Three more insightful posts on what is happening in Iraq.
Perhaps the most useful approach is to compare the narratives of the parties involved. Maliki says this is a clampdown on illegal militias involved in “oil smuggling”. ISCI also highlights oil smuggling and expresses support for “the state”. The British and the Americans seem to agree with this (even if it is truly risky to engage in this sort of thing on the eve of the Petraeus/Crocker hearings next month). The Sadrists complain about highhandedness by a government allied to “the occupation”. This could all suggest that Maliki and ISCI – fundamental ideological tensions notwithstanding – have temporarily agreed to disagree about the question of federalism and instead resolved that the Sadrists are their common enemy. But until Fadila speaks, we will not know the true significance of the second battle of Basra, what the implications are for the local balance of power, and what this in turn means in terms of the impact on the federalism issue and the question of Iranian influence.
Cernig [formatting mine]:
What better way not only to wreck the Sadrist’s plans to reduce Maliki’s SIIC allies to a minority power in the regional elections but also to drive a massive wedge between Sadr and Petreaus? The latter had been careful, of late, to refer to Sadr by the honorific “Seyed” and to credit his ceasefire with a large chunk of reductions in Iraqi violence. Maliki must have felt Mookie breathing down his neck from two directions.
[…] As long as Maliki has the US to back him up, and power is more important to him than stability, this is a big gamble he cannot afford not to make. Sure, if he succeeds he gets a Sadrist insurrection. But that just means he can – delay the November elections in Sadrist areas indefinitely, citing the emergency and so prop up his SIIC allies and thus his own rule; count on US troops being around for a while as they won’t be able to withdraw if there’s more violence, rather than less, in coming months; put paid once and for all to any chance of reproachment between the US military and Sadr. On the minus side, there’s a slim chance the Mahdi Army might mount a Hezboullah-style upset and a rather larger chance that the cat-herder, Sistani, might join with Iraqi parliamentarians who are already saying Maliki should heed Sadr’s call for a negotiated settlement. If Sistani backs Sadr on this, Maliki is toast and so is his government, with Sadr garnering enough backing to become de-facto Iraqi leader almost overnight. But if he did nothing, that’s going to happen anyway come November. Maliki doesn’t have a choice if he wants to retain power.
Let us assume that this is a deliberate provocation exercise.
In this scenario the Iraqi Army attack into Basra’s Mahdi neighborhoods does not go well, but it provokes a national Sadrist response which starts a strategic countdown clock.
[…] It puts MNF-I in a very tough position as MNF-I is justifiably paranoid about its supply lines and the new routes coming in from Jordan to Anbar and terminating near Baghdad are insufficient to adequately supply the entire force. The supply lines are much harder to hit today than they were in 2004 but they are still the weak point of the American presence. […] And that something could be the deployment of American combat troops to Basra, as reports indicate that Marines may be sent to Southern Iraq. The British could provide logistic base security as the Marines bail out the Iraqi Army and take over patrolling activities in Basra. And unless the live and let live arrangment that minimized conflict in Sadr City is quickly put into place, the Marines and the Sadrists will be knocking each others heads in.
A priori I would have guessed that Maliki’s troops are the little dog in a fight against Sadr’s militias on Sadrist turf, and reports seem to be bearing that out. When does a little dog pick a fight he can’t win? I’m not exactly Cesar Milan, but saturday morning cartoons tell me that little dogs usually pick fights when a big dog friend isn’t too far off.
I don’t think that Maliki ever planned to fight Sadr on his own. Through Petraeus we’ve been doing everything in our power to smooth relations with Sadr, but that won’t do for Maliki if Sadr creams him in the upcoming elections. Doing nothing isn’t an option, fighting Sadr directly isn’t an option, so his best and maybe only chance is to commit the big dog and hope the big dog wins.
The problem is that the big dog only has so much bite left in him. The dirty secret of Iraq planning is that the commitment was unsustainable even before Petraeus. Now, after the “Surge,” the reckoning will only come that much sooner. Our own strategy hinged on wrapping up the whole bundle by now – reconciliation, stability, a self-sufficient central government – because there is simply no way for us to sustain a real fight after the “surge” winds down.
We could avoid the worst if Maliki accepts a negotiated peace settlement, but you can guess what would be the first point in that settlement. Unsurprisingly Maliki prefers to go all or nothing.
