Latest from Iraq: When Violence Goes Beyond "Violent Semi-Peace"

In January, just after the US Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq, we had a go at the construction in The New York Times of a "violent semi-peace". It seemed to us that the authors were trying to salvage a back-slapping congratulations of a US accomplishment even though violence and political instability were likely to continue in Iraq.

After the series of bombing in the last 48 hours that have killed more than 150 people, it is not a question of returning to that exchange with a "see, we told you so". The situation is far too serious for that.

Juan Cole, as always, has been incisive in his analysis, noting that there has been almost 30 major bombings in Iraq this month. Yesterday's assault on the shrine of Imam Musa al-Kazim in northern Baghdad is "much more dangerous", however, because of the symbolism: Musa Kazim is the seventh of twelve Imams for Shi'a. If the shrine had been destroyed, the incident could have sparked retaliations such as those that followed the destruction of the Samarra mosque in 2006.

The concern has an eerie feel this morning as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has landed in Baghdad has landed for a surprise visit. Her assurance --- in the manner of January's New York Times --- that Iraq is "on the right track" is to be expected.

What is more disturbing is her blame of "rejectionist efforts" for violence: that is uncomfortably close to Donald Rumsfeld's confidence in 2003 that it was only "dead-enders" causing trouble in Iraq.

Comments

[Josh Mull]

To be fair, the message we're getting at AiB from Iraqis on the ground is that the vast majority of the population has rejected violence and terrorism as a solution to their problems (cholera is IED-proof) and this includes particularly high risk demographics (ex. Sunni teenage boys in Adhamiya). Therefore, it's not COMPLETELY ridiculous to suggest that renewed violence is the product of "rejectionists" or even, dare I say it, "dead-enders".