Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Second Shiite Governor Slain
Levin Calls for al-Maliki to be Unseated
al-Maliki in Damascus

Reuters reports that the governor of Muthanna province, Mohammed Ali al-Hassani, was assassinated on Monday by a roadside bomb. This killing was the second in recent days of a provincial governor from the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council (SIIC). In both Muthanna and Qadisiya, the site of the other assassination, the Badr Corps paramilitary of SIIC has been locked in power struggle with the Mahdi Army of the Sadr Movement, loyal to young Shiite nationalist, Muqtada al-Sadr. SIIC and Badr are very close to Tehran, and some southern Shiites see them as unpatriotic. The Sadrists have complained that the provincial government of Muthanna is corrupt and has not delivered necessary services to the people. Since some observers don't get this right, I just want to underline that these assassinations have been strikes against Iranian influence in Iraq, by nativists probably at least loosely connected to the Sadr Movement. Likewise, if an EFP was used in the bombing, it is unlikely to have come from Iran, since Tehran has no interest in knocking off its own clients (SIIC and Badr), and, indeed, would go out of its way to protect them.

The killing of a second governor in the Shiite south is very bad news. This is the sort of thing that used to happen in al-Anbar Province. It is a sign of an increasingly virulent Shiite on Shiite power struggle between SIIC and the Sadrists, between the Badr Corps and the Mahdi Army. It is also a bad sign that the Sadrists have managed to get hold of increasingly effective roadside bombs.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was in Damascus on Monday, seeking deals with the Syrian government. He is said to have pledged to reopen an Iraqi oil pipeline through Syria if Damascus would do more to stop jihadis from infiltrating Iraq from Syrian territory.

Michigan Senator Carl Levin called Monday for the Iraqi parliament to replace al-Maliki. Even if it could be done, why does Levin think someone more effective would emerge? And the last two times you got a new PM, it took many months to form a new government. Does Iraq need that kind of paralysis at this point? I guess I don't think it is the place of American legislators to intervene in such matters. You can imagine the firestorm if a prominent French parliamentarian called on the US Congress to impeach Bush.

Farah Stockman of the Boston Globe reports on State Department attempts to keep al-Maliki in power by jawboning the various Iraqi factions in parliament, which, however, don't seem to be going very well. I think there is some question of whether the entire political system might fall apart if the elected PM keeps being replaced.

Muqtada al-Sadr was interviewed in Kufa by reporters from the Independent. Note that the US military has been spreading that propaganda line again that Muqtada had decamped to Iran. It simply is not true, as the Independent confirmed. Here are Muqtada's main points:

1. The British are being forced out of Basra by effective guerrilla tactics

2. Britain endangered its own security by attacking Iraq and thus angering the Muslim world

3. The security situation in Basra will generally improve once the British leave, though there will be some trouble because Iran is seeking influence there.

4. The Sunnis of Ramadi who have turned against the Sunni Jihadi radicals have adopted a historic position for Iraq

5. He and his movement would welcome greater United Nations involvement in Iraq

6. The days of the al-Maliki government are numbered and it will soon collapse because he is seen as an American puppet and because even the Americans are dissatisfied with him.


British officials, in response, denied that the UK was being driven out of Iraq. They maintain that the Iraqi police and military is capable of keeping order in the provinces from which they have withdrawn, and that is why they left.

Mahdi Army fighters have admitted to getting a month-long training course in insurgency tactics in south Lebanon, according to the Independent.

McClatchy reports political violence in Iraq on Monday, with 12 bodies discovered in the streets of the capital. Other major attacks:


"Baghdad

- Around 10 a.m., a motorbike exploded at Al-Risafi intersection (downtown Baghdad) killing one civilian and injuring 12 others.

- Around 3.30 p.m., a car bomb exploded at Sadreen square ( in Sadr city) killing 5 people and injuring 20 others.

- Around 4 p.m., a roadside bomb exploded near Zafaraniyah petrol station in Zafaraniyah ( east Baghdad) injuring 4 people.

Anbar: Yesterday afternoon , 4 mortars hit 2 houses in Al-Hesewat neighborhood ( north of Garma) which is north of Falluja killing 2 people and injuring 8 others including a woman and a child. . .

Kirkuk

- Before noon, a roadside bomb targeted an Iraqi army patrol near Sarha bridge ( 40 km south of Kirkuk ) killing 1 soldier and injuring two others. . . '


At the Napoleon's Egypt Blog: Gen. Bonaparte Defeats Ibrahim Bey at Salahiya.

Labels:

10 Comments:

At 5:16 AM, Blogger eurofrank said...

Dear Professor Cole

Ah, it seems we have arrived at the Massu Moment (see Battle of Algiers)

The military will impose a Roman Peace on the area and are concerned that no politician does a de Gaulle on them and sells them out with a unilateral decision to withdraw.

Senators Levin and Warner are written up in the New York Times blaming everything on the lack of an effective government.

Incredibly the turncoat Senator Lieberman comes up with this old Canard.

Bomb, Bomb, Bomb .....

One does need to remind oneself of the law of holes (when in one stop digging) and with the majority of the electorate against the war cease the talk of escalation and expanding the warfare.

