The blood of the Shi’ites is boiling”

Here’s the lat­est I filed from Lebanon. “A much shorter version”:http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-10/116556152129650.xml&coll=1 appeared in the _Newark Star-Ledger_, but here’s the full account:

BEIRUT — Lebanon’s cap­i­tal is once again a tin­der­box, ready to blow because of polit­i­cal rival­ries exac­er­bated by sec­tar­ian ten­sions. Increas­ingly, the polit­i­cal dis­putes — which are osten­si­bly over inter­na­tional tri­bunals, pres­i­den­tial terms and the legit­i­macy of a gov­ern­ment — have grown into reli­gious dis­putes, mir­ror­ing the sec­tar­ian ten­sions between Sun­nis and Shi’ites across the region.
Which leader one sup­port­ers is often deter­mined by one’s faith. Shi’ites sup­port the Syrian-backed Hezbol­lah and its leader, Has­san Nas­ral­lah, who has called for the over­throw of the cur­rent gov­ern­ment as being too close to the United States and cut­ting Shi’ites out of power for too long. Sun­nis, how­ever, sup­port the cur­rent gov­ern­ment because it is lead by Prime Min­is­ter Fuad Sin­iora, who is a mem­ber of the Future Move­ment, a polit­i­cal party headed Saad Hariri, the son of the mur­dered ex-premier Rafik, who was killed in 2005.
“The polit­i­cal issues are sec­tar­ian,” explained Tariq Tar­qawi, 20, who is, in order, a Pales­tin­ian, a Sunni and a car elec­tri­cian. He lives in Ard Jal­loul, a mainly Sunni neigh­bor­hood that abuts the mainly Shi’ite sub­urbs of Beirut. “They love Nas­ral­lah, we love Hariri.“
It’s a polit­i­cal cri­sis that has come to a head in the past week, with hun­dreds of thou­sands of pro-Syrian sup­port­ers fill­ing down­town Beirut and street clashes between Sunni and Shi’ite youths from rival neigh­bor­hoods. Nas­ral­lah says his peo­ple will con­tinue to demon­strate and par­a­lyze cen­tral Beirut until the gov­ern­ment resigns. Sin­iora says he’s stay­ing. Where this ends up is anyone’s guess, but it’s already turned deadly.
Ali Ahmad Mah­moud, a 20-year-old Shi’ite from the neigh­bor­hood, was killed Sun­day night in fight­ing between Shi’ites and Sun­nis in Ard Jal­loul. Details are murky, but res­i­dents say Shi’ite pro­test­ers appar­ently entered the neigh­bor­hood spoil­ing for a fight.
“If we hadn’t fought them, they would have come in here and bro­ken every­thing,” said Khalid Hashem, 20, a Sunni from the neigh­bor­hood. He was, he added, a friend of Mah­moud. “The Shi’ites are known for this.“
Accord­ing to oth­ers, the intrud­ers chanted slo­gans and insulted Sunni reli­gious fig­ures.
“We could not bear it any­more,” said one woman in a phar­macy whose hus­band would not allow her name to be used. “I did not like Hariri and I had noth­ing against the Shi’ites, but now things are chang­ing. This is not a polit­i­cal demon­stra­tion any­more.“
Both Shi’ite and Sunni par­ti­sans blame the other side for the shoot­ing, but the ques­tion remains: Who killed Ali Ahmad Mah­moud?
The sit­u­a­tion is so knife-edge bal­anced that the head of Lebanese army warned that his forces were being strained to the break­ing point as they tried to cope with the secu­rity down­town and main­tain calm through the tenser neigh­bor­hoods of the city. If the protests con­tin­ued, or worse, turned more vio­lent, the army would be unable to cope, he said.
On Mon­day, Mahmoud’s body was taken down to the demon­stra­tion sur­round­ing the Grand Serail, the old Ottoman fortress that serves as the prime minister’s office and now, the sleep­ing quar­ters for a sig­nif­i­cant por­tion of Siniora’s cab­i­net.
The sight of Mahmoud’s cof­fin brought a fresh surge of fury at the gov­ern­ment and pro­tes­tors crowded around the ambu­lance car­ry­ing it. Many car­ried signs pro­claim­ing Mah­moud a mar­tyr. “Mar­tyred at the hands of the government’s mili­tias,” read one.
Almost gone were the ini­tial polit­i­cal con­sid­er­a­tions that had brought the hun­dreds of thou­sands into down­town Beirut: the inter­na­tional tri­bunal, pres­i­den­tial terms and Shi’ite rep­re­sen­ta­tion. Mon­day was a day of mourn­ing and pas­sion.
“The blood of the Shi’ites is boil­ing,” chanted the pro­tes­tors. “Death to Sin­iora.“
Down­town Beirut is a tent city, with the can­vas con­struc­tions lined up below the Grand Serail, like many a besieg­ing army has done over the cen­turies in this part of the world. At any hour, chant­ing pro­tes­tors crowd up against coils of con­certina wire while Lebanese Army and Hezbol­lah dis­ci­pline men keep them rel­a­tively at bay.
For Iman Fakhiya, 29, from the Shi’ite town of Taibe in the south, this protest is sim­ply a mat­ter of fair­ness for the Shi’ites, who have tra­di­tion­ally been the under­dogs in Lebanon.
Hezbol­lah gained sup­port in the south because the gov­ern­ment in Beirut rarely pro­vided ser­vices to the rural and impov­er­ished South and Bekaa Val­ley, the home­lands for the country’s Shi’ites. And over 23 years, since its for­ma­tion in 1982, it has soft­ened its Islamic rhetoric, and now pro­vides for Shi’ites when the gov­ern­ment doesn’t, such as schools and hos­pi­tals, and defends them when the elite of Lebanon won’t. Even today, on online forums revolv­ing around events in Beirut, sup­port­ers of the gov­ern­ment often talk of the Shi’ites down­town as “scum” and dirty out­siders.
“I think my par­ents’ gen­er­a­tion accepted this but we won’t,” she said. “They want to keep us down. We just want our rights. Why is the pres­i­dency for the Chris­tians and the prime min­is­ter­ship for the Sun­nis?“
For her, it is only a mat­ter of time, lit­er­ally. She would stay for as long as it takes, she said, no mat­ter how uncom­fort­able she was.
“It doesn’t mat­ter,” she said as she pulled the blan­ket tighter. “We’ve been hurt­ing for a long time. We are used to it.”

Also, I’ll be trav­el­ing for the next few weeks, so post­ings will be infre­quent. I hope things don’t get out of con­trol here.
IMPORTANT CHANGE: Com­ments have been changed to allow authen­ti­cated com­menters only. This means you will have to sign up for a “TypeKey”:https://www.typekey.com/t/typekey/register?lang=en-us account to com­ment. This will cut down on spam and drive-by com­menters. Sorry for the incon­ve­nience, but it’s a nec­es­sary evil these days.

Misimpressions about Lebanon

BEIRUT — Well, the oafs at Lit­tle Green Foot­balls are at it again. Of course, they never stopped. But it gives me a chance to point out the sheer wrong­ness of their world­view and clear up some wrong ideas about Lebanon. At the end of the day, we all learn some­thing, right?

Any­way, LGF is warn­ing that Lebanon is hang­ing in the bal­ance with Hezbollah’s com­ing putsch against the American-friendly Sin­iora gov­ern­ment. Now, like a bro­ken clock, even blovi­at­ing idiots can be right now and then assum­ing they talk enough, but the LGF’s com­menters of course blow it:

There should be some way to get Lebanese Chris­tians out of there before it’s too late.

I have a cou­ple of frends, Lebanese Chris­tians, that still have fam­ily there. I hope they get out before it’s too late.

The Chris­t­ian city dwellers will rue the day they let these sav­ages immi­grate. (not sure what this means… — CA)

The Chris­tians in Beirut have been whistling past the graveyard.

Chris­tians are being heav­ily per­se­cuted in most of the mus­lim coun­tries, with the worst in the ME. Per​se​cu​tion​.com has lots of infor­ma­tion about it.

Lebanon

In 1968 70% Christian.

In 2006 45% Christian.

The gain was almost all for the mus­lims; the pales­tin­ian tsunami.

Such com­ments always inspire in me a Lou Reed-size world-weary sigh. Yes, it’s all so sim­ple: evil Mus­lims, per­se­cuted Christians.

Except, it’s com­pletely wrong.

