4 US Troops Killed;
Hundreds Flee Baghdad Clashes;
Ayatollahs Decline to Ban Militia
I am always astounded at the combination of unrealistic optimism and foolish gullibility that marks political discourse on the Right in Washington. We were being told by Rich Lowry at the National Review that Sadr was on the ropes and on the verge of disbanding the Mahdi Army because the other political factions had turned on him, and that the others had had their militias join the regular security forces.
So let us get this straight. Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army fought off thousands of regular Iraqi army troops in Basra and Baghdad, and perhaps thousands of those troops deserted rather than fight. So the Mahdi Army won big and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki lost. Also the US military trainers of the Iraqi troops lost face.
So the next thing we hear is that al-Maliki is talking big and demanding that the Mahdi Army be dissolved. Usually you get to talk big if you win the military battle, not if you lose.
The Sadrists have no intention of dissolving the Mahdi Army, according to this Arabic source, quoting Sadrist spokesman Salah al-Ubaidi. They point out, pace that great Iraq expert Lowry, that there are 28 militias in Iraq. The Badr Corps of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) still exists as a stand alone organization. In fact it ran as a political party in the elections and holds both provincial and federal seats. It hasn't been complete merged into the state security forces as Lowry alleged. And anyway, painting a sign on a militia saying 'this one is legitimate because its party won the last election' is not going to convince any real Iraqis.
As it happens, the parliamentary representatives of Mosul demanded Monday that the Kurdish Peshmerga be dissolved. (Hint: Hell will freeze over first).
Then the US press went wild for this supposed report that Muqtada al-Sadr said he would dissolve his militia if Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani ordered it. Folks, he always says that when there is a controversy. (He said the same thing in spring, 2004). He says it because he knows it makes him look reasonable to the Shiite public. He says it because he knows that the grand ayatollahs are not going to touch the matter with a ten foot pole. They are not so foolish as to take responsibility for dissolving a militia that they had nothing to do with creating. And that is probably the real meaning of this CNN report that they 'refused' when asked. I doubt the grand ayatollahs in Najaf actively commanded Muqtada to keep his militia. They just declined to get drawn in.
So the idea that, having lost militarily, al-Maliki and his political allies (who are a minority in parliament now) could just a couple of days later jawbone Muqtada into giving up his paramilitary was always absurd.
As for the the threat that the Sadrists would not be allowed to run in the provincial elections in the fall unless the Mahdi Army was dissolved, it is either empty or very dangerous. First of all, not only Sadrists but also other observers have pointed out that excluding parties from running in elections is not the prerogative of the prime minister. It is a matter that would have to be passed by parliament. And since the parliamentarians who would be voting to dissolve all militias ahead of elections are all in parties that maintain militias, it would be political suicide for them to vote that way. Of course, they could just play the hypocrite card and declare, as Lowry did, that their militias are not militias, whereas the Mahdi Army is a militia.
But if the Sadrists are really excluded from civil politics, and they are the majority in the South, then you will have just pushed a majority of Iraqis out of the political process and potentially into civil violence. Isn't that the opposite of the goal here?
As for the real Iraq, Monday was a difficult day.
Guerrillas killed 4 US troops in Iraq on Monday, bringing the 2-day total to 9.
Courtesy al-Zaman
Robert Reid of AP reports that hundreds of Iraqis fled the Shiite districts of Baghdad that are under siege by American and Iraqi government forces. The US and its Iraqi allies engaged in firefights on several fronts in the Shiite neighborhoods. US helicopter gunships and fighter bombers also fired missiles into the civilian neighborhoods. The attacksleft 14 dead in the Baghdad area. The US military denies that its bombing of civilian neighborhoods kills innocent civilians. While I know they try hard to minimize collateral damage, the blanket form of the assertion is not plausible.
The Baghdad fighting is the worst in about a year.
Courtesy Gulfnews.com.
A huge explosion in the southern port city of Basra destroyed a house and killed at least 8 persons. The origin of the blast remains controversial.
