McCain: 'Surprised';
Fighting Subsides in Baghdad, Basra;
Analysts: Sadr Strengthened
My column, "Why al-Maliki Attacked Basra," is now available at Salon.com
John McCain said he was surprised that Nuri al-Maliki would abruptly launch an operation against Basra. It seems to me that there are only two possibilities here.
Either McCain really did not know and did not anticipate the trouble in Basra, in which case he does not know much about Iraq and isn't better qualified to deal with it than anyone else.
Or, he and Cheney helped put al-Maliki up to the whole thing while he was there, and now is petrified that someone will hang the fiasco around his neck.
McClatchy reports that the security situation in Baghdad and Basra improved somewhat on Monday (see the video below) but that things were still unsettled. The Green Zone took mortar fire, and several Shiite neighborhoods in the capital remained surrounded by Iraqi and US troops. There appear also to be strong tensions in Basra, and a wariness on the Mahdi Army's part that the government will take advantage of any truce to arrest its commanders.
Reuters concludes that the crisis strengthened al-Sadr and much weakened Prime Minister al-Maliki. One of the experts it interviews also warns that the fighting this past week is only a prelude to a big struggle among Shiite factions for control of the South.
RFE /RL interviews veteran Iraq-watcher Joost Hiltermann about the clashes of the past week between Shiite factions:
' Hiltermann says the political nature of the power struggle quickly became apparent as the fighting began. The national army units involved were units from southern Iraq, where the recruiting has been heavily from the Supreme Council's Badr Organization.
He says that the other major component of the Iraqi Army, recruits from the Kurdish militias in northern Iraq, "would not go down to the south to fight this kind of fight."
As the clashes intensified, the 28,000 soldiers involved in the operation proved unable to quickly drive al-Sadr's Imam Al-Mahdi Army from the streets, despite U.S. air support. In the interim, Sadrists in other towns in the south, as well as in Baghdad's sprawling Al-Sadr City slum, tactically spread the fighting there. That escalated the stakes for al-Maliki's government to unacceptable levels as it raised fears of a general insurrection by al-Sadr's forces. . .
So, what happens next? One player to watch is al-Maliki. The prime minister, who is from a Shi'ite religious party, Al-Da'wah, t has no strong militia, has had to ally himself at various times with al-Sadr or the Supreme Council. Al-Sadr's party helped him win his post as prime minister, but since then the Sadrists have distanced themselves from him as he has worked closely with the United States, which al-Sadr wants out of Iraq.
Al-Maliki has worked hard to portray himself as a national figure able to restore security and suppress corruption in Iraq. His strong identification with the Supreme Council in leading a fight against al-Sadr, however, now may damage that image, handicapping him as a leader.'
Aljazeera English reports on the end of hot warfare in Baghdad's Sadr City and Basra:
If you haven't been following our joint Global Affairs blog, do take a look at the recent postings of Barnett Rubin (on how Iran is saving Bush's Iraq surge and on the Taliban in Afghanistan and even on Uri Avnery and the Arab-Israeli conflict). Also Cunningham on China, Norton on Lebanon, and Farhi on Iran's elections.
As always, lots of food for thought on matters of war and peace at at Tomdispatch.com
At the Napoleon's Egypt blog, two letters by British foe of Bonaparte Sir Sydney Smith, on how the French were foiled at Acre and also back in Egypt.
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 4/01/2008 12:30:00 AM
Click to join Infoco
13 Comments:
"John McCain said he was surprised that Nuri al-Maliki would abruptly launch an operation against Basra."
Given your two options for 'Songbird' McCain' surprise, the level of ignorance or just plain ignoring is not surprising.
The point remains that the Angaloids were due to withdraw from the region, leaving the Iraqis to fight it out amongst themselves for supremacy thereabouts.^ It has been quite a while since the redux invaders/occupiers have been able to do anything - if anything - in and around their area of interest, something that was anticipated some time ago when concerns about the security of the supply routes from the South were first raised. As I recall, the Angaloids have been hunkered down in their base of operations awaiting the final call to cut and run ... again.
