121 Killed In Baghdad Bombings

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 07:59:54 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The beginning of the end of the US presence in Iraq is providing us with a bit of a preview of what we can expect. Baghdad bombings:

A series of devastating car bombings rocked Baghdad on Tuesday, killing at least 121 people and wounding hundreds more, according to preliminary accounts by witnesses, the police and hospital officials. Five bombs in all, including at least three suicide attacks, struck near a college, a court complex in western Baghdad, a mosque and a market and a neighborhood near the Interior Ministry in what appeared to be a coordinated assault on the capital.

[. . .] The attacks came as Iraq’s Presidency Council announced a date — March 6 — for the country’s long-delayed parliamentary elections. [. . .] Many victims linked the attacks to the protracted political jockeying over holding the election, which was originally scheduled for January. “Are we cursed?” yelled a young woman near the mosque that was struck in Qahira, in northeast Baghdad. She had burns over her arms and legs. “When will we be finished with this election issue?”

(Emphasis supplied.) Of course elections are not the issue. Power is. The struggle between Sunni and Shia, and different factions of Sunni and Shia, will continue long after the US is gone.

That is Iraq's future.

Speaking for me only

< Monday Night Open Thread | Further Details On The New Health Insurance Premium Assistance Bill >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

121 Killed In Baghdad Bombings | 34 comments (34 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

In a sense, this was preordained (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by andgarden on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 08:10:43 AM EST

when the borders were fashioned at Whitehall. Sad.

I now (5.00 / 4) (#3)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 08:20:21 AM EST

expect to start hearing about how we can't leave.

Clearly a surge is called for (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by ruffian on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 08:22:18 AM EST

: But it will be (none / 0) (#8)
by Dr Molly on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 08:43:47 AM EST

'a war of necessity, not choice'
'a good war, not a bad war'

Neva happen (none / 0) (#27)
by prittfumes on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 12:26:13 PM EST

GWB is no longer president and the current president wants to be reelected.


: Well (none / 0) (#28)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 12:42:14 PM EST

I heard him say a lot of things and promises that he's broken. Why wouldnt he break that one too? He really doesn't care about "the base" you have to remember because "they have nowhere else to go".

If that was the case (none / 0) (#31)
by Socraticsilence on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 05:16:49 PM EST

it would have happened when things deteriorated in the Spring.


: Well (none / 0) (#32)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 05:35:39 PM EST

we still aren't getting out are we? Look, Obama is NOT gonna leave. He doesn't have the cojones.

"That is Iraq's future." (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by CoralGables on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 08:37:18 AM EST

And their past. We are little more than a third wheel of violence in a perennially unstable country.

Not so much their past (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 08:50:33 AM EST

Iraq was ruled by a strongman for decades.

It was horrible. But not consistently violent. In other words, the dictator used the state's monopoly on violence to control the country. But his use of violence was not constant.

Now the state does not have a monopoly on violence and thus civil war is the result.


You are right (none / 0) (#14)
by CoralGables on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 09:16:02 AM EST

a strong dictator with the military means did show an ability to quell violence. However, it's probably not prudent for me to publicly acknowledge that the option in place was more successful.

With that in mind, it's hard to know which is worse. But with a public hanging we closed off one option and set them back on the path of option two.


The US interests (none / 0) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 09:23:00 AM EST

should always be paramount in the thinking of our government.

That Iraq was ruled by a dictator is terrible. It is terrible that over a billion Chinese live under authoritarian rule.

When you can help, you should. But always with an eye on what serves the interest of your nation.


"U.S interests" (none / 0) (#33)
by jondee on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 08:39:32 PM EST

the historically loaded term of all historically loaded terms. The question is, who gets to define what U.S interests are and how do they define them.

They need to be defined for the general population to reflect on in very well thought out, very specific, scientific terms unclouded by a political demagoguery meant to cover an arrogantly foolish, shortsighted approach to the lessons of history. And the quarterly and end-of-the-year planners and thinkers and grandstanders up for reelection who always seem to get the last word in these matters probobly aren't going to cut it.


: I remember U.S interests (none / 0) (#34)
by jondee on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 08:57:03 PM EST

a term wielded every five minutes for forty years by demagogues telling us that a nation the Germans ran roughshod over and still rebuilding from WWII had it's tentacles in every faraway nook and crevice of the known world.

Yes (none / 0) (#18)
by The Last Whimzy on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 09:53:52 AM EST

But what of the choice between the two conditions. What would you want if you lived in such a country.

Dictator and inconstant violence.

Civil war.

I think this is a fundamental question. What of America. If instead of civil war, we trashed our framework for government and allowed a military despot to sieze control of the country in order to enforce inconstant violence.

This may result in less death, but would it have been good for the country?

Does that mean the bombings are good? Therapy on a national scale?

God no.

Please try not to trivialize the question.


Generally speaking (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Steve M on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 11:07:30 AM EST

the evidence shows that people prize basic security above all else. All the political freedoms in the world aren't worth much if you routinely risk death just by leaving the house.

In a country like ours that is 99% secure, of course, the tradeoff between liberty and security is a lot more nuanced.

In 50 years, when everything is hearts and flowers in Iraq (God willing), people may indeed be thankful for the blessings of liberty and the fact that they're no longer ruled by a strongman. But a lot of people will have lost their lives in the meantime, and that would be a lot more acceptable if they had made the choice for themselves to bear that risk.


