« Thank God Our Leaders Are Completely Different From Saddam Hussein | Main | Fifty-first state weighs in »
October 24, 2004
Is Zarqawi Trying to Start a Civil War in Iraq?
It has been a constant refrain among apologists for the occupation that "There Will be A Civil War if We Leave" -- and I've tended to largely dismiss the claim as it got thrown upon the dwindling heap of discarded excuses and pretexets. The case seemed even weaker as Iraqis united against the occupation, with Shiite mosques taking up food collections for besieged Fallujuah, and Fallujah residents in turn rushing to bombarded Najaf. In fact, resistance to colonial occupation is probably the most common means of nation formation and cohesion outside of the Western world. There is, and remains, the question the Kurdish population which is very understandably weary and wary of remaining within Iraq. But, other than that, my impression had been that the threat of secterian explosion had been overexaggrated.
However, I think growing evidence suggests that it should be seriously considered whether Jamaat al-Tawhid and Jihad --the group claiming affiliation with Zarwawi which recently renamed itself to "al Qaida of Jihad in the Land of Two Rivers" in what seems to be an attempt to suck up to Bin Ladin and shore up its legitimacy-- is trying to ignite a civil war under the guise of resisting the occupation. The latest execution style killing of 50 Iraqi army recruits for which the group has claimed responsibility continues the trend of targeting Shiites under the guise of resisting the occupation. This trend probably remains relatively unnoticed in the United States because news stories report car bombings as occurring in "Baghdad" without much mention to the religious characteristics of the neighborhood or the victims. The latest mass killing was a targeted, pre-planned ambush, they knew who they were going to kill so they must have known this too:
A senior security official, declining to be named, said most of the soldiers were from poor families in the mainly Shi'ite Muslim cities of Basra, Amara and Nassiriya in southern Iraq.
Rememeber the previous outrage, the murder of 35 children who had lined up to collect candy at the opening ceremony of a sewer plant? That one was in Amal, another poor Shiite neighborhood. And remember the earlier bombings targeting Shiite Ashura worshippers which killed 185, or the car bomb in Basra which blew up a school bus full of kids?
And this extensive targeting of Iraqi military recruits does not really make sense. By all accounts, most recruits and most of Iraqi army and police are very reluctant to do America's bidding. They balked at the idea of fighting in Fallujah and they continually balk at orders to attack their own countrymen. Here's a typical comment from a recent article in the NY Times where the marines echo common refrain among U.S. military about the Iraqi forces:
In this guerrilla war, the marines said, strict rules of engagement have kept their hands tied. They said the Iraqi police and National Guard are unhelpful at best and enemy agents at worst, raising doubts about President Bush's assertion that local forces would soon help relieve the policing duties of the 138,000 American troops in Iraq.
Does that sound like the marines are describing a force which the people of Iraq would approve the killing of its unarmed members, execution style, with a bullet to the back of the head as they laid on the ground? I really doubt such actions are popular. In fact there was a poll about six months ago --I'll post it when I dig it up-- that showed that there was general support among the Iraqi populace for attacking the occupation forces but not for attacking Iraqi police. All that may well change if Ayad Allawi manages to reforge a version of Saddam's rule --and there were some inklings of that in the recent attack on Najaf -- but that is yet to be seen in the future.
And this would all make sense with Jamaat al-Tawhid and Jihad's thinking. The "Tawhid" in their name means monotheism and it's can be interpreted as a code word for "Not Shiite" -- a bit like Bush saying Dred v Scott to mean Roe v Wade. Some Sunni see the shiite reverance for Ali to be beyond acceptable limits, and accuse them of worshipping Ali on the same plane as the Prophet, or even, God -- and prolific professions of monotheism can be one way of expressing disgust at Shiism. As pointed out by Empire Notes, this could sow the seeds for a real civil war.
Here's the part of the letter purported to have been written by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to Osama Bin Ladin "analyzing" the Shiite population of Iraq:
3 [sic]. The Shi`a[They are] the insurmountable obstacle, the lurking snake, the crafty and malicious scorpion, the spying enemy, and the penetrating venom. We here are entering a battle on two levels. One, evident and open, is with an attacking enemy and patent infidelity. [Another is] a difficult, fierce battle with a crafty enemy who wears the garb of a friend, manifests agreement, and calls for comradeship, but harbors ill will and twists up peaks and crests (?). Theirs is the legacy of the Batini bands that traversed the history of Islam and left scars on its face that time cannot erase. The unhurried observer and inquiring onlooker will realize that Shi`ism is the looming danger and the true challenge. “They are the enemy. Beware of them. Fight them. By God, they lie.” History’s message is validated by the testimony of the current situation, which informs most clearly that Shi`ism is a religion that has nothing in common with Islam except in the way that Jews have something in common with Christians under the banner of the People of the Book.
