters either. Again, all the options are bad. Holding elections on Jan. 30 means that the Sunnis — about 20 percent of the country — will be excluded from a process that will result in a permanent constitution. This is not a scenario that suggests stability, even if Sunni members of the new 275-seat national parliament are somehow appointed. If the elections aren’t seen as legitimate by the Sunnis, they won’t see the resulting Constitution as legitimate, either. Can you say continued insurgency?
But postponing the elections is a non-starter, too, because the Shi’a will be royally pissed off. Sistani and the rest of the _merjariya_, the Shi’a religious leadership, have been working on elections for months. Dawa, SCIRI and Bayt al-Shi’a have been organizing and getting their lists together. They are fully expecting to win the elections and take the majority of seats in Parliament and form a new government.
But the stability in the Shi’a areas is tenuous. There are signs the Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army may be moving into positions to cause trouble again. Any moves to postpone what the Shi’a regard as their rightful opportunity to finally assert their control over Iraq as the majority party could be the trigger that starts a new insurgency. And with the rumors that Shi’a militia have formed to exact revenge on Sunni militia, you have yet another seed for sectarian conflict. There are real reasons for concern.
(Aside: The newly formed Shi’a militia, it is said, has a wicked cool name: The Fury Brigade.)
Sistani was only reluctantly persuaded to drop the idea of direct elections in June this year after U.N. special representative Lakdar Brahimi convinced him it wasn’t possible. Could he be persuaded a second time? I don’t know. I have hope that he could be, as he’s not completely unreasonable and the prospect of an election day carnage with Shi’a as the bulk of the victims might be too much for him to take.
Brahimi has said the country is in no shape for elections and many Sunni groups are pleading for postponement. But Dr. Farid Ayar, the spokesman for the Independent Election Commission in Iraq, told me that elections would not be postponed for “any” reason. Well, he allowed, maybe if an earthquake destroyed every city in Iraq, “including this convention center,” then maybe they would delay the elections. Or if all the planes carrying the ballots crashed and burned, they might delay the vote for five days to print new ones.
That Farid sure is a jokester.
[UPDATE: One commenter said the U.S. should just pull out, which is the same position that “George holds”:http://www.warblogging.com/archives/000991.php. I disagree and the spectre of civil is “why.”:http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/000807.php#000807 (Read down a bit.) In short, civil war on top of a major source of the world’s oil supply would mean astronomical oil prices, possible collapse of the U.S. — and world — economy and regional conflict that could lead to Turkish and Iranian interventions. Does that sound fun? I didn’t think so. And that’s not even considering the human cost.]
For what it’s worth, I think the elections will be postponed a while — and I even have $5 riding on the decision — even though there’s no legal framework to postpone them. That may just be my still-intact naïveté that with an insecure situation that would see 20 percent or so of the country disenfranchised and the fears of a high body-count, the U.S. and its allies in Iraq won’t be so obstinate to force flawed elections down Iraqis’ throats. I’m fully prepared to be wrong and pay that $5. I just hope the Iraqis and the Americans are prepared to pay a much higher price.
So you see why I’m not up in arms over the plight of the poor Fallujans. The problems of Iraq are so huge that forced name badges in one town are just the symbols of a much greater problem — which is poor planning, sectarian tensions and unrealistic expectations from a country that may be ungovernable except under a dictatorship. Don’t diminish the horrors of the Nazis by such facile comparisons. The Holocaust was policy; the Tragedy of Iraq is a series of horrific blunders.
The Death of Arafat

*Palestinians in Lebanon grieved for Yasser Arafat Friday at a symbolic funeral.* (© 2004 Christopher Allbritton)
BEIRUT — Among the Palestinian refugees packed into the 13 camps scattered around Lebanon, the mood in the days before their leader’s death was one of anxious waiting. They were waiting for word of the death of _khatiab_ — “The Old Man” — as Yasser Arafat was affectionately known among his people.
