Iraq announcement followed by massacre

The Iraqi prime minister, Nouri Maliki, has said that Iraq's security forces will take over securing the devastated country from the United States and others by end of 2007. The forces, sections of which allegedly have strong ties to militias (e.g. Sunni soldier helping Sunni insurgents and fighting opposing Shias). There are roughly 325 thousand Iraqi security forces, including police and law enforcement.

In more violent areas, Iraq's military is weak at best. However, much of the country, notably the Kurdish north, is relatively tranquil.

Car bombings killed up to 200 in Baghdad following the announcement — the bloodiest attack since a step up by the Iraqi government and American military in February (remember the 'surge'?).

The chain of events is probably a coincidence, because there is little reason for the bombings unless they were a sectarian attack or an attack against America or Iraqi government in general. In addition, the Maliki announcement will be welcomed by most in Iraq.

If it's not a coincidence, the attack could be an omen of bad things to come in the civil war; a war that will hopefully end soon. The next couple of years will see policy shifts by the Iraq government and those of America and its allies as pressure increases on governments and some have already begun change in their policy on Iraq.

This is an amazingly bloody war being fought in Iraq, with the death toll going up every day. Let's not forget the innocent civilians who are, for the most part, bystanders to this carnage. And what is the objective of the sides? Sunnis against Shias, Shias against Sunnis, and various other groups only stirring up the violence. Unlike the foreign 'freedom fighters' (e.g. 'al-Qaeda in Iraq'), domestic insurgents (e.g. al-Sadr's Mahdi Army), and foreign military presence (e.g. US, Britain), the ordinary people of Iraq did not volunteer to die; they did not volunteer to be put at risk. Just like we have seen in the North Ireland conflict of ages past, in many uncivil civil wars, no body really wins, but lives are lost — see BBC Newsnight's intriguing Iraq 2020 debate.

technorati tags: iraq, nuri+maliki, baghdad, baghdad+bombings, iraq+car+bomb, news, politics, death+toll, iraq+civilian+deaths

US and Iran can fight elsewhere, says Iraqi PM

Iraq already has enough troubles with sectarian violence, and the often terrorist and sometimes Iranian-backed (allegedly) insurgency against the American military occupation there is an unneeded burden. A civil war is bad enough; a proxy war would only worsen things and increase or create Iranian-backed violence.

CNN reports:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is telling the United States and Iran to keep their fight out of Iraq.

...
Whether Iran proves to be responsible for that attack or not, al-Maliki said his country cannot be a proxy battleground for Washington and Tehran.

"Iraq has nothing to do with the American-Iranian struggle, and we will not let Iran play a role against the American Army and we will not allow America to play a role against the Iranian army, and everyone should respect the sovereignty of Iraq," al-Maliki said.

...
The prime minister said Americans are basing their hunches about Iranian activities in Iraq on intelligence they've amassed.

The United States accuses Iran of fomenting terror attacks worldwide and pursuing a nuclear program that could lead to the development of weaponry. Iran has denied those assertions.

"We have told the Iranian and the Americans, 'We know that you have a problem with each other, but we are asking you please solve your problems outside Iraq.' We don't want the American forces to take Iraq as a field to attack Iran or Syria," the prime minister said.

Al-Maliki said Iraq doesn't want its sovereignty to be violated by any of its neighbors, which include Iran, Kuwait, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Turkey.

Iraq should not be a proxy for the United States to fight its enemies on the 'axis of evil' or otherwise. The Iraq Study Group recommended the US work with Syria and Iran — two 'enemies' listed on Bush's "axis of evil" introduced in his 2002 State of the Union speech. President Bush has yet to even consider considering the rational, bipartisan advice given by the ISG.

The United States and Iran both should heed al-Maliki's words. We don't want Iraq to become anything like Afghanistan, which was torn in a proxy war between the US and Soviet Union during the Cold War. We also don't any additional strife and conflict in a nation marred by violence since the US-led 2003 invasion. Battles between Iran and America would only divide the country further and, it goes without saying, increase violence. The US wants Iraq to 'stand up'? A good first step would be to — as al-Maliki said — respect Iraq's sovereignty. The last thing Iraq needs is to become a battleground for a cause irrelevant to solving the its many troubles.

Update: Speaking of United States v. Iran, keep in mind that there have been a bunch of politicians — Republicans and Democrats — who have warned Bush against the prospects of a war with Iran. Of course, after Iraq the entire global community would be up in arms if there were prospects of a war with Iran. Knowing Bush, though, it's not out of the question. (Do not count on it happening though.)

Update 2: See this CFR report for more on Iranian involvement in Iraq.

Oh, and happy last day of the first month of the seventh year of the second millennium AD. Tomorrow is 1 February 2007.


Song stuck in my head right now: Radiohead’s “Everything In Its Right Place”. I had "The Bends" playing in my head for much of yesterday.

technorati tags: iraq, iran, nuri+al-maliki, united+states, politics, foreign+affairs, news, bush, cold+war, afghanistan, proxy+war, sovergnity, iraqi, iraq+study+group, syria, terrorism, insurgency