Hezbollah’s strongest ally in its push to top­ple the gov­ern­ment is … Chris­t­ian. It’s the Free Patri­otic Move­ment headed by Maronite politi­cian Michel Aoun, a man who’s so obsessed with being Pres­i­dent that he will ally with the peo­ple who work for his old enemy: Syria.

And the Free Patri­otic Move­ment is sup­ported by — by some esti­mates — up to 70 per­cent of Lebanon’s Chris­tians. The rest fall mainly into Samir Geagea’s camp, the Lebanese Forces, a party/militia that owes traces it its pede­gree to the Hitler Youth of the 1930s. (No won­der the LGF ogres like it.)

This cur­rent polit­i­cal fight here has very lit­tle to do with Chris­t­ian vs. Mus­lims. Instead, it’s a fight between a pro-Syrian bloc (Hezbol­lah, Amal, FPM and a few smaller par­ties) and an anti-Syrian bloc (Future Move­ment, Lebanese Forces and Pro­gres­sive Social­ist Party). And this split in the Lebanese polit­i­cal soci­ety mir­rors the greater strug­gle for the Mid­dle East: the con­test for influ­ence between the United States and the Islamic Repub­lic of Iran.

There’s lot more to say about this — I’ve writ­ten about it before “here”:http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/02/INGIJJM87B1.DTL&hw=allbritton&sn=001&sc=1000 and “here”:http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/2006/11/lebanon_hurtles_toward_crisis.php — but I’m on dead­line. More later, if possible.

Oh, and com­ments are still fubar’ed. Still try­ing to fix that.

Lebanon hurtles toward crisis

A story I filed for the _Singapore Strait Times_:

