No Significant Spike in Violence Following Latest Askariya Attack

By Daveed Gartenstein-Ross

The day after the al-Askariya Mosque in Samarra, Iraq was bombed for the second time in a year and a half, I wrote that the second bombing was "potentially disastrous." Analysts feared that, similar to the first attack on the al-Askariya Mosque on February 22, 2006, this provocation could spark sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shias. Fortunately, about two weeks after the event, Iraq has not witnessed a major spike in violence.

The bombing has indeed had an effect on the ground. According to a senior U.S. military intelligence officer, sectarian tensions on the streets of Iraq "can be cut with a butter knife." More Sunnis have been subjected to harassment, but there is a significant difference between harassment and violence. It is true that some violence over the last couple of weeks has been linked to the June 13 Askariya bombing. For example, six Sunni mosques were attacked shortly after it occurred. Moreover, the bombing has served some of al-Qaeda’s objectives. It has bolstered al-Qaeda's standing by frightening Sunni Muslims living in Shia-dominated areas. It has also forced U.S. troops to increasingly assume a policing role to stop violence from escalating. By forcing the U.S. military to play more of a policing role, al-Qaeda's attack on the shrine has diminished U.S. troops' ability to fight against al-Qaeda. This is particularly significant now as military operations intensify against al-Qaeda's base of power in Diyala.

But overall violence has not spiked compared to the levels that preceded the bombing. In contrast, about 3,000 Iraqis were killed in sectarian violence following the first attack on the Askariya shrine in February 2006. Government analysts were concerned that violence might spike following the Friday afternoon congregational jumuah prayers, but for two straight weeks the prayers have not been accompanied by a spike in violence. Iraq has seen a number of street demonstrations. But demonstrations are not the same as violence, and they can in fact serve a healthy purpose: one of the theories underlying our right to free speech is that it serves as a "safety valve." It's better to allow people to voice their grievances, rather than forcing grievances underground until they erupt into violence.

Why hasn't violence peaked after this attack? The curfew and vehicle ban that were implemented in Baghdad following the bombing surely played a role. Also, after the first Askariya bombing, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and Ayatollah Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim called for calm, but the political elements didn't really back them up. This time U.S. and Iraqi political authorities have been willing from the very outset to use force to back up the calls for calm. There are surely other reasons as well: there may even have been truth to the hope in some circles that most people who would be willing to engage in serious sectarian violence were already doing so. But the American and Iraqi handling of this bombing has played a positive role.

Of course, the situation could get worse. After the first Askariya bombing, the enormous impact the event would have on the course of the Iraq war was not apparent for several months. But the relative calm that has prevailed after this bombing provides reason for cautious optimism.

Kyle Dabruzzi contributed research to this analysis.

TrackBack