Mass murders with bombs across Baghdad

From the AP:

BAGHDAD - A wave of bombings ripped across Baghdad on Thursday morning, killing at least 57 people and injuring nearly 200 in the worst violence Iraq has seen for months. The bloodbath comes just days after American forces left the country.

The blasts also came on the heels of a political crisis between Iraq’s Sunni and Shiite factions that erupted this weekend. The political spat, which pits Iraq’s Shiite prime minister against the highest-ranking Sunni political leader, has raised fears that Iraq’s sectarian wounds will be reopened during a fragile time when Iraq is finally navigating its own political future without U.S. military support.

UPDATE: Here is the NYT’s story on the bombing:

December 22, 2011
Explosions Rock Baghdad Amid Iraqi Political Crisis

BAGHDAD—A wave of coordinated explosions ripped across Baghdad early on Thursday, killing at least 63 people, wounding more than 180 and jolting a country already unsettled by a deepening political crisis and the absence of American troops.

Using car bombs and improvised explosive devices, insurgents attacked markets, grocery stores, schools and government buildings in a dozen neighborhoods in central and eastern part of the capital.

The attacks marked the most significant violence in Iraq since the last American troops pulled out of the country earlier this week. So far, the withdrawal and the bitter fighting between Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, a Shiite, and his political foes in Parliament have not been accompanied by a rise in violence. But Thursday’s attacks raised the specter that the crisis inside the government could spill into the streets.

The attacks came a day after Mr. Maliki threatened to abandon an American-backed power-sharing government created a year ago. The prime minister’s words at a televised news conference on Wednesday threw a fragile democracy into further turmoil after the departure of American troops, potentially tarnishing what has been cast as a major foreign policy achievement for President Obama.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attacks on Thursday but they appeared similar to others conducted by the insurgent group, Al Qaeda in Iraq, which has tried to plunge the country back into a sectarian war by pitting Sunnis and Shiites against each other.

“This has nothing to do with the American withdrawal,” said Abdul Kareem Thirib, the head of the security committee for Baghdad’s provincial council. “When they were here, there were also explosions. We were the ones in control of the streets when the Americans were here. I think there will be more cowardly attacks in the coming days but we will face them and everything will be under control.”

He added, “They are trying to send a message to say that ‘we are still here.’”

The attacks began around 6:30 a.m. as Iraqis were leaving for work and blasted apart stores just as shopkeepers were opening their metal gates.

The most deadly attack occurred in the bustling neighborhood of Karada where a car bomb aimed at offices for the government’s integrity committee killed 13 people and wounded 36. Medics and volunteers at the scene did not have enough stretchers for the wounded and dead so they slung bleeding bodies into blankets. Nearby apartment buildings were ripped apart and store windows were shattered as far as 10 blocks from the blast site.

One woman hobbled to the hospital on bloodied legs. When a man assisting her urged her into an ambulance, she said, “I don’t want anything from the government.”

A woman who had been searching for her son in the rubble of one blast learned of his death at the Ibn al-nafiz hospital in Karada. “My God, my God,” she screamed, running out of the emergency room.

Ali Suhail, 43, was opening his gleaming new electronics shop for the very first time when the explosion hurled him to the ground and destroyed an investment years in the making.

“Everybody has a dream—you need to open a store to achieve it,” he said, standing on a heap of broken glass. “Now I have a new dream: to leave this country.”

The attacks came hours after Mr. Maliki pushed back on all fronts in the crisis, threatening to release investigatory files that he claimed implicated his opponents in terrorism.

At a televised news conference, he also warned the Kurds—valuable allies with close ties to the Americans—that there would be “problems” if they protected Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, who fled to the semiautonomous Kurdish region in recent days to escape an arrest warrant on charges that he ran a death squad responsible for assassinations and bombings.

The crisis underscores the divisions among Iraq’s three main factions—Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds—that were largely papered over while the American military maintained a presence here. The crisis also lays bare the myriad problems left behind with the final departure of American troops: sectarianism, a judiciary that the populace views as beholden to one man and a political culture with no space for compromise.

And it highlights the waning American influence on events here, after a war that lasted nearly nine years. For Mr. Obama, the political dysfunction represents an embarrassing turn of events, coming so soon after the troops left. This month, he met with Mr. Maliki in Washington and praised Iraq’s internal affairs, calling the country “sovereign, self-reliant and democratic.”

The crisis has also come at an inopportune time: Many on the extensive American Embassy staff here have gone home for the holidays. Ambassador James F. Jeffrey, who left the country after a ceremony last week to mark the end of the war, cut short his trip to rush back to Baghdad, and was meeting with senior Iraqi leaders, as was David H. Petraeus, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency and former military commander in Iraq, who arrived on Tuesday, an American official said.

