| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| U.S. Forces Dismantle Baghdad Checkpoints on PM Al-Maliki's Orders |
| 2006-10-31 |
| BAGHDAD, Iraq — U.S. troops complied with orders from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki Tuesday to abandon checkpoints around Baghdad, including ones in and around the Shiite militia stronghold of Sadr City. Soon after U.S. forces began removing concrete blocks and sandbags from security checkpoints, a homicide car bomber targeted a wedding ceremony in the capital, killing 11 people, including four children, police said. The bomber plowed a car packed with explosives into a crowd of Shiite celebrants preparing to board vehicles outside the bride's home in the Shaab neighborhood of Baghdad, Lt. Ahmed Mohamed of the Risafa police station said. Baghdad police earlier reported the deaths of three people in a car bomb explosion and the discovery of five bodies, including one woman. U.S. officials said they did not receive advance warning of the order to remove the barriers by 5 p.m. local time Tuesday. Military spokesman, Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, said officers were meeting to "formulate a response to address the prime minister's concerns." The tightened security had been credited by some for producing a temporary decline in violence, possibly because they curbed the activities of Shiite death squads blamed for waves of sectarian killings of Sunnis. The extra checkpoints were set up last week around Sadr City as U.S. troops launched an intensive search for a missing American soldier and raided homes looking for death squad leaders in the sprawling slum that is home to an overwhelmingly Shiite population of 2.5 million people. Other checkpoints manned by U.S. troops were erected in the downtown Karradah neighborhood where the soldier had been abducted. Al-Maliki's statement said such measures "should not be taken except during nighttime curfew hours and emergencies." "Joint efforts continue to pursue terrorists and outlaws who expose the lives of citizens to killings, abductions and explosions," said the statement, issued in al-Maliki's name in his capacity both as prime minister and commander of the Iraqi armed forces. Earlier in the day, Shiite gunmen largely shut down access to Sadr City to demand the removal of the checkpoints, acting on orders from radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. In a statement addressed to local supporters on Monday, al-Sadr warned of unspecified action if the military's "siege" continues. He also criticized what he called the silence of politicians over actions by the U.S. military in the district on Baghdad's northeastern edge. "If this siege continues for long, we will resort to actions which I will have no choice but to take, God willing, and when the time is right," he said in the statement. Al-Maliki's demand threatened to further upset relations between the U.S. and the Iraqi government, which hit a rough patch last week after Al-Maliki issued a string of bitter complaints, at one point saying he was not "America's man in Iraq." Al-Maliki was apparently angered by a statement from U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad that the prime minister had agreed to set a timeline for progress on reaching security and political goals — something al-Maliki denied. U.S. concern over the deteriorating relationship was evident when National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley showed up unannounced in Baghdad on Monday to meet with al-Maliki and his security chief, Mouwafak al-Rubaie. Al-Rubaie told The Associated Press late Monday that Hadley was in Iraq to discuss the work of a five-person committee that al-Maliki and Bush had agreed to Saturday. Hadley also presented some proposals concerning the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces, as well as security plans. U.S. spokesmen could not immediately be reached on Tuesday and it wasn't known whether Hadley had returned to Washington. American voter support for the war is at a low point as the Nov. 7 midterm elections approach, and a top aide to al-Maliki said the Iraqi leader was using the Republicans' vulnerability on the issue to leverage concessions from the Bush administration — particularly the speedy withdrawal of American forces from Iraqi cities to U.S. bases in the country. Al-Maliki has said he believes that the continued presence of American forces in Iraq's population centers is partly behind the surge in violence. Meanwhile, the U.S. military announced the deaths of two soldiers in fighting Monday, bringing the number of troops killed in Iraq this month to 103. October has been the fourth deadliest month for American troops since the war began in March 2003. The other highest monthly death tolls were 107 in January 2005; at least 135 in April 2004, and 137 in November 2004. The military had no immediate comment on a CBS News report saying the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey was expected to recommend Iraq's ill-equipped and marginally effective security forces be increased by up to 100,000 troops. Casey said last month that he wouldn't rule out asking for more forces, something that could allow U.S. troop levels to be gradually reduced. At least three Iraqi policemen were also reported killed on Tuesday morning in Baghdad and the volatile western city of Falujah, police said. Sheik Raed Naeem al-Juheishi, the head of a non-governmental organization dedicated to tracing the fate of victims of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, was also killed in a drive-by-shooting Monday night in Baghdad's chaotic Dora district, Col. Mohammed Ali said. New violence that followed a lull during last week's Muslim holy days claimed the lives of at least 81 people across Iraq on Monday. According to an Associated Press count, October has recorded more Iraqi civilian deaths — 1,170 as of Monday — than any other month since the AP began keeping track in May 2005. The next-highest month was March 2006, when 1,038 Iraqi civilians were killed in the aftermath of the Feb. 22 bombing of an important Shiite shrine in Samarra. |
| Posted by:Sherry |
| #16 I tend to agree with all of the commentary thus far. Since when does al-Maliki or anyone else in the sandpit tell the US what to do? Obviously, we didn't put these idiots down hard enough when we had the chance. Somebody needs to tell al-Maliki and Sadr and all the other folks who're suddenly getting a hard-on for the US exactly what coming up against us really means - and if that means putting a few of them (or a few thousand) in a hole - so be it. This is friggin' ridiculous. These bastards need to be reminded that they were defeated and that we can, and by God, will do it again if need be. |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2006-10-31 23:19 |
| #15 The bomber plowed a car packed with explosives into a crowd of Shiite celebrants preparing to board vehicles outside the bride's home in the Shaab neighborhood of Baghdad, Lt. Ahmed Mohamed of the Risafa police station said. I hope the bride's family catches al-Maliki alone sometime. This asshole is not even close to being our friend. Shitcan Iran and roll up our sidewalks in Iraq and let these thugs slaughter each other. Come back in five years and help out whoever survives. If Iraq wants to become a terrorist training center, bomb the crap out of it. These ingrates have betrayed us far too many times. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-10-31 23:11 |
| #14 Warn him - that if he wants us out, we will move out - but only to Kurdistan. And will will let the Saudis know exactly where the gaps are so they can arm the Sunnis. Im disgusted - f*ck em. We bled for them and in the end Al Maliki and friends decided being Iranian Shia-pets was preferrable to being secular in the public sector. I say we let the local Sunni tribal shieks know that we arent bothering to even look at them anymore as long as US troops don't get hit and they stay the hell out of Kurdistan. Hell, we'll even train and arm their police forces so they can protect their towns from the Shia bandits. Let the muzzy extremists kill each other - time for us to just get the hell out of the way. If the Euros get pissy about thier oil supply, tell THEM to send in peacekeepers. We'll keep the peace in Kurdistan and the west area. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2006-10-31 22:20 |
| #13 Maliki is already on the Iranian payroll and they probably have pictures of him doing Allan know what to boot. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-10-31 17:57 |
| #12 I've become convinced we have to reinforce Kurdistan and put our hope in them. Leave the Sunni's and Shia to kill eachother and stop with this farce of a Government in Iraq. |
| Posted by: Charles 2006-10-31 17:17 |
| #11 Maliki is irrelevant. We either go to the source and fix it (Iran), or this thing remains a muddle. |
| Posted by: Master of Obvious 2006-10-31 17:16 |
| #10 I agree with com. Look at Sudan If the US will not stop something - why nobody else will. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-10-31 17:09 |
| #9 I don't know that he has thought it out that far, but it is clear that some of his coalition is in bed with the Iranians, and the Iranians have told everyone who will listen that the US will be gone in a couple of years and the Mullahs aren't going anywhere. Therefore you better decide who your friends are. The Iranians think they are winning this battle. And if the Donks win next week, they'll be right. Al |
| Posted by: frozen al 2006-10-31 17:09 |
| #8 I disagree, RWV. If the US bailed, which a Donk victory would ensure, Maliki and his Shia buddies would get Iranian support the instant the US was off the ground. They would receive massive arms support and, no doubt, Basij and similar forces flowing across the border. Then the big-time payback and decimation of all things Sunni within Iraq would begin. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-10-31 16:34 |
| #7 PM Maliki must have a better feel for the US elections than I do. This sort of action beeters the odds of a Democrat controlled House. A few more such pronouncements and he might then get to see if the US troops will stay when he says "Don't leave" as the trucks and tank carriers are rolling towards Kuwait. Then he can play an Arab version of King Knut when the tide of chaos comes in and overwhelms him. |
| Posted by: RWV 2006-10-31 16:22 |
| #6 Still discounting my take, Bobby? I have nothing against optimism, mind you, but I can't help but wonder. Everything we have done for the Iraqi Arabs, every life and limb sacrificed, all the treasure we have expended, every child's birthday missed by deployed troops, every political hit absorbed trying to do the right thing, all of it, every goddamned bit of it has been betrayed in terms that we just cannot ignore, IMO. So, now what? Iran. This, and no other step, saves Iraq and makes it worthy of our sacrifices. Then what? After the interference has been removed, the motives for triangulating against us, the paymasters and peddlers of vengeance, after Iran has been rendered moot... then what? I want to avoid the sink-trap, so I leave that to your imaginations. Hint: It does involve, both physically and rhetorically, a shitload of D-9 work. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-10-31 15:45 |
| #5 Politicians are the same all over the world it seems. Spineless.... |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2006-10-31 15:12 |
| #4 Another *WTF?* moment. |
| Posted by: fmr mil contractor 2006-10-31 15:09 |
| #3 pretty obviously PM Maliki doesn't need any US Troops providing security. We should withdraw all security for him and let it be publicly known |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-10-31 15:03 |
| #2 We should have told Maliki we shut down the check points when we get our troop back. And that we're going in to get him when we're good and ready. This was a mistake. If Maliki wanted to make something of it, we should have let him. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-10-31 13:40 |
| #1 Sadr should have been titsup by 2004 |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-10-31 13:29 |