Thread: Iraq News

At least 12 people have been killed in a suicide bomb attack on a restaurant in north-eastern Iraq.

The attack took place in Khanaqin, Diyala province, a town close to the semi-autonomous Kurdish region and near the border with Iran.
It comes days after Iraq held largely peaceful provincial elections, the first results of which are expected to be released on Thursday. Kurdish and police officials say at least 15 other people were injured.


Ethnic tensions

Khanaqin is the centre of a power struggle between Kurds and Arabs.
The town holds sizeable oil reserves and longstanding Kurdish ambitions to incorporate Khanaqin into their northern semi-autonomous region have sparked ethnic tensions with Arabs.
Correspondents say that on election day, hundreds of Kurds complained that they couldn't find their names on voter registration lists.
Salahuddin Kokha, an official with a local Kurdish political party, said the attack was meant to upset Kurdish claims of a strong showing in the provincial elections. "Terrorists want to destroy the happiness of the Kurds over their election victory in Khanaqin," he said.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Deadly bombing at Iraq restaurant

I don't normally bother linking all of these attacks to this thread- to say the least, repetitive. Violence is down, unquestionably good, but still happening. Ethnic/ regional tensions are the biggest concern currently.

The operation was a failure, but at least one with an end in sight for the occupying force. But the cost so far is around fifty times the pre-invasion estimates. 'Democracy' has not been a good force in Iraq so far, but that should not surprise too many people seeing as it was foisted on the back of a violent invasion, the country plunged into anarchy following the summary dismissal of the security forces, the infrastructural promises not remotely delivered, the country descending into bloody internecine warfare, some shameful incidents involving the Occupation forces- and all justified on the back of a false accusation.

Quite some failure.

Obama seemed pretty happy with the elections.

By William Shawcross
The Guardian
Feb 3, 2009

The weekend's elections in Iraq were a huge success for the Iraqi people. The remarkably peaceful day of voting on Saturday - and the interim results - give good reason to hope Iraq really is on the way to building a decent society.

These provincial elections were held in 14 of the country's 18 provinces (Kurdistan will hold separate elections, and the disputed oil-rich city of Kirkuk was deemed "too hard" at present).

This was the first post-Saddam election that the Iraqis handled themselves. Iraqi soldiers protected the polling stations. It was also the first election to have international observers in all 712 constituencies. In 2005 terrorist attacks made that too dangerous. Then, more than 200 candidates were killed - this time, eight died. There were 14,412 candidates standing for office, an impressive number.

This was also the first election in which there was no boycott on ethnic or sectarian grounds. There was an enormous spread of views represented on the ballot papers - Iraq is the only Arab country which offers almost everyone, including Trotskyites and monarchists, the freedom to stand for election.

The turnout, 51%, was less than some predicted but importantly it included many Sunnis who had boycotted the last elections in 2005. Turnout in some of the Sunni areas was as high as 60%. The hope is that these Sunnis have turned from the methods of al-Qaida, which dominated the early post-Saddam years, to the political process.

The peaceful polling was remarkable and so were the results. All the Islamic parties lost ground, especially that associated with the so-called "Shia firebrand", Moqtada al-Sadr, whose share of the vote went down from 11% to 3%. The principal Sunni Islamic party, the Islamic Party of Iraq, was wiped out.

The only Islamic party to gain ground was the Dawa party of the Shia prime minister Nouri al-Maliki - and even that party dropped the word Islamic from its name. The power of Maliki, who has emerged a stronger leader than expected, is further enhanced by these elections. Now no Islamic parties will be able to control any provinces on their own. The election is thus a big defeat for Iran which had hoped that Shia religious parties would control the south and enable Iran to turn them into a mini Shia republic.

Instead, a new generation of Iraqi politicians is coming forward. Many of them are young and secular. They have lived always in Iraq, not in exile; they are Iraqis with local roots first and foremost - they are not pan-Arabs or pan-Islamists. Nor do they have connections to the US.

Iraq's polity is still fragile. Parliamentary elections later this year will be another test of whether the horrific inter-Islamic violence of recent years is over. The country is still far from united and its infrastructure still needs massive investment. But there are now real grounds to hope that Iraqis are finally on track to creating a far more decent society than they have ever had. This would never have been possible without the US-led overthrow of the psychotic Saddam family.