BEIRUT — Lebanon found itself hurtling fur­ther toward polit­i­cal cri­sis today, brought on by a head-on col­li­sion between pro– and anti-Syrian blocs over what appeared to be dis­putes con­cern­ing power-sharing in the gov­ern­ment and the approval of an inter­na­tional tri­bunal to try sus­pects in the mur­der of for­mer prime min­is­ter Rafik Hariri.
The ten­sions boiled over when five Shi’ite and one Chris­t­ian cab­i­net min­is­ters resigned from Prime Min­is­ter Fuad Siniora’s gov­ern­ment yes­ter­day and today after a new round of national rec­on­cil­i­a­tion talks broke down last week. The Shi’ites, rep­re­sented mainly by the mil­i­tant group Hezbol­lah, are demand­ing a “national unity” gov­ern­ment with one-third of the seats in Siniora’s cab­i­net for them­selves and their pro-Syrian polit­i­cal allies, a dis­tri­b­u­tion of power that would give them veto power over any deci­sions the gov­ern­ment makes.
And one of the deci­sions con­cerns the approval of an inter­na­tional tri­bunal to try sus­pects in the mur­der of Hariri, who was killed along with 22 other peo­ple on Feb. 14, 2005, in a mas­sive car bomb in cen­tral Beirut. Siniora’s cab­i­net approved the tri­bunal Mon­day after a three-hour meet­ing down­town, despite the absence of the six pro-Syrian min­is­ters.
“Our aim is to achieve jus­tice and only jus­tice,” Sin­iora said after the meet­ing. The draft doc­u­ment now goes to the Secu­rity Coun­cil for endorse­ment.
But whether Lebanon’s prime min­is­ter can achieve any­thing with Hezbol­lah and its allies arrayed against him is ques­tion­able. Were Hezbol­lah and its allies to gain the veto power they want, the could scut­tle the inter­na­tional tri­bunal.
“We have been wait­ing for the court to take shape and to reach this day,” said Tourism Min­is­ter and Sin­iora ally Joe Sarkis. “If the inten­tions of all were pure, every­one should have par­tic­i­pated in uncov­er­ing the truth about who killed Rafik Hariri. … We should have all been united over this and they could have resigned tomor­row.“
Under Lebanon’s com­pli­cated rules of gov­er­nance, if one-third of the cab­i­net resigns, the gov­ern­ment col­lapses and a new must be formed. The remain­ing 18 min­is­ters seem loyal to Sin­iora, how­ever, and seem unlikely to resign.
That hasn’t stopped some oppo­si­tion fig­ures from from ques­tion­ing Siniora’s legit­i­macy. Pres­i­dent Emile Lahoud, a Maronite Chris­t­ian and Syr­ian ally, said Sun­day that Siniora’s gov­ern­ment was no longer legit­i­mate because the Lebanese con­sti­tu­tion requires that “all sects should be justly rep­re­sented in the Cab­i­net.” He fur­ther claimed that with the Shi’ite walk­out, all deci­sions of the cab­i­net were “null and void.“
Sin­iora says his gov­ern­ment has all the legit­i­macy it needs but with­out Hezbollah’s back­ing in Par­lia­ment, he will find it dif­fi­cult to get any leg­is­la­tion passed, espe­cially the inter­na­tional tri­bunal. After its endorse­ment by the Secu­rity Coun­cil, it is handed back to the cab­i­net for final approval, signed by the pres­i­dent and passed by par­lia­ment.
The Shi’ite mili­tia has threat­ened mas­sive street protests unless the cab­i­net is reshuf­fled more to its lik­ing, a polit­i­cal switch-up that the group says reflects its real sup­port among the Lebanese in the wake of this summer’s 34-day between Hezbol­lah and Israel, brought on by the group’s cap­ture of two Israeli sol­diers on July 12. It was a war that ended in what could best be called a stale­mate, but which Hezbol­lah sup­port­ers hailed as a “divine vic­tory.” Hezbollah’s ene­mies in the gov­ern­ment, how­ever, saw the war as a reck­less adven­ture into which the group dragged Lebanon against its will.
The Shi’ite group was embold­ened how­ever, and with what the United States says is back­ing from Iran and Syria, has made a polit­i­cal putsch against the cur­rent, pro-Western Sin­iora gov­ern­ment. There are many in Lebanon who feel that the inter­na­tional tri­bunal will impli­cate senior mem­bers of the Syr­ian regime, which relies on Hezbol­lah to guard its inter­ests in Lebanon and to serve as a van­guard against Israel.
How­ever, the fright­ful Israeli mil­i­tary response likely left Hezbol­lah more dam­aged than it’s will­ing to let on, and its ene­mies smelled blood in the water. This wasn’t some­thing Hezbol­lah could allow.
“Hezbol­lah is more con­cerned, more weak­ened,” said Reinoud Leen­ders, a for­mer ana­lyst for the Inter­na­tional Cri­sis Group in Beirut. The walk­out, the threats and the demands, he said, are intended to tie up the polit­i­cal process in Beirut and buy them time to rearm. “This ‘unity gov­ern­ment’ is clearly designed to par­a­lyze any decision-making process.“
Not so, coun­ters Nawar Sahili, a Hezbol­lah mem­ber of par­lia­ment but not a cab­i­net mem­ber. By walk­ing out, he says, they are fol­low­ing in the tra­di­tion of democ­racy in which oppo­si­tion par­ties don’t take part in gov­ern­ment.
“I don’t think this is very dan­ger­ous,” he said, but added that elec­tions aren’t sched­uled until 2009 and that’s too long to wait for the pro-Syrian bloc. “Why should we wait when we don’t have any power in the gov­ern­ment?” he asked.
He played down the pos­si­bil­i­ties of street protests, which have been effec­tive weapons for Hezbol­lah in the past. “Maybe it will come later,” he said.
But with these lat­est devel­op­ments, Lebanon has found itself back in an unwel­come role: as a bat­tle­field for regional and global pow­ers to play out their con­flicts. With Iran and Syria back­ing Hezbol­lah and its allies, and the U.S. and the West back­ing the Sin­iora gov­ern­ment, Lebanon’s polit­i­cal cri­sis is a another bat­tle in the new cold war shap­ing up between Iran and the United States for dom­i­nance in South­west Asia and its oil.

