Symbolism

NYT reports from Baghdad that "the Green Zone attacks Sunday were, symbolically at least, a sign that forces hostile to the United States are still able to strike at the heart of the American nerve center and seat of government power in the capital of Iraq." It seems to me that they were a pretty literal sign -- the Mahdi Army wasn't shooting metaphors.

Now on the merits of the issue of course it would be good for the Iraqi government to demobilize and disarm militias. But it seems plain as day that what the government is trying to do is disarm Muqtada al-Sadr's militia while keeping other, rival militias like the Badr Organization as well-armed as they please. Practically and politically speaking, that doesn't give the Sadrists any reason to comply. And there don't seem to me to be any genuinely good reasons of national interest or cosmic justice for the United States to be serving as backup muscle in this operation.

Comments

Here's a question to the floor...

Can anyone think of a previous armed conflict in which even after several years, the heavily armed foreign army of occupation didn't even control the territory 500 yards outside its HQ complex in the capital city? And that's *after* already killing something like a million people in the local population?

Now the Russians also killed about a million or more Afghans, but at least they controlled the Afghan capital city.

I really think you can make a case that the Iraqi resistance to American occupation might be the most ferocious and effective in all of modern history...

Posted by RKU | April 6, 2008 10:41 PM

Juan Cole on the induction of Badr militia into the Iraqi Army (http://www.juancole.com).

"The New York Times confirms that "over a thousand" officers and troops of the Iraqi army declined to fight the Mahdi Army in Basra or deserted their posts. It also reports that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki replaced them by inducting 10,000 Shiite "tribal" fighters into the Iraqi army. But the Iraqi press didn't call them "tribal," it called them Badr Corps, the paramilitary of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, headed by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim and now al-Maliki's main political ally. I'm not sure about the source of the discrepancy, but the NYT piece seems to be based on interviews with Iraqi and American government officials. It is possible that the need to strengthen the Iraqi army by turning to a Shiite militia trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards (terrorists!) was just too embarrassing to admit. So the officials used the euphemism "tribal forces" with the foreign press"

Posted by Tim Connor | April 6, 2008 10:51 PM

Iraq is ending up like Lebanon, and the US is making the same mistakes it (and Israel) made in Lebanon in the early '80s: betting that by backing one faction, it can create a friendly hegemon with overwhelming power. But that can't happen in a situation like this. All you can do is fuel a fiercer civil war. "Peace" in a Lebanese-style situation is just a durable truce between armed populations, each with their own militia, where the national army serves as a super-militia that may have better arms than the ethnic/religious militias but commands much less loyalty and dedication from its troops.

If the US's participation in this offensive is rational, it's aimed at improving the terms at which Sadr will come to the bargaining table over a future power-sharing arrangement. But the idea that the Iraqi government can ever disarm militias (like either JAM or the Badr Brigades or the Sunni Awakening units for that matter) because they're "illegitimate" and the government is "legitimate" is ludicrous. If the US is reasoning along those lines, it's just fantasizing.

Posted by brooksfoe | April 6, 2008 11:43 PM

I think the NYT meant symbolic in the sense that they were showing that they could still do it, even if it wasn't as easy as it used to be. Sorta like how the Doolittle Raid in World War II was only symbolic also. Then again, the side behind the Doolittle Raid won...

Posted by Jim | April 6, 2008 11:47 PM

RKU: Good fucking question.

US patriots will say that the Russians are more savage than the US and that's why they did a more thorough job eliminating the insurgency.

The US though has a lot of material advantages the Russians didn't have and Iran and Syria's levels of support for the insurgency pale in comparison to the US/Saudi/Pakistani support of the Afghan insurgency.

The Iraqis were prepositioned, meaning in their own ways, both the Sunnis and Shiites took steps that had the effect of preparing them to maintain an insurgency before the US invasion happened.

That is an idea though that takes time to adjust to. Five years later, there are denied areas for US forces in the capital city. I can't think of an example of that ever happening anywhere.

Posted by Arnold Evans | April 6, 2008 11:56 PM

RKU writes: "I really think you can make a case that the Iraqi resistance to American occupation might be the most ferocious and effective in all of modern history..."

