Bush Comment on Najaf Farcical;
Hawatimah Tribe of Diwaniyah involved in Mahdist Uprising?
Attempts are being made to knock down all kinds of stories about the Najaf uprising. Bush expressed happiness that the Iraqi Army (actually the Badr Corps fundamentalist Shiite militia) acquitted itself well against the rebels. But in fact, the Iraqi security forces were surrounded, cut off and nearly destroyed by heavily armed cultists--and had urgently to call in US troops, tanks and close air support.
Bush told National Public Radio on Monday, "My first reaction on this report from the battlefield is that the Iraqis are beginning to show me something."
So does the US military not tell Bush when their Iraqi allies get into deep trouble fighting a few hundred cultists and they have to go bail them out? Or was Bush briefed on the situation and he came out and told a bald faced lie to the public about what had happened?
Either thing at a time the country is at war is truly horrifying.
The radical Sunni Arab newspaper Mafkarat al-Islam and the moderate Arab nationalist newspaperal-Zaman weighed in with yet a fourth account of the fighting in Najaf on Sunday and Monday.
In this one, an innocent poor little tribal group from Diwaniyah, the Hawatimah, got up a night-time convoy to the holy city of Najaf on their way to Karbala for Ashura. They happened to have raised anti-Iranian slogans and placards. (At night or early dawn? How could they be seen?) The evil Najaf government authorities, themselves proto-Iranian, suddenly and for no reason launched a massive attack on the Hawatimah, massacring them, as they approached Najaf. In this narrative, the Diwaniyah tribal group had nothing to do with any millenarian cult (al-Mahdawiyah), and were just killed at the instigation of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the Badr Corps (pro-Iranian political and paramilitary groupings who basically run Najaf) because they dared object to Iranian influence in Iraq. It is even being alleged in al-Zaman that the Hawatimah were only implementing Bush administration strictures against Iranian machinations in Iraq.
Note that the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which controls Najaf, is Bush's major ally in Iraq even though it is close to Iran. Those fighting the Najaf government and Iraqi army forces were anti-Iranian. Rightwing bloggers seem confused on these points.
It is, of course, possible that the Hawatimah got caught up in the fighting between the Mahdawiyah and the Badr Corps as they were proceeding toward Karbala. And the Najaf authorities did themselve no favors by trying to depict this Shiite group as al-Qaeda (a hyper-Sunni movement) or related to the old Baath Party.
But the story in Mafkarat al-Islam makes no sense at all. If the Hawatimah convoy was heading to Karbala, why would it need to go into downtown Najaf? And what was a big convoy of armed tribesmen doing heading for downtown Najaf at night? At night? With Iraq's lack of security? The al-Zaman narrative even justifies them being heavily armed on the grounds that they were traveling at night. But doesn't explain why they were operating under cover of darkness in the first place. The traveling at night thing seems suspicious to me.
In contrast, al-Hayat reports in Arabic that its stringers interviewed residents of Zarqa just north of Najaf who confirmed that the Mahdist sect leader, Diya' Kazim Abd al-Zahra, who also went by Ahmad Hassaan al-Yamaani, of Diwaniyah, 38, had indeed bought orchards there and settled there with hundreds of followers. They kept bringing in truckfuls of sand. When asked why, they said that they wanted to build barriers to mark of "their property."
Hmm. The Mahdist leader was from Diwaniyah. The Hawatimah were from Diwaniyah and were coming in a big armed convoy at night toward Najaf.
If we set aside the claims of this group of Hawatimah to be innocent victims and assume that they were Mahdists coming to help with a planned assault on Najaf (empty and unguarded while all the other Shiites converged on Karbala for Ashura), then it would explain a lot. Heavily armed tribesmen could easily have overwhelmed the Iraqi army, if they had RPGs and automatic weapons. They would have the element of surprise, esprit de corps, and probably some would have served in the old Baath army and might well have much more military experience than the green Iraqi army troops thrown against them. Tribesmen are formidable and often outfitted like private armies. And if they were coming to support the Mahdawiyah cultists in the orchards, that explains where the high-powered weapons came from. They so devastated the Iraqi forces that the US had to send troops, tanks and helicopters to rescue the latter.
