Baghdad security plan spokesman kidnapped from his home, most likely by the Mahdi Army. Must be another "by-product of the success of the surge". Meanwhile, glad to see we're launching airstrikes in the middle of a city in order to help one group of militias wrest power from another group of militias -- makes me glad we're taking our moral obligations in Iraq seriously.
« Breathless Speculation | Main | Working for the Clampdown »
Victory
27 Mar 2008 10:00 am
Comments (91)
Matt,
You are aware that the elected Iraqi government has an army that we've been training for years, no? That's who we are helping. It's not "one group of militias versus another group of militias". You understand the difference between the standing army of an elected government and a bunch of gunmen nominally aligned with an unelected gang leader, I would hope.
It's not "one group of militias versus another group of militias". You understand the difference between the standing army of an elected government and a bunch of gunmen nominally aligned with an unelected gang leader, I would hope.
But nobody elected the Iraqi national government. The elections put Ibrahim Jafari in power, who the U.S. deemed unacceptable and arranged to be replaced by Nouri al-Maliki. Meanwhile, in Basra we have a local government which is fighting specifically for the goal of decimating their opposition in advance of the provincial elections so that they won't lose power when the election is held.
Is there a compelling reason once Bush leaves office he shouldn't be hanged for multiple war crimes and atrocities? Judge Jackson hanged a helluva a lot of Nazis for less offenses than this crazy S.O.B. has committed.
But nobody elected the Iraqi national government.
The Reality-Based Community!
It's clearly time for Congress to pass another resolution condemning MoveOn.
I suppose in Matthew-land, "nobody elected" the British national government either. After all, when the Brits had elections, they voted for some guy named Blair - and now a guy named Brown is the PM! Hence, nobody elected the British government!
Matt,
"But nobody elected the Iraqi national government."
Certainly you understand how a parliamentary system works: the Iraqi people voted for the legislature, and the members of the legislature then agreed upon a government. It's true that the U.S. (and many Iraqi legislators) opposed the nomination of Jafari, who had already proven his incompetence during his tenure as the head of Iraq's provisional government, but Maliki was from the same party and was the Iraqis' choice, not some hand-picked American favorite.
"Meanwhile, in Basra we have a local government which is fighting specifically for the goal of decimating their opposition in advance of the provincial elections so that they won't lose power when the election is held."
The local government is fighting to establish government control over Iraq's key port city which is being plagued by armed gangs. To suggest that this is some sort of electoral ploy is ridiculous. It would be like saying that the Baltimore police are cracking down on the Crips to prevent them from winning the City Council elections in November.
when the Brits had elections, they voted for some guy named Blair - and now a guy named Brown is the PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall that a foreign occupying army engineered that transfer of leadership.
One does have to admit that the right-wing hyperventilating over public criticism of Petreus looks quaint in comparison to now when there is a serious breakdown of order in Iraq. You almost want them to go back into their corners where they can scream about MoveOn, because you know that's where they're most comfortable, rather than grappling with their own stupidity when it comes to the occupation of Iraq.
"It would be like saying that the Baltimore police are cracking down on the Crips to prevent them from winning the City Council elections in November."
Posted by Harry
If the Baltimore police were comprised entirely of "Bloods", then it would be an appropriate analogy.
I agree with Harry here. There's a big difference between fighting amongst the militias and the Iraqi government confronting them. Even if you can call the legitimacy and motivations of the government forces into question, it's still an inaccurate description of the situation.
Harry and Al,
The difference is that the UK has a functioning parliamentary government. Iraq's parliament plays at the moment only a nominal role, with real power in the hands of Maliki, the ministers, and the US occupation, none of which were elected, and none of which are, by all indications, very popular with the Iraqi people.
"The local government is fighting to establish government control over Iraq's key port city which is being plagued by armed gangs." For me that statement is just like all the pre war lies we were feed. I have seen no evidence that there any armed gangs roaming the streets of Basra. Can anyone point out any reports of violence in Basra prior to this new offensive? Did the deaths in this area increase? Or are bombings on the increase? What I do see is an increase in the cost of oil as the Iraqis blow up the pipelines.
Thanks to Matt for bringing this to clarity. It is indeed good news that we are taking our moral obligations in Iraq seriously.
And what we "engineered", Ryan and Matt, was an extraordinarily free and fair election by any reasonable standards, as attested by the UN with which body, and significant input from local notables, we did the engineering.
The government currently ruling Iraq is the most legitimate one in the Arab world. It has the tools it needs to create the kind of state Iraqis, or citizens of Iraq's eventual successor states, will support. Those who support a Lebanon-style generational clusterfuck should continue to argue for abandoning our allies in favor of traditional mafia-style factions.
"The local government is fighting to establish government control over Iraq's key port city which is being plagued by armed gangs." For me that statement is just like all the pre war lies we were feed. I have seen no evidence that there any armed gangs roaming the streets of Basra. Can anyone point out any reports of violence in Basra prior to this new offensive? Did the deaths in this area increase? Or are bombings on the increase? What I do see is an increase in the cost of oil as the Iraqis blow up the pipelines.
"The local government is fighting to establish government control over Iraq's key port city which is being plagued by armed gangs." For me that statement is just like all the pre war lies we were feed. I have seen no evidence that there any armed gangs roaming the streets of Basra. Can anyone point out any reports of violence in Basra prior to this new offensive? Did the deaths in this area increase? Or are bombings on the increase? What I do see is an increase in the cost of oil as the Iraqis blow up the pipelines.
"The local government is fighting to establish government control over Iraq's key port city which is being plagued by armed gangs." For me that statement is just like all the pre war lies we were feed. I have seen no evidence that there any armed gangs roaming the streets of Basra. Can anyone point out any reports of violence in Basra prior to this new offensive? Did the deaths in this area increase? Or are bombings on the increase? What I do see is an increase in the cost of oil as the Iraqis blow up the pipelines.
