Iraq Unprogressing

I was on an email list yesterday where there was some talk of whether or not the mortar attacks on the Green Zone coming from Sadr-controlled territory indicated that Sadr's cease-fire days were done. The consensus was: No. But today it looks like that line of thinking may be overtaken by events, as this BBC report and this McClatchy report certainly make it seem like it's "fire away" time. Spencer Ackerman says:

At least one theory worth entertaining is that the Sadrists waited out the surge. I don't have remotely the evidence necessary to support it, but it's something to consider when Petraeus testifies before Congress early next month.

It could be or it could be something else. In an intriguing development it looks like someSadrists are calling for civil disobedience. Meanwhile, let me say that while it's definitely been U.S. policy to ally with the Iranian-backed Badr Brigades in order to try to fight the Iranian-backed Muqtada al-Sadr, it's never been clear that that's wise policy. So whether what we've been doing is a successful effort to crush Sadr or whether it's about to blow up in our faces in the form of a big increase in violence, I think it's all questionable policy -- a United States that wasn't determined to maintain a permanent presence in Iraq would have nothing in particular to fear from a populist nationalist like Sadr.

Comments

To contemplate what life will be like in Baghdad if Muqtada al-Sadr pulls the rug out from under the surge, I would refer readers to Martha Raddatz's astonishingly vivid (and astonishingly ignored) account of the Sadr City uprising against the 1st Cavalry in April of 2004, The Long Road Home. If this is what's in the offing, Iraq is about to take a turn akin to that of Bear Stearns.

Posted by elle loco | March 25, 2008 9:48 AM

Just keep your eyes on the swinging watch and repeat to yourself: "the Surge is working, the Surge is working...."

Posted by fostert | March 25, 2008 9:50 AM

This is why we need a 100 year strategy.
Right.

Posted by hepdog | March 25, 2008 9:53 AM

Waiting out a clearly temporary "surge" so that you can husband your resources for when it's over, assuring greater effectiveness when you do return to form?

What a concept!

It's almost as if Sadr had the intelligence of week-old strawberry jam.

Posted by Demosthenes | March 25, 2008 9:55 AM

Why do you write 'Iranian back Muqtada al-Sadr'?

I have understood Sadr to be the least Iranian backed Shi'ite leader in Iraq. His father and he
made a point of staying out of Iran as much as possible so they could argue the other Shi'ite leaders were dependent on Iran while they were
Iraqis first. What evidence is there that
Muqtada is Iranian backed?

Posted by catclub | March 25, 2008 10:07 AM

It's almost as if Sadr had the intelligence of week-old strawberry jam.

An embarrassment of riches when contrasted with The Decider.

Anyway, Matt I think you're ignoring the role that the regional elections are playing in this recent uptick.

ISCI and the US have been squeezing Sadr hard in order to weaken his movement enough that ISCI can actually defraud its way to victory in the Shiite regions.

The reason we back ISCI (Iran's closest ally in Iraq) is because ISCI is amenable to our long term presence whereas Sadr wants us out. So we're trying to help ISCI maintain its political position.

As you said though, this is a shortsighted strategy, and one likely to blow up in our faces. Shortly.

http://americanfootprints.com/drupal/node/3956

Posted by Eric Martin | March 25, 2008 10:08 AM

Why do you write 'Iranian backed Muqtada al-Sadr'?

I have understood Sadr to be the least Iranian backed Shi'ite leader in Iraq. His father and he
made a point of staying out of Iran as much as possible so they could argue the other Shi'ite leaders were dependent on Iran while they were
Iraqis first. What evidence is there that
Muqtada is Iranian backed?

Posted by catclub | March 25, 2008 10:08 AM

Catclub, you make an excellent point. It is interesting that Petraeus has decided that the mortar attack was sponsored by the iranians.

Yet Sadr is extremely nationalistic and would prefer to be as little beholden to the Iranians as possible.

And he has apparently given the go ahead to his militia to defend themselvs, which, of course, can be interpreted many different ways.

