In light of my earlier piece criticizing John Quiggins claim that the fighting in Najaf constitutes a ‘war crime,’ let’s go to Omar, at Iraq the Model (hat tip Instapundit):
The chief of Najaf IP, brigadier Ghalib Al Jazaeri was interviewed by Al Sharqyia TV today and gave some important statements. Mr. Ghalib confirmed the IP control over the majority Najaf and said that Al Mahdi militia are besieged in small areas. He also said that most of them are surrendering and that among the 1200 captured till now there are 1000 from outside Najaf (Basra, Kut, Amarah, Baghdad) and 4 of them were Iranians who confessed that they have joined the Mahdi army.
…his statement that most of the thugs were from outside Najaf rule out all the claims that this is an uprising, as if it was so then we would’ve seen the people of the city themselves revolting in large numbers but the fact is that Muqtada has gathered his criminals from many cities and focused on Najaf and Baghdad only because he knew he wouldn’t find enough people to support him had he depended on the people of Najaf alone. While the fights in other cities were small compared to Baghdad and Najaf and there was absolutely no fights in the rural areas which shows that the distribution of fighters was planned to focus on important areas only, and this ensures more media coverage which in my mind is one of the main goals of such movement, as it’s clearly supported and planned by outside parties which are dying to show Iraq as an unstable and hopeless place. Besides we all saw how the people of Najaf were delighted to see the IP control the city again in the previous revolt after many days of fighting. Also an uprising is a reaction rather than a planned action and here the percentage of the fighters from outside the city show clearly that this is closer to a planned revolt.
Note that Quiggin’s criticism was centered on the notion that we were fighting the residents of the community who were engaged in a spontaneous uprising based on the poor conditions and aimed at ousting the foreign occupiers.
Assuming Omar’s claim is true – and he’s closer to the action than John or I – my only comment must be that facts can be such annoying things.
As of the previous uprising, the number of active fighters in Sadr’s militia was estimated at between 1000 and 6000. If media reports are to be believed, they have so far suffered casualties of 300 killed and 1200 captured. Is it more likely that a military unit which has lost between 25% and 150% of its numbers would continue to fight on, or that media reports are not, in fact, to be believed?
Everyone who’s been following the situation knows that Sadr’s main support base is in Baghdad, that much of the fighting is taking place in Najaf, and that many of those fighting in Najaf have come there from Baghdad. If this is news to you, maybe you should read Juan Cole more regularly.
Although Omar doesn’t spell it out his description is consistent with other reports suggesting that the majority of people in Najaf wish that both the Americans and Sadr would go away.
I can’t see that this has any relevance at all to the point I was making, which is that Bremer’s decision to go after Sadr in the first place, along with Sadr’s violent response, has led to a large number of unnecessary deaths, most of them people who had no quarrel with us until the invasion.
John –
Apologies for not linking to the piece I wrote the other day and referred to. It’s here.
I’m interested in your thoughts…
A.L.
“…was interviewed by Al Sharqyia TV today and gave some important statements.”
Here’s the problem. What was the track record of accuracy of the last most famous Iraqi spokesman on the military?
How about other Iraqis in the past? How about Arab spokesmen in general, over the last forty years, on military affairs?
Now, to be sure, perhaps this government is suddenly drastically reformed, and that changes everything, and now, suddenly, Iraqi spokesman are highly reliable.
Perhaps. But I’m going to be bit slow to assume that they are just because they’re now “our” Iraqis.
Quiggen’s point, before and after March ’03, was that there was a bifurcation between the Baathist regime or residuals and the rest of Iraq which could be used to then and now to eliminate the need for outside intervention. Before the invasion this ignored the manifest ability of a totalitarian regime to mobilize the resources of the country and populace to its goals, and afterwards it ignores the ability of the Baathist residuals to mobilize the resources of disaffected persons (who contrary to Quiggen’s last stated point, did and still do have a reason for wanting to see US and western interests damaged through either direct or terrorist methods). Quiggen has and still does show a mastery of wishful thinking, at first failing to note the depraved nature of the Baathist regime in power, and now failing to note how the ante bellum situation was killing vast numbers of Iraqis through either disease, famine, or ethnic cleansing.
“Quiggen’s point, before and after March ’03, was that there was a bifurcation between the Baathist regime or residuals and the rest of Iraq … ”
Not only did I never say this or anything like it, I have no idea what it means.
Roberts might be more convincing as an authority on my views if he could start by spelling my name correctly.
AL, I will respond to your earlier post soon.
