The number of deaths suffered in attacks in Baghdad and Mosul on Saturday — four Iraqi soldiers and a government worker — pales in comparison to last week’s horrific toll of 100 dead and more than 500 wounded. But Saturday’s spate shows that the violence continues and attacks might in fact step up following the departure of American combat troops from urban areas with plans for a full withdrawal by the end of 2011.
The physical presence of US forces might stop some attacks in Iraq but not all. Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki blamed an alliance of Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein loyalists for last week’s atrocity, saying the attacks were intended to create chaos and a conflict between political powers ahead of the January elections. Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said it could be an inside job. However, neither Al-Maliki nor Zebari could offer any evidence to back their claims.
There are Iraqi government powers who believe the only way to ward off the threat to a permanent hold on power is to reignite sectarian violence. Certain parties in government could be trying to secure their place in power by rallying support among their religious affiliates, staging terrorist attacks against members of the very sects whose support they are seeking. The proponents of this view seem happy to subscribe to the Bush doctrine of inciting alarm against terrorism in order to drive people into the arms of those responsible for the terror in the first place.
Some of those behind the current wave of bombings could hope to induce US forces to remain in the country. They are determined to spread terror in order to persuade the Iraqi people of the need for the continued presence of the Americans. Some groups fear that the withdrawal of US forces, especially an accelerated withdrawal, will lead to the collapse of the current government. This view too has a familiar ring. US forces and the private security firms contracted by them to supply mercenaries, among other support services, are lending themselves to such scenarios. The security firms have a profit incentive to remain in Iraq.
As the US prepares to pull out almost entirely, the Obama administration has increased its pressure on Al-Maliki to reach out to his opponents, both Kurds and Sunni Arabs, to resolve their outstanding disputes. Washington is also concerned that Al-Maliki’s failure to mend fences with Sunnis threatens the understanding it had reached with them when they agreed to turn their arms against Al-Qaeda and other die-hard resisters.
Yet Al-Maliki, who is increasingly tightening his grip on Iraq, is showing no sign of compliance, and he is probably procrastinating on national reconciliation demands because that will certainly widen political participation and weaken his position ahead of next year’s election.
But those same positions taken by Al-Maliki have left him and Iraq politically and physically vulnerable. They could be one reason for the recent appalling attacks. Some, not without justification, see the hands of the occupying power behind the upsurge in violence. It suits them too.
The fact is that as long as occupation continues, a country never can hope to be stable. The occupying power, those who benefit by them and those who are opposed to them have all an interest in ensuring that things never return to normal.