From patent polytheism, worshipping at graves, and circumambulating shrines, to calling the Companions [of the Prophet] infidels and insulting the mothers of the believers and the elite of this [Islamic] nation, [they] arrive at distorting the Qur’an as a product of logic to defame those who know it well, in addition to speaking of the infallibility of the [Islamic] nation, the centrality of believing in them, affirming that revelation came down to them, and other forms of infidelity and manifestations of atheism with which their authorized books and original sources -- which they continue to print, distribute, and publish -- overflow.
Let me say that I'm really suggesting the question; analysis of this matters requires a lot more expertise and research on the subject than I possess or have done. The first thing would be to map the mass bombings not done by the United States that targeted Iraqi civilians --like the Ashura or Basra bombings-- and see where they fell. The second thing would be to look at targeted killings Iraqi army recruits and map if they are overwhelmingly Shiite. Frankly, I don't know if Abu Musab al-Zarqawi exists as a person, for all I know it's just a name picked up by Jamaat-al Tawhid and Jihad as a convenient leader persona. But that's not really the question: some group is consistently targeting the Shiite under the cover of occupation resistance, and this group is doing it in the most psychologically provacative manner: killing hundreds of worshippers at Ashura, killing dozens of children in Basra and in Alam, executing a bus full of unarmed recruits on their way home.
This doesn't change my opinion: we should withdraw as soon as possible, making it as easy as possible for a transition force to help keep the peace while we're leaving. It's not like we've been a positive force for safety or security for Iraq, let alone democracy and sovereignty. The latest blatant act demonstrating our lack of interest in allowing Iraq resume sovereignty or practice democracy, i.e. our refusal of Muslim troops to help the United Nations organize actual elections in January, speaks volumes to our intent and our role.
Posted by zeynep at October 24, 2004 07:58 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.underthesamesun.org/mt-tb.cgi/239
Comments
I have a hard time taking anything that's said about al-Zarqawi seriously. The "letter" was absurdly convenient for the U.S. It just happened to support everything the Bush Administration was saying and provided eminent justification for remaining in Iraq to stop a civil war. This was followed up on with a wave of bombings against Shi'a targets alleged to be the work of Zarqawi, who, by some accounts, was actually killed in post-invasion bombing of the Ansar al-Islam compound in northern Iraq.
At every step Zarqawi has proved a convenient foil for the Americans; he beheaded Nicholas Berg at the height of the Abu Ghraib outrage and thus provided moral equivalence. He remains the strongest justification for the alleged Iraq/al-Qaida link (which was why the U.S. deigned to kill him before March of 2003).
He's just too bad to be true. Many Iraqis don't believe he's a real person. Other facts about him are dubious - did he lose a leg or didn't he? Why has he never appeared unmasked in any of his videos? Now we are to believe that he has thrown in his lot with al-Qaida. But personally, I've heard too many lies and seen too many false cards played to take this one at face value.
Posted by: saurabh at October 25, 2004 01:49 PM
The point isn't whether or not Zarqawi exists as a person with one or three legs. As I noted, he might as well be a persona adopted by Jamaat-al Tawhid and Jihad.
The fact of the matter is that there has been a string of distinct, provactive and very deadly attacks against the Shiite population -- attacks that are being perceived as if they were simply a part of whatever it is that is referred to as the insurgency. Most homegrown style actions in Iraq seem to reinforce a Shia-Sunni cooperation against the occupation (Fallujah / Najaf solidarity for example) whereas there is this other strain of actions carried out terrorist-style (remote controlled car bombs in populated areas, execution of unarmed, tied-up trainees) mostly in Shiite areas that make no sense except as a means to cow, intimidate and/or provoke the Shiite population. Concern for the people of Iraq obliges us to take that seriously.
