Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Saturday, October 21, 2006

Amara Fighting Threatens Stability of South

Fighting broke out Thursday and Friday in the southern city of Amara (pop. 330,000) between the Mahdi Army and the local police (which are infiltrated by the Badr Corps, another Shiite militia). The fighting killed 9 and wounded 90. The Mahdi Army fighters occupied three buildings important to the police, including the major crimes office, the police directorate

Aljazeera is reporting that relative calm has returned to the city on Saturday morning, in part through the mediation of the central government. The governor of Maysan province told the Arabic satellite channel that British forces tried three times to intervene, but he said that each time he told them that local authorities would handle it.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki had sent a security team down to look into the violence and to stop it.

Amara is the capital of Maysan province (pop. 770,000). Maysan province in general and Amara in particular support the nationalist Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Maysan and its capital are among the places to which the Marsh Arabs were displaced when their swamps dried up, and they are often desperately poor and very tribal, and they seem to have joined the Sadr Movement en masse during the past 3 years.

When the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim controlled the Interior Ministry in 2005 and until May, 2006, it used the ministry's national oversight of local police forces to infiltrate members of SCIRI's paramilitary, the Badr Corps, into the Amara police force. There is a bubbling low-level feud between the Sadrists in Maysan and the SCIRI police.

So recently the Mahdi Army assassinated Qasim al-Tamimi, a police official who was also a member of the Badr Corps. The Badr Corps was formed in Iran and trained by the Revolutionary Guards, and is viewed by many in the Iraqi-nationalist Mahdi Army as the tool of a foreign power.

Then the police arrested or abducted (when militia are in police, how could you tell?) 5 men, including the brother of a Mahdi Army leader in Amara.

Then protests escalated into fighting, and the Mahdi Army took over several police stations and killed or wounded dozens of police/ Badr Corps militiamen.

The Western press is mostly reporting this story backwards, as a pro-Iranian Sadr Movement taking over Amara. In fact, the Sadr Movement already dominated Amara politically, but the (Iranian-trained) Badr Corps had this unnatural niche in the police. It was Badr that had "taken over" the security forces in a largely Sadrist city. The Mahdi Army was attempting to align local politics with local power.

Muqtada al-Sadr, the young spiritual leader of the Sadr Movement and the Mahdi Army, demanded that his men stop fighting and said that he washed his hands of anyone who disobeyed his orders, according to Aljazeera.

Ahmad al-Sharifi, a Sadrist leader, told al-Zaman that the fighting in Amara is one of the consequences of the law on provincial confederacies passed last week by the Iraqi parliament, to which the Sadr Movement was opposed.

Al-Zaman's contacts in the Iraqi intelligence establishment warned that the clashes in Amara could spread to the cities of Basra and Nasiriyah. He said that the Mahdi Army and the Badr Corps in those two cities had announced their mutual dislike of one another, and that they had begun recruiting further militiamen to replenish their ranks.

These sources said that the transportation and communications lines between Baghdad and the south had been cut, leaving the capital isolated from the south. The main highway leading south out Baghdad had been blocked.

They said that Basra is witnessing an unprecedented wave of weapons smuggling across the border from Iran.

Reuters reports other political violence occurring or announced on Friday, including 15 mortar attacks late Thursday in the Shiite city of Balad north of Baghdad that killed 9. There were also arrests of Sadrist officials in south Baghdad and just north of Karbala.

In Mecca, Sunni and Shiite clerics from Iraq signed a joint fatwa that forbade members of the two branches of Islam to shed each other's blood. The conference was hosted by the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Saudi government. It was supported in general by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani of Najaf, who did not attend, and received "qualified support" from Muqtada al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army has been implicated in death squad killings of Sunnis. The Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars was represented at a high level. The fatwa has moral authority but no legal implications. Close observers in the region doubt it will turn Iraq around.

6 Comments:

At 6:19 AM, Blogger JHM said...

