The Surge is Working!!!
and it's just awesome!!!
In case you hadn't noticed, there seen to be a few glitches on the road to a free and democratic Iraq. Specifically, political progress is now being made at the point of a gun. This time, the boogieman is not Al Queda, or the restive Sunni tribes, but Shiite groups that have the unfortunate characteristic of being quite popular in Iraq and likely to gain substantial support in the elections scheduled for later this year - specifically Moqtada al-Sadr and his followers. There are reports of extensive fighting in Basra and Baghdad, as well as in other locations throughout Iraq. There are also reports of Iraqi Army and police defecting to Sadr's militias, but to be fair it's difficult to tell news from rumors at this point.
The questions I have are why is this happening now, was this offensive designed by the US or the Iraqis, and is this going to help or hurt reconciliation and political progress?
Why is this happening now? It's interesting that Cheney visited Baghdad a few days before the offensive started. I'm sure planning for this began a while ago, but I wouldn't be surprised if Cheney gave the go-ahead. The fact that elections are scheduled for later this year also points to a political rather than security rationale for these actions. It also points to desperation; it's far easier to bribe people in Iraq to get the result you want (we've been doing it for several years). It also doesn't fit any COIN doctrine I've ever heard of. It leads me to believe that there will be no rollback of the surge, we will remain at current force levels until 2009 at least. If I was really paranoid I'd think that the administration is actually trying to make things worse on purpose to make it even more difficult to withdraw for the next President. In any case, I don't see how attacking and splitting the Shia population is anything other than a divide and conquer strategy, the problem is that we appear to be dividing off the group that would actually give the most legitimacy to the government.
It is interesting that these attacks are being made on arguably one of the strongest Iragi nationalists in the country. This is more evidence that we don't really want a functioning Iraq, we want a client state, all rhetoric to the contrary. I can't see how this will aid reconciliation, as it actually inflames tensions within the Shiite community. I did notice as Col. Pat Lang has pointed out that there are no Kurds or Sunnis involved in this little power play. What this tells me is that Maliki is attacking from weakness, his only trump card is American military support which seems to be increasing by the day.
The only comfort I take in this is pointing out that Democrats who are complaining about party infighting have an example to show that it could be worse.
--
Forget the myths the media's created about the White House. The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand. - Deep Throat
--
I blame it all on the Internet
- HankP's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Conservative
Liberal
Moderate/Mixed/Non-Partisan
Non-Political/Reference
Related Sites -
Polisci Applied (Aaron)
Intrepid Liberal Journal (Intrepid Liberal)
Obsidian Wings (Bird Dog)
Open Hand/Open Eye (locutas)
Red State (Bird Dog)
Swords Crossed (brendanm98)
Wagster Speaks (Wagster)
WatchingAmerica (BlaiseP)
The Social Pathologist (TSP)
Foreign Affairs -
Abu Aardvark
'Aqoul
American Footprints
Council on Foreign Relations
CSIS
Democracy Arsenal
Intel Dump
The Fourth Rail
The Head Heeb
War and Piece
Politics -
Ace of Spades HQ
Andrew Sullivan
Balloon Juice
Belgravia Dispatch
Captain's Quarters
Crooked Timber
Curmudgeonly & Skeptical
Daily Kos
Democracy Arsenal
Eschaton
Firedoglake
Glenn Greenwald
Global Guerrillas
Hugh Hewitt
Instapundit
Jawa Report
Lawyers, Guns and Money
Liberals Against Terror
Matt Yglesias
Michael J. Totten
Michelle Malkin
Moon of Alabama
New America
OxBlog
Patterico
Political Animal
Political Wire
Publius Pundit
QandO
Reality Based Community
Talking Points Memo
The Agitator
The Belmont Club
The Corner
Truman Project
Winds of Change.net
War -
Counterterrorism Blog
Iraq the Model
Jihad Watch
Small Wars Journal Blog
Economics and Business -
Angry Bear
Brad DeLong
Daniel Drezner
Mahalanobis
Marginal Revolution
Roubini Global Economics
The Big Picture
Science and Tech -
Bad Astronomy
New Scientist
Real Climate
Science Blogs
Scientific American
The Panda's Thumb
Legal -
Balkinization
Conglomerate
Ideoblog
Jurisdynamics
Law and Letters
Overlawyered
ProfessorBainbridge
ScotusBlog
Talk Left
The Becker-Posner Blog
Volokh Conspiracy
Sports -
Baseball Crank
Baseball Musings
Baseball Reference.com
ESPN.com
NFL.com
Only Baseball Matters
The Sports Economist
Books, Film and Music -
Amazon.com
Internet Movie Database
All Music Guide
News and Aggregators -
Asia Times
Boingboing
CNN
Digg
English Russia
Fark
Los Angeles Times
Memeorandum
MSNBC
Politico
Poynteronline
Slashdot
The New York Times
The Washington Post
References -
From June 2005 to July 2007 Peter Feaver was a special adviser for strategic planning on Iraq.