I don't really think that's it. I think the problem is that the US is led by one of the biggest fucking idiots who ever achieved power in a modern industrial democracy. Dumbya rewards incompetent ass-kissers and dismisses realists. This is not a recipe for success in any endeavor, and when the endeavor was a bad idea to begin with you just end up with one long disaster.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 6, 2008 11:57 PM

"I really think you can make a case that the Iraqi resistance to American occupation might be the most ferocious and effective in all of modern history"

Those Shiite Sadrists are so ferocious and effective that it took the U.S. military to free them from a Sunni dictator who kept them under his boot for 30 years.

Posted by Harry | April 7, 2008 12:01 AM

The alternative to fighting Sadr on behalf of the SIIC is to leave Sadr in control of the country.

While I've read some Americans say the US should leave, no American I've come across, left or right, has said the US should leave even if the resulting Iraq is more hostile to the US and Israel than Hussein was. Which is what everyone knows or should know we'd end up with unless, among many other things, Sadr can be stifled as a power in Iraq.

To a degree it seems like a conspiracy of silence - everyone knows it but nobody can put it to sound or paper.

But if nobody is willing to say out loud, "let's leave an Iraq that is more hostile to Israel than Hussein was", then where does the idea come from that somebody would be willing to enact policy in that direction?

Posted by Arnold Evans | April 7, 2008 12:06 AM

I'll say it Arnold. Let's get out, even if we "leave an Iraq that is more hostile to Israel than Hussein was." There, no so hard.

Posted by SqueakyRat | April 7, 2008 12:18 AM

I'll say it Arnold. Let's get out, even if we "leave an Iraq that is more hostile to Israel than Hussein was." There, not so hard.

Posted by SqueakyRat | April 7, 2008 12:19 AM

MY - symbolically at least, a sign that forces hostile to the United States are still able to strike at the heart of the American nerve center and seat of government power in the capital of Iraq."

RKU, another Jew heavily into "symbolism" chimes in:

Can anyone think of a previous armed conflict in which even after several years, the heavily armed foreign army of occupation didn't even control the territory 500 yards outside its HQ complex in the capital city?

Given private planes from Germany of all places, flown into Red Square at the height of the Cold War, or gunshots and planes and PR assassins sent into the center of American power?

Yes, they can be prevented, but to be prevented they need actions that "the usual suspects" would piss their pants over. The Nazi way was decimation. The Jap way was to exterminate every man, woman, and child in the nearest occupied town or city where the "center of their power was attacked by "criminal insurrection". And, of course the Jewish Bolshevik was was anyone found with explosives or arms was shot on the spot, and when Jews and Russians in communist leadership looked at the possibility that 1-2 out of 1000 in a particular class of Mensheviks, Kulaks,ex-Kerenskyites or Cossacks might mortar or blast or shoot the Heart of Revolution and Progressivism - the answer was to liquidate all 1,000 to stop the actions of a few in their ranks.

If we had full latitude as an occupying force to do our will, unrestrained by humanitarian concerns, not only would the Green Zone be safe - but a US soldier could walk the length of the Euprates and back down the Tigris and be unmolested by any Iraq citizen who would be in fear of Roman or Japanese-style wrath.

Posted by chris ford | April 7, 2008 12:35 AM

"the Jewish Bolshevik"... "Jews and Russians"... there's so much crying wolf about anti-semitism in the US that it's easy to forget the real thing really is out there.

Also, count me as another American willing to say, "let's leave an Iraq that is more hostile to Israel than Hussein was". Who cares? Who cares if its more hostile to the US, to boot? I am not willing to trade another several hundred thousand Iraqi lives for a shot at "winning" an occupation so that Iraq has a government which will obey my government. It's not even a troubling question.

Posted by Kalkin | April 7, 2008 12:57 AM

Those Shiite Sadrists are so ferocious and effective that it took the U.S. military to free them from a Sunni dictator who kept them under his boot for 30 years.

That would be why the Sunni dictator had a million man army and kept experiencing rebellions anyways. Gosh. Not so much because of the Hitler, dig.

"the Green Zone attacks Sunday were, symbolically at least, a sign that forces hostile to the United States are still able to strike at the heart of the American nerve center and seat of government power in the capital of Iraq."

Here, lemme fix that:
"the Green Zone attacks Sunday were, symbolically at least, literally a sign that forces hostile to the United States are still able to strike at the heart of the American nerve center and seat of government power in the capital of Iraq."

max
['And now that sentence has Jomentum.']

Posted by max | April 7, 2008 1:07 AM

If anyone wants my conspiracy theory, I would say that Bush is more than happy to let Iraq fall into the hands of parties and groups highly favorable to Iran for a couple reasons.

1) It provides justification for a continued presence in Iraq. To battle that evil Iran. Just wait, it will be a national revelation on 1/21/09 that Iran has infiltrated the highest levels of the Iraqi government. We cannot possibly leave now, because to do so would hurt Israeli security, embolden Iran, etc., etc.

2) We want Iran in Iraq so we can fight a proxy war with Iran in Iraq. They want to use Iraq as a battlefield for all of our middle eastern foes. Al Qaeda (check); Iran (check); then Syria. Those neocon boys wanted to march onto Syria the day after Baghdad fell.

Posted by Bubba | April 7, 2008 1:19 AM

"That would be why the Sunni dictator had a million man army and kept experiencing rebellions anyways."

The only significant revolts against Saddam were those by the Shiites and the Kurds after the first Gulf War, when George H.W. Bush encouraged them to revolt. Against a weakened Iraqi Army, the fearsome Shiites were crushed utterly. Even with a no-fly zone established to protect them from air strikes, they stayed under the boot of Saddam until the hated U.S. military got rid of him for them.

The Kurds, on the other hand, managed to control wrest control of their own piece of Iraq from Saddam and still hold it today.

Posted by Harry | April 7, 2008 1:22 AM

Just say CNN, I did not realize how involved US forces were in this. They are basically clearing Sadr City for the Iraqis, who looked extremely relectant to fight themselves. All to just get rid of political opposition. This is bad news.

Quite masterful move by Maliki though. Getting the US to kill off his political opposition. He has to know that Bush cannot allow the appearance that the Iraqi army is unable to fight and Maliki knows the Iraqi army is incapable of fighting. So the answer is to start a fight you cannot win and let the USA finish the job. Well done sir, well done.

Posted by Bubba | April 7, 2008 1:27 AM

"They are basically clearing Sadr City for the Iraqis, who looked extremely relectant to fight themselves. All to just get rid of political opposition."

The U.S. military has mostly stayed out of Sadr City for the last year, out of respect for Sadr's cease fire, and also to give the Iraqi Shiites time to resolve their issues on their own. The military is only conducting operations in Sadr City now (backing up Iraqi units) in response to the rockets that have been fired on the Green Zone from there. Still, by claiming these rockets have been fired by rogue elements instead of blaming them on the Mahdi Army, the Iraqi government and the U.S. military are leaving Sadr an out: cut out the missiles and they'll leave Sadr City.

Posted by Juan | April 7, 2008 1:42 AM

It's been explicit US and Iraqi policy for years to expand the size, role and competence of government forces, in large part by encouraging various tribal groups to allow themselves to be incorporated into those government forces. To the extent that some factions have decided to play ball, they're doing what we've said we want. To the extent that others have not, in particular Sadr's militia and various other more overtly criminal groups, they are going to be under increasing pressure. Good.

It's unsurprising that the better organized groups with serious experience in regional politics, language skills, successful electoral machines (and consequent representation in the Iraqi government), are the ones we choose to support.

It's also unsurprising that the group which makes anti-Americanism a basic part of its identity would be glamorized and given inordinate credit for legitimacy by the Usual Suspects here.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 7, 2008 3:15 AM

It's also unsurprising that the group which makes anti-Americanism a basic part of its identity would be glamorized and given inordinate credit for legitimacy by the Usual Suspects here.

Go away troll. All the parties in Iraq --except the Kurds -- "make anti-Americanism a basic part" of their identity. That's why its stupid for us to fight for the Islamic Supreme Council, even if they are better educated and more articulate.

Posted by Carl | April 7, 2008 4:31 AM

There's also the nagging problem that the horse we've decided to back was beaten by the one we've decided is our enemy. It'd be one thing if the Iraqi Army/Maliki and the ISCI could beat the JAM. If they can't, even with substantial US and UK support, that's a serious problem.

Posted by Zeke | April 7, 2008 6:56 AM

Of course Curtis Sliwa would go over there and solve this mess in a matter of a few days......OR ELSE!!

Posted by steve duncan | April 7, 2008 7:36 AM

"symbolically at least, a sign"

That's called being too smart for your own good, or not.