Posted by: zeynep at October 25, 2004 03:34 PM
My point is that it's entirely possible that Zarqawi, and all of his actions, were undertaken by the CIA or some other such entity. This is not without precedent in colonial projects, and not outside the scope of possibility for these groups. I fail to see why Zarqawi would be interested in fomenting a Shi'a/Sunni split.
Posted by: saurabh at October 25, 2004 03:40 PM
One thing you don't ask is what percentage of the Iraq "army/police" recruits are Sunni? If the percentage is close to zero, then the deaths of Shia recruits wouldn't necessarily have any religious signficance.
Posted by: Eli Stephens at October 25, 2004 03:54 PM
I don't know the percentage, but there are definitely sizable numbers of Sunni recruits -- this basically is the only game in town in a country with massive unemployment. A DOD briefing in the beginning of the year claimed 60 percent ex-military, so that must include a good number of Sunnis (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/01/mil-040121-dod01.htm.)
Plus, things like Amal, Ashura and Basra bombings were done in specifically Shiite neighborhoods. I don't recall similar car bomb killing many dozens / hundreds in Sunni neighborhoods. There could be some, but I think the preponderance is disporportionately skewed towards Shiites. It would be good if someone was actually keeping track of this stuff but we can't get them to count the number of Iraqi dead.
As for why would Tawhid and Jihad be anti-Shia? Where to begin? The (especially recent) history of Salafi and Wahabi secterianism presents a very clear case of supremacy, totalitarianism and an enthusiastic willingness to use violence -- and in accordance with doctrine, they hold those claiming to be Muslim but not complying with their view of Islam in lower regard than they do the infidels.
The CIA does many things in this world, but there are still forces outside of it and Islamic violent secterian movements have an existence beyond imperialist manipulations. And yes, there certainly are covert CIA operations out there but I don't think that's enough of a reason to claim everything's CIA -- especially when there is a consistent plausible claim by other parties to those acts.
This happens a lot: everytime I suggest that some really horriffic stuff is done violent religious sectarian Islamist groups, someone claims it must all be the work of CIA (or Mossad). I'm wondering: are we unable to even accept that there are forces outside of our own imperial government out there? That we don't have a monopoly on everything that's bad out there?
Anyway, 'nuff said. I've almost never been able to convince someone who claims it's the CIA otherwise. It's like proving the non-existence of WMD; one just can't prove a negative.
Posted by: zeynep at October 25, 2004 06:29 PM
I think you make plenty of good points here, but I'm of the opinion that there already IS a civil war in Iraq.
Posted by: Josh Berthume at October 25, 2004 08:41 PM
thanks for the post. very informative.
while there is a pattern of attacks on the shia, do you think that they could turn into a civil war, with sunni and shia groups mobilizing en masse to kill each other? right now, this seems unlikely. if the zarqawi group is the only one targetting the shia, then i doubt it would be strong enough to trigger a massive civil war. what do you think?
Posted by: toby at October 27, 2004 04:54 PM
Zeynep, The idea that Zarqawi is an Iraqi actor responsible for atrocities (by essentially untraceable bombs) almost exclusively against Iraqi Shia is indeed a stretch. Why would he then produce propaganda that implicates himself of another Iraqi faction? In the face of oppressive and deadly US colonialism, what reason would any Iraqi have to kill other Iraqis?
On the other hand, colonial powers have have for centuries encouraged internecine strife in order that the local warriors will kill each other, waste their collective strength, and absolve the rulers of general responsibility for the people (first: order; then: administration) so the task of extracting wealth could receive full attention.
Your hypothesis of US involvement in the atrocities against the Shia is well within the scope of US military Special Warfare doctrine.
For a well researched accounting of half a century of similar US shame see "Instruments of Statecraft: U.S. Guerilla Warfare, Counterinsurgency, and Counterterrorism, 1940-1990" by Michael McClintock, online at http://www.statecraft.org/.
Motive, means, and opportunity is sufficient for prosecution isn't it?
Posted by: kurt at October 27, 2004 10:07 PM
There also are the various attacks against Iraqi Christian communities for "collaborating with the occupation"
Posted by: khr at November 1, 2004 07:50 AM
An interesting read! I'll consider what you said over my christmas holidays. I want Office Standard Edition 2003 (Excel, great Outlook, Word, Powerpoint) for Christmas!
Posted by: Plasplug Dr308 Panel Door Fixing (10) at December 7, 2004 10:57 PM