More

Iraq Suicide Bombing Attacks Kill At Least 7 People

REBECCA SANTANA   12/26/11 02:46 PM ET   AP

BAGHDAD — The political party loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr called Monday for the dissolution of Iraq's parliament and new elections in another move that could escalate the country's growing sectarian crisis.

The anti-American Sadrist bloc is a partner in the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Bahaa al-Aaraji, the head of the Sadrists' bloc in parliament, said the elections are needed because of instability in the country and problems that threaten Iraq's sovereignty.

"The political partners cannot find solutions for the problems that threaten to divide Iraq," he said.

Iraq plunged into a new sectarian crisis last week, just days after the last American troops withdrew at the end of a nearly nine-year war.

The new political crisis has been accompanied by a new wave of attacks on the Iraqi capital by suspected Sunni insurgents linked to al-Qaida. A suicide bomber set off a car bomb Monday at a checkpoint leading to the Interior Ministry, killing seven people and injuring 32, officials said. Police and hospital officials said the bomber struck during morning rush hour, hitting one of many security barriers set up around the ministry's building.

Al-Maliki is in a political showdown with the country's top Sunni political figure, Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi, after the government issued an arrest warrant for al-Hashemi on allegations his bodyguards ran hit squads targeting government officials.

The prime minister threatened to form a government without al-Hashemi's Sunni-backed political party, Iraqiya, which is boycotting parliament and mulling whether to pull out of the ruling coalition.

Iraq was dominated by the minority Sunnis under Saddam Hussein until the U.S.-led war that began in 2003 ousted him. Majority Shiites have dominated the government ever since, though Americans pushed hard for the inclusion of Sunnis with a meaningful role in the current governing coalition.

Bitter sectarian rivalries played out in 2006-2007 in violence that took Iraq to the brink of civil war and the latest tensions have raised fears of a resurgence of Shiite-Sunni violence.

The political crisis taps into resentments that are still raw despite years of efforts to overcome them. The Sunnis fear the Shiite majority is squeezing them out of their already limited political role. Shiites suspect Sunnis of links to militants and of plotting to topple the Shiite leadership.

The Sadrists have played an important role in maintaining Shiite domination over government – their support last year catapulted al-Maliki back to the prime minister's office for a second term.

For the proposal to dissolve parliament to gain traction, it would take the consent of at least 1/3 of parliament, the president and the prime minister or a simple majority of lawmakers. Al-Maliki, who only secured his position after nearly nine months of political wrangling after the last elections, would likely be loathe to go through the process again and risk an unfavorable outcome.

Al-Aaraji said the proposal first needs approval of the larger coalition between the Sadrists and al-Maliki's alliance, the two most powerful Shiite parties.

A Shiite lawmaker loyal to al-Maliki, Kamal al-Saiedi, said the proposal should be studied.

"Forming the current government was not an easy issue, therefore going back in the direction of new elections would be more difficult," he said.

A Sunni lawmaker with Iraqiya, the Sunni-backed bloc of the wanted vice president, said new elections would not bring security and stability. He pointed to the prolonged negotiations that were needed to agree on the government in place now, and said a new election would only bring the same people to office.

"We need to sit around the same negotiating table and that is the only path to salvation from this current crisis," said Kamil al-Dulaimi.

Also Monday, a roadside bomb hit a passing army patrol in the Abu Ghraib area west of Baghdad, killing two soldiers and injuring two, a police officer and a doctor said.

Al-Maliki's adviser for National Reconciliation Amer al-Khuzaie, said leaders of Asaib Ahl al-Haq, one of the top Shiite militant groups, had decided to lay down their weapons and join the political system.

Asaib Ahl al-Haq, or Band of the People of Righteousness, was a splinter group from the Mahdi Army, also headed by al-Sadr. They, along with the Mahdi Army, were two of three Shiite militant groups active in Iraq that were dedicated to fighting the U.S. military presence.

Al-Khuzaie said the group had signed an agreement in recent days renouncing violence. He said they would change their name and join the political process. He said he had been negotiating for months with the group, who said they would join the political process after the U.S. military left Iraq. All American troops departed on Dec. 18.

Officials from the group were not available to confirm the decision.

U.S. officials have warned that these Shiite militant groups could turn against the Iraqi government after the American military has gone. A key test to whether Asaib Ahl al-Haq, an Iranian-funded group, is committed to becoming a peaceful part of the political process is whether they actually turn in their weapons, especially the more powerful and sophisticated weapons they're believed to get from Iran.

__

Associated Press writers Mazin Yahya, Sinan Salaheddin and Qassim Abdul-Zahra contributed to this report.

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

BAGHDAD — The political party loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr called Monday for the dissolution of Iraq's parliament and new elections in another move that could escalate the coun...
BAGHDAD — The political party loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr called Monday for the dissolution of Iraq's parliament and new elections in another move that could escalate the coun...
Filed by Jade Walker  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 507
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
06:11 PM on 12/27/2011
I will bookmark your website and share with my friends. It is a great post.I am a regular visitor of your website and i like this type of post.
http://infotainment-lounge.blogspot.com
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Vincent Van Der Hyde
The truth will set you free.
12:08 AM on 12/27/2011
But, but,
I thought the Americans had created this nice quiet peaceloving democracy?
Or not.......
photo
tallen
panem et circenses
09:43 PM on 12/26/2011
Iraq will devolve into the usual middle eastern religious sectarian warfare.

