[Peace-discuss] Situation in Iraq

[C. G. Estabrook]

   Samarra bombing: Lax measures or plotting?
   By Laith Saud
   Wednesday 01 March 2006, 3:29 Makka Time, 0:29 GMT  

If it was not evident already, it has now become indisputably
clear that the American presence in Iraq has accomplished
absolutely nothing. 

Personally, as an analyst I am not one of those who insists
that Iraq is on the brink of civil war, in the wake of the
bombing of the al-Rawda al-Askari shrine. However, the
Americans have proved incapable or unwilling to provide security. 

If indeed the Americans - and the Iraqi government - are
committed to providing peace and preventing civil war, it must
be asked what exactly are they doing to achieve this end? 

When we examine the situation more carefully it becomes
apparent that only the Americans and the Iraqi government can
facilitate civil war, not the Sunni and Shia peoples in Iraq
who have lived together in peace for centuries.

 

Let us first consider the bombing itself: entry points into
the city of Samarra have been limited for some time, meaning,
theoretically, that those few remaining in use should be more
secure. 

The sheer magnitude of the Samarra bombing assumes some
quantity of munitions to carry out the attack; how did these
munitions make their way into the city without being detected? 

Also, it would take considerable time to apprehend and hold
the guards protecting the shrine, place and arm munitions in a
deliberate manner to blow off the dome of the building and
then get away; which suggests that the security of important
Iraqi sites is either ignorantly overlooked or intentionally
ignored. 

It is very difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile the
level of sophistication of the Samarra bombing with that of
the local resistance fighter planting IEDs roadside. Once
again considerable work was required, which suggests greater
probability of the attack being stopped.

We are all familiar with the degree to which the green zone
has been fortified and despite countless attempts to attack
it, the green zone remains relatively secure. 

Bush administration and Western journalists have repeatedly
accused Syria of employing such tactics in Lebanon to
perpetuate their military existence in Lebanon which lasted
from 1976 to 2005.
Recalling the museum disasters, the burning of historical
libraries and the overall environment in Iraq, not securing
such an important shrine is simply inexcusable. 

By inexcusable I am not referring simply to another example of
American mismanagement; I mean rather that after three years
of occupation and innumerable experiences American negligence
is nothing short of conspiratorial. 

If on the one hand the Bush administration has no idea what it
is doing and yet insists that it does, it is guilty of fraud.
On the other hand, if this administration knows what needs to
be done yet refuses to do it, it is guilty of negligence and
the violation of international law. In either case it is at
the cost of Iraqi lives. 

Why then should the Bush administration continue to be
permitted to present itself as central to Iraqi security? 
Bush has continually repeated his "commitment" to remain in
Iraq "as long as the Americans are needed to secure the
country" the problem is the Americans have as yet not provided
any security. 

Violence that appears to be sectarian was introduced into Iraq
with the American invasion and has steadily increased with
their continued presence.  It is clear that the American and
Iraqi security strategies are facilitating this kind of
violence in a variety of ways or are too incompetent to stop it.

 

In addition to fraudulence and negligence there are the
circumstances of the bombing itself to consider; there has
been, as yet, absolutely no evidence to link anyone to the
attack. 

American analysts quickly blamed non-Iraqi fighters or former
Baath elements, arguing that it is actually Muslims who want
to see violence in Iraq and, therefore, the Americans must
remain. 

On the Iraqi street, of course, the perception of events is
quite different and many would argue that Israel or the United
States carried out such an attack to maintain civil discord at
a politically convenient time. 

At this moment it is impossible to determine who carried out
the attack, however let us consider the options and the
implications for civil war.

Violence that appears to be sectarian was introduced into Iraq
with the American invasion and has steadily increased with
their continued presence. 
The "salafi" ideology that would allegedly permit an attack on
a Muslim site remains marginal at best and cannot in and of
itself ignite civil war. Iraqi resistance fighters have made
it abundantly clear that they condemn any attack on Iraqi
(holy? historic?) sites or civilians. 

 

Public statements by Iraqi groups notwithstanding, logical
analysis does not support a theory suggesting that Iraqis
carried out the attack anyway.

 

First, chaos perpetuates the "need" for foreign troops to
maintain security and, second, sectarian conflict would
undermine a national opposition movement to end the
occupation. It simply does not make sense for movements that
oppose the occupation to attempt to ignite a civil war. 


The Americans created the general possibility for civil war in
Iraq the moment they entered, in particular by way of the
principle of sectarianism upon which the American strategy was
built. 

Every American official, commander, adviser or analyst
involved in the occupation insisted on discussing Iraq in
terms of Sunni, Shia and Kurd from day one.

The Americans have no doubt created a framework for
sectarianism and, many would argue, may in fact be responsible
for directly ensuring the perpetuation of sectarianism in the
country. 

The supposed sobriety of Western analysts inhibits a frank
discussion of possible American (or Israeli) involvement in
sectarian instigation. 

What is most interesting in this regard, however, is that the
Bush administration and Western journalists have repeatedly
accused Syria of employing such tactics in Lebanon to
perpetuate their military existence in Lebanon which lasted
from 1976 to 2005.

Every American official, commander, adviser or analyst
involved in the occupation insisted on discussing Iraq in
terms of Sunni, Shia and Kurd from day one.
When prominent leaders in the region accuse the US of doing
the same thing it is dismissed as conspiratorial. The clear
double standard —motivated by an anti-Arab and anti-Muslim
racism — has perverted the overall reality of the Middle East
in the Western media, preventing any objective analysis. 

What is most problematic about this is that it has committed
the American people to a fantastic war that bears no
resemblance to reality; as long as considerable part of the
American people is committed to the war in Iraq, the troops
will remain and as long as troops remain the violence will
continue.

 

The Iraqi people are not in a position to favour civil war; as
has been pointed out repeatedly by many, Iraq has a long
history of integration and openness. 

I would argue that the audacity of the al-Rawda al-Askaria
bombing, an attack designed to touch a sensitive nerve within
Iraqi society, demonstrates a sense of desperation on the part
of those responsible to start a civil war where it is
difficult to begin one. 

Although the few days after the attack were indeed tense, the
violence remains sporadic; there has been no concerted effort
on the part of the various communities in Iraq to engage in
conflict. 

In fact it has been quite the contrary, respected figures such
as al-Kubaisi, al-Sadr, al-Khalassi, and al-Dari have all
encouraged unity and joint prayers. 

These have demonstrated their political independence over the
last three years while those supported by the Americans have
shown themselves incapable of providing unity.

It seems that the further one is from the American agenda and
operating apparatus the clearer the possibilities of unity
become.            

Laith Saud is an Iraqi academic researcher and a lecturer in
the United States. 

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/972DD1C0-237B-473B-96B5-3DBDABBCD35F.htm