Attack on UN in Baghdad

shotamoose

As you probably know, there was a bomb attack on the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad yesterday, which killed at least 20, including the UN special envoy to Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello. BBC report here .

It's early days, obviously, and nobody even in Iraq seems to have a clue what is going on, but what are people's thoughts about this? Who do you think was behind it? How do you think it'll affect Iraq's future.

Personally I think it's a tragedy for all sorts of reasons, most immediately the loss of life and especially that of de Mello, who has seemed to be a very positive and capable person and who has achieved a lot in East Timor and elsewhere in the past.

It's also a tragedy because it may dissuade the UN and its non-Coalition members from getting involved in Iraq. I've thought for a while that a legitimate and genuinely international UN force in Iraq was the best way forward, since the US/UK forces were clearly simply an occupying army and lightning rods for violence. Now I don't know - some elements at least seem to want Iraq rid of everyone from the outside. I suppose that shouldn't be surprising, but the question is how much support this position has. I'm also worried that Al Qaeda or some AQ-style group might be behind it, since it is along the lines of their divide-and-conquer tactics, and also because it was so clinical and effective.

Meanwhile the Americans seem to get ever more panicked, and I can't say I blame them. Are they prepared for things to get worse, or will they simply pack up and leave?

(PS in the light of the other thread about the desired types of posting and discussion on the politics board, are these threads where someone just asks for opinions on current events alright? It's not as if people can really back up their opinions with facts, after all, since nobody knows what the facts are? It's ultimately just idle speculation, but that's always what I feel like doing when something like this happens .... )

bloggs

My heart goes out to the families of those murdered and injured yesterday as they are the ones who are suffering at this time. Many people i believe are to blame for this, firstly the terrorist who carried out the attack, but also the Bush regime, as they were the ones who decided to attack first, and ask questions later. The had too small a force to deal with policing, and their idea that all the Iraqi people would be waiting with flowers was rejected before the war had started.

Even from the beginning the US forces were more interested in securing the Oil ministry than protecting hospitals from looters. The were asked time and time again to provide more troops to protect the civilian population from criminal/extremeist elements. When dealing with crime they used a heavy handed approch, and many of the troops didn't have the cultural training when arresting or questioning people.

Worrying also was that many ordinary Iraqis, were getting annoyed with the lack of facilities, they were willing to join the 'rebels'.

From the beginning the Bush regime wouldn't give details of how they were planning to win the peace, and their snub to the UN along with that of Tony Blairs, is costing lives everyday.

sovtek

As horrible as the attack is you CANNOT call them terrorists. They are resisting an invading force. While the UN aren't the cheif occupiers they have lent support.
I still think the UN should take control. This just shows that there are elements that will resist any foreign occupier.
If the UN came in, with more expertise in situations of this nature... the utilities would be back on sooner and the attitude of the people would greatly improve.
As it stands the American and, to a lesser extent, British forces are alienating people to the point that they support whomever is behind the resistance.
If the UN were able to do a better job at releiving the people of Iraq then the resistance wouldn't have much support. Therefore less attacks would occur and when they did Iraqis would be willing to inform on them.
Have no illusions though, UN troops will still be attacked and at least some will die.

The Beer Baron

Here's a country firstly blasted apart under the banner of the UN aprés Kuwait. With Kuwait liberated and Israel protected from the threat of further SCUD attacks the UN just pulled out leaving those who fought Hussain in the lurch. Then, to add salt to the wounds, they imposed sanctions- the sanctions didn't hurt Hussain (his massive fortune certainly dwindled but he and his family were still filthy rich before George II went in) as much as the Iraqi people, destroying any chance of the further support not just the US, but for the West in general. This, I wholeheartedly believe, is the reason why the Iraqi's weren't, as Bloggs so nicely put it- waiting with flowers.

The Bush administration wanted a link between Al Q and Saddam and now it seems it's has had its dream come true. I imagine with the post 911 clampdown and subsequent the capture of many of the major heads of the Al Q Hydra it's doubtful they still have the resources to pull off something of that magnitude ever again. And it is evident that they've gone back to their old ways. This attack, and indeed that on the Jordanian embassy reeks of old skool pre-911 Al Q attacks- Plus there's always those convienient-yet-vague Al Jazeera tapes which always seem to get CNN in a tizzy.

Now- here's a quote I found on the web from Bin.

