Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
2009 in Iraq: A New Era Dawns, But Old Fears Still Hold Sway
BAGHDAD - With the arrival of 2009, Iraq has achieved, at least on paper, something it hasn't enjoyed since American troops entered the country almost six years ago and toppled the long ruling Baath party regime of Saddam Hussein: the declaration that it is a sovereign nation, free of a United Nations mandate that allowed the U.S. to run Iraqi affairs.
BEFORE THE 2007 BOMBING Inside the Shaabandar Cafe, an intellectual institution on al Mutannabi Street, Baghdad's historic book-selling district named for an Iraqi who became one of the most famous poets in Arab history. U.S. troops are still here, of
course, and will be for some time. Under a new bilateral security
agreement, however, they must defer to Iraqi officials, seeks arrest
warrants and judicial orders before detaining people, and by June
largely withdraw from Iraq's cities.
Those changes won't be evident all at once, and some are open to interpretation. U.S. officials insist their forces will remain at the Joint Security Stations that they man with Iraqi troops inside Baghdad possibly after the June 30 deadline for being out of the cities.
There's no doubt, however, that Jan. 1 marks a major step in Iraq's evolution. U.S. officials already have moved out of Saddam Hussein's Republican Palace, which they'd used as their headquarters since U.S. troops took control of Baghdad, and are occupying a brand new, sprawling 104-acre U.S. embassy complex that's America's largest in the world.
Still, Iraqis aren't willing to say that the bad years of sectarian bloodshed are over or that what's taking place will lead to better days.
They expect a power struggle over territory between the Arabs and Kurds in the north. With provincial elections scheduled for later this month, they worry about political rivalries that could lead to violence. They're still unsure of the government - and a future they can't predict.
Open-air markets are busy once again, stores have reopened and historic cafes, bookstores and restaurants have been rebuilt. The paralyzing fear and tragedy in 2006 and 2007, when sectarian killings and rampant explosions forced Iraqis to cower in their homes, seems largely to have passed. It's difficult, however, for hope to return so quickly after so much bloodshed.
At the Shaabandar Cafe, an intellectual institution on al Mutannabi Street, Baghdad's historic book-selling district named for an Iraqi who became one of the most famous poets in Arab history, loyal patrons have returned after the cafe, which burned after a terrorist bombing in 2007, was rebuilt.
Mohammed Kadhim al Khashali feels little joy as he sits at his desk at the front of the cafe, as he's done for 50 years, with a book of Iraqi folklore in front of him, collecting from his patrons for the tea and conversation. On the wall to his left five pictures hang with a black strip across the top. His four sons and grandson were killed in the 2007 bombing.
Just five years ago he had four educated sons and 13 grandchildren, he said. He'd realized his dream of building a gathering place for intellectuals to discuss poetry and philosophy - a place where tourists could learn about Iraq's history and culture. Now in his cafe, rebuilt with government money, his eyes are weighed with sadness.
"I considered myself a prince before," he said. "The printing houses and coffee shop are rebuilt, but life has changed. I went from a father living with his sons to a father living to support his children's orphans . . . life became torture."
His wife is gone now, too. He says she died of grief. Outside, the sounds of drills and saws underscore the change on a new al Mutanabbi Street built over the rubble of the old and scarred one.
Between the neighborhoods of Adhamiyah, a Sunni Muslim enclave, and Kadhimiyah, a Shiite one, the Aimma bridge is once again open after years of being closed to stop warring religious factions from killing one another.
Now residents from one neighborhood frequent the other neighborhood. It's not unusual to hear Shiite chants blasting from a car caught in the gridlock of Sunni Adhamiyah. Still, it isn't yet normal.
Busloads of pilgrims, some visiting the Shiite shrine in Kadhimiyah, others visiting the Abu Hanifa Sunni mosque in Adhamiyah, are ordered from their vehicles before they cross the bridge. Soldiers pat them down, search their vehicles and send them on their way.
Under the bridge lies a cemetery of almost 6,000 graves. It opened on July 5, 2006, at the height of the sectarian killings, when Sunni families had no other place to take their dead. The danger was too great. Ninety-five percent of the dead here were killed by Shiite militias, said Ahmed Akram, who oversees the cemetery.
Above him, cars buzz between the Sunni and Shiite neighborhoods. Here in "The Martyrs Cemetery," however, there's a sea of death that many think won't be forgotten.
