Sadrists clash with Iraqi, US forces in Basra;
Curfews in Shiite cities
The truce between the Mahdi Army and the US military has broken down, putting a question mark over the future of the 'surge'.
Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that members of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI, formerly SCIRI, led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim); the Da'wa Party led by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki; and the Badr Corps paramilitary of ISCI have fled their HQs in Basra and Kut, because of the threat that they will be stormed by Mahdi Army militiamen [seeking revenge for the current offensive], In fact, some such buildings already have been attacked.
Eyewitnesses reported clashes on Tuesday in Sadr City, east Baghdad, led by Mahdi Army militiamen against American and Iraqi forces. The latter had encircled Sadr City, while the Mahdi Army roamed its streets within. The sound of gunfire could be heard, and helicopter gunships were seen hovering above.
Nassar al-Rubaie, a leader of the Sadrist parliamentary bloc, announced that it would boycott parliamentary sessions until the targetting of his people ceased. The Sadrists have 30 seats in parliament.
Also in Baghdad on Tuesday, the Sadrists pursued a campaign of civil disobedience in Karkh and Rusafa to the west of Sadr City.
Al-Zaman says its sources in the Sadr Movement confirmed that the Mahdi Army has gained control of the main road between Amara and Basra, allowing it to cut the government troops off from military supplies.
A statement issued by Sadr said, "we call on all Iraqis to show restraint, throughout Iraq, as a first step. If the government does not respect the demands of the masses, then the second step will be disobedience in Baghdad and the rest of the provinces."
Eyewitnesses reported that heavy fighting was going on in Basra, in the slum districts of Hayaniya, Five Mile, and Jumhuriya in downtown Basra. Likewise in al-Ma`qal, al-Janinah, and al_Kazirah to the north of the city.
The head of the Sadrist politburo, Liwa' Sumaysim, said from Najaf. that "Sadr follows the events, and his communiques specify the need to resolve these clashes" . . . through dialogue and negotiation.
Fighting also started back up Tuesday evening in Kut, the center of that governorate.
posted by Juan Cole @ 3/26/2008 03:18:00 AM
|
Facebook
13 Comments:
The Iraqi Army, which is fully under American command as part of the multi-national forces, wanted to draw Sadr into a confrontation. Most of the "news" agencies around the world took part in an effort to create hysteria among the Iraqis.
However, Sadr has ordered his followers to give the soldiers olive branches and copies of the Quran which they have obeyed. The confrontation is now over.
This is another battle in the war for Iraqi national sovereignty with respect to its own population. Like the American Civil War, it's purpose is to establish that the national government is the ONLY sovereign entity in the land. In the Jeffersonian era, states believed their level of sovereignty equalled or exceeded the national government. Lincoln squashed that Jeffersonian ideal and established forever that there is only one sovereign government in the US, the national government. "Thou shall have no gods before me." Any entity that challenges the national government will quickly face the bayonet. The right of the people to participate in government is limited to the ballot box, petitions (lobbying) and access to the courts, but armed insurrection or conspiracy is only a ticket to an early grave. Even the appearance of resistance is not tolerated; you could ask the Waco Branch Davidians how it worked out for them, if any had survived. As a result, the US has one of the more docile, obedient populations around.
Right now Iraq is in the throes of a middle eastern version of Jeffersonianism, where multiple sects within their own country claim sovereignty equal to the national government. They may seek foreign support for their cause, like the Confedracy sought support from European powers.
The US is no doubt prompting a decisive showdown to establish an unquesioned naional sovereignty. The US promotes the notion that these insurgents are foreign in nature, but I doubt that is generally true. Any so-called truce is destined to break down as soon as the national government feels positioned to win. Muqtada al-Sadr may be an early target, but I'm sure there are more to follow. If I were a Kurd, I'd be a little concerned about my future. It could be a long war.
Stray thoughts:
Somalia, which we happily supported Ethiopia invading and occupying, is in terrible condition but virtually beyond American notice unless we are bombing a village there.
The public television review of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which never bothered with the vocies of Iraqis or the voices for peace, was nonetheless a horror showing how madly immorally destructive we have been.
The war-favoring slant of reporters highlighted was shocking.
We have to leave Iraq completely, but we are preparing to stay indefinitely and I simply do not find much concern after these 5 horrible years.
1. Cheney meets with al Maliki.
2. Resolution for provincial elections finally moves through the council.
3. The al Maliki / shia' coalition moves against the Sadrists with US support.
Am I crazy or is this move against Sadr all about ensuring that ISCI and Da'wa win those elections and consolidate power?
Any idea what Sistani's position is in all of this? I haven't heard of him issuing any statements on the matter. Would he be able to quell the violence, or do the fighting factions within the Mahdi Militia not pay him much heed these days?
The new book, A Time Like This, posits that violence in the Middle East could get much, much worse. It's a fascinating read.
-Trevor Wynne
Washington, DC
I linked to this article in my morning posting: [March 26 2008] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: Encouraging “Endless War” - It’s NOT A Good Idea To Pick A Fight With “The 800 Pound Gorilla In The Room” - The U.S And Iraqi Military Go After Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army
At my site
At Archive.org
Also newsworthy: President Bush will ask congress to exempt Libya from terrorist asset confiscation laws now that Libya is no longer a terrorist country but an ally with oil. More...
Add Basra to the list of Bush success stories in Iraq. Let's see...Cheney trundles to Iraq with his massive entourage (did he take his WC this time?), Speaks, and lo, a single man changes his vote and a legislative roadblock is miraculously cleared. After months of peacekeeping (allowing the "surge" to work) Sadr merely speaks of resistance, and the Maliki government shakes, and Bush's "surge" is a puff of smoke. Bush/Cheney had all the options, all the power, all the opportunity to do it right. They blew it. Five years later Sadr has the power and Bush's army is tied down in Iraq. And Bush asks for confidence and more of the same??? Bush's proven record is that he is a world class loser, one for the record books. Sadr is not the problem. Bush is the problem.
The Sadrists have withdrawn their deputies from parliament in protest. This is an exceptionally stupid move which will allow the passage of a whole bunch of anti-Iraq laws: Oil; elections; federalism ..etc.
This is what their enemies want, and it is a repeat of the attack on Falluja in 2004 which also cleared parliament from opposition to the then Khalilzad Constitution.
The conflict with Sadr is rather suspicious. It comes right after McCain and Chenney visit to Iraq. Makes me wonder if the idea here is to draw Sadr into a conflict, supposedly "crush" him before the US election.
If we were going to attack Iran, we would probably want to crack down on Sadr before hand, escalate the violence in Iraq that could be blamed on Iran, and secure Basra given it's strategic importance.
A war with Iran is the only way we are going to see the end of this crusade. At the end of a war the navy will be sitting at the bottom of the gulf, the US bases in Iraq will be devestated and the other bases in the region will be under attack.
And most importantly we know the war will also spark a domestic US response unseen since the first revolution. The good american people are ready to chase these traitors out of the country for good.
Im so confused. On the one hand i dont want a new war. But on the other hand i cant sit and see this current war continue.
By the NYTimes:
"Mr. Bush said the willingness of Mr. Maliki’s Shiite-dominated government to use force to quell violence by Shiite militias showed that the prime minister believed “in evenhanded justice,” a pillar of any free society."
That shows he depends greatly on the ignorance of Americans. Maliki has not acted against Badr or Dawa's militia, only Sadr. So much for "even handed."
Post a Comment
<< Home