Muqtada's Triumph

In case this is unclear to anyone, I think Muqtada al-Sadr was the big winner from last week's battling:

"The Iraqi government looks silly in the face of their ardent statements," said Joost Hiltermann, the deputy program director for the Middle East and North Africa at the International Crisis Group, a private group that studies international conflicts. He said the outcome shows "the Iraqi military doesn't have the ability to do much of anything."

Sadr, who was in Iran during the offensive, came out of the confrontation stronger, Hiltermann said.

"He remained undefeated and he looks like the moderate," he said. "He was the one that called for his forces, who were attacked, to stand down."

That said, unless you just stipulate that American interests require us to locate an Iraqi leader who'll consent to America staying in Iraq for 100 or 10,000 years then I'm not sure that Sadr strengthening his position is such a terrible thing. It's bad for the Bush/McCain vision of perpetual war for perpetual occupation, but if you think the U.S. should be getting out of Iraq, then a Sadr-led Iraq is no worse than a Maliki-led Iraq. Neither has a stellar human rights record, of course, but given the practical alternatives available, Sadr seems about as good as anyone else.

Comments

He isn't viable because he's a "radical cleric" who is anti-American and has ties to Iran. Joe 6-pack is worried that Iraq under Sadr will look like Iran. But since that is what it will do anyways, I see no reason to fight the tide of history.

Posted by freddiemac | April 2, 2008 10:36 AM

At least he's very anti-al Qaeda.

Posted by jackie | April 2, 2008 10:38 AM

At least he's very anti-al Qaeda.

Posted by jackie | April 2, 2008 10:38 AM

jackie,

Not if you belive the Bush/McCain PR.

Posted by freddiemac | April 2, 2008 10:46 AM

Uh, no:

In southern Iraq and east Baghdad, Sadr once again lost street face. Despite the predictable media umbrage, this translates into political deterioration.

Think of the Iraqi anti-Sadr method as a form of suffocation, a political war waged with the blessing of Ayatollah Sistani that requires daily economic and political action, persistent police efforts and occasional military thrusts.

The only thing that's clear is that Matthew and the rest of the extremist left want al Sadr to win. They want the elected Iraqi government to lose, because (as with Matthew's Somali position) they are against liberal internationalism. The most important thing to people like Matthew is that the US fail in whatever it attempts to do internationally - whether that be supporting the elected Iraqi government or supporting the UN- and AU-supported Somali transitional government. Since the US backs those thinks, Matthew wants them to fail.

Posted by Al | April 2, 2008 10:50 AM

Joe 6-pack is worried that Iraq under Sadr will look like Iran.

Wow, I didn't know Lieberman was a beer drinker.

The question I have is, why are we so invested in propping up the central government of Iraq? Why not pursue a policy of devolving power to local militias? This policy would have the advantage of being extremely easy to implement. In fact, one way to implement it would be to withdraw from Iraq.

Posted by Jim W | April 2, 2008 10:57 AM

"Liberal internationalism" interpreted as invading another country that hadn't threatened us and sparking a bloody civil war that has killed hundreds of thousands and wasted hundreds of billions of dollars? I guess I'm opposed to Al's version of that phrase too.

Posted by scottreads | April 2, 2008 10:59 AM

Please don't underestimate what a pain in the ass this guy could be down the road. Considering the old regime killed his father, no one has benefitted from America's ill advised invasion of Iraq more that al Sadr. Yet, he uses anti-American resentment more effectively that anyone else in Iraq and does so for the promotion of himself and his militia - and outside the government structure of the new Iraq. It is highly presumptive to say "why should we care" if al Sadr takes over Iraq after we're gone. The last megalomaniac personality-cult leader of that country didn't turn out so hot.

Posted by Nathan Hearn | April 2, 2008 10:59 AM

Please don't underestimate what a pain in the ass this guy could be down the road. Considering the old regime killed his father, no one has benefitted from America's ill advised invasion of Iraq more that al Sadr. Yet, he uses anti-American resentment more effectively that anyone else in Iraq and does so for the promotion of himself and his militia - and outside the government structure of the new Iraq. It is highly presumptive to say "why should we care" if al Sadr takes over Iraq after we're gone. The last megalomaniac personality-cult leader of that country didn't turn out so hot.

Posted by Nathan Hearn | April 2, 2008 11:00 AM

In southern Iraq and east Baghdad, Sadr once again lost street face.

