Severian
7th April 2004, 20:06
And all the pundits thought it couldn't be done. Y'know, ancient and insoluble hatreds, Iraq on the brink of civil war, blah blah blah. But now:
"There may also be an ominous synergy developing between Sunni and Shiite insurgents. On Monday, insurgents fought a gun battle against United States troops in a Sunni neighborhood near Khadamiya in which three soldiers were killed. Witnesses said the attackers included a mix of Shiites and Sunnis. "There were Shiites from Sadr City and mujahedeen from Falluja," a hotbed of Sunni resistance, said Ayad Karim, a shopkeeper. "Now the resistance is united."
New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/07/international/middleeast/07SADR.html?pagewanted=1&ei=1&en=c7b85a102499ed5b&ex=1082306676) Really a good article...it appears to have become a real popular uprising, wider than any one organization, at least in that neighborhood. In any case, I think we'll see a lot less religious-sectarian division and violence in Iraq for a while, and the prospect of civil war now seems unlikely. Maybe Bremer should get a Nobel Peace Prize for that?
Also: The American dream to bridge ancient Iraqi sectarian rivalries turned nightmarish Tuesday (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040406-035654-8564r) (UPI)...I guess Bush really is a uniter, not a divider!
How did this happen? Well, the occupiers have been stonewalling Shi'a demands for elections for some time. Then, on Sunday, March 28, they shut down a newspaper associated with Muqtada al-Sadr and his "Mahdi's Army": link (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/29/international/worldspecial/29PRES.html?pagewanted=1&ei=1&en=d950015d69f39a3a&ex=1081530126) They said it was inciting violence, which is just plain false; NOW Sadr is inciting violence, and you can see how different things look. And they said it was spreading false rumors; pot, meet kettle.
Al-Sadr began organizing massive, peaceful protest marches like this one. (http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/politics/8342209.htm) This went on for a week.
Then, on Saturday, the occupiers arrested one of Sadr's aides, on a warrant that was apparently issued months ago. From the timing, it's clear the motivation was political.
On Sunday, the demonstrations grew bigger and angrier. At least 20 protesters were shot down in Najaf, along with 4 Salvadoran soldiers. According to an AFP correspondent on the scene, the fighting began when soldiers shot at stone-throwers. But the "coalition" claims the "Mahdi's Army" fired first, and we all know of the Salvadoran army's legendary respect for human rights, including the right to assemble and protest, so I'm sure that's true. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/...1017035856.html (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/04/1081017035856.html)
Also on Sunday, 47 demonstrators were shot in Baghdad by (U.S.-commanded) Iraqi police or soldiers, according to the Guardian. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1186566,00.html) Again, it's disputed who fired first. The Guardian article's also interesting for its analysis of why Bremer might be seeking to deliberately provoke armed confrontation in southern Iraq.
In response, Moqtada al-Sadr issued a statement: "I fear for you, for no benefit will come from demonstrations. Your enemy loves terrorism, and despises peoples, and all Arabs, and muzzles opinions. I beg you not to resort to demonstrations, for they have become nothing but burned paper. It is necessary to resort to other measures, which you take in your own provinces. As for me, I am with you, and I hope I will be able to join you and then we shall ascend into exalted heavens. I will go into an inviolable retreat in Kufa. Help me by whatever you are pleased to do in your provinces."
This was widely misinterpreted by pundits and reporters; some even thought he was backing away from confrontation by calling off the demonstration. Obvious now that ain't the case, huh? So lemme just say how I read it: "there's no point in holding peaceful demonstrations when that just gets you mowed down by automatic weapons. It's time to resort to other means."
Clearly the Shi'a uprising was provoked by Bremer, deliberately or otherwise. "Suppressing your newspaper ain't enough to make you resort to force? Then I'll just start arresting your leaders, one by one." And it might well be deliberate: Washington's greatest strength is brute force, and it might well be to Washington's advantage to move things into that arena.
This AP article even argues this may be a good idea. (http://www.trivalleyherald.com/Stories/0,1413,86~10669~2065920,00.html) But then, its author assumes that the "Mahdi Army" will be isolated, not only from other Shi'a organizations, but from the Shi'a population. On that, Bremer seems to have miscalculated...but it's in the nature of imperialism to underestimate the oppressed.
