After Samarra bombing
Iraqis blame U.S. intervention for violence
Published Mar 3, 2006 11:21 PM
No one has yet revealed hard evidence
proving who blew up the Imam Ali Al Hadi shrine in Samarra, Iraq, which provoked
battles between Sunni and Shiite communities. But no matter whose hands set off
the charge that smashed the golden dome, the U.S.-led occupation forces are
responsible for this additional assault on the Iraqi population.
Feb. 27, five days after the explosion, no organization or state had publicly
accepted responsibility for the bombing. This alone shows that whoever carried
out the bombing intended to throw the blame for it on other forces. The bombing
was certain to incite battles between the two major Arab communities in
Iraq—Shiite and Sunni. If such warfare broke out on a large scale, it
could lead to fragmenting Iraq into multiple mini-states more easily manipulated
Iraqi blogger Riverbend wrote that Baghdad woke up to the
news that “men wearing Iraqi security uniforms walked in [to the shrine]
and detonated explosives, damaging the mosque almost beyond repair. Several
mosques in Baghdad were attacked. I think what has everyone most disturbed is
the fact that the reaction was so swift, like it was just waiting to
Sectarian fighting followed and was reportedly carried out
by organized groups. The Badr brigades are suspected. These are the militia of
the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution (SCIRI), associated with Shiite
Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani. SCIRI collaborated with U.S. forces when they
invaded and desecrated the holy city of Najaf to put down the insurrection led
by fellow Shiite Muqtada al-Sadr.
Since the provocation in Samarra, U.S.
big-business media have presented the events in Iraq so as to exacerbate the
differences between the Sunni and Shiite communities. However, it is
enlightening—and at least somewhat encouraging—to contrast the
reports in the corporate media with those from Iraqis, inside and outside the
country, who oppose the U.S. occupation. They indicate that, in many cases, mass
demonstrations after the bombing attempted to build Shiite-Sunni unity against
analyst Dahr Jamail, an anti-occupation journalist who spent eight months
reporting directly from Iraq, wrote Feb. 24 that “the Sunnis were the
first to go to demonstrations of solidarity with Shiites in Samarra, as well as
to condemn the mosque bombings. Demon strations of solidarity between Sunni and
Shiites went off over all of Iraq: in Basra, Diwaniyah, Nasiriyah, Kut and Salah
“Thousands of Shiites marched shouting anti-American slogans
through Sadr City, the huge Shiite slum area of Baghdad, which is home to nearly
half the population of the capital city. Meanwhile, in the primarily Shiite city
of Kut, south of Baghdad, thousands marched while shouting slogans against
America and Israel and burning U.S. and Israeli flags.”
media reported on Feb. 25 that Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr “publicly
made peace with political and religious Sunni leaders. Four sheiks from the Sadr
movement made a ‘pact of honor’ with the conservative Sunni Muslim
Scho lars Association, calling for an end to attacks on places of worship, the
shedding of blood and condemning any act leading to sedition. The meeting also
announced the formation of a commission to ‘determine the reasons for the
crisis with a view to solving it,’ while also calling for a time table for
the withdrawal of U.S. troops.”
Moqtada al-Sadr ordered his Mehdi
Army to no longer wear their signature black uniforms, for fear that others were
disguising themselves as Mehdi forces in order to provoke clashes between
Shiites and Sunnis. Even though al-Sadr joined an electoral bloc with the
reactionary SCIRI and al-Dawa forces—which have supported the occupation
and which are seen as also being aligned with Shiites in Iran—many in the
resistance see the Mehdi Army as the most likely of the groupings in the Shiite
community to join the mostly Sunni-area forces now fighting the
In addition to attempting to avoid civil war, forces within
both Shiite and Sunni communities in Iraq are joining together to rid their
country of an unwelcome and painful imperialist occupation.
an Iraqi exiled in Britain, wrote in the Feb. 24 British Guardian: “It has
not been Sunni religious symbols that hundreds of thousands of angry marchers
protesting at the bombing of the shrine have targeted, but U.S. flags. The
slogan that united them on Wednes day was: ‘No to America, no to
“The Shiite clerics most listened to by young
militants swiftly blamed the occupation for the bombing. They included Moqtada
al-Sadr; Nasrallah, leader of Hizbullah in Lebanon; Ayatollah Khalisi, leader of
the Iraqi National Foundation Congress; and Grand Ayatollah Kha menei,
Iran’s spiritual leader.” Khamenei blamed the intelligence services
of the U.S. and Israel.