In the tangled alleyways that thread between the poorly constructed concrete shelters of Sabraa and Shatila in south Beirut — the site of the September 1982 massacre of Palestinians by Christian Phalanges militia members allied with the Israeli Defense Force under the command of then-Defense Minister Ariel Sharon — children now play under memorials to the dead and the soon-to-be dead. Posters of Palestinian youths killed in the struggle against Israel, _shaheed_ (“martyrs”) to the refugees, adorn the walls made of carelessly stacked cinderblocks. They are almost as numerous as the posters of Arafat, all of which proclaim him the symbol of Palestine, a father to his people. He smiles down from buildings three stories high and intended to be temporary when this camp was established in 1948. He surveys the dirt tracks that turn to lakes of open sewage when it rains. He overlooks the stalls of the souk, selling everything from sweets to shoes, vegetables from the Bekaa Valley and children’s clothes. Tables groaning under coconuts, toys, jackets, radishes and potatoes serve as defensive positions for the ubiquitous children, all of who seem to be clutching toy pistols and Kalashnikovs, shooting at imaginary Israeli soldiers.
While Arafat lay on his deathbed in Paris, residents of Shatila expressed prayers for his recovery while admitting that the symbol of their struggle was soon to be gone. “We hope he gets better quickly,” said Mahmoud Zurouri, 38, who was born in Shatila. “After all, he is our president. But he wasn’t the first or the last person to die. We’ll be sorry, of course, to see him go, but the cause remains.“
“May God make him better,” prayed Hassan Mustafa, who said he fought with Arafat in Jordan and Lebanon in the 1970s. “He is a revolutionary. He is a great mind. An Israeli journalist once described him as the man who couldn’t be controlled. After Abu Ammar,” he continued, using Arafat’s _nom de guerre_, “there is no one person.“
But the next day, Arafat died, and the mood in Rashidiyah, outside of Tyre, was somber and quiet, with none of the wailing or gunfire seen in the Occupied Territories. Instead, quiet men filed into a reception hall festooned with green, black and white bunting and posters of Arafat in his youth. There, they worked their way down a reception line, shaking hands with the Fattah leadership in Lebanon, for Rashidiyah is a Fattah camp. Parliament members from Sidon, Nasserites and even members of the al-Qaf Islamic group came by to pay their respects.
Sultan Abu Aynayn, the head of Fattah in Lebanon, sat in his grief, and accepted handshake after handshake of well wishers.
“I can’t express my feelings at this moment,” he said. “Death is a right, but when it becomes a reality, you can’t believe God’s will has actually been carried out. The symbolism of Arafat for 40 years, no other Palestinian can take that symbolism.“
Arafat’s death hit the younger generation of Palestinians hard. “It is the worst day for the Palestinian people because we lost our president,” said Hisham Sharari, 20, a member of the Fattah Youth Movement.
“It was the biggest shock to us,” said his friend Ali Ramadan, also 20. “It was worse than the day of _nekbah_.” The _nekbah_, which means “catastrophe,” is the day Israel was founded.
Arafat’s death leaves a power vacuum in the region, with many looking to fill it. The existing Palestinian leadership, which includes the new PLO leader Mahmoud Abbas, wants to maintain stability, something neighboring governments want as well. Lebanon’s Karami government, a Syrian client, is taking a wait-and-see attitude to the post-Arafat era. “The Palestinians know very well they need a leadership that is able to make a dialogue with the United States,” said Elie Firzli, Lebanon’s new Minister of Information.
The new government has good reason to be guarded in its response: this tiny country suffered two Israeli invasions in the 1980s aimed at destroying Arafat and his PLO, all while it fought a civil war that many Lebanese say started because of Palestinian exacerbation of existing religious tensions. By the time the 15-year war ended in 1990, hundreds of thousands were dead and many more wounded. Lebanon was occupied by Syria and is still considered a vassal state to Damascus. Beirut, the “Paris of the Middle East” was ruined.
The Palestinians suffered their own horror in the Civil War. The Sabraa-Shatila massacre was one of the worst, in which a Phalangist militia, Christian allies of the Israelis, entered the refugee camps and slaughters hundreds of men, women and children while Israeli troops stood by and did nothing. Today, the crime is memorialized by an empty field in the Sabraa camp, with the words “So we shall never forget” over the gate.
It is the burden of such history that any new leadership of the Palestinians must labor under. It will be difficult for Fattah, Arafat’s group and a nucleus of the PLO, to find a new leader who can hold all the different parts of the Palestinian movement together.