"There may also be an ominous synergy developing between Sunni and Shiite insurgents. On Monday, insurgents fought a gun battle against United States troops in a Sunni neighborhood near Khadamiya in which three soldiers were killed. Witnesses said the attackers included a mix of Shiites and Sunnis. "There were Shiites from Sadr City and mujahedeen from Falluja," a hotbed of Sunni resistance, said Ayad Karim, a shopkeeper. "Now the resistance is united."
New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/07/international/middleeast/07SADR.html?pagewanted=1&ei=1&en=c7b85a102499ed5b&ex=1082306676) Really a good article...it appears to have become a real popular uprising, wider than any one organization, at least in that neighborhood. In any case, I think we'll see a lot less religious-sectarian division and violence in Iraq for a while, and the prospect of civil war now seems unlikely. Maybe Bremer should get a Nobel Peace Prize for that?
Also: The American dream to bridge ancient Iraqi sectarian rivalries turned nightmarish Tuesday (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040406-035654-8564r) (UPI)...I guess Bush really is a uniter, not a divider!
How did this happen? Well, the occupiers have been stonewalling Shi'a demands for elections for some time. Then, on Sunday, March 28, they shut down a newspaper associated with Muqtada al-Sadr and his "Mahdi's Army": link (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/29/international/worldspecial/29PRES.html?pagewanted=1&ei=1&en=d950015d69f39a3a&ex=1081530126) They said it was inciting violence, which is just plain false; NOW Sadr is inciting violence, and you can see how different things look. And they said it was spreading false rumors; pot, meet kettle.
Al-Sadr began organizing massive, peaceful protest marches like this one. (http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/politics/8342209.htm) This went on for a week.
Then, on Saturday, the occupiers arrested one of Sadr's aides, on a warrant that was apparently issued months ago. From the timing, it's clear the motivation was political.
On Sunday, the demonstrations grew bigger and angrier. At least 20 protesters were shot down in Najaf, along with 4 Salvadoran soldiers. According to an AFP correspondent on the scene, the fighting began when soldiers shot at stone-throwers. But the "coalition" claims the "Mahdi's Army" fired first, and we all know of the Salvadoran army's legendary respect for human rights, including the right to assemble and protest, so I'm sure that's true. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/...1017035856.html (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/04/1081017035856.html)
Also on Sunday, 47 demonstrators were shot in Baghdad by (U.S.-commanded) Iraqi police or soldiers, according to the Guardian. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1186566,00.html) Again, it's disputed who fired first. The Guardian article's also interesting for its analysis of why Bremer might be seeking to deliberately provoke armed confrontation in southern Iraq.
In response, Moqtada al-Sadr issued a statement: "I fear for you, for no benefit will come from demonstrations. Your enemy loves terrorism, and despises peoples, and all Arabs, and muzzles opinions. I beg you not to resort to demonstrations, for they have become nothing but burned paper. It is necessary to resort to other measures, which you take in your own provinces. As for me, I am with you, and I hope I will be able to join you and then we shall ascend into exalted heavens. I will go into an inviolable retreat in Kufa. Help me by whatever you are pleased to do in your provinces."
This was widely misinterpreted by pundits and reporters; some even thought he was backing away from confrontation by calling off the demonstration. Obvious now that ain't the case, huh? So lemme just say how I read it: "there's no point in holding peaceful demonstrations when that just gets you mowed down by automatic weapons. It's time to resort to other means."
Clearly the Shi'a uprising was provoked by Bremer, deliberately or otherwise. "Suppressing your newspaper ain't enough to make you resort to force? Then I'll just start arresting your leaders, one by one." And it might well be deliberate: Washington's greatest strength is brute force, and it might well be to Washington's advantage to move things into that arena.
This AP article even argues this may be a good idea. (http://www.trivalleyherald.com/Stories/0,1413,86~10669~2065920,00.html) But then, its author assumes that the "Mahdi Army" will be isolated, not only from other Shi'a organizations, but from the Shi'a population. On that, Bremer seems to have miscalculated...but it's in the nature of imperialism to underestimate the oppressed.