« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
Confused about what's going on in Basra? So is pretty much everyone.
For years, Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army was one of the main destabilizing forces in Iraq. But last summer, he agreed to a cease fire, a move that everyone agrees has done a tremendous amount to diminish the violence in recent months. He renewed the cease fire last month.
But Sadr's group has splintered. And Shiite militias, some connected to Sadr and some not, have been mixing it up in the southern city of Basra. The British haded over control of the province to the Iraqi government in December, and things have been downhill since then.
For weeks (or months), Iraqi forces (with U.S. encouragement) have planned an offensive to reclaim Basra from these rogue militias. Besides the violence, there's the problem of corrupt militias having control of the city's valuable ports. And as the Iraqi general in charge of southern Iraq argued, the militias has to be moved out before the elections this fall, or they might forever take hold.
So the offensive was finally launched this week, with Iraqi forces moving in on the ground with British and U.S. support by air. It came as a surprise to no one, even Sadr's people, one of whom tells The Los Angeles Times that Sadr has initially agreed to support the crackdown, provided that it targeted 'outlaws.'"
But now Mahdi representatives say that the offensive is not so "targeted." And Sadr issued a statement two weeks ago permitting the Mahdi Army to fire on U.S. and Iraqi forces in self-defense. So no matter the talk of "outlaws," everyone perceives this as a hit against Sadr.
So now it's chaos, as the operation deepens in Basra and there are clashes in Baghdad -- where the Iraqi forces are also attacking "special groups" (as an American official calls them, meaning Shiite militias with Iranian backing) with American support. Shiite insurgents have responded in part by firing rockets into the Green Zone. There's also a good deal of violence between the rival Shiite militias in Baghdad and elsewhere.
The big question for everyone is whether the cease fire will hold up. Sadr loyalists, the LA Times reports, "accuse his Shiite rivals in the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and Maliki's Islamic Dawa Party of using the Iraqi army and police to round up the cleric's followers ahead of the elections."
The Washington Post reports that Sadr " is under immense pressure from senior loyalists to lift the cease-fire order." The New York Times gives a vivid sense of how close the situation is to tipping:
Many places in Baghdad were tense. At a checkpoint downtown, a policeman’s radio crackled with the news of the sniper shooting of a police officer in a nearby neighborhood. “We’ve heard that Sadr has canceled the cease-fire, is this true?” he asked motorists whose car he was searching....Saeed Ammar, a government employee, said he was standing near policemen in the Huriya neighborhood on Tuesday morning when he was approached by Mahdi Army members. “They told me not to stand near checkpoints. They said, ‘We are waiting for the word from Moktada Sadr to attack the checkpoints — it may come at any moment.’ “
So far, though, Sadr has only responded by calling for a nationwide civil disobedience campaign. His statement: "we call on all Iraqis to show restraint, throughout Iraq, as a first step. If the government does not respect the demands of the masses, then the second step will be disobedience in Baghdad and the rest of the provinces." The cease fire is still in effect.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has gone down to Basra to monitor the campaign and has issued an ultimatum for the militia members to lay down their arms.
As the Post observes it's an awkward time for the biggest test yet of the preparedness of the Iraqi forces: "It was unclear why U.S. forces would take part in a broad armed challenge to Sadr and his thousands-strong militia on the eve of Petraeus's assessment, which the Bush administration has said would greatly influence its decision on whether to draw down troop levels."
And White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, as always, has put the brightest face possible on things: "I would characterize it as a bold decision — precisely what the critics have asked to see in Iraq, more movement by the Iraqi Security Forces."
Josh
Zachary
The worst part of all this is that McCain is running as a REPLACEMENT for W, not an alternative.
The Manchurian Surrogate?
March 26, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good title.
March 26, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now I'm confused. It's a majority Shiite country, and the government is Shiite dominated. Is an "insurgent" someone who (as the general thrust of reporting and discussion thus far would indicate) is opposed to the Maliki government and the US occupation, or just the occupation? (I'd suspect if that were true, the whole country would be filled with insurgents.)
In other words, are we not seen as occupiers whether or not the "insurgent" supports the government? My recollection is that the majority of Iraqis want our army out.
March 26, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
The cost of empire?
Oh, I'd say it's about $4.00 per gallon.
Heckuva job there, Bushie!
Could anyone possibly run a an invasion and occupation of another country any WORSE!?
March 26, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
So it has come to this. Sadr is now split from some of the other Shiites. Not bad. The good guys (us) are now fighting the bad guys.
Ceasefire or no ceasefire, let us never forget - Sadr's bad guys killed a US Army Captain and two of his team, point blank, during a minor dispute. This was in 2005.
Sadr is not good for us. He is too too close to the Iranians. Anything that can be done to bring him down to size, its a good thing.
March 26, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's helpful (and clears up my confusion). Thanks.