If we posit an involvement of the Hawatimah from Diwaniyah in the Mahdist uprising at Najaf, it raises the question as to whether they were the "rogue elements" that launched an uprising in Diwaniyah itself in late August, 2006. At the time, this violence was blamed on the Mahdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr, but spokesmen for Muqtada at the time complained that "rogue elements" not under his control were stirring up trouble there. The Mahdawiyah was founded in 1999 by Abdul Zahra, a young civil engineer from Diwaniyah who had been a follower of Ayatollah Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr (Muqtada's father) but established a group that split off from the Sadrists.
Admittedly, a lot of what I have written is speculative, and I'm open to being corrected by better evidence. (That is the fate of all historians but especially those who try to catch history on the run.) But I think it is pretty easy to resolve the contradictions among the major accounts by assuming that this was a Mahdist uprising aimed at taking Najaf, centered on the coming of the Promised One, to which a group of Hawatimah clans were coming to lend aid. The Hawatimah story of their innocence, as reported in the Sunni press, seems to me to have a lot of holes in it.
posted by Juan Cole @ 1/31/2007 12:21:00 AM
|
Facebook
11 Comments:
Ya know, the world sure could us a non-apocalypse generating Mahdi of some sort--even an atheist one--to smite down the warmongers and decree peace, or else.
Shell made a big deal with the Iranians; so, either it knows something, or is betting on hope, the latter not being a wise business plan.
John Prados of the National Security Archive connects the dots in the Libby trial, which might explain all the war/wag the dog talk as an effort to distract Congress and the public, http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/01/30/cheney_to_the_stand.php However, I think that's wishful thinking on my part.
The new Yes Man Cheney got to command Centcom just lied to Congress in his Senate Foriegn Relations Committee testimony, "They have not been helpful in Iraq," said Admiral Fallon (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070131/ap_on_go_co/us_iran). As we both know, Iran has been very helpful regarding Iraq, although its efforts bypass US involvement as much as possible, which gives Cheney/Bush a tizzy-fit. Lying to Congress is a felony. Why he was allowed to get away with his lie begs the question, How well informed are the Senators/staffers of that very key committee?
Lastly, Scott Ritter gave a very powerful interview regarding Iran that also provided some additional info about the Iraq WMD inspections he was directly involved with:
"Not a single Senator, not a single Congressman was presented with viable intelligence that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction. Therefore you have to ask yourself: What intelligence did they receive? If you’re talking about going to war – and they voted for war – they need to be shown incontrovertible proof that a situation exists that manifests itself as a threat that warrants the use of military force. What I can tell you is that Senators and Congressmen may have believed Saddam had WMD, but that’s faith-based analysis not fact-based analysis. And there is a singular failure across the board for anyone who voted in favor of this war void of any hard, irrefutable evidence. I again re-iterate not a single one of them received such a briefing because frankly speaking such a briefing could not have existed."
And:
"I would also say though that the Israeli government is smart enough to know the difference between irresponsible rhetoric and the rhetoric of the people who truly have their fingers on the pulse of power [in Iran]. There is a whole lot of politics at play here because the Israelis know that power is held by the supreme leader the Ayatollah Khamenei not by President Ahmadinejad, and at the end of the day, Iran poses absolutely no threat to Israel. It is a hyped up reality."
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=67&ItemID=11993
I like seeing you taking your stab at all this. Frankly I am having a hard time. Even using the historical method some of the main details are fuzzy or in contradiction. That in itself says something major about what we call Iraq. So many of the categories we want to apply to understand it: civil war, Shia, baathist militia, AQ, and even Iraq itself appear to be invalid. This is not to say they do not have some use, especially in the past, but you wonder if these type of incidents, and this was certainly not the first, are not indicative of a fundamentally new reality on the ground. My sense is that we are talking about a total collapse of public order and in this situation of a failed state old identities are very fluid, they can break down and reassemble in various radical, hard core, religious configurations, especially when combined with groups of force that can offer the promise of security. It will be interesting to see if this reading holds over the next half year or so.