The disposition of the oil-rich province of Kirkuk remains a ticking time bomb in Iraq's north. The Kurds intend to annex it to Kurdistan. Most Turkmen and Arabs are violently opposed to this step, as is neighboring Turkey. The referendum scheduled for last December was postponed six months, but seems unlikely to take place in June, either. Some Iraqis, including some Kurds, are talking about a negotiated settlement of the question rather than a referendum (which the Kurds would win since they have flooded Kirkuk province with Kurds).
Not every place in al-Anbar Province is yet "calm," the CSM points out.
With regard to the kidnapping of 42 students from a bus near Mosul, who were later released, I received this from a US military observer in the area:
'Mr. Cole,
You should check your sources closer before you report on the "impunity" of the insugents to operate in the Mosul area. My unit was involved in the location of the college students mentioned in your blog. They were not released by the insurgents at their leisure. They were found by coalition forces, engaged to disable the dump truck that the students were being transported and then freed by combined coalition, Iraqi Army and police forces. The four individuals that were driving the dump truck were all detained by Iraqi Army and police units after firing at U.S. helicopters and then hiding among women and children to avoid being fired upon. I know these items are facts as the operation occured a mere three hours after I completed my mission for the day and was briefed by the aircrews that were responsible for the capture. Please know that everyday we see dispicable acts that are perpetrated upon the Iraqi people in the name of the "insurgency". They dare not engage directly because they have learned of the swift and deadly consequences that will occur to them if they do. Also realize that I see the Iraqi security forces taking a larger role in every operation that we conduct here in Ninevah provence of which Mosul is a part. I know that the axiom "if it bleeds it leads" is more true now than ever, but yesterday was a win in the books for the Iraqis and the coalition. Yesterday yielded 42 students that are home with their families, 4 bad guys that are not on the streets, and not a single bystander hurt by coalition or Iraqi forces alike. That is a good news story, not a bullet to show how impotent we are to what is occurring on the ground. '
It is great to have some background on the way the release was accomplished, information that was to my knowledge not reported in the wire services. And it was certainly good news that the students were released. But I didn't say the US military was impotent; what I said was that if people can be kidnapped like that in broad daylight, security can't be very good. And while it is welcome that security was restored for these victims, it still seems like a high crime area. . .
What I can't understand is why I don't get more letters like this one. I take eyewitness accounts seriously. I'm a classic political liberal and I think the maximization of information is intrinsically good for a republic.
McClatchy reports political violence in Iraq on Monday:
' Baghdad
- Around 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. two roadside bombs targeted Iraqi police vehicles in Zayouna injuring 5 policemen and 5 civilians in both attacks.
- Around 9 a.m. a mortar shell hit the Green Zone.
- Around 2 p.m. a roadside bomb targeted a police vehicle in Al Mashtal injuring 5 policemen.
- Two mortar shells hit the air force soccer club in Palestine Street, causing no casualties.
- Clashes between Mahdi army militiamen and the Iraqi army in Sadr city took place today; Iraqi police said and gave no figures for the casualties.
- Around 3 p.m. three mortar shells targeted the Green Zone, one hit Karrada neighborhood injuring two civilians and two hit inside the Green Zone. - Around 4 p.m. two mortar shells hit the Green Zone.
- Around 5 p.m. a mortar shell hit the cars' parking area in the ministry of foreign affairs causing damages to three parking cars with no casualties.
- Around 5:30 p.m. three mortar shells hit Al Rustamiyah military camp. Minutes later the sources of fire were targeted in Al Ameen neighborhood east of Baghdad, killing 9 civilians and injuring 31, Iraqi police said. No military reepsonse was available by the time of publication of this report.
- A fire in Al Eatiman bank building in Saadon started yesterday night.
- Police found four dead bodies throughout Baghdad, one in Baladiyat, one in Jisr Diyala, one in Amil and one in Dora.
Basra
- Seven men were killed in Al Asdiqa neighborhood (5 miles north of Basra) as an explosion took place in their house.
- A roadside bomb targeted the convoy of General Abdul Kareem Khalf, the spokesman of the ministry of interior, in Al Nashwa area (about 37 miles north of Basra) injuring four body guards.
Diyala
- A roadside bomb targeted an army vehicle in Al Bu Khamis area (about 8 miles south of Baquba) killing one soldier and injuring another.'