On War Crimes issues there is a very, very important point that must be made.
In war, innocent people get killed. That’s why war is hell.
If you are NOT willing to accept the killing of innocent people, you must oppose the war — and let the other, more evil dictator, kill MORE innocent people (Sudan, Central Africa; Rwanda, Iraq in 92-93, China, Cambodia).
In my fantasy Bush speech on Sudan (http://tomgrey.motime.com/post/314378#314378 ) I try to make that point about military intervention.
Americans will die, and will kill both guilty and some innocents. How many is too many?
If one innocent being killed is too many, then that means no action.
The Leftist secret critique to war assumes an Unreal Perfection, with the possibility to kill only the guilty; and when that silly standard is not met, Leftists claim evidence of evil-doing by the good guys.
Sudan, Iraq, Najaf, Fallujah; Iran. Military action requires acceptance of killing innocents. Sometimes, military inaction results in the killing, by bad guys, of MORE innocents.
It’s simple; but it’s NOT morally easy.
John Quiggin’s comments on this issue, for me, miss the essential thing by never mentioning Majid al-Khoie, the moderate cleric who Moqtada had murdered on April 10th 2003. The question is, does John believe that Moqtada should be immune from prosecution for that murder, or does he not? If the latter, what becomes of the assertion that dealing with al-Sadr (and, inevitably, his followers) was unnecessary?
Secondly, the premise of John’s various comments on this subject has been that al-Sadr would have quietly minded his own business unless provoked. That surely ignores the possibility that he had plans of his own. Otto’s various comments to the effect that the new government must have a Weberian monopoly of violence are quite right: any government which tolerated the existence of a large private army under these circumstances would be storing up massive trouble for the future. That’s not a guess or hypothesis, that is what all historical experience indicates.
Steve, in addition to the allegations against Sadr, allegations of murder have been made (in the last few days by the Allawi regime) against Salem Chalabhi and by purported eye witnesses (as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald) against Allawi himself. If an allegation of murder is sufficient to justify all out war, it seems unlikely that we will ever have peace.
Similarly, as regards private armies, do you support crushing all militias in Iraq, including the Kurdish peshmerga, or do you think that this should be done on the basis of a distinction between “good” and “bad” militias.
Seems everyone has got some kind of comment concerning the _“War in Iraq”_ and the tactics used. What really isn’t discussed and what most side step is the relevancy / justification of the war.
Regardless of for or against I don’t think for one minute that people are blind to the tactics and results of war. War means death to parties both innocent and guilty. We no longer fight them in trenches or line up armies on a battle field and say have at it. If any thing the war in Iraq has taken on a gang / organized crime appearance. The gangs operate no differently than those we see today with the exception of weapons used.
Mr. Quiggin can point to all the death and destruction and simply say it is a waste of life, a waste of effort or this is what the Iraqi people want leave them alone. What Mr. Quiggin doesn’t point out is that these are people in the minority of the Iraqi populace (3000, 1000, 300, pick a number, naturalized and foreign) that want status quo to remain as things were. Status quo being extremist Islamic beliefs, dictatorship, and freedom from impunity as they force their extremist beliefs on the majority of the populace and global expansion using their strong arm tactics. The tactics are something the general populace can not defend against since they are ill equipped concerning weapons of war. Trying to reason with a gang or someone intent on changing one’s beliefs will most certainly lead to death especially if it is viewed as a potential threat to populace discourse. The minority must make an example to the majority to keep them in line.
I think it’s safe to say the majority of the Iraqi populace don’t own mortars, don’t own surface to air missles, don’t own improvised explosive devices, don’t own automatic weapons or the ammunition to protect themselves. I’d almost bet they don’t want them either as much as they don’t want others within the majority of the populace to have them. You could go so far as to say they don’t want Americans, British, Australian, Polish, Iranian, Syrian, Saudi Arabian, Egyptian, Yemeni intervention period. It could be argued that if they had none of it they could live their lives as they choose. My opinion says this will not happen because the majority can not protect themselves. Even if everyone agrees to butt out the gangs will take over again which will lead back to the position we started from.
Sadr’s people were attacking police stations, taking Iraqi government workers hostage, and holding illegal trials in Najaf. Tell me a city in the world where that would be stood for by the controlling authority. Indeed, had we _not_ addressed the situation we would be failing our obligations to the international community as the occupational authority.