"The local government is fighting to establish government control over Iraq's key port city which is being plagued by armed gangs." For me that statement is just like all the pre war lies we were feed. I have seen no evidence that there any armed gangs roaming the streets of Basra. Can anyone point out any reports of violence in Basra prior to this new offensive? Did the deaths in this area increase? Or are bombings on the increase? What I do see is an increase in the cost of oil as the Iraqis blow up the pipelines.
"The local government is fighting to establish government control over Iraq's key port city which is being plagued by armed gangs." For me that statement is just like all the pre war lies we were feed. I have seen no evidence that there any armed gangs roaming the streets of Basra. Can anyone point out any reports of violence in Basra prior to this new offensive? Did the deaths in this area increase? Or are bombings on the increase? What I do see is an increase in the cost of oil as the Iraqis blow up the pipelines.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall that a foreign occupying army engineered that transfer of leadership.
Occupying forces? Why, yes.
And since Blair was simply Bush's poodle, Blair would never have done anything on his own without his master's consent.
Much commented on but no less maddening is the assertion EVERY event in Iraq proves Bush correct and justifies continued occupation. If things are (relatively) placid and uneventful we must stay to assure it continues in that vein. If all hell breaks loose we must stay to bring it under control. The Basra uprising is proof the Maliki government is ready to lead because they're taking the fight to the rebels. Of course it also is proof we must stay to continue training and equipping Maliki's army and police. And if they weren't fighting as they are now? Well, it would mean there was much more work to do to get them ready to fight and therefore we must.............STAY LONGER! Everything that happens, good or bad, is proof what we're doing is right and just and also proof we must not leave. Heads I win, tails you lose.
So, does Maliki have the right to send the army into Kurdistan to bring it under the heel of the central government? If he chooses to do this should we support him? Why or why not? How about if he chooses to bring Fallujah under the control of the central government by sending troops? Remember, the "success" of the surge in Fallujah is due to us finding an ex-Republican Guard Sunni strongman to run the city through a corrupt and tribal police department. Even that tool Michael Totten agreed that the Fallujah jails were human rights disasters. Yet, for the right, Fallujah is a success because it's "stable." So, what if Maliki decides he needs to bring Fallujah back into control from Baghdad. Do we support him and turn against our strongman ally? What is the plan here, loose federalism or a strong central government? Al? Harry?
The New York Times has an interesting story about how big chunks of a $300 million contract for munitions for Afghanistan were actually funneled to a 22 year old Efraim E. Diveroli, and unsurprisingly it resulted in crappy products often purchased from China.
The "Reality Based Community" among more of those hard-charging, big think outside the box conservatives, I guess.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/world/asia/27ammo.html?hp=&pagewanted=all
From "Supplier Under Scrutiny on Aging Arms for Afghans", New York Times, March 27, 2008, "reported by C. J. Chivers, Eric Schmitt and Nicholas Wood and written by Mr. Chivers"
******************************
...[In order t]o arm the Afghan forces that it hopes will lead this fight, the American military has relied since early last year on a fledgling company led by a 22-year-old man whose vice president was a licensed masseur.
With the award last January of a federal contract worth as much as nearly $300 million, the company, AEY Inc., which operates out of an unmarked office in Miami Beach, became the main supplier of munitions to Afghanistan’s army and police forces.
Since then, the company has provided ammunition that is more than 40 years old and in decomposing packaging, according to an examination of the munitions by The New York Times and interviews with American and Afghan officials. Much of the ammunition comes from the aging stockpiles of the old Communist bloc, including stockpiles that the State Department and NATO have determined to be unreliable and obsolete, and have spent millions of dollars to have destroyed.
In purchasing munitions, the contractor has also worked with middlemen and a shell company on a federal list of entities suspected of illegal arms trafficking.
Moreover, tens of millions of the rifle and machine-gun cartridges were manufactured in China, making their procurement a possible violation of American law. The company’s president, Efraim E. Diveroli, was also secretly recorded in a conversation that suggested corruption in his company’s purchase of more than 100 million aging rounds in Albania, according to audio files of the conversation.
This week, after repeated inquiries about AEY’s performance by The Times, the Army suspended the company from any future federal contracting, citing shipments of Chinese ammunition and claiming that Mr. Diveroli misled the Army by saying the munitions were Hungarian.
Mr. Diveroli, reached by telephone, said he was unaware of the action. The Army planned to notify his company by certified mail on Thursday, according to internal correspondence provided by a military official.
But problems with the ammunition were evident last fall in places like Nawa, Afghanistan, an outpost near the Pakistani border, where an Afghan lieutenant colonel surveyed the rifle cartridges on his police station’s dirty floor. Soon after arriving there, the cardboard boxes had split open and their contents spilled out, revealing ammunition manufactured in China in 1966.
“This is what they give us for the fighting,” said the colonel, Amanuddin, who like many Afghans has only one name. “It makes us worried, because too much of it is junk.” Ammunition as it ages over decades often becomes less powerful, reliable and accurate.
AEY is one of many previously unknown defense companies to have thrived since 2003, when the Pentagon began dispensing billions of dollars to train and equip indigenous forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. Its rise from obscurity once seemed to make it a successful example of the Bush administration’s promotion of private contractors as integral elements of war-fighting strategy.
But an examination of AEY’s background, through interviews in several countries, reviews of confidential government documents and the examination of some of the ammunition, suggests that Army contracting officials, under pressure to arm Afghan troops, allowed an immature company to enter the murky world of international arms dealing on the Pentagon’s behalf — and did so with minimal vetting and through a vaguely written contract with few restrictions...
Excerpt. Follow link for article.
The local government is fighting to establish government control over Iraq's key port city which is being plagued by armed gangs. To suggest that this is some sort of electoral ploy is ridiculous. It would be like saying that the Baltimore police are cracking down on the Crips to prevent them from winning the City Council elections in November.
Posted by Harry | March 27, 2008 10:49 AM
Do you really feel that analogy holds water?
