« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
It was supposed to be, as President Bush called it, "a defining moment in the history of Iraq." And it might just be. But certainly not in the way that Bush meant it. Instead, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's offensive in Basra and Baghdad against Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's forces has confirmed his government's essential weakness.
Consider: with Maliki's campaign stalled, a parliamentary delegation from Maliki's own coalition went off to Iran to broker a deal with Sadr. And the terms of that deal, which involves the release of hundreds of detained Sadr followers and the return of his followers displaced by raids and violence, will surely strengthen Sadr's political position. That's assuming, of course, that the deal holds and the fighting actually stops. All of the papers report that fighting has not stopped in Baghdad and Basra. And while it's unclear whether the deal will actually last, it's crystal clear what the deal means for Maliki. The New York Times sees no upside:
The negotiations with Mr. Sadr were seen as a serious blow for... Maliki, who had vowed that he would see the Basra campaign through to a military victory and who has been harshly criticized even within his own coalition for the stalled assault.Last week, Iraq’s defense minister, Abdul Kadir al-Obeidi, conceded that the government’s military efforts in Basra have met with far more resistance than was expected. Many Iraqi politicians say that Mr. Maliki’s political capital has been severely depleted by the Basra campaign and that he is in the curious position of having to turn to Mr. Sadr, a longtime rival, for a way out.
And it was a chance for Mr. Sadr to flaunt his power, commanding both armed force and political strength that can forcefully challenge the other dominant Shiite parties, including Mr. Maliki’s Dawa movement and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq....
After [Sadr's] statement was released Sunday, a spokesman for Mr. Maliki, Ali al-Dabbagh, appearing on the television station Iraqiya, said that the government welcomed the action and that Mr. Sadr’s gesture demonstrated his “concern for Iraq and Iraqis.” And he insisted that the government offensive in Basra was not aimed specifically at Mr. Sadr’s militiamen but rather against rogue Shiite factions there, seemingly trying to leave room to maneuver with Mr. Sadr’s political organization.
A fighter from Sadr's Mahdi Army in Baghdad, speaking to The Washington Post, sees things similarly: "The fighting has proved they have learned a lesson. The government is dead from our point of view."
Josh
Zachary
Anyone got any idea of how Cheney's visit played into this mess?
I can't imagine that it was just a coincidence, but also am trying to see the connection. One would have to be blind to ignore the cause and effect, seems as if the grim reaper is following Cheney in his 4th Branch jaunts around the world, leaving casualties in his wake.
Did he offer Maliki some osrt of political promise?
Or threat?
Just wondered if anyone can clarify this for us.
March 31, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
The connection with cheney is that after he left, suddenly the Iraqis were able to agree for a date for these provincial elections on Oct 1. (My guess is that the repubs were hoping to point to "successful" elections there prior to ours here, to strengthen their chances in Nov.) The military offensive by Maliki is thus situated in the middle of these upcoming elections - here and there.
So... once again the effort to "control" Iraq has backfired.
March 31, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think your guess was accurate, and that it was all part of a political chess move.
But there seems to be a darker influence always under the surface when Deadeye jumps on a plane, one that has much more to do with profligate profit than political progress.
I'm not trying to impart some spiritual evil onto Cheney here, but he does seem to leave a trail of destruction everywhere he travels.
To our mortal eyes, he may look like just another a sneaky old jerk, but in another realm, he probably more closely resembles Jaba the Hut.
March 31, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
The offer wasn't to Maliki, it was to Abdul Aziz al Hakim, head of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council party and one of the major parties in our Iraqi government. After Cheney's visit, they dropped their veto of the provincial elections law in the presidency council. They have lost popular support, and were likely to lose a lot of provincial elections in the south to the Sadrists (which is why they vetoed it in the first place.) So in return for approving the law, they got the go-ahead to try to take out the Sadrists militarily before the elections.
More details at http://firedoglake.com/2008/03/25/basra-cheney%E2%80%99s-reward-to-oil-pal-al-hakim/.
March 31, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course the Maliki government is dead. Its been dead since 2006 when Sadr was able to bring the government to a standstill. It was evident even before that.
At this point, we're propping up a dead body in Iraq that is right now just turning cold. This needs to be emphasized each and every day when evaluating McCain's position on Iraq.
March 31, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
The same thought occurred to me. Cheney's visit was billed as an effort to stiffen Malili's resolve and demand some progress to showcase when Petreus comes to Congress. Early reports of the Basra offensive stated that the Americans there were taken by surprise. Then the story became that the US didn't know the timing and the details.
Could it be that Cheney was completely off the reservation? Urging Maliki to make a decisive strike as dramatic proof that the Surge worked and the Iraqis can stand on their own? All without telling the generals on the ground, or at the Pentagon, or the folks at State, all of whom he thinks are too soft.
