Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Death Squads and Diplomacy

By Robert Dreyfuss, TomPaine.com. Posted October 6, 2005.


The ferocity of Iraq's Shiite fundamentalist ruling clique has the Saudis worrying that a regional war may spill out of the bitter Shiite-Sunni conflict.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Robert Dreyfuss

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

A flurry of Arab diplomacy over the last few days is unfolding in a rear-guard effort to prevent the crisis in Iraq from exploding into what Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al Faisal warned last month could be a regional civil war involving not only Iraq, but all of its neighbors.

The main, and well-deserved, target of Saud's ire was the increasingly authoritarian and brutal rule of the main Iraqi Shiite parties, especially the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), whose Badr Brigade militia are terrorizing Iraq's secular, urban Shiite population and carrying out death-squad attacks against Sunnis. The attacks against the Sunnis are aimed not only at the Iraqi armed resistance but at secular, nationalist Sunni leaders and activists.

Last week, I reported on the fear of Shiite militias and death squads as reported by Aiham Al Sammarae, an Iraqi oppositionist and former minister under the interim government in 2004 who is trying to broker a deal with the Iraqi resistance. Since then, other reports have surfaced concerning the extensive violence carried out by paramilitary forces tied to SCIRI and to Al Dawa, SCIRI's partner in the Shiite religious bloc in Iraq. By now it is clear that if Tony Soprano lived in Iraq, he'd be a member of the Shiite militia. Consider the following report from CBS News:

CBS News correspondent Lara Logan reports there is a secret, ruthless cleansing of the country's towns and cities. Bodies -- blindfolded, bound and executed -- just appear, like the rotting corpses of 36 Sunni men that turned up in a dry riverbed south of Baghdad.

CBS News traced 16 of those men to a single street in a Baghdad suburb, where family members showed CBS News how the killers forced their way into their homes in the middle of the night and dragged away their sons and fathers.

"My uncles were tortured, they even poured acid on them," a young boy told CBS News.

Clutching photographs of the murdered men, the women and children left behind came together to grieve.

One woman said as her husband was marched away she sent her son after him with his slippers, but his abductor sent the child back with a chilling message: No need for slippers -- he will come back dead.

They were targeted for one reason alone: all were Sunnis.

Or this, from the Chicago Tribune:

In the dead of night, bands of armed men in Iraqi commando uniforms stormed Baghdad's Hurriyah neighborhood in late August, breaking down doors with sledgehammers and grenades.

If the family inside was Shiite, the gunmen moved on to another house, witnesses said. If the family was Sunni, the gunmen tore through the building, demolishing furniture and manhandling those inside. More than 70 young Sunni Arab men were whisked away.

Countless atrocities, too, have been perpetrated by Sunni gangs and by terrorists associated with Abu Musab Al Zarqawi. But the killings by the Shiite militias are far more chilling because they have an entirely different quality: They are carried out by gunmen tied to the U.S.-supported regime in Baghdad. They don't draw criticism from U.S. officials, and most American media reports continue to portray the Shiites as victims and the Sunnis as aggressors.


Digg!

Robert Dreyfuss is a freelance writer based in Alexandria, Virginia. His book, Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam, will be published by Henry Holt/Metropolitan Books in the fall.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
No Hurry to Leave Iraq
Posted by: cyclone on Oct 6, 2005 5:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Grasping at straws is not what we are doing. We have no plans to leave Iraq, anytime soon at least. Although conventional wisdom said that "going to Iraq" in the first place was at best misguided policy, Boosh declared otherwise. Now that we are in the quagmire, we have no reason to leave. Why move troops back home when they are soon to be needed elsewhere in the Gulf Region? Iraq is only the first domino, followed by Iran, Saudi Arabia and any other country that contains large amounts of oil.

We are fast running out of oil. We are proving that we will lie, cheat and steal to get our bloody hands on the oil of the world. And, I don't see too many Democrats trying to stop any of it from happening, thus making the equally culpable.

The only questions left are, do we have enough bodies to fight a perpetual war over oil? And, if so, will we get enough to volunteer to continue this madness or will we be forced to draft everyone between the ages of 18-30, women included? I am betting on the latter.

Looking at the Bigger Picture, it doesn't really matter. If we capture all of the worlds oil fields, oil that is necessary for continuing our way of life, our existence as we know it will only be continued for an additional decade or so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No Hurry to Leave Iraq Posted by: Habaro
» RE: No Hurry to Leave Iraq Posted by: cyclone
» RE: No Hurry to Leave Iraq Posted by: royrogers
» RE: No Hurry to Leave Iraq Posted by: cyclone
» RE: No Hurry to Leave Iraq Posted by: royrogers
» RE: No Hurry to Leave Iraq Posted by: cyclone
» RE: No Hurry to Leave Iraq Posted by: royrogers
» RE: No Hurry to Leave Iraq Posted by: cyclone
» RE: No Hurry to Leave Iraq Posted by: royrogers
» FOR ROYROGERS****** Posted by: cyclone
This analysis unfortunately makes sense.
Posted by: lonl on Oct 6, 2005 6:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Dreyfus' analysis shows very well just how foolish it was for Bush to set foot in Iran. Filled with rosy visions of controlling the middle east forever, the imperialists have now unleashed forces they never anticipated and which they certainly will not be in a position to control.