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 4/08/2008 12:30:00 AM
|
Facebook
25 Comments:
' But if the Sadrists are really excluded from civil politics, and they are the majority in the South, then you will have just pushed a majority of Iraqis out of the political process and potentially into civil violence. Isn't that the opposite of the goal here? '
If it looks like duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... it's a duck. The goal is the dismemberment of Iraq.
Divide and conquer suits Big Oil, Big War, and Big Israel. Apparently they've got the Kurds, unreconstructed Sunnis, and Iranian backed Shi'ia in Iraq to buy into that equation.
You might assume the goal is to minimize civil violence, Juan Cole. The Neocons have always been partial to "creative destruction". That's apparently destruction that creates a bigger balance in the bank accounts of Big Oil and Big War and a bigger smile on the Hunnish faces in Washington and Tel Aviv.
You've got to disregard what the Neocon regime says, or assume that the opposite is more likely true.
So is the situation in Iraq properly labeled fitna or jahiliyyah? This is progress?
A Sadrist spokesman also pointed out that the Mahdi Army is not a political party. It does not have any candidates in elections, so a ban on the Mahdi militia itself is fine since it is inconsequential.
Sadr himself is not in parliament or in government, unlike the head of the Badr militia who is both. Therefore a ban on people related to militias may affect the others and not the Sadrists.
As you put it so well, excluding such a massive movement is most dangerous. But, in addition, there is no way Maliki can regain Sadr's support after attacking him so publicly. He has now alienated the Sunnis, the Sadrists, the Kurds, and most importantly virtually the entire populace by failing to provide the services and the rule of law. The cost of propping him up is skyrocketting, and he will surely be dumped by the Americans too.
Dr. Cole, perhaps I am unaware of some author at National Review, but I think you must mean Rich Lowry (the editor), as opposed to Glen Lowry.
"But I didn't say the US military was impotent; what I said was that if people can be kidnapped like that in broad daylight, security can't be very good. And while it is welcome that security was restored for these victims, it still seems like a high crime area. . . "
I certainly can't name anyone that would call that a low-crime area.
Thanks for the daily reporting, Professor Cole. I'm not sure where else I'd find the kind of information I do on your site.
well, its a start.
3 years of plugging my "Model Communities" approach to stabilizing Iraq,
by empowering the authentic indigenous local leaders of small, discrete Iraqi communities to defend, secure and stabilize their neighborhoods,
and David Brooks finally comes out in favor of it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/opinion/08brooks.html?ref=opinion
If warmongers are starting to get practical,
and looking for ways to salvage what we can,
why not end the bickering and embrace their new-found practicality ?
The only way the US pulls out of Iraq
is if we have a plan to prevent total chaos.
This is that plan.
Power to the (Iraqi) people.
your Avid Student
You probably don't get more eyewitness letters because the eyewitnesses aren't allowed to read your blog. You are an admitted "classic liberal," after all.
Professor Cole:
You write:
"While I know they try hard to minimize collateral damage, the blanket form of the assertion is not plausible."
Did you not watch/listen to any of the Winter Soldier testimony last month? From most of what was said there (and from many other sources), it seems clear the US military could not care less about "collateral damage" and that an ethic of contempt for the Iraqi population is endemic and taught from the highest levels.
There are enough apologists in Washington, DC. Please do not join their ranks.
Thank you for your fine work otherwise.
Richard Jehn
The Rag Blog
Professor Cole,
I can hardly claim to be an expert on Iraq, as you so obviously are, yet something seems so clear to me:
Sadr has just demonstrated that he can turn the conflict in Iraq on and off any time he wants to, and there is nothing that the Iraqui "government" or the Bush administration can do about it. In fact, events of the last few weeks have led me to suspect that the supposed success of the "surge" is almost entirely due to Sadr's holding back. There has been no progress in Iraq as a result of our efforts, and at any point, Sadr can bring Bush's house of cards crashing to the ground. Is this pessimistic view so far from the truth?