March 31, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
"off the reservation"
Maybe off the Bush/Condi reservation, not off the neocon reservation... We've seen ths before.
This Maliki-maelstrom event certainly didn't hurt oil futures, or Halliburton, or Blackwater, quite the contrary.
March 31, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting watching this play out in the media. They obviously have not figured out how to spin this debacle. Bush put his chips on Maliki. Maliki put his chips on this offensive. And they lost. Not only did they lose, they turned themselves into complete clowns.
So, where is John McCain? Nowhere to be found. This is the government we are supposed to support for the next 100 years? Which can't even impose its will on a militia group? Which is so out of touch with the reality on the ground that it stupidly makes threats and then gets its ass handed to it by a rag-tag group of fighters riding around in the back of pick-up trucks?
The media has been downplaying this story so much it has become part of the joke. They dutifully report the government spin from hotel rooms hundreds of miles away - until, finally, the NY Times finds one guy brave enough to actually go in there to check out what's going on - and it turns out the government doesn't control anything on the ground in southern Iraq. Even today, as the dust settles a bit, and it becomes obvious that our guys lost, the story is buried under other headlines, as if it's just one more headline out of many. This is huge. Bush's war is revealed for what it is - an unwinnable farce. This is what our people died for. To bring Moktada Al Sadr to power in Iraq. Let's see you spin this one, John McCain.
March 31, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
"So, where is John McCain?"
http://bp0.blogger.com/_5BH6-f-ymHI/R_A9cN7a_VI/AAAAAAAAAQ8/yuvohpAGfH8/s1600-h/Flipflop-express.jpg
March 31, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are so right. Perhaps the Pulitzer Committee should create a new category, such as Creative Poltical Writing, for work like this "analysis" in Saturday's New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/world/middleeast/30assess.html?ref=middleeast
The spin is that this kind of violence in Iraq is a vast improvement. An exemplary paragraph:
"For starters, the Shiite rebels are fighting mainly Iraqi soldiers, rather than Americans. Their leader, Moktada al-Sadr, is not defending against attacks from a redoubt inside the country’s most sacred shrine, but is issuing edicts with a tarnished reputation from an undisclosed location, possibly outside the country. And Iraq’s prime minister, a Shiite whom Americans had all but despaired would ever act against militias of his own sect, is taking them on fiercely."
To quote Jon Stewart, "Ehhh, not so much."
March 31, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad you mentioned that specific article. It took my breathe away with it's wilfull misprepresentation of reality. Every once in a while, the Times just sticks some pure neocon propaganda into its pages, as if no one will notice, or as if to balance out some imaginary notion that it is a liberal paper (I think it was Colbert who complained that truth has a liberal bias).
Anyway, they publish a piece like that - which reveals itself, if not immediately, then within a few hours, to be utterly wrong. And utterly uninformed. And they do it with their own reporting!
And keep in mind that the NY Times is one of the only media outlets that is even bothering to report what's going on in Iraq. The TV news is silent, preferring to concentrate on their usual trivialities. And waiting to find out what the official spin is going to be so they can parrot it!
And yet, for all their efforts at propaganda, the whole thing is unraveling. What a spectacle.
March 31, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maliki did make the Bush/Cheney style strong stand against Sadr and if he had won would certainly have shown some strength and probably changed the political landscape a bit back here. Unfortunately for Iraqis, all it did was show that the leader of their country stand up strong but that it doesn't mean anything if he can't back it up and clearly he can't.
In the end this is a bad day for Bush, a bad day for McCain and a terrible day for Iraqis.
March 31, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hello_world said
"At this point, we're propping up a dead body in Iraq that is right now just turning cold."
Weekend at Nouri's.
March 31, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've read elsewhere that the Dawa party informed Maliki of the negotiations, held in Iran of course, after the fact.
So will Bush prop up Chalabi or Alowi for the new government? Oh Boy!
March 31, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are striking similarities between last week's events in Iraq and the unraveling of the Palestinian Authority in Gaza. In the April edition of Vanity Fair, David Rose makes the case that the Bush Administration urged Mahmoud Abbas to use Fatah's "security" forces against Hamas after Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian election. (Rose's article is on the web. Here's the link: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804)
It sounds like this time, the White House suggested Maliki take out the opposition BEFORe the election--the Iraqi parliamentary election this fall--with equally lousy results. I hate to think what lessons Bush, Cheney, Rice,, et al. will take from their lastest debacle.
March 31, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bad day for everybody. The sooner the Iraqi "government" and armed forces can demonstrate real strength and competence, the better for all.
March 31, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
the sooner we all realize that that shit ain't ever gonna happen, the better for all. otherwise we're all just living inside christopher hitchens' fantasyland.