*Per­sonal obser­va­tions:*
The feel­ing here is one of ner­vous ten­sion among the Sun­nis and the anti-Syrian Chris­tians (mainly Samir Geagea’s Lebanese Forces) and con­fi­dence among the Shi’ites and their allies, includ­ing the Chris­t­ian Michel Aoun. (He really wants to be pres­i­dent and sees an alliance with Hezbol­lah as the way to get there.)
Ulti­mately, how­ever, this is a proxy bat­tle in the cur­rent tus­sle between the U.S.-Western alliance, which includes Europe, Israel and the United States, and an Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah-Hamas axis. This is an idea I’ve been pro­mot­ing for most of 2006. The idea was sparked by the May _contretemps_ between Hezbol­lah and Israel fol­low­ing the assas­si­na­tion of two Islamic Jihad mem­bers in Saida and a cou­ple of Katyushas got tossed at Israel in retal­i­a­tion. The Jew­ish state responded harshly, with air raids across the south, caus­ing Hezbol­lah to counter-strike.
I said at the time, “Iran’s activ­i­ties in Lebanon are part of its larger plans for the region. By work­ing through and with local Shi­ite com­mu­ni­ties, which are found in Bahrain, Iraq, east­ern Saudi Ara­bia and stretch­ing through Syria to Lebanon and Israel’s north­ern fron­tier, Tehran is well on its way to cre­at­ing a ‘Shi­ite Crescent’ — a regional axis that allows it to hold most of the cards in any con­fronta­tion with the United States or Israel. And nowhere else, with the pos­si­ble excep­tion of Iraq, is Iran so well posi­tioned as in Lebanon.“
The May con­fronta­tion set­tled down after a day. But obvi­ously ten­sions remained — until they finally boiled over July 12, when the Shi’ite mil­i­tant group cap­tured two Israeli sol­diers and sparked a 34-day war that killed more than 1,200 peo­ple and left up to 4,000 wounded. Lebanon was dev­as­tated by the Israeli air force, but Hezbol­lah emerged polit­i­cally stronger.
Since then, they’ve been flex­ing their mus­cles and try­ing to force their way into posi­tion in the cab­i­net that would give them the veto over any deci­sions — a recipe for gov­ern­men­tal grid­lock that would main­tain their free­dom to do what they please in the south with­out inter­fer­ence from the U.S.-backed Sin­iora government.

Iran supplying Zarqawi?

Omar over at Iraq the Model trans­lates an arti­cle from az-Zamman that claims Iran­ian Rev­o­lu­tion­ary Guards are sup­ply­ing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi with advanced weaponry, with Lebanese Hizbol­lah as the inter­me­di­ary.
Here’s what you should know about this: Zar­qawi _hates_ the Shi’a com­mu­nity, with the fiery pas­sion of the Sun’s core. When I was with TIME, we mon­i­tored al Qaeda in Iraq’s (AQI) pro­nounce­ments through the Web, mar­ket DVDs and audio tapes. If the stack of Zar­qawi ful­mi­na­tions against the Amer­i­cans and Jews were a foot high, for exam­ple, his tirades and ser­mons against the Shi’a were 10 times that. He hates ‘em, which is pretty much in tune with hard-core Wah­habi doc­trine.
On the other hand, he never said a word against Iran. Instead, it’s the Ba’athists who see the Per­sians as the bogey­man to the east. Thanks to an 8-year war with Iran, the Ba’athists are fight­ing an insur­gency against the Iraqi gov­ern­ment, which they con­sider an Iran­ian plot. Zarqawi’s aims are much big­ger than that, and focus more on the Amer­i­can pres­ence.