Anyway this 'moral obligation' question is beside the point. Whether the U.S. has such an obligation or not (I say it doesn't, because it's allied with an illegitimate government, but that's a separate argument), it clearly doesn't have the *capability* to fix Iraq's problems. Indeed, the presence of its force exacerbates them. So it should leave. Let the chips fall or let some multinational force try to fix things. It's the U.S.'s preferred course of action toward 90% of civil conflicts going on around the globe. The only difference in Iraq is that U.S. prestige and credibility are invested. Well, tough shit. It deserves to lose some of those after the cock-up Iraq has been. Certainly no one else deserves to die in a vain effort to salvage them.
it's been pointed out that the maliki government has been planning to attack basra for weeks. it's also true that there was no notable violence in basra in the last few weeks. i think the assumption that this is one political party's [maliki's] attacking another before an election is correct.
I wonder why the right wingers always chose Baltimore or Detroit as their preferred analogies? Hmmm, maybe it has something to do with skin color - after all, they never use, say, Orange County. That would make sense. The racist imagination which both supports the Iraqis and supports endlessly killing them needs to find compromise images - as per Freud's theory of dreams - in order to get comfortable with their murderous libidos.
Matt's right, of course. The problem with the election was that, unlike say the Labor election in the U.K., it was not at all clear what the parties stood for or who ran them. And, of course, with the heavy hand of the American invader making sure that certain issues - for instance, kicking out said invader - weren't mentioned, and with a fettered press, it was a pretty poor election. Better than none, however. And it left a legacy which allows, in the election coming up, for localities to protest more vividly against the murderous occupation of the Americans. In particular, Sadr's party, which is the only one to support kicking out the invaders, should do very well at a local level in a fair election. So the task at hand is to make sure the election isn't fair, and the U.S. is working on it. Just as the U.S. devised the war crime of razing Fallujah before elections in 2005, to manipulate the electorate - in that case, making Allawi acceptable to Shi'ites by displaying his eagerness to murder Sunnis - so, too, they are trying to skew the playing field with the Basra trick.
But the Allawi ploy backfired. By scattering some 200,000 Sunni refugees across the landscape, the Americans simply stoked the fire of insurgency. They are playing with fire again, backing the hapless Maliki.
As for the comic idea that the Iraqi army is not composed of militia people, that is a fairy story only Bush's hard core could believe. But since that hard core also believes in the wonderful job that we've done in Anbar province, where the U.S. overtly pays a militia off, it puts a kink in the "nuh uh, we aren't supporting militias" argument. The traditional way that the warmongers get around these contradictions is to assert ever more vehemently their lie of the day. It works wonders - for a small group. The rest of the American public has figured out that these folks are nuts.
Everything that happens,..is ....proof we must not leave.
Essentially the situation in Iraq is that screwed up.
Harry:
Maliki was from the same party and was the Iraqis' choice, not some hand-picked American favorite.
Exactly right, except for the part about him being the Iraqis' choice and not some hand-picked American favorite.
You always have to wonder with America's right whether they're really so incredibly stupid that they believe the things they say. In many cases, I think, they actually do. Certainly it goes a long way to explaining how they manage to completely fuck up every single thing they attempt.
23456,
Do you really think that if the Bush administration were going to hand-pick someone to be prime minister of Iraq their first choice would be non-English speaking religious Shiite who spent most of the Saddam years in Iran? Of course not, so don't be ignorant. The Iraqis elected Maliki and his party into the legislature. Iraqi legislators selected him as PM.
Gee, I thought Chalabi was the American's favorite. And then I thought that secular Ayad Allawi was the American's favorite. I wish the Left would settle on a single person who was the American's favorite - as it is, the Left seems to be claiming that everyone in Iraq was the American's favorite.
The US could not "hand pick" a candidate, but the US did get involved in the process and pushed certain favored options from amongst the possible contenders.
After the UIA performed well - and, despite Bush administration predictions, Chalabi and Allawi bombed - the options were limited.
That being said, Sadr had as much to do with picking Maliki as the US.
Things have changed, however. Lately, Maliki has been closer to the US and ISCI than Sadr. So even if the US didn't pick Maliki, he has been somewhat pliant.
There's a big difference between fighting amongst the militias and the Iraqi government confronting them.
If you don't even understand that the crux of the current problematic situation in Iraq is the fact that both the Iraqi army and the Iraqi police are hopelessly infiltrated, undermined and used for their own purposes by militia - then you don't understand anything. This is not some left-wing fiction, it's a fact, and everybody who has ever reported on this, will tell you so.
It would be nice if the government was a neutral arbiter, while the army and the police were institutions just doing their job battling the bad guys and pacifying the country. Really, though I've been against this war from the very beginning, I would be overjoyed if that was the situation, simply because I don't like seeing Iraqis living in fear and getting killed - BUT IT JUST AIN'T SO.
I wish the Left would settle on a single person who was the American's favorite - as it is, the Left seems to be claiming that everyone in Iraq was the American's favorite.
See what you've done, Norbizness? See what you've done?
Harry:
Do you really think that if the Bush administration were going to hand-pick someone to be prime minister of Iraq their first choice would be non-English speaking religious Shiite who spent most of the Saddam years in Iran?
Excellent point, Harry. By the same token, the fact that Mossadegh was replaced by the Shah in 1953 and not by, say, Dwight Eisenhower's son proves that the Shah was the Iranians' choice and the United States had nothing to do with it.
I really do wonder when America's right will begin to wonder whether their unbroken record of spectacular failure might possibly be connected to their extraordinary stupidity.
23456,
Great analogy. A PM who was elected to Iraq's legislature in UN-monitored, free, multiparty elections is just like a hereditary monarch taking power in a coup. I should add that the Left's favorite former president (now that Clinton is hated for opposing the great beige hope) had his nose firmly up this monarch's ass. Carter never met a dictator he didn't like.
every so often, a new clown shows up that makes you realize that Al is, for a rightwinger, a subtle thinker.
congratulations, harry! we needed a comic book view of iraq (and US relations with dictators) to distract us from the actual disaster that is US policy in iraq: this is what you think we've expended blood and treasure to achieve?
