Wave of bombings across Iraqi capital kills 60

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Jihadin**

BAGHDAD —

A wave of at least 14 bombings ripped across Baghdad Thursday morning, killing at least 60 people in the worst violence Iraq has seen for months.

The apparently coordinated attacks struck days after the last American forces left Iraq and in the midst of a major government crisis between the country's top Shiite and Sunni political leaders that has sent sectarian tensions soaring.

The bombings may be linked more to the U.S. withdrawal than the political crisis, but all together the developments heighten fears of a new round of sectarian bloodshed like the one a few years ago that pushed Iraq to the brink of civil war.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility. But the bombings bore all the hallmarks of an attack by the Sunni insurgents of al-Qaida. Most of the violence appeared to hit Shiite neighborhoods, although some Sunni areas were also targeted. In all, 11 neighborhoods were hit by either car bombs, roadside blasts or sticky bombs attached to cars. At least one of the attacks was a suicide bombing and the blasts went off over several hours.

The worst blast was in the Karrada neighborhood, where a suicide bomber driving an explosives-laden vehicle blew himself up outside the office of a government agency fighting corruption. Two police officers at the scene said the bomber was driving an ambulance and told guards that he needed to get to a nearby hospital. After the guards let him through, he drove to the building where he blew himself up, the officers said.

Sirens wailed as ambulances rushed to the scene and a large plume of smoke rose over the area. The blast left a crater about five yards (meters) wide in front of the five-story building, which was singed and blackened.

"I was sleeping in my bed when the explosion happened, said 12-year-old Hussain Abbas, who was standing nearby in his pajamas. "I jumped from my bed and rushed to my mom's lap. I told her I did not to go to school today. I'm terrified."

At least 25 people were killed and 62 injured in that attack, officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

Figures gathered from Iraqi health and police officials across the city put the death toll at 60, and 160 injured. The spokesman for the Iraqi health ministry put the death toll at 57 and said at least 176 people were injured. But conflicting casualty figures are common in the aftermath of such widespread bombings.

Iraqis are already used to horrific levels of violence, but many wondered when they would be able to enjoy some measure of security and stability after years of chaos.

"My baby was sleeping in her bed. Shards of glass have fallen on our heads. Her father hugged her and carried her. She is now scared in the next room," said one woman in western Baghdad who identified herself as Um Hanin. "All countries are stable. Why don't we have security and stability?"

While Baghdad and Iraq have gotten much safer over the years, explosions like Thursday's are still commonplace. They come at a precarious time in Iraq's political history, just days after American troops pulled out of Iraq.

The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki this week accused Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi of running a hit squad that targeted government officials and put out a warrant for his arrest. Al-Maliki is also pushing for a vote of no-confidence against another Sunni politician, the deputy prime minister Saleh al-Mutlaq.

Many Sunnis fear that this is part of a wider campaign to go after Sunni political figures in general and shore up Shiite control across the country at a critical time when all American troops have left Iraq.

Ayad Allawi, who heads a Sunni-backed party called Iraqiya, laid the blame for Thursday's violence with the government. The Iraqiya coalition also includes al-Hashemi and al-Mutlaq, and Allawi has been one of al-Maliki's strongest critics. Allawi warned that violence would continue as long as people are left out of the political process.

"We have warned long ago that terrorism will continue ... against the Iraqi people unless the political landscape is corrected and the political process is corrected, and it becomes an inclusive political process and full blown non-sectarian institutions will be built in Iraq," Allawi told The Associated Press, speaking from neighboring Beirut.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the morning's violence. But the coordinated nature of the assault and the fact that the attacks took place in numerous neighborhoods suggested a planning capability only available to al-Qaida in Iraq.

Many of the neighborhoods were also Shiite areas, which are a favorite target of al-Qaida. The Sunni extremist group often attacks Shiites who they believe are not true Muslims.

Al-Qaida in Iraq is severely debilitated from its previous strength in the early years of the war, but is still able to launch coordinated and deadly assaults from time to time.

