Leila Fadel reports on the latest success of the surge: "Iraqi security forces, after more than of 40 days of intense fighting, on Thursday told residents to evacuate their homes in the northeast Shiite slum of Sadr City and to move to temporary shelters on two soccer fields."
« McCain's Mom | Main | New York and D'Antoni »
Destroying the Village
09 May 2008 10:27 am
Comments (21)
I just assumed from the headline that we had on our hands a post about Hillary Clinton.
Sounds like the ghost of Vietnam when villages had to be destroyed in order to save them.
I just assumed from the headline that we had on our hands a post about Hillary Clinton.
There's a reason for that. Her campaign's like the invasion of Iraq. She tried to shock and awe her way to victory and didn't have a backup plan when that didn't work out. She's gone through a wide range of rationales for her campaign, and she can't admit that she's lost.
Haven't these people seen The Battle of Algiers?
Right, the people should stay at home and get killed in the fighting! Of course the government is going to try and evacuate people. Of course, soccer stadiums that hold 16K people aren't going to do much good in a slum that holds 2.5 million.
The armed militias have to go. Sadr was told to disarm and he didn't so the government is going to try and crush him. How long would we let Farakhan (sp?) or Oral Roberts have an armed militia that controlled part of our country? "Stay out of Tulsa because the Roberts militia controls it"? Sadr and JAM are responsible for any deaths that occur in Sadr city.
Destroying the neighborhoods of "enemies of the state," and then herding the civilians onto fields controlled by well-armed government agents?
Are we pretending we don't know how this is going to end? Am I the only one thinking that hunger, privation and cholera outbreaks are our freaking best case scenario? And our army is a part of this?
And these walls! My God, when creating a situation like Belfast is what you're aspiring to achieve, you have a goddam problem. Is anyone else more than a little nervous that it doesn't seem like much food is getting into these areas of containment and isolation? Does anyone else see concerning historical precedents in walling off entire civilian neighborhoods & enabling the government that sees them as enemies of the state to control whether food, medicine, or anything else gets through them?
We are building the infrastructure for a horror show. Everything that happens will be on our heads. Abu Ghraib was nightmare enough, and it didn't involve 800,000 civilians.
anonymous - Calm down! According to the MSM, the UN/Clinton sanctions may have resulted in the deaths of 600K Iraqis. We are nowhere close to that yet.
Everything that happens will be on Sadr's head. He can choose to be part of the solution or part of the problem.
"Everything that happens will be on Sadr's head. He can choose to be part of the solution or part of the problem."
So what's the solution, and what's the problem? You apparently think the having the Iranian controlled ISCI running Iraq is the solution. And I guess you think that the nationalist and anti-Iran Sadr is the problem. I think the problem is having an Iranian (and US) backed government that is opposed by the the Iraqi people. Sadr may not be the solution to that problem, but the problem will continue until Iraq gets a government that its people can support. That will probably never happen, but if that's the case, why are we there?
just wanted to pop in to say that destroying the neighborhoods of "enemies of the state," and then herding the civilians onto soccer fields with no food, water or sanitation isn't a good way to win hearts and minds.
this is anti anti-insugency at it's worst.
I'm confused -- why is the Iraqi government fighting Sadr's army after Sadr "checkmated" Maliki recently. I could have sworn I read that on this blog.
"The armed militias have to go. "
Then why are we funding some of them? It isn't like we're funding militias that only support the government either. We're funding the tribal Sunni militias who have no intention of supporting the government. Saying "The Sadrists must be disarmed because we can't tolerate extra-governmental militias" is an incoherent statement. The truth is, the Sadrists must be disarmed because they don't like Americans.
Saying the Iraqi people don't support the government is too simplistic. It was elected and it does have problems but it is the only show in town.
Sadr could channel his efforts into politics. He wants his cake and eat it to with a political bloc and a private army. Iraq will never thrive with private armed militias. See Lebanon. The Sunnis were armed to defeat Al Quada; one enemy at a time makes more sense then all enemies at once.
When you consider how disinterested the US and the Maliki 'government' were in the unilateral cease-fire maintained by the Sadrists for the past six months, it becomes obvious why the Sadrists must be destroyed- they would win free elections.