This would be more convincing if Jack Austin wasn't an idiot and if every credible source wasn't saying the opposite...

Posted by J.B. | April 2, 2008 11:04 AM

This would be an interesting on-the-scene report, although no one should read it or think about it because it's merely a product of the hate-America extremist Quisling tyrant's boot-licking left, and plus if it seems to you to be in any way accurate it means that you hate the troops and want the U.S. to fail, and plus everyone knows that if you just keep reading the right stuff from the right-thinking people and you make sure and think the good thoughts, then everything will go well and the occupation can go on forever and ever and ever while victory after freedom after victory keeps being ever achieved.

The Baghdad district of Sadr City bears the scars of recent fighting, but men loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr are confident they have already won.

``We did not really throw everything we have into battle. We only fought in self defense,'' said a top Mahdi Army commander who spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared reprisals. ``If (Prime Minister Nouri) al-Maliki has won, he would have dictated his demands. But it's we who did that,'' said the 37-year-old commander.

Such talk, echoed by many in Sadr City, mirrors the confidence of al-Sadr loyalists after a week of fighting between Mahdi Army fighters and U.S.-backed Iraqi forces.

The fighting, which began in the southern port of Basra but soon spread to Baghdad and elsewhere, ended when al-Sadr issued a statement Sunday calling his militiamen off the streets. He also demanded the freeing of security detainees not formally charged and a halt to the arrests of his supporters - two issues that led to the latest violence.

Al-Maliki, humbled by the strong resistance his forces met, has declared the operation a ``success.'' But there was no doubt in Sadr City on Tuesday who won.

A video clip taken by a mobile phone that purports to show a U.S. Stryker vehicle crippled by a roadside bomb and engulfed in flames is making the rounds in the area, jubilantly sent from cell phone to cell phone as proof of victory.

Two days after al-Sadr's declaration, many stores in his Sadr City stronghold have reopened. Outdoor food markets were back in business. But traffic remained thin and outlying streets close to American forces were almost deserted.

Sadr City, home to some 2.5 million mostly impoverished Shiites, has been under an official driving ban for nearly a week.

Nevertheless, minibuses and private cars prowled the streets, ferrying people to and from Sadr City's main exit route, a large square where a massive portrait of al-Sadr's late father, Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Sadeq al-Sadr, dwarfs everything around it.

Vehicles steer clear of the Americans. Instead, residents walk past American and Iraqi checkpoints. Minibuses pick them up on the other side and take them elsewhere in the city.

Radios on many of the minibuses blared songs in praise of al-Sadr and his father. ``I love al-Sadr because he heals my wounds. You cannot blame me for feeling like that,'' sang a male voice in one of the hymn-like songs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/7430861

Posted by El Cid | April 2, 2008 11:08 AM

Al's grasp of reality is diminishing every day.

Posted by john m | April 2, 2008 11:10 AM

...invading another country that hadn't threatened us and sparking a bloody civil war that has killed hundreds of thousands...

No, the politically correct term is to say that we "liberated" hundreds of thousands.

Posted by Jim W | April 2, 2008 11:12 AM

freddiemac pointed out something that confuses me.

For a time, the MSM referred to him as "radical cleric" Muqtada al-Sadr. Then they started calling him "shiite cleric" while the surge was allegedly "working." Now he is called "radical cleric" again. What gives?

Posted by Bob Oso | April 2, 2008 11:13 AM

Al: Wanting the US to 'fail' in Iraq, were one to want that, has a pretty clear motive, actually. A US exit removes a strong catalyst for violence (foreign occupation) from the region. Tough medicine, yes, and there will certainly be more bloodshed in Iraq, but inept foreign occupation (however well intentioned) does not help matters.

More broadly, there's a distinction to be drawn between wanting the US to fail in everything it does internationally, and wanting it to fail in what it does militarily. I wonder why you seem to couch the American presence in the world entirely in military terms. Aren't there other ways of interacting with the world? Mightn't the American electorate want leadership that plays well with others at least occasionally?

I, personally, don't want blanket failure of either kind--recent US history includes liberal internationalist interventions that are laudable (Bosnia) and some that would be laudable if they happened (Darfur). Iraq was and remains indefensible on liberal terms. I'm sure that's not a problem for you, but I don't follow why it should be for liberals who oppose the occupation.

