Iran Brokers Call for Ceasefire;
Bush reduced to Irrelevancy in Iraq;
Fighting Continues
McClatchy provides a lot of important detail about Sunday's surprising developments regarding the fight between the Iraqi government and the Mahdi Army. A parliamentary delegation from Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's own coalition (mainly now the Da`wa Party and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq) defied him by going off to the holy seminary city of Qom in Iran and negotiating directly with Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr and with the leader of the Quds Brigades of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Brig. Gen. Qasim Sulaymani.
As a result of those parleys, Muqtada al-Sadr called on his followers to stand down, though I read his statement as permitting continued armed self-defense, as at Basra where the Iraqi Army is attacking them and the US is bombing them. Significantly, he calls on the Mahdi Army to stop attacking the HQs of rival political parties. That language suggests that the parties are suffering from such attacks and are worried that party infrasture is being degraded ahead of the October 1 provincial elections. The southern parties have essentially defied al-Maliki and Bush to make a separate peace.
The entire episode underlines how powerful Iran has become in Iraq. The Iranian government had called on Saturday for the fighting to stop. And by Sunday evening it had negotiated at least a similar call from Sadr (whether the fighting actually stops remains to be seen and depends on local commanders and on whether al-Maliki meets Sadr's conditions).
Al-Sadr's statement is translated here. The main points:
' We have decided the following:
1. Cancel the armed manifestation in Basra and all over the governorates.
2. Stopping the illegal and random raids and arrests.
3. Demanding the government to apply the General Amnesty law and release all the prisoners that was not proved to be guilty and especially the prisoners of Sadr movement.
4. We announce our innocence from any one who caries the weapon and target the government and services apparatuses and establishments and parties offices.
5. Cooperating with the government apparatuses in achieving security and condemn criminals according to the legal procedures.
6. We assure that the Sadr movement doesn't have any heavy weapons.
7. Working on returning the displaced people that moved due to security events to their original places.
8. We are asking the government to take care of the Human rights on all of its procedures.
9. Working on achieving the constructional and services projects all over the governorates.
[Signed and stamped Muqtada Sadr 22/Rabi Awal/1429]'
The NYT notes the irony here that the al-Maliki government is dependent on Muqtada al-Sadr to pull its fat from the fire:
'Many Iraqi politicians say that Mr. Maliki’s political capital has been severely depleted by the campaign and that he is now in the curious position of having to turn to Mr. Sadr, a longtime rival and now his opponent in battle, for a solution to the crisis.'
McClatchy reports civil war violence on Sunday, suggesting that any cease fire has not yet taken hold:
' Baghdad
- Rockets hit the Green Zone (IZ) in Baghdad in different times in the morning and afternoon. No casualties reported.
- Around 5 pm, gunmen attacked New Baghdad police station (east Baghdad) .Three policemen were injured.
- Around 5 pm, mortars hit Dora police station .No casualties recorded.
- Around 5 pm, clashes took place in Ur between gunmen and Iraqi police . Six people were injured including two policemen.
- At 5:10 pm, two mortars hit Karrada neighborhood , one hit Al-Hussein intersection near Al-Hussein two floor bridge killing 3 and injuring 8 others while the second shell hit a barber shop few meters of the same intersection killing 3 and injuring 13 others.
- Police found five dead bodies in . . . neighborhoods in Baghdad . . .
Basra
- Around 7:30 pm, three people were killed due to a fighter plane bombing at Abu Sukheir neighborhood (north Basra).
Diyala
- Around 9:30 am, American planes bombed Jizan neighborhood of Wajihiyah (20 east Baquba).One civilian was killed and another was injured.
- In the morning, one civilian was killed during the clashes between the Iraqi army and gunmen at Kanaan (10 km south east Baquba)
- Around 10 am, a roadside bomb targeted the convoy of Ibrahim Hassan, the head of Diyala governorate council , while it was on its way at Saadiya (90 km east Baquba) between Baquba and Khanaqeen .Two of his guards were killed in that incident.