March 26, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought Sadr's faction was at odds with the Iranians. My impression is that Sadr is a radical nationalist and he's far less beholden to Iran than the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq or Maliki's Da'wa Party -- both of whom we're supporting!
March 26, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Plum, let us also never forget that KBR, a butt bud subsidiary of Bushco, killed 13 of our troops by electrocuting them in their shower in Iraq. One of them was a handsome 23-year-old Green Beret. Yeah, I think HE was a captain too.
Anything that can be done to get our countrymen out of Iraq YESTERDAY, before Bushco can kill any more Americans in the false name of "fighting terror," is certainly a good thing.
March 26, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, Sadr is bad.
Anyone who watched Frontline's "Bush's War" must be appalled that we had several opportunities to kill or capture Sadr, and instead, paid him off.
Bush basically gave a terrorist money not to kill us.
How is this guy still in office?
March 26, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
for iraq forces substitute shia militias of the hakim and badr political groups
March 26, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The enemy of my enemy is still my enemy.
footsore
March 26, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Johnson/McNamara comes to mind but in their defense it was inherited.
March 26, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
At some point in the next few months it seems likely this will come to a head. When TSHTF, will the US escalate further?
Is this the opportunity they've been looking for to go to war with Iran? Is that why the US has been encouraging the Iraqi forces to "reclaim" Basra?
Does anyone else feel that the timing of this has something to do with the domestic political calendar in the US?
It seems to me the Republicans would like to try the same old strategy again -- escalate the war, then play the fear card and run against the Democrats as the party who wants to "surrender".
I have no doubt that Bushco can influence -- and ARE influencing -- the timing of this confrontation.
But do they really think this trick will work again?
-- ARG
March 26, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, this does seem calculated to affect the election here. On both sides. The Sadr side. And the bush side.
March 26, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
thank you jamzo, indeed
some think this was a 'gift' from Cheney to al-Hakim in light of the upcoming elections
lots of anecdotal reporting Petraeus all but begged the British to help out on the ground, they refused so Malliki was forced to go in
March 26, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pat Lang, one of the Iraq/ME experts Dougie Feith & Co didn't see fit to hire back in the day, weighs in on the current mess.
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2008/03/who-are-the-ira.html
Among other qualifications that were a turn off for a position advising Bush's DoD before the Iraq invasion were that Lang speaks & writes Arabic, established the Arabic Studies Dept. @ West Point, & has extensive intel service in the ME...
March 26, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Won't this be used by McCain as proof that we should stay for 100 years? The Brits left and chaos ensued.
March 26, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
ARG;
I hope you are not prescient...
But I fear you are. Especially the part about the Republicans depending on war to breed fear. Now that this war has lost all support, they need a new one to hold onto their throne.
And Basra is surely the logical gateway to Iran, in terms of Iraqi geography. With Kuwait just 20 miles to the west and the gulf just 20 miles south, and Iran just 20 miles east, Basra seems strategically convenient for just what you have proposed.
Now we are pouring gasoline on the fire.
At $4 a gallon.
March 26, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I'd love to be wrong about this one.
But I just get the feeling that I've seen this movie before. And I hate the way it ends.
I wish there were some magic way we could all see TODAY the inevitable (circa 2010) Frontline expose on what's going on behind the scenes now.
-- ARG
March 26, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
McBush will use this the same way BushCo uses any news from Iraq- it's good news, we need to stay there indefinitely, it's bad news, we need to stay there indefinitely.
March 26, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
An excellent article on the factions in Iraq: http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=41737
According to the author the Iraqi army fighting the "bad guys" are really Badr Organisation militiamen (trained in Iran) and an arm of Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI). The ISCI have no love of Sadr. God, what a cluster fuck!
March 26, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those feelings we get that somehow, Oh my God, Bushco is NEVER really leaving office...mine are BACK. That's how the "fear card" works on me.
Too many talking heads are too confident that we "can't leave." Words that fell from the pie-hole of Lani Davis last night as he defended his candidate to Anderson Cooper, "...there's no way out of Iraq..."
Cheney uttering with that leer on his lips, "The U.S. won't be leaving Iraq."
And then there's my everlasting socioapthic nemisis Michael Ware. I have my horse whip right here, Michael. Send me that plane ticket.
Bushco has plenty of time to get us into war with Iran. Months and months to make it happen, while back home, the easiest win in history for the Democratic party continues to erode. McCain has pulled even with both our candidates. Next step is to pass them by. Plenty of time for that. November is more than half a year away.
March 26, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sadr might be forced to cancel the cease fire so he doesn't completely lose control of his militias.
March 26, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear footsore,
You said
Who exactly is our "enemy" in Iraq?
The only enemy I can see in Iraq is us. The United States is occupying Iraq. Any occupying force will be seen as an enemy to the people who are forced to be occupied.
Why is Sadr letting loose his militia? Maybe he thinks now is the best time.
