In his Thursday post, the Iraqi blogger, Iraq the Model, reports tense and worrisome developments and news reports. According to unconfirmed reports by factions in Iraq, more than 120 mosques have been attacked, burned, or blown up.
Spokesmen of the Islamic Party and Muslim Scholars claim more than 120 mosques have been blown up, set ablaze or came under small arms and RPG fire including the Um al-Qura mosque which is the HQ of the Association of Muslim Scholars which came under several drive-by shootings.
Radio Sawa reported a short while ago that the central morgue in Baghdad received some 80 bodies of people who were killed with gun shots since Wednesday afternoon.
In our neighborhood the Sadr militias seized the local mosque and broadcast Shia religious mourning songs from the mosques loudspeakers. In several other cases, worshippers were turned away by "gunmen in black" who surrounded the closed mosques. Other mosques are encircled by razor-wire to stop anyone from approaching them.
The sense in the streets and the statements given by some Shia clerics suggest that retaliation attacks are organized and under control and are focusing on mosques frequented by Salafi and Wahabi groups and not those of ordinary Sunnis.
Iraq the Model's late Wednesday afternoon post was, if anything, even more harrowing:
-President Talabani promises to make rebuilding the shrine his personal responsibility and to donate the required money from his own.
-Head of the Sunni endowment sheikh Ahmed al-Samarra'I announces that he will allocate 2 billion dinars (~1.4 million $) for the rebuilding of the shrine from the treasury of the Sunni endowment.
-Huge demonstrations in many of Iraq's provinces including Samarra and Mosul where thousands of people condemned the attack.
-The top 4 Shia Ayatollahs hold a meeting at Sistani's home to discuss the situation.
-The Association of Muslim scholars and the Islamic Party condemn the "criminal act".
-Retaliatory attacks on reportedly 29 Sunni mosques and the Accord Front warns from the consequences of such violent reactions.
-Jafari in a press conference calls for national unity and the leaders of the UIA hold a meeting. A press release is expected to come soon.
-The Iraqi TV opened the phone lines to receive the reactions of the audience to the attack and hosts Sunni clerics and politicians in an attempt to relieve the tension.
-Baghdad is in undeclared emergency situation, shops closed and streets nearly empty.
-Tight security around the shrine of Abu Haneefa in Aazamiya district of Baghdad, this is considered the top shrine/mosque for Sunni Muslims in Iraq.
-Masked gunmen attack Shia protestors in at least one neighborhood in western Baghdad and armed clashes in Ghazaliya and Hay al-A'amil.
One Pakistani cleric has said the the same forces who published the cartoons are behind the original bombing (tip to Tim Blair):
Allama Syed Sajid Ali Naqvi, said that the explosion in the shrine was carried out by the same people who supported the derogatory cartoons published in European newspapers.
"The strike is a continuation of the blasphemy on the holy family members of the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) and a ploy to divert the attention of the Muslim world from the imperialist forces’ diabolical designs against Islam."
This situation is bad enough, but if the attempts to blame the U.S. or the West succeed, things could get even worse.
If anything, we should have learned that it wasn't force of arms that won the cold war. Levi's jeans, McDonald's and Starbucks have a much better chance of success.
If Iraq falls into civil war and our image continues to take a hit in the middle east, we will find ourselves with even fewer allies than we have today in the region (because it will be very unpopular for secular Arab governments to befriend and help us).
It blows my mind how our own hubris led us to think we could really improve Iraqi lives through occupation and quick installation of a new democracy.
If anything, we should have learned that it wasn't force of arms that won the cold war. Levi's jeans, McDonald's and Starbucks have a much better chance of success.
I hope that Iraq can survive this challenge. If Iraq falls into civil war and our image continues to take a hit in the middle east, we will find ourselves with even fewer allies than we have today in the region (because it will be very unpopular for secular Arab governments to befriend and help us).
More broadly, it seems to me that even if this particular episode quiets down--and hopefully it is doing so already--this is an unfortunately useful roadmap for those in Iraq who do want to spark a civil war.
