Iraq has recently been ravaged by bombings, but it could be even worse, writes Salah Hemeid Over the last few weeks, Baghdad has experienced a string of terrorist attacks including a dual suicide bombing inside a Shia shrine that killed and wounded some 200 worshippers. The attacks which prompted United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and America's top military commanders to fly to the Iraqi capital in an apparent sign of worry, raised new questions about whether the war-torn nation has ended it short peaceful lull and is plunging into another phase of sectarian turmoil. The wave of violence comes amid increasing uncertainty about Iraq's shaky political process and failure of Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki to engage followers of the former Baath regime of Saddam Hussein. It also comes as US troops have begun preparing for withdrawal, threatening to create a security vacuum and to bring Iraq back to the front burner, after months of fragile stability. For Al-Maliki, the latest spiral in violence is aimed at the security gains. He blamed the deadly bombings on cells of the Baath Party. "Those who believe in the ideas of the Baath Party do so even at the expense of innocent lives and the homeland," Al-Maliki said insisting that there will be no reconciliation with "these gangs... who are responsible for car bombings." Other Iraqi officials said plans for the first phase of the American troop withdrawal from Iraqi cities to take place in June, will go ahead as scheduled, and predicted they will have no effect on security. That wasn't the view of General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, however. On Friday he warned American lawmakers that despite "substantial progress" in Iraq there remain lingering concerns. Al-Qaeda in Iraq, as well as other groups, continue to pose a threat, he said. "Numerous challenges still confront its leaders and its people." General Petraeus's views are crucial because he is the American strategist who is credited for the so- called surge plan that provided a few months of quiet and paved the way for US forces to prepare to withdraw from Iraq over the next year and a half. Indeed, the sensational attacks raised questions about President Barack Obama's plans to draw down troops in Iraq in line with his election promise. Clinton, in her first visit to Baghdad as secretary of state, acknowledged that the attacks were worrisome. On the surface, Clinton's one-day visit was meant to deliver an American show of support for Iraq as it battles a sudden eruption of violence. She played down suggestions that the attacks augured a return to the relentless sectarian violence that convulsed Iraq in 2006. Yet in reality the visit was more a sign of anxiety that things again have begun to go wrong in Iraq. Part of Washington's worry is because of what it sees as Al-Maliki's balking at earlier promises to reconcile with Sunni Baathists. For example, he is being accused by the Americans of refusing to implement a law to ease restrictions on the return of Baathists to the public arena and allow them to return to the army and the government. American officials argue, though privately, that by keeping the Baathists out of the political process, Al-Maliki is imperiling security gains made since sectarian violence pushed the country to the brink of civil war in 2006. Al-Maliki, however, is under pressure by fellow Shias, many of whom are allied with Iran, to do no more favours for members of Saddam Hussein's regime. The New York Times reported this week that American and British officials have been mediating between Al-Maliki and former Baathists. It said that on 18 April, American and British officials from a secretive unit, called the Force Strategic Engagement Cell, flew to Jordan to try to persuade one of Saddam's top generals -- the commander of the final defence of Baghdad in 2003 -- to return home to resume efforts to make peace with the new Iraq. But the Iraqi commander, Raad Majid Al-Hamdani, rebuffed them and accused Al-Maliki of not being interested in reconciliation. It said General Hamdani's anger illustrates what could become one of the biggest obstacles to stability in Iraq and even threatens to stoke already simmering political sectarian tensions. Although there is no evidence that Baathists were involved in the recent attacks, fears are rising that they and Jihadi insurgents are increasingly cooperating in areas, Baghdad especially, that have been largely quiet over the last year. It quoted a Baath operative in hiding north of Baghdad as saying that "if the government were to become serious about reconciliation, it would seek to amend the constitution and let the party resume its role in public life, like the Communist Party after the fall of the Soviet Union." That could hardly budge Al-Maliki who has hardened his opposition even knowing that it would also harden Sunni Arabs. To demonstrate his power and ability, Al-Maliki announced Tuesday that Abu Omar Al-Baghdadi, a suspected senior commander of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, is in custody. "This terrorist has strong relations with the former regime and made a devilish alliance with its followers that left its mark on the innocent bodies of children, women and sheikhs in bloody scenes," Al-Maliki said in a statement. Iraqi officials, who have reported Al-Baghdadi's arrest or killing before, only to later say they were wrong, said earlier Al-Baghdadi was captured in Baghdad on Thursday. Notwithstanding Al-Baghdadi's arrest and its effect on the terror group, it remains to be seen whether Al-Maliki's government will be able to bring peace back to the violence-ridden nation. Resurgent violence is not the only reason to remain concerned about Iraq. Tensions among political and ethnical group, absorbing Sunni groups into Al-Maliki's Shia-led government, Arab-Kurdish squabbling over the oil-rich province of Kirkuk, the return of displaced people, low oil prices and their effect on the new budget -- these are just some of the issues now simmering.