He has penned a must-read piece in Commentary magazine.
- Login or register to post comments
)I don't believe a word of it, of course. Let me show you why.
Feaver:
Bush:
The latter quote was from August 30, 2006. Eight months into the year when Feaver now says the admin realized their policy wasn't working, they were still screaming "Stay the course!"
It's all BS. All of it. To quote General Taylor in Good Morning Vietnam, "I wouldn't buy an apple from the SOB". I assume that anything anyone from the Bush administration says in public is self-serving first, last, and only. I don't know what they said in private, and I don't expect ever to receive an account that isn't tainted by massive revisionism.
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Simply put, an armed Sadr (er, "Mooki") militia is a disadvantage to reconciliation and political progress. Whereas, a disarmed Sadr militia is helpful.
--“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”
John F. Kennedy
January 20, 1961
- Login or register to post comments
)It's still armed.
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )al-Maliki planned and spearheaded the operation. Basra is a place where various Shiite groups have been vying for control of the town for quite a while. It's also a place where the British have, for the most part, departed and from the get-go left the city to the devices of the competing tribes. The American forces have never had a significant presence in Basra, so applying any form of COIN strategy there is out of the question. This is why the title of your piece is so unbelievably ridiculous. Also ridiculous is your speculation that Dark Underlord Cheney was behind the operation.
Also in question is your theory that al-Maliki is "attacking from weakness". Let's assess. Al Sadr is hunkered down somewhere in a secret location in Iran, he just extended his ceasefire, Sadrists are asking tribal leaders and clerics to mediate a settlement with the government, and the Mahdi militias are taking serious casualties, but al Sadr is in a position of strength! He's got al Maliki right where he wants him! It's all just a big rope-a-dope! *
About the Kurds and Sunnis staying out of the fight. Of course they are. It's not their fight to have, although the major parties in the ruling coalition are fully behind the operation. This is Shiite-on-Shiite power politics in an area that needs security and rule of law.
* UPDATE: Continuing with the al Maliki "attacking from weakness" theory, al Sadr just called on the Mahdi militias under his control to stand down.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
)The fighting represents intra-Shia power rivalries in anticipation of the elections. And Maliki's move has been a failure -- Sadr has not been disarmed (your "serious casualties claim is laughable -- probably a greater number defected to Sadr with their arms as a result of this), and it is Maliki who has backed down. Who looks stronger now?
The Surge is about some effort at political reconciliation so that the place becomes semi-stable. It is not about COIN, which is irrelevant in this environment. This episode demonstrates how close the whole situation is to open civil war, and this episode was just amongst the Shia. How do you think things will go with the now postponed Kirkuk elections, or when the Sunni and Shia start round two? Or do you still think this is just all about Al Queda in Iraq causing trouble?