John,
No one could credibly maintain that bare allegations of political crimes and mass executions by Iraqi militias should result in immediate, open warfare against certain groups. Attempts to set up a straw man are indicative of your larger failure to address the credible reports about the nature of Sadr and his project. You don’t want to address the situation in which Sadr attacks police stations, sets up his own sharia courts and razes villages, because then actions by Iraqi authorities and US military start to look justified, and you’ve already concluded that they are not.
Look, you can either say “None of the reports on Sadr are credible; he is not a bad guy”, or “Yes, Sadr and his militia commit crimes, but I don’t think they should be punished” or “Yes, Sadr and his militia commit crimes, but the response has been disproportionate”. Pick one, or make up you own. Do anything, just address the issue. Ignoring the issues won’t make it go away; it will just make you look evasive.
Looks like measured response is finished in Najaf, Sadr may get his deathwish fufilled if Omar is accurate:
“American Humvees are patrolling Najaf’s streets and announcing through loudspeakers that civilians should evacuate Najaf city as soon as possible. This has coincided with the departure of all the 4 most important clerics from Najaf today “ Grand Ayetullah” (The last one left today). Also a curfew was announced yesterday in Sadr city from 4 p.m. till 8 a.m. and will continue for an undeclared time.”
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/archives/2004_08_01_iraqthemodel_archive.html#109206471817407672
It may be that the city is surrounded and the nasties will be squashed block by block. My bet is Muqti gets taken alive after all.
John, if you’re around, I think you’re better off just admitting that you’re wrong on this point than trying to cook up arguments that clearly don’t fly. Say what you want about Salem Chalabi, but Sadr is clearly a nutbar whose actions have no place in a civilized society.
Similarly, as regards private armies, do you support crushing all militias in Iraq, including the Kurdish peshmerga, or do you think that this should be done on the basis of a distinction between “good” and “bad” militias.
Wow. Just… wow.
“Steve, in addition to the allegations against Sadr, allegations of murder have been made (in the last few days by the Allawi regime) against Salem Chalabhi and by purported eye witnesses (as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald) against Allawi himself. If an allegation of murder is sufficient to justify all out war, it seems unlikely that we will ever have peace.”
I’m not following this analogy/query at all, John. Nobody went to war against Sadr before or after the warrant was announced. He went to war prior to that (and since stopped, started, stopped, started). I’m not aware of the Chalabis rousing hundreds of armed militias and taking over police stations, etc.; did I miss that? And did I miss the Iraqi government announcing a warrant against Allawi? I’m quite confused by what you’re trying to say here, I’m afraid; can you explain, please? (Incidentally, let me say that I’m glad to have you posting here; it makes for interesting discussion, and it’s a change from me being tromped on for my lefty views. ;-))
Gary,
The warrant against Sadr was issued in 2002, and nothing was done about it. The events leading up to the April uprising were that Bremer announced a ban on Sadr’s newspaper, reactivated the warrant and started arresting his supporters, leading to the supposition that Sadr himself would be arrested soon. Sadr resisted violently, and the resulting fighting led (according to US estimates) to over 1000 deaths. Then there was a negotiated settlement that essentially restored the status quo ante.
Essentially the same cycle has been repeated this time around – raids on Sadr’s offices, violent resistance, large-scale destruction, large but disputed numbers of deaths. I have predicted that the outcome will be the same again, another messy compromise that settles nothing, and I see no reason to change this prediction so far.
Everyone here seems to think all this is a good idea, apparently under the misapprehension that this kind of action will eliminate Sadrism as a political force. I would have thought that after Fallujah and the failed April campaign, there would be some doubts about this, but apparently not.
Further everyone here seems to paint Sadr as a uniquely evil figure. In fact, he’s not significantly better or worse than a heap of other players in Iraq. If you look at Allawi’s record as a Baathist, and with the CIA, it’s just as easy to imagine a situation where Allawi is holed up with his militia and Sadr is an honored ally of the Americans. Just look at Chalabi for an illustration.
John,
“[E]veryone here seems to paint Sadr as a uniquely evil figure. In fact, he’s not significantly better or worse than a heap of other players in Iraq. If you look at Allawi’s record as a Baathist, and with the CIA, it’s just as easy to imagine a situation where Allawi is holed up with his militia and Sadr is an honored ally of the Americans. Just look at Chalabi for an illustration.”
Whether or not Allawi or Chalabi are also bad guys is not relevant to the counter-argument about Sadr people are making against you. At best, you are only demonstrating the inconsistency of attacking Sadr rather than Chalabi or Allawi. The position or argument made against you is basically (A): Groups that raze villages, kill police & obstruct the drive to Iraqi democracy, should be stopped, with force if necessary. Sadr’s militia is one of these groups.