If the crisis continues to intensify, the Obama administration is likely to draw new criticism for failing to negotiate an extension of the American troop presence in Iraq. While an agreement negotiated by the administration of President George W. Bush called for a final departure at the end of 2011, both countries spent the summer trying to negotiate an extension—something that military leaders and many analysts argued was needed to secure Iraq’s fragile democracy and protect the gains achieved in a war that cost nearly 4,500 American lives and close to $1 trillion.

“This is an absolutely critical moment,” said Kenneth M. Pollack of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution and an advocate for a continuing American troop presence. “It is critical for the White House’s Iraq policy. The underlying theme of their Iraq policy is that Iraq is a success and it is relatively stable and it does not need American troops to continue the move forward. This crisis is a clear and unmistakable challenge to both of those premises.”

In the coming days, America’s ability to shape outcomes in Iraq, already flagging in the period leading up to the troop withdrawal, will be sharply tested. The largest American Embassy in the world is here. The United States is spending nearly $1 billion a year to train Iraq’s police, and is spending billions more arming Iraq’s military with tanks, fighter jets and other weapons.

Even with all combat troops departed, 157 military personnel remain in the country, overseeing military sales to Iraq that amount to $10 billion in weapons contracts, $3 billion of which is paid by the United States.

“I’m a glass-half-full guy, so I’m not looking at the doomsday possibility,” Lt. Gen. Robert L. Caslen, who heads the embassy’s Office of Security Cooperation, said on Wednesday. He added that “there is more common sense in the government and more ability of our international community to help coach the Iraqis to make wise decisions on how they govern.”

Yet the huge weapons sales and enormous diplomatic mission still may not carry much weight when it comes to the hard task of reconciling Iraq’s divisive sectarian politics.

“Trying to include all the major elements in one government was always a prescription for paralysis, or at least food fights,” Christopher R. Hill, the ambassador here last year, said by telephone.

He added, “This Shia-Sunni divide is big and it’s never gone away and it’s going to take generations to go away. There’s a lot of hostility there. It’s up to us to try to be helpful to try to get Maliki to try to do the right thing.”

Mr. Maliki, a Shiite, also issued a warning to his rivals—and, incongruously, to his coalition partners—in Iraqiya, the largely Sunni bloc of lawmakers that includes Mr. Hashimi: If they do not end their boycott of Parliament and the Council of Ministers, he will move to form a majority government that would exclude them from power.

If Iraqiya’s ministers do not show up at future sessions, he said, “we will appoint replacements.”

The news conference was the first time the prime minister had spoken directly to the nation since the controversy erupted.

The crisis began when the Shiite-dominated government issued an arrest warrant for Mr. Hashimi, the top Sunni politician, on terrorism charges. Mr. Maliki offered to defuse tensions by calling for a conference of Iraq’s political elite to discuss the matter. But his efforts at conciliation seemed to end there, and Iraqiya rejected calls to meet and said it would pursue a long-shot no-confidence vote against Mr. Maliki.

The arrest has cast a spotlight on Iraq’s judicial system, which for almost nine years has been pushed by American diplomats, military personnel and civilian experts toward a system based on evidence rather than confessions. Yet the government has made its case to the public against Mr. Hashimi by broadcasting videotaped confessions that Mr. Hashimi has said were fabricated and that others contended were made under duress.

The timing of the decision to seek Mr. Hashimi’s arrest—the government is said to have been compiling a case against him for years—has further inflamed the situation. “The timing of the release of such details and accusations against Hashimi raises question marks, since Maliki said he had the documents against Hashimi three years ago,” said Muhammad al-Khafaji, a lawmaker from the Sadrist bloc and an ally of Mr. Maliki. “Why didn’t Maliki release them to the public before this time? I think the timing was chosen on purpose.”

Some analysts say the instability is the worst here in years, certainly the gravest since politicians took nearly eight months to form a government after last year’s parliamentary elections. And, of course, the American military is no longer here.

In calling for the Kurds to turn over Mr. Hashimi, Mr. Maliki risked alienating a powerful minority that operates in its own semiautonomous region and whose support he would need to form a new government without Iraqiya. While in the north, Mr. Hashimi is largely out of reach of Mr. Maliki’s security forces, and could easily flee the country.

“We demand the Kurdistan region hand him over,” Mr. Maliki said, adding, “If he escapes, this will create problems.”

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 22, 2011 06:31 AM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):