As best I can tell nobody's quite sure what's happening. Sadr offered a cease-fire, and a government spokesman kinda sorta appeared to accept the terms, but the fighting continues and it remains a bit unclear who's in control of which forces or what this is even about. What seems certain, though, is that Maliki badly miscalculated his ability to crush Sadr and is prepared for some kind of climbdown far short of his initial demands.
« Training | Main | Opening Day »
The Latest On Basra
30 Mar 2008 09:20 pm
Comments (22)
One wonders whether it was Maliki's miscalculation or our own. This has all the marks of a Cheney miscalculation, rather than that of actual Iraqis. It doesn't seem like the Iraqi army even had a chance at eliminating the Sadrists. Would any Iraqi politician willingly make that mistake on their own?
One also has to be astounded at the sudden conversion re: appeasement by the right, as they cheer on the acceptance of Sadr's terms as a victory. Doesn't the Weekly Standard remember Munich 1938? Sadr's in Iran, of all places! Surely this will only embolden the islamofascists.
Considering Bush is capable of the most ill conceived, poorly timed acts of pig-headed stupidity what are the odds he orders a hit on Sadr? I say pretty high.
If the Arab source is true, this means Sadr has actually WON. His influence will be even greater in Iraq than it was after he managed to survive conflicts with US forces back in 2004.
This is a severe defeat for Maliki and his parties in the government. They couldn't crush al-Sadr, and now they're looking at fall provincial elections and next year's parliamentary elections with al-Sadr having even MORE street cred than he did before this fiasco.
And the fact that it was Iran that negotiated the agreement will significantly bolster its influence in Iraq and the region, and demonstrates US impotence, just as Ahmadinejad's visit demonstrated Iran politicians ability to come in and out of Iraq without tons of security.
This was a major blow to the US-supported Iraqi government and the US.
And some analysts are now agreeing with me that the idea that this was Maliki's move on his own is highly unlikely. The US set this up with Maliki, there's little doubt about that. Maliki could not have moved his forces without notifying the US military, and they would have asked for the reasons. So this conflict was definitely known in advance by the US. Whether the US - specifically Cheney - actually suggested it to Maliki first isn't clear. But given the general consensus among analysts that Maliki's government is not in a strong position to continue after the provincial and parliamentary elections, one has to conclude the US is likely the one who suggested this move - or at least agreed to it once proposed.
What seems certain, though, is that Maliki badly miscalculated his ability to crush Sadr and is prepared for some kind of climbdown far short of his initial demands.
That's not certain at all.
perhaps an intensive training program of the Iraqi forces by Americans will enable the fledgling democracy to defend itself against all its undemocratic enemies.
Al:
That's not certain at all.
What is certain is that I really hope Al doesn't start crying.
Bill Roggio's take on the situation ("Sadr orders followers to end fighting"):
Six days after the Iraqi government launched Operation Knights’ Charge in Basrah against the Mahdi Army and other Iranian-backed Shia terror groups, Muqtada al Sadr, the Leader of the Mahdi Army, has called for his fighters to lay down their weapons and cooperate with Iraqi security forces. Sadr’s call for an end to the fighting comes as his Mahdi Army has taken serious losses since the operation began.
"Sadr has sent a message to his loyalists urging them to end all armed activities," the Al Iraqiya television channel reported. Sadr "disowned anyone attacking the state institutions or parties' offices and headquarters.""Based on responsibility towards Iraq and to stem Iraqi bloodshed and to preserve the country's unity and integrity as a prelude to its independence, I call on the people to be up to their responsibility and awareness in order to maintain Iraq's stability," according to a statement issued by Sadr and sent to Voices of Iraq. Sadr has called for the government to free members of the Mahdi Army and the Sadrist Movement captured during recent operations.
The Iraqi government has welcomed Sadr’s call for his followers to cease fighting. "The order to pull off gunmen off Basra along with all Iraqi provinces and to disavow those who has taken up arms against government offices and security forces is responsive and patriotic," Ali al Dabagh, the spokesman for the Iraqi government, told Voices of Iraq. The Iraqi government has not called for a halt in military operations.
Sadr’s call for an end to fighting by his followers comes as his Mahdi Army has taken high casualties over the past six days. Since the fighting began on Tuesday, 358 Mahdi Army fighters were killed, 531 were wounded, 343 were captured, and 30 surrendered. The US and Iraqi security forces have killed 125 Mahdi Army fighters in Baghdad alone, while Iraqi security forces have killed 140 Mahdi fighters in Basrah.