I'm glad I do not live in that country (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 09:56:29 AM EST

Let me let you in on a secret - my family did not come over on the Mayflower.


Me too (none / 0) (#25)
by The Last Whimzy on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 11:57:15 AM EST

I'm also glad I wasn't living in Iraq in say 1995 either.

I just think in America we would accept a less secure environment if the cost of a more secure environment was the implementation of a totalitarian regime.


: Optimistic thinking perhaps... (none / 0) (#30)
by Raskolnikov on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 03:27:22 PM EST

I would say the willingness to enact liberty stifling legislation following 9/11 in the name of security didn't bear out that hope. Although obviously not an "implementation of a totalitarian regime", the move was certainly toward more state control than toward anarchy.

The joys of competitive religion (none / 0) (#2)
by Dadler on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 08:19:28 AM EST

I know better about God that you do. No, I do. No, I do. BOOM!!!

The raw idiocy is staggering.

And we went there to make Iraq safe for what?

Unlike, say Afganistan (none / 0) (#5)
by me only on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 08:32:53 AM EST

where they were singing kumbaya prior to US intervention.

Different issue (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 08:37:22 AM EST

At least as I see it, and heard President Obama explained it, the Afghanistan conflict is going to be centered not on making Afghanistan a nirvana, but in insuring that Afghanistan and Pakistan do not become havens for Islamic extremism.

Iraq was NOT (indeed is not) a haven for Islamic extremism. There was no US interest in a conflict in Iraq. The Taliban and Al Qaida, which attacked the US and plan to again, are in the Af/Pak region.

You can argue that the policy the President has chosen for Afghanistan is the wrong one, but you can not, imo, argue that the Afghanistan/Pakistan situation was like Iraq or is like Iraq now.


I am not arguing that Afganistan is like (none / 0) (#9)
by me only on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 08:46:05 AM EST

Iraq. Iraq has a chance at a future. Afganistan is dump. Peace will come to Afganistan when humanity ceases to exist.

We will eventually tire of Afganistan and leave because of the fighting. The fighting has been going on there for over a generation. A "surge" cannot work. It can only delay fighting.

Iraq has a chance to build enough wealth that peace will come. I am not saying that it will, but there is a chance. Afganistan is valuable only for growing poppy.


Hmm (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 08:48:46 AM EST

As I said, whether Afghanistan is a dump or not seems tangential to US policy.

I am not sure how your comment is responsive to mine.


We went to Afganistan and Iraq (none / 0) (#13)
by me only on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 09:10:30 AM EST

or different reasons. The surge in Iraq made sense to me.

The surge in Afganistan is a waste of American lives. US policy should be to leave. We are not going to be able to control radical Islam in Afganistan no matter how many fancy speeches Obama gives on this issue.

Pakistan is another issue.


I saw that comment above (none / 0) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 09:23:46 AM EST

And it seems conclusory and divorced from the facts.

Not sure what I can say to you to get you to address the arguments at issue.


The Afghan Civil War (none / 0) (#20)
by me only on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 10:04:40 AM EST

has been going on for over 30 years. That is not "divorced from the facts." You contend that Iraq is going to fall into civil war because we invaded. Guess what, Afghanistan won't have to start one after we leave, they can just continue the one they have grown to love.

We are not going to get lucky on this one. No one is going to take Afghanistan off our hands. We are simply not ruthless enough to bring rogue elements under heel.

At $450/capita of GDP and a population that doubled in the last 30 years (and is showing no signs of not doubling in the next 40 years) you have a recipe for disaster. Look, I have almost violent disagreement with everything WSWS says (and Ted Rall), but this is the one time we have ever agreed. Let's just declare victory and come home.


: No t responsive (none / 0) (#22)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 10:17:24 AM EST

imo, to the policy issues I think are raised in Afghanistan in Pakistan for the US.

We went to Afganistan and Iraq (none / 0) (#12)
by me only on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 08:53:00 AM EST

for different reasons. The surge in Iraq made sense to me.

Pakistan is another issue.

I disagree on both points (none / 0) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 09:21:29 AM EST

The Surge in Iraq was a waste. See today's bombings and the future we are sure to see. the Surge in Iraq delayed the inevitable when we should have been dealing with Af/Pak.

Meanwhile, the situation in Af/Pak is vital to our national security.

Your comment seems divorced from reality to me.


Sorry, that was some weird double post (none / 0) (#21)
by me only on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 10:06:18 AM EST

it was always meant as a reply to your (our) comment thread, not as a stand alone comment.


May I cut in briefly (none / 0) (#24)
by Dadler on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 11:55:42 AM EST

I think think they are obviously different situations, but the opposing forces of human nature we face in the native populations (separate from the specific enemy groups we claim to be after) as a result of our actions. That, history seems to tell us, is the much more difficult obstacle to overcome when using military force/occupation.


: God that was sloppy (none / 0) (#26)
by Dadler on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 11:59:30 AM EST

I think Iraq and AF/Pak are different places with different situations, but what is similar, if not identical in import, are the opposing forces of human nature we face in the native populations (separate from the specific enemy groups we claim to be after) as a result of our actions. That, history seems to tell us, is the much more difficult, if not impossible, obstacle to overcome when using military force/occupation as we are.
Delete the previous attempt.

Although our goals are different (none / 0) (#29)
by oculus on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 12:51:34 PM EST

and the factions are different in Afghanistan, waht basis is there to believe the result will be different when we draw down U.S. forces in Afghanistan?