We have suffered greatly from the United Nations.
Under no circumstances should any Muslim or sane person resort to the United Nations. The United Nations is nothing but a tool of crime.

I might be wrong but didn't they try blow up the UNHQ before?
Certainly Islamic Extremism makes no distinctions between the "Evil West" and the humanitarian work performed by the UN.
Certainly Iraq is the place to be if you wanna kill Infidels. And certainly in Iraq it would be easy to recruit people to help them. If you want a country that bears a grudge against not just the US, but the UN itself- well look no further than Iraq.

It's also a tragedy because it may dissuade the UN and its non-Coalition members from getting involved in Iraq. I've thought for a while that a legitimate and genuinely international UN force in Iraq was the best way forward, since the US/UK forces were clearly simply an occupying army and lightning rods for violence.

Indeed (and I like that phrase- lightning rods for violence)
I was naturally against the war in Iraq, and like almost everyone with an IQ higher than a paramecium, found the excuse for their invasion to be utterly utterly abysmal. But I resigned myself to the notion that it would happen and there was nothing anybody on this planet could do about it- least of all Saddam himself.

I, like you, shotamoose, hoped that the UN might get in there and help defuse the situation. Certainly they would be a lot better at doing so than British and American troops, at least from a humanitarian point of view. I certainly knew it wouldn't be easy, but thought it wise to put peacekeepers from a neutral country on the ground to help aid in the rebuilding of the country. (Helping to also dilute the American desire to create some sort 51st state out of the place butleaving it just in a worse state than before)

I suppose the extremist elements will always see the UN as just another appendage of the "Evil Western agenda (which unfortunatly, isn't always a hard to envision) and attack soft targets rather than engage US troops. And it's not hard to see that no matter what the UN wishes to achieve in Iraq, it is still there due to the intervention of America and its allies in the policies of a Muslim country. A country where they have no right to be. A country where thousands of sympathetic Arabs still continue to pour over neighbouring borders unchecked- every one they shoot will spawn a thousand more- when I think about it I realise that yesterday was but a dot on the historical timeline- just the tip of the iceberg of terror.

Sand

My own opinion is that the Iraqi reisitance is mostly former members of the Sunni dominated Hussein regime which, despite having no real love for Saddam, are fearful of being a minority in the future Iraq. And whether the coalition or the UN does the rebuilding theyll not have their previously privledged place in Iraqs power structure.

In my opinion you could bring in any half decent well intentioned body or organisation you can name to run things and youd *still* have "resistance" from such groups. It doesnt help that the country is currently run by foreigners, which is a convenient rallying point for resistance but dont kid yourself that a lot ( no polls taken yet so I wont claim a majority ) of people werent delighted to see the fall of Saddam. In time, when a representitive Iraqi government takes full control and Iraqi police and army take up security duties these incidents will become rarer and rarer. I dont know if it will ever completely die out if they adopt some "one true path" idealogy like the IRA.

Theres always the possibility that the US might pull out if casualties began to threaten Bushes re-election campaign though it would be very hard to do without harming his campaign even further. I think theyll stick in regardless, because they seem to believe its Al-Quada and co, and who knows maybe theyre right. If so, theyll prefer to keep the fighting and bombings and civillian casualties in Baghdad rather than New York or Washington. So long as the US remains on a semi-war footing with the threat of another 9/11 (and they havent gone away you know ) theyll accept quite a lot. Theyve already accepted more casualties than Id ever have given them credit for.

growler

one thing that surprised me about this attack was a BBC news report yesterday that described it as the biggest attackagainst "western interests" in Iraq since the start of the war. But this is a very key point , the UN does not appear to represent the united nations of the world but could be seen to be protecting the status quo of west US/EU dominance in world economic / social / miliatary policies. Iraqis can easily cite the UN's failure to stop Bush's quasi-illegal invasion force, it's sanctions policy designed (or at least in practice ) to hit the most vulnerable non-wealthy sections of society and its perceived failure with the and the old israeli / palestine issue.

So while the west can cry foul against this "terrorist" attack against the iraqi people/ civilised world etc. I doubt it would take much to convince a poorly educated militia member or islamist that the UN is just another manifestation of the great western satan. In fact it wouldnt take much to convince me that the UN is incapable of counterbalancing the power of the usa in practice and without that power to influence events through consensus and diplomacy will lose whatever respect they had in the arab world very quickly.