There were lamentable failures in the subsequent US occupation, which allowed the rise of the hideous sectarian violence that threatened to tear the country to pieces. But in the last two years the "surge" of US troops under General David Petraeus appears to have destroyed much of the terrorists' infrastructure and support. Now, as US troops begin their phased withdrawal, the new American-trained Iraqi army is defending the country against Islamist violence.

There will be further setbacks. But who knows, Iraq may yet even become a model for democratic change in other Arab countries. If so, who deserves some credit? The much maligned President Bush. And Tony Blair.

William Shawcross: Democratic dawn in Iraq | Comment is free | The Guardian

***

^err....why would you copy an paste someone else's opinion?

and btw, how does this jibe with your continued bleating about the 'liberal' media'?



anyway, why won't you detail what the US 'won' by invading and occupying iraq? should be an easy enough question, right?

Originally Posted by Texpat

William Shawcross

hmmmm....so who is this william shawcross?

let's take a look at the titles of a few of the other articles by texpat's 'source'.....

Originally Posted by william shawcross

We're not Bush's poodles: we're fighting on the right side of history

Originally Posted by william shawcross

Iraq's liberators should be proud

Originally Posted by william shawcross

It's no time to quit Iraq - we're winning

Originally Posted by william shawcross

Now, more than ever, Britain must stay in Iraq

quite the unbiased source.

you're slipping, texpat....you're slipping.

According to this analysis from the Asia Times, the Iraqi election results were a victory for secularism over religious fundamentalism and partisanship. The results will be seen as positive by the US and the West:-

The political re-birth of Nuri al-Maliki
By Sami Moubayed

DAMASCUS - Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has emerged as the winner of provincial elections in Iraq that took place January 31. A total of 14,000 candidates competed for 440 seats in 18 provincial councils, and five were assassinated in the period preceding the elections.

Preliminary results were released on Thursday, while the final results are scheduled for announcement on February 22. Some Iraqis were thrilled by the results, while others sulked, having expected a smashing defeat for Maliki at the polls. For weeks, the Saudi Arabia-aligned Arab press had been saying that Maliki, whom such organizations consider an extension of Iranian influence in the Arab world, was politically finished.

They speculated that with US President Barack Obama in the White House, Maliki's honeymoon with the United States would come to an end by mid-2009. With no American support, observers claimed, he would be voted out of office by ordinary Iraqis in the provincial elections.

Many in the Arab world could not conceal their happiness at the prospect of his political demise. There was even gloating and claims that Maliki was a sectarian clown who, since coming to power in 2006, had advanced Shi'ite interests in Iraq, at the expense of Iraqi Sunnis. He had failed to bring security to Iraq or any kind of rapprochement between Shi'ites and Sunnis. Many saw Maliki as a stooge for both the US and Iran, who had transformed pockets of Iraq into a miniature theocracy, based on the Iranian model.

Preliminary results on February 5 proved them wrong. Maliki has been literally "re-born".

Maliki's team took Baghdad in a landslide victory, along with eight of the nine Shi'ite provinces in Iraq. By all accounts, this was a dramatic show of confidence in the prime minister. Additionally, these were the most peaceful elections Iraq had known since the Anglo-American invasion of 2003 - a fact noted by everybody, including Obama.

Over 50% of Iraqis came out to vote on July 31, signaling confidence in the security measures of the prime minister (lower nevertheless than the 55.7% of 2005). Maliki himself did not run for elections, but threw full weight behind his team, standing as the Coalition of Law and Order.

Although originating from a party that preaches political Islam, neither the prime minister nor any of his team campaigned on religious slogans, in an attempt to appeal to both Sunnis and Shi'ites. That secular move was warmly received by Iraqis, especially the youth, who seemed to be finally fed up with the sectarian violence that has been a constant threat since 2003. Many wanted a new political narrative, and strangely enough, the one to provide it was Maliki.

According to election results, Maliki's team won 38% of the votes in Baghdad and 37% in the oil-rich city of Basra. Maliki's allies in the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council (SIIC), who had relied heavily on religious slogans (as they did during the elections of 2005), were strikingly voted out of office in seven out of the 10 provinces they previously controlled.

The political bloc of Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, which also used religion in its campaign, was similarly defeated, with less than 30,000 votes in Basra, a city it had strongly controlled since 2003. Sadr's team are expected to get one or two seats in Basra, another major setback for religiously driven politicians. Secular parties scored better than expected, showing that voting for religious figures - the trend in 2005 - may now be fading away.

That was the most important outcome of the Iraqi elections: a visible reduction of religious loyalties and their replacement by pan-Iraqi ones. At one level, the results were a defeat for the SIIC while at another it was regarded as a major setback for Iran. Iran's relations with the SIIC date to the 1980s, when its militia, the Badr Brigade, was founded and armed by the Iranians to help fight the Iraqi army in 1980-1988. The SIIC's ailing leader Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim is very close to the upper-echelons of power in Tehran and its defeat in such elections is no joke.

Full Article:- Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs

this is good news, however irrelevant in this conflict,

as soon as the US leaves next year, the current government would be too weak and you can expect an Islamic Revolution, Iran style, to take place

United States Central Command chief General David Petraeus, supported by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all US combat troops from Iraq within 18 months. This was at an Oval Office meeting on January 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs chairman Admiral Mike Mullen that he wasn't convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama's decision to override Petraeus's recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including General Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun pressuring Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reportedly preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilizing public opinion against Obama's decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, "Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama."

Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs


Obama a 'Weak Leader'. I don't think so- but early days.

Originally Posted by sabang

There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including General Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun pressuring Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

fuck them, they are not in charge, they are there to take orders, not to question them. If they are not happy with their job, they can retire.

Originally Posted by sabang

A network of senior military officers is also reportedly preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilizing public opinion against Obama's decision.

This is "revolt" and "treason" who the fuck they think they are ? questioning orders ? They should resign immediately or be removed. They wouldn't dare pulling that trick if Bush their love was still in the office.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

this is good news, however irrelevant in this conflict,

as soon as the US leaves next year, the current government would be too weak and you can expect an Islamic Revolution, Iran style, to take place

But yet, you still keep hysterically rambling that the coalition troops should withdraw !!!

guess it makes sense in your demented and warped thought process

Originally Posted by KID

But yet, you still keep hysterically rambling that the coalition troops should withdraw !!!

never saw that reply, but KID being an old troll from the BearPit and one of those Bush nazi, he is starting to run scared of the new reality

^ Umm... whats all the guns and tanks and things for then?

There are guns and tanks and things everywhere, Panda.

Even in Ozland. Is that a war zone?

Is Pakistan at war? Lots of killing and fighting and bomb blasts there. I would guess more than in Iraq recently. Is Pakistan at war?

How about Israel? Are they at war? What about Patani, Naratiwat, Songkla and Yala?

No foreign armies on the streets in Oz shooting people I'm sorry to inform you Tex.

Israel at war? Which war are you referring to there. They have been involved in a few invasions lately. Killing unarmed civilians mostly, but still with bombings, artillery and ground forces all the same. Are we going to split hairs on what technically constitutes a war now? When a foreign military invades a country and starts killing people its war, plain and simple.

The US war against Iraq ain't over by a long shot. And it wont be over till the body bags stop coming home and the Yanks get their arse out of there.

Is that when the war ends? What about the inevitable civil war that ensues among Sunnis and Shias.

Surely you can find it in your heart to blame that on the invading Americans and might conceivably carry this war out for centuries. (Ignore the centuries of fighting hitherto at your pleasure )

Pray tonight that the fighting ensues for surely you're not on the side of the invaders. And you dread a peaceful solution.

If not so pathetic, quite hilarious.

Tix to the celebration running thin Pandy. Get 'em while they're hot.

If you haven't started already, might think about shifting to climate change or Brittney Spears. Ya might have better luck.

Originally Posted by Texpat

How do you define a war, Butterhole?

Perhaps you should ask your hero GWB.

