Until recently violence in Iraq was firmly on the decline. That is no longer the case. In the past week alone, almost 200 people have been brutally killed in a spate of terrorist attacks. Last Saturday, in the most devastating attack so far this year, over 70 people died in a truck bomb blast in the northern city of Kirkuk; on Monday, at least 29 people died in a series of attacks in the capital and elsewhere; on Wednesday a bomb in a Shiite suburb of Baghdad killed 69 people; yesterday, another bomb attack, at a motorcycle market in the city, killed at least 13 people and wounded dozens more.
It is difficult not to feel a sense of outrage and anger at these murderous assaults or share some of the pain inflicted on the Iraqi people.
President George Bush’s “surge”, we were led to believe, has pacified Iraq beyond the wildest expectations of the neocons. So what is happening?
Who are responsible for the latest upsurge in violence? What are their motives? Of course, there are the usual suspects. Al-Qaeda terrorists for one. Then there are the Iraqis who are opposed to the continued US occupation of their country. They are also terrorists in the eyes of the Americans and those who support the war, but resistance fighters in the eyes of the vast majority of Iraqis.
The attacks, some believe, are linked to the departure of US troops from Iraqi streets at the end of the month in the next stage in the planned US withdrawal. The aim, according to them, is to force a US rethink about the withdrawal. The terrorists, goes the argument, would like Americans to do just that and thus remain a focus of resentment. Then there are others who believe, and not without some justification, that for all the talk of the withdrawal, Americans will be in effective control of their country.
Whatever the truth, everybody expects a power vacuum. And everybody wants to exploit it to their advantage. Some Iraqi groups may want to show that the Iraqi security forces are incapable of protecting the public. And some, especially those allied with and are beneficiaries of the occupation may want to create the impression that the US withdrawal may stir up sectarian violence by setting communities against each other. A continued US presence, in one form or the other, is what they really want. And they are not without their supporters among the cheerleaders of the war in the US and UK.
The fact is that in an occupied country nothing is what it appears on the surface. All that is certain is that the Iraqi public continues to pay heavily for a war they never wanted. It appears there is no light at the end of the Iraqi tunnel. First, it was silent killing through penalizing sanctions. Then it was open slaughter by US bombs at one time and car bombs/terrorist attacks at the other. The innocent civilians were always the victims.
The Iraqi government must show that it can defend civilians. The defense of its people is a government’s first duty. If Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki is seen as unable to perform that duty without the presence and support of the American troops, he will be seen lacking in legitimacy in the eyes of his people. This will only embolden those who are opposed to him for various reasons.
Global warming
New York Times yesterday commented on the American Clean Energy and Security Act, saying in part:
American politicians, from both parties, insist that they want to combat global warming and reduce this country’s dependence on fossil fuels. Members of the House will soon have a chance to show they mean it. Voters should watch carefully to see what they do.
The American Clean Energy and Security Act would, for the first time, put a price on carbon emissions. The bill has shortcomings. But we believe that it is an important beginning to the urgent task of averting the worst damage from climate change. Approval would show that the United States is ready to lead and would pressure other countries to follow. Rejection could mean more wasted years and more damage to the planet.
We urge all to examine several recent studies showing the costs of the legislation to be minimal. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects average costs of $175 a year per American household by 2020 — vastly lower than the $3,000-plus figure bandied about by Republican leaders. We also urge them to read the scientific analysis forecasting the catastrophic costs to the planet, this country’s security and its economy if global warming is left unchecked.
The centerpiece of the legislation is a provision that aims to cut America’s production of greenhouse gases by 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by midcentury — the minimum reductions scientists say are necessary to avert the worst consequences of climate change.
Its mechanism for doing so is a cap-and-trade system that would place a steadily declining ceiling on emissions while allowing emitters to trade permits, or allowances, to give them flexibility in meeting their targets. The point is to raise the cost of older, dirtier fuels while steering investments to cleaner ones. The two seasoned politicians behind this bill — Henry Waxman of California and Ed Markey of Massachusetts — have also insisted on provisions that would mandate more efficient buildings, require cleaner energy sources like wind power and provide subsidies for new technologies. They have tried hard to shield poor consumers from higher energy costs. The CBO estimates that, with rebates, the bottom 20 percent would actually come out ahead.