That the Iraqis were called upon to stage some sort of operations has many facets to view. Beyond the supply lines, there is the ever-present need to dominate the oil in and around Basra, not forgetting that Muqtada has been biding his time for when he might more credibly assert himself and his Mahdi Army/Militia to wrest control of his areas of influence from any outside interveners. The only way to stifle Muqtada's designs was to assert influence from Baghdad, using the Shi'ite leader-puppet to put down some of his own.
With the removal of Saddam Hussein, the country remains fragmented, with the potential for some natural disintegration into somewhat voluntary factionalisation, depending on who controls what and where. With the Angaloids isolated for some time, the Sadrists and others have been able to do about as much as they've wanted without hindrance. Ceding this power and influence is something that would be hard for Muqtada to do charitably, especially after so many years of having Hussein's iron manacles on the Shi'ites, especially after GHW Bush's hollow promises for support of an uprising in 1991 and beyond, especially after having tasted freedom from the dictates of Baghdad.
'Songbird's' 'senior moments' are becoming more and more pronounced, prominently shown on various news outlets and on the I-Net. It was all-too-apparent that the hand the moves the mouth and turns the head might belong to Lieberman or whoever's turn it is to watch McCain. The situation in Iraq and the surrounding areas is too complex for someone to make idiotic statements, embarrassing the Americans again and again, not having a firm grasp on facts and the subtle nuances (nuanced subtleties?) that are shades of gradations as one moves from one group to another. One size or label does not fit all. Extremists from Iran are not the same as extremists in Afghanistan nor the same as those from Crawford, TX or wherever 'Songbird' comes from, should he not have merely escaped from the Olympians' prison for Titans.
As noted before, the Iraqis have nowhere to go. Time is, therefore, always on their side as they can outwait and outlast whoever comes a-conquering, anticipating times when even the most seasoned and hardened militaries will begin to lose their edge, becoming brittle and easily broken. The only solution to the 'problem' is the old Catholic dictum, "Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" – "Kill them [all]! Surely the Lord discerns which [ones] are his".* The question becomes which of the various kinds of infidels - Sunni, Shi'ite, American, Iraqi, Irani, whoever - in Iraq will be able to pull this off without encouraging disproportionate or exaggerated responses. On this point, the top spins albeit wobbly.
Of course, history is once and over again repeating itself another time but in this Age of Intensity, things are happening much more rapidly, bringing the Iraq operations, now in their eighteenth year, full circle from Bush to Bush. This has been without any kind of outside solution seen as effective while agreeing to maintain something on the order of 'democracy' and humane treatment of the indigenous. Many are decrying McCain's idea of a 'hundred year' involvement in the region** but we need not forget that the first volume of history has already taken an accounting of a hundred years. Saddam Hussein was a direct result of the 'West's' tinkering with others' cultures. Who will be next?
But, will 'Songbird' McCain acknowledge this, realising that history is replete with many unintended consequences? Or is he merely acknowledging that it will take him a hundred years to get a grasp of what is going on?
^ http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,468118,00.html
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade
Maliki's disastrous "offensive" against the Sadrists would mark the beginning of the end of his regime, except it's been the beginning of the end since the beginning, so final nail in the coffin might be more accurate.
The move was a disaster for him on every level I can think of. First, he was the aggressor, turning Sadr, who had been fairly faithfully enforcing a ceasefire among his followers, into a victim. Then, Sadr's forces turned out to be more than a match for the government's, despite their better equipment and US support. Maliki's almost immediate shift from "surrender now" to "we'll pay you to stop" was humiliating, and turning to Iran as a peacebroker showed which foreign power has the real influence within Iraq. The ability of the Mahdi Army to rain mortar shells on the Green Zone pretty much showed insurgents can strike at any time and place of their choosing, despite the surge. Finally, Sadr's offer of a truce when he was in a position of advantage made him appear magnaminous and the one concerned for the well-being of innocent civilians.
As for the US, it is inconceivable that Maliki would have taken this action without our approval, and impossible that he could have made the preparations without our knowledge (or that of the Mahdi Army, for that matter). If McCain really was given no indication of what was imminent, it only goes to show how not seriously he is taken.