Posted by Joe | April 2, 2008 11:15 AM

Jim W:

I guess that's true; we're liberating them from their lives and promoting their freedom to die.

Posted by scottreads | April 2, 2008 11:16 AM

"...Sadr seems about as good as anyone else. "

While I agree with the rest of the post, I disagree with this. Consider Iran in 1980 or so. If Khomeini did not have ultimate power, you probably wouldn't have a clerical oligarchy in charge now. A single personality was capable of creating the theocracy where a committee could not. Had the secular revolutionaries taken power, they would probably have had a weaker grip, and could be forced to make more concessions to Iranian reformers.

I think Sadr would have a better (though still poor) chance of making a lasting theocratic power structure which would be worse than most of the alternatives, all of which are admittedly bad. That being said, there is little reason to believe that our staying there makes his ascension to power less likely. He makes the most hay of anti-Americanism. Our leaving hurts the government more than it hurts Sadr, but it hurts Sadr more than it hurts the Shiite organizations that nominally support the current government.

Posted by Njorl | April 2, 2008 11:21 AM

George and Moqtada should be like blood-brothers because Saddam wanted both of their fathers dead. al-Sadr ought to be kissing Geo Bush's hairy bean bag for destroying Saddam, avenging his papa, and giving him the freedom and liberty to travel to Qom and continue his mullah education. Inconsiderate bastard.

And Joe, if you believe an intervention into Darfur would be laudable, go buy an assault rifle and do it yourself. Somalia taught you nothing. Do-gooder's like you and neocons like Bill Kristol are very similiar. You both love to have young Americans die for your international fantasies.

Posted by max bootlicker | April 2, 2008 11:34 AM

The recent Maliki-Sadr set-to says to me that we have two choices in Iraq: keep our troops there sustaining casualties while Iran's influence expands or withdraw our troops while Iran's influence expands. Given the number of Iraqis killed and horribly wounded under the American occupation, the outcome desired by McCain and Bush, a pro-American Iraqi government eager to let us loot its oil, is not going to happen, ever. Therefore, the best (and only sane) choice is to get out now. Of course, that's the best choice for the American people. The defense contractors and neocons the current administration represents are another story. Their interests are, of course, best served by 100 more years of war -- exactly what McCain has proposed.

Posted by dalloway | April 2, 2008 11:37 AM

Bob Oso,

I believe the labeling is due to his decrees. You see, when the Madhi army was fighting the US, he was "radical". When he declared a cease fire, he was no longer radical. When he told the Madhi army not to surrendur their weapons, he became radical again.

Joe 6-pack needs to relate to the world in terms of good guys vs bad guys. As though al-Sadr changed his policy in that intermin time.

Posted by freddiemac | April 2, 2008 11:47 AM

The only thing that's clear is that Matthew and the rest of the extremist left want al Sadr to win. They want the elected Iraqi government to lose, because [...] they are against liberal internationalism.

You know Al, this is really lame. And I'm not sure what your source is on the quote, but it's counter (or grossly incomplete) to what the embedded journalists are reporting. An anti-Sadr movement is definitely present, even within the Shiite community, but Sadr is still gaining huge advantages (he's captured a lot of ammunition and he's recruiting figthers at an alarming rate). He's also been successful at diminishing Malaki's political influence within the parliament. This has been going for quite awhile now; and the latest developments are alarming.

I don't think showing concern for Sadr means I or anyone else wants the "US fail in whatever it attempts to do internationally."

C'Mon!

Posted by AKBY | April 2, 2008 11:48 AM

They want the elected Iraqi government to lose, because (as with Matthew's Somali position) they are against liberal internationalism.

This is hilarious. The 'elected' government decides to crack down on the opposition party before elections with a military assault . The assault is unsuccessful and the opposition sweeps into power following the elections.

In the wingnut worldview, the liberals are bad guys for rooting against an 'elected' government in an election. In fact, perhaps Sadr's government would have more legitimacy than Maliki's because Sadr has power in spite of American desires instead of because of it. Maybe this 'elected' government crap has more do with 'our guy' identity than whether the process was democratic.... nah, that's not at all consistent with Republican principles.

Posted by mpowell | April 2, 2008 11:50 AM

Actually, Al's views are consistent with the NeoCon version of reality. That is, we are exporting democracy into the Middle East...until "terrorist" groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and Hezbollah democratically win elections. Then, of course, democracy gets thrown out the window!

