The Ambiguously Good News

Sudarsan Raghavan's lengthy Washington Post article about the conflict between Muqtada al-Sadr and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim and, in particular, the way the latter's fortunes seem to be on the rise, will warm the heart of hawks. Here, after all, is a long newspaper account of American military success:

This year's U.S. military offensive and dramatic shifts in tactics by both Sunni and Shiite groups are redrawing the balance of power across Iraq. With less violence between Sunnis and Shiites, festering struggles within each community may come to define the nature of the conflict. In the Shiite-dominated south, Sadr's main Shiite rivals are taking advantage of the surge in U.S. troops, as well as Sadr's imposition of a freeze on operations by his Mahdi Army militia, to make political gains.

What one wonders, however, is if this is good news, what's good about it? Hakim's group is the one that's willing to work with Americans whereas Sadr's is the group that's trying to kick us out. But it's not as if the Supreme Council are a bunch of nice liberal democrats. What's more, the extent of their "pro-American" sentiments seems to extend precisely as far as we're willing to help them acquire power -- it's not a case of deep resonances of values and interests.

Comments

Yup.

And even then, I think the article overstates the gains made by ISCI. But other than that...great news!

Posted by Eric Martin | December 26, 2007 4:11 PM

For my entire life I've read of countless peace negotiations that were going to end conflict between Israel and its neighbors. I remember all the wars. Peace was always soon to follow, someone just needed to calm things down and get everyone to the table. 60 years and still war and fighting and friction and death. All the damned time death. I'll go to my grave and some future president will be in the midst of trying to help end the problems. Iraq will follow the same course. People have to try, have to hope. But death and war will plague Iraq long after we're all gone. Religion, oil, old and new festering animosities aren't going away. No, I need to amend that. The oil will go away. Once that's gone no one will care about the death. The only ones left will be the ones doing the dying.

Posted by steve duncan | December 26, 2007 4:16 PM

What's more, the extent of their "pro-American" sentiments seems to extend precisely as far as we're willing to help them acquire power -- it's not a case of deep resonances of values and interests.

That's the way these things always are. And yet, alliances get made.

Posted by Senescent | December 26, 2007 4:34 PM

But it's not as if the Supreme Council are a bunch of nice liberal democrats.

Huh? What are you on about?

Posted by abb1 | December 26, 2007 5:10 PM

I suspect the article overstates things. In the south of Iraq, both al-Sadr and the SIIC have influence. In Baghdad, however, it's al-Sadr that has the most influence, if I'm not mistaken. They don't call most of the Shia-run areas "Sadr City" for nothing.

al-Sadr did not merely stand down his Mehdi Army. He is actively rebuilding it with more tests required for membership. He's trying to build a more loyal, leaner and meaner organization.

So while the SIIC may be gaining somewhat at this point, it's unlikely to be permanent unless they manage to whack al-Sadr or manage to co-opt him. He and his militia aren't going anywhere - and they aren't going to stop demanding that the US occupation be ended.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 26, 2007 6:25 PM

SIIC is also the much more overtly pro-iranian group. al-sadr often gets accused of being an iranian stooge, but he got quite a bit of an iraqi nationalist/wary-of-iran thread in his speeches. and to the extent that iran really is funding groups in iraq, SIIC is probably the main recipient.

Posted by upyernoz | December 26, 2007 7:05 PM

So basically, between al Sadr and the SIIC, we're in a situation of heads-they-win-tails-we-lose. Next we'll be told we need to buy more bombs and missiles because the world is a very dangerous place.

Gee, it's almost like some endless loop....

Posted by serial catowner | December 26, 2007 7:22 PM

But the surge is working to perfection in Iraq. Just ask our friend white trash Chris Ford.

Posted by SLC | December 26, 2007 7:28 PM

"...it's not a case of deep resonances of values or interests." Like, perhaps, the Syngman Rhee government in South Korea? Or the Government of the Month in post-war Italy?

And so what? It is not a matter of vital national interest that the ruling group(s) in Iraq look like a New England town meeting. It is in fact representative of "deep resonance of interests" that Iraqis establish a reasonably stable state or states at peace with their neighbors, amenable to Western influence, and pumping oil. It is a sign of a profound detachment from reality that so many Democrats appear determined not to take "yes" for an answer in Iraq.

Posted by Robert Powell | December 27, 2007 2:36 AM

This part certainly seems encouraging:

This year, Sadr and Hakim have sought to position themselves at the center of Iraq's ideological sphere. To bolster his nationalist credentials, Sadr pulled his loyalists from Iraq's factionalized government and tacitly approved the U.S. surge offensive. Hakim removed the word "revolution" from the name of his political party, suggesting that it was no longer an armed opposition group.

"It was based on reality, and not a maneuver," said Sadr al-Din al-Qubanchi, a turbaned cleric who heads the Supreme Council in Najaf. "Who were we going to revolt against? We are leading the political process."

The change was also widely seen as an attempt by the Supreme Council to distance itself from Iran's theocratic government, which uses similar slogans.

Posted by Fred | December 27, 2007 2:41 AM

Robert Powell read what upyernoz said.

SIIC, formerly SCIRI, was Iranian based, Iranian funded, Iranian trained and fought alongside Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. Personally I don't care a whole bunch about how we get out of Iraq, but anyone that doesn't understand that an Iraqi government dominated by SIIC and its allies will be an Iranian client state hasn't been following the story line.

And Fred. "Widely seen" by whom? And is this really strategic or just tactical? Are there any real signs that the Iranians haven't just concluded that on balance they have won? South Iraq has been turned over to Shi'ia fundamentalists, West Iraq (Anbar) has been turned over to Sunni insurgents, the central government is dominated by pro-Iranian parties, and the US is in a position where drawdown of forces is being forced on us because current levels are unsustainable.

We could have had a similar outcome in late 2003, early 2004. Instead we launched full out assaults on the 'Sunni Triangle' and then on Sadr's forces in Najaf and Karbala.. Now we are bragging that returning control of the Sunni Triangle to Awakening Councils made up of the same people we were fighting four years ago is 'encouraging', ignoring that Najaf is still firmly in the hands of Sadr (Karbala now having moved to SIIC control), ignoring the fact that British retreat from Basra and the southern provinces generally is a mark of defeat and surrender to Iranian friendly fundamentalists.

We have lost 4000 Americans and about a trillion dollars and counting to turn Iraq into an Iranian client state where women in Basra are being slaughtered for wearing make up. On balance I am not encouraged.

Posted by Bruce Webb | December 27, 2007 8:51 AM

Equating SIIC with Iran is a gross oversimplification. Personally, I'm delighted we have allies with good contacts in Iran. Beats the shit out of having an ally who's an aggressive, genocidal tyrant.

Posted by Robert Powell | December 27, 2007 6:23 PM