by Mark Silva
The newest bombing of the Golden Dome Shiite shrine today in Samarra, where a 2006 blast unleashed a wave of sectarian violence that gripped Iraq for over a year, has renewed concerns about escalating warfare.
And four Sunni mosques were attacked today in apparent retribution. Three mosques in the town of Iskandiriyah -- the Grand Mosque, the Abdullah Jubburi mosque and the Hatteen mosque -- were bombed in the afternoon. Rhe Sunni mosque of Khudair al-Janabi in Baghdad's Bayaa neighborhood, meanwhile, was set on fire.
All of this followed within hours the bombing of the Shiite Al-Askari shrine in Samarra.
"It is clearly an attempt by -- it has all the marks of al Qaeda in the sense that it seems clearly an attempt to inflame sectarian tensions,’’ said Tony Snow, the White House spokesman.
“And certainly people on the ground have been doing everything they can to try to avoid that, and that is going to be clearly a point of emphasis and concern for some time to come. Nevertheless, it's a little difficult to tell, but it is clear that somebody is trying, once again, to use this holy site as a venue for trying, literally, to blow up Iraqi democracy. ‘’
The White House insists this is not a sign of failure for the so-called “surge’’ of U.S. forces there.
"Well, again, what we're hoping is that there won't be a new wave'' of violence, Snow said. "I think -- look, you can not prospectively sort of talk about levels of confidence.
"What you have now is a real challenge, and everybody is going to be on alert to try to do their best to make sure not only that they have the police and military action in place, but also using diplomacy and using key players within Iraq to do -- to move as aggressively against those who might be tempted to engage in acts of sectarian violence,'' he said.
And it's premature to say what impact this will have on September's expected progress report on Iraq, the White House says.
“We're not going to put on rose-colored glasses, but on the other hand, you do have signs that, slowly, you're building the kind of capability that you're going to need to do,’’ Snow said. “When it comes to an American presence, yes, there may be an American presence for a long time.
“But on the other hand, will it be one in which the Americans are always right there on the front lines? As the president has said and as we have said, our ambition is to get it so that the Iraqis are always in the key and leading positions, and that is one of the goals of continued efforts to train, embed, and so on.’’
• 
• 
• 
Comments
How do we know al Queda did this?
How do we know it isn't someone saying they're al Queda that did this?
Posted by: Intelligence Failure Watchdog | June 13, 2007 12:53 PM
Wow! Direct evidence the 'Surge' is working! Oh, wait...
Posted by: weinerdog43 | June 13, 2007 12:54 PM
This pathtic administration has been trying to play the Al-Qaeda card to explain away the violence in Iraq.
Al-Qaeda makes up about 1% of the violence in Iraq and they weren't in Iraq before we invaded.
Only a complete moron(Commander Guy) would have been stupid enough to open up pandora's box in Iraq for absolutely no reason.
Posted by: John E | June 13, 2007 1:17 PM
Remember the speech Bush gave before the invasion, when critics were saying that deposing Saddam would unleash sectarion violence, about how the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds were all going to get along? In addition to sounding like he'd been practicing how to say "Shia" and "Sunni", it was absurdly pollyannish at the time. It would be very telling to play it again now.
Posted by: Tom | June 13, 2007 1:26 PM
Remember the speech Bush gave before the invasion, when critics were saying that deposing Saddam would unleash sectarion violence, about how the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds were all going to get along? In addition to sounding like he'd been practicing how to say "Shia" and "Sunni", it was absurdly pollyannish at the time. It would be very telling to play it again now.
Posted by: Tom | June 13, 2007 1:35 PM
"When it comes to an American presence, yes, there may be an American presence for a long time."
Funny thats exactly what Rice said. What was it. Oh yeah. (2003) "We and our allies must make a generational commitment to helping the people of the Middle East transform their region." No, what we are doing there in the Middle East, like Rice said starting with Saddam, isn't neocolonialism. Not at all. We just plan on feeding the military budget on end, and making sure we make a generational commitment to corral and secure the greater, ops I forgot we want to change that too, new Middle East under our influence. What coincides with a booming military budget needed to protect our "abroad" interests. Oh, militarizing of society. (Libermen would be a fine moron to continue this legacy.)
"But on the other hand, will it be one in which the Americans are always right there on the front lines?"
No of course, not. That would look obvious, and if the Iraq Parliament expires the UN mandate we can't stay as occupiers (like they wanted to last year when it came up to vote in Parliament, but al-Maliki, in Bush fashion, went over them and phoned Washington to extend the mandate). We'll, just stick around behind the front lines and "secure" the oil that the Big Four have bid on in closed contracts until the violence dies down. Plus, thanks to the PSA's that are back on the table the companies won't loose money, and can afford to wait it out.
Hey, and then we can't afford Iran sweeping in when we "leave" so its only fitting we plant a "missile defense system" facing Iran to protect our soldiers securing the oil, and give England in Europe, who's two companies other than the two from the US make up the Big Four, leverage over a threat from an Iranian swoop in.