And no---it's not the fault or responsibility of the US. It's the nature of the middle east.
The removal of Hussein only unlocked what has always been there. The only way he kept a lid on it was by being more brutal than those who are now blowing the country up.

Watch Syria. It will be the same without one US service member ever setting foot on Syrian soil.
Either the brutality of the dictator will win out, or those who will go on a murderous sectarian binge will.
mayanindependentspeak
Until now, I've never lived this long before
09:11 PM on 12/26/2011
U.S. law
Further information: Doe v. Bush, US Constitution, and US law

In early 2003, the Iraq Resolution was challenged in court to stop the invasion from happening. The plaintiffs argued that the President does not have the authority to declare war. The final decision came from a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit which dismissed the case. Judge Lynch wrote in the opinion that the Judiciary cannot intervene unless there is a fully developed conflict between the President and Congress or if Congress gave the President "absolute discretion" to declare war.[55]
mayanindependentspeak
Until now, I've never lived this long before
09:05 PM on 12/26/2011
Re WMD in Iraq.

I'm not an advocate for Bush, but it seems that many people are really disingenuous or really ill informed and guided by party allegiance when discussing these things.

"Main article: Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq
[edit] Weapons of mass destruction and Al-Qaeda
Further information: Iraq and weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda
Colin Powell holding a model vial of anthrax while giving a presentation to the United Nations Security Council.

Two of the arguments used to justify the invasion of Iraq — the capability to produce and/or the possession of weapons of mass destruction and active links to al Qaeda — have been found to be incorrect according to all subsequent official reports.[25][26][27] The post-invasion Duelfer Report stated that Hussein had still not given up on trying to produce WMD in 2003. His strategy was to first bring UN sanctions to an end by demonstrating that he was cooperating with weapons inspectors and, once sanctions were lifted, to then revive Iraq's WMD program, including nuclear weapons.[28] The report also stated that Hussein did not want to appear weak. To deter his enemies, he intentionally deceived the world into thinking he still had WMD. There was a "balancing act" between cooperating with the UN and keeping a "strategic deterrent".[29]"
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Vincent Van Der Hyde
The truth will set you free.
12:09 AM on 12/27/2011
Colin Powell
was
a
liar.
Pure, plain and simple.
08:14 AM on 12/27/2011
What party allegiance do the folks like Pat Buchanan, Hagel, and Ron Paul have concerning they too completely disagree with the case made by the Bush Administration on the necessity to invade and occupy Iraq for 7+yrs?
shylove2
warfare state is pathological
08:54 PM on 12/26/2011
Untidy democracy breaking out again.... like how we supposedly brought democracy by force and opened up the oil concession democracy of free market robbery...
08:52 PM on 12/26/2011
Well, let's just hope Obama stays the course & cuts Afghanistan & Pakistan loose too. Not only will the troops be home, there'll be such goat rope in the mid-east Obama won't have any chance at all for re-election. Then maybe next fool in office might just recall that warning about "foreign entanglements". I'm no isolationist, but I think a return to rational sovereignty is in order & the UN be damned!

Really, what have we got to lose if warn an outlaw nation that their next act of agression or support of agression against the US or its citizens will result in total nuclear annihlation? And suppose we do it. The world will hate us? Guess what! It all ready does! The reality would be that there actually be LESS people that hate us. And whole lot more that fear us. These people would have done this to us long ago had they the capability. And WILL do it when they have.

But, of course, being the fools that we are, we'll wait until they hit us first. Then when it's your children & loved ones pulverized into ashes you bleeding hearts can tell me how you feel about embracing & reasoning with your enemies. Not now. But then.
aristippe
no more war for oil
07:58 PM on 12/26/2011
well the West opened up the oil reserves which was the purpose for the war.
mayanindependentspeak
Until now, I've never lived this long before
07:52 PM on 12/26/2011
For those who continually blame Bush for the war:

"An authorization by Congress was sought by President George W. Bush soon after his September 12, 2002, statement before the U.N. General Assembly asking for quick action by the Security Council in enforcing the resolutions against Iraq.[4][5]

Of the legislation introduced by Congress in response to President Bush's requests,[6] S.J.Res. 45 sponsored by Sen. Daschle & Sen. Lott was based on the original White House proposal authorizing the use of force in Iraq, H.J.Res. 114 sponsored by Rep. Hastert & Rep. Gephardt and the substantially similar S.J.Res. 46 sponsored by Sen. Lieberman were modified proposals. H.J.Res. 110 sponsored by Rep. Hastings was a separate proposal never considered on the floor. Eventually, the Hastert-Gephardt proposal became the legislation Congress focused on.