Karbala
- Around 9.30 pm of Saturday night, a roadside bomb targeted an Iraqi army patrol at Al-Haidriyah (Khan Al-Nus) in midway between Najaf and Karbala. One officer was killed with two other soldiers.
Salahuddin
- In the morning, gunmen attacked a police check point at Bishkan village (10 km east of Dhulwiyah near Balad) .Six policemen were killed including an officer with their vehicle damaged.
- Today, an American force arrested two members of Al-Alam supporting council near AlLaqlaq village (35 km north of Tikrit) one of them is an officer .
Mosul
- In the morning, clashes took place between gunmen and police at Sahachi (west Mosul).Colonel Qasim Ziad, the commander of the first police battalion in Mosul was killed with one of his guards.
Kirkuk
- In the morning, a roadside bomb targeted a rescue police patrol at Tiseen street in Kirkuk city. Three people were injured in that incident including two women. '
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 3/31/2008 12:31:00 AM
|
Facebook
25 Comments:
Maliki does not have significant capital to start with. He has been there for the taking for a long time. What has saved him is the fact the the alternatives are just as bad, and the prospect of excruciating months of haggling that will be almost certainly follow before an equally useless government is formed.
However, the October provincial elections offer a new hope. Maliki will be deposed, but Mahdi (the Hakimist VP and most likely candidate) will not be offered the required parliamentary approval.
The deadlock is then broken by having combined general/local elections in October. The result will remove the current Green-Zone class, almost by definition. The winners, mainly nationalists can quickly install a new services-oriented cabinet of apolitical professional to be recruited between now and October.
The Kurds (Talibani + Barzani) are likely to lose some of their 53 seats which they won by fiddling the Register and by intimidation. In any case, they are too few to have any influence in the new parliament, so will probably sulk and pull their deputies out in disgust.
This agreement follows the model of the agreement which put an end to the first battle of Falluja in April 2004. Once it becomes evident that military victory cannot be achieved, an agreement is quickly reached. The Shi'a don't want to see their cousins being killed in large numbers.
You notice the difference from the later battle of Falluja, where the US military ploughed slaughtering brutally through the whole city. But then who in the US military cares about a bunch of hajjis?
Agreed it is essentially a victory for Sadr. The power of Sadr has been demonstrated, with demonstrations and conflict across the south. The agreement is a cease-fire in place (if it is respected, though I think it will be). The scene is set for much greater Sadrist success in the elections in October.
So what is the US going to do about that? The Sadrists are openly anti-occupation.
Personally I think that the occupation is grinding remorselessly and inevitably to its end. Never mind what anyone says in Washington, Bush, Cheyney, McCain, Clinton. And this was another stage on the road. Downhill all the way. The question for the US is how is that fact going to be handled delicately, to retain US interests. A symbolic figleaf can be maintained in Baghdad, if it is done nicely. But not more.
I know commenters may come back and say, no-one in Washington is envisioning pulling out, imperial America and all that. I know that. My position is that there are severe limits on US power, and the US is not free to choose.
The more interesting aspect to me is that the US response to the attacks by the Iraqi Army was to join in while the Iranian response was to broker a halt to the fighting.
Juan,
I note that you are defining the recent violence as "Civil War". While I don't want to get bogged down in arguing about definitions, I fail to see how this label applies. The violence does not appear to include Sunnis or Kurds for the moment, and rather appears to be between factions supporting Maliki (I'll call them the losers, for now) and Sadr (tentatively, the 'winners').
The violence, to me, appears better described as what would be expected in a failed state, such as Somalia.
The notes of wanton American bombing are infuriating. Another American fiasco and tragedy for Iraq. We must leave Iraq immediately and completely, but we will not leave and the tragedy will continue.
.
This site is checked daily by several offices within the Bush Administration.
Some are looking for leads to identify terrorist sympathizers.
Some are checking to see if classified information is being leaked.
