A Hot Summer in Iraq
The torture lady is in Iraq to praise the "unity" behind Maliki's puppet government.
That "unity" is, of course, not existent.
On Sadr she commented: "It's been very difficult to get a read of what his motivations are and what his intentions are."
Well, let me help you here.
Sadr wants the attacks on his people to be stopped immediately. He wants a timetable for the occupiers to leave his country and he wants a united, independent Iraq. If he will not get these majority demands fullfilled through a fair political environment, he will ask the people to fight for it. That's it.
The U.S. military barfed back on Sadr's recent ultimatum, which demanded the immediate stop of the bombing campaign on his people.
"If Sadr and Jaish al-Mahdi (Mahdi Army) become very aggressive, we've got enough combat power to take the fight to the enemy," said Major General Rick Lynch, commander of US forces in central Iraq.
That wasn't the question general. Do you have enough combat power to win?
Sadr is understandably pissed. Iran sent him back to Najaf, where his brother in law was recently assassinated. The U.S. and the Brits are bombing his people in Sadr city and in Basra and the Maliki government denies Sadr's constituency effective political representation.
It is time to fight.
Sadr's last campaigns were not impressive in a military sense. But by now he might have gotten some serious advice on how to achieve something. A good advice might have been to look at logistics.
The U.S. military consumes incredible 50 million gallons of fuel each month in Iraq. I assume this number includes fuel for most of the mercenaries and the civilian staff. These are 185 tanker trucks loads (9,000 gallon each) which each day have to make the 330 miles run from Kuwait to Baghdad. It should be possible, if not to shut down, at least to slow down and decimate that permanent caravan.
To achieve that, a campaign should eliminate the bridges on the most convenient routes that these tankers pass. The aim would be to force the occupiers to canalize all supply through the most undesirable routes, the population centers of the south. There Mahdi fighters can 'swim with the fishes' and attack the convoys from all angles while being able to easily escape and prepare the next attack.
The campaign should coordinate with the Sunni resistance which just announced a month of concentrated attacks on the occupiers. They shall shut down the alternative line of communication from Jordan to Baghdad. Other aspects of Sunni/Shia relationship can be solved later on.
The campaign on U.S. logistics should be combined with hit and run attacks all over Iraq that will bind U.S. forces and hinder them to concentrate for a decisive battle or to divert enough forces to protect their line of communication.
Continued mortar attacks on the Green Zone, Baghdad airport and the British at the Basra airport will be of psychological value. Attacks on Maliki officials will help to cut their resolve.
A problem is the lack of outside support as the Iranian government is, for now, obviously on Maliki's side. Think about how that could be changed.
But for now they will not hand over weapons or give financial support. But money is not a problem for Sadr and there are certainly ways to buy weapons on the black markets in neighboring countries. Some Russian or Chinese made man-portable air defense system (MANPADS) would be nice. Without close air support, the U.S. infantry and the Badr brigades in Iraqi army uniforms are much less effective.
A widening of the campaign to Kuwait might be possible. An explosion at a harbor there? A refinary in flames?
The U.S. has little capacity to reinforce ground troops. Keep them diverted and starve them of the stuff they need most.
Again, it is all about oil.
Posted by b on April 20, 2008 at 19:38 UTC | Permalink
you'd have to be an idiot or lying to claim that oil's not the driving force for this illegal war of aggression.
Tom Engelhardt addresses that among things in a typically sterling post.
Posted by: ran | Apr 20 2008 22:27 utc | 2
I think that Sadr has played this well enough that his martyrdom is the last thing his opponents would want right now, if they are intelligent to realize it. I doubt they are.
Posted by: | Apr 20 2008 22:30 utc | 3
Re the campaign you outline in your post, I presume you meant "could" when you said "would".
Dumassbros
Posted by: Dumassbros | Apr 20 2008 23:21 utc | 5
Darn typo, obviously it should be "I presume you meant "could" when you said "should.""
Posted by: Dumassbros | Apr 20 2008 23:24 utc | 6
b, The U.S. has little capacity to reinforce ground troops.
Who needs reinforcements when they have the glorious Maliki army at their side?
Battle to retake Basra was 'complete disaster'
The British-trained Iraqi Army's attempt to retake Basra from militiamen was an "unmitigated disaster at every level", British commanders have disclosed.
Posted by: Alamet | Apr 21 2008 0:28 utc | 7
Yet always until the moment the occupiers leave —— for every escalation the guerillas make, the occupiers come back doubly with aerial bombardments.
Posted by: Cloud | Apr 21 2008 0:43 utc | 8
I must admit. Divide and conquer works like a charm. First, Sadr's militia is used to prop up the Maliki government and for ethnic cleansing of Sunnis from Baghdad. That mission accomplished, he was no longer of much use. Now the U.S. goes to the defeated Sunnis and offers them weapons, money and, eventually, renewed power.
With the Shiites, The U.S. now offers the clergy and the middle class the opportunity to crush the rising masses. Since its doubtful that the Sadrist movement can be defeated in a week, we are looking at a whole new civil war. The Sunnis will sit this one out, and when its over, they will be in the best position to take power, thus undoing America's biggest mistake. And don't worry about the Iraqi troops refusing to fight. They are their only for show and the U.S. can fight without them.
The only thing I can't understand is why would the Iranians play along? While, they may not like Sadr, they must understand how much weaker their position would be after a Shia' civil war.
Posted by: Lysander | Apr 21 2008 3:51 utc | 9
the only thing i can't understand is why would the Iranians play along?