The alleged inconsistency you note is a feature of the actors in their failure to apply the position (A) consistently, rather than than a response to the position itself.
Since you’ve been asked to address the argument about Sadr’s crimes, by many people, but stubbornly refuse, I’m not sure if your evasion is intentional or not.
To state my point clearly, Mark, Sadr’s crimes, alleged and actual, are not such as to justify a military campaign that has already caused (at least on official claims) thousands of deaths, particularly when it is most unlikely that the campaign will eliminate Sadrism as a political force, even if Sadr himself is killed or captured. The costs in human life and otherwise outweigh any likely benefits.
The worst crime that can be attributed to Sadr’s group is that of the destruction of the village of Qawliya. But the campaign against him has already led to the destruction of much of the old city of Najaf. In preparation for the supposed final assault, the US has demanded that citizens evacuate the city, implying much more destruction ahead. And that’s before anything is done in Baghdad, where Sadr’s real support lies.
Do you have any notion of proportionality here?
John,
Thank you for finally addressing one of the main issues.
“The worst crime that can be attributed to Sadr’s group is that of the destruction of the village of Qawliya.”
Let me get this straight: in your view, Sadr’s razing of a village – including the intentional killing of a number of innocent men, women and children, destruction of their homes, forced removal of the population – the creation of religious tribunals for enforcement of radical religious laws, continued attacks against Iraqi police and innocent civilians does not justify attempts to stop all this, with force if necessary?
Say this out loud to yourself: “Yes, a group of thugs from the town down the road formed a militia, killed my relatives, destroyed my home, burned down my town, now insist that I submit to radical religious laws under threat of death, but I don’t think these thugs should be brought to justice; in fact, they should be free to continue their activities”. Does this sound reasonable?
My notion of proportionality is just fine. How’s yours?
Quiggin’s dwelling on the correct spelling of his name is similar to his inability to remember how before March 2003 he made all sorts of excuses for non intervention based on how regime change was to be of only evanescent value to either the US or a coalition led by the US. In the US this would be called isolationism, and I would suppose its Australian name would be similar though not endowed with the same Lindberghesque connotations.
In reality, we all are concerned with how neighbors’ houses are burning down, though as an economist Quiggin seems intent on assessing margin rates of return on how saving Iraq doesn’t add to his net worth in any demonstrable way. Unfortunately, his economics doesn’t take into account how unconstrained evil tends to grow and encompass what it formerly did not possess.
Quiggin’s dwelling on the correct spelling of his name is similar to… a request for normal human courtesy. For pete’s sake. It’s rude to misspell someone’s name, and it’s rude to insuinuate there’s anything odd about desiring one’s name spelled correctly.
It’s fine to disagree about political ideas; there’s no need to turn to ad hominem attacks on people, and those who do so suggest they have no better argument.
Mark, let’s try “thugs from a group in Baghdad had a fight with another group and destroyed their village (claiming this as retaliation for the killing of a group member). A lot of members of the same group are in Najaf. So let’s go there and kill as many of them as we can, even if we have to destroy the entire city in the process.” What do think the next round in this process is going to be.
If it was a matter of arresting and trying those responsible for the Qawliya attack, I’d be all for it. And, for that matter, if there was any way that Sadr could be fairly tried on the charges against him, that didn’t involve large-scale bloodshed, I’d be all for that too. But that would presuppose the kind of competent management that has been absent throughout this disaster.
By the way, Christopher Hitchens, not exactly a dove, offers the view (which he shares with Chalabi) that “this is extremely unwise”.
John,
Arrests and negotiation have already been tried with Sadr. I’m sure you know this, but I’m pleased that you’ve conceded that Sadr’s crimes necessitate punishment. At least we agree on that. I don’t think your claim that punishing him and preventing further crimes involves destroying Najaf is true. If you want to make a utilitarian case against bringing to justice, though, you’ll need to establish this. Link your evidence.
Here’s a report of the destruction of the central markets in Najaf in the early stages of the fighting. The pictures I’ve seen suggest that large numbers of buildings have already been destroyed or damaged, and it’s clear that the real attack is yet to come.
This report of a bombing raid on Kut gives 75 dead, including numerous women and children. That’s many times the maximum estimate of casualties in Qawliya. And this is just a side action. Today alone the report was 165 killed, 600 wounded for Iraq as a whole