“Arafat was able,” said Fathi Abu Ardat, a Fattah commander in Rashidiyah who fought with Arafat in Jordan and Lebanon, “to transform the refugees of the camps from a people who were suffering, people who were lost, just waiting for handouts into people with a national identity, a cause. He turned them into revolutionaries.“
*The Revolutionary*
One such revolutionary is Munir Muqdah, 44, who founded the Al-Aqsa Brigade after the start of the second _intifada_ in 2000. He had his quarrels with Arafat, mainly over money going to Fattah members in Ein al-Helweh, the densely packed camp outside of Sidon, instead of the Aqsa Brigades in the Occupied Territories. But now, he emphasizes the unity of the Palestinian people: “We can guarantee that all the Palestinian institutions and organization are working in close cooperation to find the alternative to Abu Ammar, and to further the Palestinian cause.“
Muqdah is a wanted man, however; he cannot leave the Ein al-Helweh camp because of several convictions for murder hanging over his head. He is the ideological leader and founder of the Al-Aqsa Brigades and has allegedly recruited an unknown number of young men to blow themselves up in suicide operations. He is adept at guerilla warfare and he is prepared to keep the cause alive — against whoever would betray it.
“These are principles that the _intifada_ and al-Aqsa unanimously adopted and that all factions agreed upon,” he said. “And there are red lines that nobody can cross.“
Those “red lines” are these: An independent state in Palestine and a return of the refugees to their homes. “This revolt will not be put down until every single last Palestinian refugee is able to return to his land and country,” Muqdah said. “That is the school of Yasser Arafat.“
Muqdah’s revolutionary statements are a warning sign to Abbas not to give ground on the right of return. Any sign of concession on the part of the new Palestinian leadership could trigger unrest in the refugee camps around the region, with men like Muqdah using their skills honed in the fight against the Israelis against the Palestinian leadership.
This is a very real concern, because there are about 350,000 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon alone — about 10 percent of the country’s population. They have no right to work nor are they allowed to become citizens. They subsist on foreign aid and what money they can make mainly as day laborers. The camps are dens of squalor and the situation is desperate. Any sense of betrayal by the new leadership has the potential to send refugees into the arms of others who say they will advance the cause. These seducers whisper, _if nationalism and pan-Arabism have failed you, Islam will not._
*The Islamists*
Arafat’s death is an opportunity for Islamic hardliners in Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other fundamentalist groups. Americans are warned by the Lebanese government not to enter Ein al-Helweh, Lebanon’s largest camp, because Islamic fundamentalists who follow the wahhabist sect of Islam are recruiting among the 90,000 refugees packed into six square kilometers. Groups affiliated with Osama bin Laden’s al-Qa’ida and Abu Massoud al-Zarqawi’s allied group in Iraq are said to be jockeying for influence against the more established Islamic groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad as well as Arafat’s nationalist and secular Fattah faction.
Abu Ardat warned that the vacuum of Arafat’s personality would leave an opening for other groups to try to gain influence. “He had his special methods to keep control,” he said obliquely. But he blamed any rise in Islamic fundamentalism on the failure of the peace process and the Israelis. “When you have a peace process and it stalemates, the more extreme forces become stronger,” he said.
These Islamist groups have two assets, said Soheil al-Natour, a central committee member of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine. They have a culture of vendetta and revenge, and they have a lot of money. If Mahmoud Abbas fails in the eyes of the refugees, the Islamists will be there waiting to exert their influence, said al-Natour. Camps such as Ein al-Helweh harbor the fundamentalists, he said, and that men like Muqdah work with them for operation inside Israel. If Palestinians feel their national cause is not being advanced by the new PLO leadership, they will turn to the Islamic cause to return them home. And men like Muqdah are ready to work with the Islamist groups.
“The Palestinian issue is an Islamic issue for all,” Muqdah told me and added that he has good relations with the wahabbist groups in Ein al-Helweh.
*A Question of Money*
Mohammad Salam, a news analyst in Beirut, who has reported on the Palestinians since 1970, warned that the Islamists are ready to buy the Palestinians’ loyalty.
It’s a question of money. As the head of the PLO, the president of the Palestinian National Authority and of Fattah, the dominant faction within the PLO, Arafat controlled a vast fortune that has been estimated in the billions and includes funds from foreign aid, Israeli tax transfers and revenues from companies controlled by the PLO. His personal net worth has been estimated at anywhere from $200 million to $1.3 billion. He supposedly had dozens of bank accounts around the world — in Switzerland, Malaysia, the Cayman Islands, just to name a few. He had both numbered accounts and in his own name. He allegedly held stakes in hotels, mobile phone companies and an airline.