Posted by aleks | April 7, 2008 7:49 AM

Powell and the rest of the right wing trolls here are moronic as usual.

The reason the Shia were unable to overflow Hussein is because most the of the Shia, like the Sunni, were mostly getting along, despite being out of power. Also, Hussein and his military and his effective secret police knew the country, the people, and everything else needed to run an effective dictatorship.

None of that applies to the US occupation. First, Hussein armed the tribes in advance of the invasion and prepared for an insurgency in his military. Second, the stupid US military allowed dozens of arms depots to fall into the hands of the insurgents in the first couple months of the occupation - literally hundreds of thousands of weapons including crew served weapons and an estimated million tons of explosives. Third, the stupid US civilian command fired the entire mostly Sunni military, thus turning them into insurgents overnight. Fourth, the US has absolutely no clue about the country, the people, or anything else needed to do anything competent there. Fifth, by backing the Iranian-trained Shia militias against the Sunni insurgents, the US allowed Iran to take advantage of the support the US provided as well as enabling Iran to provide its own levels of support. Sixth, the US, by its tactics in the "Battle of Baghdad" and earlier operations such as Fallujah, actually accelerated the sectarian cleansing that subsequently took place.

The US is now faced with two choices: 1) allow Iran to heavily influence the Shia government - to the degree that it can remain in power, which is increasingly unlikely, or 2) allow Iraqi nationalists to take power - nationalists who will still deal with Iran if on a lesser level than the Shia militias Iran created, but who will in addition order the US out completely.

There is only one solution Bush and Cheney can use to deal with this impasse - attack Iran directly. This is clearly the intent of the upcoming Petraeus report to Congress - to blame everything on Iran and thus give Bush and Cheney an out for Iraq as well as furthering the neocon and Israeli goal of starting a war with Iran.

This is why the US is preparing to attack Sadr in Baghdad now, and why Sadr's forces are reportedly stockpiling food and weapons in preparation for that battle according to reports.

Iraq is about to go back to the levels of violence of this time last year - and in addition, at some point a war with Iran will start.

It appears that Iran has decided to increase its support for Sadr because it can see that only Sadr has the ability to put together a coalition that might actually be able to stabilize the country to Iran's benefit as well as getting rid of the US occupation. The Badr and Dawa crowd can't do it. So Iran is swinging to Sadr - and this is why the US - using Maliki as their puppet despite the claims otherwise - is now concentrating on Sadr.

Scott Ritter has been predicting that the Iran war would start this spring. It's beginning to look like he's on target. The excuse this time will not be Iran's non-existent "nuclear weapons program" or even Iran's "support for ME terrorism" - it will be explicitly Iran's support for Sadr.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 7, 2008 8:22 AM

"symbolically at least, a sign"

That's called being too smart for your own good, or not.

A reporter that smart should be made, as the English call it, redundant.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 7, 2008 9:26 AM

Just a reminder, the vast majority of Iraqis want a strong central Baghdad-based state, unlike what the US wants and what the US' preferred clients want.

Q13 Which of the following structures do you believe Iraq should have in the future?
-One unified Iraq with a central government in Baghdad -- 66
-A group of regional states with their own regional governments and a federal government in Baghdad -- 23
-A country divided into separate independent states -- 9
-Refused/don’t know -- 1

Which is more remarkable given that Kurds are about a quarter of the population.

The US is systematically using its position as occupying force to tilt Iraqi politics against Sadr in favor of parties that are inherently less popular, and thankfully is not doing an effective job at it.

The alternative though, is leaving Sadr in power, allowing him to compete for votes against quasi-separatist movements that are friendly to the US among a population that opposes quasi-separatism 2 to 1 and opposes an extended US occupation by more than that.

When US policy makers are able to publicly they prefer Sadr to a continued occupation, even if Sadr is worse for Israel than Hussein was, then the US will get out.

Until then, the US will stay in hemmoraging money, spending US lives

Posted by Arnold Evans | April 7, 2008 10:47 AM

I think the NYT meant symbolic in the sense that they were showing that they could still do it, even if it wasn't as easy as it used to be. Sorta like how the Doolittle Raid in World War II was only symbolic also. Then again, the side behind the Doolittle Raid won...

There seems to be general agreement among historians that the Doolittle Raid was a major humiliation for the Japanese high command, because, despite its negligible physical results, it had exposed the Emperor to danger. This reaction tipped the balance in favor of Yamamoto's Midway operation.

