| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Shiite Cops Reportedly Rampage Vs. Sunnis |
| 2007-03-28 |
| Salt graphic needed? By SINAN SALAHEDDIN Associated Press BAGHDAD (AP) - Shiite militants and police enraged by massive truck bombings in the northwestern town of Tal Afar went on a revenge spree against Sunni residents there Wednesday, killing as many as 60 people, officials said. The gunmen began roaming Sunni neighborhoods in the city, shooting at residents and homes, according to police and a local Sunni politician. Ali al-Talafari, a Sunni member of the local Turkomen Front Party, said the Iraqi army had arrested 18 policemen accused of being involved after they were identified by the Sunni families targeted. But he said the attackers included Shiite militiamen. He said more than 60 Sunnis had been killed, but a senior hospital official in Tal Afar put the death toll at 45, with four wounded. The hospital official, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to security concerns, said the victims were men between the ages of 15 and 60, and they were killed with a shot to the back of the head. Police said earlier dozens of Sunnis were killed or wounded, but they had no precise figures, and communications problems made it difficult to reach them for an update. The shooting continued for more than two hours, the officials said. Army troops later moved into the Sunni areas to stop the violence and a curfew was slapped on the entire town, according to Wathiq al- Hamdani, the provincial police chief and his head of operations, Brig. Abdul-Karim al-Jibouri. "The situation is under control now," said al-Hamdani. "The local Tal Afar police have been confined to their bases and policemen from Mosul are moving there to replace them." Tal Afar, located 260 miles northwest of Baghdad, is in the province of Ninevah, of which Mosul is the capital. It is a mainly Turkomen city with some 60 percent of its residents adhering to Shiite Islam and the rest mostly Sunnis. The violence came a day after two truck bombs shattered markets in the city, killing at least 63 people and wounding dozens in the second assault in four days. After Tuesday's bombings, suspected Sunni insurgents tried to ambush ambulances carrying the injured out of the northwestern city but were driven off by police gunfire, Iraqi authorities said. The carnage was the worst bloodshed in a surge of violence across Iraq as militants on both sides of the sectarian divide apparently have fled to other parts of the country to avoid a U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown, raising tensions outside the capital. The city was an insurgent stronghold until an offensive by U.S. and Iraqi troops in September 2005, when rebel fighters fled into the countryside without a battle. Last March, President Bush cited the operation as an example that gave him "confidence in our strategy." But even though U.S. and Iraqi forces put up sand barriers around Tal Afar to limit access, the city has suffered frequent insurgent attacks. Meanwhile, hundreds of Iraqis detained in the U.S.-led security crackdown in Baghdad are being held in two detention centers designed to hold at most a few dozen people, The New York Times reported Wednesday, citing an Iraqi monitoring group. The report said 705 people were packed into an area built for 75 at one of the detention centers, in the town of Mahmudiya, south of Baghdad. The other center, on Muthana Air Base, held 272 people, including two women and four boys, in a space designed to hold about 50. Officials from the monitoring group said they did not know the sectarian composition of the detainee populations. Also Wednesday, explosions struck the government center in Fallujah, west of Baghdad, but there was no immediate word on casualties, officials said. Maj. Jeff Pool, a Marine spokesman in the area, said initial reports indicated that two suicide car bombers had attacked the building but detonated their explosives at the gates. |
| Posted by:anonymous5089 |
| #18 Yeess? |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-03-28 21:46 |
| #17 Well, I'm glad I could give rise to this, highly edifying, discussion with one littule question. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2007-03-28 21:09 |
| #16 do you really believe that Iraq can made into a useful --- or, at least, harmless --- member of international community? "[U]seful"? As an oil producing nation, perhaps. Useful to the overall global community as a productive contributor to this world's progress? Not really. "[H]armless"? No, not with Islam's historical track record. With years of 20:20 hindsight available for retrospection? After deposing Saddam we should have spun on our heel and marched straight out of tarbaby Iraq. Without that hindsight, importing democracy into the Middle East was one of the only functional alternatives available at that time. Merely averting our gaze or pretending that the problem of Islamic global jihad was going to go away on its own simply was not an option. I don't think that either Verlaine or myself were trying to posit Iraq as being able to be salvaged or fully rehabilitated. If