Before & After....What next?

"The Shrine Crisis -
Words that need to be said"
By Muhammad @
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com

Life is coming back to normal in Baghdad and marketplaces and offices are open again after being shut for 4 days. Although there were a few security incidents today people are mostly looking at these as part of the usual daily situation and not related to the latest shrine crisis.But, what can we learn from this lesson and how can we make benefit from it in avoiding similar problems in the future.

It's not a secret who was behind the attack on the shrine and I am sure that who did it were the Salafi/Wahabis whether Iraqi or foreigners and with external support from parties planning to disrupt the political process in Iraq.The reason I believe it's the Salafis who did it comes from their own ideology which considers all mosques built upon tombs as places of polytheism and infidelity and thus must be destroyed. This also applies to Sunni shrines like Abu Haneefa and al-Gailani; Salafis consider the Shia and the Sufis their worst enemies and they commonly refer to them in their speech with the term "tomb worshippers" or Mushrikoon Quborioon in Arabic.It's worth reminding that this is not the first time Salafis try to destroy the shrines in Iraq; their armies invaded Iraq back in the 19th century and burned the shrines in Kerbala and Najaf before the Ottoman empire repelled them and stopped them from reaching Baghdad where they were planning to destroy the shrines of al-Kazum, Abu Haneefa and al-Gailani (Shia, Sunni and Sufi respectively).Followers of other sects would not dare do something like this because they fear the wrath of the imams; our culture has many stories about the supernatural powers possessed by the deceased imams. These stories planted fear in our hearts from even talking badly about them, let alone blowing up their tombs!This leaves only one faction that justifies and pushes for destroying these tombs and this is the Salafi ideology.Of course there are some who invest this ideology for political causes and here we come to the second beneficiary who stands behind the first beneficiary who carried out the attack for ideological reasons.

This second beneficiary is the parties who would like to see the new Iraqi state fall apart and who are scared of the idea of a democratic, stable Iraq next door as such a neighbor would transmit the democratic infection to their peoples. This includes more than one neighboring country; one provides logistics and training, the other provides media support while another one endorses the remnants of the Ba'ath regime who lost a lot of their privileges when Saddam was toppled.

Now that we have outlined the identity of the perpetrators depending on motives, interests and ideology we can move on to talk a little about the reactions to the atrocity which has a lot in common with the reactions to the Danish cartoons (I'm comparing the reactions here, not the actions that triggered them). The two reactions are similar in two aspects a) Overreaction and b) Exploiting the atrocity to serve political causes.As a person who lives in Baghdad I've been following the situation from the early hours after the attack; on Wednesday morning I was on my way to work when I heard the news on the radio and I began watching closely to probe the feelings of the common people. People were at work as they always are, clerks behind their desks, grocers looking after their goods and municipal workers picking trash from the streets and I haven't noticed any unusual feelings among the people I came in contact with. In general life was normal until noon in the Shia majority district of Baghdad and there were absolutely no signs of a crisis of any sort. But on my way home I saw the men in black take to the streets after Ayatollah Sistani issued his fatwa (I wish my Shia brothers bear with me and read to the end).

Ayatollah Sistani issued a fatwa on Wednesday that sounded peaceful and normal from the first look but if you look closer at each word you will find that the "safety valve" became the igniter this time.Two years ago the shrine of Imam Ali in Najaf was attacked and although this is the holiest shrine for Shia Muslims the incident wasn't met with that much angry reactions instead we heard soothing statements like "these are mere stones and we can rebuild them and make them even better than before".This time things were different because the political situation is different; the Ayatollah called for nationwide protests (and not to attack Sunni mosques) and a week of mourning.