When al-Sadr wins in the coming elections, what do you think Al will have to say about him then?

Posted by freddiemac | April 2, 2008 11:57 AM

The only thing that's clear is that Matthew and the rest of the extremist left want al Sadr to win.

Al really is getting weepy and hysterical. I'd feel bad for him, if he hadn't helped create such gigantic amounts of human misery.

Posted by 23456 | April 2, 2008 12:01 PM

Well, from all the accounts I've read, Sadr is probably the best possible leader of Iraq we could end up with. Certainly not ideal, but the least bad.

He's a sworn enemy of Al-Q, so he'd keep them out. He's respected by the Sunni nationalists, even if his people have killed lots of theirs (and vice-versa), and he was a bitter blood-enemy of their hero Saddam.

Unlike most of the other leading Shiites, he's a strong Iraqi nationalist, and would be a block against too much Iranian influence (the other top Shiites---including our favored allies---are more like Iranian puppets). And he generally seems the most popular leader in the country, as near as I can estimate something like that.

Whether he'd be a good leader is another story. But given our horrible disaster, "least bad" is probably a pretty good result to settle for...

Posted by RKU | April 2, 2008 12:05 PM

Al,

"The only thing that's clear is that Matthew and the rest of the extremist left want al Sadr to win. They want the elected Iraqi government to lose, because (as with Matthew's Somali position) they are against liberal internationalism. The most important thing to people like Matthew is that the US fail in whatever it attempts to do internationally - whether that be supporting the elected Iraqi government or supporting the UN- and AU-supported Somali transitional government. Since the US backs those thinks, Matthew wants them to fail."

All this you say is true, but the Austin Bay column about Sadr was unconvincing. Krauthammer had a good line about the recent fighting in Basra: he said it was the Iraqis' version of the Iowa Caucuses.

The key thing is to make sure that the October provincial elections are as free and fair as the national elections were. If the Iraqis want to elect Sadr's party to power in some provinces, let them. They will have ample time to evaluate his party's ability to govern on the local level before the next federal elections at the end of '09.

Posted by Fred | April 2, 2008 12:10 PM

And I'm not sure what your source is on the quote

The source is linked directly above the quote. The writer is an officer who has served several tours in Iraq.

I'm not sure why folks are harping on the the idea that Matthew wants al Sadr to win. Isn't that basically the jist of Matthew's "I'm not sure that Sadr strengthening his position is such a terrible thing" and "Sadr seems about as good as anyone else"? I mean, Matthew is downplaying the support a bit, but it's definitely there, no?

Posted by Al | April 2, 2008 12:13 PM

The key thing is to make sure that the October provincial elections are as free and fair as the national elections were. If the Iraqis want to elect Sadr's party to power in some provinces, let them.

I agree completely.

And, I think that we won't know the "winner" here until we see what the provincial elections bring. If Sadr's party sweep elections all throughout Iraq, then, yeah, I'd say Sadr "won" this confrontation. If his party doesn't, then he didn't.

Posted by Al | April 2, 2008 12:18 PM

As has been the case with a lot of developments in the Iraq War, the big winner is Iran.

Posted by SDM | April 2, 2008 12:19 PM

The 'elected' government decides to crack down on the opposition party before elections with a military assault .

Well, no. The elected government decides to crack down on a rogue militia affiliated with an opposition party. If the militia wasn't active (and it now appears not to be, Sadr having been forced to ensure that it stays off the streets), no assault.

Posted by Al | April 2, 2008 12:27 PM

I'd have to disagree that we are talking about the Iraqi 'government'. And this assessment - "the Iraqi military doesn't have the ability to do much of anything" is, I think, unhelpful.

The American idea is that the army has to fight well and win for it to be efficient. While this is a nice functionalist perspective, it doesn't really describe how militaries work, even in the U.S. They have a lot of functions - absorbing part of the work force, for instance, or as a mythical institution that disciplines young men with social problems, or as a symbol of patriotism. When the Iraqi army was dissolved in 2003, all of those functions were hit. It seems to me, from the rhetoric of all sides, that the Iraqi military is again assuming certain of those symbolic functions. The Sadrist trend people did not criticize the army - they criticized Maliki. They claimed he was misusing the army. That is pretty critical - in 2004, the army was generally detested as such whenever it was used.

