An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

(Updated) Iraq I: Is All Hell Breaking Loose?

01aairaq_032808.jpg

UPDATE

The seven-month ceasefire brokered by anti-American radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr is, for all an intents and purposes, off. Times Online reports that neighborhood after neighborhood in Baghdad is being taken by militia gunmen, some with heavy fighting and others without a shot being fired.

Meanwhile, The Washington Post reports that U.S. troops have taken the lead in fighting in the capital.


* * * * *

One, two or three years (pick one) after the Iraqi army was ready to stand up so that U.S. troops could stand down, Shiite milita gunmen with comparatively meager weaponry and far fewer logistical resources still have the upper hand after three days of ferocious fighting in the key southeastern city of Basra.

Napoleon, as Daniel reminds us, famously remarked that “If you set out to take Vienna, take Vienna!

Methinks there are three reasons why Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s gamble is backfiring:


*
White House and Pentagon claims that the Iraqi army has finally gotten its act together as usual have no basis in reality.

*
As Fester notes here, even with tactical air support from the U.S. and U.K., the Iraqi force seems to be a little on the thin side.

* And most importantly, the militamen are fighting for their very existence while Iraqi boots are fighting their own countrymen, in many cases members of their own religious sect, for the political gain of the unpopular Al-Maliki.

Then there is Iran’s machinations in all of this, which range from big and evil to paltry and passive depending upon your view of the Tehran regime.

Mine is that the ayatollahs find themselves in the difficult position of having to both support and rein in Al-Sadr. who is the key player in this drama, not the prime minister and certainly not George Bush, who for all his bloviating has essentially tied his own hands because of years of wrongheaded policy making that determinedly put politics ahead of more practical concerns.

As it was, the president packed an extraordinary number of misstatements into his speech yesterday before yet another “safe” audience, chief among them that it “makes no sense” to divert troops from Iraq for the real War on Terror.

The question of the hour is what happens next. The answer is nobody knows, but here are a few scenarios:

* All hell breaks loose as U.S. ground troops are further drawn into the fighting, which has already taken out one of Iraq’s two major oil pipelines as it has spread from Basra and Baghdad to several other cities. As it is, they are now battling militants in and around the Sadr City slum in Baghdad.

* All hell breaks loose as Al-Sadr, who enjoys far more popularity than the prime minister among Shiites, calls for an end to the seven-month ceasefire against U.S. troops.

* All hell breaks loose as Al-Maliki’s already tenuous political situation is further undermined by the escalating violence and his ineffectual army and security forces.

My guess is that none of the above will happen in the short term because it may be in the best interests of Al-Sadr and Al-Maliki, who has extended by 10 days the deadline for militias to take bribes in return for turning in their weapons, to negotiate some sort of truce.

That, however, would only delay the day of reckoning that was bound to come after the prime minister failed to even make an effort to fulfill his end of the Surge bargain.

Photo by Mahmoud Raouf Mahmoud/The Associated Press

  • DaveA
    Well, I agree that none of those will likely happen. Al-Sadr tried before to go the armed route and it did not work out too well. I see small reason that, in the the short term, that US/Iraqi Govt axis can not do the same to his forces. But the devil is clearly in the details of what will happen afterward.

    1) Up to now, the US has counted on the logistics along route from Basra northward to be relatively safe for a good stretch. That may no longer be the case after this is dealt with at all. And if the British withdraw, then we pull troops form where to cover this? Even if the British do not withdraw, we still will need something more there going forward. And, I really doubt the Iraqi regulars will (or even could be) be entrusted with that need. Can we kiss any draw down goodbye?

    2) Basra Mahdi do not owe alligence to Al-Sadr afaik. There is another figure whom they follow instead (name escapes me). This point also seems to escape MSM news posts and most web commentary alike lately. The bottom line here is that there is another player in all this we are not really factoring. What is his current relationship to Al-Sadr? And visa versa? Both would seem an important issue yes?

    3) So lets say we crush the open resistance from the Mahdi militias? Now what? Who occupies the formerly relatively quiescent areas that were once controlled by the Mahdi? US? Maliki's troops? Mercenaries? Why does this smell like another another Sunni versus US resistance scenario to me? What happens to those all important oil pipelines if the Basra Mahdi no longer get their cut?

    4) So what does Al-Sadr do? A good question. He has? to know direct military action is not going to work in the short run. Does he have reasonable control of his men? Will he work with his ties with Sunni groups? Interestingly enough he has worked with (at least one) Sunni faction actively in the past, so that could bode ill. Will he go underground? Will he take the 'high' road and stay political?
    Personally Al-Sadr seems concerned primarily with Al-Sadr, so I bet he keeps up the the latter while disavowing actions his men may tack in clandestine war, but who knows?
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC