"Iraqi Forces vs. The Extremists"

When Joe Lieberman corrected McCain's "senior moment" in Jordan, he had McCain say that the Iranians were training "extremists," not "alkaydah" (sic).  The two of them and Graham had just come from Iraq, so I guess Joe had gotten the word there that the baddies (Jeish al-mahdi) were going to be referred to as "extremists."   McCain just couldn't keep it straight.  Hmmm.  The enemy is who?  Say it again...

It is clear that US policy is to back Maliki/Dawa/ISCI/Badr Corps (Iraqi Forces) against Moqtada al-Sadr and his "army" of "shirtless ones."  Fine.  Why not?  I guess the US has no choice but to back someone.

I suppose that the powers that be will shift the Main Supply Route (MSR) to the west (Nasiriyah) if the Basra area becomes too obstructed.

My problem with the present course of events is the ruthlessness of the propaganda campaign being successfully waged by the Bush Administration.   The president has succeeded in "framing" the discussion in such a way that Maliki and his assembly of Badr Corps militias are represented as being the equivalent of George Washington suppressing the Whiskey Rebellion.  The noble Maliki is portrayed as motivated by a selfless desire for "national" unity.  The MSM has re-transmitted that idea without serious question.

In fact he is merely acting on behalf of an emerging alignment of pro-Iranian forces in Iraq that have successfully pulled the wool over American eyes.

You may have noticed that no Kurdish units of the "Iraqi Forces" have been brought down from the north for this "fandango."  You may also have noticed that our Concerned Local Citizens/Sons of Iraq (read Sunni tribal Arab auxiliaries) are not involved.  Show me some engaged units in this that are not Shia.

They don't seem to fight so well, these "Iraqi Forces " at Basra.  We have spent a lot of time and money on these people.  They are not making much progress at Basra.  I used to know Montagnard Special Commando Unit troops who fought better than this, but, then, they were well led by some wonderful Special Forces sergeants and junior officers.

That brings up the inevitability of heavy US involvement in this suppression of the "Whiskey Rebellion."  It's just a matter of time.

McCain must fear that terribly.  pl

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1726132,00.html

Comments

[jon]

Ormolov - point well taken. The main southern supply lines are at substantial risk, and devoting sufficient resources to defend them will remove forces needed desperately elsewhere.

I'm sure the Iranian's would be happy to undertake the resupply needs from the East - on their terms. Syria is probably not the best bet either. We do make use of supply routes via Turkey, but it's a very long route, and the PKK might make that sticky. We could also supply via Jordan and the lately pacified Anbar, but that would require bringing materiel through either Lebanon or Israel, and both of those countries bring their own issues to bear, reducing the likelihood.

However, on my map Sadr City is to the East of the center of Baghdad. Bahgram airport and still largely Sunni neighborhoods are clustered in the west.

How's the Air Force been keeping up with maintenance and repair? We may need to start air dropping more than ordnance.

[Homer]

pl: In fact he is merely acting on behalf of an emerging alignment of pro-Iranian forces in Iraq that have successfully pulled the wool over American eyes.

Yes!!

And as a consequence, the US is (and has been) dying a death of a thousand cuts in Iraq.

As you know, Messers Maliki, Hakim, Jabr, et al are not `our guys in Bagdhad'.

The MSM has **failed** to let Americans know who exactly these men are, what groups they belong to, and what they were doing during the twenty plus years prior to the deposing of SH in 2003.

Compare the coverage of al-Dawa from the past with what has been written today.

a) KUWAIT ROUNDS UP BOMBING SUSPECTS. Chicago Tribune. Jul 13, 1985.

The outlawed Iraqi Al-Daawa Party, which professes allegiance to Iranian
leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, was blamed for bomb attacks on the
U.S. and French Embassies and on four economic targets in Kuwait in December, 1983. Five people were killed and 86 injured.

b) IRAN DENIES BLAME FOR JET DISASTER -- AT LEAST 62 DIE IN CRASH FOLLOWING
HIJACK ATTEMPT. Seattle Times. Dec 26, 1986. [snip]

Another caller, saying he represented the Islamic Jihad terrorist group, said his group worked with the pro-Iranian outlawed Iraqi Al Daawa Party in staging the airplane hijacking.