The unfortunate appearance is that of US troops committing a series of war crimes and atrocities that have no rational policy basis at all. Sooner or later, this is going to bite us in the ass.
So what's the solution, and what's the problem? You apparently think the having the Iranian controlled ISCI running Iraq is the solution. And I guess you think that the nationalist and anti-Iran Sadr is the problem.
*************************************************
Must be anti-Iranian - that's why he goes over there to hide when the heat is on
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/02/reports_sadr_ha.html
CNN and ABC are reporting that militant Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and some of his commanders fled to Iran at least two weeks ago, fearing he would be a target of the U.S. buildup in Iraq. Both quote senior military officials, and ABC says Sadr is in Tehran, where he has family.
Then why are we funding some of them? It isn't like we're funding militias that only support the government either. We're funding the tribal Sunni militias who have no intention of supporting the government
************************************************
Obviously NO intention of supporting the government
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89871099
Iraq's prime minister, long criticized as weak, overly sectarian and indecisive, has used the crackdown on Muqtada al-Sadr's militia to strengthen and improve his political position. A key Sunni bloc has declared it will soon re-join Nouri al-Maliki's Shiite-led government, and Sadr, the anti-American cleric, appears more politically isolated than ever.
We're funding the tribal Sunni militias who have no intention of supporting the government
************************************************
Nope, none at all
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16266320
Sunni tribal leaders from Iraq's Anbar province, who have joined the fight against al-Qaida, are demanding greater recognition and support from the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad.
The sheiks want Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to appoint people they have nominated to replace the Sunni ministers who have boycotted the Cabinet.
I'm confused -- why is the Iraqi government fighting Sadr's army after Sadr "checkmated" Maliki recently. I could have sworn I read that on this blog.
Posted by Harry | May 9, 2008 12:19 PM
*************************************************
Absolutely correct. It's not possible that Maliki could have done this - Matt told us so!!
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/oops_1.php
Can someone ask Petraeus and Crocker about this: "Iraq's top Shiite religious leaders have told anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr not to disband his Mehdi Army, an al-Sadr spokesman said Monday amid fresh fighting in the militia's Baghdad strongholds."
That looks like Sadr's checkmated Maliki to me. First Maliki tried to crush the Mahdi Army with force. He couldn't. Then both Sadr and Maliki agreed on a political deal to kick the dispute upstairs to the religious authorities. Then the authorities backed Sadr.
somebody wrote: "Then why are we funding some of them? It isn't like we're funding militias that only support the government either. We're funding the tribal Sunni militias who have no intention of supporting the government."
************************************************
Campesino wrote: "Iraq's prime minister, long criticized as weak, overly sectarian and indecisive, has used the crackdown on Muqtada al-Sadr's militia to strengthen and improve his political position. A key Sunni bloc has declared it will soon re-join Nouri al-Maliki's Shiite-led government, and Sadr, the anti-American cleric, appears more politically isolated than ever."
*********************************************
i don't beleive that the sunni bloc that wants to rejoin the maliki government has anything to do with the various "awakening" groups that we have been funding.
it's been suggested that the blocs interest in rejoining the government is simply a way to position themselves against other sunni groups in anticipation of the upcoming local elections.
thoughts?
"Sadr could channel his efforts into politics. He wants his cake and eat it to with a political bloc and a private army. Iraq will never thrive with private armed militias"
Sadr has channeled his efforts into politics. That is precisely the reason Maliki is so intent on destroying Sadr now. Sadr will win the next elections if his candidates aren't killed. The idea that democracy can only be preserved if the people we like win is not really democratic. We should be honest about that.
As for Iraq not thriving with armed militias, you're probably right. So why do we support the Badr Brigade and the Peshmerga? The closest I ever came to being killed in a terrorist attack was in Kusadasi, Turkey. The bomb was made with US military C-4 that was given to the Peshmerga. You will not convince me that those are nice guys. Had I died, do think I would be happy that I was killed by my own government? You need to understand what kind of people we're giving weapons to. And you need to think about what they will do with those weapons when we stop paying them to not kill us. And you need to explain why we want an Iranian backed government in Iraq.
Danceswithgoats is a complete moron. He has absolutely no clue what is going on in Iraq. He has no clue who the actors are, what their motivations are, who's supporting who, and how illegitimate the government there actually is.