Sad to see that you still support killing Americans so that we can make pretend that the hopeless mess is not a hopeless mess. We are wasting lives and treasure to supervise Islamic rivalries.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The "taking serious casualties" link doesn't work.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Reading it, I see Bill Roggio characterizes an attrition rate of 1.5-2.5% as serious. He arrives at that by dividing his number of Mahdi Army dead, wounded, and captured - which he puts at 1000 - into estimates of the size of the Mahdi Army (40-60k).
Maybe that characterization is fair, I don't know. But if you do the same math for U.S. forces since 2003, you arrive at a much higher ratio. And the greater time period would actually make this ratio worse.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )reminds of the "there are only 5,000 insurgents and we killed 2,000" nonsense that was common a few years ago.
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I never said al-Maliki didn't plan this, I was wondering if Cheney's visit had anything to do with giving the go-ahead, sharing intelligence, etc. As others have pointed out, Ahmadinejead recently visited, he may have had some say in the matter also (which should be enough to concern us). As far as COIN, I could have sworn I've seen bloggers claiming the the British were better at COIN than the US. However, there are reported battles in Basra and Baghdad, so it's debatable which approach worked (or didn't work).
You complain about the title - no surprise there. The whole idea of the surge was 1. Insert additional troops, 2. Tamp down the violence, 3. Use the resulting relative peace to achieve political reconciliation and accommodation. Number 3 has been missing, and how anyone can characterize what is going on now as reconciliation or accommodation is sheer fantasy.
al-Maliki certainly doesn't seem very strong right now. He initially ordered militias to give up their weapons in three days, then extended it to ten and offered financial rewards. That doesn't sound like a position of strength. Sadr never revoked his cease fire, so extending it is no big surprise. Remember, he's not the one that initiated the current uprising, al-Maliki did by attacking.
Your last paragraph is laughable unless you believe Iraq is headed towards partition. If large chunks of the Iraqi Army aren't getting involved because "it's not their fight to have", what does that say about the cohesiveness of the army and the internal fault lines of Iraq? Heck, the Continental Army was more unified when the colonies actually were independent states!
Do you really think that military attacks are a viable form for Iraqi domestic politics? I have a hard time believing that the American public will agree. Face it, the administration took a gamble about fixing the whole Iraq mess (if we take them at their word) and it's failing before our eyes. Just another data point in the litany of failures associated with Iraq, written in blood and punctuated with the bodies of the dead.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Heh. Good one.
Maliki managed to demonstrate, in one fell swoop: his military troubles, his dependence on the US, and his willingness to back down from demands. Sadr lost nothing in the deal but a thousand or so recruits who'll be promptly replaced, I'm sure. The episode demonstrates a lack of legitimacy on the part of the Iraqi government and the lesson was lost on no one.
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )It's unclear how much of the Mahdi army is under Al Sadr's control. And it's unclear how much of Al Sadr's pronouncements are just public poses to seem more concerned about Shiite lives than the Iraq government is.
But this pretty much settles a previous argument I had with you. You were saying the Mahdi army ceasefire came out of weakness, and that the Mahdi army was of negligible strength now, both absolutely and compared to the Badrists. Now that the Mahdi Army has fought both the Iraqi government forces and their de facto Badrist allies to a standstill for more than 3 days, I hope you will concede that this was a misread.
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Wags, al Sadr ordered the militias under his control to stand down, and the Mahdi militias have taken serious casualties. That is why I call a surrender. Also, I don't think I ever said that al Sadr's forces had "negligible strength". Best estimates are that they number 40,000 to 60,000. The point I made earlier is that the Iraq government backed forces are stronger and growing ever more so.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )He commands forces in the field and his reserves are
untapped... surrender it is not.
