August 11, 2004
Iraq is Imploding and Najaf is a Prime Example
Printable Version | [eMail this article!] |Just because the US puppet government is now in "power" in Iraq, does not mean that Iraq is any safer or that the US is any closer to ending hostilities. If anything, the violence is getting more intense. Several days ago, Robert Fisk reported on DemocracyNow, that there was virtually no Iraqi government presences outside of Baghdad, and that the country was ready to "implode". That image is reinforced by Donald Macintyre in Iraq on a knife-edge. The battles receiving the most news right now are in Najaf - a holy city where Sadr has vowed to "fight to the death" and where earlier this summer the US was reluctant to attack for fear of inflaming the population. That caution has apparently been thrown to the winds.
Major conflict has been ongoing in Najaf since last Thursday, and last week it was reported that over 300 militia were killed in the cemetery. The Najaf cemetery is also considered a holy site, and the battle there haunts some soldiers. Some Iraqi's are calling for international intervention to stop the blood bath. However, the US is determined to put down the rebellion and claims it has a tight rein on the militia in Najaf.
Iranian cleric Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared that the assault on Najaf was a "crime against humanity".
Solemn-faced U.S. Marines and soldiers prepared for what appeared to be a decisive battle for Najaf, the holiest city in Iraq, while the supreme leader of neighboring Iran warned that U.S. combat operations in Najaf constitute "one of the darkest crimes of humanity.""The United States is slaughtering the people of one of the holiest Islamic cities and the Muslim world and the Iraqi nation will not stand by,"
Last night, began bombing Najaf and telling civilians to evacuate. However, one has to ask "who would be considered a civilian?"
The picture emerging of the current state of Iraq is not one of a nation headed towards peace and democracy. Instead it is looking more and more like open warfare. Pictures and descriptions from Iraq are starting to look hauntingly like Afghanistan. Iraq was one of the most modern and developed nations in the Middle East. Now it looks like one of the least. Some will say that is just because of the war, or the poor management and recalcitrance of Hussein. It is true, that 11 years of sanctions greatly diminished Iraq. It is true that there has been further degradation under the occupation, but the US and its "coalition" are failing in rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure. The people of Iraq are suffering and dying, not in the cause of freedom, but in because of the failure to create stability.
I remember someone saying in one of my classes during the invasion of Afghanistan, that "We should bomb them back to the stone age." That does seem to be the motif of the Bush/Rumsfeld policy of "regime change." As the battle in Iraq and Afghanistan go on, one has to shiver a bit about the threats being made towards Iran. Will it to be a target for forced "regime change?" And if so, when?
The US currently has 160,000 troops in Iraq. More than at any point from the invasion forward. How many more will it take to "win" Iraq, and how many more would be needed for a heavily armed Iran?
As the battles in Najaf rage, I wonder just how poorly the Muslim and Iraqi response will be to the bombing of one of the holiest cities in Iraq.
Posted by rowan at August 11, 2004 08:37 AM | TrackBack | Printable Version | [eMail this article!] |Needed - One Good Bogeyman:
I am beginning to wonder about ol' Al- Sadr and his lads, and not so much that they are willing to fight to the death. That is a rather common phenomenon these days, and historically. No, I am wondering why the US has chosen not to take him out. That bothers me. Clearly he orders his militia to engage US troops and he does not confine himself to the Ali Masjid, which the US will not hit. I have read several times that he moves about and goes to other locations to deliver sermons and rallies his militias. This bogeyman could be bumped off, if so desired.
Is he just a symbol that justifies the need for continued US patrols in that neck of the woods? And by the way, how is that all of a sudden the Iraqi forces became so competent that they can emerge as a force with which to combat the bogeymen? It hasn't been that long since I was reading about their incompetence, lack of organization, unwillingness to fight and lack of equipment. Now I read that they are engaging, and dying. Talk about quick transitions.
Towards the end of the Viet Nam war when the US began phased withdrawals, it became necessary to demonstrate and prove that some US forces were still needed. I know a Lt. Col. who was in command of a battalion of MPs in Viet Nam. He related to me a time when some South Vietnamese were engaged with the NVA and needed ammunition. This unit had radioed him requesting assistance. He had the ammo and means of delivery but was ordered not to assist. The South Vietnamese unit was badly mauled by the NVA had to retreat, thus demonstrating the continued need for a US presence.
I have a sneaky feeling that this same dynamic is at play with Al-Sadr. Excuse my language, but you can bet your ass he could be killed anytime he is not in the Ali Masjid.
Posted by: goesh at August 12, 2004 04:41 AM