Does "taking action against Damascus International Airport" mean bombing it along the lines of bombing Beruit Airport? They can bugger off. They might get me as I am passing through.

Great care is being taken to avoid Torschlusspanik in Israel, which would lead them to attack Syria before the inauguration of a new President, and the presentation of new Facts on the Ground to the incoming President.

Mearsheimer and Walt might have a point.

 
At 5:26 AM, Blogger Christiane said...

Since some observers don't get this right, I just want to underline that these assassinations have been strikes against Iranian influence in Iraq, by nativists probably at least loosely connected to the Sadr Movement. Likewise, if an EFP was used in the bombing, it is unlikely to have come from Iran, since Tehran has no interest in knocking off its own clients (SIIC and Badr), and, indeed, would go out of its way to protect them.

May be that things are a little more complex ? The SIIC is also a US client, so this may make them less palatable to the Iranians ? Also, the US and the SIIC don't seem sure to come out winning in the fight for power. So the Iranians may try to get the favour of other Shiites branches, just in case. Some say that the Sadr movement is accointed with the Lebanon Hezbollah; this may be an interesting channel for the Iranians to gain goodwill from the Sadr current (if we assume that the Iranians are supporting the Hezbollah). Of course, you are right that the Sadrists are much more independent from Iran than other Shiites currents. I often think that the Americans is doing a lot of psyop blaming both the Sadr current and the Iranians : this allow them to go after the Sadr leaders and militants and untill now prevented and alliance between Sunnis and Al'Sadr. It's interesting to know that these critiques are surfacing again, just now that Al'Sadr has issued a new call to the Sunnis. I'm still sure that a Sunni/Al'Sadr alliance to throw out the Americans is the best chance for the Iraqi to avoid a civil war.

 
At 6:11 AM, Blogger Jason_M said...

It would be less outrageous for a french parliamentarian to call for Bush's impeachment if France were occupying the US and basically paying for what security there was. Plus, the better analogy would be to call for the removal of a cabinet officer or the house speaker. Dumping a PM in a parliamentary system is a much lesser move than impeaching a president in the presidential system.

 
At 6:40 AM, Blogger James-Speaks said...

"Michigan Senator Carl Levin called Monday for the Iraqi parliament to replace al-Maliki. Even if it could be done, why does Levin think someone more effective would emerge?"

Probably he doesn't. Being a Senator, and therefore a leader, he makes a bold assertion and receives accolades for bold assertions. If nothing happens, we all forget. If al-Maliki is replaced, we stand in awe of Levin's foresight. If al-Maliki II fails, we all forget. Win-win for Levin, basically useless for the other billions on this planet.

Will someone please buy a vowel for Carl Levin?

 
At 9:01 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The opponents of the current Iraqi government are saying that they will block its legislations in the parliament. They can do that easily as they do not need an absolute majority for that (unlike a vote of no-confidence,) and hope to eventually force a change in the paralyzed system, somehow.

By far, the most important for the Americans is the oil production-sharing law. They have bought a lot of Iraqi MPs, almost openly by paying them "lobbying" cash. But these MPs will take an almighty risk, since the delays so far have exposed the law for what it is.

Maliki's position will get even weaker after voting on the law, which may get delayed for a long time anyway. If it is passed he will be surplus to requirements, if not he deserve to be punished on top of that!

 
At 9:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

RE: "It is also a bad sign that the Sadrists have managed to get hold of increasingly effective roadside bombs."

Where do the Sadrists get these more effective explosives? Is it possible this is actually American or British ordnance obtained from the Iraqi military? Or does the US distribute ordnance the same way they distribute money-- throw it out the door to anybody standing there who promises to use it properly? So much of of what we send there ends up being unaccounted for.

 
At 10:13 AM, Blogger Dancewater said...

The whole world should be calling for the impeachment of bush and cheney.

 
At 2:10 PM, Blogger daryoush said...

Isn't it ironic that a US Senator Levin, in Tel Aviv call for removal of Iraqi Prime Minister because he government is not independent enough for the Senator's licking?

Senator Levin is number of recpipient of AIPAC money in the Senator, and he is calling the Iraqi prime minister "too beholden to religious and sectarian leaders,"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUV6XEjIREI

 
At 3:26 PM, Blogger The Great Salami said...

So which is it? Either the US is fighting Iranian enemies (Sadrists) or it is supporting Iranian supporters (SIIC/Badr Brigades).

I am confused, is Iran the enemy or not? And why is no one asking Bush why his regime is backing the pro-Iran gangs, AND the Sunni extremeists, be they anti-al qaeda or not, they DID kill Americans.

Is Bush in truth an APPEASER?

 
At 3:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

These talks with Syria over the Iraqi-Syria pipeline are likely critical to both Syria and Maliki. There is a closed Iraqi pipeline to Saudi Arabia, through Basra province, so the Iraqi-Syria pipeline is likely of considerable strategic interest to the Gulf states as a means to bypass the Strait of Hormuz.

Syria also gains influence and even potential US protection from an attack by Israel. Also since the Iraqi-Syria pipeline goes through northern Anbar province and likely needs considerable repair as well as security, there is the potential for much-needed jobs in Anbar province. With the potential for more oil revenue, the Shi'a parties might even agree to some Sunni political demands.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home