"Do you think Iraq will be clear of vengeance with the blood that has been spilled? Never!" Akram said. "Revenge cannot be forgotten. There is no success in this war."
Akram recounts the acid burned corpses, the heads and the tortured bodies he buried. He blames the American invasion. Then, in almost the same breath, he worries that the violence will begin again with the withdrawal of American troops.
"What did democracy give us? It gave us cemeteries. They (the U.S.) succeeded. They succeeded in making people kill each other, " he said. "Despite that, the place that (the U.S.) destroyed needs their presence because the people will kill each other again and Iraq will be on fire."
Last week, he said, was proof of his point. A bombing in Kadhimiyah killed 24, including a Sunni mother and daughter, who were being washed for burial on Wednesday. Perhaps they'd finally gotten the nerve to revisit the Shiite district and never made it back.
Will Iraq ever recover its sense of well being?
Akram is unsure. "I live with the dead and for that my heart is dead," he said.
- Posted in

13 Comments so far
Show AllEthnic Cleansing is just a polite euphanism for Genocide whether it is on a major scale as in Iraq or the hidden scale as in New Orleans.
Unfortunately Bush will never be brought to justice for his Crimes.
Bystander, you are dead right about one thing;
"Bush will never be brought to jsutice for his crimes"
That is as long s more people think like you do than those at nurembergrevisited@gmail.com
I am in a minority, but that minority is begining to change into someting else.
I know the Law is one the side of those who would see the Bush administration held accountable for their crimes, and the International Court of Justice, with the authority of "international jurisdiction" will prevail.
If the Law is on your side; the whole world can be agains you and you will win.
So send some suggestions, thoughts, ideas, hopes, dreams; but you need not send money.
The people of the USA have the opportunity to take the lead; and lead the world by example.
Of course Iraq will never recover its sense of well being as long as U.S. troops remain there and the Bush cabal remains free and walking the streets. What a ridiculous question.
"The people of the USA have the opportunity to take the lead; and lead the world by example," says countcoup!
But hasn't the U.S. been leading the world since WW2 finished? And aren't we in the greatest mess the world has ever seen and aren't more wars in the pipeline with a high chance that they may be nuclear?
How about the U.S. gives up taking the lead and gives another nation a go.
Please!
www.dangerouscreation.com
The article says:
"At the Shaabandar Cafe, an intellectual institution on al Mutannabi Street, Baghdad's historic book-selling district named for an Iraqi who became one of the most famous poets in Arab history, loyal patrons have returned after the cafe, which burned after a terrorist bombing in 2007, was rebuilt."
The "terrorist bombing" is surely among the long list of such bombings, which have often been referred to as "suicide bombings", even if or when there really were no suicides involved, as we can learn about at www.BrusselsTribunal.org , f.e. In any case, I always found these attacks very suspect, once they started to become numerous or frequent and which was early on. I could not imagine that real Iraqi resistance fighters and groups would commit such violent actions. After all, many of the early series of such attacks were in public, civilian locations, definitely not against the criminally occupying forces and the criminal Iraqi regime installed by the criminally occupying forces. Eventually, attacks began to occur against Iraqi police, but it's certainly not proof that it was real Iraqi resistance committing these acts or being at all responsible for them happening. Etcetera.
This week, with the extreme assault of Israel on Gaza and its population, there were serious protests throughout the Middle East and the following article tells of one or more protests in Mosul, Iraq, where a suicide bomber attacked a crowd of protesters, which is not something Iraqi resistance would ever do.
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m50025
Quote: "In Iraq, Palestinian Refugees and Iraqis rallied against the Israeli attacks in several cities. In Mosul, a suicide bomber attacked one of the protests killing four people and injuring 20 others, Iraqi police reported".
This is not specifically related to the above article from McClatchy, but I believe that it is relevant in one sense and it's that 2009 certainly does NOT bode well for Iraqis.
F.e., "Iraq offers up giant oilfields to foreign firms", by Ahmed Rasheed, Reuters, Dec. 31, 2008
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m50190
Another sense in which the above is related is that there's much going on behind the front scenes in Iraq and which we don't have much knowledge of. Israeli Mossad was in Iraq and probably still is, and they and the U.S. would certainly be able to brainwash people to cause them to commit terrorist or suicide attacks.
