Eric Martin has some further context for the 2007 SCIRI rebranding, observing that the point of changing the name to ISCI wasn't just to "de-revolutionize" the brand but specifically to re-Iranianize the party's image. Of course, the same Iran-backed leadership who spent the Saddam years in exile in Teheran is still running the party. And, yes, this is the horse we've backed in Iraq and for some reason it's considered very important that this particular gang of goons beat Muqtada al-Sadr's rival goon squad.
« War: So Awful He Said It Twice | Main | Northern Ireland »
Nomenclature Update
27 Mar 2008 11:39 pm
Comments (17)
Matt not only can't type, he can't read either.
How much did he spend on that Harvard education?
Only possible answer: not nearly enough.
Meanwhile:
"Stalled assault on Basra exposes the Iraqi government's shaky authority"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/stalled-assault-on-basra-exposes-the-iraqi-governments-shaky-authority-801776.html
Money Quotes:
"In Baghdad, tens of thousands of supporters of Mr Sadr, whose base of support is the Shia poor, marched through the streets shouting slogans demanding that Mr Maliki's government be overthrown. "We demand the downfall of the Maliki government," said one of the marchers, Hussein Abu Ali. "It does not represent the people. It represents Bush and Cheney."
In the middle of last year a Mehdi Army commander said that his militia controlled 80 per cent of Shia Baghdad and 50 per cent of the capital as a whole. This is probably only a slight exaggeration. There has also been heavy fighting in Kut on the Tigris, where 44 have been killed and 75 wounded, and in Hilla on the Euphrates where 60 people died. In past months the Sadrists have been locked in a struggle for Diwaniya, also on the Euphrates south of Baghdad, where they have been fighting police units controlled by Badr, the militia of the other great Shia party, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI).
When he first came to power, Mr Maliki balanced between ISCI and the Sadrists but has steadily become closer to the first party and has shown growing hostility to Mr Sadr. The last great battle between the Sadrists and the Iraqi government backed by the Americans was in Najaf in 2004 and was ended by the intervention of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani who wanted the Sadrists humbled but not crushed. He also did not want to see the Shia community divided into warring factions. It is possible that the Grand Ayatollah may seek to mediate again but Mr Maliki may find it difficult to compromise after his claim that he will win control of Basra.
The government has about 15,000 soldiers and the same number of police in Basra but this is not a great number in a city of two million. The police are closely linked to the militias and are unlikely to prove a resolute ally against the Mehdi Army."
Meanwhile, from Juan Cole:
http://www.juancole.com/
"A Sadrist leader told al-Zaman, "The objective of the operations in Basra is to impose a provincial confederacy on the south, which the Sadr Movement opposes."
Al-Zaman says that an attempt to negotiate a political settlement by Basra governor Muhammad Misbah al-Wa'ili of the Islamic Virtue Party (Fadhila) failed in the face of al-Maliki's insistence on a military victory.
Al-Zaman says reports are circulating that the Iraqi army has committed atrocities throughout the south, conducting mass executions in many places, including Basra and Kut.
It also says that there is a humanitarian crisis developing in the neighborhoods that the Iraqi army is besieging in Basra, with women, children and old folks trapped and food and potable water running low.
The Mahdi Army still controls Sadr City in East Baghdad and the US is unable to dislodge it for the moment. Al-Zaman says that the capital could erupt into fighting at any moment.
AFP reports one underlying reason for the assault:
' US military spokesman Major General Kevin Bergner told a news conference on Wednesday that 2,000 extra Iraqi security forces had been sent to Basra for the operation. He said it was aimed at improving security in the city ahead of provincial elections in October. '
Remember how attacking Fallujah in Nov. of 2004 was to provide security before the elections, but all it did was convince the Sunni Arabs to boycott, thus throwing the country into civil war?
As it is, if the fighting goes on a few more days, the next shift of oil workers won't be able to reach the fields, which will shut down some production. Basra fields produce between 1.8 million b/d and 2 mn b/d, and export 1.5 mn b/d. The Iraqi government is heavily dependent on that income.
Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that the Mahdi Army has taken over the southern city of Kut, and has surrounded the governor's mansion, trapping the remaining government police in it.
Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that members of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI, formerly SCIRI, led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim); the Da'wa Party led by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki; and the Badr Corps paramilitary of ISCI have fled their HQs in Basra and Kut, because of the threat that they will be stormed by Mahdi Army militiamen [seeking revenge for the current offensive], In fact, some such buildings already have been attacked."
And then we have this report from The Times:
Areas of Baghdad fall to militias as Iraqi Army falters in Basra
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3631718.ece
Money Quotes:
The most secure area of the capital, Karrada, was placed under curfew amid fears the Mahdi Army of Hojetoleslam Moqtada al-Sadr could launch an assault on the residence of Abdelaziz al-Hakim, the head of a powerful rival Shia governing party.
In Baghdad, the Mahdi Army took over neighbourhood after neighbourhood, some amid heavy fighting, others without firing a shot.