U.S. military officials have said they're worried about a resurgence of al-Qaida after the American military leaves the country. If that happens, it could lead Shiite militants to fight back and attack Sunni targets, thus sending Iraq back to the sectarian violence it experienced just a few years ago.

So its starting. So did the US leave Iraq to early?

**Orlanth**

No, should have left alone in the first place.

**Jihadin**

Now Now thats another thread to have. Within 1-2 years the option of going back in incase Iraq goes to Hell in a snow cone basket is going to come up

Edit
I highly doubt though the US would involve itself at all in Iraq a second time around

**Easy E**

It wouldn't matter when we left. Some people in Iraq have been waiting for this day of reckoning to come.

No matter how long we stayed, it wouldn't have mattered.

**Pacific**

Well, I think the problem goes back to the end of the war (moving aside the comments that there shouldn't have been a war in the first place). The Pentagon spent millions researching a post-war strategy for the rebuilding of Iraq (I believe written by academics and political/social scientists), some massive 500 page tome of a book. There was a story that Rumsfeld picked it up when presented with it by his aides and dropped it straight into a bin. Whether this is true or not, it's almost like there was no plan concerning what to do when the war was over, which is remarkable considering there could never have been any doubt at all about the outcome.

So a quarter of a million soldiers were sent to their homes when the army was immediately disbanded, many of which still had access to weaponry. The civil infrastructure has been damaged, and the current state of lack of security means that the economy is hardly likely to pick itself up any time soon, leading to furthering of lawlessness and social unrest. Members of the government are in the pocket of senior officials in Iran, historical enemies of Iraq who now have the ability to keep the country rolling around in the dirt and consequently increase their own power in the region.

Was it David Letterman who remarked that they should tell the last troops leaving the country to turn out the lights, but that isn't necessary since there is no electricity. To be honest I think the whole situation is so upsetting - no matter whose figures you believe, the total deaths on account of the last decades strife range from hundreds of thousands to over a million. Iraq used to have Universities which were some of the best in the middle east - no longer, most of the intelligentsia along with the other skilled professionals have long since left the country, and the countries industry lies in ruin meaning that it's relative wealth and GDP has dropped to a fraction of what it was ten years ago. With the current state of affairs, the chance of it rebuilding that must be slim indeed.

I would imagine this latest spate of bombing is the first of many, and the sectarian violence will escalate. Whether it continues into all-out civil war (and a division of the state?) I think is unlikely, but the legacy of the war I think will probably continue for many years to come.

**mattyrm**

I agree with much of what Pacific wrote.. just not the upsetting part.

I did two tours out there.. and I was pleased to be there at the time. Now I can't help but feel it was all a bit pointless.

**Jihadin**

That sense of "Mission Accomplish" isn't there or what little there was is going out the window if the bombing continue. Iraq is going to self destruct within a year I'm thinking since there's no 3rd party intervention between he Sunni and Shiites

**MeanGreenStompa**

No, the withdrawl is timed well enough.

The gak will rain down on Iraq, it will be undermined and puppeted by Iran and Saudi on differing side playing a grisly game of chess across it's broken back. Either a military dictator or a religious one will rise up in the nation soon enough, that will provide more local stability than a poorly engineered democracy. Whether the new monster is Shiite or Sunni will be a marking factor.

It was always going to be a terrible terrible mess once invaded. Still, I hope Messrs Bush, Chaney and Rumsfeld all enjoy their blood drenched dollars. I hope all the families of the dead servicemen and women continue to pay them back with loyalty to the GOP and hatred of the nasty black guy in the white house who had to inherit that abattoir of an invasion.

Still, the Kurds will enjoy some newfound power, until the new monster starts up butchering them again.