Every time I see McCain, I'm amazed at what a sorry candidate he is. His speeches are the most wooden of any presidential candidate in my lifetime, and when he speaks off-the-cuff, it's only to show he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about (although, with our equally clueless press, he mostly gets away with it). He may have been a good candidate in 2000, but he's clearly past his prime. That he won the GOP nomination so easily only shows what bad shape that party is in. Right now, he's getting a free ride because Obama and Clinton are focused mainly on each other. That won't last.
The silver lining to all this from a US standpoint is that the "fiery cleric" Sadr (I've come to think that phrase is part of his name) actually seems to be a quite reasonable, practical person who takes the long view of things and can be dealt with. This means that a reasonably orderly and bloodless withdrawal of US troops may be possible. Of course, that means the US must recognize that an independent Iraq must be just that, not a puppet host for the US military and oil companies, and that means it will have to wait for a new administration. But my guess is that Obama, at least, is sensible enough to recognize this.
Good analysis of the Basra attack. But I would have called it Why Did Bush and Maliki attack?
Richard Perle told al-Jazeera days before the attack that Sadr and the Mahdi Army were much weaker than they were a year earlier, and the Prince of Darkness and other Zionists still have Bush's ear.
The Zionists/neocons are scared stiff that the Sadrists, whom they consider a facsimile of Hizbollah, would get to power in Iraq, with hundreds of billions a year in oil revenues to boot.
Even without the Sadrists, they absolutely insist that the US forces must stay indefinitely to keep this major Arab, anti-American, country under control.
I'll have to wait for Commondreams to pick up your analysis of why Al Maliki attacked Al Sar. Here's Craig Paul Roberts':
A Third American War in the Making?
' Indiscriminate American violence has reduced Iraq to rubble. The civilian infrastructure is essentially destroyed--electricity, water and sewer systems, medical care and schools. Depleted uranium is everywhere poisoning everyone, including US troops. There is no economy, and half or more of Iraqis are unemployed. Literally no Iraqi family has escaped an injury or a death as a consequence of the US invasion. Millions of Iraqis have become displaced persons. A developed country with a professional middle class has been destroyed because of lies told by the President and Vice President of the US. The Bush Regime's lies are echoed by a neoconservative media, and have gone unchallenged by the opposition party and an indifferent American public.
' In Afghanistan, death and destruction rains on even the smallest village from the air. America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are wars against the civilian populations.
' Just as the world could not believe Hitler's next horror and thus was always unprepared, the Iranians despite all the evidence cannot believe that even the Great Satan would gratuitously attack Iran based on nothing but lies about non-existent nuclear weapons.
' It is important to emphasize that Iran is making no moves toward war. Having tamed, blackmailed, and purchased Congress, the US media, and US allies and puppets, Cheney might delight in the arrogance with which he can now attack Iran free of any restraint or fabricated provocation.
' On the other hand, he might cover himself by orchestrating an "Iranian provocation" to justify his attack as a response. But like Hitler's planned attack against Poland, Cheney's attack on Iran has long been in the works. '
Juan, I respect for your knowledge and expertise regarding Iraq but must take issue with your recommendation to read Philip Cunningham on China! He recently wrote "Beijing will do just fine if it scrupulously sticks to its script as a fair-minded, tolerant host, with or without the Hollywood touch." Admittedly he has lately slightly rewritten this (presumably given recent developments with regard to Tibet) but his article is still not open to comments. Surely you can hardly defend, let alone recommend, this apologist for totalitarianism?
@ 1:31 PM, John Francis Lee said... I'll have to wait for Commondreams to pick up your analysis of why Al Maliki attacked Al Sar.
John, no need to wait.
just click on the link that Professor Cole provided and you will be taken directly to the article - no ads to watch, no pop ups, etc etc.
good essay - well worth your time.
Juan,
It seems that you too have been infected with the Blame-Iran-and-Revolutionary-Guard-Centric -Analysis bug.
We know the conflict happened right after Chenney's "Peace Trip" to the region. We also know that the main issue for the pro-war camp is how to use NATO troops to fill in for the American soldiers. The last thing these folks needs is for the British troops to leave Iraq.