In New Baghdad, militiamen simply ordered the police to leave their checkpoints: the officers complied en masse and the guerrillas stepped out of the shadows to take over their checkpoints.
One witness saw Iraqi Shia policemen rip off their uniform shirts and run for shelter with local Sunni neighbourhood patrols, most of them made up of former insurgents wooed by the US military into fighting al-Qaeda.
“The battle is not easy without coalition support,” lamented one Basra resident, who had worked as a translator for the British forces. “The police in Basra are useless and helping the Mahdi Army. The militia are hiding among the civilians. This country will never be safe, I want to leave for ever. I don’t know how to get out of this hell.”
And if you think the Iraqi Army is in charge, read this:
U.S. Armor Forces Join Offensive In Baghdad Against Sadr Militia
Americans Appear To Take the Lead As Iraqi Units Wait
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/27/AR2008032700781_pf.html
Money Quotes:
U.S. forces in armored vehicles battled Mahdi Army fighters Thursday in Sadr City, the vast Shiite stronghold in eastern Baghdad, as an offensive to quell party-backed militias entered its third day. Iraqi army and police units appeared to be largely holding to the outskirts of the area as American troops took the lead in the fighting.
Maliki decided to launch the offensive without consulting his U.S. allies, according to administration officials. With little U.S. presence in the south, and British forces in Basra confined to an air base outside the city, one administration official said that "we can't quite decipher" what is going on. It's a question, he said, of "who's got the best conspiracy" theory about why Maliki decided to act now.
"His dog in that fight is that he is basically allied with the Badr Corps" against forces loyal to Sadr, the official said. "It's not a pretty picture."
Several Mahdi Army commanders said they had been fighting U.S. forces for the past three days in Sadr City, engaging Humvees as well as the Strykers. By their account, an Iraqi special forces unit had entered Sadr City from another direction, backed by Americans, but otherwise the fighting had not been with Iraqis.
"If there were no Americans, there would be no fighting," said Abu Mustafa al-Thahabi, 38, a senior Mahdi Army member.
But an adviser to Iraqi security forces, who had predicted that the fight in Basra would take 10 days, said it could go on much longer. He also said Iraqi forces were calling on U.S. and British forces for help. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he said he was not authorized to speak with reporters.
"I think the government can't win this battle without interference of Americans or British," he said. "I think the aid or assistance is on the way." In his view, the Iraqi military needed air coverage and help with logistics and intelligence.
The fighters "are opening many, many fronts against the army," he said. The adviser said the militia's weapons, some of them made in Iran, are more powerful than those of the Iraqi army.
So "ISCI" is to "SCIRI" what "progressive" is to "liberal" essentially.
CNN analysis: " Analysis: Al-Sadr in trouble, Iraq headed for meltdown". From the article:
The fighting among Shiite militias and government troops in Basra is a glimpse of Iraq's future, and pivotal cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is in deep trouble, according to two CNN correspondents and a CNN military analyst.
[snip]
"This is very, very serious and it could all go wrong for the United States as we try to extricate ourselves. It could go wrong in many, many ways and cause everything to come apart there."But Holmes suggested there's a chance al-Maliki and Iraq will survive this crisis.
"This could be a good test of Nuri al-Maliki and the security forces. They're going to have to stand up at some point; maybe this is a time to see how they do."
Ware doubts the security forces can prevent a meltdown.
"This is a window into the future of Iraq after the American withdrawal," Ware said.
advertisement"What many people suggest is that we're looking at a situation that will be akin to Lebanon in the 1980s, with vicious, well-armed militia proxy wars where all the factions are supported by one foreign sponsor or another.
"But this will be Lebanon on steroids."
It's either "de-Iranianize" or "re-Iraqianize", although admittedly neither are actual words. But if you want to make up words (which is fine), they should convey the proper meaning, not the opposite of what you mean.
Please Matt, hire someone to check your spelling for you (a third grader should suffice). Sullivan can spell, and he grew up in country where they spell things differently. He has a legitimate excuse (but doesn't need it), what's yours?
I'm not sure that characterizing any Iraqi with a gun as a "goon" is conducive to a better understanding of the situation.
Good point Hans. We like to think of the people we're fighting as irrational, but they often have pretty good reasons for what they're doing. Maybe if we understood why they fight us, we might have a clearer picture of what's actually going on. And they certainly aren't fighting us because they hate freedom (our usual explanation). Everyone loves freedom for "us". It's only freedom for "them" that we don't like. But for every "us", there is always a "them." Until we get to "we," there will always be conflict.
Wow, that got really cryptic, but I don't really have a better way to say it. Maybe I need more whiskey. Or less.
Fred Kaplan's piece at Slate is very good on this. MY is pretty close to the mark.
We like to think of the people we're fighting as irrational, but they often have pretty good reasons for what they're doing.
That's the root of the problem: the vast majority of both US politicians and US citizens are essentially a bunch of solipsist hayseeds believing that the American way of life is some sort of gold standard and that US actions are moral by default.
I really don't mean to offend anyone and wholeheartedly applaud everybody who's willing to break out of this delusion - but I'm afraid that's just the way it is.
In the last election over there the Sunni's abstained; only 10% of them cast ballots. The result is that the Sunni areas are represented by the (Shia) Da-Wa party of Mr Maliki. Even with that parliamentary edge he had to ally himself to another Shia party to achieve a majority. He flirted with Sadrists but ended up with the Hakkim family's ISCI. This was reasonable because both the Da-Wa and the ISCI had been based in Tehran during the Saddam years whereas the Sadrists made much political hay from the fact of Muqtada's father being assassinated by Ba'athists and still Muqtada remained 'in country'. They claim the 'nationalist', anti-Persian role.
With the political 'awakening' of the Sunni's Mr Maliki is not likely to get a free ride in October when Iraqis vote again. So he must cement his hold on office in the Shia constituencies. Therefore the civil war in Shia Iraq.
It is a natural consequence of our pretending that this is a 'national government' that Americans are involved. This is a great mistake. If more than 140,000 GIs were necessary during the 'truce' with Sadr, how many will be required when we add a second front against the estimated 60,000 Sadr Militamen under arms?
And it is worth remembering again and again the remark from Ahmad Chalabi that our friends in Iraq are allied with our enemies in the region while our enemies in Iraq are allied with our friends.
Heck of a job, Republicans!!!
And indeed it is important that SCIRI win out for the US and Iran is that the last thing that either party wants is bona fide nationalists taking over.
It's far from clear that Sadr deserves lionizing as a "bona fide nationalist". He recently vacationed in Teheran when things got hot for him in Iraq, and seems to be closely connected with the Achmadinejad faction there. The ISCI folks seem more aligned with "moderate" Iranian factions interested in establishing better ties with the US.
I've heard a theory that the current dustup is at least in part attributable to the Iranians deciding that they have enough proxies, and can afford to cut Sadr loose. After all, he is certainly a loose cannon, and from most reports a 40-watt bulb coasting on his family name.
It's far from clear that Sadr deserves lionizing as a "bona fide nationalist". He recently vacationed in Teheran when things got hot for him in Iraq, and seems to be closely connected with the Achmadinejad faction there. The ISCI folks seem more aligned with "moderate" Iranian factions interested in establishing better ties with the US.
I've heard a theory that the current dustup is at least in part attributable to the Iranians deciding that they have enough proxies, and can afford to cut Sadr loose. After all, he is certainly a loose cannon, and from most reports a 40-watt bulb coasting on his family name.
If this gets posted twice, it's because of an "Internal Server Error". That's what the message said, search me what it means.
As usual, Powell picks on the one point which is irrelevant to anything.
al-Sadr is not "anti-Persian". He simply doesn't want Iran running Iraq. He's perfectly willing to go along with Iran in most other contexts. He's a Shia, he respects the Iranian clerics - probably more so than he does Sistani (who, by the way, was born in Iran, never changed his citizenship to Iraqi, and has declared that he will remain Iranian until he dies) because of a certain degree of rivalry.
This business of "ICSI is connected to 'moderate' Iranian elements'" is probably bullshit intended to make the US support of the Iraqi government seem less likely to benefit Iran. Especially since the US has been condemning both "moderate" and "conservative" Iranian factions equally - or simply ignoring the fact that such factions even exist.
The fact is that Iran and Iraq are now allied against the US - except that Iran recognizes that a breakdown in the Iraqi government could result in the Sunnis regaining power. Both the Shia in Iraq - including al-Sadr, Sistani, and the Iranian-backed Shia groups - and Iran don't want that to happen.
But while Iran would probably rather deal with the Iranian-backed militias, they would certainly accept an Iraqi government run by al-Sadr's group, as long as there was no chance any Sunni alliance made by al-Sadr would end up running things.
Meanwhile, the bottom line is that NOBODY wants the US occupation to continue - not Iran, not Sadr, not the Badr Brigade, not Sistani, nobody - except the actual Green Zone Iraqi politicians who wouldn't last ten minutes if US military protection weren't provided.
This is why the upcoming elections are important. The Iraqi government has demonstrated its utter inability to solve anything whatsoever. So the people are going to vote them out. Who they vote IN is critical to how Iraq is going to go. And both al-Sadr and the Sunnis have a better chance to gain power now than at any time in the past. So that's why Maliki is using the Iraqi military and the Badr Brigade to try to destroy al-Sadr's group.
And by all accounts, it's not working. And given al-Sadr's strength among the poor Shia, I don't see any way it can work, short term or long term.
Comments closed April 10, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
...the point of changing the name to ISCI wasn't just to "de-revolutionize" the brand but specifically to re-Iranianize the party's image.
Uh, Matt, I think you mean "de-Iranianize" not 're-Iranianize". Quoting Martin:
In this case, a spelling mistake leads to some serious confusion.
Posted by Jeff S. | March 27, 2008 11:59 PM