I have said for a long time that the US should have tried to work with Sadr from the beginning. When we first invaded we actually, unintentionally, gave him a major boost. He supplied a lot of social services that we could not, which is one of the reasons he grew in prominence.

Posted by john m | March 25, 2008 10:32 AM

Why do you write 'Iranian backed Muqtada al-Sadr'?

I have understood Sadr to be the least Iranian backed Shi'ite leader in Iraq. His father and he
made a point of staying out of Iran as much as possible so they could argue the other Shi'ite leaders were dependent on Iran while they were
Iraqis first. What evidence is there that
Muqtada is Iranian backed?

Posted by catclub | March 25, 2008 10:33 AM

Something that the late Steve Gilliard noted about the Sadr family, even when his prediction of Mini-Sadr's power seemed overstated: they stayed in Iraq while others left -- some to Iran, some to the west.

In Afghanistan, that 'long view' -- the idea that if you're the last person to leave, you win -- has been the rock on which massive foreign incursions have foundered. It may well be the same in Iraq.

And yeah, Sadr isn't 'Iranian-backed' in the ISCI-formerly-known-as-SCIRI sense. He's an Iraqi nationalist of the Shia variety. That's why the Sadrs stayed in Iraq.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | March 25, 2008 10:53 AM

john: hey, if providing social services works for Hamas...

Good points all on the "stayed in Iraq" thing. I can safely assume we're being spun hard on the connection between Iran and any militia in Iraq, so I'm not going to buy anybody saying "Iranian backed" unless and until I have proof they aren't just setting up for McCain's "bomb, bomb Iran".

(Which makes the pool of sources a bit light.)

Posted by Demosthenes | March 25, 2008 11:15 AM

Isn't the main Sadr-Iraqi Army fighting taking place around Basra, which wasn't part of the surge to begin with (because it was the responsibility of the British)?

Posted by Fred | March 25, 2008 11:40 AM

Well, ISCI as a party, together with its militia (the Badr Corp), were formed, trained, equipped, armed and funded in Iran during decades of exile. They came back to Iraq post-US invasion. So I think it's safe to say that they're "Iran-backed."

Thing is, though, they are our closest allies and the ones we're fighting to prop up. Because, unlike Sadr, they're not "anti-occupation."

So there's a lot of emphasis on Sadr's Iran-backing and not a peep about ISCI's. I don't doubt that Sadr does derive some support from Iran (why wouldn't he? everyone needs patrons and Iran is more than willing to spread it around). But ISCI is clearly their horse in this race.

Ours too. Crowded saddle as it were. Though if you had to bet on which one (Iran or Bush) is being taken for a ride by its putative Iraqi proxy, I know where the smart money would be.

Posted by Eric Martin | March 25, 2008 11:44 AM

Fred,

There's fighting in Baghdad (surged territory), Kut, Basra (all over Babil province really) and elsewhere.

And if people like McCain and Bush are going to credit the Surge with bringing calm to non-Anbar areas, then they only have themselves to blame for setting up that frame if and when things flare up.

It's also not a very sound defense to point out how the Surge only targeted limited areas, leaving out enormous swaths of vital territory. That's an argument against the efficacy of the Surge and its limitations as a strategy.

Posted by Eric Martin | March 25, 2008 11:52 AM

Eric Martin,

Basra has been the responsibility of the British since the beginning of the war, and they have been steadily minimizing their presence there. That's not an argument for or against the surge, simply a fact.

Posted by Fred | March 25, 2008 11:56 AM

Fred,

True.

Posted by Eric Martin | March 25, 2008 12:35 PM

Matt:

a United States that wasn't determined to maintain a permanent presence in Iraq would have nothing in particular to fear from a populist nationalist like Sadr.

a - What does that tell you?

b - Why in a democracy do you have to resort to deducing the determinations of your own leadership by methods like this?

About Sadr:

Sadr gave a press conference from, I believe, Tehran in 2004 or 2005 when he was asked what he would do if the US bombed Iran. He said his Mahdi army is an army for Islam, not just for Iraq and it would fight the Americans in that case.

I'll find a link at some point if anyone wants but it was reported in the Western press reasonably widely.

Sadr may not be as heavily influenced by Iran as the former SCIRI, but he's far from neutral or pro-American if he has to choose between the US and Iran. He also led the largest pro-Hezbollah rallies outside of Lebanon during the Summer war.

Posted by Arnold Evans | March 25, 2008 1:50 PM

In another unfortunate case of premature Iraq elation, the Wall Street Journal last week celebrated the decline and fall of Iraqi Shiite leader Moqtada Al-Sadr. Echoing the "bring 'em on" taunt of their former boss, ex-Bush advisers Dan Senor and Roman Martinez triumphantly asked "Whatever Happened to Moqtada?" But as the renewed turmoil in Baghdad and violent chaos in Basra suggest, the answer may be, "he's back."

For the details, see:
"Moqtada Al-Sadr Answers the Wall Street Journal."

Posted by Furious | March 25, 2008 2:24 PM

ISCI = Iranian backed group of wealthy elitists whose loyalty is up for sale to the highest bidder.

Sadr = nationalist populist movement that marshals the power of the working classes and poor, will utilize Iranian support when needed but won't be anyone's puppet.

Gee, I wonder which group Bush would back...

Posted by Kevin Hayden | March 25, 2008 2:45 PM

Sadr may not be as heavily influenced by Iran as the former SCIRI, but he's far from neutral or pro-American if he has to choose between the US and Iran.

Agreed, but I don't think anyone ever suggested that he was pro-American. The whole point is that he's not pro-American. Not pro-occupation. Thus, we prefer Iran's main proxy to him.

Nor is he neutral by any stretch. Just not beholden, or as close to Iran as ISCI (the group that had to change their name from SCIRI because it was too telling).

Incidentally, I remember when Sadr vowed to attack US forces should the US strike there. I blogged it at the time, and linked to Juan Cole:

http://www.juancole.com/2006/01/muqtada-pledges-defense-of-iran-from.html

Posted by Eric Martin | March 25, 2008 3:49 PM

"But as the renewed turmoil in Baghdad and violent chaos in Basra suggest, the answer may be, "he's back.""

It's not too surprising, when you think about it. Local elections are scheduled for October. Fomenting conflict is a way for Sadr to raise his profile between now and then. Whether the Iraqis buy it this time is another question.

One potential bright spot in the mess down in Basra though. The Iraqi government and Iraqi military are the ones fighting Sadr's militia, not coalition troops. Maliki has gone to Basra to coordinate the effort personally. According to press reports, the British have flown some reconnaissance flights for the Iraqi military, but when asked if they had dropped any bombs on Sadr's forces, the British spokesman replied that they hadn't been asked to. So this could be a test of whether years of training have made the Iraqi military capable of taking on anti-government militia fighters on their own, and whether Iraq's central government is able to enforce its writ in Basra. If the answers to both questions are yes, than that might support the case for a reduced U.S. presence elsewhere.

Posted by Fred | March 26, 2008 1:34 AM

While the military and the other ministries are divided up among the militias, and while there are definitely conflicts between the various Shia militias (as well as between the Shia and the Sunni), the reality is that the Iraqi military is heavily Shia. They are not going to be gunning down Shia militias - even rival Shia militias - to the degree that the Sunni or the US military would. Which is not to say they won't do it to some degree.

In any event, regardless of that, the fact that the Iraqi military is heavily Shia demonstrates that there is little "reconciliation" occurring in Iraq.

As for al-Sadr, last I heard he was backing off from his political involvement and concentrating on raising his religious credentials, while continuing to rebuild his organization as a leaner, meaner militia in order to gain more control over it. It's not clear whether the current fighting is by his group or one of the factions. In any event, he did issue an order that did allow his group to defend themselves as necessary, regardless of his cease-fire.

This may well be an effort by Bush and Cheney to stimulate a war with Iran. By attacking al-Sadr and thus stimulating a greater amount of conflict in Iraq, then blaming it all on "support from Iran", this could be attempting to set the stage for a border incident.

The US has been building a fort within a few miles of the Iran border, allegedly to stop "smuggling" from Iran. Petraeus recently blamed the rocket attacks on the Green Zone on weapons supplied by Iran - without offering any evidence for this assertion.

I am suspicious of this turn of events. I see no evidence in al-Sadr's statements to indicate that he gave any order to start a unilateral major campaign against the US or the Badr Brigade. He explicitly has stated that this current situation is the result of Maliki following US orders and using the Badr Brigade to attack the Mehdi Army. If this is true - and we have no way of knowing - then it would indicate that the US is using this situation for its own purposes.

Given that al-Sadr has in the recent past been trying to put together a nationalist coalition to take power in the government, it is possible that Bush and Cheney intend to nip this in the bud and as a "two-fer" get an excuse to start a war with Iran.

The fact that the Badr Brigade is "supported" by Iran does not mean that Iran wants the US to remain in Iraq forever. Clearly it is in Iran's interest to get the US out of Iraq as soon as possible. As long as the Shia can maintain control of the government, and as long as that government works to maintain Iran's influence in Iraq, Iran is willing to overlook the US presence to some degree. And while al-Sadr is not an Iranian puppet, he still would support the goal of getting the US out of Iraq regardless of Iran's opinion, but also in support of Iran if the US were to attack Iran.

So I don't see any advantage to Iran in terms of making Iraq less violent or in maintaining a favorable government to sponsor an attack on al-Sadr at this point.

And I see no advantage to the US in terms of making Iraq less violent to attack al-Sadr at this time - not when he's extended his cease-fire for another six months. Therefore, the only possible motivation for this situation is that there is some hidden agenda.

And the only one I can think of is to start a war with Iran or to try to destroy al-Sadr's movement - which is not feasible - in order to prevent a nationalist coalition which would order the US out of Iraq - and follow up with violence if the US did not leave.

Iran could work with al-Sade and an Iraqi nationalist coalition government - the US could not.

From Juan Cole's blog:

"Al-Zaman says its sources in the Sadr Movement confirmed that the Mahdi Army has gained control of the main road between Amara and Basra, allowing it to cut the government troops off from military supplies."

Four days ago, Cole reported the following:

"A Sadrist member of parliament, Ahmad al-Masoudi (loyal to Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr), charged that the arrests of Sadrist leaders was intended to forestall a Sadrist victory in the October, 2008, provincial elections. He said that PM Nuri al-Maliki's Da'wa Party and his ally the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq were attempting to affect the course of the elections. AP reports:

' "They have no supporters in the central and southern provinces, but we do," Ahmed al-Massoudi told the AP. "If the crackdown against the Sadrists continues, we will begin consultations with other parliamentary blocs to bring down the government and replace it with a genuinely national one." '

AP also says that Shaikh Nasir al-Mashayikhi, a Sadrist cleric in Basra, warned against any attempt to arrest Sadrists in that southern port city:

' Basra is not Kut or Diwaniyah," he said. "Basra will turn into a cemetery for those who try to fight the Sadrists or detain them." '

AP says that the troubles in Kut and arrests in Baghdad raise questions about the durability of the current cease-fire of the Mahdi Army."

It seems clear to me that Maliki - or someone behind him, which fundamentally has to be either Iran or the US - and I don't see Iran trying this - has attempted to take down al-Sadr's group in order to forestall the toppling of the Iraqi government.

If this is true, it is likely to lead to an even EARLIER toppling of that government.

And this would bode very ill for a continued US occupation. If a coalition nationalist government were to manage to make a deal with the Sunni insurgents (now called "The Awakening" and allegedly working for the US, while in reality waiting for the moment to turn on the US), the US will be out of Iraq within a year.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 26, 2008 4:39 AM