Harry:
Great analogy. A PM who was elected to Iraq's legislature in UN-monitored, free, multiparty elections is just like a hereditary monarch taking power in a coup.
Fair enough -- it's not a perfect analogy. For instance, in 1953 there weren't several hundred thousand US and UK troops occupying Iran. Obviously not having several hundred thousand troops in Iran gave us much, much more influence over who ran the place than we have with several hundred thousand troops in Iraq. I mean, that's just common sense.
Tell me, Harry: has it ever occurred to you that the trail of catastrophe and death that follows you around might have something to do with your pea-sized brain? Or has it all just been a very, very long streak of bad luck?
Actually, this is a good point by Harry:
I should add that the Left's favorite former president (now that Clinton is hated for opposing the great beige hope) had his nose firmly up this monarch's ass.
Yes, the never-ending, voluminous praise that Carter got from the left for his support of the Shah was nauseating. Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller warned Carter over and over that his support for the Shah was a moral and political disaster, but Carter, emboldened by the enormous love he was getting from the left, just wouldn't stop.
Don't be concerned, Harry. The rules here are that any sort of errant bullshit is fine as long as it's congruent with the basic idea--the US is an evil hegemon that, alternatively, controls everything in the world, and can't do anything right.
It is amusing the lengths some will go to to peddle the nonsense. The Iraqi government was reprehensible because it wouldn't go after the militias. Now that it feels strong enough to go after perhaps the most pernicious militia, the same people are complaining that this militia is more legitimate than the elected government.
The hits just keep on comin'.
The problem here is that this whole matter appears to be the fall-out from the provincial elections that were supposed to occur this fall in Iraq, and were then aborted. Certainly not a good thing.
On the other hand, if you want to bail out from Iraq, this is the sort of thing you need to steel yourself against getting excited about.
If Maliki can actually pull this off it might not be the worst thing in the world. My fear is that he's provoking a fight he knows he can't win, so as to drag us into crushing his Shi'ite rivals once and for all, so we get the blame and he saves his military for other targets.
Baghdad security plan spokesman kidnapped from his home, most likely by the Mahdi Army. Must be another "by-product of the success of the surge".
Right, because no one's ever kidnapped here. In actual fact, kidnappings in Iraq are way down from last year.
Meanwhile, glad to see we're launching airstrikes in the middle of a city in order to help one group of militias wrest power from another group of militias
Yglesias, your ignorance is exceeded only by your partisan mendacity. Here's an actual soldier's report:
http://www.julescrittenden.com/2008/03/27/sadr-tidings/#comment-60793
"Sir,
Without going into too much detail - I am close to some of the ops ongoing… This is not a sleazy political move, this was brought on, in part, by the fed up residents of Basrah who want an end to the militia crap - kidnappings, violence, etc. Since the IA and the Coalition are pushing AQI further up North and out, the Iraqis figure it is better to confront the problem now, rather than wait for it to get worse.
The fight up North is the fight to run AQI out of Iraq. The fight down South is the fight to see which way Iraq will go once AQI is beaten. I rather like a direction where the elected government of the people is the one with the guns, and the police are on the street - not the Jaish al Mahdi goons."
A few things gleaned from Prof JuanCole's indispensible 'Informed Comment':
Al Zamen (arabic language news service) reports that Thursday PM Iraqi time the Mahdi Army was still firmly in control of it's bases in Basra and Sadr City/East Baghdad and had secured Kut. Wednesday, the same source said that the Iraqi Nat'l Army had lost at least several armored cars in urban-street fighting. Today Badr Brigade militia fighters are mixed with Iraqi Nat'l Army units in Baghdad. The Maliki gov't has refused the offer by the governor of Basra Province to mediate with Muqtada. And--par for the course in Iraq--there are reports of mass executions by the Iraq Nat'l Army in Baghdad and Basra.
Informed Comment has a video clip from AlJazeera (in english) giving background regarding the factions involved. Seems that Mahdi Army is the largest "by far" of the militias with about 60 thousand armed fighters and that Badr Brigades have a long history of Iranian connections since they were formed as an anti-Saddam organization and trained & were armed there in the 80s and 90s.
No doubt everyone here will have seen that the civilian spokesman for the Iraqi Nat'l Army was kidnapped from his home in Baghdad this morning. The attack was so forceful that his house apparently was totally destroyed.
Now the Bushies and their brain-dead mouth pieces will explain how this is all part of the plan--victory is just around the corner, a few dead-enders, the last throes, etc, etc.
Heck of a job, Republicans!!
Robert Powell:
The rules here are that any sort of errant bullshit is fine as long as it's congruent with the basic idea--the US is an evil hegemon that, alternatively, controls everything in the world, and can't do anything right.
Exactly right! Why, thinking those things simultaneously would be like simultaneously thinking that the Soviet Union was a huge, pernicious influence over the Eastern Bloc and the Soviet Union was hilariously incompetent at many basic tasks! Thank god no one on earth--ESPECIALLY America's right wing!--ever expressed such an inherently preposterous idea!
Interesting fact: the phrase "if brains were dynamite, he wouldn't have enough to fart" was specifically invented to describe Robert Powell.
But nobody elected the Iraqi national government. The elections put Ibrahim Jafari in power, who the U.S. deemed unacceptable and arranged to be replaced by Nouri al-Maliki.
That's a ridiculous assertion. Jaafari didn't win election, his party did. Maliki was another party leader in the slates that won power by election. The ruling coalition decided Maliki would make a better PM than Jaafari, who redefined the word "ineffectual."
We didn't like Jaafari, but neither did Iraqi leaders. THEY voted for Maliki. We only offered our advice, as we do in countless other countries.
23456, I find myself enjoying your oeuvre.
Meanwhile, in Basra we have a local government which is fighting specifically for the goal of decimating their opposition in advance of the provincial elections so that they won't lose power when the election is held.
Again, this displays staggering ignorance of the situation.