Now let's examine the part that said "do not attack Sunni mosques"…the sentence openly accuses the Sunni of being behind the attack or why would their mosques be mentioned in the first place?In the government statements the term "Takfiri terrorists/Saddami Ba'athists" is the one commonly used but in the Ayatollah's fatwa this was replaced by "Sunni".This fatwa which is sugar-coated with tolerance and restraint is actually pointing at the perpetrator that we-should-not-punish-because-we-are-merciful.So…the protests were not spontaneous like clerics want us to think; in fact the only spontaneous protest was the one in Samarra itself!I live here and I've seen the whole thing. The demonstrations in Baghdad began after the fatwa and I saw how shop keepers unwillingly closed their shops when the men in black with their arms and loudspeakers ordered them to do so "in the name of the Hawza" and I saw the sad look on the faces of people abandoning their only source of income for a time that could go indefinitely.One might ask why would Iraqis obey such orders?I say, Imagine yourself standing in front of your shop watching the police retreat from the street while angry men with arms come and order you to leave your shop and join the "spontaneous protests"!Believe me you will find no other choice but to join the mob or face the risk of being considered an infidel traitor.I'd also like to point out the provoking language that was used in the calls for many protests. In one example I heard in person, the guy holding the mic said "today they attacked your Imam's shrine and tomorrow they will take your women, so rise up".

The reactions and protests were far from spontaneous like clerics claim they were. The protests were organized and under supervision of commanders who have clear goals and those commanders were intent on provoking a reaction that carries clear signs to the Sunni, secular and moderate parties that succeeded in applying substantial pressure on the UIA and won the US on their side.So those radical parties were looking for a justification for a planned crisis to bring back to attention the centuries-long suffering of the Shia and they wanted to gain more support for what they consider legitimate political demands from giving the impression that they are the only targets for terrorism.So, this was planned to prepare the atmosphere for putting the blame on others and sending a message to the other parties that "we cannot contain the anger of the street forever and you have to listen to us and answer our demands if you want us to prevent a catastrophe."

However, it seems there are also some positive outcomes from this incident and its aftermath; the first one in my opinion was the performance of the Iraqi army which had a good role in restoring order in many places. Actually the past few days showed that our new army is more competent than we were thinking.But the latest events have also showed the brittle structure of the interior ministry and its forces that retreated before the march of the angry mobs (if not joined them in some cases) and I think the statements that came from the meetings of our politicians pointed this out so clearly when Sunni politicians said they wanted the army to replace the police and police commandos in their regions and this indicates growing trust between the people and the army.

The other positive side is represented by the line we've seen drawn between clerics and politicians.In spite of the attempts of clerics to look like as if they were the defenders of national unity with all their meetings, joint prayers and hugs, the political leaderships got a sense of their growing danger and the meeting at Jafari's home (which al-Hakeem didn't attend) showed that the government is keen to keep the country intact and the government systems as functional as possible to contain the crisis. This meeting indicates that politicians have realized that those clerics whether Sunni or Shia are the origin of the problem and are ready to coup on even their political allies which made the politicians more aware of the danger imposed by clerics on the project of building a state ruled by the law.Clerics will not stop and they will carry on with their plans and I suspect they will launch the next phase of their plan soon after they received instructions from Syria (the Muslim scholars) and from Iran (the Sadrists).The objective of the second phase will to move the conflict from one on the streets to a conflict with America. That’s not my personal opinion, but it's what clerics themselves are saying including Muqtada who returned from Qum in Iran to organize a joint Sunni-Shia demonstration against the occupation!!Now the government has rise to the level of the challenge and proceed to take the most important and critical step and disband religious militias of all sorts and limit the influence of clerics-of any sect-in the decision-making process.I think this is the best time for the new government to tackle this issue as the government now has all the factors that make such a move legitimate and necessary.

"Samarra crisis: Tying the strings"
By Salam Adil @
http://asterism.blogspot.com

Reading Iraqi blogs lately has made me realise that I am as well, if not better informed about what is happening in Iraq than any overpaid newspaper commentator. So in the spirit of blogging I think I have even more right to publish my own poorly researched highly subjective articles.