From March 25-29 the Mahdi Army had an average of 71 of its fighters killed per day. Sixty-nine fighters have been captured per day, and another 160 have been reported wounded per day during the fighting. The US and Iraqi military never came close to inflicting casualties at such a high rate during the height of major combat operations against al Qaeda in Iraq during the summer and fall of 2007.
US and Iraqi forces are maintaining the high pace of operations against the Mahdi Army and the Special Groups. While the daily reporting from Iraq is far from over, initial reports indicate at least 18 Mahdi Army fighters have been killed and another 30 captured.
US soldiers killed 14 Mahdi fighters in Baghdad during a series of separate engagements. Iraqi security forces killed four Mahdi Army fighters and captured another 30 in Babil province, where a major offensive led by the police has been underway.
The comments section that follows is a little more balanced. One commenter made a good point, that an inconclusive ending to this battle looks worse for Maliki, even if the Iraqi Army did kill hundreds of Sadrists, because Maliki raised expectations with his stated goals for the operation. All Sadr has to do, as usual, is survive.
That said, I think some here overstate Sadr's potential popularity in Iraq. His party was put in charge of the health ministry and they looted the hospitals. The best thing that could happen would be for Sadr's party to win one of the local elections, so he could bring that same level of corruption and incompetence to the provincial or local level. It's a lot easier to organize protests and ruckus than it is to administer a city and provide essential services. Maliki shouldn't be afraid to let Sadr fail at this, assuming enough Iraqis are willing to vote for his party to put him in power anywhere.
I just read an article from McClatchey on this situation, that among other things says:
"The backdrop to Sadr's dramatic statement was a secret trip Friday by Iraqi lawmakers to Qom, Iran's holy city and headquarters for the Iranian clergy who run the country.
"There the Iraqi lawmakers held talks with Brig. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Qods (Jerusalem) brigades of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps and signed an agreement with Sadr, which formed the basis of his statement Sunday, members of parliament said."
URL: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/32055.html
As far as I can tell, these lawmakers went to meet with an Iranian Qod leader without Maliki's knowledge. I had to read the whole thing twice and I'm still not certain I get exactly what's going on, but this article had more details than anything else that I've read.
I've heard what Sadr has done described in different places as a conditional ceasefire offer or an order to stop fighting. Those are very different things. None of Sadr's actual words I've seen quoted make it clear to me what's going on. Perhaps we'll have to wait and see whether the fighting actually stops, which it hasn't so far...
The Christian Science Monitor report is more useful than Fred's leavings:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0331/p01s09-wome.html
Money Quotes:
But contrary to initial reports, the US and Iraqi government campaign against the Mahdi Army, say officials and analysts, is a carefully coordinated effort by the US and Sadr's Shiite rivals to deal a decisive blow to the outspoken cleric.
"The US was involved in the initial decision to move against the Mahdi Army.… The Americans are going to help crush the Sadrists by siding with Hakim and Dawa," says Mustafa al-Ani, a Dubai-based analyst with the Gulf Research Center, referring to Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the force behind the ruling Shiite political bloc which includes Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa Party.
Underscoring the realignment among Shiite parties that has been under way for months, Mr. Maliki, who was previously firmly aligned with Sadr's political group, has now swung to Mr. Hakim's side after the Sadrists quit his government and the Shiite bloc itself last year. Maliki has also been weakened by fractures inside his own party and sour relations with ruling Sunni Arab and Kurdish factions. The Kurds strongly share with Hakim a vision for a federal Iraq.
"But this is another misguided policy by the Americans.... The Iranians have links to all Shiite groups, especially Hakim. They will sign with whoever wins. They are waiting to see the outcome of this conflict. They are playing a very clever game," adds Mr. Ani.
Several residents in Basra confirmed that the militia continues to cling on to most of its strongholds in Basra despite the US and British-backed government offensive involving nearly 28,000 Iraqi soldiers and policemen.
It appears the government may have underestimated the nature of Sadr's response and, for that matter, the extent of Iran's support to the cleric, analysts say.
A Wireddispatch article says:
http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=107484
"Dozens of Shiite gunmen stormed a state TV facility in central Basra before al-Sadr's declaration Sunday, forcing Iraqi troops guarding the building to flee and setting armored vehicles on fire.
One of al-Maliki's top security officials was killed in a mortar attack against the palace that houses the military operations center, officials said.
The prime minister's Dawa party issued a statement of condolences identifying the slain official as Salim Qassim, known by his nickname Abu Laith al-Kadhimi.
The strength of the resistance to the week-old offensive has taken the U.S.-backed government by surprise, forcing it to come up with a new tactical plan targeting several Mahdi Army strongholds, a government official said.
The official, who was in Basra but spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to release the information, said Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki also had brought in reinforcements and appealed to local tribal leaders to help secure the area.
The prime minister, himself a Shiite, has called the fight "a decisive and final battle" and vowed to remain in Basra until government forces wrest control from militias, including the Mahdi Army that is loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
But al-Maliki also acknowledged Saturday that he may have miscalculated by failing to foresee the strong backlash the offensive would provoke in Baghdad and other cities where Shiite militias wield power."
In short, a win for Sadr. By demonstrating his ability to blunt the government's ability to simply "crush" him, then himself offering the "magnanimous truce" he gains credibility.
Serious loss of face for Maliki and the US. Major gains for Sadr and Iran. This is how it will play out on the Iraqi street, regardless of what the US MSM thinks.
Trying to understand a developing situation like from thousands of miles away is fun but almost impossible. It will take days for the dust to clear so we see what has happened.
Roggio's certainty, emphasis on body counts, and the precision of his numbers, are all remarkable.
Note this article -- the author gives firsthand impressions, and describes success in terms of area controlled (both good signs):
Firsthand Look at Basra Shows Value of White Flag, Qais Mizher, New York Times (31 March 2008)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/world/middleeast/31basra.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Trying to understand a developing situation like from thousands of miles away is fun but almost impossible. It will take days for the dust to clear so we see what has happened.
Roggio's certainty, emphasis on body counts, and the precision of his numbers, are all remarkable.
Note this article -- the author gives firsthand impressions, and describes success in terms of area controlled (both good signs):
Firsthand Look at Basra Shows Value of White Flag, Qais Mizher, New York Times (31 March 2008)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/world/middleeast/31basra.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
As has been the case throughout the entire Iraq war, to analyze strategy on the American side is quite foolish since no aspect of the strategy has ever made any sense. The traditional leftist view is that this is by design, and a wild clusterfuck is what the Bush administration wanted from the beginning, but the old principle that incompetence is usually the correct explanation seems to apply here.
As for the calculations on the Iraqi side of things, it seems pretty clear that Maliki was pushed by the US to make a move against the Mahdi army to try to take some of their territory, but the various power interests backing Maliki in Iraq and Iran decided quickly that the prospects looked pretty grim and told him to call it off.
I'm not sure these developments are really "good" for anyone. What all involved really want is for the US to leave so that they can set up shop in their various power centers and then jockey for influence without the US blundering around screwing everything up. Since there's zero chance of that happening before 2009, everybody just has to try to limit their own losses without looking too weak.
APS
From my limited vantage point I find it hard not to sympathize with the stated goals of Sadr and his movement, even if they are religious fanatics. The bottom line is the occupier remains in Iraq, and the government that was elected to see America peacefully leave has not achieved that objective....and now apparently wants the US to stay. When you add in the long-term catastrophe that is the Iraqi Oil Law.... I just find it hard to see how a patriotic Iraqi citizen could support Maliki and condemn Sadr.
We need to arm the most secular and pro-democratic coalition of factions that can achieve broad support and get the hell out. Once we are out, then oil contracts can be renegotiated without compromising force. As things stand now, it's hard to understand why any decent and liberty-loving Iraqi should be expected to side with us--we are the occupiers who have destroyed their nation and threaten to steal their oil wealth.
The one thing that's absolutely clear is that the lack of credible, detailed information about who's doing what to whom, for what reasons, and with what effect, will not prevent some Americans from making grand pronouncements about all of that and more.
What we DO know with some confidence is that Maliki apparently felt strong enough to try to bring some order to the chaos absolutely everyone acknowledges characterized Basra. And according to Michael Hayden, the decision to act was Maliki's, not ours.
It's also clear that some Americans will automatically oppose any group that's allied with the US no matter how legitimate or well-intentioned; and support any group that's opposed to the US, no matter how corrupt and murderous.
Asshat Powell first proclaims that nobody knows but everybody will make grand pronouncements - then he makes a grand pronouncement that it all looks wonderful from here.
Nitwit.
Maliki and the US lost, Sadr and Iran won. It's that simple.
Scott: "We need to arm the most secular and pro-democratic coalition of factions that can achieve broad support and get the hell out."
There aren't any such factions. You have a choice between Sunni Baathists and Shia religionists. The only variances are in degrees of corruption and/or fanaticism. Politics in any country brings out the worst. Politics in a Third World country like Iraq are hopeless.
Which is why the US usually supports a dictator - anything else and all you have is chaos. Now, from a "democratic" viewpoint, chaos is of course better - as long as it's not violent chaos - which is what you have in Iraq.
It's also clear that most Americans will automatically support any group that's allied with the US no matter how corrupt and murderous; and oppose any group that's opposed to the US, no matter how legitimate or well-intentioned.
fixed.
Long live Sadr. Down with the murderously corrupt Maliki.
What seems likely is that this is an example of what we will see when we pull out of Iraq, whenever that is. The people left behind will test their strength to see what they can gain outside the political system as well as trying to work the political system.
But at least in the South it appears that groups are under enough control to call halts when the balance of power becomes clearer. There is certainly nothing in this that favors our staying longer in Iraq to help stabilize the situation. Whether it will stabilize has little to do with us.
As has been the case throughout the entire Iraq war, to analyze strategy on the American side is quite foolish since no aspect of the strategy has ever made any sense. The traditional leftist view is that this is by design, and a wild clusterfuck is what the Bush administration wanted from the beginning, but the old principle that incompetence is usually the correct explanation seems to apply here.
Wrong. You underestimate the devious doublethink of Darth Cheney. The plan was indeed for Maliki to lose, get scared shitless, and beg the Americans to stay for 100 years.
Lon, exactly. The U.S. and British forces could, of course, crush the Mehdi militia, but at the price of all of Iraq going up in flames. Maliki and the Badr militia tried their hand, then - and failed. But they didn't fail in such a way that they still don't possess their forces - they simply failed to achieve the disarming of the armed faction of the Sadr Trend. What this means is, Iraq has fractured into entrenched groups like Lebanon. And just as the Israelis eventually found out, occupying Lebanon did not put them in a position to control Lebanon.
The underlying fantasy of the war mongers is that magically, the U.S. will control Iraq at some indefinite point. There's no support for that position. There's every reason to think the U.S. could influence Iraq more cheaply by getting out of the country, making peace with Iran, and improving our relationship with Syri, putting us in a position to be an honest broker. We actually do have a rational course of action open to us, and it doesn't involve the overstretch which is diminishing American prestige at the moment - as well as abetting and causing a huge humanitarian crisis.
Only have two complaints with your post, Roger.
"The U.S. and British forces could, of course, crush the Mehdi militia, but at the price of all of Iraq going up in flames."
Actually, no, the US couldn't crush the Mahdi Army at this point. They could of course eliminate all their offices and drive them completely underground. But they can't actually kill not only the 60,000 or so members of the organization as well as the probably hundreds of thousands of supporters - unless all the armed members decided to commit suicide fighting.
All the US could do is drive them underground, make them a full-fledged insurgency, and as you correctly state, "at the price of all of Iraq going up in flames."
"There's every reason to think the U.S. could influence Iraq more cheaply by getting out of the country...to be an honest broker."
There's no chance the US can be an "honest broker" - not after what we've done in Iraq. The Iraqis will hate the US for the next several generations. Maybe if the US took the $150 billion a year we're wasting on military operations there and poured it into the country in some way that every Iraqi got some, it might work. But that's not feasible either - the Iraqi state would steal most of it. You'd have to airdrop it to people.
The US will be paying for this war for decades to come. Displaced and impoverished Iraqis with relatives killed by the US will be conducting terrorist operations against the US for the next generation or two of Iraqis.
Iraq is a tribal revenge society. And the US has given literally a million or more Iraqis major reasons for revenge. Those chickens WILL come home to roost.
Comments closed April 13, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I think this is an interesting news report. Apparently all three parties pulled back from a clash none of them could really win. From the BBC service:
"Within its 1600 gmt newscast on 30 March, Dubai-based Al-Sharqiyah TV carries the following announcer-read report:
"Iran has succeeded in bringing an end to the fight between the Iraqi adversaries following the recent battles in Basra and the southern cities. Nuri al-Maliki has sent Ali al-Adib, his assistant in Al-Da'wah Party, and Hadi al-Amiri, head of the Badr Organization, to Iran to reach an understanding on an arrangement for a cease-fire. The two government officials - who met with Qasim Sulaymani, an Iranian intelligence officer in charge of the Iraqi file, and a number of Revolutionary Guard's intelligence officers - held talks with Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr's representatives. Informed sources said that the government delegation, which is made up of the Iraqi Islamic Supreme Council, the Badr Organization and Al-Da'wah Party-Nuri al-Maliki's wing, has accepted Sayyid Al-Sadr's terms, including the departure of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to Baghdad within the coming hours."
The report goes on to say: "The source added that the key terms that the delegation agreed on are halting the storming operations and arrests against the Al-Mahdi Army militants, who are affiliated with Al-Sadr; releasing the innocent; and holding accountable the government officers who committed crimes of murder. In return, Al-Mahdi Army will release the government soldiers it has captured and will stop armed attacks."
Posted by roger | March 30, 2008 9:46 PM