Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Sunday, January 14, 2007

Mahdi Army Lowers Profile
Sunni Guerrillas now Mainly fight Shiites


McClatchy reports that Mahdi Army militiamen in Baghdad have adopted a low profile as they await the arrival of extra US troops, storing their weapons and taking down their checkpoints. The weapons, says one informant, are still nearby.

Ghaith Abdul Ahad of the Guardian sheds loads of illumination on the situation on the ground in Iraq. He talks to Sunni Arab guerrilla leaders about the way in which the struggle has turned into a battle not so much against US troops as against Shiite militias, which seem increasingly to be winning the battle for Baghdad.

Important points

*The disciplined anti-American insurgency among Sunni Arabs of 2004-2005 has deteriorated into youth street gangs mainly killing and robbing Shiites.

*Sunni guerrillas now need more weaponry than they can loot from old Baath munitions depots and are smuggling it from the weapons given by the US to the Iraqi goverment through graft.

*Sunni Arab guerrillas are blaming the strategy of attacking Shiites solely on "al-Qaeda." [This is not entirely honest. Baathists have attacked Shiites, too.]

*Militant Sunni Arabs of a fundamentalist cast still want to fight a two-pronged war against the Americans and the Shiites. Some dissent and think they should make up with the Americans so as to protect themselves from the Shiites.

*The guerrilla groups are increasingly based in neighborhoods rather than in city-wide cells.

* Contributions from businessmen, neighborhood levies by guerrilla groups, and looting and theft (especially from Shiites) are major sources of income for them.

Rajiv Chandrasekaran writes about the Bush administration's sudden desertion of free market principles in Iraq in favor of trying to repair and jump-start Baath-era factories. US proconsul in Iraq in 2003 Paul Bremer was convinced that the invisible hand of the market would magically repair the economy all by itself. But Iraq after the invasion was in a Great Depression, and it needed a New Deal, not Reaganism. Chandrasekaran recognizes the challenges to doing this now-- lack of electricity, lack of security in the Sunni Arab areas, etc.

When I was in Beirut in 1975 during the beginnings of the Civil War there, I remember that the Christian Phalangist militia bombed a Christian cookie factory downtown. I was puzzled and asked around as to why they would do that. The best guess of my friends was that they were trying to create unemployment so that the workers would take a pay cut to work as militiamen instead. My guess is, that the attempt to revive the factories is going to meet with a lot of sabotage.

My recent interview with Rajiv Chandrasekaran concerning his book, Imperial Life in the Emerald City, is here (part 1) and then for part 2, here.

7 Comments:

At 9:01 AM, Blogger Thomas Boogaart said...

The article of Abdul Ahad is insightful in many ways. One of the things that struck me was how the neocon vision of democratic transformation in Iraq was doubly wrong. First, in a fundamental sense there was no Iraq as most Americans conceive it. Second, the majority Shia simply had no real interest in democracy, the Sunni were not prepared to accept its imposition, and the Kurds are just biding their time. It also shows the folly of a troop surge. What role can additional combat troops play in this equation. The convenient association of boots and security just does not add up. The US strategy should be to limit the flow of arms and to segregate and weaken the factions, but it seems that rogues in the army are actually profiteering at the retail level following the lead of their civic leaders.

 
At 9:40 AM, Blogger John Koch said...

Militias and insurgents may simply "play dead" over the next few months. Their operatives will instead strengthen infiltration of the police and army, gatherieng dossiers on colaborators, and feeding themselves with funds channeled to reconstruction efforts. The surge to "clear, hold, and build" may give every semblence of working, with one condition: that US troops do not get too kinetic or "take out" the anti-US kingpins. This would force the dormant opossums to action. Better if both sides pursue pure hoax. This will make W look sucessful. Smirk and swagger will come back in fashion. Might it even fool and deter Iran? Will it encourage W to attempt a similar bluff gamble against Teheran?

 
At 11:45 AM, Blogger The Great Salami said...

All hail Mr Deputy, Nouri al Malaki. He's almost a Shia Abu Mazen; a man being groomed to be the next brutaliser of Arabs.
And he foolishly goes along with it, until he's portrayed as Saddam Hussein's successor and some other imperialist war destroys Iraq again.

 
At 4:20 PM, Blogger red said...

Does this not indicate that the Cheney faction is achieving its goals in Iraq? Its not a victory which can be publicly proclaimed as such, but in setting Sunni against Shia in such a terrible fashion the oil-rich Muslim Middle East is powerless to stand up for itself against US oil interests.

 
At 4:57 PM, Blogger Barbara said...

What is to be made of Ghaith Abdul Ahad's article? If it is true the Sunni insurgents have moved away from cell structure to neighbourhoods doesn't this mean they have been forced from offense to defense? If so, the overwhelming Shiite numbers against them in Baghdad will be decisive, and possibly in short order?

Recalling Zarqawi's declaration of war against the Shia in 2005 - it was shortsighted of the Sunni insurgents not to see that the Shia would fight back - with all the powers of government and security forces at their disposal.

It seems Dubya et al are not the only ones suffering from hubris in this story.

 
At 11:57 PM, Blogger JDMcKay said...

Dr. Cole:

I very much appreciated your interviews w/Rajiv Chandrasekaran, and found your linked WP article he penned informative. That article (On Iraq, U.S. Turns to Onetime Dissenters) more or less confirms my sentiments re: Bremmer's execution of CPA "economic" policy and it's contribution to much of Iraq's problems today. For example, Bremmer's shutting down of state owned factories and the consequence of massive unemployment. Also interesting was Chandrasekaran's mention of those who left and/or were fired from early CPA positons because of their opposition to the conservative "free market" experiment.

I do wonder why this hasn't been more prominent in discussion of GWB's "surge".

However, what really jumps out at me is the seeming disconnect between GWB and these processions of events. Chandrasekaran's mention of "Bremmer's" de-Baathification seems to fully ascribe this policy to him. Yet, as I understand Bremmer was picked for this job some 2 weeks before he accepted it, and had -0- experience in ME/Iraq affairs. Am I to believe this policy began and ended w/Bremmer?

If so (which I wholly doubt), what does that say about GWB & co.'s leadership? And if not, is there any reliable information describing the "chain of command"... the players, between Bremmer & the White House?

And lastly, (and this is an ongoing source of amazement to me) Chandrasekaran says:

But it wasn't until Monday, when Bush was going over a draft of the address he planned to deliver on television Wednesday, that they confronted the issue of who would coordinate the administration's new economic initiatives for Iraq.
(...)
"Who's going to coordinate this?" Bush asked as he read through the economic initiatives, according to two people with knowledge of the meeting.

When Satterfield got back to his State Department office, he told his staff to "give me names."

This is "planning"?

And regarding the "strategy" this new economic plan replaces, Chandrasekaran says:

For almost three years, the policy didn't change. Although the Iraqi government reopened a small fraction of its 148 factories and began operating them at a diminished capacity, the efforts to sell them to private investors were unsuccessful.

Again, where is the deliniation of those who were responsable for this stuff? Who decided to pursue it for "3 years"?

Just makes me wonder (even more) just how much time Bush has spent paying attention to anything that's happened over there.

 
At 4:33 AM, Blogger I'M WITH JESUS said...

America is mystery Babylon: http://deanberryministries.org

Oh, and don't forget, neocons are really just pseudoliberals. That's what the paleocons believe.

Read it for yourself.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home