April 1, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've got an idea. Since the Iraqi Army is totally a waste of US tax dollars, why don't we take their weapons and uniforms and make the Mahdi Army the new army of Iraq. They seem to fight much better that the Army that is now supported by the Badr Corps. Then we could just go.
March 31, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dearest Dadzo,
You posted:
What the Bush administration calls "The Iraqi Government" is nothing of the sort. Said "government" is a group of puppets, propped up by US dollars and military. There is no other authority or basis for that group to do anything that resembles governance. Only after the US leaves will an Iraqi governmnet be even possible. Until that time, there will be the numerous factions fighting amongst themselves and with the US, positioning themselves for best opportunity when the US will eventually leave.
There is no way out of the carnange, destruction, and misery that will entail when the US leaves. Regardless of when, there will be chaos. But, it is only in the absence of the US occupation that Iraq, or various chunks of what presently comprise Iraq, can form their own government and allow stability, and hopefully peace to finally return to that land.
The US, under the direction of Bush, is uniquely responsible for the horrendous and heinous conditions now in Iraq. Bush decided to invade Iraq. Bush decided to occupy Iraq. Bush bears the responsibility for the carnage, death, and destruction for when the US finally leaves Iraq.
Bush bears responsibility with Cheney, Rumsfeld, and a host of other True Believers for the gross incompentence displayed by the utter lack of any post-invasion planning, and for the outrageous ineptitude that Bush and his followers have continually displayed in the immense cluster-fuck that Iraq has become. Bush's malfeasance and incompetence have only exascerbated the horrendous effects of this occupation.
Can we impeach him now?
ITMFA
March 31, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The writing was on the wall when the British politely (of course) declined our suggestion a couple of weeks ago that they recommit their infantry to Basra in the guise of a miniature "surge". My guess is that Maliki was talked into this by the Wily Coyotes in the White House, the ace up their sleeve being U.S. airpower. Did you notice that all announcements of air strikes during the week were made by British spokesman? Bush was prepared to level Basra (as he did Fallujah) if that's what it took, but Maliki wasn't. What the hell- two steps forward, one step back. After all, we've got a hundred more years to figure it all out.
March 31, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
George must be apoplectic at finding himself in the position of having his archenemy Iran negotiate a cease fire for him. If this wasn't so terribly tragic, it would be laughable.
As for Bush's "surge," it was purportedly to give al-Maliki's government enough time to stabilize. Instead the "surge" has proved al-Maliki's government to be no government at all and to have no hope of ever becoming one.
Nice job George.
-AF
Andrew Sullivan Is A Fraud
March 31, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
They played Frontline's Bush's War this weekend, and while they didn't get into the Shia-Shia angle so much, they painted a pretty bleak picture for Iraq, and while they weren't entirely explicit about the oil angle, they showed the impact on Iraq far better than anyone in the conventional media has to date.
But what they don't say at all, what nobody really can wrap their hands around, is that THEY DID IT ON PURPOSE.
Cheney, Rumdrunk, Feith, Wolfowitz, did it so that Corporations would profit, and oil would be secured. But since the views and values that these maniacs hold are not just wrong and comic book in depth, but fundamentally insane, nothing went right.
And the Corporations continue to profit.
March 31, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
So how long before Sadr rules Iraq?
Officially, I mean.
March 31, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The administration, via unnamed officials, initially spun the line that the Basra attack had come as a surprise to them. The president also played dumb:
In his White House appearance Friday with Kevin Rudd, the new Australian prime minister, Bush seemed unsure about the reasons for the timing of the offensive, saying he had yet to talk to Maliki about it.
"I'm not exactly sure what triggered the prime minister's response," he said.
"I don't know if it was one phone call. I don't know what -- whether or not the local mayor called up and said, 'Help -- we're sick and tired of dealing with these folks.' But nevertheless, he made the decision to move. And we'll help him. But this was his decision. It was his military planning. It was his causing the troops to go from point A to point B."
Then James Glanz of the New York Times reported:
Two weeks ago, when I learned of the impending assault during a trip to Basra, senior Iraqi officials said that the crackdown would be unrelenting. “Whoever gets in the way will be dealt with swiftly, decisively and with no mercy,” one of them said.
If local officials were discussing the operation with U.S. reporters two weeks beforehand, the plan was probably drawn up months ago. And certainly not, as Bush implied, by Maliki.
By Saturday, Bush’s national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, was admitting the United States had known of the attack plan in advance.
Cheney's visit may have been partly to give it the green light.
March 31, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see how this becomes "good news". And, maybe our people can come home now??
March 31, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another fine example of desperate distortion supporting the "America is a loser" narrative promulgated by the radical left and their allies in the MSM. For a true picture of the current situation in Iraq, read AJStrata's blog:
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5249
And I should add that Iran's tyrants have now boxed themselves into a corner, and a devastating US military response is now inevitable. They will soon live (or more accurately die) to regret it.
March 31, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink