The Common Ills: No, yesterday's attacks were claimed by Iraqis

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

No, yesterday's attacks were claimed by Iraqis

Mohammed Tawfeeq and Joe Sterling of CNN falsely report today "Islamists claim responsibility for Iraq anniversary attacks." No, Iraqis claimed responsibility. Stop the spin. After ten years, can't they get honest? Aren't they tired?

The Iraq War installed a government of exiles. Iraqis didn't select them. Some Iraqis oppose them. Some violently oppose them. The war destroyed the country and, in the destruction, those who snuck back in after the US invaded were elevated to leadership posts they didn't earn.

We've said it before and we'll say it again, if the US was invaded and a foreign country put a lot of people who'd run to Canada or wherever and only returned after the invasion, we wouldn't be happy. We wouldn't feel these people represented us. The exiles continue to live like exiles -- on the Iraqi dime. They don't live among the people, they have multiple bodyguards, they spend a great deal of time out of the country, otherwise you can find them in the heavily protected Green Zone.

That's Iraqi leadership. Is it really a surprise that armed resistance to that would exist? Only if you're really stupid. The Iraqi government has also been really stupid in refusing to improve public services (electricity, sanitation and potable water). Nouri thinks bribes in the immediate weeks ahead of an election are ways to win support. If he'd delivered on any of the basic needs of the people in the last seven years (seven in May) that he's been prime minister, the opposition to him wouldn't be so popular. He appeared -- to some anyway -- to grasp that in February 2011. That's when he promised, if the protesters would stop protesting and give him 100 days, he would fix things. Of course, he took the 100 days and did nothing because that really is the story of his 'leadership.'

Nouri is the cause, not the victim, of the violence today. As Trudy Rubin (Sacremento Bee) observes, "Despite elections, Iraq still has a government that arrests and tortures political opponents and runs a secret police state."

National Iraqi News Agency reports a Baghdad car bombing has claimed 2 lives and left five more people injured, an Anbar sticky bombing has claimed the life of 1 Anbar police officer, a former military officer was shot dead in Mosul, a sticky bombing outside Tikrit killed 1 man and left "his wife and their two children wounded."

As the political crisis continues, All Iraq News notes Moqtqada al-Sadr is planning a press conference. Ayad Allawi is the leader of Iraqiya, the political slate that came in first in the 2010 elections, besting Nouri's State of Law. All Iraq News reportsAllawi is in Turkey currently and quotes him stating, "Maliki run the country alone without a guide as determined by Erbil Agreement. The current situation is a result for ignoring the former agreements in addition to the continuous tension in the neighboring countries especially Syria. The State of Law Coalition headed by Maliki violated the constitution by preventing the IS from practicing its democratic right after winning the elections in 2010. The exclusion process after the elections of 2010 led to dividing Iraq and forming sectarian blocs." And Allawi is correct.

The US brokered The Erbil Agreement. They did that because Barack wanted Nouri to have a second term. Voters had said no. The Constitution was clear on the process. To get around the Constitution, as Nouri entered the eight month of refusing to step down as prime minister, the US told the other political parties to do what was right for Iraq, to be the bigger person, blah, blah, blah. Let Nouri have a second term and you'll get various things in exchange. This was all written up and signed off on by all the leaders of the political blocs -- including Nouri -- and the White House said (lied) that the contract had the full support of the US government behind it. Nouri used the contract to get that second term and then he trashed the contract. Refused to live up to it. Though Iraqiya, the Kurds and Moqtada have been publicly calling for the contract to be honored since the summer of 2011, the US government has had little to say. And the White House wonders why political blocs don't trust them at all?

From yesterday's snapshot:

In other news of Nouri's aggression, Zhu Ningzhu (Xinhua) reports, "The Iraqi cabinet on Tuesday decided to postpone the provincial elections in the Sunni provinces of Anbar and Nineveh for a maximum period of six months due to deterioration in security across the country, an Iraqi official television reported." AFP reports it too. Neither notes reality.

First reality, look at the above and explain why Baghdad Province would have elections? I'm sorry if Nouri's excuse is too much violence, Baghdad's pretty violent. This isn't about violence, this is about punishing the protesters.

Second, the Cabinet did not vote. Alsumaria reports Moqtada al-Sadr has already announced his opposition to cancelling the votes and says that it is not permissable and compares the injustice to the founding of a second tyrant and dictator. Looks like Nouri's going to have to lose the "Little Saddam" moniker and just be "New Saddam." NINA adds that the vote was taken in a session that the Kurds and Iraqiya weren't present at.

Ayad al-Tamimi and Nevzat Hmedin (Al Mada) report the Governor of Nineveh, Atheel al-Nujaifi, has come up with an even better point, it is less violence in the province than it was in 2009 when the last provincial elections were held -- but amid that violence, the province still managed to vote.

The following community sites -- plus Antiwar.com, Adam Kokesh, Pacifica Evening News and the At War blog -- updated last night and this morning: