Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Saturday, August 16, 2008

Kahl: Iran Tamed Mahdi Army;
Al-Maliki May attack Sunni Awakening Councils

Colin Kahl, just back from Iraq, gave a briefing that Gareth Porter attended. He reports that:

1. US officials in Baghdad are genuinely worried that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has become "over-confident" about his military capabilities and has therefore become unreasonably difficult to deal with over the proposed status of forces agreement on the rules governing US troops in Iraq. (Al-Maliki appears to have won some internal battles in the Iraqi government in the past six months, so that he now firmly controls the intelligence apparatus and has military operations centers under his authority throughout the country).

2. Al-Maliki is not only refusing to incorporate the Sunni Arab Awakening Councils or "Sons of Iraq" into the Iraqi security forces, but may actually be planning to make war on them. These are Sunni Arab militias, many former Salafi or nationalist guerrillas, who have agreed to take a salary from the US and to fight the Qutbist vigilantes ('al-Qaeda in Iraq'):

' Kahl said in the briefing that, of the 103,000 Sunnis belonging to those militias, the Iraqi government had promised to take into the security forces only about 16,000. But in fact, it has approved only 600 applicants thus far, according to Kahl, and most of those have turned out to be Shi’a rather than Sunni militiamen.'


[I've also been told by knowledgeable Iraqi Shiites that the Awakening Councils are the biggest threat Baghdad faces and that when the Americans are weaker in Iraqi it will be necessary to "take care of them.")

3. Bush is so done out with al-Maliki's obstreperous stance on restrictions on US troops and his demand for a withdrawal timetable that he sharply warned al-Maliki that without a SOFA he would have to pull out US troops by Jan. 1, 2009. (US troops operating in Iraq with no agreed legal framework would be constantly open to murder and other serious legal charges).

4. Muqtada al-Sadr agreed to a ceasefire last September and is turning his Mahdi Army into a civilian social-work force under strong Iranian pressure. The Iranians seem to be convinced that the Mahdi Army was becoming a pretext for the US to stay in Iraq (and of course the Bushies were blaming Iran for everything Muqtada did). (Kahl did not note, but I want to, that Iran is mainly allied with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim and his Badr corps paramilitary, which has become the backbone of al-Maliki's security forces; Iran thus has multiple reasons for trying to get rid of the Mahdi Army as a military force).

Question: Is there a third reason Iran pressured al-Sadr on this matter? Is there a secret, informal agreement between Bush and Khamenei that if the Mahdi Army quietens down, the US will talk to Iran, will refrain from bombing the nuclear facilities at Natanz, and will forestall an Israeli attack, as well? Just speculation on my part-- I'm not asserting, just wondering.

Kahl's information is another challenge to the idea that the "Surge" "worked." Among the things that "worked" were Iran becoming even more influential in Iraq and al-Maliki getting hold of his own government.

Shorter LAT: Georgia and other allies with relatively large, effective troop contingents in Iraq are leaving, which probably makes it difficult for the US to draw down its troops at the rate Gen. David Petraeus originally envisioned for this year. US forces will likely have to step in to replace Georgian troops in Kut and British ones in Basra.

Shorter LAT Iraq blog #1: Al-Anbar desert is still very dangerous and full of seedy operators, whether terrorists or smugglers.

A Marine was killed in al-Anbar on Thursday.

Shorter LAT Iraq Blog #2 The resurgence of violence in the big, dangerous province has delayed the planned turn-over of security duties to Iraqi security forces there by the US military.

Kirkuk dispute fuels ethnic tensions.

Labels:

10 Comments:

At 3:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Americans have been repeating, ad infinitum, that:

a) It takes years for their troops to withdraw due to logistics.

b) A rapid withdrawl would plunge the region and the world into chaos

Now, Bush says that the troops will be out by January if Maliki does not obey him (instead of Sistani.)

Which is it?

One of the most memorable statement I have ever read came from a British teenager having just been thrown out by the judge in a high profile murder case, for being unreliable. She said:

"I have told so many lies, how am I supposed to remember all of them?"

 
At 5:01 AM, Anonymous Alex said...

What a crock of s**t the Krahl briefing is. If those are genuinely the views of US officials in the Green Zone - which I suppose is at least a filtered version of the case - you can see why the US is losing the SOFA negotiations.