**Jihadin**

It was always going to be a terrible terrible mess once invaded. Still, I hope Messrs Bush, Chaney and Rumsfeld all enjoy their blood drenched dollars. I hope all the families of the dead servicemen and women continue to pay them back with loyalty to the GOP and hatred of the nasty black guy in the white house who had to inherit that abattoir of an invasion

In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice."

"The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council," Bush said in a statement. "Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must."

**MeanGreenStompa**

Jihadin wrote:
It was always going to be a terrible terrible mess once invaded. Still, I hope Messrs Bush, Chaney and Rumsfeld all enjoy their blood drenched dollars. I hope all the families of the dead servicemen and women continue to pay them back with loyalty to the GOP and hatred of the nasty black guy in the white house who had to inherit that abattoir of an invasion

In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice."

"The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council," Bush said in a statement. "Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must."

The WOMD were never found.

The UN did not sanction the invasion.

On September 16, 2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

The war was a son settling his father's grudge and making him and his mates a tidy profit, at the cost of the lives of hundreds of thousands of desert dwelling peasants and young servicemen and women of America and her allies.

**Samus_aran115**

60? Oh man.

I sincerely hope we don't do back. A wave of disappointment will rip across the country

**Jihadin**

Any proof that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfield are war profiteers? UN has no say in who we go to war with. I do know the UN is in Afghanistan though

**MeanGreenStompa**

Jihadin wrote:Any proof that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfield are war profiteers?

Halliburton has become the object of several controversies involving the 2003 Iraq War and the company's ties to former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney retired from the company during the 2000 U.S. presidential election campaign with a severance package worth $36 million.[40] As of 2004, he had received $398,548 in deferred compensation from Halliburton while Vice President.[41] Cheney was chairman and CEO of Halliburton Company from 1995 to 2000 and has received stock options from Halliburton.[42]
In the run-up to the Iraq war, Halliburton was awarded a $7 billion contract for which 'unusually' only Halliburton was allowed to bid.[43]
Bunnatine Greenhouse, a civil servant with 20 years of contracting experience, had complained to Army officials on numerous occasions that Halliburton had been unlawfully receiving special treatment for work in Iraq, Kuwait and the Balkans. Criminal investigations were opened by the U.S. Justice Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Pentagon's inspector general.
In one of Greenhouse's claims, she said that military auditors caught Halliburton overcharging the Pentagon for fuel deliveries into Iraq. She also complained that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's office took control of every aspect of Halliburton's $7 billion Iraqi oil/infrastructure contract. After her testimony, Greenhouse was demoted for poor performance.[44] Greenhouse's attorney, Michael Kohn, stated in The New York Times that "she is being demoted because of her strict adherence to procurement requirements and the Army's preference to sidestep them when it suits their needs."

Jihadin wrote:
UN has no say in who we go to war with.

Yes it does. Just as it had a say in Iraq invading Kuwait and that being ignored being the cause of the first Gulf War, you don't sign up to a club, tout the club's rules and then decide to ignore them when they are no longer convenient because you believe you're above it but others aren't.

Jihadin wrote:
I do know the UN is in Afghanistan though

Because that was sanctioned by the UN... It was a response to an attack. Bush standing there telling the world that Iraq was supporting Al Qaeda, when Osama had offered to kill Saddam as a gift to his father, Bush Snr, during the time of the first Gulf War, was a foul and blatant lie used to gain the support of the American people.

And I will never forgive Blair for taking my people, including my family, into that war. We supported you in Afghanistan, it was your right to strike back. It was about oil money in Iraq, nothing more. And our people and theirs are dead for the greed of wealthy men.

**Jihadin**

So your not claiming them as War Profiteers right?

As for the fuel delivery I remember that one. KBR employees and ARMY personnel was splitting the difference on that one.

You do know all contract bids are sealed right? Lowest bid gets the contract.

Rumsfield is a micro manager. There's quite a bit of "horror" story about him on participating in military operations via video conference

KBR was kicked out of Afghanistan like 2009. Due to the main reason of three soldiers being electricuted in the showers. They were using Master electricians from Pakistan instead of from the US.