"There are very few U.S. troops in the northern Kurdish regions, and the
Iraqi Kurds are close allies of the United States. How Iranian activities
in Irbil could possibly pose a threat to American troops is completely
mysterious. Why Washington would order arrests of persons designated as
guests by Iraqi government officials is also obscure."
The Iraqi Kurds were also close allies of the Iranis during the "troubles" prior to the 1990-91 American intervening invasion (intervasion?), more than likely all the way back to the Iran-Iraq War when the "troubles" were punctuated by the suspicious gassing of the Kurds so prominently used as justification for this go-round of "intervasion."* There is also the other "trouble" that the Kurds have had with Turkey (who has, by the by, invaded Iraq and Syria as well as their own territory in efforts to neutralise Kurdish rivalry and nationalism). Turkey is still massed on the border, as I recall, ready to add its contributions to the pot, even to the point of reclaiming oil fields lost around 1920 ... from the Kurds.
In a "perfect" Iraq, of course the apprehension of "guests" would be suspect and grounds for condemnation. But in the Iraq of Hussein followed by the Iraq of Bush, it's a little different, a little less than perfect. Hussein wanted things his way, the way toward stability, while Bush wants things his way, the way toward mayhem including orgies of death and destruction, undermining any stability in any part of the region. This is, in a curious way, further justification for continued presence in the country, needing to "stay the course" to "finish the job," pumping in $$$Billion$$$ into the war profiteers and others who are, once again, getting wealthy off of the backs of the American taxpayers who will be rewarded by the ready supply of oil sold by the very same people who are getting filthy rich from the conflict.
In another sense, Kurd-Iran cooperation is an echo of the Hussein dayze when Iran was also the stated enemy of Iraq. While the directions of Saddam Hussein and Younger George may differ, being able to control the events in Iraq were/are equally important to both individuals. While Kurdistan is somewhat stable, cooperation with Iran is once again unauthorised as Iran remains, as it has been since 1979, a stated enemy of the United States, as is anyone who interferes with the "American" oil in the region but out of the Americans' control.
The echoes are many between the two eras, including who has Hussein's gun right now. We might expect some celebratory firing of weapons at some undisclosed locations (most of which deny unauthorised overflights, perhaps to prevent being hit by stray bullets). One of Hussein's "sins" was not defeating the Iranis in short order. The result was to change the strategy to mutual Iraqi and Irani enervation and emasculation, eventually providing the pretext for American involvement in the country and around the region.
Any cooperation by any Iraqi with any Irani is discouraged, even to the point of capturing (and now killing) Iranis who can meet the "undesirable" criteria. "Troops" are political operatives by another more extreme means. They are used where the professional politicians fear to tread inasmuch as the military men and women merely interpret orders issued, following the best defined guidelines available, always open to human error after who knows how many filtrations through layers of command and supervision. Iran, in any manner, shape, or guise, is the new "age-old" bogeyman all the way back to Mossadegh and through the Ayatollahs. Now, Ahmadinejad, by default, has assumed the mantle of Chief Foe, although it would be anyone leading Iran. Anyone in Iraq from Iran simply and unequivocally (in the politicians' minds)represents Chief Foe.
As in the old dayze, any good Irani is a dead Irani. Any found off of the reservation must be dealt with harshly, made an example of. Iraq was, once more, supposed to be a sideshow on the way to neutralising Chief Foe and his band of warriors, mostly in retribution for Mossadegh and then Khomeini, both of whom were the stains to be removed by the Ajax (or substitute) cleanser.
The bonus in all of this is the control of the Hormuz Straits, something that all of the oil sheiks need kept open in order to send their little oiled piggies to market. I well recall the reaction of the American strategic forces on alert in the late 1970ies after the overthrow of the Shah. This is something that has burned in some peoples' memories ever since, seeking and finding any means available (even an oilman or two named "Bush") to get back what the Anglophiles feel was wrested from them unfairly.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
Mr. Lukasiak:
Yes, that is the account that strikes me as most plausible for the moment.
