Baghdad Tension Continues
Things are very, very dicey in Iraq at the moment, and it’s got nothing to do with pro-war, anti-war, left or right, and everything to do with sectarian violence. Dozens have been killed in reprisal attacks for the bombing of the Al-Askariya shrine. It’s important to realize how important this particular shrine is:
The attack on the al-Askariya shrine marks the first time that Iraqi sectarian violence has targeted one of the country’s central religious symbols.
The Shia Muslim shrine has existed in the middle of the ancient city of Samarra, one of the largest archaeological sites in the world, since 944, when it was built to house the tombs of two ninth century imams, direct descendants of the Prophet Muhammad.
Ali al-Hadi, the tenth imam who died in 868 and his son Hassan al-Askari who died in 874, were buried at the end of the turbulent period during which Samarra was built as the new capital of the Abbasid empire, briefly taking over from Baghdad, then the largest city in the world.
But the continued and intense religious importance of the site is connected to the 12th and final imam, the so-called “Hidden Imam” who Shias believe went into hiding in 878 under the al-Askariya shrine to prepare for his eventual return among men.
According to Shia tradition, the Mahdi will reappear one day to punish the sinful and “separate truth from falsehood”. For many years, a saddled horse and soldiers would be brought to the shrine in Samarra every day to be ready for his return, a ritual that was repeated in Hilla, about 100 miles to the south, where it was also thought that Mahdi might reappear.
“It’s one of the foremost important shrines in Iraq,” said Alastair Northedge, a Professor of Islamic Art and Architecture at the Sorbonne in Paris who has just completed an archaeological survey of Samarra.
“Najaf and Karbala are the two most important shrines in Iraq but only slightly subsidiary to them are the sites in Samarra and Baghdad.
“The shrine is central for the Shia. This is not just a major cathedral, this is more than that, this is one of the holiest shrines.”
Mohammed of Iraq the Model has the latest:
Baghdad looks more alive today but in a very cautious way, traffic in the streets is heavier than it was yesterday but still way below normal.
There’s some kind of shopping frenzy because people are trying to be prepared if the worst happens; people are stock-piling small reserves of food, cigarettes, bottled water…etc especially after they heard some of the roads to/from Baghdad are closed and vehicles were turned away.
The Sunni political leaders were invited to a meeting with the UIA suggested by president Talabani but they refused to join the meeting saying the government has to condemn attacks on their mosques as well before they consider ending the boycott.
Talabani responded positively to their demand and gave a short statement to the press half an hour ago and condemned all attacks on worshipping places of all kinds.
The situation is still very tense but the good thing is that the Sunni have not returned the attacks and I hope the Shia have satisfied their vengeance by now because I don’t want to even think of what can happen if this situation lasts longer than this.
The current state of affairs in Iraq is this: Violence continues unabated (this week being the bloodiest week in several months). The bombing of the mosque this week marks the most significant example of sectarian violence thus far (in terms of the structure being hit, not in lives lost). The newly appointed Prime Minister has close ties to Iran. Oil production is lower than pre-invasion levels. In every metric, the infrastructure is worse off than before the invasion (hours of electricity per day, sewage, etc.) The economy is moribund. Iran is acting aggressively, as they know that we are bogged down next door. We are unable to assemble a coalition to challenge Iran or North Korea on their nuclear ambitions, as we have lost credibility from our false statements about non-existent Iraqi WMD. The US military is stretched thinly, and is having difficulty meeting recruitment goals. And, needless to say, nearly 2,500 soldiers have died, many more Iraqis are dead, and we are adding $200 billion to the deficit every year.
Faced with this state of affairs, the Bush administration’s plan is, essentially, to continue the status quo. Do you feel that this is the wisest course of action?
It’s a shame you use this bombing as a partisan argument against the war, peter, because everyone – and I mean everyone – knows that this bombing was intended to promote sectarian strife, and the overwhelming consensus is that it was the work of foreign terrorists.
I don’t believe anyone around here has ever stated that our mission in Iraq would be easy. You throw out the assertion that by every metric, Iraq is worse off than before the invasion, but I’ve seen the Brookings Institute studies, and that simply isn’t true. Some things are worse, some are better – but one thing is undeniable: the measure of freedom in Iraq is way, way up, and the Iraqis themselves are optimistic about the future.
I realize you’re an opponent of the war – I’m a supporter. No surprises, there – but you’re using this terrible act of terrorism as a stick to beat Bush about the head with. Not a very productive approach, in my view…
1) When an argument is described as partisan, the implication is that it lacks validity because it is made because of competitiveness (our side is better than yours) or partisan gain (therefore you should vote for us). If I’m wrong, then please tell me why I am wrong – but describing it as partisan is not relevant. Alternately: even if an argument is partisan, it can still be correct.