There is still oil to sell and emerging markets thirsting to nuzzle at the spigot, so of course Iran is playing the chessboard, which apparently entails keeping the entire region terrorized as a major part of the overall strategy, creating beneficial circumstances like displaced civilian populations and concrete-partitioned neighborhoods to provide that crucial layer of chaos and human misery to make the sleight-of-hand theft just a little more insanely audacious.
Posted by: Lizard | Apr 21 2008 5:11 utc | 10
Blueprint makes sense b, but can Sadr pull it off? Seems as though he's the closest thing to a Iraqi patriot they have. This is an occupation the US deserves to lose. If there was a God, it would back the Iraqi people in there struggle against occupation.
Posted by: Ben | Apr 21 2008 5:22 utc | 11
Lysander ... why don't the Iranians like Al Sadr? Since they are closely allied with Maliki and Hakim whose movements were founded in Iran while Sadr's is nationalist, they prefer a weak regime that depends on them rather than a strong independent regime?
I was particularly taken with - and in fact wrote tonight about - Condi's amazing statement regarding Sadr:
"I know he's living in Iran. I guess it's all-out war for everybody but him. His followers can go to their deaths and he will still be living in Iran. I don't know how seriously to take him or not."
10 Iran is playing the chessboard, which apparently entails keeping the entire region terrorized as a major part of the overall strategy, creating beneficial circumstances like displaced civilian populations and concrete-partitioned neighborhoods to provide that crucial layer of chaos and human misery to make the sleight-of-hand theft just a little more insanely audacious.
sounds more like the US. iran wants so control iraq, not so sure about terrorizing it. the concrete-partitioned neighborhoods i see as a zionist tactic.
why don't the Iranians like Al Sadr?
i'm gonna take a stab at this,(lacking confidence). i would guess the iranian influence in iraq (hakim) consider him a political rival. they, and iran want a federalized southern region. but i wouldn't go so far as to say iranians don't 'like' sadr. if they really hated him they wouldn't need the americans to crush him. they liked him just fine when they needed him.
Posted by: annie | Apr 21 2008 7:52 utc | 14
If indeed Sadr was ejected from Iran (and has fallen from their graces), then he should immediately separate himself from and publicly denounce Iranian influence in Iraq, particularly Iran's influence upon the Maliki/Badr government suggesting a mutual collusion between the long term interests of both Iran and the United States - to partition the country and exploit its natural resources. Which is probably the truth anyway.
Posted by: anna missed | Apr 21 2008 9:00 utc | 15
@Dumassbros - 5 - I presume you meant "could" when you said "should."
I meant and wrote "should". Why do you presume I meant something else?
@10 - Lizard - Iran is playing the chessboard, which apparently entails keeping the entire region terrorized as a major part of the overall strategy, creating beneficial circumstances like displaced civilian populations and concrete-partitioned neighborhoods to provide that crucial layer of chaos and human misery to make the sleight-of-hand theft just a little more insanely audacious.
The last time I looked the U.S. was terrorizing the population in Iraq, pushing for sectarian war, displacing millions and building walls.
Where do you get your news? Pentagon-TV?
ah! that was 15, anna missed.
b, excellent post btw
badger
Moqtada al Sadr: Enough !
what is the sin of the followers of Al Sadr that they should emerge from the oppression of the destroyer [Saddam] to fall, thereafter, under the oppression of the occupation, and of the government and the nawasib, and the great and the pulpits and the rumors and the assassinations and the policies that have come to us from beyond the borders, and the silence of the religious powers, and of the political powers, domestic and foreign and international? The beloved Gaza was blockaded and everyone was silent, and [likewise] now the city [Sadr City] is blockaded and everyone is silent, and where now are human rights, and [the rule of] laws, which they wish to impose for the sake of their spurious "freedom and democracy"?
Posted by: annie | Apr 21 2008 9:39 utc | 18
It doesn't matter to Iran whether Sadr wins or Hakim wins. Their influence in Iraq was guaranteed when the US removed Saddam. When Bush 1 encouraged the Shia to rebel agianst Saddam, in post Desert Storm, they quickly retracted the support and in fact supported Saddam to put down the resistance by providing him a helicopter gunship exemption to the No Fly Zone and refusing the Shia request for the arms the retreating Iraqi army left behind in Kuwait. How ironic that this was done to prevent an Iranian friendly government in Iraq and today US troops are sacrifising their lives to install an Iranian friendly government in Iraq.
Even more ironic is, that if the US attacked Iran, the Hakim faction that owes much of its existance and power to Iran, would join the resistance. On top of that the Iranian government would surely flood the Iraqi resistance market with RPG-29s and SA-18s, dramatically changing the conditions on the battlefield.
Posted by: Sam | Apr 21 2008 12:07 utc | 19
On the subject of MANPADS,what do the Russians have to lose by supporting the Iraqi resistance,particularly considering the US bellicosity in eastern Europe? They seem to be well situated to give the middle finger to America's 'fuck you'.
Similarly,I've wondered why the Chinese haven't exploited the opportunity we've given them to form closer ties with Iran. It looks like a good time and place for them to underscore their emerging superpower status and possibly prevent a war. Unless, of course, they want the US to repeat it's mistake in Iraq.
Posted by: BobS. | Apr 21 2008 13:32 utc | 20
@BobS On the subject of MANPADS,what do the Russians have to lose by supporting the Iraqi resistance,particularly considering the US bellicosity in eastern Europe? They seem to be well situated to give the middle finger to America's 'fuck you'.
Well, what would they win? The US bogged down in Iraq only helps them so why fasten their retreat?