Mr Maliki, however, has remained firm, apparently ignoring calls by the Sadrists’ leader for a negotiated end to the conflict. “We will continue until the end. No retreat, no talks, no negotiations,” he said in a televised speech.
It’s pointless to talk about American strategy at this point because “we” are not making strategy anymore. Nouri al-Maliki is doing that, and the “strategy” is to pitch America’s exhausted, overstetched army into an existential fight with the Sadrists. As far as American resources are concerned the Sunnis and their ‘awakening’ councils can go piss upwind. The book on the Kagan clan’s brilliant ‘surge,’ in other words, is now officially shut.
Jon H
Whenever I see ‘MNF-I’, I think “Monday Night Football – I? Wha?”
Anyone else?
(And I think the last time I watched Monday Night Football was 30 years ago. Christ I’m old.)
Punchy
Tim, the surge is NOT going to wind down. I wish I could bet my car on this — we will NOT, ever, remove any significant troops before November elections. Troop tours will be extended, more Nat’n Guard units will be called up, and they’ll send the sick and/or wounded back in if necessary. There’s just no way they’ll risk things re-blowing up again.
Petraeus will come to Congress and say “if we remove troops now, everything will backslide”. Backslide will become the new buzzword. He’ll advocate not withdrawing troops until Sept. Troops will have 16-18 month tours.
Svensker
The problem is, once we invaded and the Iraqis did not accept Chalabi as their new and improved dictator, the Bushies and the Neocons had no plan. They were gobsmacked — see Orleans, New. But the important thing for The Boys of Iraq was to get those permanent bases in so, Chalabi or no Chalabi, they’re making do. As long as making do can be sustained without over much interference from Congress/the American people, they really don’t give a shit what happens in Iraq, as long as they’ve got those bases. How else are they going to launch the Great Plan to Remake the Middle East (aka Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran…and Syria…and Lebanon)?
Svensker
Forgot to add, the job of Bobo Brooks, Bill Kristol, NRO, AEI, etc., etc., is to throw enough crap around to keep the American people relatively clueless and keep the pressure off Congress to actually DO something. Obfuscate, lie, make reality as hard to see as possible while making what reality does leak out as confusing as possible, all the while pushing the meme that Really, Everything is Fine, There Are No Bodies To See Here, Move Along, We’re Winning! Enough people are buying the crap still, don’t know about the reality, or don’t care because it doesn’t really affect them (pay no attention to the falling dollar) — so the Bushies and the Neocons continue forward.
LITBMueller
I don’t know, Tim. Seems to me that that Iraqi Army can’t take a shit without an American telling them where to squat. Not only do we train them, but we arm them. We give them bullets and equipment. But, most importantly: we provide them with all of their LOGISTICS.
So, basically, Maliki couldn’t even order what little Army he has to the outskirts of Basra without first first getting the US military to provide support.
So, we are not being drawn into Maliki’s strategy. We’re either gladly coming along for the ride because we already have the same goals as Maliki, or, more likely, we’re the ones telling Maliki to force a final showdown with Sadr NOW.
Think of the benefits of doing so: it provides a “realtime example” of why our troops cannot be withdrawn; it can be used as political fodder against the “Defeatocrats”; and, no matter what the outcome is, the Administration can blame Iran for something.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
It does seem to be going down that road:
Four U.S. Stryker armored vehicles were seen in Sadr City by a Washington Post correspondent, one of them engaging Mahdi Army militiamen with heavy fire.
—
—
—
Rick Taylor
One of the things that utterly baffles me is that the we-must-fight-the-islamofascist crowd has chosen to make its stand by propping up a fundamentalist Shia government friendly to Iran, which now seems to be content to have our troops die to prop it up. Why isn’t there a movement from the right to get out of Iraq?
Zifnab
There was something resembling an Out-of-Iraq movement in the Ron Paul Presidential bid. But, by and large, the Republican Party is controlled top-down. Party leaders tell the affiliates what to think. If you don’t think that way, you can change, leave, or stfu.
You see this kind of dogma at the state and local level, too. I campaigned for one of the Republican Congressional contenders in my district, and she was steaming pissed at a number of her fellows for voting on things that directly, categorically, unequivocally harmful to our district.
There are a great many pissed off conservatives frothing under the surface of this country. They – like John Cole – have very serious small-government, low tax, business friendly issues they keep close to their hearts. But, unlike John, they can’t bring themselves to vote Democrat.
Still, read the polls. You’ve got sizable numbers of Republicans who disapprove of the Iraq War. If this doesn’t turn into a massive backlash in November, when the War takes center stage, I’d be very very surprised.
Wilfred
This is from a decent Arab paper, and source:
worth a read
spanielboy
Sounds like someone learned at thing or two from our POTUS.
Sad thing about this whole affair is the shucking of responsibility by the Kagans, Kristol, Dr. K, Hannity, and so forth. The argument will be, “the surge was working so great, why did we stop?” People just don’t have the attention span to dispute these snake-oil salesmen to say that the surge was only a temporary measure in the first place, and it didn’t meet the benchmarks set for it.
Calouste
So we have another case where some foreign dodgy-man uses the USA to advance his own goals while the American government blindly believes that he is advancing their goals? And we are suppossed to believe he is not going to backstab the Americans the moment he gets the chance? Like say Ho Chi Min or Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden or Manuel Noriega?
American foreign policy’s inability to learn from its previous failures is only really matched by its adversaries ability.
Z
We’ve been pawns from day 1. Chalabi played the neocons like a song, and now we are getting played by Maliki. It is embarrassing.
carsick
Troop morale must be in the sand as their heads spin at the order to switch, yet again, which tribe (or side) they are fighting for…or is that fighting against? Sunni’s last week; these Shia this week; those Shia next week.
When those folks get home we’re in for one heck of a national mental health challenge.
Bruce Moomaw
It isn’t just the reporters saying that Maliki is playing us. Another part of that Washington Post story:
“Maliki decided to launch the offensive without consulting his U.S. allies, according to administration officials. With little U.S. presence in the south, and British forces in Basra confined to an air base outside the city, one administration official said that ‘we can’t quite decipher” what is going on. It’s a question, he said, of “who’s got the best conspiracy’ theory about why Maliki decided to act now.
“In Basra, three rival Shiite groups have been trying to position themselves, sometimes through force of arms, to dominate recently approved provincial elections.
“The U.S. officials, who were not authorized to speak on the record, said that they believe Iran has provided assistance in the past to all three groups — the Mahdi Army; the Badr Organization of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, Iraq’s largest Shiite party; and forces loyal to the Fadhila Party, which holds the Basra governor’s seat. But the officials see the current conflict as a purely internal Iraqi dispute.
“Some officials have concluded that Maliki himself is firing ‘the first salvo in upcoming elections,’ the administration official said.
” ‘His dog in that fight is that he is basically allied with the Badr Corps’ against forces loyal to Sadr, the official said. ‘It’s not a pretty picture.’ ”
Of course they have to say this OFF the record, since to the extent that Maliki looks bad the Bush Administration looks bad.
w vincentz
Maliki is just showing Georgie-boy who the REAL Commander- in-Chief is.
Xanthippas
I wrote this on my blog regarding Fester’s post, and it seems appropriate to copy and paste it here:
One added note. I don’t know if Maliki intended to goad the Mahdi Army into fighting in Baghdad, but it’s awfully hard to imagine how he couldn’t see that would be the natural result. And that American troops would end up dealing with it for the most part. But then, everybody’s fuckups in Iraq somehow become our problem don’t they?
curtadams
I don’t think Maliki is the driving force behind this. Al-Sadr is actually the reason he’s in power now (Al-Sadr took his side during an internal dispute in the Iraqi Alliance). The party that really benefits is Iran. Al-Sadr is the only major Shia power hostile to Iran. If he’s gone, they have effective control over the Southern Iraq oil fields directly and the Kurdish fields indirectly because local politics will force the Kurds to be their client state (no friendly neighbors). Qui bono, as usual.
joe
Those are his
?
Yikes!
Tsulagi
Pretty much.
Yep, you could think of his current move against Sadr as political campaigning. Iraqi style. He’s always been dead-man walking as far as continuing as PM. Hell, at one point we were even hinting at removing him. When there was about a five month impasse at selecting a PM after elections, Maliki was the village idiot pawn Sadr and Hakim could compromise on.
SIIC might also be pushing Maliki on this. They’re the only real remaining power in the UIA. And they’ve had problems. Their leader, Hakim, was diagnosed last year in Houston with lung cancer. Rather than be treated there at Cheney’s urging, Hakim preferred the warm, tender environment he favors in Iran with his compatriots for his lengthy cancer treatment. There was talk of his son taking over control of SIIC, but he’s earned the nickname ‘Uday’ among some followers. Not a good nick to have over there among the faithful. So they’ve had kind of a leadership vacuum during Hakim’s medical problems. Maybe now trying to show they’re still strong and can take on Sadr for power.
Yeah, if he wants to have a chance at staying PM with all the perks and profits that comes with it. Iraqis blame us for anything and everything. Right after us comes Maliki and his government. So Mr. 28%er (probably way less) needs to show that even though corrupt and incapable of governing, he would use force against his enemies. The village idiot wants to show he has teeth.
Yeah, because the IA will melt if they face any real resistance. So while you got the big dog, use him.
Ain’t that the truth. If IAs are wearing underwear, fair bet we provided them. We’ve pushed and pushed them to develop their own logistical capabilities, but they virtually refuse. Far more benefit in padding rosters with phantom soldiers and enjoying the miracle of no-bid contracts; Allah rewards those efforts with monetary blessings.
Once when we tried weaning them off supplying their fuel suggesting it would be a good thing if they were able to do that for themselves, they responded by stopping their patrols. We turned the spigots back on. Regardless of what Petraeus’ PowerPoint slides might suggest, there are no Level 1 ready Iraqi battalions.
That seems to be what Sadr is looking for. The guy is an asshole, and sure wouldn’t mind if he gets to test that 72 virgin theory sooner rather than later, but he does have street smarts.
Maliki demands JAM disarm by today knowing full well they won’t. When they don’t, that gives him some legitimacy in calling in the big dog. Sadr initially responds by calling for civil disobedience. How very Ghandi of him. While ‘rogue’ elements earlier this week crippled more of Baghdad’s electrical generation and grid. Which affects water pumping too. With even less electricity and water, Iraqis will blame us and Maliki. For good measure, take out an oil pipeline too for a little more pressure on the central government.
Yeah, Sadr is looking for a negotiated settlement. If Maliki gives him one, good chance he’s probably toast in the next elections. That would put Sadr on footing as an equal with the government. Sadr is likely also looking for Sistani’s support. Knowing the top turban is loathe to discord among Shia, and especially Shia on Shia fighting. If Sistani were to condemn Maliki’s actions against the ‘civil disobedience’ loving Sadr, Maliki can kiss his ass good bye.
Welcome to the warm, steaming pile of success byproducts that is our adventure in Iraq. Look forward to Petraeus’ next round of PowerPoint proving it. When that happens, maybe the Dems can find another ad to condemn with a Senate resolution to show they’re really the serious adults.
Mike G
They bought Dubya’s fiction (but we’ll call it a War Plan)
(Surge City, here we come)
You know it’s not gonna work, but we’ll give it a Freidman
(Surge City, here we come)
Well, it ain’t got prayer and’ll destroy the army
But Rethugs still goosestep with President Smarmy
And we’re goin’ to Surge City, though it’s hundreds to one
You know we’re goin’ to Surge City, gonna have some fun
Ya, we’re goin’ to Surge City, though we’re so outgunned
You know we’re goin’ to Surge City, gonna have some fun, now
Two tours for every boy
LITBMueller
Juan (not John) Cole sees Darth Cheney in the role of the Phantom Menace:
This makes more sense than saying “this is Evil Maliki’s doing.” Especially when you consider that Maliki is floundering: extending his already long deadline, and now even offering cash for guns. Yikes!
And notice what kind of involvement there is from our troops right now. We’re carrying out a few airstrikes, only acting on the periphery. This is nothing new. We’ve been working with the “have other forces do the dirty work while we lob missiles from outside the conflict” strategy for a while now, especially in the Horn of Africa. Remember last year how we launched air strikes on terrorist targets in Somalia while Ethiopian troops swept through the country at our behest?
Maliki’s battle with Sadr is OUR proxy war. Don’t be fooled.
TenguPhule
Sometimes I think we should just give Iraq to Iran.
At least then it wouldn’t be our problem anymore.