Sadrists' Civil Disobedience Campaign
On Tuesday morning, major clashes broke out between government security forces and local Basra militias (including the Mahdi Army) that sent black smoke billowing in the air above the oil port. A strict curfew was imposed and schools were closed. Reuters reports:
' "Basra is half empty. There are no vehicles and no one is going to work. People are afraid to go out," said a military official in the city, speaking on condition of anonymity.
A hospital source said "tens of wounded" were arriving at hospitals and that some were too busy to accept more casualties. '
Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that the Sadr Movement announced a "civil disobedience" campaign on Monday in every region of Iraq. The Sadr Movement follows Shiite cleric Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr. The movement is complaining that the government continues to target is supporters.
McClatchy reports of Baghdad:
' On Monday, the Sadrists all but shut down the neighborhoods they control on the west bank of Baghdad. Gunmen went to stores and ordered them to close as militiamen stood in the streets. Mosques used their loudspeakers to urge people to come forward and join the protest.
Fliers were distributed with the Sadrists' three demands of the Iraqi government: to release detainees, stop targeting Sadrist members and apologize to the families and the tribal sheiks of the men. '
On Monday Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki arrived in Basra at the head of a big security force, at the beginning of the major security sweep of that city that produced Tuesday's fighting.
It is being rumored, al-Hayat says, that the prime minister is planning to remove the military commander in the city, Gen. Mohan Hafiz al-Furayji, as well as the police chief, Major-Gen. Abdul Jalil Khalaf. UPI says that he will attempt to institute a tighter command and control structure in the city. Although the US had been putting pressure on Britain to send some of its troops from the airport back into Basra city, Gordon Brown appears to have resisted Washington's blandishments in this regard. The US military is concerned that if security collapses in Basra, it could cause the center-north to unravel, as well (this calculation is correct).
Michael Schwartz shows how Bush crippled Baghdad.
posted by Juan Cole @ 3/25/2008 01:39:00 AM
|
Facebook
11 Comments:
The Sadrists campaign in Baghdad is the start of a long strategic action, not just to complain about arrests.
Behind the scenes, a powerful alliance between Sadr and the Sunnis is taking shape. Its aim is to claim the streets in a non-violent campaign to prepare for the return of all refugees first, and then to form a nationalist anti-occupation government by winning the general elections at the end of 2009 (and possibly the Provincial ones too in October.)
There is nothing the Amricans or the current Iraqi regime can do about it since there will be no confrontation. But they will apply pressure in peaceful ways. A good example is the re-opening of the bridge between the mostly Shiia Kadhimia and mostly Sunni Adhamia in Baghdad. The government and the Americans have finally relented and it should re-open very soon.
Juan,
I take it then that the recent attack on the Green Zone might have been from remobilized Sadrists?
What do you make of the renewed claims on the part of Petraeus that the artillery rockets used in the attack were of Iranian manufacture? Is there any hard evidence for this whatsoever?
Anyone see a connection between the recent crackdown on the Mahdi Army and the recent passage of legislation calling for provincial elections before October 1st? Is there any better explanation for the change in policy? The SIIC which presently controls the government in the south knows it will do badly in upcoming elections so they are getting us gullible Americans to help in their civil war within a civil war.
This would seem to be al-Maliki's counter to Sadr's effort (reflected in his recent disappearance to finish his religious training for ayatollah) in advance of upcoming provincial elections. Perhaps al-Maliki (in an alliance of convenience with SIIC, which runs the armed forces/police, and Fadhila, governor in Basra) seeks to crush Mehdi in the South in advance of elections. (In order to offset expected Sadrist gains in Baghdad, perhaps?)
Isn't it wonderful how, under America's requirement that its empire be both "peaceful" and "democratic", parties are learning the art of waging armed elections, with butchery and ethnic cleansing as part of the routine process of shaping the electorate? It's like Rove taken to his final logic, except that outside the US there are real opposition parties.
Toppling Maliki and his occupation government- or physically destroying it- is the key event in this chapter of the story.
I cannot wish for any more lives lost, but I don't see any nonviolent resolution of the state of affairs in the country with so few major competitors for power remaining and all sides armed and unwilling to submit, and so much blood already shed. Perhaps fewer lives will be lost in a rapid succession of events than if they drag out.
With Maliki's fall, the moderate Republicans who characteristically have analyzed Iraq in the manner of a poor investment (cost, benefits, chances it will pay off yet) and clung to hope that it will yet yield something in return will finally write Iraq off as a loss.
The moderate Republican bloc is just 6% of the population (without them support for the carrying on of the war drops from 38% to 32%) but they are the key bloc- the sole remaining one- of the American electorate that has balked at providing the supermajority needed for ending the occupation/attempt at hegemony.
The latest news via Roads To Iraq is that the Mahdi Army has "arrested" 17 American soldiers. They have also seized 7 Hummers and blown up a bridge.
They link to an Arab news source - Alwasatonline reporter in Basra.
Is anyone able to confirm these US soldiers' capture?
PS: Is it time to invoke the Geneva Convention now?
The rest of the answer to last week's puzzle
http://arablinks.blogspot.com/2008/03/rest-of-answer-to-last-weeks-puzzle.html
Azzaman, on the occasion of the recent Cheney visit, reported on the outlines of a deal between Cheney and Kurdish Region president Barzani, involving US security and other guarantees for Iraqi Kurdistan, in exchange for Barzani's cooperation in seeing to the passage of the Oil and Gas Law.
It was also noted that a day or so after Cheney departed, Adel AbdulMahdi abruptly announced he was withdrawing his veto of the Provincial Powers law, a veto that had been seen as essentially part of an effort to obstruct the process toward new provincial elections.
These are two of the famous Bush "benchmarks": Oil and Gas Law, and progress toward provincial elections. In the case of Barzani and the Oil law, the quid pro quo was obvious.
But what was the quid pro quo for the Supreme Council? One possible - I would say obvious - answer now suggests itself: In exchange for the Supreme Council dropping its obstruction of the Provincial Powers law, the US would tolerate, and provide air-support for, a campaign against the Sadrists in the Basra region.
There isn't a lot to report on the initial operations in Basra beyond what is available from the BBC and AFP, but there is an enlightening comment from the AlHayat journalist this morning. He writes:
It appears that the central government has postponed dealing with the deteriorated security situation in Mosul, until after dealing with the armed Shiite militias in Basra, where military convoys now stretch from Qurnah (75 km north of Basra), to the city center...
A sudden change of priorities, to be sure, and one that has come about right on the heels of the Cheney visit.
Basra - Cheney’s Reward to Oil Pal al-Hakim
http://firedoglake.com/2008/03/25/basra-cheney%e2%80%99s-reward-to-oil-pal-al-hakim/
The gains for George and Dick are clear - weaken or distract those pesky nationalist forces, justify continued troop surge and presence, gain "approval" of US benchmarks ( though not popular approval ) and keep control of Iraqi oil in the hands of men like Hakim.
Dick visits Iraq and cuts a deal - and the people of Iraq once again pay the price.
Since we're speculating, doesn't anyone see it as a good thing that a Shi'a led goverment is cracking down on a Shi'ite militia targeting Americans?
Wasn't that the shortest "civil disobedience campaign" on record?
As Prof. Bernard Lewis likes to ask, "What went wrong?"
Happy days.
Post a Comment
<< Home