Juan,
When you label yourself a "classic liberal" I think it would be wise to be clear: classical liberalism as a philosophy usually today includes economic liberalism of the type espoused by Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. I suspect you are not meaning to include yourself in that category. Just say your a liberal who believes the public should receive the maximum of information regarding public issues.
ref : “The US military attacked the Mahdi Army militia in Sadr City on Sunday, alongside Iraqi Army troops...It was not clear what the purpose of the attack was, since the US clearly cannot intensively occupy the labyrinthine Shi'ite slum, and therefore cannot actually disarm the Mahdi Army. Were they attempting to impress on the Sadrists that rocket attacks on the Green Zone would bring retaliation?”
Yes, professor. When you/your base are being shelled day after day, it is imperative that you do something about it ~ not only to disperse, and if possible destroy the mortar/rocket teams firing upon you, but also for the sake of morale within your ‘Green Zone’ defensive fortification.
Siege Warfare : The hell of it is, as an Officer, you know that sending these combat teams and show-of-force patrols out to the ‘Red Zone’ will result in more KIA+WIA casualties than would be incurred if you were to simply hunker down under fire, remain besieged. While this mutually bloody sacrifice takes place, you, the Officer then discreetly re-start the receiving & unloading operations of interrupted vital supply convoys; as well you evacuate any non-essential and/or vulnerable personnel from your besieged base.
The uncomfortable reality here is that: while General Petraeus today reports on something called ‘The Surge’, with its conceit implicit of "counter-insurgency" ~ his forces are, in fact engaged in ‘Counter-Siege’ = defensive warfare. . .
. . .and while Republican and Democratic leaders talk boldly of "Staying the Course" or "Withdrawing" from ‘IRAQ’, the real eye-opener for us, being among that handful of informed Americans, is: How long can General Petraeus sustain not ‘The Surge’ but ‘Their Siege’; and, under such fire apparent, How would we even manage an orderly withdrawal from Baghdad?
Juan, would you print a letter from an Iraqi who had a second-hand account about what really happened? Do you assume that any letter from a US Military source is legit, even though the US Military is officially committed to a policy of , effectively, disinformation?
The reality that you SHOULD emphasize is the lack of reportage in Iraq, so we really have very little knowledge as to what is actually happening.
I personally find the account you got from a representative of the US Military to be no more plausible than the other account, that the captors simply let their captives go.
I'd say you have quite the double standard. You comment that you believe that the US Military tries to avoid civilian casualties when they fire missles and bombs into civilian areas. I call that blatantly ridiculous. Do you also believe the Israeli Military when they make the same claim? The fact, it seems to me, is quite blatantly that BOTH sides are sending explosives into civilian areas.
That's why we should never have invaded, or one reason why. Sooner or later we would get bogged down in urban warfare, which inevitably becomes anti-civilian warfare. Just look at pictures of Berlin after WW2. That's how Baghdad will end up, the way things are going. The more firepower hits the Green Zone, the more firepower gets poured into Sadre City and all of it justified by both sides.
Again, the "miraculous rescue" is as believable as the "miraculous release" - maybe less reasonable.
The notion that the US is miraculously firing into civilian areas with no intention of harming civilians is as reasonable as the notion that a punch is a way of saying "good morning". After all, it was the missle that did the damage, not the Military which fired it.
Possible background factor to increased violence:
"
Further complicating matters for the occupiers of Iraq, the U.S.-backed Awakening groups, largely comprised of former resistance fighters, are now going on strike to demand overdue payment from the U.S. military. "
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41827
John Francis, I doubt dismemberment is the goal of Big Oil. As long as it doesn't result in eventual nationalization, Big Oil would much rather work with the stability of a centralized authoritarian government.
The US military source wrote: "Also realize that I see the Iraqi security forces taking a larger role in every operation that we conduct here in Ninevah provence of which Mosul is a part."
It would be curious to know if those "security forces" are integrated and follow the command of the central government, or if they act mainly when pursuing members of another sect or when prodded and overseen by US advisors and copters. Any plan to train Iraqis, at least before 2108AD, to fly the copters that spearheaded the pursuit?
Also curious that the source writes only to complain about Cole. Presumably, everything reported by NR, Weekly Standard, or Fox needs no correction.
Oh, on the idea of Sistani ordering the Mahdi Army to disband, even if he wanted to do that, is there any way he would risk his carefully crafted image of supreme religious authority and behind-the-scenes "nudger" of Iraq? Sistani's ultimate impotence would be exposed if he gave such an order.
