The US military offensive against Najaf is a dangerous and ill-judged escalation, revealing the violent reality of an occupation that has undergone only cosmetic change since the supposed handover of power to an "interim Iraqi administration" in June. For more than a week, an aggressive foreign power has addressed an essentially domestic political question by means of tanks, helicopter gunships and F16s.
There had been a ceasefire in place between the US forces and their main opponents around Najaf, and mediation efforts had been effective in containing tension. The current violence in the vicinity of one of Islam's most sacred sites appears to be a result of the failure of this mediation to co-opt Moqtada al-Sadr and his movement into a national conference, which the US had hoped would bestow a stamp of approval on the interim government.
YUSHA
The offensive is not -- as claimed by the US-appointed interim government and by the US military -- an action against outlaws, nor is it an attempt to establish security and the rule of law. There is a great deal of random violence in occupied Iraq. Some of this violence is of a purely criminal character, and some is of a terrorist nature with more or less vague political objectives. Many of the perpetrators are so shadowy as to invite a widespread belief that outside powers are directly involved in fomenting chaos.
In the absence of a process of reconciliation and a genuine accounting for past suffering and political crimes, there is also violence associated with score-settling by political groups. Not least, of course, is the military violence of the 200,000 foreign forces and armed mercenaries, and of the diverse groups resisting their presence in the country. All these forms of violence are escalating, leading to a chaotic and catastrophic outcome.
The way to deal with this situation is not to pour gas on the fire, but to look for an imaginative and honest political way out.
Regime Bankrupt
Having been appointed by the occupation authority under a corrupted UN oversight process, Ayad Allawi's interim government lacks any legitimacy whatsoever. Its success could only be measured through its ability to address the needs of the Iraqi people, foremost among which is security. The offensive against Najaf is the most crude and inept action possible, and it follows a long line of such actions by the occupation forces and their political leadership.
Some Iraqis hoped that the so-called transfer of power would permit a lessening of tension and a quick withdrawal of foreign forces from the cities, to be followed by greater cooperation between police and the population in tackling random violence. It had been hoped that the police would become more effective in protecting doctors and other professionals from targeted kidnapping and murder, and that homes, places of worship and other public places would become more secure, and that efforts would be redoubled to address the abysmal failure to rebuild the infrastructure.
Instead, there is now a greater effort at involving the police and other new Iraqi armed forces in waging the US war-by-proxy against the occupation's political opponents.
The collapse of law and order has little to do with Sadr. His is one of a number of forces with armed militia operating in the country. Its control of poor slum areas and inner cities resulted from the chaos that was brought about by the occupation; it was not itself the cause of the chaos. The physical destruction of state power, the interference in civil society institutions and the violence of the illegitimate occupation were responsible for the emergence of new centers of power and authority that now must be integrated into the political process.
In particular, the Sadr movement has a wide appeal among young, poor, marginalized and traditionally educated sections of the urban population, and it is irresponsible to ignore or antagonize such a wide section of Iraqi society. These are people who should be allowed to enter the political process through their chosen vehicle. They have a legitimate critique of the present flawed process, which is designed to serve the political objectives of the US administration and its few Iraqi allies. But instead the US occupation is trying to destroy or marginalize those movements, while also reinforcing existing inequities through media censorship and by heightening tension with neighboring Iran.
Kill Them All?
After Najaf, where are US troops going? Are they going to encircle Thawra (Sadr City), the Baghdad suburb? Are they going to attack every poor suburb of every city from Kirkuk to Basra? And bomb every town where there have been large demonstrations in opposition to the attack on Najaf?
This offensive has already dealt a severe blow to the interim government. It has shown that it is unable to rein in the US presence and can only fall in line with the occupiers' military imperatives. It has shown that the US has no intention of permitting a genuine Iraqi political dialogue or the development of an inclusive democratic process.
The action in Najaf is also deeply symbolic, and not only for Shiites. Najaf is a holy site for all Muslims and has particular historical significance for Iraqis. It is the seat of traditional learning and a repository of Iraqi communal and national culture, but it was also the focus of the 1920 uprising against British colonial rule that had set Iraq on the path to independence.
Najaf has been a lively center of commerce, industry and political activity ever since. Nothing cut the last links between Saddam Hussein and Iraqi society more than his persecution of Najaf. Trying to solve Najaf's problems by Yankee fire is a mark of abysmal failure.
Some liberals who opposed the war subsequently adopted an argument that the US and Britain now have a responsibility to stay in Iraq and to see to it that the country arrives at democracy and stability. This argument is based on the presumption that, left alone, Iraq would fall into internecine conflict which only the US and Britain, being such civilized and civilizing nations, could address.
This was always a convenient myth, but the repeated military offensives against Iraqi cities must now make it clear that chaos and internecine conflict is with us already, and it is being expanded and prolonged by foreign military forces.
It is time to set an early date for a complete withdrawal of foreign forces and then to ask what can and should be done to help Iraq.
Iraqi Kamil Mahdi is a lecturer in Middle East economics at the University of Exeter in England.
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
Minister of National Defense Wellington Koo (顧立雄) has said that the armed forces must reach a high level of combat readiness by 2027. That date was not simply picked out of a hat. It has been bandied around since 2021, and was mentioned most recently by US Senator John Cornyn during a question to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio at a US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Tuesday. It first surfaced during a hearing in the US in 2021, when then-US Navy admiral Philip Davidson, who was head of the US Indo-Pacific Command, said: “The threat [of military
RSS