Maliki Said to Have Pledged Mahdi Crackdown
Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that its sources in the Iraqi government are saying that there are some secret paragraphs to the agreement between the Bush administration and the al-Maliki government in Iraq to act against militia leaders. The article suggests that the model of the US raid on an Iranian liason office in Irbil might be deployed against Mahdi Army leaders and against Sunni Arab guerrilla commanders. That is, such raids would be small, targeted, quick and involve kidnapping suspected wrongdoers.
The article also quotes US ambassador in Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, as saying that al-Maliki promised Bush that he would confront the [Shiite] Mahdi Army.
It says that Jabir al-Khafaji, a lieutenant of Muqtada al-Sadr who preached at his mosque in Kufa on Friday, condemned the "new politicians" and charging that "their strategy and goal is to get rid of the pious believers who have opposed the occupation." Hmm. I'd say he thinks there is about to be a fight with the Mahdi Army.
The LA Times reports that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has appoint Abud Qanbar of Amara to be the top military commander in Baghdad. Qanbar is a Shiite, though nothing is known of his political affiliations. He would be in a position to tip off Shiite politicians and militia leaders about US plans. The US had pushed for another officer, but al-Maliki vetoed their choice and appointed his own man.
Adnan Dulaimi, a leader of the Sunni fundamentalist Iraqi Accord Front in parliament, criticized Qanbar's appointment as a unilateral act of the prime minister that came with no consultation with parliament.
McClatchy reports political violence in Iraq on Friday. Reuters reports violence in Iraq on Thursday.
Turkish PM Tayyip Erdogan says he will, too, invade Iraq if he wants to. And who, he says, is the US to tell others they can't invade Iraq at will?
More on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's endorsement of the Bush administration's goal of pushing Iranian influence out of Iraq.
Tomdispatch has an important piece, on America's "sacrificial victims."
Sven Gustafson on the reaction to Bush's speech among Arab-Americans in Michigan (I am quoted as well).
Jebediah Reed at Radar Magazine makes the point that pundits who were wrong about the Iraq War have been well rewarded, whereas those like Bob Scheer and others who warned about its dangers have been fired or marginalized even though they were right.
This is because punditry is not about being right or wrong or exhibiting good judgment. It is about producing and reproducing elite American political discourse for the masses. It is more important that they can continue to justify changing elite policy than that they supported past policies that didn't work out very well. All the real reporters I know at all well are deeply unhappy at their workplaces, where they typically have wealthy far rightwing bosses who interfere from time to time in the newspaper or magazine and make the reporter's life hell. That is why it is unfair (as I have been reminded when I fall into it) to criticize reporters for where they work. Good reporters work for the Washington Times or UPI, i.e. for the Rev. Moon. But ultimately it is the Rev. Moon who decides who gets to be pundits for his media outlets. Apparently almost everyone in the news business is in pretty much the same position.
posted by Juan Cole @ 1/13/2007 12:29:00 AM
|
Facebook
12 Comments:
It's true about journalists and their superiors.
On a related note, there are things many people know about politics, especially the war, but few are willing to say. It's not even so much about lobbies. It's about an ingrained moral impulse to see things in terms of sharply delineated right and wrong, the standards of which are instilled in childhood and not easily adapted to conform with political exigencies. This would be refreshing if only what was taught as "right" really was "right."
First time commenting on this blog. It's daily reading now.
Key to good judgment is an analysis which considers all the scenarios, but I am yet to read or hear anyone looking at the most obvious one.
The assumption that the Americans want security in Baghdad and the Iraqis don't is bizarre. The reality is that it is the highest priority for the Iraqis and the plan for securing Baghdad has been in the works for months: not by American yahoos, but by Iraqi generals who know the terrain and the players and who do not play for the cameras.
The missing part of the solution is the armor -- air support is very useful too. It is criminal the way the Iraqi troops are sent to battle in pickup trucks where they can be zapped effortlessly by the enemy. Of course they refuse to go to trouble spots, but put them in an armored vehicle and it is a different game altogether. Tanks purchased from Russia and elsewhere will start arriving in March, and Norway has given some as a gift already.
There is no need for confronting the Mahdi Army at all. It has been told to lie law or get hit. Despite the mythical strength given to them by the US press, the number of actual fighters is very small, and they have always avoided confrontation in the past.
The "Surge" may well be just an illusion to steal the Iraqis' thunder and claim any victory as American but blame the Iraqis for any failure.
US troops will be arriving gradually starting next month, and the total, if it is real, is only 16% of the troops already in Iraq (much less than 16% if you allow for the loss from the UK and others.) How can 16% be the difference between failure and success?
Ref. Reporters.