I've wondered why the Chinese haven't exploited the opportunity we've given them to form closer ties with Iran. It looks like a good time and place for them to underscore their emerging superpower status and possibly prevent a war. Unless, of course, they want the US to repeat it's mistake in Iraq.
They do - lots of deal with oil etc. - what the European's "sanction", China delivers.
As predicted:
MANAMA (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice received no firm commitments on debt relief for Iraq or greater Arab diplomatic representation in Baghdad after a meeting of Arab states on Monday.
...
With the United States consumed by Iraq, Arabs have been critical of what they see as U.S. lack of interest until recently in trying to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Arab nations non-committal on Iraq debt, embassies
Over 5 years and still no Arab cheering section in Baghdad.
Posted by: Sav | Apr 21 2008 15:13 utc | 22
Scarecrow at Firedoglake posted Did Rice Just Provoke a Little War for McCain?
There are indications that Iran has sold out the Mahdi Army. If the Bagdad Army has taken control of Basra this would indicate that it is true. Secretary Rice is cheerleading on the wiping out million more Iraqis. The Mahdi Army can't go to the ground since it is an Arab urban based insurgency. Sadr City will be bombed flat.
If Malaki takes control of Iraq by November 4th, John McCain is President. How does this serve Iran? No matter who is President, the USA cannot afford the costs in blood and treasure to continue to occupy Iraq. Iraqis will always resist the occupation till the foreign invaders leave. With the GOP in charge a Depression is assured. Once the USA leaves, Iranian puppets will be in charge of Central and Southern Iraq.
If two million Iraqis are killed and no one sees or cares, it does not matter to America. It is just an unreported statistic in a war that American cannot win.
Posted by: VietnamVet | Apr 21 2008 15:54 utc | 24
I would think that the Russians gain by denying the US unfettered access to Iraqi oil, either by a robust resistance or an American exit.
I know that China is doing energy deals with Iran. However, I haven't read or heard much about them providing assistance with military or nuclear technology. It would seem to me now would be the time, with both Iran and Venezuela.
Posted by: BobS. | Apr 21 2008 16:42 utc | 25
If Malaki takes control of Iraq by November 4th, John McCain is President.
VV, from your fdl link..
US forces are providing the critical military difference in a civil war to solidify the political and military power of the most pro-Iranian elements in Iraq
maliki has no power to 'control' iraq, the quote explains why. this is like saying 'iraq resistance is in its last throngs'. it isn't. not by a long shot.
The conflict in Basra was largely a political move, setting the stage for the October elections. Meanwhile, Iran is seeing the unraveling of the Shiite blocs in Iraq, and with no clear winner coming out of Basra, Tehran is backing every horse in the race. Despite a variety of political conflicts underneath the surface of the Basra conflict, it is the upcoming provincial elections that dominate the Shiite row.With Maliki limping back to Baghdad, his perception that he could emerge as an able leader dissolved. It appears he is at the mercy of Tehran and, closer to home, the SIIC and Hakim. Beyond that, both leaders must answer to Iran before they answer to the United States. The United States, meanwhile, depends on the cooperation of the SIIC and Maliki to get things done. If the Bush administration sought to contain Iran by moving into Tehran's back yard, it did so by stirring a hornet's nest.
i recommend Hubris & the Complexity of Pushing Around the "Weak" from Shadow Forest.
Hypothesis: In a complex situation, the more extreme the behavior, the more numerous the changes, the more rapid the adaptation of all actors in the system, and, thus, the more difficult it will be to predict the outcome.
This process of energizing, of making a society more complex (interconnected, coevolving, creative, self-started, uncontrolled) should be welcomed by those who were at the bottom of the power structure with no hope for the future. Now is their chance. It should be feared by those who want stability, control, security, reliable long-term investment opportunities, treaty rights, or democracy. So, ironically, the more a modern power projects its power to modify a traditional society without utterly destroying it, the more turbulent and unpredictable that traditional society is likely to become. The gentle, slow, cautious exercise of power may be not only nicer and cheaper but actually more effective.
Sadr City will be bombed flat.
i hope you are wrong.
With the GOP in charge a Depression is assured.
i think a depression is assured regardless of who is in power.
Posted by: annie | Apr 21 2008 17:01 utc | 26
from foreign policy in focus, b real's link @OT. The New Walls of Baghdad: How the U.S. is Reproducing Israel's Flawed Occupation Strategies in Iraq
The U.S. military's virtual reproduction of distinctively Israeli counterinsurgency tactics in Iraq reveals that claims about applying the "lessons of history" of counterinsurgent warfare to Iraq are largely beside the point. The actual application of counterinsurgency on the ground in Iraq has a distinctly Israeli DNA, born of very recent lessons from Israel's own urban warfare laboratory in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.This should not be surprising. The Israeli DNA in the new "surge" strategy is only the latest manifestation of a widely overlooked but unmistakable American predilection to increasingly draw from Israel's urban warfare laboratory and its flawed efforts to devise fresh tactics in the service of rebooting its own military occupation of Palestinian lands. What we are seeing in Iraq today has much less to do with the declared shift in U.S. military doctrine than with a deeper and more far-reaching "Israelization" of U.S. military strategy and tactics over the past two decades that was only heightened by America's misadventures in the Middle East after September 11, 2001. In the search for newmeans to confront urban insurgencies in predominately Arab and Muslim lands, there has been a complex institutional and cultural harmonization between these two militaries under the banner of fighting "the war on terror," though the traffic is mostly in one direction. In light of the real lessons of counterinsurgency history, however, mimicking Israel is a recipe for failure.
