Badr Inducted into Army
as Thousands fired for Mutiny;
Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on Tuesday honored the militias of the parties in the United Iraqi Alliance, i.e. the Da'wa (Islamic Call) Party and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. They were singled out for having fought alongside government security forces, and some 10,000 of them were inducted into the latter.
Al-Zaman points to a double standard, insofar as the government has not similarly honored, or accepted into the state apparatus, most members of the Sunni Awakening Council militias that have been fighting the Qutbist Jihadis.
The induction of Badr Corps fighters (the paramilitary of ISCI) and those of the Da'wa Party into security positions came in the wake of the firing of thousands of officers and troops who had refused to obey orders to fire on the Mahdi Army militiamen in Baghdad and the southern provinces. They were accused of mutiny.
If al-Zaman's reporting is correct, the scale of the mutiny is breathtaking, and helps explain why government troops did so poorly against the Sadrists-- the hearts of the thousands of them were simply not with the fight.
Al-Hayat adds details in Arabic, quoting soldiers who have been fired by al-Maliki. They say they were thrown, in Basra, into a situation where they were taking sniper fire from every direction. They had little training in street combat
Back to al-Zaman: Iraqi Interior and Defense Ministry statistics show that 923 Iraqis were killed during the month of March, a 31% increase over February, making March the deadliest month in Iraq since last August.
Meanwhile, Muqtada al-Sadr sent out a letter to his Mahdi Army fighters, praising "their patience, obedience and defense of their people and land." He asked them to redouble their efforts in confronting "a large number," though he did not say "a large number" of what. Later communiques suggest that he was referring to American troops.
Basra returned to relative calm on Tuesday. In Baghdad, clashes continued, as a curfew continued to be imposed on Sadr City, Kadhimiya and Shu'la districts, which are known strongholds of the Mahdi Army.
Leila Fadel of McClatchy gets the story from Sadr City in Baghdad-- reporting on the human and political cost of last week's assault on the Mahdi Army and US-produced 'collateral damage.' Another US airstrike was called in on the civilian neighborhood of Sadr City on Tuesday morning.
Fadel reports one Sadrist saying,
' "We realized what kind of government we have: They are like foxes," Abu Amir said. "The Americans are our enemies, not our friends. Maliki is an agent of the Americans. '
Warren Strobel and Nancy Youssef report for Mcclatchy that a significant outcome of the poor performance of Iraqi government forces is that Britain and the US will postpone further troop withdrawals. (I predicted this last Wednesday on the Lehrer News Hour.
)
Labels: Iraq


14 Comments:
The UK Independent newspaper carried a story a week ago, saying that one of al-Maliki's top generals was facing the sack for saying that his troops would not be ready to take on Al Sadr for another few months. Juan's post today confirms he was right.
This only reinforces the obvious conclusion: that McCain and Cheney pressured Al Maliki into a premature attack on Al Sadr for their own short-term political purposes. Dangerous men in desperate times.
Petraeus and Croker seem to be silent about what happened in Basra. Both knew damn well the poor state of the Iraqi Army and the strenght of Sadr beforehand.
The Americans are the Iraqi Army's overseers, planners, trainers, the control and command, the providers of arms, and have US officers in every IA unit. They also plan and make sure that it stays poor, in case they have to fight it.
The Americans also have thousands of Sadrists in their prisons who have been interrogated in depth. They have spies everywhere, just like the Iranians and Saudis. They even have indirect links to the Sadrists leadership.
So it would have been no surprise to them that the IA was defeated. The question is: were Petraeus and Croker against it or for it before the start? It is very difficult to decide.
Let's assume that the Americans knew in advance the IA would lose. Whatever the gains, they surely would have known that Sadr would grow in stature as a result. Is it conceivable the the US wants that? It is not far fetched. He is anti-Iran after all, and some of his close circle as Westernized.
Another possibility is that they wanted to balance Badr vs Mahdi militias to keep them both weak. But Badr now is the weaker by far.