The Iraqi Army (who are the ones actually fighting, not the Badr Corps, who tend to be MOI not Army) is the most trusted institution in the country right now. Sadr's goons get less and less popular every day.
In the absence of much armed opposition, Sadr's people have been terrorizing Basrah, stealing oil revenue and engaging in kidnapping, extortion, etv. Basrahn citizens are resentful and have been asking the national government to step in. After years of training by our troops, the IA feels it is up to the task.
Sadrists never had much chance in the provincial elections in Basra; the Sadr power base is Sadr City in Baghdad and a couple of the religious cities. His people are fighting now because they don't want to give up the power they've seized illegitimately.
TallDave:
Jaafari didn't win election, his party did. Maliki was another party leader in the slates that won power by election. The ruling coalition decided Maliki would make a better PM than Jaafari
With Al, the question is always: stupid or liar? With TallDave, the question is: stupid or stupid-fried stupid with whipped stupid on top?
Based on his performance here, I'm going with stupid-fried stupid.
The government currently ruling Iraq is the most legitimate one in the Arab world. It has the tools it needs to create the kind of state Iraqis, or citizens of Iraq's eventual successor states, will support.
That's some awesome legitimacy you've got going there, what with the possibility the country might fracture into bits! Nothing says 'legitimacy' like a widespread desire on the part of more than one constituency to see the country break up.
Hilarious, Powell.
Meanwhile, the Maliki government is only part of the story when you talk (as Matt does) about the U.S. taking sides with militias against other militias. There are multiple areas of the country where the U.S. has allied itself with local forces which don't (except sometimes in the most perfunctory, formal sense) recognize Baghdad's authority at all. So let's have an argument about the legitimacy of ex-Saddamist military officers ruling Iraqi cities under American sponsorship.
Ryan,
Thank you. However, I should emphasize that I owe it all to the inspiration of my muses.
When it rains it pours. Looks as if Bush's Pakistan strategy is falling apart at the same time. After all these years, is the Bush administration's Pakistan policy finally coming unstuck? It looks as if Musharraf's days are numbered, and since the administration put all its Pakistani eggs in one basket, the same seems to be true of a cornerstone of their GWOT policy. Just one more way that events elsewhere in the world continue to affect the U.S. while most of us don't even notice, distracted as we are by the media circus that passes for coverage of the presidential primaries.
Actually, I think TallDave isn't even making his stuff up. He's recycling stuff from 2004. That is when the right circulated the idea that Sadr's "thugs" - always thugs - were getting more and more unpopular.
Of course, the right has to maintain that mythology, for Sadr's increasing popularity depends crucially on two things: one, the enormous unpopularity of the occupation among Iraqis; and two, the flight of the professional classes out of Iraq, which is much too dangerous, thus amplifying the already powerful presence of the poor, who support Sadr on the reasonable grounds that Da'awa and SCIRI - I won't bother to use their new, disguise name - are hand in glove with the Americans in trying to rob the country blind.
Given the rightwing myths, they have to support the disaster set in motion by Maliki, just as they whooped it up for the Chechnyfication of Falluja. Of course, the former resulted in Allawi's downfall. Maliki, relying on the Badr brigade's successful takeover of Najaf, thinks this time it will be different. Who knows, he could be right - and as it would be sweet for the Americans to perpetrate fraud on a huge scale in the elections coming up in the South, who better than SCIRI to help them do it? Unfortunately, unlike Vietnam, where enough soldiers were in the country to support Thieu's totalitarian tricks when it came to faking elections, in Iraq they don't have the force. But at least we can see the purpose, now, of training Iraqi troops: to crush popular Iraqi opposition to an endless future of being occupied and plundered.
Again, is our goal for Iraq a loose federalism or a strong central government. Maliki sends troops into Basra and we support him. What happens if he wants to send them to Anbar to bring that province in line? How is the "awakening" strategy of empowering local rulers and ignoring the wishes of Baghdad consistant with our support of the Basra suppression? If Basra should be brought under Baghdad what about the Kurdish north?
I might be wrong, but in all my previous reading al-Sadr has never been described as the dominant force in Basra.....his stomping grounds are generally further north. Basra is a led by a patchwork of gangs and oil/export families that more resemble the mafia than anything else.
No doubt he has influence, maybe even strategic partners down there, but again this whole framing of "outlaws" and going after al-Sadr just rings very false to me.
Right, because no one's ever kidnapped here.
Classic.
When exactly was the last US government official kidnapped by an armed and organized militia, which had the support of millions of people, in order to gain leverage in a political dispute?
When it rains it pours. Looks as if Bush's Pakistan strategy is falling apart at the same time. After all these years, is the Bush administration's Pakistan policy finally coming unstuck? It looks as if Musharraf's days are numbered, and since the administration put all its Pakistani eggs in one basket, the same seems to be true of a cornerstone of their GWOT policy. Just one more way that events elsewhere in the world continue to affect the U.S. while most of us don't even notice, distracted as we are by the media circus that passes for coverage of the presidential primaries.
A few more gleanings about this example of Bush's successful strategery:
The WSJ reminds us that the Sadrist faction is actually a part of the Nat'l Gov't. Whoops!! How did we forget that? Specifically, they control the ministry of health--which is rich in irony even in the Bush 'Reign of Error' period. Apparently they can shut down every hospital and clinic and stop distributing medications.
And USAToday points out that if this were actually a policy of the Nat'l Gov't of Iraq perhaps someone would've mentioned it to the Parliament? (Of course, JohnYoo might have written a memo explaining UnitaryExecutive thinking for them.)
I remember that the chapter in my freshman Survey of US History course began with the admonition that 'it is necessary to remember that many people suffered and died during this war'--because in many ways it was conceived and conducted with such ridiculous stupidity. This administration requires the same mental discipline--they are so F*&King STUPID. Everything they touch turns to....
Carter talked the Shah down from the Peacock Throne with a promise of sanctuary.
For that the right wing, addicted to blood, never forgave him. The mullahs, addicted to revenge, never forgave him either.
Sounds like pretty good company to be in.