2) It is obvious that the bombing occurred to promote partisan strife. However, one of the main arguments against invading Iraq was that the result would be partisan strife. Bush ignored this warning and invaded anyway. Why shouldn’t he be accountable for the results of his actions? And why aren’t the results of the war (in this case, sectarian strife) a legitimate argument against the war?
3) Since the bombing took place yesterday, I don’t see how the “overwhelming consensus” is that foreigners were involved. On its face, it appears to be a strike against the Shiites by Iraqi Sunnis – there are plenty of disaffected local Sunnis around, so I question why it would have a foreign origin.
4) Even if it was the work of foreigners, why is this relevant? The presence of foreigners causing trouble in Iraq is a direct result of the invasion – why shouldn’t this be part of the equation?
5) The source of the comparison of pre- and post-invasion Iraq was a piece in the Times recently which was essentially a spreadsheet which compared various quantifiable metrics (e.g., hours of electricity per day, barrels of oil pumped, etc.).
6) Recognizing that you are a supporter of the war, I am eager to hear why – despite all of the evidence – you continue to believe that the invasion was a worthy cause. I think that a clear-eyed evaluation of how things are will cause you to question your beliefs. Hey, maybe you’ll even vote HRC in 2008. However, please don’t read this as a beat-up-Bush screed: I think that the evident problems in Iraq suggest that to be intellectually honest, anyone who supports the war ought to show why the (meager) results justify the (enormous) cost in lives, treasure, and alliances.
Yes, a partisan argument can be correct – that doesn’t make it any less disappointing. We’re in Iraq, and that won’t change no matter how much arguing is done. The question is, what now? That’s why I would prefer a more constructive approach than the same old recriminations.
Since you seem unduly fond of the New York Times, let me appeal to your favorite source:
Most Iraqi leaders attributed the attack to terrorists bent on exploiting sectarian rifts, but some also blamed the United States for failing to prevent it.
So, we have foreign terrorists, as even the great Times admits, most likely using the bombing to provoke talk of a civil war, in the hopes that we will pack up and retreat, and you advise – what, exactly? Is your stance that we should, in fact, give in and leave?
Nothing that has happened has changed my estimation of the necessity of the war – sure, I would prefer that it had been better planned, and less bloody in the aftermath – who wouldn’t? But I can’t see how continued strife makes the arguments for invading moot – and I far prefer to focus on the future.
We are training Iraqi forces – we are trying to diminish sectarian violence. We are working with the Iraqis to form a legitimate government that will hold the country together. We may fail or we may succeed – and this bombing is a setback…but it’s a fact, now, and we must work with both sides to quell the violence and move forward…
The Times (actually, “most Iraqi leaders”) attributed the attack to terrorists – but I don’t see the inference that these are foreign terrorists. Unless facts prove otherwise, I would think that the attack was caused by domestic terrorists who are “bent on exploiting sectarian rifts”. (I also question which outside forces would attack a Shiite shrine – presumably, a foreign entity would target Sunni shrines).
My stance is this: we ought to conduct a plebiscite in Iraq to ask if we should stay or go. If they want us to go: we should get outta there. If they want us to stay: we ought to remain with an exit strategy in place. I think this approach confers legitimacy to our presence there as well as being an example of democracy at work. I think it is far superior than our current policy.
Thanks for clearing that up…as for myself, I think we should stay until the Iraqi security forces have a handle on domestic security, then we should begin scaling back our troops gradually, in a manner consistent with accomplishing our objectives, and let our military commanders set the timetable, instead of people who have no idea (Iraqi or American) what the real military realities are…
Okay, the Times doesn’t include the word ‘foreign’ – but here’s British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw:
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Thursday that he suspects Al-Qaida in Iraq, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was responsible for the mosque attack.
“It has the hallmarks of their nihilism,” Straw told a news conference in London. He called on leaders of Iraq’s religious communities to defuse tensions caused by the attack.
This incident is a blessing.
Sooner or later we had to see if the Iraqi’s could pedal the bike on their own…6 months ago this would have been a disaster, but in its current state it will prove the trest which helps solidify the government.
The Iraqi government is strong enough to pull it off now. Another factor that has been plaguing the training of the Iraqis…is that they disappear when they get paid. So long as tension is high, the Iraqi government will increase their effort and involvement of the training of the soldiers and police-they’ll place a higher priority on the attendance of their soldiers/police.
Conflict was unavoidable, but by staying it for so long, we have provided a great opportunity for the Iraqi people. Let’s see what they do with the ball.
I’m not too surprised by these developments at this point – the Sunnis have always been aiding and abetting the terrorists in their midst, all in the hope of getting their privileged status in Iraq restored. This is the pivotal moment in the country’s future – either the Shiites start defending against the infiltrators or the country will eventually divide into three sections (Kurd, Sunni and Shia).
I think the Sunnis will slowly come to realize that the game’s up at this point, and they either have to make entreaties to the dominant Shias or face complete ostracism in their own homeland. They will also reluctantly acknowledge that a division will be far worse for them in the long run.