Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
Back to Main

May 12, 2011
Fiddling With Sadr

The U.S. military hopes that it can stay in Iraq. It knows of course that with the Sadr movement being totally against this and prime minister al-Maliki's coalition depending on al-Sadr, the chance to reach a new stationing agreement are small and would require some serious diplomacy. But as the military's only tool is force, it is applying just that tool:

DIALA / Aswat al-Iraq: The U.S. Forces have attacked the Headquarters of the Shiite Sadrist Trend, north of Diala Province on Wednesday, the Legislature of Diala Province, Hussein Hamham said.

“The American Forces have attacked a headquarter of “Martyr Sadr” in Judeidat-al-Shatt town in Khalis township, 15 km to the north of Baaquba, harshly fiddling with its contents,” Hamham told Aswat al-Iraq news agency.

This will not help. One cannot convince Sadr by force.

Prime minister al-Maliki knows that he depends on Sadr's votes to stay in office. But he also knows that the U.S. supported his biggest competitor Allawi and wanted him out. His political maneuvering here is just for show and to keep the nagging U.S. folks off his back:

Iraq’s prime minister indicated Wednesday that he might ask some U.S. troops to stay in the country beyond a year-end deadline if most of Iraq’s main political blocs support such a decision.

Nouri al-Maliki, who has been under pressure from the United States to decide within weeks on a lasting U.S. military presence, said he would call together leaders from the main blocs by the end of this month to begin hashing out a response.

Maliki's talk was so non-committing that I doubt it is as serious as the lede to that WaPo piece suggests. Indeed:

Maliki was particularly vague Wednesday about what he would consider “majority” support for keeping a U.S. troop presence, saying at one point, “When the consensus reaches 70, 80 or 90 percent, then I call this consensus.”

There will be no 90, 80 or even 70% consensus in Iraq to keep the U.S. troops in the country. To reach even a 50% majority on that would be political magic. The U.S. stop its stupid harassing or fiddling of Sadr's movement, pack up and just leave.

Posted by b on May 12, 2011 at 16:33 UTC | Permalink
Comments

The US has no intention of leaving Iraq. But it is right to see that the Sadr movement is the biggest threat-as the potential core of a much wider opposition movement- to its continued occupation.
The point is that Maliki’s government is a sham. It might develop into a brutal dictatorial kleptocracy but right now it is just a curtain behind which the imperialists beaver away, dictating and plundering. The “Iraqi army” is entirely at the disposal of the US military: it would evict Maliki at the drop of a hat.
Kicking the US out of the Middle East is a very big job. The only force capable of managing what, in effect, would be a revolution is the people itself

Posted by: bevin | May 12 2011 17:17 utc | 1

My sense is, seeing that the OBL hit went so well they’re now seriously fantasizing the insane prospects of, whacking Mookie. There’s no doubt that he’s been the single most significant pain in the ass >spoiler< throughout the entire occupation, and the pentagon pinheads would like nothing so much as to push the button on Sadr as a way to put themselves back in the drivers seat. To their way of thinking(sic) offing Mookie would send the JAM into leaderless chaos and destroy the Maliki/Sadr alliance, both forcing Maliki to run into Allawi's arms(and permanent occupation) if he wants to remain in power, or face the same fate as Sadr should he not. This would also manifest the self fulfilling prophesy that Iraq is not "ready" to self govern, by unleashing a whirlwind of anti-US chaos by the Sadrists, that would be branded as a re-eruption of the civil war, and evidence that the US must, oh so reluctantly, stay in Iraq to keep the peace. The big problem with this scenario is that trying to push the political balance in Iraq an inch (a single assassination) they might instead wind up with 40 miles of really really bad road. Obama can hardly face up to a full scale collapse of Iraq at this point, that would unleash its own wingnut whirlwind on the domestic front, for allowing Iraq to crash on his watch. Of course, the reverse is also true, in that allowing Iraq to quietly slip away has its own downside. But that downside can always be blamed on Bush and his proclamations that "when the Iraqi government asks us to leave, we will" and then signing his name to the binding SOFA agreement. The other and more insidious problem is that he pentagon may do it anyway. And that would keep the money flowing, and punish it's enemies both in Iraq and at home. It would also show everybody who the real boss Don really is.

