Besides the imminent clusterf*ck, the most depressing thing about this is that a fair percentage of people seem to be believing that Americans and Israelis were behind it.

I mean what do you do when faced with that?

What non-disasterous options are out there?

I have collected some links here. Zeyad's comments are particularly interesting. I have also noticed sectarian divisions appearing in the Iraqi blogs since the elections, and maybe even before that. Ja'afari doesn't appear to be as unifying leader as one might have hoped, too sectarian I think.

I just hope this isn't the "Fort Sumter" of an Iraqi civil war. Not good at all...

Three immediate consequences are (as pointed by Dan Simon in CSM):

- Putting together Iraqi National Government of all parties will be that much difficult. It appeared that Shiite were ready for some compromise. But now their stance will be hardened. Muqtada Sadr for example will become more strident. It seems chances of unity government are really low now. In the medium term this means any serious efforts of putting foundations of a modern and secular Iraq is at least delayed.

- The other sad part is America's fine ambassador Khalilzad lost lot of political capital in just one day. A day back he gave the ultimatum of America may not invest in Iraq's forces unless they all come together and now we have a sectarian fight which American's simply can not walk away from. The ambassador was doing such a great job and now it will be tough how he will get through this stature loss.

Overall violence as a reaction will get down in next few days. But what is unlikely to go away is rapture in a dialogue where various factions were coming together. Each faction will keep this incidence in mind - for Shiite loss of Askariya shrine, for Sunni strong reactions there after and for Kurds what Sadr has been talking outside Iraq.

- One more point is Iranian President is follower of the imam who is believed to make the come back. If this is the shrine related to his favorite imam; he will be more inclined to believe that apocalypse is coming and will harden further as far as nuclear ambitions go.

All said and done, this is a perfect incident which is pregnant with some very ‘bad’ to come in next few days and months.

It would be a cruel irony if a bombing that didn't actually kill anyone turned out to be the straw that broke the camel's back.

Indeed . . but at the same time, given the events of the past few years, it often seems like the Muslim populations throughout the Middle East care about the symbols of their religion at least as much as they care about human lives -- there was the Quran flushing story, the recent Mohammed-cartoon riots, outrage that Americans might be firing on mosques, etc. There are others, I am sure, that I cannot remember here. On some level, I wonder whether seeing "irony" here is just a function of our Westernised perspective, whether we automatically downgrade offenses against religion, and so see it as odd or unexpected that they weigh more heavily than human death.

If this developes into a full on civil war, would even administration supporters call Operation Iraqi Freedom a DEBACLE?

One of the main points of the ICG paper I skimmed was that the insurgency can now easily link acts of violence to political rhetoric; I think this goes to Umish's second point about the political capital lost by the Ambassador. However, it's been a civil war for some months now, what with the militias basically taking care of law and vengeance. The symbol of a destroyed shrine merely put it front and center.

It's also clear that U.S. forces won't be able to do thing one about it. Well, at least we tried, but not really.

Centrist, no they won't. For now; later they'll say that Evul Libruls were responsible.

Aaron: "Besides the imminent clusterf*ck, the most depressing thing about this is that a fair percentage of people seem to be believing that Americans and Israelis were behind it.

I mean what do you do when faced with that?

What non-disasterous options are out there?"

Aaron, think what this war looks like to the vast majority of the world which doesn't worship Bush, and aren't Likudniks - the USA deliberately attacked and destroyed a country, killing many thousands of people, for the sheer h*ll of it.

At that point, what should they think?

Recognizing that Amb. Khalilzad is only trying to ride the tiger right now, his statement about militias the other day was still unfortunate, because it was incomplete.

Perhaps there is a problem here in the amount of responsibility for both private and public diplomacy that has been thrust on his shoulders. In any event, I was surprised that Khalilzad condemned the sectarian militia's influence so forcefully without noting the reason militias have as much influence as they do right now -- the Sunni Arab-dominated insurgency.

At issue is not whether Americans believe Sunni Arab political leaders who say they and their constituents are participating in the political process rather than (instead of, in addition to) aiding an insurgency that has repeatedly struck at Shiite, and to a lesser extent Kurdish, targets for well over two years now. The problem is that Shiite Iraqis have little reason to believe it. Khalilzad was calling for Shiite restraint and a fair deal for Sunni Arabs not participating in the insurgency -- but too many Shiite do not make this distinction anymore.