I'm sure the outcomes in Basra and Baghdad come as a mild disappointment to Bush, Cheney, McCain & Co.-- the latest in a long series of disappointments-- but not enough to discourage them. Filling the army with sectarian militias loyal to the current central govt is an interesting strategic move. It amounts to a considerable transfer of power and privilege to favored militias that will strengthen al-Maliki's hand in the short run, but also exacerbate sectarian conflict--perhaps intentionally. Bush, Cheney, McCain, al-Maliki & Co are positioning for a long war.
Maliki, Bush, Cheney and McCain were ALL surprised by the strength of the resistance of the Mahdi army. Quite similar to the surprise which greeted the invasion of Lebanon by Israel. The Mahdi army spent the last year preparing for this attack, and they were defending the future of their country.
Gareth Porter writes:
Petraeus, meanwhile, was convinced that the ability of the Mahdi Army to
resist had been reduced by US military actions as well as by its
presumed internal disorganization. His spokesman, Rear Admiral Gregory
Smith, declared in early November, "As we've gone after that training
skill levels amongst the enemy, we've degraded their capability..."
Then came Muqtada's announcement on February 22 that the ceasefire would
be extended. That apparently convinced Petraeus and the Bush White House
that they could now launch a large-scale "cordon and search" operation
against the Mahdi Army in Basra without great risk of a military
response.
That assumption ignored the evidence that Muqtada had been avoiding
major combat because he was reorganizing and rebuilding the Mahdi Army
into a more effective force. Thousands of Mahdi Army fighters, including
top commanders, were sent to Iran for training - not as "rogue
elements", as suggested by the US command, but with Muqtada's full
support. One veteran Mahdi Army fighter who had undergone such training
told The Independent last April that the retraining was "part of a new
strategy. We know we are against a strong enemy and we must learn proper
methods and techniques."
Last week, a Mahdi Army commander in Sadr City in Baghdad was quoted by
The Canadian Press as saying, "We are now better organized, have better
weapons, command centers and easy access to logistical and financial
support."
A long CIVIL war, as fuel stocks rise in the US due to demand reduction, as refineries come on line in the ME and Asia.
ref : “the firing of thousands of officers and troops. . .”
Presumably Mr. Maliki believes that these (well-armed and trained) soldiers will simply cease to exist? (!) Considering the recent history of IRAQ, that painful lesson learned as a direct result of Mr. Bremer's, and Messrs. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld's disastrous decision to disband the Iraqi Army, that this spectacular blunder would be repeated ~ without protest apparent from General Petraeus, et al ~ boggles my mind.
As if the Tet Offensive -like ‘spontaneous uprising’ of Mr. Sadr's forces, creating havoc in virtually every major population centre in Southern IRAQ, forcing Mr. Maliki to seek a humiliating ‘cease-fire Agreement’ brokered in IRAN ~ was not, in itself a rude enough wake-up call for anyone paying attention. . .
. . .Prime Minister al-Maliki (and General Petraeus, by his acquiesence) have now succeeded in multiplying the ‘force effectiveness’ of Mr. Sadr's anti-American militia ~ i daresay recklessly endangering our troops. imho, this episode will be recorded in history not only as stunning incompetence, but also a near-criminal negligence wrought by Iraqi and American political and military leaders. mon professeur, there is no way for you or I to overstate the tragedy of this now history writ :-/
As much as I admire your work, it didn't take a genius to predict we'd postpone further troop withdrawals.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing featuring Nir Rosen just concluded (it lasted two and a half hours; the other two witnesses were Yahia Said and Stephen Biddle).
A watershed moment. T.R.U.T.H. about Iraq spoken face to face with United States Senators - or at least with the minority of those on the committee who bothered to show up to hear hard truths from someone who's spent "most of the last five years" in Iraq.
The Senators who showed up to represent their constituents, and to ask a question or two: Joe Biden, the Chair who also arranged for these important hearings this week, Richard Lugar, John Kerry, Lisa Murkowski, Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Ben Cardin and one Republican who I didn't identify (he was mostly interested in identifying any cover excuse for maintaining the status quo of our occupation, no matter what, unlike Lugar and Murkowski who asked real questions). Jim Webb, among others, couldn't be bothered to show up at all - I guess only generals, not Iraqis, get his personal attention (Webb was present for the morning panel).
Anyway, between Rosen and Said, a handful of Senators with their heads obviously mostly in the sand got a real education about Iraq. Barbara Boxer in particular seemed astounded to learn that General Petraeus has been pulling her leg about Iraq especially with regard to alleged "progress" in establishing its national police force...
I found Rosen's detailed testimony quite illuminating and helpful with regard to understanding the complex motivations of the various players in Iraq, and Said added a lot as well. They both pointed out that the Sadrists/al-Sadr and the Sunni Awakening groups are both capable and apparently willing to try to come to agreement on a nationalist platform and power-sharing agreement, if the U.S. would only get out of the way. Oil was mentioned, albeit a bit too tangentially, as was the nationalist vs. federalist/separatist dispute, although that was perhaps not emphasized enough to really sink in to Senators who have been such willing consumers of Pentagon propaganda for so long.
The one point that I thought could have used more elaboration relates to the federalism issue that impacts Joe Biden's pet project of divvying up Iraq. When his pet ox got gored, especially by Said, Biden exclaimed that the Iraqi Constitution (I guess he's heard of the Iraqi Constitution at least) called for dividing the nation into governates, so OF COURSE that should come to pass. Said indirectly pointed out to him, finally, the sort of environment in which that Constitution was passed (shoved onto Iraq, in effect), and that the actors had since changed. But the point that the people of Iraq really had no say in the creation of that nation-changing document was completely ignored by Biden and he wasn't really called on that point enough to convince him of the error of his ways in that regard...
In connection with that, if I understood Biden and Said correctly, another key motivation for the al-Maliki 'surge' on Basra may have been the April 15th (or 17th?) kick-off of the implementation of a long-delayed provision of that Constitution which will allow certain regions of Iraq, by simple majority vote, to become semi-independent, as Biden (and the Bush administration, covertly if not overtly) has long advocated. Said indicated clearly that if these 'federalism' fiefdoms start developing, things are only going to get more complicated in Iraq. So that's something that's apparently very much on the horizon, long before October's proposed election comes to pass.
Overall, besides the wonderful experience of having a truthteller testifying to the Senate with facts and specific details about Iraq (collected outside the Green Zone), my main impression was of the dreadful, intellectually-lazy and hands-off attitudes of these Senators about the issue. It's absolutely appalling how they have written their branch of government out of the picture in ongoing decisions about the use of Pentagon resources and foreign policy. They come across like perfumed princes deigning to toss a few comments out about that distant, and forgotten conflict for which they somehow, mysteriously have no responsibility. At least Barbara Boxer showed some passion, and for that I thank her.
Well done, Nir Rosen. Thanks to you, today the people of Iraq had their voices heard inside the United States Senate.
"They both pointed out that the Sadrists/al-Sadr and the Sunni Awakening groups are both capable and apparently willing to try to come to agreement on a nationalist platform and power-sharing agreement, if the U.S. would only get out of the way."
I was there today. Rosen most certainly did not. He intimated that the sunni sahwas were determined to get the shias militias out of Baghdad.
Rosen was a bit muddled. He said the sunnis want rid of the govt AND the militias. By that he meant JAM.
I believe he was wrong and that the sunnis will come together with the JAM and get rid of the Badr guys. At least i hope they will.
He was right on a major point though. The sunnis lost the civil war. And they know it. Maybe that'll factor into their calculations when the US leaves, as to whether trying to wipe 70% of the country out is a good idea.
Evidently it isnt.
Here's the URL for the Senate hearing statements and video from today's Rosen panel:
http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2008/hrg080402p.html
And here's the URL for the transcript of a Nir Rosen interview with Amy Goodman yesterday:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/4/1/iraq_has_become_somaliaa_collection_of
A telling excerpt from yesterday's interview:
NIR ROSEN: "It's just mind-boggling. Five years after a war we call a war of liberation, which was, we were told, to liberate the Shias, we're bombing Shias. We're bombing Shia areas throughout Iraq, killing Shia civilians. I mean, clearly it's been a complete catastrophe. And the US continues to kill Iraqi civilians. There's this idea now that the Americans are just sort of beat cops patrolling Iraq's streets, separating the two sides. That's not true. Every day, they're killing Iraqi civilians. They hold 24,000 Iraqi civilians in American prisons, at least 24,000. They haven't been charged with any crime or found guilty of any crime. They can be held for years. They're not handed over to the Iraqi authorities, which actually is a good thing, because they'd be treated much worse in an Iraqi prison. They detain juveniles. They raid houses and break down doors, drag the men out. It's really still a very oppressive occupation. And a foreign occupation is a systematic imposition of violence on an entire nation. The occupation is not over."
' The one point that I thought could have used more elaboration relates to the federalism issue that impacts Joe Biden's pet project of divvying up Iraq. When his pet ox got gored, especially by Said, Biden exclaimed that the Iraqi Constitution (I guess he's heard of the Iraqi Constitution at least) called for dividing the nation into governates, so OF COURSE that should come to pass. Said indirectly pointed out to him, finally, the sort of environment in which that Constitution was passed (shoved onto Iraq, in effect), and that the actors had since changed. But the point that the people of Iraq really had no say in the creation of that nation-changing document was completely ignored by Biden and he wasn't really called on that point enough to convince him of the error of his ways in that regard... '
Don't forget who the US House and Senate work for :
The other Iraqi civil war
' Israel would like nothing better than a proxy war in Iraq pitting Iran and its Arab allies against Sunni Arab US allies. Meanwhile, writes al-Amir, "Israel would build a political-military-economic alliance with a semi-independent Kurdistan Regional Government, with oil wealth that would be considerably enhanced by the prospect of taking over Arab Kirkuk and Mosul." Israeli interests - not to mention strategic intelligence - are already deeply entrenched in Iraqi Kurdistan. Kurdish leaders have already demonstrated an extraordinary mobility to always strike deals with the best-positioned bidder - or with any player capable of advancing the utmost Kurdish dream, independence. As for a US-Israeli-greater Kurdistan alliance, that may still be Washington's way to achieve its own dream of a new, greater Middle East. If those pesky, enraged, realist, Iraqi nationalist Sunnis and Shi'ites don't get in the way. '
The Kurds signed an oil contract on their own with one of Bush's "pioneers"... in direct defiance of Bush's stated policies. It's kind of like Bush deploring new settlements in Palestine that interfere with the "road map", the Israelis let him say whatever he wants to as long as Cheney and the Neocons makes sure he doesn't do anything about it.
The best bit was when Rosen called the US an imperial nation. That got a chuckle out of me and the code pinkos in the room!
The Gop side of the room was not impressed. Then again neither was Kerry or Biden.
The Iraqi government forgot an essential point: the political equation favors Sadr. Sadr has played his political cards beautifully.
The Iraqi Army is not in a position to destroy the adherents of the single most popular political figure in the country; it was always going to end in a stalemate that made Sadr stronger.
The other point is the essential irrelevance of the American forces. We persist in thinking we affect the dynamic more than we do.
[Meanwhile, Muqtada al-Sadr sent out a letter to his Mahdi Army fighters, praising "their patience, obedience and defense of their people and land." He asked them to redouble their efforts in confronting "a large number," though he did not say "a large number" of what. Later communiques suggest that he was referring to American troops.]
I read Sayyid Muqtada's letter; he urges his followers to confront "al-3aduw al-Akbar" i.e. "the bigger enemy" and not "a larger number" as your favorite source Azzaan reports."3aduw" (enemy) is the word in al-Sadr letter, not "3adad" (number). I think most his followers know who this bigger enemy is.
BTW: I cannot understand how you find Saad el-Bazzaz's Azzaman a reliable source-given that was was Uday's long-serving pimp!
Post a Comment
<< Home