Interesting to note that the violence is just cut and dry Shia, Kurd, Sunni, Al-Quead, and US. No, only simpletons would believe that. The varying interests contending include separatists and nationals cutting through ethnic categories. Over what. The decentralization of oil. Do we hear about it? No. Why? Bc it would show that the US will not leave until the side they want, separatist, have enough leverage. After all the nationals what to postpone what would be done with the oil after the violence is stopped, and hopefully keep the oil centralized to pay for the reconstruction that it can. Without it Iraq becomes the wonderful recipient of IMF's "shock therapies." Which the dominant norm, deviating from model Poland and its double digit unemployment, is success happens somewhere between nil and never.
Posted by: AR | June 13, 2007 2:43 PM
So this mosque and other important sites was heavily guarded by Iraqi forces and the "enemy" was able to set 2 explosive charges at the base of this shrine? Sounds like an inside job. And these are the forces we are spilling our blood to stand up?
Posted by: jethro | June 13, 2007 3:37 PM
How do we know al Queda did this?
Posted by: Intelligence Failure Watchdog | June 13, 2007 12:53 PM
Because it in no way furthers the interest of the Sunni community in Iraq to blow up a Shiite mosque.
A lot of people here want to deny that we are fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq because, otherwise, they cannot justify us pulling out.
Posted by: S. Sherman | June 13, 2007 4:00 PM
More than just what is reported over here...From Iraq Slogger:
http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/3182/Multiple_Sunni_Mosques_Attacked_Wednesday
Posted by: lochnessmonster | June 13, 2007 5:05 PM
Yep, all the wheels are coming off THIS occupation. Decent young Americans are going to be dying there for at least another five years for the sins of chimpy mcflightsuit and shotgun dickie.
Posted by: snitramc | June 13, 2007 6:10 PM
"Only a complete moron(Commander Guy) would have been stupid enough to open up pandora's box in Iraq for absolutely no reason.
Posted by: John E | June 13, 2007 1:17 PM"
John E,
Well, you are right, but you are screaming into a flushing toilet; no one hears you.
This is the Vietnam equivalent of a free fire zone. Also, this will be the final piece in the permanent war project. Once we start hitting the religious sites, it becomes a death match.
But this is what the BushCorp and the 'snake dancing' base wants.
It's too late. We had the chance in '04 to step back, but... looks like have to go through it. See, he will start it, but his successor will have to solve it.
Posted by: C.Morris | June 13, 2007 6:25 PM
"Because it in no way furthers the interest of the Sunni community in Iraq to blow up a Shiite mosque."
Of course it furthers their interests. It shows that they still have some power in Iraq. It makes the point that they will fight the Shiites. It shows their hate. Just like most of the bombings that took place in Northern Ireland.
Posted by: Tony | June 13, 2007 8:04 PM
"A lot of people here want to deny that we are fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq because, otherwise, they cannot justify us pulling out."
Yeah, were fighting al-Queda. We did a pretty fine job fighting them in Afghanistan. Any reason why we jumped to Iraq. Or before we jumped in that the plans justifying to go in all of a sudden included jumping where ever terrorist were, country to country. Suddenly the whole Middle East became a project.
People forget in all the propaganda one thing is overlooked. Terrorists, the Osama clones of Radical Islam, are not supported even by states that are considered "rouge" to the US. Simply bc the whole point of Radical Islam is to overthrow any regime, not only around the world but in the Middle East, not willing to follow the extreme fundamentalist and radicalized teachings of a broken off faction that emerged during a time of empire clashes in the Middle East. Saddam killed terrorist, and no "rouge" regime would pass off nuclear weapons to radicals that radicals could gladly first use to over throw them.
Fact is we had legit reasons to strike Afghanistan. Could have concentrated the resources (money, equipment, resources), and finally got Osama. Did we ? No. At one point the President had to get Congress to write in funding for reconstruction in Afghanistan because it was left out (musta slipped everyones mind). We decided to thin those resources and move to Iraq. And, Al-Queda is really a far stretch a reason for us being there.
I'm going to laugh once we get around to truces with insurgence(surely coinciding with the passage of the Oil Law), with al-Queda still around, no Osama in sight come crunch time, but magically we will gradually pullout leaving the heavily built fortresses concentrated around oil fields. Then I want to see the justifications by the people who insist we are there to fight al-Queda with al-Queda still around. The gov we put in will always be at risk, just as any regime in the Middle East has been since the sun shown in that region with the dawn of man. And, they will keep them around in check just like Saddam and the other Middle Eastern regimes did/do, no different.
Posted by: AR | June 13, 2007 8:46 PM
Has anyone considered that bornagainbusg thinks this is the end times and armageddon requires a middle east united against us fir the last battle to occur. The sooner this nutcase is impeached, the sooner we get back our country and our reputation in the world. I used to be proud to be an American.
Posted by: proudliberal | June 19, 2007 3:28 PM
Has anyone considered that bornagainbush thinks this is the end times and armageddon requires a middle east united against us for the last battle to occur. The sooner this nutcase is impeached, the sooner we get back our country and our reputation in the world. I used to be proud to be an American.
Posted by: proudliberal | June 19, 2007 3:29 PM