Is terrorism the main cause of violence in Iraq?
In a recent interview on PBS's NewsHour, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, said:
"The enemy, al-Qaida in particular, has certainly still sought to and, in fact, carried out sensational attacks at various points, trying to reignite sectarian violence and, in some cases, ethnic violence in, for example, Kirkuk.
Those have generally, almost always, been unsuccessful in reigniting sectarian violence, although that was the case in a horrific incident in Tall Afar in western Anbar province in the northwestern part of Iraq a week or so ago and had to be tamped down by interior ministry, defense officials in the Iraqi army.
So, again, mixed results, to be truthful, some encouraging indicators in Baghdad, but then the enemy seeking to take violence outside of Baghdad. And we've certainly gone after al-Qaida, as they have sought to open new fronts in Diyala province north of Baghdad, in the far north, and in the northeast, around Kirkuk."
And in answer to a question involving more than 5,000 Iraqi civilian deaths in the past seven weeks, Gen. Petraeus said that "al-Qaida is still capable and able to cause significant death of innocent civilians." [1]
Does this mean that al-Qaida is responsible for most of the current violence in Iraq, both directly through acts such as the Tall Afar bombing and through acts of provocation, again like the Tall Afar bombing, that intend to ignite sectarian violence? How much of the violence is the Sunni insurgency responsible for? Are al-Qaida and the insurgency working together at all?
If al-Qaida is responsible for much or most of the current violence, then would it be fair to characterize much or most of the current violence as a result of either direct or indirect terrorism, and not a direct result of sectarianism?
And if al-Qaida terrorism, and not Iraqi sectarianism, is responsible for much or most of the current violence, would that increase the motivation for the U.S. to remain in Iraq at least until Iraq is able to successfully defend itself? The reasons for this would be: 1) The U.S. had dismantled Iraq's previous security forces which would have presumably been able to defend itself against al-Qaida; 2) The U.S. turned Iraq into an al-Qaida target by overthrowing it, a Muslim nation; and 3) The U.S. is apparently motivated to oppose al-Qaida in its so-called war on terror.
Concerning reason #2, some have said that the U.S. is also causing much or most of the violence in Iraq through its continued occupation of that country. If America is causing most of the violence, then it should withdraw, especially if the government and/or people of Iraq formally request this. If its presence is causing much of the violence, then its withdrawal will have to be balanced against how much violence it is preventing through its continued presence. And also, on whether the government and/or people of Iraq have formally asked it to stay or go. *
The U.S. military should also withdraw for reasons #1 and #3 if the government and/or people of Iraq formally ask it to withdraw. Currently, this has not happened. Public pronouncements by many of Iraq's leaders and a recent poll conducted by ABC News and others [2] seem to indicate that both the government and people of Iraq want America to stay at least until Iraq is able to defend itself. I am not aware of any Iraqi leaders outside of Sadr who have requested America's withdrawal before this level of competency has occurred.
The question of who al-Qaida and some of these insurgent groups are, exactly, remains though. At least for me.
footnote
* I'm not sure what America should do if one formally asks it to stay and the other asks it to go, however.
source
[1] The Online NewsHour. Petraeus Cites Areas of Improvement in Baghdad. April 4, 2007.
[2] ABC News. ABC News/USA Today/BBC/ARD poll -Iraq: Where things stand. Ebbing hope in a landscape of loss marks a national survey of Iraq. March 19, 2007.
posted: sunday, april 8, 2007, 11:44 AM ET
update: sunday, april 8, 2007, 3:49 AM ET
tags: iraq david petraeus al qaeda
"The enemy, al-Qaida in particular, has certainly still sought to and, in fact, carried out sensational attacks at various points, trying to reignite sectarian violence and, in some cases, ethnic violence in, for example, Kirkuk.
Those have generally, almost always, been unsuccessful in reigniting sectarian violence, although that was the case in a horrific incident in Tall Afar in western Anbar province in the northwestern part of Iraq a week or so ago and had to be tamped down by interior ministry, defense officials in the Iraqi army.
So, again, mixed results, to be truthful, some encouraging indicators in Baghdad, but then the enemy seeking to take violence outside of Baghdad. And we've certainly gone after al-Qaida, as they have sought to open new fronts in Diyala province north of Baghdad, in the far north, and in the northeast, around Kirkuk."
And in answer to a question involving more than 5,000 Iraqi civilian deaths in the past seven weeks, Gen. Petraeus said that "al-Qaida is still capable and able to cause significant death of innocent civilians." [1]
Does this mean that al-Qaida is responsible for most of the current violence in Iraq, both directly through acts such as the Tall Afar bombing and through acts of provocation, again like the Tall Afar bombing, that intend to ignite sectarian violence? How much of the violence is the Sunni insurgency responsible for? Are al-Qaida and the insurgency working together at all?
If al-Qaida is responsible for much or most of the current violence, then would it be fair to characterize much or most of the current violence as a result of either direct or indirect terrorism, and not a direct result of sectarianism?
And if al-Qaida terrorism, and not Iraqi sectarianism, is responsible for much or most of the current violence, would that increase the motivation for the U.S. to remain in Iraq at least until Iraq is able to successfully defend itself? The reasons for this would be: 1) The U.S. had dismantled Iraq's previous security forces which would have presumably been able to defend itself against al-Qaida; 2) The U.S. turned Iraq into an al-Qaida target by overthrowing it, a Muslim nation; and 3) The U.S. is apparently motivated to oppose al-Qaida in its so-called war on terror.
Concerning reason #2, some have said that the U.S. is also causing much or most of the violence in Iraq through its continued occupation of that country. If America is causing most of the violence, then it should withdraw, especially if the government and/or people of Iraq formally request this. If its presence is causing much of the violence, then its withdrawal will have to be balanced against how much violence it is preventing through its continued presence. And also, on whether the government and/or people of Iraq have formally asked it to stay or go. *
The U.S. military should also withdraw for reasons #1 and #3 if the government and/or people of Iraq formally ask it to withdraw. Currently, this has not happened. Public pronouncements by many of Iraq's leaders and a recent poll conducted by ABC News and others [2] seem to indicate that both the government and people of Iraq want America to stay at least until Iraq is able to defend itself. I am not aware of any Iraqi leaders outside of Sadr who have requested America's withdrawal before this level of competency has occurred.
The question of who al-Qaida and some of these insurgent groups are, exactly, remains though. At least for me.
footnote
* I'm not sure what America should do if one formally asks it to stay and the other asks it to go, however.
source
[1] The Online NewsHour. Petraeus Cites Areas of Improvement in Baghdad. April 4, 2007.
[2] ABC News. ABC News/USA Today/BBC/ARD poll -Iraq: Where things stand. Ebbing hope in a landscape of loss marks a national survey of Iraq. March 19, 2007.
posted: sunday, april 8, 2007, 11:44 AM ET
update: sunday, april 8, 2007, 3:49 AM ET
tags: iraq david petraeus al qaeda
Labels: al qaeda, conspiracy theory, david petraeus, iraq, sectarian, terrorism
posted by eric at 9:42 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home