The mysterious Islamic Jihad holds at least two French and two American hostages in Lebanon. Al Daawa seeks to overthrow the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, which has been at war with Iran for six years.

c) 'Walk Free' Prediction Gets Puzzled Reaction. San Francisco Chronicle.
Jul 15, 1987.

State Department officials indicated yesterday they were perplexed by Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North's assertion that 17 men convicted in Kuwait of bomb attacks on the U.S. and French embassies will eventually "walk free." .... The 17 are mainly Iraqi Shiites identified as members of the underground Al-Daawa Party, which is pro-Iranian.

d) Warships in Gulf Convoy. LAT, Oct 1, 1987.

Three pro-Iranian Shia Muslim organizations in Lebanon warned Tunisia against executing seven fundamentalists convicted earlier this week of
trying to overthrow the government of President Habib Bourguiba. The
groups-Hezbollah (Party of God), the umbrella organization for those
holding Western hostages in Lebanon; the Daawa Party, a Hezbollah ally, and the Islamic Coalition-warned of a confrontation and a "sweeping storm" if the "unjust death sentences" are carried out.

e) Kuwait to free 2 Shiites; U.S. hostage link? Chicago Sun - Times, Nov 29, 1988. [snip]

The 17 have been held in Kuwait since being convicted in bombings there against the U.S. and French embassies and Kuwaiti installations that killed at least five people and injured more than 60. They include 10 Iraqis from the outlawed opposition Daawa party, at least two Lebanese,
a Kuwaiti, some Bahrainis and a stateless Bedouin.

f) Rebel Leaders Appeal for Aid in Iraqi Uprising Brooks. Wall Street Journal. March 19, 1991 [snip]

Also at the news conference, Jawad alMaliki of the radical Islamic group, alDawa, made a "brotherly appeal" for the release of "innocent
hostages" still being held in Lebanon. Al-Dawa has close ties to Iran. The result of the hostage-taking, said Mr. al-Maliki, has only been to "create international tension."

[Charles I]

The al-Malaki government is not the government that will govern Iraq. Only 54 MPs out of 275 made it into the seat of Iraqi sovereignty yesterday - inside the fortified Green Zone - for a parliamentary session because it was under mortar and rocket bombardment. The politicians that will govern obviously have some wars to fight. Surely they grow impatient with American obtuseness and al-Malaki's feckless governance.

And Jon has called it w/r/t to the irony that the U.S.'s current tool in the intra-Shia civil war is the more Iranian-connected one while the avowed and popular anti-Iranian nationalist is denied provincial elections lest his party win. The perversest allies, the perversest choices and a soupcon of fate a Bizzarro world make.

[Cold War Zoomie]

Homer-
Twenty years may as well be a millennium here in the States!

Jon-
Tactics are now trumping strategy.

Now? I would have said As usual...

[TomB]

Doesn't it seem that regardless of why exactly this Basra thing is taking place, or why it is taking place now or etc., etc., that all it shows in the end is the fundamental and maybe even total incoherence of our effort over there?

I mean ... okay, maybe something had to be done about Basra now because the Brits had basically pulled out and the factions were looting the hell out of everything including the oil there and we pushed Maliki to do this now before any unsurging is done (or maybe to justify unsurging) and etc., etc.

But, regardless of all that, look at what we're doing: Above all we probably want to minimize Iranian influence, right? And yet here we're taking sides with the Shiite faction there that's the *most* pro-Iranian. And who are we siding against? The Sadrists which seem to have the most ability to turn the country and certainly Baghdad into a shooting gallery and bringing everything back to chaos again. (And with the Sadrists also perhaps being the biggest single political bloc in the democratic country we're trying to build, as shown by the fact that the President, Maliki, got to be President because he had the Sadrists backing in the first place.) And yet we are siding *against* them?

I.e., no matter which way we turn we just can't seem to trip over ourselves, can we? Indeed, may just be the absolute stigmata of a fundamentally incoherent enterprise.

[elkern]

This may sound treasonous, but I'm an American, and I consider Sadr an ally. I view him as the only leader with a chance to unite Iraq within a decade.