Here is the reality: Sadr has enormous support among the poor Shia in Sadr City and in the south of Iraq. The ISCI and Dawa crowd have limited support because they were created in Iran (ISCI members actually fought against Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war - and that is remembered by many Iraqis).
The moderate Sunni blocs want to be part of the government. Most of the insurgent Sunnis do not - they want to recapture control of the government by any means necessary. They joined up to the "Awakening" movement only because they decided it was not efficient to fight both the Shia and the US at the same time. So they temporarily made an accommodation to the US because the US promised them they have a place in the government - which the US and Maliki then reneged on. This has caused considerable tension in the Sunni groups. At the moment, they still appear to be strengthening their grip on the Sunni provinces in advance of the provincial elections this fall, with an eye to the parliamentary elections next year. This is why violence was down in Iraq for the last nine months - that and the fact that Sadr had his militia stand down while he worked on his own politicial and religious credentials.
The attack by Maliki on Sadr's group was stimulated by Dick Cheney, but was agreed to by Maliki because he thought he could damage Sadr enough to prevent Sadr from winning most of the southern provinces in the upcoming fall elections. His initial attack failed miserably and had to be halted by negotiations in Iran.
The subsequent attacks in Sadr City are being pushed by the US because of the continuing mortar and rocket attacks on the Green Zone. While Maliki's government troops are involved, this is mostly being done at US insistence because the Green Zone attacks will undermine McCain in the US elections.
The morons in the US military and the White House think they can push Sadr into all-out war and then defeat him. This is an impossibility given his support among the people. Maliki has no choice but to go along with this, as both the Kurds and the Sunnis and many of the Shia are fed up with him, and he's out on his ass if he doesn't show some results to somebody soon.
There was an article just yesterday that the Kurds are once again ginning up a vote of no confidence in Maliki, since they are fed up with the lack of progress on the oil laws and the federalization of Kurdistan.
There is little doubt among observers that Sadr has the bulk of the support of the Shia in Iraq. Not ISCI and not Dawa. Reports that Iran is dumping Sadr I suspect are entirely wrong. I think Iran is continuing to support Sadr, as well as ISCI and Dawa, but may be having trouble controlling Sadr, since he is not that close to them. Sadr can't afford to let his militia keep taking hits from the US and Maliki without striking back, or he will lose control of his organization. But Iran would prefer this not escalate into an intra-Shia war since that would hurt Iran's interests.
Yesterday a Sadr cleric complained that the Ayatollahs in Najaf have been silent about the attacks on Sadr City. Apparently Sistani and the other Ayatollahs, who were intent on gaining Shia control of the government, are not prepared to come down one way or the other on Sadr or Maliki, for fear of disrupting and losing control of the government. At the same time, they can't afford to denounce Sadr, who enjoys such major support among the poor Shia.
None of this is going to be resolved until the provincial elections and then the parliamentary elections. At that point, either Iraq will devolve into a three-way civil war between Sunnis, ISCI and Dawa, and Sadr, or there will be a nationalist coalition government that dumps Maliki, and possibly ISCI and Dawa, and orders the US out of Iraq.
As long as the Shia have sufficient control of the government to prevent the Sunnis from taking control again, I don't think either the Najaf Ayatollahs or Iran will care that much who is in charge.
And both the Ayatollahs and Iran want the US out of Iraq. Sistani is Iranian, does not even have Iraqi citizenship and has said he will remain Iranian until he dies, even if he does not support the Iranian model of clerical control of the government. He may dislike Sadr, but as long as a Shia has adequate control of the government, he will accept it.
The only question is whether the former Sunni Baath members who run the Sunni insurgency can be persuaded to share power at some point, and whether the Shia can be restrained from continuing sectarian cleansing in the event of a nationalist coalition government. If those two things occur, Iraq can be stabilized to some degree. If not, Iraq will continue to be a mess.
In both circumstances, the US will be forced to leave eventually - because literally nobody except those under the direct protection or patronage of the US wants the US to remain.
Comments closed May 23, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Now Bush can tell us how the fighting in Iraq has led to the creation of thousands of new soccer moms.
http://www.instantrimshot.com/
Posted by steve duncan | May 9, 2008 10:33 AM