All contract companies over charge. I should know very well. I was contract oversight for a year. I hate contractors.

edit
KBR runs one DFAC in Bagram. Task Force commanders ensued that. Supreme that runs the DFAC now blows really really bad. I will never forget the episodes I had after eating some meals there. A Port A Potty can a good sight to see in 125+ degree weather

**MeanGreenStompa**

They, their friends, families and circle, have made considerable financial profits from the shares in companies that have secured highly profitable contracts in Iraq.

They profited from the war. So, yes, I'm calling the leadership of the 'Coalition of the Willing' war profiteers.

**Jihadin**

Sealed contract bids. Lowest bid wins the contract

**MeanGreenStompa**

Jihadin wrote:Sealed contract bids. Lowest bid wins the contract

Some might suggest that's naivety talking. I'm nicer than that, I'll put it down to a strong belief that the world is a fair place.

**schadenfreude**

Correct me if I'm wrong but the government of Iraq wanted us troops to leave and refused to renew the status of forces agreement past 31DEC11 so the choice seems very simple to me.

Leave because we are not welcome and our presence may or may not be causing more violence than our presence prevents.

Stay while unwelcome, overthrow al-Maliki, reinstate the CPA with L Paul Bremer in charge, fire every Iraqi soldier and police officer, and then fire +blacklist every member of the government from members of parliament to school teachers.

**dogma**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Still, I hope Messrs Bush, Chaney and Rumsfeld all enjoy their blood drenched dollars.

None of them made an especially large amount of money off the war,though that doesn't necessarily speak to whether or not the invasion was approached from a reasonable position (very few accounts speak to the notion that it was).

**Jihadin**

large portion of people wanted us to stay but without that SOFA extension it wasn't going to happen

**mattyrm**

Jihadin wrote:large portion of people wanted us to stay but without that SOFA extension it wasn't going to happen

Yeah no gak.

I worry about some of the Iraqis that helped us out. The responsible thing to do was stay a whole lot longer, and the same goes for Ganner's.

If you cut and run, you seriously feth a whole gak load of decent people. If I was less of a dick, it might concern me.

Good job I care little for people I hardly know, and especially Muslim people I hardly know.

**Joey**

mattyrm wrote:
Jihadin wrote:large portion of people wanted us to stay but without that SOFA extension it wasn't going to happen

Yeah no gak.

I worry about some of the Iraqis that helped us out. The responsible thing to do was stay a whole lot longer, and the same goes for Ganner's.

If you cut and run, you seriously feth a whole gak load of decent people. If I was less of a dick, it might concern me.

Good job I care little for people I hardly know, and especially Muslim people I hardly know.

No one really cares about the Iraqi people.
But the price of petrol at the pump IS important. We need stability in oil producing areas, until the Canadians start churning out those oil sands so we can just build a massive wall around Europe and let them all go to hell.

**mattyrm**

Joey wrote:
No one really cares about the Iraqi people.
But the price of petrol at the pump IS important. We need stability in oil producing areas, until the Canadians start churning out those oil sands so we can just build a massive wall around Europe and let them all go to hell.

fething hell, and I never thought you and I would agree on anything!

**Easy E**

Jihadin wrote:Sealed contract bids. Lowest bid wins the contract

I seem to recall "No-Bid" contrats were a pretty big deal in post-invasion Iraq. Any insight into that?

**AustonT**

Joey wrote:
No one really cares about the Iraqi people.
But the price of petrol at the pump IS important. We need stability in oil producing areas, until the Canadians start churning out those oil sands so we can just build a massive wall around Europe and let them all go to hell.

Ahh yes the "Price of Oil" argument. Here's a chart point to the place where the war in Iraq lowered oil prices.

If anything the war in Iraq was one of many factors in oil prices skyrocketing. But you are right no one cares about the Iraqi people, if they want to butcher each other in the streets:Let em. It can be 2006 all over again and this time no one will stop them. Maybe with Sunni butchers in charge the price of oil will go below $35 a barrel...ahh, Progress.