Thankfully, some are hoping to learn if there’s any way to salvage anything worthwhile out of the mess they’ve made of Iraq.
Think of this forum as a way to teach.
……………………………………………………………………………
With that in mind,
I call for a dispassionate discussion of Administration strategy to identify weaknesses and strengths.
Since I cannot discern a publicly acknowledged overarching strategy,
or even the ultimate goal of President Bush vis-à-vis Iraq,
I am reduced to analysis and discussion of the smaller programs and initiatives that make up the constituent parts of that hidden strategy.
Today I ask participants to assess the PRT initiative.
I am not personally able to conduct rational analysis or dispassionate discussion of this approach,
because I believe it is the most stupid idea I’ve ever heard.
In a nutshell, if I understand it correctly,
it is intended to fool the Iraqi people into thinking that the US is not conducting a military occupation of their country
because there are now US civilian bureaucrats [not in military uniform]
who are in charge of the occupation for their particular Governate.
And these US civilians in turn select groups of locals
to sit on advisory panels to the PRT representatives of the Imperial power.
In this way, the PRT's pretend that their Iraqi stooges are in charge.
Conceived for the situation in Afghanistan, where it failed,
Zalmay brought it with him to Iraq to show how innovative he was.
…………………………………………………………….
With the indulgence of Dr. Cole,
I ask members of this community for evidence of the success of Iraqi PRT’s.
I ask for an explanation of how putting a civilian face on brutal, hostile, disrespectful foreign occupation
makes it more palatable to the local subjugated population.
If you can present a concise and cogent persuasive argument that convinces NEA/I to abandon this counterproductive program,
and if they are smart enough to make the needed adjustments prior to January 2009,
I will buy you lunch.
Respectfully,
The avid student
.
Juan,
Is there something to be said for smoking insurgents out from their holes and getting them onto the field? I am gathering from the reports on the site that Iran recognized that danger. Had the battle continued, how much damage could the have been done to anti-coalition forces?
Also, is it your understanding that al-Maliki really didn't tell American commanders what he was up to and then had to call: "Broken Arrow?"
Did I miss something????
I don't think I did.
Whatever happened to Maliki's "decisive battle" against Al Qaeda in Mosul??? That was announced about a week or two before Maliki blundered into Basra. Was Mosul a brilliant feint, a mirage, or just BS?
I live in London. My computer repair man is an Iraqi. He says, "Sadr's public face is he wants the Americans out". The truth is: he doesn't want them out because if the Americans go he's finished. So everytime they make noises about leaving he creates a problem that will suck them in deeper, keep them there."
He also says, "the corruption there - the Iraqi corruption - is infinitely worse than it was under Saddam - and it was bad under Saddam".
For what any of that's worth. It'll certainly have some grassroots weight - because my repairman still has family and friends there - and he's in touch with them.
Most likely, Al Sadr is on the CIA payroll, right?
It's been done before, right? The FrontLine piece said the US paid al Sadr 1.5 million to stop fighting in 2005 (or whenever that was)
I assume, he's on the dole right now. It's the easiest explanation for the case fire.
You can also assume some of that money is being to saved-up to wage an attack on us in the future, if we're still in Iraq.
"The entire episode underlines how powerful Iran has become in Iraq."
Anyone who read your brief to the US Senate on the occupation can hardly be surprised by this outcome.
Once again I note the near total lack of reportage in major media regarding the dynamic of events in Iraq. Maliki's confrontation with Sadr in Basra is the obituary for the Maliki government. The Iraq government is now in freefall. US news media have continued to do a grave disservice to Americans by ignoring the importance of dynamics in favor of personalities and glitz. The rate of change in Iraq has now accelerated, illustrating America's inability to be anything except a passenger in the wreck. "News" of statements by Bush or Cheney or any other architects or supporters of the failed Bush "strategy" will not change Iraq's fall, any more than statements across the airwaves would have arrested Saddam's final fall. Bush likes being powerful, and fears being helpless. But in Iraq at this point, he is virtually helpless. What will Bush do? Issue a statement.