Prof. Cole are you talking of the same "objective" and "neutral" reporters who applauded profusely at the press conference announcing President Saddam Hussein capture ?
Because if I still remember it (frankly I was shocked irrespective of everything else) I am sure like hell that all Arabs do and more precisely the "militants"
The Saudis, and other Gulf oil sheikhdoms, along with the Jordanians and Egyptians are all scared of the growing Iranian influence in Iraq... This seems to be like 1979 all over again, and this time instead of sending Saddam on a fool's errand they have the Bush administration at hand to do the job...
Every time there is a discussion of the Shiite political aspirations in the region, the neocon jump on the issue of whether or not all Shiites want to live in an Iranian-style Vilayat-e-Fakih clerical rule... That is not the point, precisely because the Iranians have not demanded that Shiite clerics in Lebanon or Iraq be subservient to the Iranian clerical council in matters of local government...
It is funny to hear the Bushiites complain about how difficult the situation in Iraq is turning out to be - this is something they refused to accept before they invaded Iraq... And as far as the countries bordering Iraq are concerned, the Saudis and the Turks have made it very clear that they will resort to violent tactics to alter the balance of power in Iraq in their own favor should the Bushiites cut and run...
Israel, which is reportedly active in Iraq out of their bases in Kurdish areas, is mum on what it will do is the Bushiites clear out of Iraq... Their current focus seems to be on empowering the Kurds to act as a nuisance against Iran and Syria, but this might threaten Israel's tacit ties with Turkey...
Meanwhile, Georgie Porgey Pudding and Pie have decided that 21,500 more troops will be able to counter BOTH the Sunni insurgency and the Shiite militia in Baghdad... Sweet dreams are made of these, who am I to disagree.
Bush says critics must offer alternative : “WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush made clear on Saturday that he would not back off his plan to send more troops to Iraq, despite bipartisan hostility to the idea, and he accused his critics of failing to offer an alternative.”
ALTERNATIVE: Replace the Commander-In-Chief.
Is it just my imagination, or is the Bush Administration adopting a beligerent policy towards Iran and warning about the dangers of Iranian influence in Iraq while at the same time backing the most pro-Iranian factions on the ground? If this makes any sense at all, can someone please explain it to me?
Bush's "strategy" is a hoax, and being Bush's has backfired already.
The US has always maintained that troop levels are decided by the military. The level has often changed, without attracting much attention, and was in fact 140,000 at the last count. Now it is declared 130,000 and changing the number to 150,000 (still 20,000 below a year ago) is the "strategy" we have waited two months for. No dates have been given even for that!
As for Bush "saving Iraq", Maliki is not playing along. He has an Iraqi plan for Baghdad to be executed by Iraqi troops and that is that. [see
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/13/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq-Maliki-Bush.php
Remember the "strategy" had "economic and diplomatic components". It turns out that the Iraqis spending their own money on their own country according to their own budget is Bush's economic strategy! The diplomatic component is Rice going aimlessly to the Middle East like many times before (oh and arresting Iranians just before they get their diplomatic status.)
Iraqi children killed dismantling ordnance, picking garbage, or sold into brothels.
But what about the schools?
Regarding Enlightened Laypersons post, I also am confused by the what looks like a plan to go after Iran while at the same time backing backing their interests "on the ground". Professor Cole, could you explain this? Thanks for the great blog.
While the Iranian consulate in Irbil was being raided, 24 F-16s (along with AWACs and air-refueling tankers) arrived at Incirlik in Turkish Kurdistan. Is this just coincidence, or does the little ding-ding in the back of my head for real?
Not sure if everyone has seen these videos of the US military in Iraq or not, but they are pretty amazing: Hopefully our 'surge' will not include too many of these types...
http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2006/12/winning-hearts-and-minds-part-three.html
Turkish PM Erdogan's reported remarks are an advice to Maliki to get serious. But it's far from clear that he takes any advice at all outside his small circle of controllers. For Iraq, the Americans are their best hope against partition, but the Shi'a have taken much, much longer to get up to speed than anyone ever thought possible, even given no history of administrative experience.
The whole current Baghdad scene is a political vacuum mixed with vicious thuggery. Saddam let loose all the civil prisoners and insane cases just before the invasion, and the foreign and local "militias" have joined in. No one is organized enough to carry out a real civil war, just civil mayhem, as in post revolutionary France or Russia, until new tyrants arose.
It's extremely naive to assume one can improve the situation by "negotating" with common thugs. When a city anywere has been allowed by its nominal but ineffective rulers to deriorate into criminal anarchy--witness New Orleans recently in the U.S.--police action is necessary to regain respect and control. Snake charming, negotiating, and wishful thinking will be to no avail.
Post a Comment
<< Home