Now, one of my old sources — who I hear has since been picked up by the Iraqi Inte­rior min­istry, the poor guy — told me once that Iran _was_ sup­ply­ing Sunni insur­gents in Iraq in a bid to keep the Amer­i­cans bogged down to the tune of $100 mil­lion to $200 mil­lion a year. The Ira­ni­ans were act­ing through what the CIA would call “cut-out” groups and the Sunni insur­gents often didn’t know who their ulti­mate bankrollers were. My source was nei­ther insur­gent, nor Amer­i­can, nor tied to the Shi’ite par­ties. He moved between all the par­ties because of his appar­ent neu­tral­ity and his infor­ma­tion was always top-notch. He told me about the shaped charges of IEDs months before they started becom­ing main­stream knowl­edge.
Back to Zar­qawi. Thanks to Zarqawi’s vir­u­lent anti-Shi’ism, it is highly unlikely that he would deal with Lebanese Hizbol­lah, or that Hizbol­lah would want to deal with him any­way, unless they’re com­plete lap­dogs to Tehran. I don’t believe they are, despite such accu­sa­tions from right-wingers in Wash­ing­ton and Tel Aviv Israel.
So what are we are to make of all this?
# Prob­a­bly, the story is fun­da­men­tally true, in that Iran is send­ing advanced weaponry, includ­ing Strela-7 mis­siles and lots of Kalash­nikovs, to Sunni insur­gents. Some of these weapons will inevitably find their way to Zarqawi’s boys. Iran is also lend­ing sup­port to the Shi’ite mili­tias such as the Badr Orga­ni­za­tion and Muq­tada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army. A cer­tain amount of chaos next door ben­e­fits Tehran.
# Thanks to a net­work of mid­dle­men, it is unlikely the Sun­nis fight­ers know the ulti­mate source of the weapons, and if they do, they pos­si­bly don’t care. The Ba’athists, mainly, are fight­ing along­side Zar­qawi now because their ene­mies are more or less the same, but Ba’athist com­man­ders know that should they dis­lodge the Shi’ites from power — a highly unlikely event, in my opin­ion — Zar­qawi will turn his guns on them. They (mostly) coop­er­ate with AQI any­way, because he’s got the money.
# Iran is will­ing to fund guys to blow up Shi’ites if their larger aims — keep­ing Amer­ica off-balance and bogged down, and cement­ing their hold on Iraq’s gov­ern­ment — are met.
No. 3 is a con­tro­ver­sial claim, I know, and some peo­ple (*cough, cough* Juan Cole) refuse to enter­tain the idea that Iran would sac­ri­fice Iraqi Shi’ites for their plans.
That kind of think­ing works well in log­i­cal, alge­braic for­mu­la­tions of the issue, but it doesn’t work well with the hard, geopo­lit­i­cal facts on the ground in Iran and Iraq. Iran was _quite_ will­ing to send 15-year-old Shi’ites to their deaths on the front-line with Iraq in that 1980 – 88 war because they’d be mar­tyrs, which has a long tra­di­tion in Shi’ism. Plus, they’re deal­ing with Iraqi _Arab_ Shi’ites. A lot of Iraqi Shi’ites died so that Iran wouldn’t break out of the Fao dur­ing the Iran-Iraq War, and it’s unlikely Tehran has for­got­ten that. Iraqi Shi’ites may share a faith, but they don’t always see eye to eye.
So, the mul­lahs in Tehran could regard the Shi’ite losses in Iraq as a) regret­table but accept­able losses and b) a con­ve­nient rea­son to expand their influ­ence next door, in much the same way that Turkey regards vio­lence against Turko­mans as a rea­son to keep their fin­gers in Kur­dish affairs. (“We must pro­tect our Shi’ite broth­ers!”)
Hard-nosed power pol­i­tics makes for strange bed­fel­lows indeed.