If it wasn't such a deadly serious matter, the hypocrisy of it all would have been rather amusing. Here you have State Department renewing the contract for Blackwater mercenaries while US and Iraqi government is calling the Iraqis to disarm!
Iraqis have no right to bear arms or stop a foreign mercenaries to operate in their country.
With all due respect to the various
'helpful' commenters, IMO the Iraqis don't want your help AT ALL. (Well, maybe the money but that's it.)
First of all, they really don't like the USA--not just from the last 5 years but the 10 years of sanctions before that.
Second, they feel they've managed their affairs for the last 8000 years (who do you(americans) think you are?). They don't believe in open government, they do deals.
Third, their country is completely wrecked(who told you(americans) you could do that?).
Will there be violence if the US leaves? Probably but Iraq is a violent country--go fix Compton or New Orleans the come back.
Perhaps, a fight will lead to...a deal, but no deals while the Americans are around.
The lastest attack in Sadr City was a response by Bush-Maliki to Muqtada's Million-man March idea.
Sadr does'nt want to fight--time is on his side, but Maliki does.
So why are we intefering in internal Iraqi politics yet again?
(by what right?)
Deadender Bush wishes to provoke and win a last fight for 'his' allies before January.
"What? Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!"
Animal House(1978)
On the question, "How would we even manage an orderly withdrawal from Baghdad?", the answer to that is simple. It would consist of the order, "Forward, Muh-ARCH!", followed by every soldier bugging out to Kuwait. Now, you say that this would be difficult under fire. But it would be no more difficult than their initial insertion into Baghdad was in the first place, which you might remember they were under fire then too.
The fact of the matter is that no Iraqi militia has the military force to stop the U.S. military from going wherever they want to go. That is even more true today than it was in 2003 when Saddam had a "real" army, something which doesn't apply to any of the militias. The reason the U.S. can't control Iraq is because there aren't enough troops in Iraq to station a squad on every other street corner, not because the U.S. can be defeated in a tactical encounter by any force currently extant in Iraq.
In short, leaving Iraq will be even easier than entering Iraq was, requiring nothing but an order. Of course that leaves all our bases and depot equipment and such behind, but (shrug). Equipment can be replaced. And of course there will be disorder in Iraq after our soldiers leave, but (shrug) there's already disorder in Iraq. In the end, the Iraqis are going to have to figure that one out, it is already clear that the U.S. is utterly incompetent and impotent when it comes to the issue of how to create a stable Iraqi government that can insure security and basic services for its entire population. Best that the U.S. can do at this point is pay rebuilding funds to whatever government eventually does restore order to Iraq. The Pottery Barn rules are, "you break it, you pay for it" -- *NOT* "you break it, you own it."
-BT
Prof Cole,
Regarding your question about why you do not get more first hand reports, I think I know why. I did 3 tours in Iraq and most (nearly all) reports that I saw about areas of Iraq that I operated in were either grossly misleading or flat out inaccurate. It annoyed me, especially when my parents were watching the news and were influenced by bad information.
However, neither I nor anyone else whom I know of took the time to write a letter/email or make a phone call because we acted on 2 assumptions.
1) the story reflected the bias of the author, so it was pointless to contest it.
2) the author/outlet probably gets umpteen gazillion letters per day and ours would be ignored.
We were also quite busy, not always near an internet connection, and rarely near a phone.
Lastly, and most importantly, I read your blog specifically for the alternative view, not to hear my own views repeated. If you write something that I disagree with, but it makes sense, then that is exactly what I want to read and I'm not going to attempt to discourage you.
Mano a Mano
Gen Odom v. NeoCon Kagan - Newshour
McCutchen--Thanks for the link. Kagan went down in flames, as he should. Odom was very forceful in his analysis.
Kagan:
http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/13897
You wrote: "While I know they try hard to minimize collateral damage, the blanket form of the assertion is not plausible."
Actually, it is quite plausible. See the video posted here by MNF-I..
Professor
I'd appreciate a comment on this:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-najaf20apr20,1,3800254.story
particularly on the anti-Sadr fatwa from Grand Ayatollah Najafi and the reports that the Iraqi Army has taken control of all parts of Basra and Um Qasr.
Post a Comment
<< Home