2 US Soldiers Killed
Ammar Calls for ultimate US Withdrawal
Sistani Aide Calls for Laws to Rein in contractor, US military lawlessnes
The killing of two US soldiers and the wounding of 5 more in a mortar attack were reported on Saturday.
Sawt al-Iraq reports in Arabic that Abdul Aziz al-Hakim (leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq) returned to Baghdad from chemotherapy in Iran and was welcomed by a big crowd of admirers at his home in south Baghdad after Eid prayers.
His son, Ammar al-Hakim, who has been acting head of ISCI in his father's absence, preached a sermon in which he pledged to work against enduring US bases in Iraq. (On December 4, 2006, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim stood next to Bush in the Rose Garden and asked for US troops to remain in Iraq, so this pronouncement seems to be the beginnings of a reversal). Al-Hakim also argued for forging ahead with a Shiite provincial confederation in the south. He argued for a complete return of sovereignty to Iraq, according to AFP.
You have to wonder whether the recent Iran-brokered pact between al-Hakim and Muqtada al-Sadr, plus the new ISCI / Sistani consensus on reining in the US military and ultimately pushing it out altogether are a sign of new Iranian and Iraqi Shiite strategizing about the future. It also seems to me that the constant US drumbeat against Iran may have alarmed the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, which is an Iranian client and which needs Iranian money and support to maintain its political position in Iraq. Iran is therefore working to position ISCI as anti-Occupation over the medium to long run, and as responsible and orderly (thus the pact with Sadr.)
Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that the nearing of the date for Parliament to vote on the holding of provincial elections has provoked rivalries and tensions in the 9 southern provinces that are mostly Shiite. Seven of the nine (which include Baghdad) are dominated by the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), and therefore its political enemies are attempting to discredit its candidates. One tactic has been to bring into question the educational attainments of leading ISCI politicians. For instance, it is being charged by his enemies that Salim al-Muslimawi, the governor of Babil province just south of Baghdad, only has a fifth grade education but claimed he graduated from some Iranian institute that (on investigation) has no record of his having ever been there. Al-Muslimawi is from the Badr Organization, the paramilitary of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. His political opponents went to Iran, where he had lived for 15 years, to investigate his supposed education there. (It is ironic that the US government is currently waging a campaign against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, but is turning southern Iraq over to groups like the Badr Corps, which was trained by . . . the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps.) The Bureau of Public Probity in Najaf announced that it was demanding from all members of that province's provincial council proof that their educational diplomas were real.
I have trouble taking diplomagate seriously (unless the electoral commission really can use it to disqualify candidates). But it would be exciting if in fact provincial elections were scheduled in the near future, since many provinces have unrepresentative governments-- a situation that retards any peace process.
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 10/14/2007 12:31:00 AM
|
Facebook
4 Comments:
Hakim and his allies are reacting to what they see as a complete U-turn in the US Iraq strategy. It has far less to do with the drum-beat against Iran which has been going on all along anyway.
As you say: (It is ironic that the US government is currently waging a campaign against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, but is turning southern Iraq over to groups like the Badr Corps, which was trained by . . . the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps.)
This ridiculous stance is a left-over from the Khalilzad-Rumsfeld era. It was victory of stupid optimism over common sense.
The new team are slowly reversing that, and Hakim and Co. can see the USA shifting to the Sunnis and Shiia nationalists, at Hakim's expense.
If proper elections were to be held today, Hakim's party would be annihilated in the polls: they lost the people (although they didn't have much to start with) with their corruption and Iran ties; they lost Sistani to a large degree; they are losing the USA; and they are even losing Iran who see them as useless and hence want Sadr more than ever.
ref : “the new ISCI / Sistani consensus on reining in the US military and ultimately pushing it out altogether are a sign of new Iranian and Iraqi Shiite strategizing about the future... the constant US drumbeat against Iran may have alarmed the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, which is an Iranian client and which needs Iranian money and support to maintain its political position in Iraq. Iran is therefore working to position ISCI as anti-Occupation”
So long as Sistani / ISCI : BADR Corps remain aligned with IRAN, and these were the cards they were dealt ~ they are destined, in my opinion ~ to lose the endgame that is IRAQ: The prize that is not some sort of National or Ethnic Sovereignity; rather, some fraction of OPEC Equity. The world watches as politicians and pundits divide the country as they will; while all the corporations care about is: who gets the oil?
The fact is, everybody Over Here is talking about 'withdrawal' Over There, but nobody is talking about ending the occupation of IRAQ; ie., the Americans aren't going anywhere.
London Review of Books : “Stuck! Over ~$30 trillion USD of Oil” except into leur réseau ~ that fascinating ‘network’ of huge, AirBorne = 3-D Logistic IRAQ Occupation Bases, a strategic vision that began, ironically ~ under the now embittered and Abu Ghraib radioactive General Sanchez. IMHO the first Shi'ite groups: BADR, SADR, or smaller "tribes" who "blink" so -to- speak, and realize that: (1) the Americans have joined with the [Saudi] Sunnis; (2) the Kurdish position is (as it always has been, throughout history) an endgame squeeze play driven by the Turks; and (3) American AIPAC Democrats are entirely 'in sync' with the neocon Republican agenda regarding IRAN... only they, those Shi'ites will end up in this endgame with their piece of the prize.
“...several senior military officials have privately described Balad Air Base, and a few other large installations in Iraq, as future bases of operation for the U.S. military. The term used is "lily pad," a description of the military jumping from base to base without ever touching the ground in between.”
“As a senior Bush administration official told the New York Times in June, the long-term bases ‘are all places we could fly in and out of without putting Americans on every street corner’. But their main day-to-day function will be to protect the oil infrastructure.”
“The costs – a few billion dollars a month plus a few dozen American fatalities (a figure which will probably diminish, and which is in any case comparable to the number of US motorcyclists killed because of repealed helmet laws) – are negligible compared to $30 trillion in oil wealth, assured American geopolitical supremacy and cheap gas for voters. In terms of realpolitik, the invasion of Iraq is not a fiasco; it is a resounding success.”
Wouldn't Ammar-al Hakim's apparent switcheroo be more to do with shiite/sunni deal making? You didn't mention his historic-making talks with the Anbar Awakening sheiks?
Professor Cole, recent Shia efforts at consolidation, involving Iran, may also be interpreted as a counterbalance to the recent favoritism and payment of tribute by the US to the Sunnis, such as those in Anbar province.
Much is made of the "US drumbeat against Iran", here in the US. But little is said of Iranian intentions and planning for such an eventuality, as this affects Iraq. It should be pointed out that there are two main reasons for Iran holding back on more sophisticated infantry weapon, to allied Shia forces operating in Iraq. These weapons include higher end ATGM's and MANPADS, as well as others currently possessed in abundance in the Iranian inventory. The first reason is that the Iranians have recognized and adopted a means of measured response to a US attack, enabling a determinable escalation of hostility on the Iraqi battlefield. The second reason is that in the unlikely event that the US abruptly withdraws the bulk of its military forces from Iraq, the Iranians have calculated that it will be up to elements of their armed forces to fill the vacuum and restore order to the people of Iraq. Under such circumstances, Iran certainly doesn't wish to encounter these weapons.
Post a Comment
<< Home