anything, much like our cooperation with all of the UN's useless rigamarole, America was obliged to undergo compliance with the accepted global forms and normatives in order to maintain our sense of moral authority. Sidebar: However tattered America's moral authority might seem to be, allow me to state without equivocation that it most certainly is not. So long as the vast majority of this globe's population want nothing more than to immigrate to the United States, that alone will serve as ample proof of our moral authority. Beyond that simple proof lies a nearly miraculous legal Constitution plus an economic and technological engine the likes of which this world's history has never seen. Six, count them, six landings on the moon with all personnel returned safely back to earth. This nation's achievements speak for themselves. They intrinsically refute every iota of leftist self-loathing and anti-Americanism the liberals, or our foreign enemies, can summon. America has done more than enough to certify its moral authority. The glaring fact that, when danger strikes, so many of our harshest European critics still scurry to shelter beneath our military umbrella is more than a little telling. We have done our homework. All the blanks have been filled in concerning Islam's complete and total incompatibility with all other cultures. Due to a degree of unanticipated spinelessness upon the part of Western leadership in general, all that awaits is Islam's ultimate transgression. To date, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that such an atrocity is not forthcoming. It's arrival is a compound equation of Western inaction and Islamic stalling for the precise opportunity to challenge all forbearance and patience that possibly could be shown. As David D. has so aptly put it: And Question Two goes: "Grandpa, what was that idiotic nonsense your generation tried to pull off after 9/11??? 'Middle East Democracy'??? Give me a fucking break!! I mean, how naive could you get, anyway??? Wasn't it OBVIOUS, right from the start, that you'd ultimately have to exterminate those Muslim bastards, every last one of them??? YOU NAIVE FOOLS!!!!" I don't know about you, but I'd **MUCH** rather end up being asked the second question. Much sooner than later, the second question will be asked. Islam would have it no other way. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-03-28 20:10 |
| #15 Wow. Good thoughts, guys -- I'm going to come back to this thread later to ponder. Mark Z., I wish I could tell stories, but Daddy keeps OpSec to this day. What little I know I heard from Mama: The British wouldn't allow the Jews of Palestine into the Army for much of the war, lest they learn how to use weapons, and strategy and tactics. But, they were doing things with the Soviets on the (then) Persian border, and desperately needed Russian translators. So the word went out through the community, and Daddy volunteered (he must have been in his early-mid twenties at the time). Basically, he translated for the Brits and -- well, spied isn't really it -- tried to learn/observe things useful to a community that would soon seek independent nationhood. That's all I know. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-03-28 20:07 |
| #14 I'm less pessimistic than many here - I also don't think that CW II is near. I do think it will take a better message to the public, a further lessening of the power of the ABC's networks (they're already on a decline) and a lessening of the NYT et al (they're doing a FINE job themselves at that), and another attack on the soil of the US. I propose Berkeley, Ann Arbor, Seattle, Portland or Vermont as suitable welcoming grounds for the delivery of a WMD by their Islamic Overlords. They deserve to have their strong efforts rewarded |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-03-28 19:44 |
| #13 Good points all, Verlaine. I wasn't suggesting that I thought the freedom/democracy thing was our "only" reason for deposing Saddam, or even the "main" reason; God knows, there was always an abundance of darned good reasons to do what we did. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-03-28 19:36 |
| #12 carlislian, I surely didn't mean any disrespect to the War College (or any similar institution) - I was just stealing a good old line (from PJ O'Rourke or Mark Steyn, I can't remember) to make my point that a much tougher and much less "sophisticated" approach in Iraq would probably have yielded good returns (still could, though US political conditions and the return of sovereignty make it much harder). Dave D., well put. My perspective's a bit different. I have no doubt that the Iraqi regime was taken out because of a reasonable judgement that it represented an intolerable potential (potential) force multiplier or armorer for the global jihadis. You couldn't "contain" the sort of activity that we feared most. Past history and prudence indicated that the risks of trying to "deter" such activity were too high. In short, the urgency of regime change in Iraq was tied entirely to the WMD issue - properly so. Not one bit of post-war (ISG) "investigation" was needed, not one element of pre-war