Maybe all those concerned with Free Speech could spend that non-protest time with a good book instead, of their own choosing. Might add more overall.
"... the attempts to blame the U.S. or the West succeed, things could get even worse." I assume you mean direct responsibility for bombing the mosque.
Because, of course, the invasion and occupation have led to this civil strife in the streets, I hope we're not denying that.
America's actions, though well intentioned, have effectively destabilized a country. Those purple-finger pundits, well intentioned in pushing the benefits of democracy, better stick it out.
The only way we win is if we display unshakable resolve to do right by the Iraqi people and every Arab who yearns for freedom. The only way we lose is if we allow the weak-sisters to convince us to turn tail and run.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013235.php
The only way we lose is if we allow the weak-sisters to convince us to turn tail and run.
Actually, the only way we lose is if we forget or ignore the wisdom of our founders, who spoke in favor of republics and against empires. Oh, wait...too late. We've already lost. Some guy just doesn't know it.
We haven't lost anything. The fight is just beginning.
Now is the time we see who are the summer soldiers, bandying about pretty purple fingers (ie, Buy My Book Reynolds), and the more realistic "I told you so" crowd, who understood all along the real color of war is red and black (blood and stumps).
Denial won't help the growing death counts. "Hopefully, things aren't quite as bad as they seem."
The large churches in Amsterdam have clear glass windows and plain interiors. I was told when I visted them that the staied glass and the altars were removed during the Reformation. I also understand that England's monasteries (though not cathedrals) were destroyed during the Reformation.
And Althouse is all about thongs and costumes in figure skating competition.
The Volokh crowd, meanwhile, is endorsing a "Support the Danish" social meetup.
Keep quiet now pundiddies (pundits and kiddies). Let the fighters do their jobs; remember to rub hand cream on your hands in this weather to keep your hands soft.
Heh!
Some Guy calls for "unshakable resolve"; he overlooks the fact that the mistakes made in the way this war was conducted, and sold to the American people, has led 55 percent of Americans to call the war a mistake. The fact is that war opponents who called Iraq a Yugoslavia-in-the-making were right. Rhetorical flourishes haven't brought victory in Iraq. Simply calling for resolve and criticizing those who accurately predicted the difficulties in rebuilding Iraq is a recipe for failure.
Donald Rumsfeld has directed his staff to consider the possibility that our presence in Iraq is encouraging and creating more jihadis than it is deterring, preventing, and interdicting. That's an empirical question. We've been too driven by rhetoric and ideology in our conduct of this war; it's way past time to get serious about facts. Is our presence enhancing US security or not? Is our presence enhancing Iraqi democracy or detracting from it? Obviously our presence isn't solving all problems, but it's not clear that there are better options.
Does it somehow make you feel more like a man to spout meaningless tripe concerning the ways of the world?
Do you really think that the U.S. army can bring the disparate parties of Iraq together to live in peace and harmony simply by staying the course. This is not some computer role playing game. This is the real world where the very presence of U.S. troops give one of the factions daily grist to whip up its followers. So do we win when all of those obvious "deadenders" are simply killed? Or perhaps simply cutting the entire population in half would quell the unrest?
What is the strategy, because simply carrying a big stick and grunting will not accomplish the task (or perhaps we should just find another thug like Saddam)?
Do you really believe the things you are saying or do they simply give you a sense of power in a world where such power is meaningless?
This is the twenty-first century and you sound like some vassal stuck in the middle ages.
I find this type of "rational" discussion disheartening on a site dedicated to law and logic.
Easy on the statistics there Bob. Even if 55% would agree with the blanket statement that the war was a "mistake," and you can count me among those 55%, there are many of us who feel that we must not cut and run just because we initially bungled the reconstruction strategy. Too much is at stake not to get this right.
Also Bob, is it really the way this war was "conducted, and sold to the American people," that leads to apparently widespread belief that it's a "mistake?" I tend to agree with - I think it was Some Guy - that we've turned largely into a country of sissies, with a professional fighting class that does the fighting - while the rest of us sip tea on the sidelines. If my peers (I'm 26) are any indication, most Americans today don't have the backbone for any war, winnable or not, right or wrong.