The Beer Baron

My own opinion is that the Iraqi reisitance is mostly former members of the Sunni dominated Hussein regime which, despite having no real love for Saddam, are fearful of being a minority in the future Iraq.

That's another thing- we think of Iraq as a country, when actuality it's really a re-consolidated (or so the US would like to think) territory made up of various tribes. If you do, as the media has often done since 1990, Hitlerise Saddam then you can easily point @ his hatred for specific ethnic groups and desire to exterminate them. This won him a lot of support from some peoples while also winning him the contempt of other Iraqis and the Western world in general.
It's a situation not unlike Africa; warring tribes and factions each trying to better each other, or more to the point slaughter each other. And I doubt, sincerely, that the Coalition is up to the challenge of treating the situation with the necessary subtlty and care.

In my opinion you could bring in any half decent well intentioned body or organisation you can name to run things and youd *still* have "resistance" from such groups.

The trick is to minimise it.
The real challenge is not to make it worse.
I see the Coalition's presense as a catylist for disaster.
While I certainly cannot abide Mullah or Taliban-like regimes I also feel that one cannot see how, or indeed why, the invasion of another diometrically-opposed culture can really address the problems at hand, or even comprehend them. Not that Iraq was a truely Islamic state, certainly it's people were, but Saddam's regieme wasn't. In fact this was another grounds for supporting Saddam- that without him, people feared, that the country would become an Islamic state like Iran or Afghanistan. The Coalition says that the Iraqi people are afraid that this might yet happen. I doubt they care, I doubt they view US-style Democracy or indeed any other alternative government any more favourably. I think they just want stabilty, food, water, utilities and to be able to raise a family without the sounds of tanks rumbling past their windows.

I doubt it would take much to convince a poorly educated militia member or islamist that the UN is just another manifestation of the great western satan.

Or even a rich, Oxford-educated one.

In fact it wouldnt take much to convince me that the UN is incapable of counterbalancing the power of the usa in practice and without that power to influence events through consensus and diplomacy will lose whatever respect they had in the arab world very quickly.

I think it already has.
I suppose the only way to look on it now is that the US are the Dirty Harry-style cops of the world and the UN are Internal Affairs-and even then, against America's martial and economic clout- they are impotent.

It is fair to say that while there are no victors in war, America seems to have won the war both in the desert and by calling the bluff of those that opposed them in the UN. Certainly the UN was the 1st real casualty in Operation Iraqi "Freedom". (one need only look @ my sig to see what I think of that one) Its failure to bring about a peaceful resolution to the Iraqi issue has destroyed its credibility not just in the Middle East, but possibly worldwide. Certainly I've lost all faith in the organisation- and I doubt I'm the only one.

sovtek

Originally posted by The Beer Baron
It's a situation not unlike Africa; warring tribes and factions each trying to better each other, or more to the point slaughter each other.

And not unlike Africa the west has supported those tribal minded governments while they slaughtered their general population. Usually in aid of "resisting communism" wether the general population wanted or not.

And I doubt, sincerely, that the Coalition is up to the challenge of treating the situation with the necessary subtlty and care.

Well that's a glaring understatement considering the complete ignorance and incompetance shown by the "coalition" in regards to the people they are occupying.

The trick is to minimise it.
The real challenge is not to make it worse.

Which they do every day they spurn the UN and continue on their failed mission to secure Iraq as a strategic and economic possession.

While I certainly cannot abide Mullah or Taliban-like regimes

Which were trained and funded, cheifly by America, up until the day of Sept 11th 2001.

people feared, that the country would become an Islamic state like Iran or Afghanistan.

I don't see how you can throw Iran and Afghanistan into the same sentence and compare them. Iran was an Islamic state after the revolution (a direct result of 25 years of American backed brutal rule by the Shah) but in the past decade has made great progress in democratic reform and was seeking greater relations with America before the Zanex cowboy came along.
Afghanistan was a country ruined by years of civil war and more recently controlled by Islamic warlords, who had no shortage of money coming from America and Britian.

The Coalition says that the Iraqi people are afraid that this might yet happen. I doubt they care, I doubt they view US-style Democracy or indeed any other alternative government any more favourably.

Which is best reason to allow them to decide for themselves. But it's obvious America doesn't want that. It's the reason America allowed Saddam to slaughter Shiites and Kurds in '91.
Many of which populate the now infamous "mass graves" that were supposed "justification" for toppling Saddam after the fact.