Re 1) Maliki "overconfident"! I don't think I ever heard anything so patronising. A complete failure to understand the politics of Iraq. Maliki is being forced to do what he is doing, by public opinion, by Najaf. Though it is also true that he has had some successes recently.

Someone like Krahl, of course, is not going to understand the catastrophic effect the publication of the first SOFA conditions in June had. The US lost the war at that point.

Re 3) Bush threatening to pull out US troops by Jan 1 2009. That Bush threat "got al-Maliki's attention," did it? M. must have had difficulty keeping a straight face. Though, if I know Iraqis, he would have listened politely.

It is very clear to me that Iraqis have now had it with the Americans, and nothing more than a very short-term future is envisageable. (Kurds as usual excepted).

Re 2) on the Awakening Councils. I am sure they will be dumped. Anybody can say they were a US idea, so the US can deal with them. How the Sunni communities will react, I don't know. But you don't hear many expressions of defence of the Awakening coming from Sunnis. So I guess they will melt away when the US stops paying. I don't see civil war between Sunni and Shi'a coming over this; the major problems for Sunnis now are the Kurds over Kirkuk, and the US.

 
At 6:16 AM, Anonymous John Francis Lee said...

1. US officials in Baghdad are genuinely worried that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has become "over-confident" about his military capabilities and has therefore become unreasonably difficult to deal with over the proposed status of forces agreement on the rules governing US troops in Iraq.

Translation : We're going to have to break his legs or kill him outright if he doesn't come around soon.

2. Al-Maliki is not only refusing to incorporate the Sunni Arab Awakening Councils or "Sons of Iraq" into the Iraqi security forces, but may actually be planning to make war on them.

Translation : We'd like to elevate a new Sunni strongman to replace Sadam Hussein, but Maliki is opposed to our plans.

3. Bush is so done out with al-Maliki's obstreperous stance on restrictions on US troops and his demand for a withdrawal timetable that he sharply warned al-Maliki that without a SOFA he would have to pull out US troops by Jan. 1, 2009.

Al Maliki, shaking, pleads : "I don't care what you do with me, Brer Bush," says he, "Just so you don't fling me in that briar patch. Roast me, Brer Bush, says he, "But don't fling me in that briar patch."

4. Muqtada al-Sadr agreed to a ceasefire last September and is turning his Mahdi Army into a civilian social-work force under strong Iranian pressure.

Translation : Muqtada is emulating the invincible Hezbollah.

Is there a secret, informal agreement between Bush and Khamenei that if the Mahdi Army quietens down, the US will talk to Iran, will refrain from bombing the nuclear facilities at Natanz, and will forestall an Israeli attack, as well?

Iran would have to be brain dead to believe anything the US/Israeli Axis says. I don't think they are brain dead.

 
At 9:11 AM, Blogger Tom said...

I'd like to see more discussion about reconciling the statement in your post.
3. Bush is so done out with al-Maliki's obstreperous stance on restrictions on US troops and his demand for a withdrawal timetable that he sharply warned al-Maliki that without a SOFA he would have to pull out US troops by Jan. 1, 2009.

This sounds like there might be a situation where troops could be withdrawn in a matter of days, not months.

 
At 11:19 AM, Blogger karlof1 said...

"Bush is so done out with al-Maliki's obstreperous stance on restrictions on US troops and his demand for a withdrawal timetable that he sharply warned al-Maliki that without a SOFA he would have to pull out US troops by Jan. 1, 2009."

This provided a hearty guffaw, and an immediate vision of Bush the petulant child in his highchair tossing his silver spoon and gold-plated bowl of babyfood onto the floor, while pounding his little fist on the tray and erupting into a wailing tantrum. It would be quite a sight--Bush being forced to behave in the manner he now demands Russia behave regarding its withdrawal of troops from Georgia--Bush at the end of his tenure finally obeying the law.

One last note on Georgia. On the evening of August 7, Georgian president Saakishvili goes on national TV, on a program beamed specificly at Osettia, and proclaims he is going to resume negotiations and restrain his security forces during them. Then in the early hours of August 8, he launches an war upon the very people he just vowed to negotiate with. Such an act smacks of premeditated murder and terrorism, yet the US government and its Propaganda System immediately jumped to the defense of this outrageous criminal every bit as evil as the Joker. To my knowledge, NO US media outlet--other than bloggers--has provided the above detail. It's too bad you didn't lead your Salon article with it.