Neither a Good War, nor a Badr Peace

_NOTE: Here is “the story”:http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1175055,00.html I filed for TIME​.com over the week­end and which has been occu­py­ing much of my time here in Iraq these last few weeks. It will be my final Iraq story for a while, as I’m leav­ing in a mat­ter of days. After two months, it’s time to take a break._

The bod­ies began to show up early last week. On Mon­day, 34 corpses were found. In the dark­ness of Tues­day morn­ing, 15 more men, between the ages of 22 and 40 were found in the back of a pickup truck in the al-Khadra dis­trict of west­ern Bagh­dad. They had been hanged. By day­break, 40 more bod­ies were found around the city, most bear­ing signs of tor­ture before the men were killed execution-style. The most grue­some dis­cov­ery was an 18-by-24-foot mass grave in the Shi’ite slum of Kamaliyah in east Bagh­dad con­tain­ing the bod­ies of 29 men, clad only in their under­wear with their hands bound and their mouths cov­ered with tape. Local res­i­dents only found it because the ground was ooz­ing blood. In all, 87 bod­ies were found over two days in Bagh­dad.
The grisly dis­cov­ery was hor­ri­ble enough, the lat­est and per­haps most chill­ing sign that Iraq is descend­ing fur­ther into butch­ery — and quite pos­si­bly civil war. But almost as dis­turb­ing is the grow­ing evi­dence that the mas­sacres and oth­ers like it are being tol­er­ated and even abet­ted by Iraq’s Shi’ite-dominated police forces, over­seen by Iraq’s Inte­rior Min­is­ter, Bayan Jabr. On his watch, sec­tar­ian mili­tias have swelled the ranks of the police units and, Sun­nis charge, used their posi­tions to carry out revenge killings against Sun­nis. While allow­ing an Iranian-trained mili­tia to take over the min­istry, crit­ics say, Jabr has autho­rized the tar­geted assas­si­na­tion of Sunni men and stymied inves­ti­ga­tions into Interior-run death squads. Despite numer­ous attempts to con­tact them, nei­ther Jabr nor Inte­rior Min­istry spokes­men responded to requests for com­ment on this arti­cle.
Jabr’s and his forces’ grow­ing rep­u­ta­tion for bru­tal­ity comes at a par­tic­u­larly inop­por­tune moment for the Bush Admin­is­tra­tion, which would like to hand over secu­rity respon­si­bil­i­ties to those same police units as quickly as pos­si­ble. That has raised the dis­tinct and dis­turb­ing pos­si­bil­ity that the U.S. is in fact train­ing and arm­ing one side in a con­flict seem­ing to grow worse by the day. “Mili­tias are the infra­struc­ture of civil war,” U.S. ambas­sador Zal­may Khalilzad told TIME recently. Khalilzad has been pub­licly crit­i­cal of Jabr and warned that the new secu­rity min­istries under the next, per­ma­nent Iraqi gov­ern­ment should be run by com­pe­tent peo­ple who have no ties to mili­tias and who are “non-sectarian.” Fur­ther U.S. sup­port for train­ing the police and army, he said, depends on it.
But ever since Jabr was appointed Inte­rior Min­is­ter after the Jan­u­ary 2005 elec­tion brought a reli­gious Sh’ite coali­tion to power, Sun­nis allege, he began remak­ing the para­mil­i­tary National Police into Shi’ite shock troops. A mem­ber of the Iranian-backed Supreme Coun­cil for the Islamic Rev­o­lu­tion in Iraq (SCIRI), Jabr fled to Iran in the 1970s to avoid Saddam’s crack­down. Jerry Burke, a for­mer civil­ian senior police advi­sor to the Inte­rior Min­istry, said Jabr’s expe­ri­ence with Saddam’s gov­ern­ment has left him bit­ter and dis­trust­ful of any­one he sus­pects has ties to the pre­vi­ous regime. That would most cer­tainly include the for­mer mem­bers of Sad­dam Hussein’s Spe­cial Forces and Repub­li­can Guards which ini­tially made up the bulk of the National Police when Jabr took charge.
To help facil­i­tate his trans­for­ma­tion of the police forces, Jabr made sure to enlist the help of SCIRI’s armed wing, the Badr Orga­ni­za­tion. Mem­bers of the mili­tia have been a grow­ing pres­ence in the National Police, which now con­sists of nine brigades, with about 17,500 mem­bers divided between the Spe­cial Police Com­man­dos, the Pub­lic Order brigades and a mech­a­nized brigade, which will soon be trans­ferred to the Min­istry of Defense. “Lead­er­ship in the com­mando posi­tions has been turned over to Badr,” said Matt Sher­man, a for­mer CPA advi­sor to the Inte­rior Min­istry. “And new recruits are mostly Badr.“
Indeed, out­side the min­istry head­quar­ters, ban­ners pro­claim­ing sol­i­dar­ity with Imam Hus­sein, one of Shi’ites’ holi­est fig­ures, snap in the spring breeze along­side — and some­times instead of — Iraqi flags. Most of the guards’ beards are invari­ably cut in the close-cropped Iran­ian style, mak­ing them stand out in Bagh­dad, where beards are less com­mon.
Like so many things in Iraq right now, it wasn’t sup­posed to be this way. As far back as Decem­ber 2003, David Gom­pert, the for­mer National Secu­rity Advi­sor for the Coali­tion Pro­vi­sional Author­ity, real­ized the dan­gers sec­tar­ian mili­tias posed to Iraq’s sta­bil­ity. And in the wan­ing days of the Coali­tion Pro­vi­sional Author­ity, Amer­i­can viceroy L. Paul “Jerry” Bre­mer issued Order 91, which was intended to demo­bi­lize or inte­grate nine mili­tias total­ing about 100,000 men into the Iraqi secu­rity forces. But the Kur­dish pesh merga and the armed wing of SCIRI, the Badr Orga­ni­za­tion, still exist today because the order was never com­pletely or com­pe­tently car­ried out.
For that, Gom­pert puts the blame squarely on the Iraqi gov­ern­ment, then under Iyad Allawi, as well as the Amer­i­can embassy. With the U.S. mil­i­tary engaged in sev­eral major oper­a­tions in 2004 and the gov­ern­ment tran­si­tion­ing from the CPA to a more tra­di­tional diplo­matic pres­ence with the arrival of U.S. ambas­sador John Negro­ponte at the end of June, Gom­pert says, nei­ther Allawi nor the U.S made the rein­te­gra­tion pro­gram a pri­or­ity. Job train­ing pro­grams run by Allawi’s Labor Min­istry were can­celled over per­sonal feuds and pen­sion pro­grams and other aspects of the pro­gram of DDR — “demil­i­ta­riza­tion, demo­bi­liza­tion and rein­te­gra­tion” — were bounced around from one com­mand to another.
Mak­ing mat­ters worse has been the fact that the police — unlike the Iraqi Army, which is still under U.S. com­mand and super­vi­sion — were prac­ti­cally ignored almost from the begin­ning of the occu­pa­tion, says Burke. And what super­vi­sion the National Police did get came from U.S. mil­i­tary intel­li­gence offi­cers, not civil­ian police advi­sors.
This grave over­sight, which stemmed from the military’s unfa­mil­iar­ity with civil­ian police meth­ods and its unwill­ing­ness to learn, has led to numer­ous abuses and lit­tle account­abil­ity. The U.S. State Depart­ment, “in a report released two weeks ago”:http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61689.htm, doc­u­mented numer­ous inci­dents in 2005, dat­ing back to early May when Jabr was first appointed Inte­rior Min­is­ter, where Sunni men were killed execution-style by Inte­rior Min­istry police or Shi’ite mili­tias. In each case, Jabr ordered an inves­ti­ga­tion, and in each case the inves­ti­ga­tion had yet to report any find­ings.
Thanks in part to the Inte­rior Minister’s “non­fea­sance,” said Burke, the for­mer Inte­rior Min­istry adviser, Jabr was at least indi­rectly respon­si­ble for the deaths of hun­dreds of military-age Sunni men whose bod­ies have turned up at the sewage plant in south­east Bagh­dad since late Decem­ber. Men in police uni­forms and vehi­cles rou­tinely travel through the city in day­light hours with bod­ies in the back of trucks for dis­posal at the sewage plant, he said. Pris­on­ers often dis­ap­pear, Burke said, because they’re picked up at night and no one has an accu­rate account of who is arrested and where they are taken. “The Spe­cial Police Com­man­dos,” he said, using their old name, “are most def­i­nitely out of con­trol.“
So black is the rep­u­ta­tion of the National Police, that after the Feb. 22 bomb­ing of the Askariya shrine in Samarra, many Sun­nis said the per­pe­tra­tors were Inte­rior Min­istry troops who were look­ing for a pre­text to start a civil war. Their fears were fur­ther fueled in the bloody two days after the attack, when Iraq became a sec­tar­ian slaugh­ter­house. Instead of pro­tect­ing cit­i­zens from each other, National Police units stood by as Shi’ite riot­ers — and rival mili­ti­a­men from Moq­tada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army — stormed Sunni mosques and swarmed over Sunni neigh­bor­hoods, accord­ing to numer­ous reports, includ­ing some con­firmed by U.S. Gen. George Casey, com­man­der of Amer­i­can forces in Iraq.
The Amer­i­can efforts to try and help stem the deadly sec­tar­i­an­ism will likely do lit­tle good — and in some respects may well exac­er­bate the prob­lem. Instead of increas­ing the num­ber of civil­ian advi­sors to Iraq’s local police forces, a spokes­woman for the Multi­na­tional Secu­rity Tran­si­tion Command-Iraq (MNSTC-I) said more U.S. mil­i­tary police and mil­i­tary per­son­nel will be assigned to train them. The Spe­cial Police Tran­si­tion Teams (SPTTs) are the model that will be fol­lowed. “The SPTTs have been very suc­cess­ful in their efforts,” the spokes­woman said. No change is planned for the over­sight pro­gram on the National Police.
Gom­pert notes, “I remem­ber say­ing, ‘If there is going to be a civil war, it’s going to be fought between Sunni insur­gents and Shi’ite mili­tias.” And as long as Jabr is run­ning the Inte­rior Min­istry and its police forces, there is lit­tle doubt which of the two in such a con­flict will have the law — and Amer­i­can train­ing — on its side.