estimates needed to be vindicated, to support the basic calculation. With proven (that is proven, already observed, not in any doubt) virtually unlimited financial resources, capacity for suicidally reckless behavior, and unvarying malevolence towards the US and its interests and true allies, Iraq's WMD potential was simply intolerable post-9/11. This rationale was never dependent on what was found after the war, or interrogations of regime officials. It was pre-emption, pure and simple, and while one could differ with the judgement that it was the best course of action, it the only one sure to solve the problem, and to this day no one has offered a serious alternative. Having pre-empted the potential threat, it was consistent with our history, values, and the strategic assessment you lay about above to attempt some transformation of Iraq. I've always called it the exploitation phase. In an academic sense, I think it's fair to say Dubya might have been able to paraphrase Lincoln's famous statement about preserving the Union without freeing a single slave if he could. That is, if Bush could have dealt decisively with the Iraqi WMD problem without freeing a single Iraqi, if for some reason that were his only choice, he'd have done it. The point being not that he/we wouldn't have wanted to free the Iraqis, or that we see no strategic value in doing so, but to distinguish between the urgent and primary rationale and all the other things that make sense to do once you've achieved your primary objectives. In any case my personal take on history and what I've seen with my own eyes around the world is that these things are messy and slow and frustrating and might even never completely get to where you want them, but that doesn't mean they aren't neccessary and in your vital interest to do. We didn't nuke Japanese cities to give women the vote or break up quasi-feudal industrial cliques, but both positive developments were direct outgrowths of our nuking said cities. And nuking them still would have been the right thing (morally AND strategically) if post-war Japan had turned out far worse than it did. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2007-03-28 19:29 |
| #11 "I mean, do you really believe that Iraq can made into a useful --- or, at least, harmless --- member of international community?" I don't think it's a matter of "believing" that it can be, in the sense of taking the notion on faith; at least it better not be, because IMO that would be quite naive and fanciful. But I've supported our Iraq effort from the beginning and still support it, because the notion-- i.e., that Islamic/Arabic society can somehow be brought to a non-toxic (or, at least, a far less toxic) state by the removal of oppressive dictatorships and the introduction of democratic self-governance-- simply has to be given a try as a testable hypothesis. And for good reason: it became glaringly obvious shortly after 9 AM on 9/11, as the second plane slammed into the South Tower of the WTC, that the monstrous ideology which propelled that atrocity would stop at nothing in it's quest to destroy Western civilization. No atrocity, even the slaughter of hundreds of millions, would be beyond these monsters. As the towers collapsed, it sunk into me: This means war. And on the heels of that thought, another came: This will be a war of extermination. No matter how hard we try to make it not so, the Islamic world's intense tribalistic solidarity-- their sense of oneness with the Ummah-- will mean that it's now Us versus Them. A fight to the finish, a war of annihilation. A decade from now, three-quarters of a billion people will lie dead from this conflict. And there's not a fucking thing we're going to be able to do about it. I shook off that thought, just said "No!!" to it. Too much. Too horrible. And over the next couple of days I began to formulate things in a somewhat different way; the idea took shape, that we've got to find out if it is somehow possible to fix whatever the hell is wrong with the Arab/Islamic world, because if we can't, the consequences will be almost too horrible to contemplate; it will mean they will eventually succeed in doing something so heinous, so monstrous, so vile that we will feel compelled to annihilate them altogether. And that is how I've thought of our effort in Iraq, from the beginning: as a test of the hypothesis that Arab/Islamic society can be turned away from a calamitous collision with the West. I can envision my grandchildren challenging me with two possible questions. Question One goes like this: "Grandpa, why did your generation nuke the entire Islamic world right after 9/11? WHY????????? Couldn't you have at least TRIED to see if it was possible to reform them and turn them away from confrontation with Western civilization, before flying off the handle and murdering 1,200 million people??? YOU HEARTLESS, SOULLESS BASTARDS!!!!!!!!" And Question Two goes: "Grandpa, what was that idiotic nonsense your generation tried to pull off after 9/11??? 'Middle East Democracy'??? Give me a fucking break!! I mean, how naive could you get, anyway??? Wasn't it OBVIOUS, right from the start, that you'd ultimately have to exterminate those Muslim bastards, every last one of them??? YOU NAIVE FOOLS!!!!" I don't know about you, but I'd **MUCH** rather end up being asked the second question. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-03-28 18:48 |