With due regard to the difficult situation Sunni Arab political leaders find themselves in, this is their fault. Insurgent attacks on Shiites have not just come out of the blue this week; through the months and years they have gone on, Sunni Arab political leaders have sought to walk a tightrope by issuing criticisms of terrorism without fighting the insurgency. In the face of Shiite reprisals they are now claiming victimhood, a claim that may well resonate in mostly Sunni Arab countries outside Iraq, but that well may only make Shiite Iraqis angrier.

Khalilzad should know this better than anyone. It may well be -- it probably is the case -- that no statement of his could have deterred the latest surge in violence, so I don't want to stress this point too much, but he erred in not stressing the obvious thing about Iraq today: the country's main problem is the insurgency. The economy is a mess because of the insurgency. There is no security because of the insurgency. The Americans are still there because of the insurgency. After all the insurgency has done over the years, if you were a Kurd or Shiite listening to Sunni Arab leaders saying they only wanted justice, fair treatment and and end to occupation, would you believe them?

How did Sunni groups react to the bombing? Did they protest it strongly? Did they disown the attack at the shrine? The report in Chr Sci Mon mentions a Sunni official asking for protection around Sunni mosques, but what did they say about the bombing?
If Sunni groups are not explicitly criticizing this attack, they are not sincere about the political protest and there is not anything the US or anyone else can do to stop civil war.

Islamic sectarian violence has been around for over a thousand years. In Iraq, it was kept down under Saddam Hussein's repression which included the gassing of a whole town. Is this this the sort of thing that should still be in place? This is a legimate question because it is likely that it would've continued under Saddam without Western intervention (although I also include pre-2003 actions).

The reason why I visit Daniel Drezner's blog is because he seems intelligent, independent, and reasonable. Often I find that the blog replies are also. However "Barry's" posting is simply a divisive rant. The words "Evul Libruls" are meant to imply that supporters of the Iraqi invasion are stupid and uneducated. This is silly; intelligent people can disagree on many topics. No matter what your opinions on correct policy, what is gained by simplistic ranting? I'd rather not see this blog taken over by people who sling words like "libtard" or "wingnut" at each other. There is already enough of that on the Internet.

(Thank you for reading my first post.)

Barry's" posting is simply a divisive rant. The words "Evul Libruls" are meant to imply that supporters of the Iraqi invasion are stupid and uneducated

In the run up to the war, I saw numerous surveys that indicated that a substantial majority of americans who supported the war were under the impression that "saddam got us on 911". If you dont fall into that category, then you dont fall into the MOST stupid category of people who supported the war.

Taeyoung, regarding your comment, there is a quote in an earlier version of the NYtimes's story: "I would rather hear of the death of a friend than to hear this news." Me, I'll take my friends over any building.

Centrist,

Sure, there are stupid and uneducated people who supported the invasion. But there are stupid people on any side of any issue. The question is whether one should characterize all people having a particular opinion automatically as stupid. If that's not your position, then good for you.

Getting back to the topic, it is a legitimate question whether the war was a trigger point for A Lot of Bad Things, and if the costs were worth it. However, any serious person would also have to weigh the costs of business as usual, and also realize that underlying tensions (Sunni/Shia, sectarian/fundamentalist) were always there before.

"sectarian/fundamentalist"

Oops, I meant "secular/fundamentalist" .

Roy,
You are correct, stupid people are on all sides of issues. For example that data I looked at had implied that some people who thought "Iraq got us on 911", did not support the invasion. What type of crazy pacifist must those people be?

> Barry's" posting is simply a divisive rant. The
> words "Evul Libruls" are meant to imply that
> supporters of the Iraqi invasion are stupid and
> uneducated

Given the Suskind quote from the anonymous White House staffer (Rove? Libby?) about "making one's own reality", I would say Barry's post is just a statement of fact. Regardless of any reality-based facts on the ground, Rove will figure out a way to blame the situation on 'liberal Democrat(s)'.

Problem is, outside the United States there is a reality-based world that doesn't listen to the US media machine, or Karl Rove, or Karen Hughes. I can't think of a single example in US history of an administration team with LESS understanding of how the world works and understanding that all consequences (particularly off the US shores) are NOT under our control.

But have no fear: it will all be blamed on the "Democrat Party" by next week. Until the situation explodes in Iraq. I really, really hope our troops are out of there by then, not least of all the neighbor kid who used to babysit for us.

Cranky

No matter what, it is a crime against humanity that anything that beautiful should be destroyed. Of course, I blame UBL and his minions for this outrage. I just hope Army public information troops can get the message out pinning the blame where it belongs.

If a civil war erupts, and Iraq splits into three parts - why would that be bad for the US? Wouldn't that be a good result? Of course, a civil war would result in even greater suffering - I have no doubt that after all the provocations, the Shiites would engage in ethnic cleansing with a vengeance - but at the end of the day, wouldn't American interests be well served by having three smaller, weaker entities in what is now Iraq?

Well, the bright spot is US casualties seem to be headed down this month. They have been averaging about 2 per day, but this month will probably end up about 1.5.

Well, the bright spot is US casualties seem to be headed down this month. They have been averaging about 2 per day, but this month will probably end up about 1.5.

It is useless to talk about validity of Iraq war. The debate about Pres. Bush’s judgment in starting the Iraq war had a different place and time. That debate happened within America in Nov. 2004 and people decided in that contest. They might have had doubts with Pres. Bush, they might not believe him; but more voters thought he was the right one to continue on this job and that is how he is there.

Whether Pres. Bush held some information and manipulated that debate, that issue is also different. If one is so confident about that, then impeach him. But again that is a different topic.

The reality is - how all this ranting going to solve America’s current entanglement in Iraq? I never supported the war, opposed Pres. Bush’s judgment all along and now favor rethinking America’s engagement in Iraq. But to say that ‘the war was wrong in the first place' every time any debate is done, is useless; is counter productive; is immature and in the end does not serve American people. If Liberals and Democrats want to do this all the time, it is a seed for their failure even if they get elected. Democrats can come into power only by articulating a sound strategy to solve America’s Iraq problem and then they can have any chance of retaining that power only when they have solved that problem. Ranting all the time will never take them anywhere.

Coming back to the debate where Zathras is mentioning some doubts about whether it was right for Khalilzad to speak for potential American withdrawal from pouring more money if all factions of Iraq do not come together. The timing turned out to be unfortunate and there can be a debate if that was the best way to convey the message. But giving the message that America knows that it is taken granted and is used to pursue the partisan agenda of Iraqi faction; has to be conveyed. The PM nominate Jaffari has been time and again pointed as one example who would prefer to have American presence so that he can continue to use American forces to provide protection to Shiite, get their dollars and know how for training and at the same time Shiite militia are allowed to kill Sunnis.

Knowledge that Pres. Bush’s legacy is on line so he will not hesitate to spend liberally in money and blood is good for Iraqi politicians and Iran too. It is not good for America. That is the reason Iraqi leaders are playing all the killing games with impunity with no control whatsoever for American soldiers. American soldiers cannot simply walk into this sectarian fight.

My apologies to bring this example again – British in the end realized that they absolutely had no leverage in controlling Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan in their rampant killings during the partition time of 1947. On the other hand both parties were trying to use British as a post to further their interest. All the benefits of staying there were gone. So British rulers left easily. And of course all the British parties who were heavily invested in Raj were also gone. So the transition was easy for British. Then the real scary thought is does this mean only when Pres. Bush completes his second term, we have realistic chance of weighing the option of American withdrawal? That could be too late and too expensive. Or may be things calm down and American policy finds the grounding to solve the issues. One hopes later is the case.

DBL -absolutely not. A division of Iraq would be a disaster for the US for a whole bunch of reasons:
An independent Kurdistan would destablize Turkey and Iran and potentially bring Turkey and maybe even Iran to intervene directly. This would also put an end to Turkey's aspirations to join the EU, which has been a major goal for the US.
The Shi'ite part would be extremely vulnerable to Iranian influence. I don't think the US would benefit from giving Teheran an important ally in the region.
Finally, the Sunni part would remain pissed off at the US for ruining the good deal they had for themselves ruling Iraq before the invasion.
Lastly, the US would loose any trace of credibility it has left.

> But to say that ‘the war was wrong in the first
> place' every time any debate is done, is useless;
> is counter productive; is immature and in the end
> does not serve American people.

Both Alcoholics Anonymous and the various TQM philosophies (such as the Toyota Manufacturing System) will tell you that the absolute first step to addressing a problem is to acknowledge it exists. No pretending it doesn't (Toyota) and no blaming someone else (AA).

How about, as absolute step 1, the Administration which has been in power for 6 years and which controls both houses of Congress ADMIT THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM IN IRAQ.

How about, as a step 2, the Administration /stop blaming "liberals", Democrats, and "Michael Moore" for the problem that they claim doesn't exist/?