Let's not forget that this war can spread in many directions. Just one often noted example: Turkey could come in if Iraqi Kurds try to declare a Kurdistan, as civil war in Iraq develops further?

I wouldn't presume to predict other particulars. Rather, I'd ask people here in the US to think about just how much more geopolitical trouble our continuing military involvement is likely to cause (along with the death and destruction). I'd ask people to think about whether they'd rather support "staying the course" right into World War III or if it wouldn't be better to join the growing antiwar movement now.

The US needs to get out now so that local bodies can try to salvage peace in the region. Iraqi people will be much better able to settle their own affairs if freed of interference from the superpower. This is what Americans should be demanding now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Opps! 'Dreyfus' not 'Scheer' Posted by: Sojourner
Typical US Sponsored Counter Insurgency
Posted by: commonMan on Oct 6, 2005 6:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is typical MO for US puppet regimes. Central and South American regimes have carried out these same types of disapppearings for years as taught at the School Of Americas.

The US government/military has been building bases all over the middle east in the hopes of controling the oil. Until the general public can be made aware of these facts it's ludicrous to argue for withdrawal. When I try to make these points with people I know they state that "We need to finish the job in Iraq" and start quoting Bill O'Reilly.

The biggest worry is what will happen when China begins to really get desperate for oil, given the pact it has recently made with Russia and the oil contracts made with Iran. Global war in the making?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The first button in the first hole
Posted by: Kevin R. Hoskins on Oct 6, 2005 7:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
See what our "can't button his own shirt right" president has got this country into. We need to impeach that moron NOW !!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Predicting the Unpredictable
Posted by: david.model@senecac.on.ca on Oct 6, 2005 8:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Trying to predict what will happen in Iraq or the entire region is a mugs game. There are too many unpredictable variables.

When the U.S. bombed and occupied Iraq, it opened a can of worms for which they were not prepared. Seething below the surface during Sadaam's rule was a cauldron of hatreds waiting to explode. The Americans blithely took the lid off thrusting the country into a battleground for all the groups that hate eachother.

Once the lid was off, the potential now exists for Shiites and Sunnis to join forces with their bretheren in other countries. The permutations of who will join with whom is too complex to predict.

There is no possibility of any kind of stabilization process as long as the Americans remain in Iraq and the one fairly safe prediction is they will not leave while President Bush is in office and possibly not after the next president takes office if the U.S. has established a strong foothold with their military bases.

The upshot of the swirling of alliances and the outpouring of hatred will be the complete distabilization the region. The bloody wars of Sunnis against Shiites, Sunnis against Kurds, various groups against the Americans and the influx of terrorists bodes poorly for the stability of the region.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Arab-Persian unity myth
Posted by: ScottP on Oct 6, 2005 8:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Overall a good piece of analysis, and the conclusion that we should get out now is something I agree with. But I'll pick a nit, which is that like almost every analysis I read nowadays, be it fascist or secular or right wing or moderate, seems to predict that the Persians in Iran will form some kind of strong alliance with Arabs in Iraq due to religious similarities. After centuries of fighting this seems a bit far fetched to me, especially since they don't even speak the same language. I can certainly see them cooperating to boot out imperialists and coexisting peacefully afterwards. But the idea that once the imperialists are gone they'll be close allies pursuing a common expansionist agenda is still something I can't get my mind around. It sounds as far fetched as the widely promoted domino theory from the Vietnam war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lots of history to this article folks
Posted by: La Femme Nikita on Oct 6, 2005 10:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Man, I am still back in the links! You could teach a class with this article. Maybe by the end of the day I will actually will be able to read the article? I am way behind on the War on Iraq!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't believe a word this guy says
Posted by: HotKarl on Oct 6, 2005 3:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't even know where to start. First off, since when do the delusional musings of a Saudi prince matter? Please, please, after anything you hear from one of those loonies, remember that they hate Shi'a more than Jews. And that majority Shi'a populations sit on top of their biggest oil fields. They're scared. They could care less about Iraqi deaths. They spent the 1980's funding the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Iranians, which didn't matter since they were mostly unbelieving Shi'a anyways. Their main concern is preventing Shi'a from holding on to power because it opens the door for their exit. And is it so hard to believe that groups of young Shi'a men might be settling scores? This has nothing to with Sciri or the Badr brigades and everything to do with what is mostly convenient hearsay (like all the retrospectively nonexistant violence in New Orleans) and the fear (correct) that a Shi'a Iraq will be antithetical to US interests. A first in the Arab world, and a good thing if the Shi'a succeed. I've seen alternet drift more and more towards the center over the last few years, and this might-as-well-be-from-a-neocon drivel is yet another example of this slide.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]