This is a pretty strong sign that Iraq is becoming a state again in the minds of the Iraqis - except for the Kurds. But the state, here, looks a lot like Lebanon - which indeed exists in what Benedict Anderson calls the national imagination. Hezbollah, by stifling the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, protected not itself, but Lebanon - hence its spike in popularity. A weak nation dealing with a lot of centrifugal forces is a nation, still, if it continues to be one in the national imagination.

What happened in Basra is that Maliki failed to identify himself and the popular army. The significance of him going to Basra, which is pretty weird - since when has Maliki been a general - was correctly seen, by the Sadrists, as a strong man gesture. The old nationalist Middle Eastern leaders rose up in the military - as did Saddam Hussein. But Maliki failed, and he failed against the one man who stayed in Iraq when all the exiled leadership was enjoying the perks of being supported by foreign powers during those years. As landscapers say about certain plants - Maliki failed to root.

Posted by roger | April 2, 2008 12:28 PM

Maliki's order to attack was a success because it flushed out all the pro-Sadr soldiers from the Iraqi army.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 2, 2008 12:28 PM

I've long believed that ultimately Sadr will be the new "strongman" who replaces the old one, Saddam. We can argue forever about how bad that will be for the U.S. (oh, and for Iraq) down the road, but it seems inevitable, and once that inevitability becomes clear enough, some American administration will start marketing him to us as the lesser of multiple evils and use him as our excuse to leave.

Posted by bobbo | April 2, 2008 12:28 PM

The problem with Sadr from the American point of view is that he doesn't depend on the U.S. for his power. If he gains control of the country, he won't owe a thing to the U.S.; Maliki owes us everything.

Posted by Bave Dee | April 2, 2008 12:32 PM

I'm not sure why folks are harping on the the idea that Matthew wants al Sadr to win. Isn't that basically the jist of Matthew's "I'm not sure that Sadr strengthening his position is such a terrible thing" and "Sadr seems about as good as anyone else"? I mean, Matthew is downplaying the support a bit, but it's definitely there, no?
Posted by Al

No.

You're seeeing things you want to see.

Posted by Njorl | April 2, 2008 12:33 PM

". The elected government decides to crack down on a rogue militia affiliated with an opposition party."

The word used to describe Iraqi political parties affiliated with militias is "viable".

Posted by Njorl | April 2, 2008 12:38 PM

"a Sadr-led Iraq is no worse than a Maliki-led Iraq. Neither has a stellar human rights record, of course, but given the practical alternatives available, Sadr seems about as good as anyone else."

WOW....WOW... how did you let that slip off the tips of your fingers.

Sorry but anything is better than a bush-led Iraq. bush's Iraq is nothing more than a lab for his torture progam...3 trillion to find out how far bush could push a broom handle up someone butt until they would say what ever he wants.

Posted by jerri | April 2, 2008 12:40 PM

Has anyone here spent any amount of time studying Muqtada al-Sadr's public appearances, his whole affect, and his rhetorical tropes? I would characterize it thus: One scary muthafukka. I'd say it's kind of silly to just play "Risk: Iraq Edition," gaming out the factions and their patrons and whose ox is gored in the abstract. This guy is not just another interchangeable contender; he gives every indication of having just the kind of pathological belief in his world-historical mission that's always worked out so well among leaders in the modern era. That said, I of course cannot see into his soul, the way Bush did Putin (har), or into Maliki's or whomever's, for that matter, but there's something about Muqtada that gives this humble observer from afar real pause. Anybody else?

Posted by elle loco | April 2, 2008 12:42 PM

Oh yes, al-Sadr certainly gives one pause. He is by no means a good guy. It think it was silly for Matt to make an off the cuff remark about him like he did. But if he turns out to be the "winner" in Iraq, isn't it better that he play ball?

Posted by freddiemac | April 2, 2008 12:53 PM

Unsurprisingly, I agree with Al and Fred, but there are a lot of other good comments here to. I think roger in particular makes a good point about the Iraqi army and "national imagination".

The point to me is that everyone, even in Iraq, is to a greater or lesser degree guessing. The one thing we can likely guess pretty accurately about are our fellow Americans, and I'm concerned that a significant minority of them simply want the US to fail so they will have a better case in arguing for the isolationism they really want.

One question--why is it that the Sadr fans out there continue to describe him as a "nationalist" when every time things get hot he decamps for Iran; and consider Maliki "weak" in spite of the fact that at the same time Sadr was hiding, Maliki was in a high-profile role in Basra?