Let me start with two obvious points as described excellently by Mohammed in Iraq The Model. The Sunni fundamentalist Wahabis were behind the bombing of the Samarra mosque. Probably people from Saudi Arabia as this bombing also coincided with an attempted bombing of the largest refinery in Saudi Arabia.The second obvious point is that the violence following the bombing was well-planned and organised. People did not spontaneously decide to put on black clothes and go occupy the nearest mosque.If you are worried about who actually carried out the bombing you are asking the wrong question. Any number of groups in Iraq have the means and the ability to bomb the shrine. the real question is how did they get away with it so easily. If you have read the reports, you will know that setting up the explosives would have involved a lot of heavy drilling and about 12 hours hard work.

The big scandal is that there was no proper security around the shrine and the perpetrators knew it.Security is in the hands of the Iraqi police and internal defense forces and these are in the hands of the Shia militias. This bombing could not have happened without their knowledge. So the next question this raises is why would the Shia militias be so happy to allow one of their shrines to be destroyed like that. The answer to this can be seen in the political process.Things had not been going to well for the political Shia. They made a lot of gains in the past year and stood to lose everything. They had control of the interior ministry a working majority in the interim government and the lions share of the vote in the election. But the negotiations after the election were going pear-shaped. They did not have enough votes or supporters to get the two-thirds majority needed to form a government. The Kurds, encouraged by the Americans were digging in their heels to prevent the Shia getting control of the key defense and interior ministries and the Americans were enticing smaller parties in the UIA to switch sides. This would have made the UIA an actual minority in the parliament and allowed Iyad Allawi to be shoe-horned into the role of Prime Minister. Something extreme needed to be done to break this downward cycle and the Shia parties are nowhere near ready to burn bridges with America.Given this situation a civil war would have been a big advantage. It cements the UIA back together again as the smaller Shia parties would not be able to survive (literally) without the protection of the big Shia militias. It also gives the big Shia parties the justification to override the stalled constitutional process and go ahead with the formation of a break-away Shia state in the south that they had always been planning.

I am also sure that they expected American politicians fearing upcoming elections would be scared to hell of the violence and would make any number of concessions to the Shia.However, I do no think the civil war plan played out the way the Shia militias expected. In one word Sadr happened. Instead of falling into line with SCIRI and Badr, Sadr jumped into an alliance with the Sunnis. If the Shia militias had continued their civil war plan they would have to face splitting the Shia movement down the middle with Sadr's supporters allied with the Sunnis against them. With the positive reaction of the Iraqi people to this unlikely alliance, victory would not have seemed so certain. So after staring into the abyss the Shia politicians and their counterparts in the militias would have been forced to break off the civil war and go down the political route again.Hence Jaafari's little trip to Turkey that incensed the Kurds so much. I would not be surprised if he went there to agree on what happens to the Kurds if the Shia form their own state.So what now?

It is clear now that the Americans are no longer the main problem for the Iraqi people. They have come out of all this as impotent and irrelevant. The only thing the American army was able to do during this civil crisis was disappear in their bases and hope no one knocked on the gates. If America is not willing to contribute another 100,000+ soldiers to Iraq they might as well not bother.Now the main enemy for the Iraq people and the main danger for the region is the current government. It creates the situation for civil war because of the deadlock inherently written into its constitution. Parties in the government are forced into increasingly violent actions to break any deadlocks.It is also encourages civil war because it encourages the parties to form breakaway sectarian states with their own access to oil wealth. Unfortunately the leaders of the parties are to greedy and stupid to realise that such a move will inflame the sectarian divisions across Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf and spark an international war over the oil-producing regions.The best solution is to drop the whole constitutional process. Iraqis must form a national unity committee and start from an entirely Iraq perspective. This is in the interests of the Kurds who will be fed to the turkish dogs otherwise and for the Sunnis who are left sitting in the desert. and the Shia because it will prevent a war that can kill millions.