This money went to buying friendships. Over the years, Arafat was able to pull funds from a variety of sources to pay off enemies and reward friends. He kept the fractious PLO together this way. And he paid the salaries of thousands of refugees who belonged to Fattah in the camps scattered around the region.
There is real worry that with the death of Arafat, Fattah’s finances will be tied up and the money won’t go out. Arafat for many Palestinians “is simply a job,” said Salam. “If Arafat ceases to exist, they would sign with whoever would sign the check.“
And those people include Islamists who base themselves in the lawless camps. Ein al-Helweh is home to the Al-Ansar League and the Ashan Soldiers, who subscribe to Osama bin Laden’s severe wahhabist interpretation of Islam. And these Islamists have money. Beirut is a popular summer spot for vacationing Gulf Arabs, and it’s not uncommon for them to arrive with a trunk of cash for disbursement to wahhabists in the camps, Salam said.
“They will start working for the Islamists, planting bombs,” said Salam. “It’s going to be bad. It’s _jihad_ for hire, just like in Iraq. And some Palestinian extremists try to go to Iraq to join the insurgency there.“
Salam said he knew of several Palestinians from Ein al-Helweh who tried to get into Iraq to commit suicide bombings, but were turned back and returned to the camp. The Palestinians are a powderkeg that has been kept under control because of Arafat’s patronage, Salam said.
Salam’s fears are echoed by the Lebanese government. Firzli, Lebanon’s Minister of Information, acknowledges that Arafat’s passing will leave a power vacuum that would be only partially filled by his successors — an opening Islamic groups would likely exploit. “The Islamic groups found him a real obstacle,” said Firzli. “When he’s not there, the job is much easier for them.“
Fundamentalists will initially support whoever succeeds Arafat, but on the bet that the successors will fail and lose support of the Palestinian masses, he said. “Then they will then be justified.“
“I think the Arab governments and George Bush will miss Arafat,” mused Salam. “Who will control the Palestinians after he’s gone? Islamists are stealing the Palestinians.”
Yasser Arafat dead at 75
Yasser Arafat died early this morning, leaving behind a mixed legacy and unrealized statehood for his people.
I’m not prepared to write a long post on this right now, but for the past week I’ve been working the Palestinian refugee angle here in Lebanon (home to about 340,000 refugees in camps dating back to 1948) for TIME Magazine. I’m off to some of the camps today for more reporting.
This work has been the cause of my silence, and also: Why interrupt the good conversation from “this previous post?”:http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/000835.php
Some More Thoughts From Abroad
This may be the year when we finally come face to face with ourselves; finally just lay back and say it — that we are really just a nation of 220 million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns, and no qualms at all about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable.Hunter S. Thompson Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail
November 1972
This is the view from overseas. I’m in Beirut now, and I’ve had a couple of people — Lebanese and British — tell me that the American people have validated the last three years, years which are seen as universally disastrous. Before, there was a distinction drawn between the American government and the American people. A few nights ago, one cabbie told me that he thinks American people are very nice, but the American government is “very bad.” Now, as one of my friends said, “The American people are the problem.”
This will translate into increased hostility against Americans, especially in the Middle East. (I’m in Beirut at the moment.) The American government is seen as hopelessly biased against Arabs and Palestinians, but now the American people are culpable as well. I long thought America’s European allies would welcome her back into the family of nations if Kerry won. Instead, they will hold the American people in even greater contempt than they already do.
After 9/11 I was damned scared of the future. Now I’m even more anxious about what lies before the world.
PS: The original “Thoughts from Abroad” was a rant against why didn’t certain groups of voters show up to vote. It was inaccurate and mean, so I won’t be posting it.
*PPS:* To elaborate, in the deleted post, I took young and minority voters to task for not showing up. I took it down almost immediately, because I wrote it in the heat of the moment. Good thing, as it turns out it was inaccurate. The young people _did_ show up, but they were swamped by evangelicals. Bush raised his points among minorities, however, by 2 points, over his showing in 2000, which I don’t get. Anyway, I took the post down, but I had already emailed out an update, which I couldn’t take back. That was what many people saw. My apologies for pissing people off who worked hard. That was not my intention.