Clashes Continue in Basra:
Badr Militia Strengthened
Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that clashes continued to be fought in Basra on Thursday between Iraqi government troops and the Mahdi Army militia.
It also says that US troops in civilian clothing were targeted in the Shiite city of Hillah south of Baghdad. They were attacked by unknown gunmen and had to call in airstrikes on enemy positions. So how come they were wearing civilian cloths?
The same report discussed the arrest of Yusuf Sanawi, leader of Tha'r Allah (the revenge of God), which stands accused of being behind much of the violence in Basra.
The LAT says Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is intent on pursuing his struggle with the Mahdi Army militia, not only in the southern port city of Basra but in other Shiite cities as well. Apparently he thinks big talk will substitute for successful military operations.
In response, Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr, the leader of the Mahdi Army, called for demonstrations on Friday and then for a million-man march on April 9, the anniversary of the US occupation of Baghdad and the fall of the Baath government. (Sadr is happy about the fall of Saddam; unhappy about the foreign military occupation).
Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that Iran and Kuwait have closed their borders with Iraq and halted the import-export trade because of the deterioration of security.
The New York Times confirms that "over a thousand" officers and troops of the Iraqi army declined to fight the Mahdi Army in Basra or deserted their posts. It also reports that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki replaced them by inducting 10,000 Shiite "tribal" fighters into the Iraqi army. But the Iraqi press didn't call them "tribal," it called them Badr Corps, the paramilitary of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, headed by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim and now al-Maliki's main political ally. I'm not sure about the source of the discrepancy, but the NYT piece seems to be based on interviews with Iraqi and American government officials. It is possible that the need to strengthen the Iraqi army by turning to a Shiite militia trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards (terrorists!) was just too embarrassing to admit. So the officials used the euphemism "tribal forces" with the foreign press.
Fred Kaplan at Slate asks the good question of whether the induction of the Badr fighters into the army means that the Iraqi government is increasingly dependent on that militia. I think the answer is clearly yes. Indeed, the only effective fighters the Iraqi military has appear to be Badr Corps and Kurdish Peshmerga. (Apparently the Kurdish troops declined to go all the way down south to Basra, and the 14th Division that did go down is made up of southern Shiites, many of them with Sadrist sympathies.)
For the Iraqi government to depend on Badr and Peshmerga militias, however, weakens its independence and makes it hostage to allies of Iran (both Jalal Talabani, the president of Iraq and a Kurdish leader, and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, have close relations with the Iranian ayatollahs.) So not only did Iran gain stature and authority in Iraq by negotiating a (fragile) ceasefire between al-Maliki and Muqtada al-Sadr, but al-Maliki has is now more than ever dependent on Iranian clients.
Wayne White of the Middle East Institute makes the interesting observation that the Mahdi Army became stronger in Basra because of the US troop escalation in Baghdad. Many fighters, seeking to wait out the surge, relocated to Basra, where their strength surprised al-Maliki
Jonathan Steele argues that al-Sadr came out of the episode much strengthened. He suggests that Cheney may have greenlighted the operation when he was there, in hopes that it would produce dramatic good news in time for the upcoming Petraeus / Crocker appearances before Congress. If so, it backfired big time.
IPS reports on the way in which Iraq has again become central to the presidential campaign The silly McCain campaign assertions that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror or that al-Qaeda would take over Iraq if the US pulled out are subjected to some searching criticism.
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 4/04/2008 12:31:00 AM
|
Facebook
17 Comments:
Sir, your one sentence captures Maliki in a nutshell:
"Apparently he thinks big talk will substitute for successful military operations."
He is a significant contributor to Global Warming by the amout of hot air he emits.
However, the 10,000 tribal recruits are not meant to be Badr, but what is says on the tin.
Badr foot-soldiers have repeatedly shown, since 2003 particularly in Anbar, that they have no stomach for a fight. They proved it again recently in Basra.
Crocker has now gone public in his criticism of Maliki and the Basra attack. It may be that the US is using Maliki as the fall-guy, but Crocker said specifically that he should have used money to win the local tribes and set-up Awakening units.
Maliki does not want more units outside his control. So he is trying to recruit them into the Army instead (being the idiot that he is, he paid few hundred of them to jump up and in Basra streets with cheap slogans in his support.)
The Awakening groups showed that they were good and strong fighters because they were defending their areas, under their own leadership. Put them in the Army under the command of fake commissioned officers and send them on dangerous political missions and they wont fight.
I don't think the government is becoming more dependent on sectarian militias. I think it's fair to say at this point the government is a sectarian militia -- or rather, a coalition of two sectarian militias, neither of which is willing to fight the other's battles.
An Iraq veteran contact of mine who participated in training Iraqi forces tells me that there were plenty of Sadrists among the troops, but the leadership was all Badr Corps. This would explain the need to infuse 10,000 loyalists into the ranks. Of course, if as the NYT article suggests, these new troops are primarily motivated by the salary, we are unlikely to see any improvement in performance. The big advantage the Sadrists have is that, coming largely from the ranks of the poor whose lives are already pretty wretched, they have nothing to lose. Indeed, the opportunity to fight for what they see as a just cause may be their only path to a meaningful life. Their opponents may like their salaries, but they're unlikely to take a bullet for them.
In any case, it appears Maliki has gone off the deep end. I suspect he sees his only chance at political survival is to provoke a security crisis so great that elections cannot be held. This contradicts our own desire to show "progress," but what can we do? We are largely hostage to this strategy. With so much demonization under the bridge, we can hardly press for elections which will make Sadr the chief power broker in the country. Of course, our Sunni Awakening allies, on whose behalf we've been pressing for provincial elections in the first place, are likely to have a negative reaction to this.
Oh, what tangled webs ye weave . . .
Such dilemmas are the natural result of a policy which has been incoherent ever since the flowers and sweets failed to materialize. At least the Karma gods are working, and Iraq, like the economy, is unravelling while it's still Bush's watch, and not that of his unfortunate successor.
It seems as though most people view JAM and Badr in much the same light. My impression is that Hakim wants to live the comfy life of a politician enriched by bribes and misuse of gov't funds. Sadr likes to stir up the lower class and create violence. In ISCI, I see an organization that may be disreputable by our standards, but still far better than the Sadr Trend.
If we are going to eventually withdraw from Iraq, it seems that less blood would be shed if ISCI kept southern Iraq under control, the Kurds kept Kurdistan under control, the Anbar tribes kept their area under control, and hopefully the citizens of Baghdad will have greater means of fleeing the city than the residents of New Orleans did.
Le Monde also sees Iran and al-Sadr strenghtened by the episode:
http://www.lemonde.fr/archives/article/2008/04/02/l-iran-et-moqtada-al-sadr-renforces-apres-l-offensive-militaire-ratee-du-gouvernement-irakien_1029986_0.html
Were these US troops Arabs? Were they wearing American or Iraqi "civilian" clothes, or is there no discernible difference?
I have this bizarre image of blond Anglosaxons being sent out in military formations but with civilian clothes on so no one would notice them. It wouldn't be the dumbest thing we've done lately.
"He suggests that Cheney may have greenlighted the operation when he was there, in hopes that it would produce dramatic good news in time for the upcoming Petraeus / Crocker appearances before Congress. If so, it backfired big time."
I think you must have confused VP Cheney and his gang with people with a sense of shame. This action in Basra (and elsewhere) WILL be hailed as VERY GOOD NEWS indeed, showing once again the incredible bravery of our young men and women in uniform, blah, blah, blah.
I wonder if in his upcoming testimony to US congress, the Gen Peatrus is going to be asked about the progress in training of the Iraqi army.
I recall a few yeas ago there was one division that was trained, then it was three, then it was back to one. I wonder where the number stands today. It would be interesting to know exactly how much money has been spend per trained Iraqi soldier.
A rationale for tacit US military approval of al-Maliki's use of the Iraq Army was indirectly given in the morning session of Wednesday's Senate Foreign Relations hearings. Specifically, at least one of the witnesses stated that there is a belief that sending units into battle is one of the quickest ways to determine who the real officers and soldiers are. In this case, problems of loyalty would also be exposed.
I doubt that al-Maliki could take these kind of actions without at least high level approval from US military command and the Administration. I also think they would naturally look hastily planned because of fear of security leaks. I cannot imagine al-Maliki crossing Cheney or Petreaus, i.e., pulling a fast one.
I suspect that this is just a new tactic with an acceptable downside for the administration. If nothing good comes from it, all the blame will fall on the Iraqis and al-Maliki.
I think that McCain's "I was surprised..." needs to be heard in a very narrow context, e.g., "I had no idea that this action was in the works." Whether he was aware of the general situation in Basra is another matter. I do not think there would be any reason for the Administration to inform either McCain or someone like Lieberman about something like this. I would guess that this kind of decision involves the smallest number of people as is possible.
A major theme in Wednesday's hearing seemed to be, "Everyone knows the US is going to leave Iraq but that it will not happen during this administration." Related themes seemed to be, "The longer we (the US) stays, the more the internal security situation deteriorates" and "It will be bloody but the Iraqis are perfectly capable of sorting things out" and "The region will not be de-stabilized if we exit Iraq."
Both the witnesses and the Senators seemed to be resigned to waiting for the change of the US Administration.
Not only is the Badr Organization trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, it looks like many of them are also receiving their pensions from the IRGC: http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2008/04/round-and-round.html (via Matt Yglesias).
Maybe offloading Sadrist sympathizers was the whole point
Perhaps this offensive against Sadrist strongholds was launched with such haste precisely because the real aim wasn't to beat the Sadrists, this time, but to purge the army and police of Sadr loayalists, while at the same time creating an excuse to reflag the Dawa and ISCI militias as Iraqi army. The real offensive against Sadr will come later, after Maliki has time to reorganize an army and police now loyal to himself, and closer to their elections -- and ours.
I don't believe for a minute that our govt did not know of this offensive, and approve it, beforehand. Maliki can't go to the bathroom without our approval, much less to Basra. Our govt's disavowal of foreknowledge implies that they knew that the publicly stated objective, taking Sadrist strongholds, would fail, but the fact of their approval implies that there must be some objective other than the stated one that the offensive actually was designed to achieve. My suggestion is that the real objective was this purge and restructuring of the army and police into forces loyal to Maliki. The real offensive against the Sadrists in the south and in Sadr City, to occur closer to our elections, will be designed to widen the war, perhaps even into Iran, in the hope that a wider war will frighten our electorate into voting for McCain. No, I don't think that's a good bet to help them win the election, but they're running out of alternatives, and they have to win.
Glen Tomkins
Both the actual Battle of Basra as well as the behavior of Maliki and the U.S. in the few days since suggest that the situation in Iraq is becoming increasingly unstable and dangerous at the moment. With Sunnis sitting on the sidelines arming themselves while intra-Shi'ite factional hostility rises, is it fair to conclude that Iraq's longer term propects also look pretty dismal or is there evidence somewhere of light at the end of the tunnel?
The two primary outcomes of the "Basra Operation" are quite clear: 1) Maliki's government is confrimed beyond doubt to be a puppet ally of the Occupiers. 2) Sadr is confrimed as the one man who has "Stood Up" for the freedom of his people and nation from the tyrannical yolk of the Occupiers and their puppet. The Vietnam era equivalents are Maliki=Diem/Thieu Sadr=Ho Chi Minh.
IMO, those wanting freedom for Iraq should back Iraq's true Freedom Fighter, Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr.
Anyone wondering about the situation in Iraq, e.g., William deB. Mills, should consider taking the time to watch/listen to Wednesday's Senate Foreign Relations committee hearings. There is a morning and afternoon session.
IRAQ AFTER THE SURGE: MILITARY PROSPECTS
http://foreign.senate.gov/archives/2008/archive040208.ram
IRAQ AFTER THE SURGE: POLITICAL PROSPECTS
http://foreign.senate.gov/archives/2008/archive040208p.ram
The hearings tend to start about 15 minutes or so into the video recording.
The prepared statements of Biden and the witnesses are available on the pages for each hearing. Links to those pages can be found at:
http://foreign.senate.gov/hearing.html
Awww... it's NOT 'civilian clothes'... It's simply "relaxed grooming standards" (Snicker...)
From March 2003
Pentagon Defends Use of Civilian Clothes
The Pentagon on Friday defended the use of some civilian clothes by U.S. special operations forces, a tactic used to help them blend in with the local population.
Alleging war crimes, Bush administration officials complained bitterly last week that Iraqi paramilitary forces dressed as civilians, faked surrenders and used other battlefield ruses to kill American soldiers.
Asked at a Pentagon press conference why it is OK for American commando troops to take off their uniforms, but a crime when the Iraqis did it, Defense Department spokeswoman Victoria Clarke said she thought American forces wear something that distinguishes them from civilians, but deferred the question for a later answer.
The issue is a subject of disagreement among Pentagon legal advisers and policy makers. Some officials have said for some time that it is a gray area that needs to be settled as a policy, another defense official said on condition of anonymity.
Special operations forces are often allowed what the military calls "relaxed grooming standards."
The full statement
if Joseph Sixpack cares SO much about the blood of Iraqis, he could ask what Iraqis themselves think about As-Sadr and others whom HE prefers to Sadr. Sadr's difference from them is that he is AGAINST USA occupation, while others are USA puppets. In short, Joseph Sixpack prefers to let USA occupation stay in form of "Iraqisation". He could look in Vietnam history to learn what will Iraqis do to USA collaboratos after Yankis go home.
I REALLY like USAmericans who know SO much about Iraq that they are happy to tell what is better for Iraqis
McCain is the poster boy for fools who learned absolutely NOTHING from Vietnam. He is head of the class BECAUSE he was there. Guerrilla warfare is not Normandy Beach. Guerrilla warfare will trump an occupying army in the long run because the occupiers do not have the support of the local people. The locals may give lip service to try to reduce damage to their families and friends, but they hate the occupying army; and will support their native sons,"insurgents",i.e. guerrillas. The occupying army eventually is defeated by its very presence on foreign soil. The former Soviet Union ran out of money and collapsed. An empoverished Afghanistan beat their butts. McCain thinks of military operations in the grand scale of WWII. It feeds his ego and his sense of self. It is, after all, his heritage and training. He refuses to see the reality of the situation in Iraq; and clings to the Pattonesque picture of warfare. Bush/Cheney have done the same thing; but avarice drives them far more than McCain. Bush/Cheney and their Neo-Con crackpots tooted up an idiotic ideology of pre-emptive war to justify going after oil, and lavish themselves with warprofiteering. The same forces of the military-industrial complex are at work in Iraq as they were in Vietnam. Dow Chemical, for example, was one of the big financial winners in that war. McCain keeps singing the same tune as Bush/Cheney about Iraq being central to the war on terrorism. It never was and never has been the same thing. Terrorism is a global threat, with cells and adherents throughout the world. It is a war that can only be fought through intelligence networks that share information and cooperate with one another; with the best technology; and with diplomacy and attempts to understand and ameliorate, through dialogue, those forces that underlie terrorism. A big blunderbuss of an army cant make a dent in it. You stamp terrorism out one place; it pops up in another. Al Quaeda knows this for a fact, and has rebounded. What it stands for is an ideology, a textbook for terrorism. It can win over adherents anywhere. More fool McCain, Bush/Cheney/Rice (cant forget her in the mix.)So, we continue to sink deeper into the civil war quagmire in Iraq;(where there will be NO winner, in the WWII sense) while global terrorism keeps growing, fueled by hatred toward the United States' devastation and occupation of Iraq. The Conservatives just dont get it, or they do, but the profit is too tempting to give it up. Meanwhile, the U.S. economy, for the rest of us, is sinking fast under the weight of their greed and determination to throw our tax dollars down a rat hole.
In addition to Anonymous at 1:24 PM, who links to a report in Le Monde indicating that :
Le Monde also sees Iran and al-Sadr strenghtened by the episode.
Nur al Cubicle has a good English translation of this French report
Post a Comment
<< Home