They seem to have got their way. Essentially 500 or so Iraqis died so that we can have this news:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/01/europe/EU-GEN-Britain-Iraq.php
It comes down to all the Hollywood movies, where the bad guys can never shoot straight. They went and talked the Israelis into attacking Lebanon - that didn't work out too well, as it turned out the other side had done some prep-work.
Amazingly, they then assume that as Sadr hasn't spent the intervening time preparing for precisely this kind of assault - with or without US forces "assisting." He knows the US needs him out of the way and Maliki the Quisling Puppet propped up.
Wouldn't be surprised if McCain's recent visit wasn't a "be assured that my support is guaranteed" trip -- "could you please do something about as Sadr before the elections, though?"
Cheney is no fool, though. He knows precisely what he is up to, and is achieving it. And he couldn't care less whether he has to fork his tongue or make up facts as he moves along - the prize is simply too great in his eyes. Everything will be justified in the end.
Question is - does the US have the stomach to continue the wholescale slaughter of the "surge"?
Cheney was the "brains" behind the attack on Basra. And McCain, who was in Iraq with Cheney just before the attack, knows that perfectly well.
Cheney wanted to get Moqtada's fist off the Basra oil spiggot. His political clock is running down and he wanted to inflict a heavy defeat on al Sard so Al-Maliki can push through those Oil Laws before November. That will be the real "Mission Accomplished" moment for Cheney.
One of al-Maliki's top generals said they needed a few more months before any attack on al Sadr could be ready. He was threatened with dismissal. Sounds familiar? As Rumsfeld once said, you go to war with the army you've got. Once again, it wasn't good enough.
Blame Cheney. And don't imagine McCain doesn't know what's going on. Cheney is now playing an increasingly dangerous End Game, and McCain's political hopes are riding the storm.
In an effort to bowdlerize Roberts' equation of potential Iranian aggression with good sense I left out the money quote in his article :
' Iran is perched like a sitting duck in denial even as the US and its Iraqi puppet Maliki move to eliminate Al Sadr's Iraqi Shi'ite militia in order to avoid supply disruptions and a Shi'ite rebellion in Iraq when the US attack on Iran comes. '
That is, he sees this latest foolish, bloody foolish, aggression by the Americans in Iraq as part of the plan the Neocons have always been on with : "Real men go to Tehran." And they take whatever liquors they need to to make the impossibility of their pipe-dreams of conquest disappear, even if it kills the rest of us, be they kool-aid or blood.
Gareth Porter seems to think that the US ordered aggression against the Shi'ia in southern Iraq was to have been the centerpiece at Betray-us' seance before the Senate. Let's hope it still is.
I found your piece on Commondreams. Leila Fadel at McClatchy reports that, once again, it was not "some key Mahdi army positions" that the US bombed, at least not in Sadr City.
Over the past year - and then some - we have arrogantly debated whether we should leave or stay in Iraq...assuming that we have the unilateral option of determining the course of our occupation and involvement in Iraq. With the increasing power of Sadr and the Madhi Army and the role Iran played in negotiating the (probably temporary) hostilities in and around Basra, I fear the message to the USA is that Iraqis aligned with Iran will have more control than we would like in determining the future course of our occupation of Iraq and the conditions of our withdrawl.
Suh Prize, Suh Prize, Suh Prize!
/Gomer
A shame that the rethuglican candidate for preznit isn't smarter than Gomer Pyle.
But sadly, not! a surprise.
~
Jaraparilla has got it right. Cheney is the blunderbuss behind the attack on Basra. His eye is on the oil. It is his obsession. He cannot see those millions slipping through his hands. Avarice defines the man. He would sell his granny down the river for a bent nickel to secure his hold on Iraq's oil. Wherever that monstrous humanoid shows up, bloodshed follows. His modus operandi is written in blood. He pushes for some self-serving action; and be damned the consequences to others. He and Bush are literally in a panic as they watch the clock ticking, and see their power slip away,without having the Iraqi oilfields in their pocket.The American voters made a deal with the Devil when they voted these two merchants of death into office. Now, there is Hell to pay for all of humanity, but most of all for the Iraqis. As for McCain, he is a clone of Bush/Cheney. I am sure he knew what was going to happen. McCain loves warfare more than Patton ever did. He would happily rubberstamp any action that would increase the fighting.
Post a Comment
<< Home