Do you realize the US is in Iraq at the request of the democratically elected government? And has been for quite some time ...

I don't think you really believe that is the reason, but it's hard to back down when you've painted yourself into a corner isn't it.

Is that a war?

Why don't you enlighten us with your definitions of armed conflict Tex, you know just so as we're all on the same page.

You're turning into Blackgang. It's rather entertaining.

Originally Posted by Texpat

Is that when the war ends? What about the inevitable civil war that ensues among Sunnis and Shias.

Surely you can find it in your heart to blame that on the invading Americans and might conceivably carry this war out for centuries. (Ignore the centuries of fighting hitherto at your pleasure )

Pray tonight that the fighting ensues for surely you're not on the side of the invaders. And you dread a peaceful solution.

If not so pathetic, quite hilarious.

Tix to the celebration running thin Pandy. Get 'em while they're hot.

If you haven't started already, might think about shifting to climate change or Brittney Spears. Ya might have better luck.

I'll ignore the personal snipes and concentrate on the discussion at hand here Tex.

Iraq was a country of different ethnic/religious groups thrown together by the western powers after WW1.
Saddam Hussein held it together by use of ruthless and brutal military force.
In comes USA in 2003 and tries to introduce a warm and fuzzy (friendly to USA)democratic government to unite the opposing ethnic factions. The Yanks destroy the countries infrastructure and kill many thousands of people in the name of peace and democracy. Now, 6 years on, the invading forces complain that the country is on the verge of a civil war with a fragile government and is likely to descend into anarchy if they pull out. Sure its likely to descend into chaos when the Yanks skulk away. No one could call it a success. If 160,000 US combat troops couldn't pull the place together what chance does the fragmented Iraqi government have. Iraq is a mess and will likely fall apart when the Yanks go. Good job hey?

An American soldier killed five of his fellow troops at a base in Baghdad, the Pentagon said today.

The five were killed in a shooting 2pm local time, at Camp Liberty near Baghdad international airport.

An investigation into the circumstances surrounding the deaths is underway. The toll was the highest for US personnel in a single attack since April 10, when a suicide truck driver killed five American soldiers with a blast near a police headquarters in the northern city of Mosul.

In a separate incident, a US soldier was killed yesterday when a roadside bomb exploded near his vehicle in Basra province of southern Baghdad.

Earlier this month, two US soldiers were killed by a man wearing an Iraqi army uniform at an Iraqi military training centre in northern Iraq.

Violence has dropped sharply in Iraq, but insurgent attacks continue, and a rash of big bombings has raised questions about security less than two months before US forces are due to withdraw combat troops from urban bases.

Thirteen US soldiers were killed in combat in April, including the five who died in Mosul.

US soldier shoots and kills five fellow troops at Baghdad base | World news | guardian.co.uk

Sunni violence against Shiites is on the rise too- and frankly much more newsworthy because of the numbers killed. Certainly, I think there will be a rise in violence in Iraq as the US withdrawal continues. Will it threaten, or impeded the disengagement? Dunno- depends how bad it gets I guess.

Disgruntled Sunni's have been talking about a rise in violence for some time, some Sunni warlords that were in the pay of the US even said the same thing- and that their armed struggle against the Shiites would resume as the US withdrew. I wonder how the Shiite militia's, and the mainly Shiite government/ Armed forces will respond?

Al-Qaida leader's wife gets 20 years in prison
2011-06-26

BAGHDAD: An Iraqi judicial spokesman says a court has sentenced the wife of a slain al-Qaida leader to 20 years in prison for terrorism-related charges.

An Iraqi Supreme Judicial Council spokesman on Sunday said Hasna Ali Yahya, the Yemeni wife of Abu Ayyub al-Masri, was convicted last Thursday.

Spokesman Abdul-Sattar Bayrkdar didn't give details on the charges, but a government official said she was convicted of facilitating correspondence between insurgents and preparing explosive-laden belts.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity as he was not authorized to release information.

She has been in custody since the April 2010 joint U.S.-Iraqi north of Baghdad that killed al-Masri along with another prominent al-Qaida in Iraq militant.

thehimalayantimes.com

20 years and no details of the charges...