Is he our enemy, or our friend?
He is neither. He is our opponent whom we have created.
March 26, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You think?
March 26, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
elseigel,
It's not a matter of ANY faction, anywhere.
The United States military is the occupying force of Iraq. They (we, the United States) are the enemy of every Iraqi - until we leave. Only then does worrying about factions and internal politics matter.
Sadr is threatening to unleash the full fury of the militias. Unless this is stopped quickly there will be full-blown civil war with the US military in the middle. The US military can not shut down such an uprising without thousands upon thousands of more Iraqi dead. I see no reason to continue murdering Iraqis.
Support the Troops!
Bring them home NOW!
March 26, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a post about the new "surge", Mahdi Army violence in Iraq at http://swimmingfreestyle.typepad.com
Excerpt:
"After six months of a self imposed cease fire by the Mahdi Army, all hell is breaking loose in Baghdad and Basra as the Mahdi Army is battling U.S. and Iraqi Army forces and the relative stability brought about by the "surge" of U.S. forces is now threatened.
Today, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino delivered what may be the most stunning counter perspective in ages. This, in fact, may well rank in the Hall of Fame for counterintuitive logic. Ms. Perino asserts the new violence in Iraq is not a setback but, in fact, really a positive sign."
March 26, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course we gave him (Sadr) about $350 million... so he should have pretty good weapons to fire at us. Perhaps now we should ask him for that money back...
March 26, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I like this debate. I agree that we need to bring our troops home asap. This war has been a BIG mistake for our country. Sadly, people are profiting from this war.
Let's not forget that the minority Sunnis are not just sitting back and watching. Do you really think that the Sunnis are not trying to end any Shiite control? Yes, Iran is funding Shiite but who is funding Sunnis? Saudi Arabia and we are funding and arming them. And that Bush is a friend of the Royal family of Saudi Arabia. Therefore a US ally. Oh, let not forget that bin Laden is a Sunni.
So let's look at the big picture. Even if we controlled the Shiite region, the Sunnis resent us for letting their enemies(the Shiite) takeover control of the government and the country. Another reason why is that Saddam was a Sunni. Therefore, we took the Sunnis out of power. We disarmed the Sunni military and police. They lost their job so they became part of the "insurgency." The Sunnis lost it all when they lost power. So what do you think?
Oh, what a web we weave.
March 26, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're catching up, there, Political Outsider. A ways to go yet, but so far so good.
March 26, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
What am I missing? I know this war is about profits and shutting down the oil pipelines. I know so many contractors making so much money. I know also that there are other countries that are players in this war other than Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Although I am not optimistic about this war ending any time soon, but I do hope it does.
March 27, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Am I the only one getting a whiff of a 40 year-old rotten apple?
Prior to the elections in 1968 Nixon and his henchmen mucked up Viet Nam peace talks in Paris promising the South Vietnamese they would get better treatment from the the Republicans if they'd just hang on until after the elections.
With Cheney and McCain pulling strings in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East - and renewed violence breaking out - it doesn't seem too far-fetched that similar nefarious dealings are in the works.
Shame on those who play their evil power games with the lives of others.
March 26, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I were an Iraqi, I would also have joined a militia.
March 26, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The good guys (us) are now fighting the bad guys."
Uuuhhhh....rotflmao?
Did you plagiarize this from an episode of the Daily Show? Watch out, now.
March 26, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Couldn't we muster up a few million to pay Sadr to take Iraq off our hands? We've been paying militias to protect their provinces for some time now. Food, electricity, hospitals, employment, this wins wars in the long run (5 yrs). But the only thing protected here is the oil reserves and making sure Iran and Iraq remain enemies. Yeah McCain could screw things up even worse because he's already senile.
March 26, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sadr should be assassinated. He wants to be a martyr, we can give him his wish. Then withdraw from Iraq, with Maliki as leader, leave behind a token force and air support. Perfect situation - the shiites hate us, but respect us for leaving, the sunni's are bitter, but glad they're rivals are in disarray, and the strongest force left is the Iraqi government.
March 26, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would remind you guys of a comment Fareed Zakaria made on the Daily Show a while back that went largely unnoticed. He said the new plan in Iraq was stir up tensions between the various sides, let them fight it out, and hope that a clear victor emerges. We don't care who that victor is as long as there's only one. Makes things easier for us to deal with.
That really does seem to be the case. You've got Iranian backed shias moving against Sadr shias in Basra, Sadr Shias threatening civil unrest, and then US approval for attacks on "Iranian militias" in Bagdhad, which could be composed of a lot of the same people as Maliki's Iraqi army. I wouldn't be surprised if the raids in baghdad were being conducted by Sunnis. Eggs in every basket, as they say.
It's time to start floating the idea that Bush is secretly hoping for a civil war in Iraq.
March 26, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Pentagon's spinning this as "success"
Orwell that ends well.
March 26, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink