UPDATED Iraq Analysis: At Least 69 Killed in Bombings

UPDATE 25 APRIL: An intriguing sign of the political effects of the latest bombing came on Saturday with the offer of Moqtada al-Sadr of his Mahdi Army to help the Iraqi government maintain security.



Al-Sadr's gesture points to his strengthened political position. From being the target of military attacks and even assassination attempts, he now is one of the leading players in Iraqi politics, thanks to the strong showing of the Sadrists in the March elections.

In the deadliest attacks in Iraq this year, at least 69 people were killed on Friday in six explosions, four in Shi'a areas and two in Sunni.


The sweep of the bombings points to an attacker who is not just seeking sectarian vengeance, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was quick to blame Al Qa'eda in Iraq: "The cowardly terrorist attacks...were intended to cover the great success achieved by the security forces through the killing of the leaders of wickedness and terrorism, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi and Abu Ayyub al-Masri."

Al-Baghdadi and al-Masri, leaders of Al Qa'eda in Iraq and Islamic State of Iraq, were allegedly slain last weekend by Iraqi security forces.

Al-Maliki's statement may have logic behind it, but it also has political motive. It is now seven weeks since the March Presidential election, and Iraq is no closer to a resolution. While a court decision this week gave al-Maliki a boost with the order of a recount of some ballots, the current Prime Minister is far from certain that he can retain his post.

The announcement of the killings of al-Baghdadi and al-Masri should have given a boost to al-Maliki's claim of his authority, even in unclear political times. Conversely, Friday's assault --- for which no one has yet claimed responsibility --- undermines the argument that al-Maliki's Government can assure security.

Comments

[James]

I wouldn't even hope to get my head around Iraq to an extent where I can understand the social complexes that drive this seemingly constant violence.. But I would ask the following question to the author and those who comment:

Is Iraq simply in a state of civil war?

[Don Cox]

"Is Iraq simply in a state of civil war?"

No, nowhere near. In a civil war, the opposing sides are of comparable strength, and each holds territory. Battles happen at the borders of these territories. See Sri Lanka before 2009, for instance.

Iraq got near to a civil war a few years ago, but never quite tipped over.

What it does have is the remains of a Baathist resistance to the occupation, combined with the remains of an Al Qaeda campaign to conquer the country and set up a caliphate.

A small number of people who can organise a few bombings per month.

Algeria has been through similar troubles in recent decades, and likewise still has bombings.

[Catherine]

RE: "Al-Sadr’s gesture points to his strengthened political position. From being the target of military attacks and even assassination attempts, he now is one of the leading players in Iraqi politics, thanks to the strong showing of the Sadrists in the March elections."

Isn't his strengthened political position also thanks to his having made all the right moves since he first called off his militia in Basra and went to Iran to study? He gives me the impression that he's a playing a patient, forward looking, long-term game.