Actually, I think TallDave isn't even making his stuff up. He's recycling stuff from 2004. That is when the right circulated the idea that Sadr's "thugs" - always thugs - were getting more and more unpopular.
Sheesh you're even more ignorant than Yglesias.
Read the freaking polls.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1060a1IraqWhereThingsStand.pdf
Note that the IA gets more popular (from 39% in 03 to 65% now) and the militias get less popular (from 36% in 07 to 22% now).
In 2004, Sadr was actually getting MORE popular, because he was fighting the "occupiers," who were resented for the 13 years of sanctions and bombing (and of course Saddam's propaganda). Now he's fighting the IA -- and only FOUR PERCENT of Iraqis support attacks on the IA, while militias get the HIGHEST blame for the violence.
Looks like Spain is collapsing too. I blame Bush!
"Protests Follow Death of Official Kidnapped by Basque Rebels"
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F00E7DA1738F937A25754C0A961958260
Failed state!
TallDave:
Looks like Spain is collapsing too. I blame Bush!
God. It's like watching a retarded chimpanzee take a dump in the town square at noon and then proudly roll around in it.
In the absence of much armed opposition, Sadr's people have been terrorizing Basrah, stealing oil revenue and engaging in kidnapping, extortion, etv. Basrahn citizens are resentful and have been asking the national government to step in. After years of training by our troops, the IA feels it is up to the task.
What you say about Sadr’s people is undoubtedly true, but the ISCI, Dawa, & Fadhila militias have engaged in the same kinds of things. If it’s about restoring order, then why is the IA only going after the Sadrirsts & ignoring the other militias?
Anybody familiar with the situation in Iraq knows that the Badr Brigade and other militias comprise much of the Iraqi Army. In fact, one article yesterday pointed out that the IA's actions in Basra are stalling partly because they are heavily infiltrated by some of the militias they're supposed to be rooting out.
It's a complete joke to think the Iraqi Army is composed of the same Baathists that were in the last Iraqi Army. They got fired and replaced by Iranian-trained militias.
The other important point is that while Petraeus is blaming the Green Zone mortar attacks on Iran, al-Sadr's group is the least supported by Iran. The entire ISCI, Dawa and other groups were created, trained and supported by Iran - and to at least some degree, probably still are.
The consensus in Iraq among the Iraqis and the consensus by Western observers familiar with the parties involved is that this is a crackdown on al-Sadr's Mahdi Army in advance of the upcoming elections. While it was held out initially as a crackdown on "rogue elements" of the Mahdi Army - and even al-Sadr was said to initially allow it because of that - it clearly has developed into a crackdown on the entire Mahdi Army.
It is likely that if this continues, al-Sadr will have to end his ceasefire. His senior aides are pressuring him to do so, by all reports.
If this happens, Iraq is likely to have a melt-down. While al-Sadr's groups is large and powerful (one Iraqi Army commander said yesterday they have better weapons than he does), they can't directly confront the US and the Iraqi Army. So they will resort to the same guerrilla war the Sunni insurgencies have. While they're at that, they will also be attacking US troops.
If Maliki doesn't pull back, it's likely the "surge" drop in violence will evaporate.
As one article pointed out yesterday, if southern Iraq goes up in flames, that will stop the US military draw down - which I suspect is the reason the US allowed Maliki to start this - and will drain US forces from the Baghdad area. This will entice the Sunni insurgents and AQI to resume operations they have reduced due to the larger presence of US troops in the Baghdad area during the "surge."
In fact, as this article in Asia Times convincingly demonstrates, it was the "surge" - as well as previous operations like Fallujah - which basically caused or more precisely accelerated the sectarian cleansing in Iraq.
It was the "Battle of Baghdad" that destroyed Iraq.
The fateful Battle of Baghdad
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JC27Ak02.html
Gareth Porter's report here clearly shows that the attack on al-Sadr has been developing for some time.
Muqtada cuts free
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JC28Ak03.html
Money Quotes:
The Mahdi Army's blunt warnings of military countermeasures followed months of raids against Muqtada's political-military organization by both US forces and the Badr Organization. According to a senior Sadrist parliamentarian, between 2,000 and 2,500 Mahdi Army militiamen had been detained since Muqtada declared a ceasefire last August.
The raids have been aimed at weakening the Madhi Army's political hold on Shi'ite cities in anticipation of eventual provincial elections.
During 2007 there were signs of strong support for Muqtada in Najaf, Basra and Karbala, as Sudarsan Raghavan reported in the Washington Post last December. In Najaf, portraits of Muqtada and his father, grand ayatollah Mohammed Sadiq Sadr, who was assassinated by Saddam Hussein's security forces in 1999, had "mushroomed defiantly in the streets".
Muqtada's image had also been "pervasive" in Karbala, according to Raghavan, until security forces loyal to the ISCI arrested more than 400 of Muqtada's followers in an obvious effort to destroy its organization in the city.
For months Muqtada had refrained from authorizing a full-fledged response to such attacks on his forces. But on Tuesday an officer at Muqtada's headquarters in Najaf said the Mahdi Army should be prepared to "strike the occupiers" as well as the Badr Organization.
Revealing the contradictions built into the US position in Iraq, even as it was blaming Iran for the alleged renegade units of the Mahdi Army, the US was using the Badr Organization, the military arm of the ISCI, to carry out raids against the Mahdi Army. The Badr Organization and the ISCI had always been and remained the most pro-Iranian political-military forces in Iraq, having been established, trained and funded by the IRGC from Shi'ite exiles in Iran during the Iran-Iraq war.
It was the ISCI leader Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim who had invited two IRGC officers to be his guests in December 2006, apparently to discuss military assistance to the Badr Organization. The Iranian officials were seized in the home of Hadi al-Ameri, the leader of the Badr Organization and detained by the US military. The George W Bush administration continued throughout 2007 to cite those Iranian visitors as evidence of the IRGC's illicit intervention in Iraq.