 
At 11:55 AM, Blogger Da' Buffalo Amongst Wolves said...

"...which probably makes it difficult for the US to draw down its troops at the rate Gen. David Petraeus originally envisioned for this year. US forces will likely have to step in to replace Georgian troops in Kut and British ones in Basra."

Pardon me for 'picking nits', but according to the majority of the American people we don't "have to", nor do we want our troops there at all.

Ditto the Iraqis, they want us out.

The al Maliki Iraqi government could be intentionally stalling on a SOFA agreement because they may (imho correctly) believe an immediate US pullout will actually improve the their odds of more fruitful dealings with all the rival factions who are constantly being corrupted by the US presence.

"Awakening [to what, the value of US cash and arms support?] Councils" are the perfect example of THE PROBLEM, as perpetuated... (or perpetrated) in the US national interest.

The Pentagon has problems with a 'drawdown'... not the American people or the Iraqis.

Didn't I already say that? It's ok, that fact bears repeating.

Further, at the top of the post it was stated: "...al-Maliki has become "over-confident".

A while back Professor, you referred to Richard Feith's claim to a State department employee at GWU that the war on Iraq would be "over in a couple of weeks" as arrogant.

I vehemently begged to differ at the time saying it was the brag of someone who 'knew something', and indeed, a few weeks later, George Washington University's National Security Archive released documentation indicating in the run-up to the Iraq war, the US government had 'secured' the cooperation of a contingent of officials within the Iraqi government who were (in a fantasy scenario) just going to walk in and run the government after Saddam was deposed.

So much for Feith's (and the rest of the cretins) big idea.

I say the same is true here, tangentially.

al Maliki 'knows' something.

If it's true, will his ploy work to get US forces out due to no SOFA agreement and restore some semblance of Iraqi civil stability, if only momentarily?

Stay tuned....

 
At 5:04 PM, Blogger Da' Buffalo Amongst Wolves said...

Me Bad... 'Richard Feith' should read "Douglas"

 
At 5:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well of course Sadr is providing social services, he always has, from day 1 of USA occupation, when Iraq was in total chaos, Sadr City was organized and without looting. Now Sadr has simply curtailed military operations so that he can fully participate in upcoming elections.
Remember Sadr was always opposed to the USA occupation, and that is a significant reason why Iraqis support him. Now that Maliki has finally opposed Bush plans for continued subjugation, it is easy for Sadr to become more political, less military.
Remember too that Sistani has always opposed the occupation, and supported Sadr at the most critical moment when USA had him cornered and beseiged. Sistani has still not met with any representative of USA occupation.
So Sadr and Sistani have forced Maliki's shift politically, and Maliki's shift has reinforced Sadr's long held position. Now opposition to occupation is so popular that USA cannot penalize Sadr for it, as it once did when USA banned Sadr's newspaper, and then tried to arrest him for murder.
And yes, of course, this has been Iran's position all along. All parties would prefer to see the USA leave promptly, peacefully if possible.
We always knew that Bush would never fix what he broke, or even apologize. And now there is more money in Iraq's treasury than there is in USA treasury.
"I'd like to stay but I might have to go to start over again" (in Afghanistan?).

 
At 7:10 PM, Anonymous Mark Konrad said...

....yet the US government and its Propaganda System immediately jumped to the defense of this outrageous criminal [Saakashvili] every bit as evil as the Joker. To my knowledge, NO US media outlet--other than bloggers--has provided the above detail.

Yes. And of course you noticed that Barack Obama, along with the odious Nancy Pelosi and the democratic party and almost every supposed "liberal" media commentator got on board as well.

The Washington Establishment, the defense contractors and the American media still have fond memories of the Cold War and the arms race with Russia. This episode in Georgia gives them all a chance to rekindle die Kriegslust with the ex-Soviets.

.

 
At 12:41 PM, Blogger Jonathan Guyer said...

How does America withdraw...

carefully?
responsibly?
quickly?
generously?
quietly?

Every organization/talking head has its own set of adverbs.

http://mideastbymidwest.com

 

Post a Comment

<< Home