More likely its a battle he does not have to fight,
the elections will be round soon and his popularity
is somewhat higher than the current American empowered
leaders, and so those lovely super government forces
may well soon be his.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The disconnect b/w the spin of the self-styled Information Warriors and what is happening is particularly jarring on this occasion. The idea that it's al Sadr surrendering - which I would have thought might include things like the Madhi Army giving up the territory they control, laying down their arms, and entering into custody...as what typically happens in the act of surrendering - doesn't seem to be an, um, accurate interpretation.
That's not to say some surrendering hasn't been going on.
A few days ago, you wrote a diary on Redstate called "Does McClatchy want the surge to unravel?" in which you strenuously object to McClatchy putting what you call "scare quotes" around the word "success" (this despite the fact Petraeus himself warning that sufficient progress had not been made by Iraqi leaders towards national reconciliation - the goal of the surge). In support of your objection, you link to "Jimmie" at the Sundries Shack for a "fair take". I'm not sure who Jimmie is or what his qualifications are, but I read his fair take, which seemed to consist of pronouncements that McClatchy was obviously biased because it was clear that Sadr is getting the "dogsnot" kicked out of him for his "temper tantrum". I call these pronouncements because he doesn't provide any evidence to support them. Yes, he does provide a hyperlink over the text of "kicking the dogsnot" which leads to an article - and here I grow a bit confused because Jimmie has linked to a story from the Jamil Hussein employing AP....something which he does more than once in his fair take - that doesn't actually use the term "kicking the dogsnot". It doesn't contain anything that could even be considered similiar in more conventional terms.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Al Sadr ordered his militias to stand down because they had accomplished their goals. He frustrated Maliki's attack and is extracting concessions. It's best to think of this as a border skirmish that was clamped down on before it blew up, but there was definitely a winner to it.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I'm glad you agree with that estimate of the Sadr forces. Just a few months ago you dismissed it as being outdated, and you posited that the Mahdi Army ceasefire came about because the Badr brigades were about to whoop them. Now, after the Mahdi Army held off both the Badrists AND government forces AND American air support for 3 days, it doesn't seem so likely, does it?
You've constantly underestimated the Al Sadr, and you continue to do so. It's not clear exactly what was behind the cease-fire, but at least part of it was the fact that Al Sadr had achieved his goal of largely ethnic cleansing Baghdad; he wanted to consolidate political power by regaining control over his factions; he wanted to gain legitimacy as a political player; and finally, he wanted to continue to strengthen his power base by continuing to profit from his gasoline-smuggling racket.
Lastly, maybe the Mahdi will stand down now, but I'll believe it when I see it. And even if they do, I am certain that their political position has strengthened because of this conflict. That wouldn't have happened if the government had crushed the Mahdi Army on the first day, with little civilian suffering.
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )He doesn't have full control over his militias, and he and his militias' reputations are increasingly tarnished, and even the NYT acknowledges this:
Al Maliki's demands for full disarmament were never reasonable or realistic to begin with, which may or may not have been a mistake. But al Sadr is in Iran with tenuous-at-best control over his supporters, and he's paying a price because of the way those groups have conducted themselves. The breadth of his influence will be seen in the levels of violence in the coming days.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )... but Basra is quieter today, after he announced his pact, isn't it?
As for Sadr's political fortunes, I won't take your word for it or the New York Times' word for it. If they are conducted honestly, the results of the provincial elections will speak for themselves. For the reasons I cite elsewhere, I doubt his political position has weakened. Al Maliki and the Sadrists have ceded him Shiite nationalism... that's a pretty potent franchise.
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )offers from the Maliki government -- many have been characterizing this as Sadr dictating terms for peace. My guess is it is more the sine qua non for Sadr to be effective. Maliki has to give him something that he can turn around and offer to the street networks. IMO this is about the national-level figures trying to get a handle on street violence while maintaining their foothold on power...an example of collusion perhaps between the Badrist & Sadrist leadership.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )later. It does look very much like Sadr has been reined in, possibly by Iran, especially after his belligerence yesterday.
I agree, of course, that he has not surrendered in the real sense of giving up arms.