(Of course, Midway could easily -- but for codebreaking and dumb luck -- have been a decisive defeat for the US rather than a crucial victory.)

Posted by roac | April 7, 2008 11:03 AM

Data point: Maliki recruited Badr folks when faced with desertions against Sadr, and nothing much happened afterwards, except when US forces are engaged.

Data point: there was a ceasefire negotiated in Iran

So, the strife between Badrists and Sadrists does not have to flare up at all. Unless Iran gives green light.

Iranian leaders have no strong reasons to prefer one Shia group over another, and perhaps the current situation: a division of labor between receipients of American aid and resolute opponents, with surprising fluidity between the two, is just fine.

Re: (Arnold Evans) But if nobody is willing to say out loud, "let's leave an Iraq that is more hostile to Israel than Hussein was", then where does the idea come from that somebody would be willing to enact policy in that direction?

First, I would observe that the current Venezuelan government is more hostile to US than the previous one, so what? We can discretely support a military coup or the more democratic opposition, but apart from that, nothing, and GOOD!

Second, it is an utmost folly to connect very expensive and unpopular war that goes circles like "Groundhog Day" to still popular cause of supporting Israel. Unless you want to dispense with the latter.

Is Israel worth a trillion dollars? I say, we have to think hard about cheaper ways of supporting an ally. To wit, it is not cost effective to eliminate every potentially hostile regime from the region. or even quite hostile.

Or explain to American public that each family of 3 should shell 1k (every year) so Israel would be safer. (Another way of looking at it, divide your income tax by 10 and give it to Israel, keep FICA for retirement).

Posted by piotr | April 7, 2008 11:22 AM

I think piotr's analysis is pretty good--Iran has options. It also has factions, and it seems entirely likely to me that some factions like Sadr better, others like Maliki, etc.

The end game here has to be some kind of rapprochement between the US and Iran. The current mud-slinging standoff is in the interest of neither power, and neither is going to disappear.
But wait! Scott Ritter says we're going to war with Iran in about fifteen minutes! Naaah.

As far as Israel is concerned, I don't think most Americans give it a lot of thought. Nor that the Persian Gulf is the world's most important trade route, or that Iraq is sitting on or next to about half the cheap oil left in the world, or is a key state in the region producing most of the terrorism. But you add all that up, and most folks will agree that if we've got to fight a war there's more reasons here than anywhere else.

I respectfully suggest that Arnold Evans places a disproportionate amount of faith in polls. Good polls done over a long time with careful methodology and big samples can tell us very useful things. Drive-by polls conducted by TV types in a war zone where the population traditionally hates foreigners and is afraid to tell the truth to anyone, often aren't worth much. The Iraqis want a unified state WITH THEIR GROUP IN CONTROL. They also want their own regional government, for the US to leave right away, for the US to stay until things are quiet, free ice cream, a space program, and a pony.

I don't think we should be making any important policy decisions on the basis of these polls.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 7, 2008 3:52 PM

Shorter Powell: We should be basing our policy decisions on disregarding the wishes of the Iraqi people in favor of some corrupt politicians here in Washington and over there - in Israel.

Meanwhile, he hallucinates that there is going to be some sort of accommodation with Iran - while Petraeus is going to blame Iran for everything right now, and Cheney is still chomping at the bit to start a war, and Obama and Clinton are advocating more sanctions.

Yeah - that will work out.

Nitwit.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 8, 2008 6:56 AM

I kind of find it funny that MY has such a strong focus on Iraq, yet never links or mentions Patrick Cockburn. While he mentions Steve Clemons, Juan Cole (who is a gem) and others, but no Cockburn. Patrick Cockburn has not only been right about pretty much everything, but has spent more time in Iraq with more contacts there than just about anybody. Is it because of his big, bad brother. Or is that he is too far left.

Well, while he may be pretty left, if you read his books he writes much less politically charged than most American liberals. In fact, I believe his book, The Occupation, is arguably regarded as the best book on the war.

Why do I say all this. Well, not only is he more familiar with Sadr and Sadrism than any western journalists--and anyone Matt's cites--but he just released a book on the man.

Can anyone clue me into people's reluctance to mention the work of such a first rate journalist.

Posted by jeff | April 8, 2008 9:23 PM