“Along with Grand Ayatollah Sistani,”
continued Ramadani, “they also declared it a grave ‘sin’ to
attack Sunnis—as did all the Sunni clerics about attacks on Shiites. Sadr
was reported by the BBC as calling for revenge on Sunnis—in fact, he said
‘no Sunni would do this’ [bomb the shrine] and called for revenge on
Divide Iraq into three
Washington’s legal responsibility for protecting the
shrine was made clear in a statement by the BRussell’s Tribunal which
read: “The destruction of Al-Askari Mosque in Samarra, Iraq, represents
yet another breach of the obligations of occupying powers under international
humanitarian law.” Those rules of war and occupation were spelled out in
the conventions signed in The Hague and in Geneva more than 50 years ago.
U.S. imperialism’s responsibility, however, goes far beyond the
mere breaking of these rules. The Bush administration consciously spread lies in
an attempt to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq. The U.S. then set up an
occupation regime to seize Iraqi oil and to establish permanent military bases
and a center of operations to control the Middle East and Central Asia.
April 2003, when Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld still believed he could
“shock and awe” all of Iraq into accepting these plans, the U.S.
leaders might have believed they could set up a single weak and submissive Iraqi
puppet government. Within months of the April 2003 Penta gon takeover of
Baghdad, however, the Iraqi resistance made it clear that the U.S. occupation
would not be easy.
Washington considered other strategies.
November 2003, U.S. think tanks were already proposing that Iraq be split into
three parts. Leslie H. Gelb, president emeritus of the powerful Council on
Foreign Relations, wrote, “The only viable strategy, then, may be to
correct [Iraq’s] historical defect and move in stages to ward a
three-state solution: Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the center and Shiites in
the south.” (New York Times, Nov. 25, 2003)
Toward the end of 2004,
the Rand Corporation conducted a study on behalf of the U.S. Air Force. One of
the primary objectives of the study was to “identify the key cleavages and
fault lines among sectarian, ethnic, regional and national lines, and to assess
how these cleavages generate challenges and opportunities for the United
The U.S.-drafted Iraqi Constitution and all the rules for
selecting representatives in Iraqi elections included elements of this three-way
split. This institutional split encouraged battles among communities, even where
their differences were considered unimportant in the past.
civil war among communities in Iraq is a dangerous move for the U.S., but the
growing strength of the resistance has put the imperialists in a desperate
situation. There is evidence that the U.S. is already using what has been called
the “Salvador option,” that is, setting up death squads in Iraq to
run a secret war against anyone there who opposes the occupation.
Hundreds of Iraqi scientists and academics have been mysteriously
assassinated. As journalist Robert Fisk wrote on July 14, 2004, in the British
newspaper the Independent, “University staff suspect there is a campaign
to strip Iraq of its academics to complete the destruction of Iraq’s
cultural heritage, which began when America entered Baghdad.”
Pace, a United Nations official who left Baghdad in mid-February, told the
Independent (Feb. 27) that “much of the killing was carried out …
under the control of the Interior Ministry” in the U.S.-backed puppet
Elements in the Iraqi resistance, for example from the Baath
Party, object to and attack intervention by any Iranian elements in Iraq,
whether by pro-Iranian groups like the Badr Brigades or by Iranian agents.
Pro-Iranian groups likewise target the Baathist role in the resistance.
This hostility stems in a great part from the 1980-1988 war between Iraq
and Iran, both capitalist nations oppressed by imperialism. The U.S. was able to
manipulate their antagonisms to weaken and set back both Middle Eastern
countries. The peoples of Iraq and Iran have an interest in overcoming this
hostility to better combat the direct threat from imperialism they both face
U.S. allies in the region, especially the British, have their own
experience in using “divide and rule” against colonial nations. The
British instilled hostilities by encouraging the partition of colonial India
into India and Pakistan in 1948. In the northern part of Ireland, the British
colonialists provoked sectarian violence to justify their occupation and
repression of the mostly Catholic community that was for freedom from British
rule. The U.S. and European imperialists used differences among the peoples of
Yugoslavia to break up that socialist federal republic into a half-dozen more
easily ruled mini-states.
In addition, Israeli government policy has
always aimed to weaken Iraq by splitting it into three parts and/or leave it
The U.S. occupation has brought death and
destruction to Iraq and has been unable to set up a functioning society there.
More and more people in the U.S. are aware of that failure and of the horrible
costs of the war.
A Zogby International/Le Moyne College poll published
Feb. 28 found that 72 percent of U.S. troops said the U.S. should withdraw
within 12 months, includ ing 29 percent who said they should pull out
immediately. A CBS News poll report ed that only 30 percent of respondents in
the population approved Bush’s handling of Iraq.
time—beyond time—to mobilize that popular sentiment in order to
force the U.S. to end its occupation of Iraq.
Articles copyright 1995-2012 Workers World.
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Support independent news DONATE