I think they just want stabilty, food, water, utilities and to be able to raise a family without the sounds of tanks rumbling past their windows.

I'd agree with that wholeheartedly.

I think it already has.
I suppose the only way to look on it now is that the US are the Dirty Harry-style cops of the world and the UN are Internal Affairs-and even then, against America's martial and economic clout- they are impotent.

More like the US are a bunch of mafia types who display a veneer of legitimacy while setting up rackets internationally and "whacking" anyone who stands in their way.
Meanwhile the UN are the FBI who "have their hands tied" by such pesky things as international law and diplomacy.

It is fair to say that while there are no victors in war, America seems to have won the war both in the desert and by calling the bluff of those that opposed them in the UN.

More like America has gotten itself in a real mess after throwing a hissy fit because it didn't get what it wanted. Now the wise parents are going to let it face the real consequences of it's actions.
The majority of the Permanent Members of the Security Council (not to mention the overwhelming majority of the General Assembly) standing their ground and never wavering while America tried to threaten and bribe anyone that didn't agree with them is hardly "bluffing".

Certainly the UN was the 1st real casualty in Operation Iraqi "Freedom".

More like democracy and the rule of law, which is what supposedly defines civilisation.

Its failure to bring about a peaceful resolution to the Iraqi issue has destroyed its credibility not just in the Middle East, but possibly worldwide. Certainly I've lost all faith in the organisation- and I doubt I'm the only one.

You change N with S and I would agree with every part of that statement.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

sovtek

Originally posted by Mercury_Tilt
I’m afraid I am going to have to correct you on that bold statement.

They are terrorists committing these attacks. And I will back that up with fact….

Firstly President Bush has called them terrorists.

Fox news has called them terrorists.

Sky news has also referred to them as terrorists.

I stand corrected. It's further proof that if you repeat something often enough it becomes truth.
While I wouldn't want to suggest that their journalistic standards are anywhere near the nadir where Sky and Fox hang out...the BBC and RTE have also referred to them as "terrorists".

As I do a write this I just heard some UK ex Iraq lawyer on sky news. Sabh al Mukutar?
Fair play to him for almost stumping the presenter by suggesting the US were behind the attack just to keep the UN out of its way. And for pulling the reporter on his use of the word “terrorist”.

Cool...now keep watching for the Hutton Inquiry re-enactments.
Strangely enough my paranoid little mind was contemplating that very theory just this afternoon.

"Just because you're paraniod doesn't mean they aren't after you".

dathi1

As I do a write this I just heard some UK ex Iraq lawyer on sky news. Sabh al Mukutar?

na don't worry about it The FBI are on the job already ..they'll do a full trace on the explosives and dump the satellite servo controlled unit out of the mangled cement truck.

First a "truck Bomb"outside the Jordanian (Arab Opinion) Embassy...then as the "War" is being lost on a daily basis and under extreme oil pipe line sabotage... A suicide bomber decides to drive past all those American troops and hit the UN building...and hey presto on cue today Powel is on the case for a new international force to take the blame for Bush's re-election next year. perfect.

Wasn't it a great idea after all ...this war. I'm sure as Sands says the "majority" of Iraqis are jumping for joy in the blackout streets of Baghdad, high on their new found freedom.

The Beer Baron

Sovtec- regarding your reply to me I agree with you on just about all points.

More like the US are a bunch of mafia types who display a veneer of legitimacy while setting up rackets internationally and "whacking" anyone who stands in their way.

...particularly this one :cool:

I also concede that your point about Iran/Afghanistan is correct.

I laugh and yet want to scream at the point raised about CNN, Sky news et all. So true- go goddam infuriatingly true.

As for the creation of a new Northern Ireland- whoever it was said that- well I thought, long b4 the US even went in there- that this was precisely the reason they wanted the UK in the Coalition. A lot of experience with that sort of thing; crowd "control", bombings, maintaining some semblance of order in hostile territory...

(I'll stop and swallow my tongue before I deviate off topic)

bonkey

Originally posted by sovtek
Strangely enough my paranoid little mind was contemplating that very theory just this afternoon.

Took you that long ???

/me considers suggesting a new board to deVore - where we all get to offer conspiracy theories about whatever it is thats going on in the world Could be priceless.

jc