Might Iran have wanted quiet to better monitor U.S. troop movements and other activity? A large scale redeployment to the South could be cover for a U.S. strike on Iran. At least the Russians think this is in the works.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070327/62697703.html
That said, their intelligence folks likely have their own agenda. Our CIA chief just stated he "personally believes" Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. Leading to War redux.
Ref: the PRT in "The avid student" comment.
Save your money, PRT is virtually dead already. The size of each team is tiny and they are far less knowledgable than the Iraqis they want to educate (but who always find ways to fleece the PRT.)
Most importantly, they now live and operate inside US military bases because of the security risk. So they do not do what was planned for them originally.
ref : “Bush reduced to Irrelevancy in Iraq”
imho, I think most Americans would be shocked if told directly: (1) that Mr. Maliki's ‘Government Forces’ consist, in main body ~ of BADR Corps militia, with direct links to IRAN; and, (2) that the recent ‘Cease-Fire Agreement’ between Mr. Maliki and Mr. Sadr was, itself negotiated in IRAN.
i mean, how in the hell can this be true, given how belligerent are the anti-IRAN statements of U.S. political officials, as well as many military officers now leading our troops? it doesn't make any sense! Yes, i know you stated as much the other night on PBS NewsHour, Professor ~ but i still think most Americans would be shocked to see an honest map of the place (next time, ask for a blackboard :)
The revelation of Basra is not that something just happened there, but that the place even exists : For AngloAmerican Occupation Forces, the Zone d'Occupation is evacuated; For NGO agencies, the urban area is no-go; for western media, whenever a tree falls in this forest, there is no one there to see it, tell us about it.
imho, as soon as we realize the strategic importance of Basra we can plainly see that Messrs. Bush and Cheney, and General Petraeus have no strategic vision for Basra apparent ~ and can muster with Mr. Maliki nothing more than this recent, near-catastrophic TheySurge effort to counter the TurfWar State of affairs that exists, and will persist ~ in lieu of any meaningful ‘State of IRAQ’ fantasy of Federal authority.
While the General builds his defenses deeper, and tell us that the number of offensive attacks against them is lessening ~ Iraqis wonder “Why?” Why do the American Occupation Forces refuse to "go ahead and ‘occupy’ the bloody place!" Or, they wonder “Why?” Why, whenever the Americans do attempt ‘to occupy’, they do so by laying waste to some place, and choose to rule over only rubble?
Without the Kurds, whose autonomy is a given at this point, the country consists of about 3 Shiites for every Sunni. The Sunnis no longer form a military force sufficient to threaten Shiite control, either.
So the struggle for domination of the country is now a matter of the Shiite factions, and how their various internal historical obligations and scores and rivalries are transacted. I'd propose that Iran is at the zenith of its influence in Iraq now.
Al-Sadr seems to have quietly gotten himself the winning hand with average Shiite Iraqis. What seems to be holding together the opposition to him seems to be a mix of money, corruption, Iranian and American influences, and old feuds and friendships of old elites and entitled old establishment. I.e. he faces a governing elite, fronted by Maliki, resembling in principle that of South Vietnam in various respects.
As an illustration of the state of knowledge about events in Iraq of our Members of Congress - in this case, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:
Senator Reid just gave his usual opening statement at the beginning of the legislative day in the Senate, upon its return from a two-week break. First he gave a lengthy statement about the housing crisis bill the Democrats will be attempting to formally debate tomorrow afternoon. Then he spoke about Iraq for five or ten minutes, indicating that due to the (next pending 'emergency' Iraq) "supplemental," Iraq hearings are upcoming. [Mostly just April 8 & 9 with Petraeus and Crocker, but with some this week as well thanks to Joe Biden's Foreign Relations Committee: notably Nir Rosen is one of those scheduled to testify to Biden's Foreign Relations Committee at 2:30 p.m. EDT on Wednesday, April 2nd.]