Just today in fact a key administration said that that criticism of the port question was 'giving aid and comfort to the enemy'. How about they stop doing that? How about firing Scotty McClellen?

And perhaps that is the core of it. McClellen is seen by many as a symptom. I don't think that is true; I think McClellen implements the core Cheney/Bush/Rove philosophy. So perhaps it is not surprising that those who represent the 50.5% (or 49.8%) of voters who did NOT vote for Bush aren't going to let up until there is a sign of compromise?

Cranky

Interesting comments, rants and all. To me, it goes back to how the army and police got turned into Shiite militias (see Lasseter in K-R last summer). I hate to say it, but the US bears blame insofar as, in our haste to "stand up" Iraqi forces so we could get out, we selected for the recruits who had lots of motivation for the dangerous work--that is, revenge-minded Shiites.

Isn't it interesting that people are willing to
destroy a complex object known as a human being
over another destroyed object that was made out
of dirt.

Apparently they have no idea that you can rebuild
the dirt object.

But what can you expect from primitive people.

And boy...Is this planet populated with primitive
people.

Maybe in another 1000 years they will evolve to
the point of no longer being primitive.

"Come On. We have work to do. I want the auto
duck blinds tested before the StarCrusier returns
in a few weeks."

"I want to report to the captain that everything
is up and running."

> DBL -absolutely not. A division of Iraq would be a
> disaster for the US for a whole bunch of reasons:
> An independent Kurdistan would destablize Turkey
> and Iran and potentially bring Turkey and maybe
> even Iran to intervene directly.

Um, everyone does understand that the US only occupies Iraq with the cooperation of the Shia, right? When (I don't think it is an if) they tell us to leave, we will leave. The Shia and the Kurds ARE going to partition the country and damn any external consequences. The US might have been able to stop this in the first 6 months, had the occupation been handled correctly, but it cannot now.

Cranky

>"The Shia and the Kurds ARE
going to partition the country..."

I think it's safe to say Iraq is already
partitioned.

I would agree that Iraq is and will be partitioned. But there are ways of partitioning it short of independence, e.g. autonomous regions, federalism that would avoid a larger conflict with other powers. Given this administration's diplomatic track record, we shouldn't get our hopes up, but you never know...
Another thing is that the Kurds should know that their Peshmerga would get blown away by the Turkish army the moment they declare independence. Of course, they might still do it just for the hell of it.

Mitchell,
Not to rain on your optimism, but 7+ marines died today, which I doubt were included in your statistics. US casualties tend to go down only when units "keep a lower profile" i.e stay in protected barracks! When the unit go out into surrounds WIA tend to go right back up.

The insurgency is the problem. The insurgency prospers because it gets the support of many Sunnis--the sort who pay no attention to the men just outside their front door lobbing mortars. It follows that the the U.S. should try to dry up this essential political support for the insurgency. And how do that except by favoring the political/constitutional demands laid down by the more peacefully inclined Sunnis? For instance, for putting a non-sectarian sort in charge of Interior, whose minions have lately murdered hundreds of Sunnis.
But then how will the Shiites perceive this policy? One shrewd observer remarks (in the a NYT op-ed this morning) that "Shiites see the overt American push for a national unity government as nothing more than coddling the Sunnis and, worse yet, rewarding the insurgency." Coupled with an over the top outrage like the destruction of the Askaria Shrine, the Shiites may well conclude that the U.S., the so-called moderate Sunnnis, and the insurgents (among them those who bombed the shrine) are all aligned against them to jeopardize their fragile new grip on political power, and that drastic measures are essential to preserve that grip.
It would seem then that many Iraqis on either side of this divide are highly motivated to engage in deadly violence against anyone on the other side. That might be called civil war--constrained by the presence of 150,000 American troops likely to be reduced below 100,000 by November.
But I have every confidence that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush foresaw this possibility and will soon resolve the conflict in a way that makes us all safer than we were while Saddam controlled Iraqi territory and sent waves of terrorists against American targets.

I should have added: highly motivated to kill each other for that most excellent of reasons, a well-grounded fear that if they don't kill the other guy, he will kill them (for fear the other guy. ...).
One might say, then, that rather than restoring again in Mesopotamia the garden of Eden, the administration has created there a state of nature of the classic Hobbesian variety.

"The economy is a mess because of the insurgency. There is no security because of the insurgency. The Americans are still there because of the insurgency."

The insurgents would say there is an insurgency because the Americans are still there.

Leaving an earlier cause to all your others....