The common wisdom at this point is that Sadr "won". I don't see much actual evidence of that, but maybe it's true. I expect we'll be in a much better position to speculate after the elections.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 2, 2008 12:55 PM

I guess we're likely to get to find out....

P.S.: Folks, unless you actually find something "Al" posts of real interest worth parsing out and chewing over, instead of just vomiting all over your keyboard (which I suppose is theoretically possible--though you couldn't prove it by me), just blow him off. Life's too short.

Posted by elle loco | April 2, 2008 12:57 PM

Here's something I don't quite understand...

Fred, Al, Robert Powell, and various others keep on pretending that they actually know something about national security matters, mostly by quoting some fat FoxNews neocons, whose closest brush with the military was usually when they dodged the draft during the Vietnam War Era.

On the other hand---and by purest coincidence---most of America's top military commanders tend to agree with me about Iraq (though actually it's the other way round), which is why Bush and the neocons have to keep firing them until they eventually locate some stooge who tells them exactly what they want to hear, with Admiral William Fallon being the latest casualty of this ridiculous process.

Let's focus on just two examples. Bill Odom was the three-star general who ran Reagan's National Security Agency, and Jim Webb is the last of the original Reaganites still in politics. They seem to make a lot of sense to me on Iraq.

On the other hand, most of all those fat Kagans and Kaplans who are actually controlling our policy don't seem to have any real military experience beyond the vicious back-stabbing of AEI cocktail parties. They also seem pretty dumb, ignorant, and a little crazy. Aside from the fact that they're on Cable News a lot, and have ruthlessly seized control of America's op-ed pages, is there any real reason to listen to them?

As "Hack" might say, I think it's a case of "Monkey See, Monkey Do". Since all those ignorant and dim-witted neocons tend to be seen a lot on Cable TV, all the ignorant and dim-witted listeners tend to believe whatever they say, and are willing to follow them right over the cliff.

Posted by RKU | April 2, 2008 1:20 PM

And, I think that we won't know the "winner" here until we see what the provincial elections bring. If Sadr's party sweep elections all throughout Iraq, then, yeah, I'd say Sadr "won" this confrontation. If his party doesn't, then he didn't.

I agree the elections are important and will reveal a lot about the current support for Sadr, however, I don't think this puts an end to whether Sadr "wins" or loses.

The jockeying for power between the various factions, including Sadr's base, will persist, despite elections, and despite (or because of) our military presence, and despite (or because of) Iran's involvement.

In other words, the horizon in Iraq looks like a cluster f*ck.

Posted by AKBY | April 2, 2008 1:24 PM

I actually don't even get the justification for, "Sadr came out ahead." As far as I can tell Sadr came out realizing that he doesn't have full control over his own forces, and Iran -- to which he had originally rather neatly positioned himself in opposition as a kind of voice of poor Iraqi Shia -- has considerable control over them. I can think of a lot of people, including us, who came out behind last week, but I think it's way early to go picking winners right now.

Posted by Sanjay | April 2, 2008 1:41 PM

Robert Powell says "I'm concerned that a significant minority of them simply want the US to fail so they will have a better case in arguing for the isolationism they really want."

Please. No sane person wants "failure" in Iraq. "Failure" means the death of people for no good reason and the wasting of billions and trillions of dollars. But the reality, of course, is that failure has already occurred (it was inevitable). Thousands upon thousands have already died, untold billions have gone down the drain, and both the US and Iraq are far worse off now than they were. Nothing can undo that failure. Many of those who point out the reality that the failure has already occurred do want to advance the agenda that such failures should not be repeated. This is a long way from "wanting failure." So please, make your arguments honestly.

Posted by Edward, the mad shirt grinder | April 2, 2008 2:02 PM

Speaking of neocon hacks and foreign policy advisers, Moscow born Trotskyite Max Boot is the biggest fraud of them all. This military expert would sh** his pants if he had to kick in a door in Mosul.

This sofa-samurai wants to form an American Foreign Legion from our illegal alien population to beef up our military. Because America's working classes are refusing to sign up for the never ending war of Israeli hegemony in the ME, he needs more willing cannon fodder.

He should follow the lead of his past brethren of the International Brigades of Spain and recruit fellow Russian born refuseniks to slaughter the muslim enemies of the neocon revolution. How does the Natan Sharansky Brigade sound?