Posted by: anna missed | May 12 2011 18:52 utc | 2

@am – I agree; I don’t think the Us are simply “fiddling” with Sadr, they must have something up their sleeve, trying to provoke a reaction (or simulating themselves such reaction if necessary); and also that the Pentagon might be acting on its own; but the other hypothesis you advance might be true: that the successful OBL hit has again placed the Us in overdrive mode (like the easy success in Afghanistan in 2001 did to the neocons)
in general, in deciphering current events in Iraq I think we must take into account three facts:
1) Obama (i.e, that faction of the military-security establishment he represents) wants to reduce ground troops in the ME, and have a Us occupation with a smaller footprint
2) nevertheless, there’s no question that the occupation (beginning with permanent military bases) must persist
3) the “Iran threat” is what keeps together the Gulf states under the Saudi dominance and the Us umbrella, and must be played up by the Us

Posted by: claudio | May 12 2011 19:44 utc | 3

b, you should have stated the basic situation of the agreement. That is, that Iraq has to ask the US to stay beyond the limit of December 2011. If such a request is not made, then the US has to leave.
To recall the history, Bush signed the agreement, and Obama confirmed it. There have been endless revolts by the US military. But the politicals have stuck with it.
Maliki has given way to American pressure in the past.
Today, I don’t see what the interest is in Iraq is to retain US troops. In a report I saw, I think in the Washington Post (therefore with an American interest), some Iraqis wanted the US to stay, to keep the peace, and some wanted to the US to leave. That’s the American version.
If the change to the agreement has to pass the Iraqi parliament, I would say, no chance.
It is still possible to convince Maliki to allow the US to stay, but I don’t see the argument, other than as peace-keepers on the Kurdish frontier.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Maliki agreed to a compromise. But limited. The US is not able to help them for the future.

Posted by: alexno | May 12 2011 20:20 utc | 4

I would suggest that a devaluation of the Dollar has its limits at the point where the rest of the world is forced to switch to other currencies. When they all do it US pressure is useless. And they will do it not for political but economic reasons.
In the meantime I continue to be fascinated by the power of 6 million Libyans.
It seems they did not only succeed in breaking up NATO, the Schengen agreement and fortress Europe, but will prevent Obamas reelection also.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/160911-kerry-libya-mission-a-stalemate
I recommend the comments section

Posted by: somebody | May 12 2011 20:42 utc | 5

Totally agree with the last line of b’s initial posting…
“There will be no 90, 80 or even 70% consensus in Iraq to keep the U.S. troops in the country. To reach even a 50% majority on that would be political magic. The U.S. stop its stupid harassing or fiddling of Sadr’s movement, pack up and just leave.”…
I think th hole empire digs just gets deeper the shit must be up around their nostrils by now..this from Pepe Escobar clearly shows what is to come in future though along with ever increasing drone killing of unreliably indentified/unidentified victims…
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ME12Ak01.html
‘Abandon all hope ye who enter here’ the quote from Dante will I’m sure become increasingly relevant as the darkness envelopes the air we all breathe..to me the overriding sense is that empire seeks to expand..colonise destroy & infect anything it percieves as threat…and in doing so forget its own responsibilities to its own people…and the world at large.
…”each generation must discover its mission, fulfill it or betray it, in relative opacity.” frantz fanon – wretched of the earth
Empire would rather forget,cloud the mirror, lie, simply keep its hands soaked in blood and the profits’ that brings…fuck empire

Posted by: noiseannoys | May 13 2011 10:57 utc | 6

It matters not what the consensus in Iraq is regarding a U.S. military presence. It never did, and it never will. To insist it does, you buy into the ruse that the whole campaign was initiated and implemented under the auspices of bringing Democracy to the people of Iraq by freeing them from the clutches of their brutally tyrannical dictator. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | May 13 2011 11:03 utc | 7

MB @ 7: “It matters not what the consensus in Iraq is regarding a U.S. military presence.”
Oh so true, but consensus backed by a full scale revolt MIGHT change the outcome. Without that taking place, the US will stay, until the empire crumbles.

Posted by: ben | May 13 2011 14:22 utc | 8

Back to Main