The Baker Watch

Lord Jim has finally caught the eye of the Los Angeles Times also:

One senior official said he expected the change to come once a congressionally chartered panel, the Iraq Study Group, makes its recommendations, giving the administration "political cover."
(...)
The option of regionalizing the effort — with the help of Iran and Syria — appears to have the support of former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, the Iraq Study Group co-chairman. The senior U.S. official said that such an approach would require Washington to set aside other goals regarding Syria and Iran — including its push to keep Tehran from gaining a nuclear weapon. "The question is, are they willing to throw out their Iran and Syria policies to help their Iraq policy?" he said. "That's hard for me to conceive."



This morning Major Leaker appears to have a particular neo-policy up his own sleeve, one which may or may not have anything to do with the Hon. Baker:

But the senior U.S. official said some in the government continued to think about options that had been ruled out — including a more authoritarian approach — in hopes of establishing order as a first step toward rebuilding the country. The official described it as a "last choice," but said, "at some point, the situation becomes so serious that you need order, period."
Handing the government over to a strong leader would carry large political costs. It would mean setting aside the administration's goal of establishing an American-style government, at least temporarily. And it would mean finding what some officials call a "man on horseback" who would have support from all the major Iraqi factions — perhaps an impossible task.
The strongman option was called the "most plausible" by scholar Eliot Cohen of the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, who has close ties to the military and administration. Cohen, often described as a leading neoconservative, has been praised by Bush. Cohen wrote in a Wall Street Journal column published Friday that the Iraq war was, "if not a failure, failing." He said throwing U.S. support behind a strong leader would force the administration to swallow "a substantial repast of crow."


What could be less "an American-style government" than that hinted at, for one can scarcely say spelled out, by the Khalilzad Constitution? Is the LAT reporting Maj. Leaker's exact words at this point? It would make sense for him to dodge saying "Let's drop the 'democracy' foolishness, gentlemen!"; I can't imagine why the Times would want to avoid the exact D-word.

But God knows best. Happy days.

 
At 3:42 PM, Blogger Rafael said...

For another look at how the U.S. got itself into this mess, please read Fiasco (doing that right now) and watch Frontline's excellent reporting on the issue.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/yeariniraq/view/

 
At 5:14 PM, Blogger buggao said...

Dr. Cole,

There is a report that US and Iraqi casualties resulting from the ammo dump fire in Baghdad earlier this month are much higher than have been reported and that the FOB was mostly destroyed.

This link claims over 400 dead so far, with hundreds more wounded.

I was wondering if might have seen or heard more about it from your sources?

link

 
At 7:37 PM, Blogger NonArab-Arab said...

For a bit more background to the Sadrist-SCIRI clashes and the region around Amara, I wrote the following (it was admittedly off the top of my head, but hopefully adds something useful):

http://nonarab-arab.blogspot.com/2006/10/iraq-on-sciri-vs-sadrists.html

Also, I have very mixed feelings regarding Ricks' "Fiasco". I think it's worth reading, but he essentially commits the same sin he accuses the administration and most of the military of - namely completely erasing Iraqis and the Arab world from the picture. I wrote a brief (again admittedly off the top of my head) review of the book here:

http://mobookblog.blogspot.com/2006/10/fiasco-by-thomas-e-ricks.html

 
At 1:22 AM, Blogger karlof1 said...

"Strong Man" is euphemism for authoritarian killer.

I'm very curious; with all the violence, how much food was harvested during the recently ended season? Is there enough to avoid an even greater calamity than already exists?

I haven't seen this mentioned yet; this Stan Goff piece, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15354.htm
has the problem nailed spot-on: " there are two key ways in which Iraq is—for all its differences—exactly like Vietnam. The aristocracy of American politics cannot win militarily; and it cannot leave politically." That is exactly the dilemma the Baker group face. It's very unfortunate tha establisnment cannot see what the world sees: That the US has lost all "face" in Iraq; thus, there is none to save. The British are starting to see. And a growing segment of US citizens' eyes are opening.

 
At 8:55 AM, Blogger NonArab-Arab said...

I wouldn't be too worried about people starving due to a poor harvest (maybe being too poor and too scared to go out to get food, but not due to a poor harvest). If Iraq doesn't grow enough food, Iraq will be "allowed" to spend its meager resources importing subsidized Australian and US wheat by the boatload.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home