Posted by max bootlicker | April 2, 2008 2:07 PM

Regarding hack foreign policy advisers, Moscow born Trotskyite Max Boot is the biggest fraud of them all. This military expert would sh** his pants if he had to kick in a door in Mosul.

This sofa-samurai wants to form an American Foreign Legion from our illegal alien population to beef up our military. Because America's working classes are refusing to sign up for the never ending war of Israeli hegemony in the ME, he needs more willing cannon fodder.

He should follow the lead of his past brethren of the International Brigades of Spain and recruit fellow Russian born refuseniks to slaughter the muslim enemies of the neocon revolution. How does the Natan Sharansky Brigade sound?

Posted by max bootlicker | April 2, 2008 2:13 PM

On "failure":
I haven't seen any evidence to support the idea that we can responsibly write off our long, complicated, and essentially bi-partisan engagement in Iraq as simply a failure that can only be redeemed by evacuation. I know that there are a lot of people who hold this view passionately, but that doesn't make it true or, to me, convincing. Honest.

I think the Natan Shransky Brigade name is a great idea, but it should be a UN Agency.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 2, 2008 3:05 PM

This sofa-samurai wants to form an American Foreign Legion from our illegal alien population to beef up our military.

"Sofa Samurai"....too funny (LOL). Where does that term come from?

Posted by AKBY | April 2, 2008 3:54 PM

Powell,

Get it through your thick head. Non-interventionists (what you call isolationists) do indeed want the United States to fail in Iraq, but not for the reason you state. We want the United States to fail (a) because the people of Iraq will be much better off if the United States fails in its mission to play off the various factions in Iraq against each other, find willing quislings to be our puppet government, and foment violence, all with the aim of securing permenent military bases in Iraq, and (b) for the same reason that people of good will have always cheered for the defeat of evil.

And sadly most opponents of the Iraq fiasco do not share either desire, and really don't want us to "fail." They want us to leave to minimize the failure. They happen to be "right" in their own way as well, because, ironically, in the long term our continued presence in Iraq threatens our continued hegemony. From my prespective, that's a feature not a bug, but obviously not sufficient reason for a non-interventionist to support continuanceof the horror.

Posted by LarryM | April 2, 2008 4:08 PM

The sofa samurai line is from Taki Theodoracopulos, founder of The American Conservative Magazine. He also has a website, takimag.com.

Posted by max bootlicker | April 2, 2008 4:43 PM

Bob Oso: Patrick Cockburn has an interview where he mentions that Sadr is often incorrectly described as a "firebrand cleric" - which he definitely is not. Cockburn points out that Sadr is very cautious, never pushing his position beyond his actual strength and carefully building his organization's capabilities.

He's "radical" only in that he supports getting rid of the US occupation as opposed to the Iranian-backed groups like ICSI and Dawa who have agreed to go along with the US occupation temporarily in order to secure Shia control of the government.

This was also Sistani's goal, but Sistani has gone "quietist" out of disappointment in the failure of the government to either quell the sectarian violence or get rid of the occupation. So Sistani has ceded the field to Sadr and the clerics and politicians behind ISCI and Dawa.

People forget that Sistani is also Iranian and has never received Iraqi citizenship, although he does not agree with the Iranian "jurisprudence" concept that the clerics should run the government. Neither does Sadr, IIRC.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 2, 2008 6:55 PM

I haven't seen any evidence to support the idea that we can responsibly write off our long, complicated, and essentially bi-partisan engagement in Iraq as simply a failure that can only be redeemed by evacuation.

The ostrich approach will not work. Failure was inevitable, it happened, and now it's time to move on towards a vision of America in the world that will actually serve our interests.

Posted by Edward, the mad shirt grinder | April 2, 2008 6:59 PM

The efforts to spin this as some sort of "success" are on a par with the efforts to spin the whole sorry Iraq enterprise as a "success".

"The elected government decides to crack down on a rogue militia affiliated with an opposition party. If the militia wasn't active (and it now appears not to be, Sadr having been forced to ensure that it stays off the streets), no assault."

This is entirely bullshit, with no relation to reality. This idiot has no concept that ALL of the Iraqi government consists of political parties WITH MILITIAS. If you don't have a militia in Iraq, you're simply not taken seriously.

And Sadr has not been "forced to ensure that it stays off the streets". As one article put it the other day, they don't have to be on the streets - their presence is felt everywhere in the south of Iraq and in Baghdad.

The entire issue also includes the problem of oil smuggling. ALL the militias in Basra are stealing oil from the government - including the ones nominally working WITH the government, such as the Badr Brigade - and using the millions or even billions stolen to finance their political and military operations. Sadr uses his to support his welfare operations for the poor Shia who are his base and no doubt to fund his militia.

Davis: "Maliki's order to attack was a success because it flushed out all the pro-Sadr soldiers from the Iraqi army."

Guess what, Davis? All the cops who refused to support the government got fired. Thousands of them! Guess who they will go to work for next? Sadr's militia has just got a new influx of personnel.

There's no "success" here no matter people try to frame it as such. Maliki and the US lost - Sadr and Iran won.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 2, 2008 7:03 PM

"The point to me is that everyone, even in Iraq, is to a greater or lesser degree guessing."

Bullshit.

Of course, events are not written out in stone. Anything might happen.

Spinning that as some sort of reason to hang on to a clear disaster is not smart.

"Honest"

Oh, great, Powell says the one revealing word: "Honest".

Fucking propagandist POS.

Sanjay: "Sadr came out realizing that he doesn't have full control over his own forces"

No, he didn't. He had complete control over his forces, as demonstrated when they vanished the minute he ordered them to stand down. Not that there weren't "rogue elements", but the ones sent to Iran are now established as not rogue, but indeed, those Sadr had control of.

What Iran controlled was the militias backing Maliki and the Iraqi Army in Basra. That's clear from the fact that Iraqi government representatives had to go to Iran to get their orders to stop the fighting.

There's simply no way to spin last week except as proof that Sadr and Iran control more of what happens in Iraq more than Maliki and the central government - or the US.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 2, 2008 7:14 PM

For some expert opinions about the result of the recent fighting in Iraq, see

Experts’ views about the recent fighting in Basra
http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2008/04/02/basra-experts/

These provide a contrast to the unfounded speculation of Austin Bay (despite his time in Iraq, his posts give little evidence of much deep knowledge of its society or dynamics.

They also provide the reasoning to answer Sanjay's "I actually don't even get the justification for 'Sadr came out ahead.'"

Posted by Fabius Maximus | April 2, 2008 8:52 PM

It does seem that Sadr won, mainly by not losing. Maliki gambled on quick and decisive military victory and that, unfortunately for him, did not happen. It would be interesting to see who wins the most in October provincial elections.

Posted by OM | April 2, 2008 10:20 PM

"You win a counterinsurgency by making the enemy decide not to fight you."

Everyone agrees that Maliki miscalculated in Basra. However, Sadr has also made his own concessions. To eliminate rogue gangs in his militia, he declared anyone fighting during the ceasefire is outside of his movement. Basically, he gave Maliki the green light to go after these groups. The lesson in Basra is that events in Iraq can quickly change based on family ties and old rivalries. Part of the friction between the Shiite militias orginates from their history. Sadr stayed in Iraq under Saddam's rule while Hakim and Maliki chose exile. Therefore, Sadr is seen by his followers as a more heroic figure.

Source: Sudarsan Raghavan/Washington Post & Larry Kaplow/Newsweek

Posted by EWard | April 2, 2008 11:59 PM

"However, Sadr has also made his own concessions. To eliminate rogue gangs in his militia, he declared anyone fighting during the ceasefire is outside of his movement. Basically, he gave Maliki the green light to go after these groups."

Not much of a concession since he basically agreed to that even before the operation started. The problem was that Maliki had no intention of limiting the operation to "rogue elements". Once that was clear, Sadr gave his people their head.

As of now, officially the ceasefire he ordered months ago and extended in February is still on, but his senior people say they reserve the right to attack "an illegal US occupation." So it's not clear exactly to what degree Sadr is still de facto acknowledging his ceasefire.

Apparently it will depend on what Maliki's forces decide to do, since Maliki has claimed the operations will continue in some form. If Maliki targets only actual "rogue elements" and "criminal gangs", Sadr may allow it. If he doesn't, it will start up again.

It's likely to start up again before the fall provincial elections anyway. Maliki simply can't afford to have Sadr's group running against his people in the south - Sadr by all accounts will win. And that means Sadr's group will get the bulk of the oil revenues and oil smuggling from the south, which he will use to bolster his movements welfare program and thus bolster his political advantage. Maliki can't afford that with parliamentary elections coming up next year.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 3, 2008 1:48 AM