His resistance to the US of course shores up his position in his community, though how significant that will be in November remains to be seen.
What really surprises me is why the Coalition forces, Maliki Government etc does not issue a formal warrant for his arrest, and actually find and arrest him as they did with Saddam. They should really be doing that instead of all this anti-criminal gang expedition stuff.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )power to do that. Maliki relies on US troops for his survival and Sadr is pretty popular.
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )business from Ali's shrine.
It didn't work. The problem is not taking him out is a show of weakness in Maliki's part - and ultimately also reflects on the coalition.
The Sunnis and Kurds are still working with the Badr-Dawa group, but I should think they would switch sides if Sadr should prove to be a better bet than Badr-Dawa. As might Iran - even though Sistani is Iranian.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Their influence is more with the other Shiite faction, the ISCI (formerly SCIRI).
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )There is some evidence that Iran arms some of his fighters. He is closely related to Hezbollah leaders.
That said, he does appear to position himself as a Shia Arab patriot, and, as I mentioned downthread, it is somewhat ironical that the US supports Sistani who is actually an Irani. over Sadr, who has pretty good anti-Saddam credentials and a sort of democratic mandate to boot.
Edit: Al-Sadr is apparently dividing his time - between Qom and Najaf. Perhaps the Iranians are actively engaged in a process of winning him over.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )that the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know. A force like his won't just evaporate if he's captured or killed, it will just get new leadership which may or may not be more accommodating to Iraqi politics.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )polity.
His only worth is his demographic support, which is as meaningless as Hizbollah's.
He needs to be neutralised either by taking him into Government and giving him a ministry, or by arresting him. This kind of halfway house approach is not making any sense.
Edit: I meant his support for a ministry. Iraqi clerics do not participate directly in secular affairs (al-Hakim is notably different in this regard).
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )who could command respect and trust from sunni and shia
in Iraq, dispite the involvement of his people in
cleansing.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )... to sources that say that U.S. Special Forces and British Forces joined the fight. Of course, this just proves the strength of Al Maliki's position (cough.)
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )of the intra Shiite battle, probably the worst possible outcome for us.
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I can't imagine this being a winning issue in November.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )In this case the legitimately elected Government of Iraq is a convenient one, even though somewhat pro-Iran. Al-Hakim, of course, doesn't want to be overtly beholden to Iran, he seems to prefer Coalition forces backing him to Iranian ones.
Of course, the real fun will start if al-Sadr gets enough votes in a democratic election to become Prime Minister.
I guess these attacks are simply to make sure that isn't going to happen. And of course Iran may not want it to happen, in which case it won't.
Edit: Of course it is ironical that the US opposes Sadr, seeing as he has, with his family history, the best anti-Saddam credentials of the clerics. Also ironical is that that the US supports Sistani, who is actually Irani.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )We didn't need the Shah, and we don't need to make the same stupid mistakes again.
The thing about empires is that they cost more to run than they bring in. It's the conquest that makes money.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )representative of the decision makers of the US. And history does not support your contention that the US is suddenly going to change its modus operandi simply because a minority of its intellectual class decide to oppose the bipartisan consensus that exists to control the world's markets.
I remind you of the statement of the most well-known peacemaking Presidents of recent times - Mr Carter - at the SOTU address in 1980 where he insists of the intrinsic right of the US to exert its unilateral authority in the Persian Gulf, thus:
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Jeez, you guys never learn, do you?
The Iraq govt couldn't beat them militarily, even with US airplanes on their side. Moqtada is doing what any other insurgent does, he attacks for a while and the goes back to the shadows.
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )But the so-called surrender involves letting the fighters keep their arms, calling off check-points, and in effect granting the Mahdis immunity. That's one sweet set of surrender terms.
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )required to conclude that the events can be interpreted as Sadr surrendering are worthy of the Beijing Olympics.
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )He sought to disarm the militias. So far that hasn't happened.
