Abizaid speaks:
Iraq can expect more bombings like the one at a Shiite Muslim shrine that set off fighting between Shiites and Sunnis, the chief of the U.S. Central Command said Saturday.Gen. John Abizaid blamed Al-Qaida terrorists for the blast and said it marked a clear - and successful - change in tactics by the group in its campaign to ignite civil war among Iraqis.
"They got more of a reaction from that than they had hoped for," Abizaid told The Associated Press in Qatar after a two-day trip to Iraq, where he discussed the Feb. 22 attack's implications with top U.S. and Iraqi leaders.
"I expect we'll see another attack in the near future on another symbol," he said. "They'll find some other place that's undefended, they'll strike it and they'll hope for more sectarian violence." [emphasis added]
I agree with Abizaid that Zarqawi and his fellow-travellers (likely including various hard-core Baathists) were probably somewhat surprised how significant the uptick in sectarian violence was. And that therefore, as Abizaid predicts, that they will be very focused on pulling off similar attacks on (mostly Shi'a) religious shrines in the coming weeks and months. That said, at least according to General Casey (hat tip: Michael Pecherer, one of B.D.s most insightful commenters), it appears accounts of around 1,300 killed in the aftermath of the shrine bombing may have been inflated. (Note to commenters: I'm not saying the death of some 350 civilians wasn't an immense tragedy and a very significant event in terms of the growing sectarian tension in Iraq. But it does appear accounts of the extent of the loss of life may have been inflated somewhat, as were reports about how many mosques were damaged by militia attacks and the like).
Does this mean the Iraqi Army stepped up to bat in a big way, and proved their stripes some? Frankly, I think Abizaid and Casey are (very understandably) putting the best gloss on that issue by saying, as they do, that the Iraqi Army put in a pretty good show all told. This is arguably true, but only to a fashion. American backup was critical in places like Baghdad, and some predominately Shi'a Iraqi Army units did let Mahdi militia types pretty much have their way at certain junctures. Regardless, I suppose regular readers know that I'm still pretty skeptical of the state of the Iraqi Army all told. Putting aside the 'wholly independent' nonsense (the faux story/outrage of a few weeks back that the one Iraqi Army unit declared capable of operating fully independently, ie. at Level I, could no longer do so), I continue to be concerned about the realer issue: that the state of play re: Level II/III (ie, can take the lead with some manner of U.S. back-up, or operate well jointly with US forces) is significantly more fragile than some bloggers and Pentagon sources would have it. This major training and equipping effort, if it is done right, really right, will likely take 3-5 years yet.
UPDATE: Somewhat related (albeit re: Iraqi police forces, rather than army), a poignant query here.