But the Badr Organization had become the indispensable element of the Iraqi government's security forces, who could be counted on to oppose the Mahdi Army in the south. And in a further ironic twist, it was the leaders of the ISCI and of the Nuri al-Maliki government, which depended on Iranian support, who insisted last summer and autumn that the US should credit Iran with having prevailed on Muqtada to agree to a ceasefire. The close collaboration of the US command with these pro-Iranian groups against Muqtada appears to be the main reason for the State Department's endorsement of that argument last December.
As for Yglesias' breathtakingly dishonest characterization of Jaafari's removal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibrahim_Al-Jaafari
Ibrahim abd al-Karim Hamzah al-Ashaiqir al-Jaafari (Arabic: إبراهيم الأشيقر الجعفري; born 1947) is the former Prime Minister of Iraq in the Iraqi Transitional Government following the January 2005 elections. He is a Shiite and was previously one of the two vice-presidents of Iraq under the Iraqi Interim Government in 2004, and the main spokesman for the Islamic Dawa Party in Iraq. He was forced to withdraw his nomination for premiership for the permanent government because of accusations of weak leadership from Kurdish and Sunni parties in Iraq.
...
In the national election of December 2005, the UIA once again won the majority of the votes, which according the new Iraqi constitution, gets to pick the Prime Minister. UIA members voted for the Prime Minister with only two main candidates. Al-Jaafari was one and the SCIRI member Adel Abdul Mahdi, a secular economist. Jaafari won the vote only by one (64 - 63). His win was credited to the support of Muqtada Al Sadr's members of UIA, who all voted for him. [5]
Despite this win, however, he became increasingly associated with the failure to end the violence in Iraq and to improve services. Because of this, the Sunni, Kurdish and secular groups in the parliament refused to agree to him continuing as Prime Minister, leading to deadlock. His refusal to stand down began to alienate even those who had backed him up to that point, but it is believed that only when Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani intervened that he finally stepped down.[6]
The U.S. role was relatively minor. We did not, as Yglesias apparently thinks, put guns to their heads and demand they put Maliki in.
Again, the Badr guys mostly work in the MOI (but again, they represent the party with the most votes, so its not exactly a surprise). The Iraqi Army is much, much larger than even the most exaggerated self-estimates of the Badr organization and is generally considered fairly apolitical because the officer and NCO corps is heavily vetted and indoctrinated under U.S. supervision.
This isn't exactly secret information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badr_Organization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_army
Are there some former Badr Corps in the IA? Probably. Does that make any difference here? Unlikely. They're generally split up by sect and political affiliation when they join, to enhance unit cohesion and loyalty to the chain of command.
If it’s about restoring order, then why is the IA only going after the Sadrirsts & ignoring the other militias?
Logistics mostly. They can only do so much at once. Sadr's people are the biggest problem at the moment.
The Iraqi Army is much, much larger than even the most exaggerated self-estimates of the Badr organization and is generally considered fairly apolitical
Wow, somebody is really drinking the Kool-aid...
The Iraqi Army is much, much larger than even the most exaggerated self-estimates of the Badr organization and is generally considered fairly apolitical because the officer and NCO corps is heavily vetted and indoctrinated under U.S. supervision.
And the retarded chimp continues to roll around in his own shit, hooting with pride.
TallDave has facts. 23456 and Ryan have an oeurve, and a lot of juvenile ad hominum. They'll support any criminal gang as long as they're anti-US. Impressive reasoning.
Rudeness is the weak man's impersonation of strength.
TallDave has facts.
He also has very rose-colored glasses. There isn't a serious expert on Iraq - whether it's Vali Nasr, Anthony Cordesman, or Reidar Visser - who doesn't believe this is anything more than an intra-Shi'ite power struggle.
A SHORT PLAY STARRING TALLDAVE AND ROBERT POWELL
TallDave
As you see, if we mix this ton of ammonium nitrate with nitromethane and a small quantity of Tovex, and then trigger the Tovex, it will all be transformed through alchemy into wonderful presents for the children of this elementary school.
Robert Powell
I look forward to the wonderful presents!
Many, Many, Many People
No! Ammonium nitrate and nitromethane will explode and destroy the entire school! For the love of God--
[GIGANTIC EXPLOSION]
[PAUSE]
[SOUND OF SHRIEKING WOUNDED CHILDREN]
TallDave
Well, that went extremely well! Now I shall move onto this second school full of children, with another ton of ammonium nitrate, nitromethane and Tovex, and create more wonderful presents.
Robert Powell
I look forward to the wonderful presents!
Many, Many, Many People
Jesus Christ, you fucking moron! What the fuck is wrong with you? Wipe the fucking shit out of your eyes and and look at reality! Are you fucking kidding--
Robert Powell
TallDave has facts. All these other people have is a lot of juvenile ad hominum. Rudeness is the weak man's impersonation of strength.
[GIGANTIC EXPLOSION]
[PAUSE]
[SOUND OF SHRIEKING WOUNDED CHILDREN]
TallDave
Well, that went extremely well! Now I shall move onto another school full of children.
Robert Powell
I look forward to the wonderful presents!
[CURTAIN]
Talldave
1. The army. You are right that the army is the most popular institution in Iraq by far - which is the most important fact about it. This has little to do with the American training of the army, and more to do with a national longing for an institution that works. It is less infiltrated by militias now than it was - but if it is seen coordinating with the Badr brigade, that can all unravel.
2. But you are dead wrong about the Sadrist parties. Even most Western journalists - for instance, the Economists - expect gains for them in the next election. As for your reading of the ABC Poll - my reading is that there was no comparison of leaders, but that Maliki gets a solid 58 percent disapproval. Naturally, to improve his image, Maliki decides to combine himself with the Army - thus, the move in Basra. But his posturing is going to cost. Already Jaafari has called for negotiations, and the British are thinking of moving in to help the Iraqi army - a sure way to discredit it. Meanwhile, Sadr's tactic is to claim that Maliki is perverting our fine army.
By the way, making sweeping conclusions from a poll that shows both that Iraqis are optimistic about the future of Iraq and 49 percent are thinking of leaving the place is not a great idea. The only thing the poll shows is that Iraqi public opinion is in flux.
3. Salient fact since 2004 is the flight of those Iraqis who really do hate Sadr. From Syria to Jordan to Iran, you will definitely find a rise in hatred for Sadr among those people. But the salient fact about those people is:they aren't on the ground.
Maliki turned a potentially popular move - against the militias that his government spokesmen have been careful to distinguish from Sadr's people - into a clumsy self-aggrandizing move. The parallel with Allawi's tactics around the time of the razing of Falluja is striking.
4. Matt's certainly right about the elections. Elections in which the issues are obscure and the parties don't even decide on the leadership until after the election are deeply flawed. The parallel with Blair is interesting. There would have been a parliamentary uprising if, after Blair won, he had resigned to point some obscure figure liked by his millionaire friends in the prime minister's position. The important thing about the elections was less the result than the precedent. And that will, no doubt, not be much liked by the occupiers in the next couple of years, as they march out.
TallDave ignores this paragraph from the Wikipedia article on the Iraqi Army that he cites:
"Ineffective leadership at the Ministry of Defense
The current Minister of Defense, Abd al-Qadr Muhammed Jassim al-Obaidi, has limited experience and faces a number of hurdles impeding his effective governance. Some of the major problems include inheriting a staff that is notorious for favorism, corruption, and deeply divided along sectarian and ethnic lines. He rivals with the Minister of the Interior, Jawad al-Bolani, National Security Advisor Muwafaq al-Rubai, and Minister of Staff for National Security Affairs, Shirwan al-Waili. He has been criticized for not being able to stand up to the Badr Organization and Mehdi Army members which dominate his own party. In addition, as a Sunni he faces inherent challenges working within a Shiite-dominated government."
I think that pretty much says it all.
But just to add to that, here is Anthony Cordesman's assessment back in 2006:
"As for the development of Iraqi security forces, progress is difficult to gauge, because so much US reporting grossly exaggerates progress, ignores or understates real-world problems, and promises unrealistic timelines. The US Defense Department has stopped releasing detailed unclassified material about Iraqi Army, Police, and Border
Enforcement readiness, only giving information about how many units are “ready and equipped” and “in the lead.” These are vague, if not meaningless categories – “in the lead” does not indicate the level of independence from US support, and we do not how many “ready and equipped” soldiers quit or deserted the force.
Widespread militia infiltration continues, especially of the police force. Militias also
intimidate individual members of the security forces to secure their cooperation or at least
forestall action against them. Mixed loyalties not only existed at the level of individual
policemen or officers, but also inside the relevant ministries.
There are very real success, and positive trends in the regular Iraqi Army. Even here, however, US military personnel who train or operate with Iraqi units give mixed anecdotal assessments of their quality. There are numerous stories of abuse, corruption, and mixed loyalties, just as well as of individual courage, commitment, and success.
Some individual units said to be “in the lead” are described as highly capable and politically neutral, while others were blatantly partisan or had desertion rates that effectively disbanded the unit. There seemed to be a large consensus among trainers that a continued US security force training effort was vital in order to achieve some
semblance of stability in Iraq, but also that it would still take years to succeed with a
meaningful political compromise between sects and factions."
And from the Iraqi Resistance Reports, we now read this lovely bit:
"The SIIC and its armed wing the Badr Brigades are known for their political ties with the so-called moderate or liberal parties in Iran, including those led by former Prime Minister Muhammad Khatimi. When the US invaded Iraq in the spring of 2003, the Americans employed the 30,000-man Badr Brigades as allies and then installed them as the backbone of the occupation regime’s local security forces. Following the establishment of the US occupation regime, a rival Shi'i militia, the Jaysh al-Mahdi emerged under the leadership of Shi'i cleric Muqtada as-Sadr, whose political links are with the Iranian conservatives, including current Prime Minister Mahmud Ahmadinajad.
Yaqen reported a source in the SIIC as sayig that 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Hakim had received support from his American backers for the establishment of yet another militia under the name "Badr Awakening" to fight on behalf of the United States against the pro-Iranian Jaysh al-Mahdi. The source said that at the present time the US was exchanging security information with the "Badr Awakening" to facilitate their campaign against the Jaysh al-Mahdi.
Accorcing to the source, members of the new militia would be paid a monthly salary of 700,000 Iraqi Dinars. The source said that a number of formations of the Badr Awakening had already been set up and integrated into the US-backed Iraqi regime army and police in an effort to facilitate the continued growth of the organization, particularly in areas dominated by Muqtada as-Sadr’s movement and his Jaysh al-Mahdi. Among the duties of the Badr Awakening members in the police and army is to collect photographs and names of Jaysh al-Mahdi militiamen to facilitate their elimination.
The source said that the US was preparing a massive action to arrest and eliminate the commanders and members of the Jaysh al-Mahdi in the Baghdad districts of Madinat as-Sadr, ash-Shu'lah, and Abu Dushayr, and in the cities of ad-Diwaniyah and al-Kut in southern Iraq – all of which are considered strongholds of Sadrist activity. "
Yes, - the US is clearly using this intro-Shia rivalry to attempt to eliminate al-Sadr - and simultaneously blame the whole thing on Iran to justify an Iran war.
Thanks to roger and Hack for informative, insult-free posts. This is, as it has been for a long time, a very complex and confusing set of problems. We have made a lot of big mistakes by assuming we understood more than we did about Iraq, and this deficit is not going to be corrected by demonizing people with differing views, calling them "idiots" and "trolls" etc.
We ALL need to be open to politically inconvenient data. But at the end of the day, this is not a problem we're going to be able to simply walk away from. We have been increasingly involved in Iraqi affairs for decades, and it's just wishful thinking to imagine that we can close our eyes and make it go away--see Afgh
Hate to say it, but shades of Vietnam. What the F*CK are we doing there!?!?!
Posted by N M | March 27, 2008 10:20 AM