The "Israelization" of U.S. Military Doctrine and TacticsThis "Israelization" of U.S. military doctrine and tactics can be traced back to the early 1990's, especially the "Black-hawk down" debacle of 1993 in Somalia, which led U.S. military strategists to rethink their approach to fighting urban warfare in poor Third World "battle spaces." In the following years, according to urban theorist Mike Davis in his 2004 article "The Pentagon as Global Slum Lord," Israeli advisors were brought in to teach Marines, Rangers and Navy Seals the state of the art tactics against urban insurgencies that Israel was using to ruthlessly suppress Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.
Posted by: annie | Apr 21 2008 17:18 utc | 27
VietnamVet:
There are indications that Iran has sold out the Mahdi Army.
I never noticed that, do you have a link? Last I heard they negotiate between them and the government. In fact members of the government asked for Iran's help in those negotiations.
If the Bagdad Army has taken control of Basra this would indicate that it is true.
They took control of a section via a massive air and artillary attack by US and British forces. All this indicates is that they can't take anything without massive US and British support.
The Mahdi Army can't go to the ground since it is an Arab urban based insurgency.
The Mahdi Army are Arabs.
Sadr City will be bombed flat.
2 million people live there and that sure is a lot of dead babies.
If Malaki takes control of Iraq by November 4th, John McCain is President.
Maliki can't even take control of Baghdad and you suggest he might take control of all of Iraq by November? What you been smoking boy? The surge will be over by June. It's April already.
Posted by: Sam | Apr 21 2008 17:23 utc | 28
Annie and Sam,
Here are two reports that Bagdad is taking control of Basra: Iraq troops take control of Basra militia bastion and U.S. and Iran Find Common Ground in Iraq’s Shiite Conflict .
If Iran has isolated Moktada al-Sadr and the Mahdi Army; Bush, Rice and Petraeus will have no second thoughts in bombing flat any civilian pockets of resistance. The US Army has no choice but to try to stop the mortar attacks on the Green Zone. There will be at least 140,000 US troops and an equal number of Contractors in Iraq until January 20, 2009.
An urban based guerilla movement has one fatal flaw. If the city is destroyed, they are dead; i.e. Warsaw or Berlin. A city can be bulldozed flat. The countryside provides mountains, forests, deserts and jungles to hide in.
No doubt in the run up to the November election, the Pentagon and GOP Agitprop will announce that peace and prosperity has arrived in Iraq with the victory of the Bagdad central government. Reality will be something else completely. The number of dead Iraqis will not be tabulated.
If Iran is backing Maliki and Hakim to take control of Central and Southern Iraq, the whole dynamic has changed. Iran has bet that the USA cannot fight a 100 year war in the Middle East and they will end up in control through puppets of most of Iraq.
Posted by: VietnamVet | Apr 21 2008 17:52 utc | 29
Hey VietnamVet posting NYT's wet dreams don't change anything. Your first link just confirms that the operation in Basra was a massive US and British attack. Same old same old. Iran is not just friends with Maliki and Hakim they are also friends with Sadr and all the Shia of Iraq.
As for US force they already flattened Fallujah and they are still no closer to the prize. What you don't seem to understand is Sadr has the support of the people. You can't win counterinsurgency without winning the support of the people. They have been trying for decades in Gaza.
The most popular man in the Arab World is Nazrallah. Handing that mantle over to Sadr isn't going to help the US position in Iraq.
Posted by: Sam | Apr 21 2008 18:28 utc | 30
VV If Iran is backing Maliki and Hakim to take control of Central and Southern Iraq,
NONE of thearab press is saying this, but all the talking heads in the pentagon are. your analysis depends on propaganda assertions. however your links are bs, "Iraq troops take control of Basra militia bastion". this is an illusion. as you know in gorrilla war combatants merge in and out of the population. don't confuse 'quite' w/the idea the 'iraqi gov' is in control.
That left Kevin Drum of WashingtonMonthly without any correct-line source to link to, so he naturally resorted to quoting the New York Times, to the effect it was possible Iran had abandoned Sadr. Finally, at the very bottom of the food-chain, Matt Yglesias, linking to Kevin, opined: "Meanwhile, it seems that the Iranians have decided to cut Muqtada loose and fully line up behind the ISCI government. That counts as good news, I'd say..." confusing at least one of his readers, who noted that a couple of short weeks ago, Matt was in Moqtada-good/Maliki-bad mode. Suddenly, it was: "Moqtada the Iranian puppet whom Iran has abandoned." Elaborating, really, on the theme: "Nothing to see here".
when the ptb all start singing the same tune, it doesn't make it true. is the arab press saying this? you need to use some radar.
Posted by: annie | Apr 21 2008 18:41 utc | 31
i meant don't confuse 'quiet', or quieter . not quite.
Posted by: annie | Apr 21 2008 18:44 utc | 32
VV makes a good point in that an urban guerrilla movement is forced to defend territory, and in this case against (massively) superior firepower. And since this war has always been analyzed and defined by the false metrics of propaganda - tipping points, turning points, and defining moments - there is a solid possibility that the stage is being set for another such temporary plateau having been achieved, in order to prolong or permanize the occupation. This is after all, what David Petraeus is famous for; creating unsustainable scenario's that look like progress in the short run, but set the conditions for greater havoc down the road when they unravel, as they always do. The great mystery in all this is of course, the role of Iran, if they really have cut Muqtada loose. Which if true, signals a deal being made between the U.S. and Iran that would allow Iraq to be partitioned and the oil legislation to be passed into law. The U.S. may be thinking this will work and stabilize the country sufficiently for long term exploitation. Iran may be thinking just the opposite, and see the advantages of allowing the U.S. to dig itself deeper in the hole, for what looks like a short term victory. And just finally gives up when the blowback eventually returns, demanding ever more commitment and cold hard cash. With Muqtada's militia diminished and in disarray, the U.S. will have once again eliminated another foe in Iraq to the benefit of Iran.