As for direct Iranian support for Mahdi army, that seems unlikely to me. The Iranians think Muqtada is a loose cannon and are more likely to support SCIRI and Badr.
The so-called Iraqi army, appears more like the Austrian Kaiser's old army, where though all fought well for their own glory; few were loyal to the Kaiser (Kaisertreu).
Within less than a generation, the Austro-Hungarians imperal army would be fighting each other for nationalism in WW2.
Bosians, Croats, Serbs, Slovaks, Germans, and Jews caught in the middle.
Iraq is a lost cause because there is litte chance of keeping it together. Even a disintegrated Iraq will not ensure peace.
Bolton is even saying now that a 'united Iraq is not in US national interest'.
Getting on the bandwaggon before it leaves town. I refrain from cursing his name here. But you get the idea of what I might think of such a sychophantic ineffective and ignorant person.
AP: Accounts of weekend battle leave questions (via Army Times) “Accounts of the bloody battle near Najaf have produced more questions than answers, raising doubts about Iraqi security forces’ performance and concern over tensions within the majority Shiite community.”
The Guardian, UK: US 'victory' against cult leader was 'massacre' suggests: “There are growing suspicions in Iraq that the official story of the battle outside Najaf between a messianic Iraqi cult and the Iraqi security forces supported by the US, in which 263 people were killed and 210 wounded, is a fabrication. The heavy casualties may be evidence of an unpremeditated massacre [and subsequent coverup].”
"But in fact, the Iraqi security forces were surrounded, cut off and nearly destroyed by heavily armed cultists--and had urgently to call in US troops, tanks and close air support."
The obviuos point here is that the Iraqi security forces don't own tanks (maybe a few clunkers), helicopter gunships, fighter bombers, massive intelligence and communications infrastructures, and all the other multi-billion dollar war fighting paraphinalia readily available to the US forces. I'm sure if they had their own means to drop 500 lb bombs on the enemy, they would have done it in style.
If US ground troops were caught in similar situation they would have immediately called in all the firepower that could be assembled. From reading news reports this is standard procedure.
Let's face it, Bush's ventriloquist never intended to arm the Iraqi army to the point of self sufficiency. Since Saddam had a fairly modern military, it would not have been a major problem to find trained fighter and helicopter pilots, and the needed maintenace technicians, amoung the population.
Comparing the Iraqi military to the US military is like comparing a slingshot to a howitzer. (Although, somehow, the Sunni insurgents seem to do pretty well with a slingshot.)
"My first reaction on this report from the battlefield is that the Iraqis are beginning to show me something."
What Bush was really saying is that he is pleased that Iraqis are killing more Iraqis. That is the plan.
Gonzo,
The source of the article with regards to the Najaf "massacre" is Patrick Cockburn of the Independent. It may be a tiff between Shia factions that got out of hand.
Watch the Bush Administration spin this into something dealing with al-Qaeda or Iranian terrorists.
Juan, about Iran siding with Sistani and the Badr brigade. This may be the mainstream opinion in Tehran. One should also note there is a minority that would support Hezbollah and the Sadrists, given their success in undermining Israel and the Great Satan in recent times. Not sure how much Iranian domestic politics is affecting how Iran is influencing the Middle East.
Please stop being coy about Bush's lies. You say, "... Or was Bush briefed on the situation and he came out and told a bald faced lie to the public about what had happened?" Or? Or what? Everything out of the man's mouth is a lie. In most cases, the truth is the exact opposite of what he says. Whether or not he listens to military briefings is a matter of speculation. That he tells bald faced lies on all occasions is incontrovertible.
Despite any speculation, the high level analysis and back story provided in this blog entry (and the whole of this blog for that matter) is invaluable to those of us less educated in the complex histories of the tribal, militia, and religious factions that make up Iraq. Understanding these complex relationships (although an impossible task to ever fully understand) seems to be a major shortfall of the US involvement and of virtually no interest to the Bush Administration. Further proof that the US has no justification for a continued military presence in the region. Many thanks for this and all the other invaluable analysis.
Post a Comment
<< Home