The War That Never Ends

  • In Southern Iraq, local tribal leaders have sorted out property disputes and murder cases for centuries without the help of police and courts. So when Sheik Mohammed al-Ebadi got a call from a British officer to help defuse a riot in Majar al-Kabir, northwest of Basra, he drove there, fast. As he approached the village, he saw British paratroopers engaged in a fierce fire fight with locals armed with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades. The locals, enraged by reports of heavy-handed searches carried out by British troops, had attacked a patrol. When the fighting was done, four Iraqis had been killed and 17 wounded, including a 12-year-old boy. The British had said they needed al-Ebadi's help in rescuing six military policemen who were holed up in the local police station. By the time he got there, it was too late. The British MPs were dead. Some had been shot in the face; others had gunshot wounds stretching from their fingertips up their arms. "They were executed," al-Ebadi said.

    It is a measure of the challenge in Iraq that the killings at Majar — the deadliest event involving coalition forces since the end of the war — probably had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein, his family, his supporters, former members of his army or militias, foreign terrorists or anyone else who might be included in that overused phrase "bad guys." Majar is in the homeland of the marsh Arabs, Shi'ite Muslims who, after years of oppression, hate Saddam passionately. That doesn't make them any less dangerous — especially since Iraq is one of the most heavily armed nations on Earth — when crossed. The British died, al-Ebadi thinks, in compliance with old local customs. British troops killed Iraqi civilians, so Iraqi civilians killed other British troops. "In a tribal society," says al-Ebadi, "justice is simple."


    LATEST COVER STORY
    Mind & Body Happiness
    Jan. 17, 2004
     

    SPECIAL REPORTS
     Coolest Video Games 2004
     Coolest Inventions
     Wireless Society
     Cool Tech 2004


    PHOTOS AND GRAPHICS
     At The Epicenter
     Paths to Pleasure
     Quotes of the Week
     This Week's Gadget
     Cartoons of the Week


    MORE STORIES
    Advisor: Rove Warrior
    The Bushes: Family Dynasty
    Klein: Benneton Ad Presidency


    CNN.com: Latest News

    Bringing peace to a ravaged land is not. Before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week, Lieut. General John Abizaid, who will soon take over from Army General Tommy Franks as head of the U.S. Central Command, said there is widespread local support for the coalition presence in Iraq. That support will grow, Abizaid said, "as we build governmental institutions that are good for the future of Iraq." But reaching such a happy consummation will not be easy. "If Jesus Christ or Muhammad or Yahweh decided to come back and make all the decisions, we'd have maybe a 65% chance of succeeding there," said Senator Joseph Biden last week, shortly after returning from Baghdad.

    Iraq remains a very dangerous place. Since May 1, when Bush stood on the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln near a banner reading MISSION ACCOMPLISHED and said that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended," 74 members of coalition forces have died, 64 of them American. In addition to the Britons killed last week, a U.S. Marine died at Hillah when his armored vehicle rolled over as it rushed to reinforce a group of ambushed Marines, and a soldier was killed when a bomb exploded near his vehicle on the road to Baghdad airport. In Najaf, a soldier was killed while investigating the theft of a car. In Baghdad, a soldier was shot in the head while shopping in a store, and another was killed and four were wounded when their convoy was attacked in the northern part of the city. Two soldiers from an artillery unit were abducted from a rocket-demolition site they had been guarding north of Baghdad. Two days later Central Command announced that their bodies had been found.

    Judging by the number of coalition deaths last week, it seems clear that the situation in Iraq is getting worse. What's unclear is whether the attacks are part of an organized resistance to the American occupation. When the enemy was Saddam and his armed forces, resistance was easy to understand; now it's not. In the Pentagon, officials are nervously revisiting their earlier assumption that the resistance was haphazard and spontaneous. "It may have begun that way," says a senior Pentagon official, "but as these attacks grow more numerous, you get the sense that there's someone pulling the strings at a higher level." There is little conclusive evidence, however, and senior members of the armed forces inside Iraq tend to see things differently. Major Joffery Watson, an intelligence officer based in Fallujah, west of Baghdad, sympathizes with his colleagues back home--"It's easier for us to digest if we can attribute everything to a single group"--but he doesn't buy the analysis. "It's more like gangs," he says.

    Determining precisely who is responsible for the attacks is the top priority for the No. 1 American soldier now in Iraq, Lieut. General Ricardo (Rick) Sanchez. Operating out of a small, cramped office tucked away in an opulent palace in downtown Baghdad, Sanchez says there is "no regional-or national-level synchronization or coordination" to the attacks. Instead, he says, "a lot of small groups are attempting to destabilize Iraq." Who are these men? Insofar as anyone can say, they include Saddam loyalists, radical Islamic fanatics, Arab mujahedin who entered Iraq from other countries — and just plain criminals, some of whom may have been freed when Saddam emptied the jails shortly before he fell. Many in these groups lost privileged positions under Saddam and nurse a grievance against his American enemies. Others may oppose the occupation for Islamic or nationalist reasons; still others may simply want to profit from the chaos.

    1. Previous Page
    2. 1
    3. 2