Introduced in Congress on October 2, 2002, in conjunction with the Administration's proposals,[2][7] H.J.Res. 114 passed the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon at 3:05 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 296-133,[8] and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning, at 12:50 a.m. EDT on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77-23.[9] It was signed into law as Pub.L. 107-243 by President Bush on October 16, 2002."
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:47 PM on 12/26/2011
Bush lied about the reasons for the war. He chose to listen to Curveball and al Chalabi instead of Hans Blix. He heard what he wanted to hear, believed what he wanted to believe and then took unsubstantiated reasons for war to Congress. He was the Commander in Chief. He is responsible.
10:04 AM on 12/27/2011
Many people hear what they want to hear, believe what they want to believe, as you're doing. Investigation has proven that your statement against Bush is without merit. But you know that, too. But you choose to blame, endlessly, ceaselessly, ad nauseum. Blame is your teddy bear. Grow up.
treabeton
Gold dust at my feet, On the sunny side of the str
07:46 PM on 12/26/2011
The Iraqis now need to create their own country. We are outtathere. Finally. And, hopefully, forever.

And same message to Afghanistan. We will be outta there soon. Praying soon.
aristippe
no more war for oil
08:44 PM on 12/26/2011
We will never leave Iraq (as long as we can afford to stay); too much oil.
banana republican
Provoking Progressives with unwelcome perspectives
07:22 PM on 12/26/2011
Its only been a few days and already it looks like this could become a bigger issue even than the economy if becomes evident by then that Obama as snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory.
treabeton
Gold dust at my feet, On the sunny side of the str
07:42 PM on 12/26/2011
What victory would that be?
banana republican
Provoking Progressives with unwelcome perspectives
08:38 PM on 12/26/2011
The one that might have allowed Iraq to become a stable democracy (operative word is 'might', I know.
06:33 PM on 12/26/2011
they need bomb control laws and they need them now
banana republican
Provoking Progressives with unwelcome perspectives
07:23 PM on 12/26/2011
heh heh (fanned)
06:26 PM on 12/26/2011
All this in the name of religion.
banana republican
Provoking Progressives with unwelcome perspectives
07:25 PM on 12/26/2011
'The exploitation of religion for the acquisition of personal power' is more accurate.
06:23 PM on 12/26/2011
All for nothing, i said when the war was just finishing and i saw the American Officer saying to his men we are not conquerors we are liberators, and then when we let them/Iraqis/run amok looting the cities, that it's over we lost, had we fought ww11 with the same attitude we never would have won and germany and japan would still be totalitarian states,, we have forgot how to win a war, and how to dictate terms to the beaten enemy,,
06:50 PM on 12/26/2011
Nowadays NOBODY "wins a war"...EVERYBODY LOSES.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mobilemed2000
Gitterdun Now
07:46 PM on 12/26/2011
Sadly, Mike, you're right. When we invaded Germany and atom bombed Japan, we did so with the commitment of total, overwhelming victory without any thought of accepting conditions of surrender...and had no tolerance for insurgents. These were wars where we were essentially defending ourselves and retaliating for attacks on Americans. We literally dictated terms of surrender. When we helped "liberate" countries like France, South Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Lybia from their enemies, it just resulted in resentment and disrespect of America . A lot of Americans died needlessly. On the other hand, history has pretty much proven that invaders that occupy countries are eventually defeated and ultimately lose any ground they gained. No one really wins except businessmen. I think America would do well to maintain a strong defensive posture while keeping options open for "preventative" strikes on anyone intending to do us or our allies harm. Frankly, the military view of a true victory is to literally lay waste to the population of an entire country using the so-called "clean" bomb. Unless its an all out world war, thats not going to happen.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Vincent Van Der Hyde
The truth will set you free.
12:24 AM on 12/27/2011
You could not be more wrong.
First, terms of surrender were in fact discussed concerning both Germany and Japan from time to time. In fact, we allowed the Japanese Emperor to stay on the throne in order to get Japan to surrender. We also came to terms of surrender with Italy in 1943 so that she would change sides.
Defending ourselves? From Germany? When did Germany attack the United States? Be specific.
There was no such country as South Vietnam except in the minds of the creator of that client state, the US.
The country is spell Libya, not Lybia.
We didn't 'liberate' Afghanistan, we overthrew its government. It's like saying that Germany 'liberated' France in 1940.
The 'military view of a true victory' is idiotic--always has been. That's why we insist on civilian control of the military---or used to at any rate.
"invaders that occupy countries are eventually defeated'? Right. I can give you a very long list of countries that have been invaded, and the invaders kept them.
Ya know, for some reason, a lot of people look at 'preventative strikes' as sneak attacks and casus belli---like Pearl Harbor for example.
05:41 PM on 12/26/2011
So? Not our problem.
Bufford P Tusser
People are corporations too, my friend
06:53 PM on 12/26/2011
no, just our fault.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DesertStormSeabee
I'm looking for a green job
10:15 PM on 12/26/2011
Our fautl that different cultures and religious sects cant cant get along over there. Sure I can see that....not