Really? What I find disheartening is some pseudo-enlightened "worldly" pessimist, resorting to amateur psychoanalysis and personal insults, all in the guise of a serious debater. Well, Eddie, pardon us poor serfs, who are yet to achieve the state of enlightenment that you apparently possess.
And whether or not Iraq descends into a full civil war at this point is largely out of our hands as well. I hope that doesn't happen, but I really see nothing we can do to prevent it if the Iraqi people insist.
I also agree that our generation (I'm 27) is pretty wussy. But I also remember that pessimism about America (vis a vis Germany and Japan) was rampant 15 years ago; I'm not giving up on us yet.
As to why things are getting unpopular, look, we were told that this war would last months not years, that we would be greeted as liberators, that we had to fight this preemptive war because of an imminent WMD threat from Iraq, that we would turn the corner after this or that political development, and that the insurgency was in its final throes. None of these have been true. Also, those who made the decisions have been ideology-driven civilians, not experts on military affairs or nationbuilding.
I supported the war, and I support staying. But I don't support ignoring the reasons why things haven't gone as well as we expected-- or the reasons why our expectations were off to begin with.
The mistake, as far as I'm concerned, was letting the Iraqi army walk of the field. Instead of making back-door deals with generals to take their soldiers home, we should have fought how wars are supposed to be fought - aggressively. It wouldn't have endeared us to Iraqi mothers and widows, but fighting soft may prove more cruel in the long run, and certainly less efficient.
When I was in the Army, I had a team leader with very formalistic views of the Geneva convention. He said - when you are overrunning the enemy, make sure you put two shots in him before, you step over his body, because after you step over it, he is a POW, if still alive. I hate to say it, but that would have been a better large scale strategy than the one we employed.
The lack of resolve in our current situation might be attributed to a defect of national character, I suppose, but it might also be the fact that our cause in Iraq bears absolutely no resemblance to the stakes at issue in WWII.
As an aside, three cheers for StratFor. I worked there as a (very) junior analyst about ten years ago, working on minor Asian political issues, and was deeply impressed by the quality of thought and sober analysis they produced. I certainly wish some of their analysts had been with the government before Iraq. Even more, I wish their culture of skepticism and clear thinking had been with the government before Iraq.
That's the government that the Iraqi people voted into power, which is a distinction lost on Mr. Cross (and the bulk of my colleagues in the academy).
Can't resist quoting two at length, not that I agree with all they say...
Another person writes:
They little chickadees are out in force and they may be right. After all, sooner or later they have to get one right.
I prefer to look at every one of these setbacks as just another way of making Iraq stronger as a nation.
Those of you who bother to look past the headlines might see that there is a lot of Suuni/Shiite cooperation to stop the risng tensions. Shiites protecting Suuni Mosques and vice versa.
Those that defield the shrine may well rue the day they did it.
PS: My general comments also relate to the WOT and Afghanistan.
In the 1940s, as you may recall, those college grads didn't sign up to go smite our enemies until after Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us. Before that happened, the products of our colleges (like the rest of the country) were pretty intent on staying out of the war.
If, on the other hand, the Iraqis had pulled a sneak attack on us (9/11 doesn't count, however, much the Bush Administration tried to pin that one on Saddam Hussein), I'm pretty sure those "pansies" would have been down at the recruiting offices just as eagerly as they were after December 7.
I do not think we have a defect in national character so much as a dearth of objective information so people can make informed decisions.
How can you expect any other reaction if there is a constant drumbeat from the press and politicians that the war is wrong, Bush lied, and we have become the oppressors of the world.
Couple that with declaring any attempt to get an unbiased picture out to be propoganda and you have all the ingredients for a badly informed public.
Well, maybe I was mistaken.
From DoD staffer Stephen Cambone's notes from meetings with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the afternoon of September 11, 2001, re attacking Saddam.