http://foreign.senate.gov/hearing.html
Reid proceeded to state that he was "shocked" to hear on the radio this morning that "Sadr" had offered a truce to the "elected" leader Maliki, with some conditions, to end the fighting. Especially because shortly after the invasion (I don't recall whether he said it was two weeks or two months later), Reid said, the "commanders on the ground" in Iraq had told (apparently the Congress as a whole, or certain members including) Reid that Sadr was a "criminal" and he would shortly be arrested and imprisoned. Reid said he wasn't stating that he agreed with that assertion, but pointed out that it had been said to him, and yet here we are five years later with Sadr seemingly more in control than Maliki in Iraq.
Obviously a few of the nuances have started to filter through to Harry Reid. Obviously too, however, Reid has mostly left it to others to 'worry their pretty little heads' about what is really going on in Iraq by making no particular effort, as with the Congress as a whole, to find sources of information which would challenge the party line, or the status quo, or the distorted and deliberately misleading assertions of the Executive Branch.
Carl Levin (Armed Services) and Joe Biden (Foreign Relations) and their House counterparts are the ones best situated to unearth the facts about Iraq, if they so choose, with committee testimony from witnesses - such as Professor Cole - not beholden to the Pentagon or the administration. It's long, long overdue for their respective Congressional committees to get down to serious business about Iraq - if only to help their "leader" sound a little more 'with it' about the shatteringly-destructive effects of $12 billion a month in taxpayer funds being distributed and spent in Iraq without any meaningful oversight, for years on end.
Harry Reid might want to start learning some of the 'hard truths' about which he has seemingly remained blissfully unaware, by reading this impressive and brutally clear-eyed new overview by Chris Floyd:
http://atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/3632/81/
["The Bush regime has succeeded in fomenting a permanant civil war in Iraq by arming most of the players; radicalizing the populace with continual bombing raids on residential areas, holding thousands of Iraqi civilians captive without charges or due process, and supporting an illegitimate and unpopular Baghdad regime that uses torture, murder and repression as its tools (thus guaranteeing more terrorism); provoking Sadr into an open fight which neither he nor the government can win outright but which will cripple the Iraqi economy and cause mass suffering and even more violent division among the Iraqi people.
..snip..
The withdrawal of American forces from Iraq is not a "good" solution. It will lead to blood and suffering. But there are no good solutions to what Bush and his willing executioners in Congress, the media and Establishment have wrought in Iraq. There were never any "good" solutions. All hope, all potential for a "good" solution evaporated in the very instant that the first bomb fell on March 19, 2003. From that moment, the only thing — the only thing — that one could hope for and work for has been some kind of mitigation of the murderous consequences of this abominable crime.
This is the stark, unavoidable truth of the matter. We have destroyed Iraq, we have committed mass murder; and nothing "good" will come of it." - Chris Floyd]
I have not read that anyone has considered the issue of the status of refugees, both internal and external, in Iraq's next election. They are still citizens of Iraq and natives of any region they fled due to violence.
I think that this issue, to the extent possible, should be given some visibility. The fairness of elections in Iraq are questionable at best for any number of reasons but this involves outright disenfranchisement of a large segment of the population both on a regional and national level.
"The truth is: he doesn't want them out because if the Americans go he's finished"
Explain.
If the US leaves, they take a lot of the london shiites with them, making him the irresistible shiite force, and leaving the sunnis as his only enemies. After the debilitating Blitzkrieg by the Mahdists that followed the sammara bombing, the Sunni ex baathists in the Sahwa may have learned a lesson or two about prodding the sleeping giant. The sahwa and the sadrists will be racing to get to the green zone first but the sahwa boys will be busy with the wahabis anyway.
The Mahdists have MILLIONS of popular supporters. Its like a Hezbullah situation, you just cant beat a movement that big, that deeply rooted in the people and that determined. You cant 'force them out' as they are sons of the land.
