After months of ignoring the obvious, the rhetoric from the NY Times is changing. Today’s story is how Militants now turn to small bombs in Iraq attacks. Small, “sticky bombs”, “usually no bigger than a man’s fist and attached to a magnet or a strip of gummy adhesive,” are now the weapon of choice for the insurgent groups in Iraq. In Arabic they’re known as “obwah lasica”.
Light, portable and easy to lay, sticky bombs are tucked quickly under the bumper of a car or into a chink in a blast wall. Since they are detonated remotely, they rarely harm the person who lays them…
They are also contributing, in the midst of an uptick in violence, to a growing feeling of unease in the capital.
Note that last sentence well, that denotes a rhetorical change. The violence in Baghdad is now increasing. While it has been for the past 6 months, the news agencies had been reporting violence was down due to the “surge”. Is this shift an acknowledgment of the security change in Iraq or an attempt to pressure Obama to keep U.S. forces deployed there?
Sticky bombs have frequently been used to attack Iraqi government and military officials and important businessmen. In July, Faris Amir, the deputy general director of Baghdad’s traffic police, was wounded by a sticky bomb attack. In September, an executive at Al Arabiya, the satellite channel, narrowly survived an assassination attempt by sticky bomb, which destroyed his car. In October, the lawyer Waleed al-Azzawi and the police commander of Diwaniya Province, Omar Abu Atra, were killed in Baghdad by sticky bombs.
Back in mid-September, I wrote a diary arguing that Americans got bored or why the “surge” in Iraq worked, but really violence was increasing. Interestingly, the NY Times and most other news groups failed to notice this trend during the presidential campaign.
Four at Four continues with offshore drilling plans for the coast of Virginia, what to do with the Obama’s grassroots organization, and financial scams.