| #10 Elegant, full of finesse, likely to appeal to the war-college-and-executive-seminar part of the brain? No. Gee, it seems like a great idea to just about every part of my brain. Does that mean I should stay away from the War College? |
| Posted by: Carlislian 2007-03-28 18:02 |
| #9 Can't speak for Zenster - me, drugs, no. Iraq a harmless/useful country? Yes. Quickly, no. Worth it - probably. Cost and hassle a fraction of what has been done in previous history in pursuit of similar goals - a fraction. Engaging the world (with action, not talk, as the term is usually understood) is the best course for a global, status quo power that is paradoxically at the same time the greatest engine of change. Plunging into mesopotamia has put us in the middle of the action. It has costs and can cause little children to have nightmares (at least in NPR households), but it's the smart adult way to pursue our interests. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2007-03-28 17:16 |
| #8 Verlaine, Zenster, have you guys been using drugs? I mean, do you really believe that Iraq can made into a useful --- or, at least, harmless --- member of international community? |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2007-03-28 17:01 |
| #7 I lost all sympathy for muslims a long time ago. That's just me. It's not just you. Verlaine, your internment policy makes waaaay too much sense. Why, the fighting would dribble off to foreign sourced terrorists in only a few weeks. Much of the "insurgency" depends upon a steady supply of (however briefly) warm bodies. Corralling that one resource would choke off much of the resistance. Like I said, waaaay too much sense. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-03-28 15:32 |
| #6 Can't say anything about the actual sources in Tal Afar or their info, but Sinan's a real AP correspondent in Baghdad, that much I can offer. And not a bad guy. He was one whose coverage of certain stories was edited by superiors in a way that left him frustrated. I saw it first-hand. I thought Tal Afar had slightly different fault lines than most of Iraq - more of a mix of Turkomen, Arab, and even Kurd communities. Either I'm wrong or this story wrongly crams the situation there into the familiar template. Interesting thing about the detention issue. A "serious" war as I and many others would have long preferred to wage certainly would entail a much, much more serious detention operation. But I think that was/is not an insuperable challenge if the decision is made to do it. There needs to be a massive detention of military-age males, in different categories and different locations, for purposes of sorting out and extracting info. And of course the weird quasi-judicial aspects need to be streamlined. There's no getting around the fact (esp. in Iraq, where the "insurgents" are usually very well defined by location and affiliation, are extremely weak and isolated in an economic sense, and are very vulnerable to threats, bribes, and manipulation) that no "insurgency" can last a week without the male population, ages 18 - 40, available to "fight" it. And yes, Virginia, I don't give a crap if the local economy collapses due to half the work-force sitting behind wire. That's what WFP food rations are for (and we've got extra in Iraq). Massive effort? Yes. More effective, more likely to achieve our objectives within the resource, time, and political constraints on us - yes. Elegant, full of finesse, likely to appeal to the war-college-and-executive-seminar part of the brain? No. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2007-03-28 12:17 |
| #5 tw, I lost all sympathy for muslims a long time ago. That's just me. More info - stories on your father's exploits as a translator for the Brits while in Persia would be appreciated. |
| Posted by: Mark Z 2007-03-28 11:59 |
| #4 I'm finding it difficult to feel sympathetic. The bloody Sunni "insurgents" tried to ambush the ambulances taking the Shiite truck bomb victims to hospital. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-03-28 11:53 |
| #3 Don't know if it means the surge is failing. The sectarian violence is like a fever, it will have to run its course. It won't be cut short. Pent-up demand for payback will have to be depleted... |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2007-03-28 11:42 |
| #2 The carnage was the worst bloodshed in a surge of violence across Iraq as militants on both sides of the sectarian divide apparently have fled to other parts of the country to avoid a U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown, raising tensions outside the capital. So even though the "Surge" is having the desired effect, it is still failing, is that what I read? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-03-28 10:16 |
| #1 It seems the Turkomen aren't immune to the Sunni/Shiia thing. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2007-03-28 09:09 |