Nah, i foresee a more pragmatic sunni approach after the US withdrawal. The Salafis cant be mollified in their shiite hatred but the Iraqi sunnis can (and will). And that is what willkeep Sadr safe.
"I live in London. My computer repair man is an Iraqi."
Enough said. Anything a London Shiite has to say is better left unsaid.
'Enough said. Anything a London Shiite has to say is better left unsaid.'
What kind of moronic remark is that? Apart from being specifically ignorant, I mean. Specifically ignorant because my repair guy isn't a shi'ite, he's a kurd.
The kind of remark cited by pow wow in a "new" analysis, but which we have heard many times, has just been shown to be untrue by the latest events:
The withdrawal of American forces from Iraq is not a "good" solution. It will lead to blood and suffering.
Quite the opposite is true. The fact that Sadr can reach an agreement with Maliki, in order to avoid bloodshed, is indeed a sign of what would happen after US withdrawal. They would reach an agreement. They don't need American help to do that, and they didn't ask in this case.
How can I help Iraq as a lay person? With advice. Al-Maliki is presently Prime Minister, for better or for worse. Al-Sadr is responsible for killing or wounding of a 1,000 people in Basra recently. Those were his militia who did this on his orders. This seems to be a crime to me. The Symbionese Army were responsible for a few killings in the U.S., yet some of them are still in jail. Is al-Sadr immune to prosecution? Elections or no elections, his Party must be suspended, and his militia disarmed and disbanded.The Sadr Party can run in the next elections, but not this one. Its leader has committed state crimes against the people of Iraq! The Party must change name, and the leader must face prosecution!
"How can I help Iraq as a lay person? With advice. Al-Maliki is presently Prime Minister, for better or for worse. Al-Sadr is responsible for killing or wounding of a 1,000 people in Basra recently. Those were his militia who did this on his orders. This seems to be a crime to me. The Symbionese Army were responsible for a few killings in the U.S., yet some of them are still in jail. Is al-Sadr immune to prosecution? Elections or no elections, his Party must be suspended, and his militia disarmed and disbanded.The Sadr Party can run in the next elections, but not this one. Its leader has committed state crimes against the people of Iraq! The Party must change name, and the leader must face prosecution!"
^ Thank you Mr. Maliki, great speech son!
Now back to reality, The sadrists had extended their UNILATERAL ceasefire and Maliki and Hakim used it to arrest commanders and supporters of the Sadr movement. The blame lies squarely on Malikis shoulders, not Sadr.
Dr. Cole, In your Salon article posted yesterday you said that the main motivation for last week's attack on Basra was PM al-Maliki's desire to improve the government's position in advance of the upcoming provincial elections. I do not agree. There is more to suggest that the motives were military and not political and that this latest fiasco was produced and directed in Washington and London, not Baghdad.
First of all, it is hard to see what political gain al Maliki could hope to achieve by using the army and militias to attack the Sadrists-even if he had been successful. His failure has been politically disasterous. Secondly, in support of the view that the main motives were military, I refer to Damien McElroy's article at Telegraph.co.uk dated December 17, 2007 sub-titled: "American troops may have to be sent to Basra once British force levels are halved next year, the Army's senior general in the region has conceded for the first time." The article states "Preparations for an Iraqi operation early next month (January 2008) to confront Basra's so-called "irreconcilables" - locals who pose the greatest threat to security - are under way with the UK lined up to provide surveillance, intelligence and aerial support."
The city's strategic importance to US interests, including its proximity to the main military supply route from Kuwait, the Umm Quasr naval base, Shatt al 'Arab waterway and the Iranian border, is too great for the coalition to cede control to the Mehdi army (notwithstanding they seem to have had defacto control for some time).
A number of bloggers have pointed out the close proximity of the Basra attack to VP Cheney's visit to Iraq. The barometer of whether the US will escalate or diminish its involvement in Iraq will be whether there is an increased involvement of US troops in the south in response to the past weeks' events.
Post a Comment
<< Home