**Orlanth**

Jihadin wrote:That sense of "Mission Accomplish" isn't there or what little there was is going out the window if the bombing continue. Iraq is going to self destruct within a year I'm thinking since there's no 3rd party intervention between he Sunni and Shiites

No its "Mission Accomplished", has been for some time. The oil wells were seized, the US dictated the new oil contracts and rate of production.

Most oil countries want to slow production, to save some for later. Saudi Arabia has capped most of its wells, as has the US. Iraq is being pumped as fast as possible to help float the western and in particular the US need for oil while minimising home production for future proofing. Infrastructure is being placed to up Iraqi oil production to an estimated 12 million barrels a day by 2017, which would outstrip US oil production by 250%. This cannot be for Iraq's benefit, Iraq given a choice would be better off capping. Iraq is the only OPEC country not to have a production quota, it mines what it can. Admittedly this started with Saddam in 98, but Saddam was income starved by other means by repeated sanctions.

Furthermore there are a lot of questions as to who now owns the oil in Iraq post invasion, and how much control the Iraqi government has over their own economic financial processes.
If you want to ask who is controlling this and how, ask about the vast embassy complex the US built on land seized after 2003 with over 5000 staff, handed to the US by the puppet government in 2004.

The attacks have effected production, but that is a result of direct damage not a policy for the future of the country.
What happens to Iraqi people and their future is a secondary issue, always was.

**Jihadin**

seem to recall "No-Bid" contrats were a pretty big deal in post-invasion Iraq. Any insight into that?

The logistical monster that was already in place. I'm going to use DynaCorp as an example. One of DynaCorp aspect of their contract is rotary wing maintenance. If their contract comes to end at the start of fighting season (spring in Afghanistan) and a lower bidder won it then military operation is effected. You cannot change management during high tempo. Combat operations waits for no one and is not a time to learn how to manage.

KBR is another. Gen Ordieno stated it perfectly. You cannot change horses in the middle of the river during combat operation (Iraq)
When KBR left Afghanistan they had to break their one contract down to several contracts. They timed that in a 90 day period and we dictated the process of personal movement. Which took a total of six months.
The timing of the No Bid contracts in relation to operations in either theater.

One transition I did manage to oversight on was AECOM to ACFirst. They kept the management inplace but the policy they employed was not condusive for the ARMY. This was during pre, during, and post surge. They lost the contract after 8 months. One contract company I help get removed was from Red River Corp. Falsifying documents for vehicle repairs and time/work ratio. Example be working on a MRAP but instead sleeping in the motor bay.

One aspect of the contracts is the one from NATO. I freaking hate dealing with NATO contractor's and they get madder then hell when we bypass the construction company they have on contract for Kandahar Air Base. We let the Navy SeaBees get training in whatever equipment they need to build whatever we need.built.

**Pacific**

AustonT wrote: But you are right no one cares about the Iraqi people, if they want to butcher each other in the streets:Let em. It can be 2006 all over again and this time no one will stop them. Maybe with Sunni butchers in charge the price of oil will go below $35 a barrel...ahh, Progress.

Yes, but the point being these bombs wouldn't be going off now if we hadn't stuck the oar in. So, and I'm sorry if this makes me a bleeding-heart lefty, hippy, or whatever, but every one of those deaths should be on our conscience. Or on our leaders at least, which would be the case if they cared a jot about human life (my guess: they don't).

**AustonT**

So by your measure sectarian violence in Iraq is the sole responsibility of the US and her allies?
That doesn't make you a lefty, that makes you delusional.

**Vulcan**

We were either there 10 years too long, or thirty years not long enough.

Two generations is about right to establish proper rule of law rather than rule of force. We weren't there even one generation. So of course the 'might makes right' crowd is going to come out swinging, now that we're not over there to stomp on them like the cockroaches they are.