Sadr wants us out; I want us out. The sooner we leave, the sooner we will begin to heal - financially, militarily, and spiritually. But we shouldn't leave until some other force can maintain order there, and hopefully do a better job than we have. Who can do that?

Blue hats? Maybe, but who would volunteer their sons, fathers & husbands (OK, children, parents & spouses) to bail the US out of this mess?

The current Iraqi government? Hahahahahaha, oooh, that hurts... Hell, most of them would be glad to see "Iraq" chopped up, as long as they get oil.

Any other forces, inside or outside the country? I'd love to hear any suggestions...

If we want to see a unified, sovereign Iraq, Sadr may be the only one who can do it anytime soon.

On the other hand, there's been plenty of talk about partitioning Iraq. I don't see how that would be good for the US, though it might be good for Israel. Attacking Sadr now looks like an attempt to seal the deal in favor of "federalism", the constitutional euphemism for partition. Or is it just arm-twisting, part of the negotiation process? Other readers here might be able to evaluate this better than I.

What a shame, too... Petraeus' deal with Sadr was one of the most successful aspects of the "Surge" (not counting the domestic political goals - postponing admission of defeat until Democrats gain the presidency, etc). I fear for the lives of more US soldiers now.

So, am I being way too naive about this Sadr guy? Or just too squeemish about killing foreigners for oil?

[note to BlogMeister Lang - I think I screwed up my email address in an earlier post on a different thread]

[jon]

Zoomie - fair enough.

I'd been hoping against hope that the 'Surge' might manifest some actual rapproachment and enhanced Iraqi government operations. Sometimes, the hail Mary pass does get caught. Not this time.

There was no reason for these factions to put aside their differences, and they haven't. Each has simply been positioning for their next move. And why not?

And, as impressed as I have been by Sadr's political maneuvers, he's no Boys Scout, much less a Washington or Bolivar. For all he talks about keeping the country together, it seems clear that he'd like to govern the Sunnis like the Baath governed the Shiites. Sadr has reached out to the Sunis, but the Mahdi Army has almost certainly held its own in the rampant abduction torture and murder that preceded the Surge - as did practically every other faction, most certainly including the Badr Brigade.

I think these skirmishes now are over a matter of opinion between Sadr and ISCI: whether it's possible for the Shiites to govern a united Iraq, or whether governance can only be fashioned on a religious, tribal or ethnic basis. So, maybe Sadr is Tito in my formulation.

The US, following supposed Israeli doctrine, seems quite content with a highly Balkanized Iraq, where no group or territory is especially strong or capable. Divide and conquer, playing one side against the others, and so forth.

[JBV]

Sadr over Badr any day - at least Sadr lays claim to being "loyal iraqi" - what sunni would look at Badr corp members as anything else but perpetrators of high treason? There will never be national reconciliation with badr corp at the helm.

Blech on this horrible mess, the suffering of the slum dwellers in basra must be immense.

if you listen closely you can hear the laughing all the way over from tehran.

#$#

[Jay C]

"Could someone please explain to me why the U.S.does not back what seems to be the only shia nationalist movement that is relatively free of Iranian influence, Sadr, over the (Iranian) bought and paid for militias of Maliki and company?"

To expand on Mo's comment @ 12:43, I think it's an application of FDR's old "our son-of-a-bitch" principle. While both the ISCI/Dawa (Maliki) and the Sadr-led bloc are "influenced" one way or another by Iran, the main difference, seemingly, is that the Sadrists, from Young Mookie on down, have been uncompromisingly opposed to the American Occupation. Maliki's faction have been more -err, "accommodating". Unsurprisingly, since we seem to be willing to use OUR force to help quash their rivals.
The whole thing, IMO, is not about the current state of Iraq, but the future: the Bush regime wants to have a permanent military presence in-country in perpetuity to serve as his "legacy to history", and to handcuff any future Administration. They are not going risk all that by having ANY anti-Occupation leader (still less some mere Iraqi cleric) come to power and upset their neo-imperial applecart. Hence the "Charge of the Knights". Guess Nuri al-Maliki never read about Agincourt....