Posted by: anna missed | Apr 21 2008 18:50 utc | 33
Well - I am with VietnamVet on this. For now Iran seems to have pushed away Sadr and favor Maliki. A big southern Iraq shia provinvce would be a welcome addition to Persia.
That may all well change again later.
But there are several signs for this now and for good reason.
- Above I linked to to an Arab media report that Iran essentially kicked Sadr out of Qom.
- The Iranian ambassador in Baghdad supported Maliki's stand on Basra but urged caution on Sadr city.
- Sadr, in his last letter, protests against the quietness of Qom/Iran on the issue.
My take is that Sadr, for now, is alone on this.
If he is smart, and I think he is smarter than he is portrait, he will resort to the same tactics the Sunni resistance did.
Deny legitimacy to the "government" by disrupting its services, electrictiy etc. Deny it revenue by disrupting the flow of the spice. Hinder the occupier whereever you can - see above.
anna missed, iran could be vying for Iraq to be partitioned and the oil legislation to be passed into law without cutting 'abandoning' sadr. while i don't see how it serves iran for shia factions to make war, in reality, isn't it the US who is battling him? perhaps having one faction sitting in the government, and one faction fighting the enemy (US), it weakens the occupier on both fronts.
additionally, why would iran cut themselves off from the masses that eventually, if iran and the US can into direct conflict, could be used to irans advantage?
this claim by the msm/ptb is used as a feather in their cap. everything is portrayed as a feather in their cap. what is the basis for the claim? what source that we trust has claimed iran has cut off sadr? did sadr say it? our military uses our troops as fodder. does this mean we have cut them off?
Posted by: annie | Apr 21 2008 19:13 utc | 35
anna missed:
With Muqtada's militia diminished and in disarray, the U.S. will have once again eliminated another foe in Iraq to the benefit of Iran.
Sadr and Iran are best of buddies. That's why Sadr visits Iran whenever he wants. He probably raises a lot of funds there to support his social programs. Even the NYT's story quoting the Iraqi Ambassador backing the Iraqi government over Basra also slammed the assault on Sadr City. This indicates they are friends to both sides not taking sides. As for any rosy relations between Iran and the US:
Rice has ruled out a direct meeting with Iran's foreign minister at a second Iraq-themed gathering later Monday and Tuesday in Kuwait. Iran and Syria are members of the so-called Iraq neighbors conference, and the forum is one of the rare occasions when U.S. and Iranian representatives interact.The group's first meeting last year was overshadowed by the question of whether U.S. and Iranian diplomats would hold their highest-level public meeting in nearly three decades, a possibility the Bush administration said was unlikely but not out of the question. In the end, Iranian Foreign Minister Manoucher Mottaki abruptly walked out of a small dinner where the Iraqis hoped to draw the two diplomats together. Rice did hold a brief meeting with her Syrian counterpart, the first such contact in years.
Posted by: Sam | Apr 21 2008 19:21 utc | 37
b:
My take is that Sadr, for now, is alone on this.
My take on this is that they are trying to de-escalate the violence until the surge ends.
Posted by: Sam | Apr 21 2008 19:29 utc | 38
Sadr and Iran are best of buddies.
well, i don't think they are best buddies as hakim/iran. i think their is a difference between actively supporting them and having them as enemies, or 'cutting them off'. which either way i think is temorary which i explain at the end.
b, note this detail of your asharq alawsat link
Unidentified gunmen assassinated Riyad al-Nuri, the director of Al-Sadr's office and his brother-in-law, near his house in Al-Najaf, only two days after Al-Sadr's arrival in the city after having left the Iranian city of Qom "secretly" on the orders of the Iranian authorities, according to statements made by authoritative Iraqi sources in Qom and Al-Najaf to Asharq Al-Awsat. These sources said Al-Nuri led exactly five years ago an armed attack on the moderate Shiite cleric Abdul-Majid al-Khoei, the secretary general of the Imam al-Khoei Foundation, inside Al-Haydariyah shrine. al-Khoei and Haydar al-Rufayi, the official in charge of the administration of the Imam Ali shrine, were killed in the attack which took place only one day after the collapse of former regime.
wiping the dirt off the case of Muqtada's First Blood: Sayyid Abdul-Majid al-Khoei.
Two days ago, I watched an al-Khoei family member on al-Arabiya, he said that Muwaffaq al-Rubiaye came to talk to him about reopening the case, he seemed a little irritated at all involved, first he said that al-Khoei's case was never closed in the first place so that is shall be reopened, which directly contradicts what Rasim al-Marwani, a Sadrist cultural advisor, who repeatedly said that al-Khoei family themselves had "dropped the case which was setted in good will." and second he said that too many people have used al-Khoei's murder as political leverage, which is of course a direct jab at Ibrahim al-Jaffari's stint as PM in 2005 during which he ignored the murder due to the backing of the Sadrists which directly gave him the PM position, but he could have also been referring to this recent request by al-Rubaiye, especially as he didn't really seem to be supportive of it and seemed rather annoyed at all of them.
then today onRTI we read
Jaafari - al-sadr alliance
According to Yaqen, former PM Jaafari is in Qum - Iran ten days ago negotiating an alliance with Muqatada al-Sadr to form a new “front” [party] called ‘The National Reform Movement” after his negotiations with his former party [al-Dawa] reached a dead end [in this interview about two months ago he said that he is very close to al-Sadr].The source added that “Dawa” party is pushing to remove [fire] al-jaafari from the party, many Sadrists joined al-Jaafari at the last two months, the only obstacle stands against this alliance is that the Sadrists consider al-Jaffari a person who in the service of the occupation contrary to the Sadrists ideology of resistance.