----------------
*Whatever that term means.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )According to press reports the Sadr forces actually were controlling large parts of the city and many Iraqui security forces moved to their side. I suspect Moqtada wants to cement this win and prepare for the elections.
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...given that he's offering to yank his guys off the streets this morning. Stand hard for a couple of days, regardless of cost, in order to make your bluff look credible.
What's in his 9-point plan?
--The ultimate result of shielding man from the effects of folly is to people the world with fools. -Herbert Spencer
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )in exchange for amnesty. In other words he will go back to where we were before this started and so the Iraqi govt will have failed, yet again, in getting rid of Moqtada and his militias.
Given that he stood up to both the central govt and US airplanes and they couldn't beat him I suspect he will become yet more popular and if there are free elections he will likely become even more influential.
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )First, provincial elections are coming up, and Sadr would like to participate. Do you think he's stronger or weaker because of this conflict? Do you think a nationalist loses support when foreign forces are bombing civilian areas? Do you think he loses when civilians are caught in a siege without food and water?
And besides, I'd wait for the Mahdi army to actually stand down before I started my celebrating. LIke I said, it's not clear how much of it Al Sadr controls.
But there's no doubt that the Al Sadr faction, fractured as it might be, is a substantial military and political force. All I'm asking for is a little recognition of reality, rather than denying reality so that we can we more adequately cheerlead the surge.
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )It's so horrible that so many people are dying mainly because our leadership is so stupid and immoral -- and those of us in the opposition share the blame for our failure to elect leaders capable of impeachment.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
)Ezra Klein says : "as the Surge has gone on, the Bush administration has eschewed a strategic approach for tactical goals that lead nowhere but are achievable through military force and are popular here at home."
--Over here on E Street, we're proud to support Obama for President. - Bruce Springsteen
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )"As the Surge has gone on"? Try "since the very beginning of the war". What was "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" about, after all?
To insist that Bush actually wants a free, independent, democratic Iraq is to clap your hands and believe in pretty little fairies. The man's every action has been calculated to create a permanent military dependency. Every so often he gives the Iraqis a chance to mess things up so the US Army can save the day again.
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )That *other* head of state that visited Iraq a couple of weeks ago. I sense that when all of this is said and done, the Islamic Republic will have had a hand in all of this business. Just a thought.
- Login or register to post comments
)but that's really worse, isn't it? If the Iranians are telling Maliki to go after Sadr, what the hell are US troops doing backing him up? I can't see the benefit to us of doing so. I mean, that goes beyond screwing things up for the next President to screwing things up for the next five or ten Presidents, no?
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I'm not an Engineer, but the next five presidents or so sounds like the structural life expectancy of all the concrete they've poured into runways and embassy facilities.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I think that that (in the minds of the Administration PTB) IS the "...benefit to us of doing so" - establishing a semi-stable regime in Iraq that will be beholden to the US for it's maintenance and security: probably in perpetuity. Thus cementing the Bush Doctrine "legacy" of "re-making the Middle East".
I think the tacit backing by US forces for Maliki's attempted takedown of the Sadrist forces is just an updated application of FDR's tried-and-true "our son-of-a-bitch" principle. Given that both the ISCI/Dawa/Maliki and the Sadr blocs are tied to Iran in some fashion, it seems that backing the one that isn't firmly opposed to the American occupation is a no-brainer.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )when the group that isn't firmly opposed to the US occupation
--fails to hold the popular vote no matter how many opposition
candidates are 'disqualified' by army operations.
Its just a model, you wouldn't want to bank on it.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ).
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Nobody's sure what's going on but the speculation that this is a neighborhood clearing operation to pave the way for "free and open" elections seems right.