And the war of aggression on Iraq was never for any of the reasons stated by the Bush-Cheney administration, but the above Reuters article does indicate what much of the reason has been all along. In addition to that reason is that Iraq is like Afghanistan, the purpose of both wars of aggression is not only for achieving control of the profitable natural resources of Asia, but to also be in a stronger hegemonic position militarily vis-a-vis Asian countries, and Russia, as well as possibly more countries.
"Chess" on a planetary scale.
"the declaration that it is a sovereign nation, free of a United Nations mandate that allowed the U.S. to run Iraqi affairs. "
Hear that? Iraq is now sovereign.
We are now there purely because they want us to be there. That is extremely important to take into account when we are discussing the best way to withdraw.
Eventually we do have to leave.
But this is why Obama's plan to withdraw all of our forces by 2011 is the right course of action - it's what the people of Iraq want.
This is why notable academics like Juan Cole have been pointing for years that "Out Now" is a totally irresponsible position. Since Bush invaded Iraq, we have an obligation, nay, a duty, to protect the people of Iraq from the chaos unleashed by the invasion. This is the "Pottery Barn" rule that Kerry spoke of, "you break it, you fix it". If we simply abandoned Iraq, it could easily turn into another Rwanda or Darfur.
You mean the Pottery Barn rule authored by ostensible Dimocrap Thomas Friedman and spouted by Repiglican Colin Powell?
"Powell used language from one of Tom Friedman's columns in referring to the "Pottery Barn rule" of foreign policy. That is: "you break it, you own it.""
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1844476
Of course Ds and Rs don't have foreign policy that is so indistinguishably similar in it's war mongering that's it's easy to forget whether a D or R said a statement how could I ever think that?
The "Washington Consensus" is "disaster" crony capitalism, usury, and war mongering from both parties, are you really too dense to see that Joe? If that isn't the case why did Obomba appoint a bunch of tired AIPAC retreads and banksters to his cabinet?
"U.S. troops are still here, of course, and will be for some time. Under a new bilateral security agreement, however, they must defer to Iraqi officials"
it amazes me how many actually believe this nonsense.
iraq has a puppet government.
what flows from it is nothing but theater & illusions, directed by the U.S. military & the corporate media.
What would George Washington think?!
Rahm Emanuel and (the old gal) Nancy Pelosi get cozy --- whoohoo, she's wrapped around his little finger:
http://homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-would-george-washington-think.html
disgusting
"joehope January 1st, 2009 8:37 pm
"the declaration that it is a sovereign nation, free of a United Nations mandate that allowed the U.S. to run Iraqi affairs. "
Hear that? Iraq is now sovereign.
We are now there purely because they want us to be there."
BUNK! BULL! Get a real education!
Tell em' Mike! Joehope's statement is almost exactly like saying the Nazis are still in France because the "independent" VIchy government invited them. I wonder who would win the Iraqi elections if ALL parties were allowed to run? Hmmm...
Iraq will be free when the blow up the U.S. Embassy, and send the zionist gate keepers packing.
According to the official spin (as dutifully reported in this McClatchy end-of-the-year Iraq occupation progress report), under the agreement negotiated between Bush/Cheney and the Maliki regime the United States must "by June largely withdraw from Iraq's cities."
Two paragraphs later however, it is casually noted that US forces have handed over the keys to Saddam's former palace in the Green Zone "and are occupying a brand new, sprawling 104-acre embassy complex that's America's largest in the world."
Isn't this 104 acres located in Baghdad?
Isn't Baghdad a city?
Who do they think they're fooling with this smoke and mirrors routine?
And as for the final refrain about how everybody in Iraq "worries that the violence will begin again with the withdrawal of American troops", I anxiously await hearing the same US media sources that shilled the snake oil last fall about the dazzling success of the surge now reverse course, and declare the surge a failure, given the recent spike in big, dramatic suicide bombings in Iraq having ominous sectarian overtones.
For some reason, I suspect that such a journalistic slant in news analysis covering Iraq's fluctuating levels of violence won't become fashionable until after Barack Obama has been sworn in. The illusion that militarism has brought America some form of victory and stability in Iraq must be maintained at all cost, in order for the next round of bloodshed that the US invasion and occupation has unleashed can be blamed entirely upon Bush's successor.
Sorry, Leila Fadel. It's all smoke and mirrors and semantics.
Same era. Same old fears.
Bill from Saginaw