My take
Among the “Dawa” followers, Jaafari is more respected than Maliki, but the problem is that Jaafari is alone, his alliance with al-Sadr provides him the followers [militia he needs], al-Sadr can benefit from pulling a considerable nummber of “Dawa” supporters to his side.
Interesting to watch how Maliki, al-Hakim and the Americans will work against this alliance, probably a road-side-bomb implemented by “al-Qaeda” to kill Jaafari.
sooo, it appears perhaps the inner struggles of dominating the puppet gov have inspired the reopening of the murder investigation and nurturing the fitna by inspiring these groups to battle eachother. i certainly can see the 'framing' of jockeying for position wrt whether sadr was or was not 'kicked out' of iran. and considering the source of your link..
wiki..
On Sunday May 6, 2007 the Asharq Al-Awsat demanded an inquiry to the Hezbollah’s launching of the Second Lebanon War claiming they endangered the country by underestimating Israel’s retaliation. Columnist Elias Atallah insisted Lebanon launch their own "Winograd Commission" and even praised Israel's political resilience, "I envied the enemy for their ability to confront their leaders with their errors. They change governments as if they were changing hairstyles, without inflicting damage to their public. Our rulers, by contrast, are not answerable." [3]...
edited by the Saudi Research and Marketing Ltd. and directed by Saudi prince Salman bin Abdul Aziz, half-brother of the king.[1]
not so sure about the neutrality factor.
My take on this is that they are trying to de-escalate the violence until the surge ends.
if they were trying to de-escalate the violence they would be doing nightly raids on sadr city which goes a long way towards calling attention OFF the internal political struggles least of all what is happening in najaf and jocking in position of sistani's heir apparent which will go a long way towards determining who becomes the supreme influence in iraq. that is something i seriously doubt neither the US nor iran could afford caring little about.
Posted by: annie | Apr 21 2008 20:36 utc | 39
sorry, should read if they were trying to de-escalate the violence they wouldn't be doing nightly raids on sadr city
Posted by: annie | Apr 21 2008 20:39 utc | 40
annie and b: realizing my comment at 10 is misleading, i will attempt to clarify. In using the chessboard metaphor i was trying to convey my belief that Iran, as well as the US, are both strategically using the chaos to further their national interests. i know i am not nearly as well informed as most here, which is why, as i've said before, i so appreciate this site.
and to answer your (rhetorical) question b, though i don't knowingly seek out news from Pentagon-TV, I'm sure it's the source of some of the news i come across on a daily basis.
Posted by: Lizard | Apr 21 2008 20:43 utc | 41
lizard, i have been very impressed by some of your (other) postings so don't get discouraged. we need young blood around here. often times i am simply flailing wrt interpreting the info i read. one of my golden rules tho, whatever my enemies keep saying over and over, is probably a lie.
Posted by: annie | Apr 21 2008 20:58 utc | 42
thanks annie. it is easy to get discouraged when trying to make sense of what is going on, and why.
Posted by: Lizard | Apr 21 2008 21:15 utc | 43
here is a possible intriguing development. from zeyad @healing iraq.
I have no way of verifying this story (Arabic link) but the al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper reported that twelve members of the official Iraqi delegation accompanying PM Maliki to Belgium have refused to return to Iraq with the delegation. The missing officials included a close advisor to Maliki, officials from the ministries of oil, finance and trade, and journalists. The Schengen visa allows its carrier full freedom of movement between EU countries, and many Iraqi refugees have paid hefty sums in order to get one and then make their way to Sweden where they apply for asylum.
lizard...it is easy to get discouraged
i know, i have my days for sure. stick around long enough you are bound to witness one.
you gotta keep on keepin on.
Posted by: annie | Apr 21 2008 21:43 utc | 44
A couple of points:
"Iran" is not a single entity. The Iranian government is divided into factions, and there are various Shia religious factions. The Supreme Leader is supposedly the "top dog" in all this (not the President, who is little more than the mayor of Tehran), but he directly controls only the armed forces. It appears that the Supreme Leader and several of the religious centers have tossed Sadr over the side of the boat, but Sadr still has plenty of support from other factions within Iran, albeit mostly financial support at this point (the Sadrists have charity offices in most of Iran's cities soliciting money for Iraqi relief, and the Sadr faction is the largest charitable organization in Iraq right now, providing more aid than the Red Crescent + United Nations combined).
Secondly, Sadr is not particularly interested in fighting battles right now, he is conducting a hearts-and-minds operation using his charitable organizations. The correct thing for him to do, under standard revolutionary doctrine, is to hide his weapons out of reach of the military forces gathered against him and have his fighters disappear back into the populace. Insurgencies should never fight pitched battles against a professional military with air support, that's not how insurgencies at this stage win, they win by building increased popular support in order to slowly grow their pool of fighters and their pool of weapons. Insurgencies progress in stages, and Sadr's insurgency is not at the point where conducting pitched warfare is the correct thing to do. BTW, the next stage is terrorism against government infrastructure in order to eliminate the government's ability to govern, and insurgencies can flip between stages with ease if it turns out that they do not yet have the infrastructure and popular support to move to the next stage. It's unclear what kind of scholarship Sadr has done in this area (insurgencies), but he appears to be learning "on the job" reasonably well -- we're doing a great job of training him.
In any event, the fact that the Iranian-supported Badr Brigade ("Iraqi Army") now claims to own Basra means little. The real owner of Basra is whoever has the hearts and minds of its people, because unless you have enough soldiers to put a squad every couple of blocks (and the Badr Brigade does *not* have enough soldiers to do that), all you're doing is parting the sea -- it opens up in front of any patrol to let the patrol by, then closes back up behind the patrol, and any patrol controls only whatever area it can see at a given time. This is the same problem that has faced the U.S. during its entire occupation of Iraq, and it doesn't change just because the Badr Brigade is the one patrolling now.
Vietnam Viet has a point, but the problem is that burning Sadr City to the ground is quite big, will involve mass casualties including US troopers - because Sadrists will fight not only in Sadr City but in other cities as well, doing massive damages. And of course, if Americans won't bother, there are other people who will be massively outraged if a third of Baghdad is turned into dust, inhabitants included - and not only in the Arab and Muslim worlds.
Concerning Iran's position, I think Badtux is quite right.
I don't think Iran is seeking to destroy Sadr. They may want to make him more obedient, to weaken him, but total anniliation is, in my opinion, out of question. Iran can hope to avoid any US attack, but can't rule it out entirely. If this occurs, they'll need all the Shia fighters they can get in Iraq attacking the US positions, troops and supply lines there. Destroying half the Shia militias, and the better so far (not that they're that great probably, but the others are more of a joke) wouldn't be helpful.
Posted by: CluelessJoe | Apr 21 2008 23:43 utc | 46
there is'nt going to be a hot summer in Iraq. No hotter than in the past few years. Because everyone, the Persians, the Sadr group, and everyone else and their grandma has known for a few years there will be no retreat on GWB's watch. Specially not in these waning moments.
and if the Iranians are pushing the appearance that they have thrown Sadr under the bus, its only to posture for the post-Bush era. It is so elementary from the Iranian POV. And the last thing that they, the Iranians want, is to give pre-mature traction to the suggestion of a future Mahdi dominance in Iraq ala Hezbollah's ascension over Amal.
meanwhile all GWB has is the short game. But the Persian is a patient cat.
Posted by: jony_b_cool | Apr 22 2008 0:54 utc | 47
"With Muqtada's militia diminished and in disarray, the U.S. will have once again eliminated another foe in Iraq to the benefit of Iran."
What I mean here is in so much as Sadr has been problematic for the Maliki regime, on a whole host of fronts including armed resistance - he represents to a significant degree, a foe, to the plans of the Iranian/Maliki/Badr conjoined interests. If Sadr ever (maybe he has) became a force capable of politically/militarily defeating those conjoined interests in favor of a more nationalists path, it would represent a major loss of influence for Iran. I always figured the Iranians, while aware of this potential, continued to support Sadr because he kept the occupation on an uneven footing. And for some reason, that seems to have changed.
Posted by: anna missed | Apr 22 2008 2:07 utc | 48
annie @ #39 in response to my post - My take on this is that they are trying to de-escalate the violence until the surge ends:
if they were trying to de-escalate the violence they would be doing nightly raids on sadr city which goes a long way towards calling attention OFF the internal political struggles least of all what is happening in najaf and jocking in position of sistani's heir apparent which will go a long way towards determining who becomes the supreme influence in iraq. that is something i seriously doubt neither the US nor iran could afford caring little about.
I was referring to Iran, not the Shia vying for power in Iraq, as I thought that's what b was referring to i.e. Sadr is alone meaning no Iranian support. As Badtux so elequantly laid out in #45 Sadr has plenty of Iranian support. As CluelessJoe points out in #46 Iran has strategic reasons for backing Sadr. As Badger and Angry Arab has pointed out Sadr has been groomed recently in Iran i.e. lost wieght, speaks better, professional air. The internal struggles for power in Shia Iraq have been going on from day one and throughout it Sadr has enjoyed Iranian support. The fact that his opponents have Iranian support doesn't change that. Here is a portion of your quoted article:
Interesting to watch how Maliki, al-Hakim and the Americans will work against this alliance
No mention of Iran as part of that alliance. Even the NYT article linked above mentions Iran is opposed to Hakim and Maliki attacking Sadr City. By the way I agree with your take @ #35. I especially like this quote:
additionally, why would iran cut themselves off from the masses
It binds well with the Leila Fadel interview that b provided @ #4 on the last Iraq thread (Rice appeals for Arab Nationalism) on Iranian influence in Iraq.
Posted by: Sam | Apr 22 2008 5:09 utc | 49
Question:
If the Iraqi's had to have their wings cut after the first Gulf War because they were blistering the Shia in the South (and the Kurds in the North) then why do we believe that the Shia can now withstand the U.S. military trying to defend their supply lines?
Saddam was waxing the Shia then. Shia genocide. How come they now have the ability to sever the U.S. supply lines?
Posted by: Jake | Apr 22 2008 5:14 utc | 50
Quote from #49:
Interesting to watch how Maliki, al-Hakim and the Americans will work against this alliance
Should have read no mention of Iran as part of the group that will work against this alliance. I really am a terrible writer.
Posted by: Sam | Apr 22 2008 5:33 utc | 51
@Jake - Saddam was waxing the Shia then. Shia genocide. How come they now have the ability to sever the U.S. supply lines?
Saddam didn't need these supply lines.
He had the Revolutionary Guard, domestic, well trained, well eqiped elite troops intact that put the revolt down.
sam, I was referring to Iran, not the Shia vying for power in Iraq,
lol, my 'they' was the occupation. note # 40. also, b's comment
Deny legitimacy to the "government" by disrupting its services, electrictiy etc. Deny it revenue by disrupting the flow of the spice. Hinder the occupier whereever you can - see above.
i agree i think iran is in favor of de escalation at this time. just me not following the thread closely enough. thnx
btw, fyi, my thoughts re US escalation run contrary to Dr.I.Al-Shammari,(head of the Islamic Army of Iraq/IAI.
The Americans are desperate for some calm before the November elections, but the Resistance will decide when to implement an upsurge in its attacks against the occupier, maybe during certain “crucial moments” but this is up to the Resistance to decide when and how. As I said, there is a change of tactics but not of strategy.
Posted by: annie | Apr 22 2008 8:43 utc | 53
Whining in Kuwait:
KUWAIT (Reuters) - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki rebuked neighboring states on Tuesday for not doing enough to strengthen ties with Baghdad, write off Iraq's debts or stop militants entering the war-torn country.In a hard-hitting speech at a meeting in Kuwait of foreign ministers from Iraq's neighbors and Western powers, Maliki rattled off a list of grievances his government had.
Iraq PM criticizes neighbors for lack of support
It should be exceedingly obvious by now, that after 5 years of killing, maiming, displacing, torturing, walling off, bombing and executing Arabs, that this is not popular amongst other Arabs. You have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to see this.
Posted by: Sam | Apr 22 2008 9:34 utc | 54
News from pacified Basra:
"An IED went off on Monday near a British patrol over the al-Kaziza bridge, damaging one of the patrol vehicles," a local resident from Kaziza, 10 km northern Basra, told Aswat al-Iraq – Voices of Iraq – (VOI).
Another local resident said he saw fire consuming one of the patrol vehicles, adding the British forces "imposed a security cordon around the blazing vehicle and banned traffic on the bridge."
IED targets British patrol in Basra
In Basra, a roadside bomb exploded near a U.S. convoy in the central part of the city, setting a Humvee ablaze and causing casualties, the U.S. military said. No further details were released.
al-Sadr followers brace for more clashes
Posted by: Sam | Apr 22 2008 12:07 utc | 55
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/21/mideast/shiite.php?page=1>U.S. and Iran Share Common Goals in Iraq
Posted by: anna missed | Apr 22 2008 18:06 utc | 56
This is a first in">http://www.international.na">in the Iraq war on Terror, a US marine killed by a roadside bomb in Basra, Gordon Brown is fucked.
Posted by: Cloned Poster | Apr 22 2008 21:16 utc | 57
Story about a "peace process"! Ah, but which one? The one in Israel and Palestine? The one in Iraq? Both? Neither?
It's an incompetent story about incompetence, and the efforts of a competent someone to inject a touch of competence in an area where none has been available for the past three and a half years (or is it eight years?). The story comes with an illustration--the competent photo of an angry, incompetent woman.
When she was Provost at Stanford, Ms. Rice tried to fire an acquaintance of mine, which in fact she had every right to do. But she nonetheless failed to do so. And why? Because she tried to fire that person as a faculty member, not knowing that the person was in fact a staff member.
Hardcore incompetence is what we're dealing with here--the real thing. This woman deserves no mercy at all from anyone.
Posted by: alabama | Apr 23 2008 1:53 utc | 58
the tide of murder that u s forces have been carrying out in these last months - broadly & insistently is indeed matched by the complete & utter incompetence of its superstructure - in every possible way
what it excels in is the murder of iraq & the covering up of that fact. what is happening in cities towns & villages in quartiers like sadr city are obvious to us - no matter that their media cowers behind its own complicity & corruption - we know because we have seen this movie before - the more the nazis were defeated after stalingrad & kursk the more they descended into pure butchery without any attempt to give it an appearance of a war of arms - so too the americans in vietnam -slid from their failure into carrying out slaughter as a strategy
that is what is happening today
the managers of this disaster, this catastrophe have not even history to hide what ought to be their shame, & the shame of notions that led them there
it has been clear that since fallujah - theus empire lost -& they keep on losing. & it is the scale of this loss which guides the deluded grandeur of their slaughter
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 23 2008 2:40 utc | 59
A different story from the one posted @58? A different photograph? A different by-line? None of the above? I'm not entirely sure, and I certainly wouldn't want to repeat myself....
But the moral remains the same: you cannot do business with this woman because she cannot do business with anyone--ever. Not with her allies, her opponents, or the press. Because she doesn't know how. She never did.
The best you can do--and Jimmy Carter does it as well as anyone--is to do business with her nameless and unknown successor, the one who who will assume the role on 20 Jan. 2009....
A little odd, all this--where actually working with someone, effectively, who doesn't yet exist is more possible than working with someone who does....but only a little odd (because it's been our reality since 20 Jan. 2001).
Posted by: alabama | Apr 23 2008 16:50 utc | 60
Okay, here's a story that makes sense, by-lined by Reuters, and published, not by the NYTimes, but by its subsidiary in Europe.
Giving rise to the unavoidable (if rather lame) notion that all stories about Israel in the NYTimes are vetted by Thomas Friedman.
Posted by: alabama | Apr 23 2008 17:23 utc | 61
The comments to this entry are closed.
Great post b. I still, for the life of me, fail to understand why Pat Lang considers "oil" almost a conspiracy theory.
Posted by: Cloned Poster | Apr 20 2008 20:13 utc | 1