I've been saying for awhile that Iraq needs a new Saddam Hussein (or in the case of partitions, two or three Saddams) to brutally restore centralized power, and this seems like a bid to do just that. Oh and yes, we should've never got involved in this tribal mess in the first place.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
)in Sadr city in Baghdad seems to be something of a media statement, rather than a real minds and hearts victory to be claimed by Sadr. Nevertheless, the fact that this could be orchestrated in Baghdad it itself a sign that Maliki's campaign may not be going as well he would have hoped.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )its way too early given the lack of Iraqi military and
police capability.
This is more likely to come out evens or negotiated and
with a lot more infrastructure cost to the country plus
the horrors of urbanized civil warfare in the key
centers.
The only smart thing is that the occupation forces are
--doing stand off attacks while the Iraqis are left to
actually kill the civilians in house-to-house.
Its just a model, you wouldn't want to bank on it.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )... that far from hurting the Sadrist faction politically, this will give them sympathy. I would add that the civilian casualties from the bombing will add urgency to the Sadrist nationalist appeal.
So while Al Maliki had to do this at some stage, this may be a no-win situation for the government.
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )how this will play out domestically in Iraq. I can't imagine that seeing US planes bombing their cities again will do much to endear them to our efforts, though.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )A recent article in the WSJ puts it correctly
The problem is the dilemma between substance and appearance. Security has to be provided by troops on the ground. Bombing from the air to support Maliki's troops on the ground is not the support needed.
US troops are fundamentally bottled up in their defensive enclaves, not emerging for fear of casualties to them (conscious that US casualties play badly in an election season).
Casualties among Iraqi civilians will also play badly in an election season. My reading is that to the wider public in the US, Iraqi civilian deaths is unimportant as an issue whilst it is Iraqis doing it to themselves. And, as long as the factions promoted by the US as central to the stability of the Iraqi state continue the killings it will remain OK. OTOH, the sight of active US military personnel overtly killing "defenceless civilians" would be pounced upon by the media and that would hurt moral sensibility in the US.
Meanwhile Muqtada al Sadr continues to get al Jazeera airtime.
And so the dilemma persists. Rather than Sadr, it looks like Maliki who is on trial here (no doubt that is why he has taken personal charge - he probably has no one left whom he can trust). I guess the US wants him to finish off Sadr, but is not willing to risk the lives of its men to do so and it appears that the ISCI want him to do the same, but will not overtly support him in case he becomes too powerful. Mr Bush has more or less told Maliki that he is on his own.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I don't think that the US populace sees street to street fighting as "political reconciliation", we tend to call it a "civil war". The involvement of US troops doesn't help, if we're killing civilians we'll see the reaction you mentioned, if US troops get killed the reactions will be much stronger, as in why are we fighting their civil war for them.
It's s clusterf*&^ pure and simple, the idea that "all is going according to plan" is fantasy.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Some "civil war". The fact remains that it was Iraqi government forces that moved against Mahdi militants, and U.S. role was air and logistical support only. The Mahdi militia claim that civilians were killed remains a claim, not a fact, most likely put out there for propaganda purposes. The other fact remains that Mahdi militants took serious casualties.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )that civilians dying is propaganda but Mahdi militants taking serious casualties is a fact?
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The situation seems pretty favorable to Sadr at this point. Also, there were reports that US troops intervened in several cities, so it's not the Iraqi Army only.
The idea that the US bombed cities and there was urban fighting yet there were no civilian casualties is pretty far fetched, I'd go with the "have to break some eggs to make an omelet" approach if I were you. "Serious casualties" also seems a bit of a stretch, we're talking a thousand out of a population of millions, I believe.
Net result, Sadr is still armed and Maliki had to back off (with the reported help of the Iranians). You're correct that it's not a Civil War, but it sure isn't a sign of government strength, either.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I don't see how supporting one particular faction of the majority religious group (especially with the Kurds and Sunnis still there and still active) is going to help in anything but the short term. Maybe this is the 50% + 1 philosophy applied to Iraq?
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )seems to be the way it's going to go down, whether we help, hinder, or get out of the way. I'd rather the less bad guys win though, whoever those are.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )