Threats

As best I can tell, nobody can quite figure out what's happening in Iraq right now -- nobody sure who did what that led to the current fighting or exactly who's fighting whom. Thus we get reporting about how the fighting "threatened to destabilize a long-term truce that had helped reduce the level of violence in the five-year-old Iraq war." Once a giant battle is already under way it seems a bit late to worr that a cease-fire might be threatened, but that's a sign of how confused the situation is.

The International Crisis Group's old report on Shiite politics in Iraq remains a vital backgrounder if you're interested.

Comments

Poopy fans abound!!

Posted by steve duncan | March 26, 2008 10:27 AM

basically:

Moqtada al-Sadr has, for the past few months, been in a continual pact with the leader of the second largest Shi'ite militia in Iraq, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, as they both try to lobby the Iraqi government for greater powers and influence (with a "get it before it's gone" mentality). that agreement has now fallen through, on both fronts. the Iraqi government has been pressuring al-Sadr to cede control of his forces to the regular Iraqi army and al-Hakim has evidently finally crystallized the fundamental differences in view he has with al-Sadr. my prediction is this current violence will spread and grow in intensity, though how difficult it gets is dependent on a number of factors that aren't really predictable.

for a thorough background, see: http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2373425

Posted by BA | March 26, 2008 10:44 AM

My impression in reading various outlets is that the Basra stuff is a lot more complicated than just al Sadr, that its more of a general strike on the some segment of the militias/gangs that dominate the city, while there is some attempt to frame this all as a "US vs. al-Sadr" showdown.

Posted by Dan | March 26, 2008 10:55 AM

My dumb guy's take, dumbed down from BA's and Dan's, the conflict has always been much more complicated than just "Sunni vs Shia", much less "al Qaeda is bad"/Johnny W. McLieberbushcain't. There are multiple cross-currents of not just sectarian, but ethnic, regional, tribal/clannish politics further exacerbated by sectarian conflict.

And, our heroic cable news pontificators notwithstanding, the recent sorta-lull in violence was the result of massive bribes more than the "Surge". The awakened Sunnis were quite open all along that they were taking American guns and money and biding their time until they could use said guns and money to go after the Shias again. And unless I've missed something, they haven't even started to get involved in the most recent unpleasantness. Waiting for Sadrists and Badrists to weaken each other so they can go after both and try to retake Bagdhad?

Posted by Jim | March 26, 2008 11:03 AM

nobody sure who did what that led to the current fighting

Then I guess Cheney and Rumsfeld can sleep soundly for another night.

Posted by Cakesniffer | March 26, 2008 11:12 AM

Well, since the entire point of the surge was to keep a lid on these tensions via the temporary band-aid approaches until next January, we'll have to label it a failure.

On the other hand, there's not enough time for a bipartisan commission to -- again! -- tell the US to come up with a plan to pull out, so, all in all, I suppose the surge is a minor success.

Posted by Tyro | March 26, 2008 11:35 AM

As best I can tell, nobody can quite figure out what's happening in Iraq right now -- nobody sure who did what that led to the current fighting or exactly who's fighting whom.

Let me get this straight? We have been physically present there for 5 ears now and still "nobody cna quite figure out what's happening?"

Then I suggest this "nobody" be replaced by "somebody" who can figure this out. As for the "nobody," they can go flip hamburgers.

Posted by mggurkl | March 26, 2008 11:38 AM

I've a sneaking suspicion that, whatever happens, the administration will attempt to paint it as Iran's fault.

Posted by idlemind | March 26, 2008 11:46 AM

Yes, all the violence in Basra is being blamed on Iran - which may or may not have had a hand in the actions of either ISCI or the Badr Brigade. I can't see a motivation for them to do so, since I really doubt Iran cares if al-Sadr gets influence in the government. They can work with him.

They MIGHT care if al-Sadr forms an alliance with some of the Sunni parties to create an Iraqi nationalist coalition government. That might limit Iran's influence in Iraq. But I can't quite see them being so concerned about that they try to use the Iraqi Shia factions opposed to al-Sadr to try to take him down.

Unless they think that increasing the violence now in Iraq will hasten the US exit, if the US public can be convinced the "surge" has failed (which it has).

So it's just possible that Iran might be involved since they might benefit regardless of how it turns out. Either they limit al-Sadr's influence or al-Sadr wins and thereby gets stronger by further damaging the US occupation - which works to Iran's advantage.

Equally likely, however, is that the US is behind this. If the US assesses that al-Sadr and the Sunnis can overthrow Maliki, then it's in the Bush-Cheney interest to stop that before that nationalist coalition can order the US out.

Of course, it could be both Iran and the US again accidentally working together, with al-Sadr caught in the middle.

In any event, that is likely to be bad for everybody in the end. At least the worse things are for the US, the better they are for Iran in some sense.

I suspect, however, that the fact that the US is blaming Iran for the whole thing pretty clearly points to the notion that it is the US behind it all rather than Iran. Bush and Cheney need to start a war with Iran, there is no doubt about that. So regardless of what started this, clearly it's going to be used to move in that direction.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 26, 2008 4:09 PM

As best I can tell, nobody can quite figure out what's happening in Iraq right now

If you're a moron it might be a challenge.

The Iraqi Army, loyal to the elected PM of Iraq (currently Nouri al-Maliki), are fighting Sadrists, ostensibly loyal to Moqtada Al-Sadr but incresaingly devolving into criminal gangs, somtimes armed by Iran (which is finding itself incresaingly marginalized as Iraqi opinion turns against anyone associated with Iran's mullahs, whom most Iraqis don't much like).

Why was that so hard?

Posted by TallDave | March 26, 2008 5:54 PM

TallDave has now proven to be a moron by his own criteria - because the Iraqi Army IS "devolving into criminal gangs, sometimes armed by Iran".

The Iraqi military is mostly composed of the Badr Brigade and other Shia militias.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 27, 2008 12:12 AM