Senior US military officials, however, have cautioned reporters on Sunday that the Iraqi government is still working out details of the truce with the elements of radical cleric Moqtada Al Sadr's Mahdi Army.
"We did see a dialogue yesterday. It is important to emphasise that it is an ongoing dialogue process," says US military spokesman Rear Adm. Patrick Driscoll. "It is premature to say there is an agreed truce." The US military has repeatedly emphasised that its clashes are with rogue elements of Al Sadr's Mahdi Army.
The concrete barricade which the US military has been erecting in the southern section of the impoverished area and which had emerged as a key factor in fierce clashes over the past several weeks remained, however.
Rear Admiral Patrick said the 14-point agreement between the Sadrists and the government had led to a "decline in operations from last night" in Sadr City.
The extent of the deal between the government and Al Sadr's supporters, which was brokered by lawmakers and was scheduled to take effect on Sunday, quickly became murky.
Under the terms announced by the cleric's lead negotiator, Shaikh Salah Obeidi, Al Sadr's Mahdi Army militia would set aside their weapons and allow the government to pursue individuals wanted for attacks, provided that there is a warrant.
In return, the government would stop what he called "random" raids and open blocked roads into the cleric's Baghdad stronghold, Sadr City.
Obeidi said the document made no mention of the government's demand that the militia disband and surrender its medium and heavy-grade weapons, points the cleric's representatives are not prepared to discuss.
But Ali Dabbagh, a spokesman for Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki, said all sides had agreed that only the government is authorised to maintain an army and impose law.
"The government has the right to raid and search any place that is suspected to contain heavy and medium weapons," he said in a statement.
Here's the real deal breaker...
'US will keep bombing'
"There is no point that prevents the Americans from performing military operations in Sadr City," Ameri said. "The US forces are and will continue bombing ... the places that are launching mortar rounds or rockets at their bases and/or the Green Zone."
That was the one factor that needed to be addressed the most, as it has caused the most death and destruction in Sadr City... Dr. iRack posted an excellent article on our COIN ops in Sadr City...
As fighting broke out in Sadr City after the Maliki government's Basra offensive, and rockets began to rain down on the Green Zone, the U.S. military had to make a choice: Should it finally go in and attempt to employ an all-out COIN effort in the slum of 2 million? The answer was: kind of.
1. Isolate (portions) of the population from militants and create safe zones. It has walled off about a third of Sadr City to limit the area from which JAM can fire off rockets/mortars. It is in the process of completing a 12-foot wall, has set up combat outposts in the area to provide 24/7 security, and is making plans with the Iraqi government to flood the zone with services to win over the population.
2. Discriminately target militants and disrupt their networks. The coalition has aggressively targeted rocket/mortar teams (Dr. iRack's sources say that this has been largely effective -- rockets continue to be fired, especially during dust storms, but the aim is going down as the top-notch teams have been eliminated). It has also continued to engage in targeted raids against high-value JAM/"special group" targets. American rules of engagement require positive identification of military targets before using deadly force, and the coalition has relied on low-yield precision-guided munitions to limit risks to surrounding civilians (yet, reports suggest, significant numbers of civilians have still been caught up in the fray.)
He went on to dissemble where we f*cked it up, and, pointed out that we're caught in a no-win situation. Unfortunately, this truce seems to only free up Iraqi forces to launch Operation Lion's Roar on Mosul. Which commenced today with Maliki, personally flying up to lead the operation like he did when he flew down to oversee the Knight's Assault on Basra...
Lion's Roar was launched against the Sunnis, in and around Mosul. What a brilliant strategy, actively antagonize every disparate political and religious bloc in Iraq! I'm sure he'll receive an overwhelming landslide victory in October's elections for all his efforts!
I'd like to point out an error in yesterday's post, I'd said that it was Maliki's initiative to broker the truce, as Erdla and Mark from Ireland chided me, they stated that it was Sadr who led the initiative... I'm still skeptical of that view, but, I wanted to put it on the record! For all you Mothers out there, I'd like to extend a heart-felt Happy Mother's Day...!
Today, in an amazing turn of events, a tentative deal was brokered between Sadr and Maliki over the Knight's Assault operation occurring in Sadr City. As it is being reported, a ceasefire is to take place starting tomorrow morning, Sunday. Now, as I allude to in the title of the post, the devil is in the details...
Sheikh Salah al-Obeidi, a spokesman for al-Sadr, said that the agreement would be effective from Sunday.
"We will stop the fire, stop displaying arms in public and open all the roads leading to Sadr City," he said on Saturday.
Ali al-Dabbagh, the Iraqi government spokesman, said the authorities support the agreement and "calls upon everybody to commit themselves" to it.
"The agreement contains 14 points representing the government's vision to end public displays of arms, clean Sadr City of bombs, and enforce law in Sadr City," he said.
Al-Dabbagh further said the accord gave powers to the security forces to "raid and search any place it suspects there are heavy and medium weapons" in Sadr City.
There was no immediate comment from the US military.
Al Obeidi said an agreement had been reached between parliament's coalition of Shiite parties and the Sadrists.
"A 10-point agreement has been reached between members from the United Iraqi Alliance and Sadrist movement in Baghdad and we are informed that Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki is committed to it," Al Obeidi said in the southern city of Najaf.
He added that "the agreement stipulates that Mahdi Army will stop fighting in Sadr City and will stop displaying arms in public. In return, the government will stop random raids against Al Sadr followers and open all closed roads that lead to Sadr City."
"We will stop the fire, stop displaying arms in public and open all the roads leading to Sadr City," Obeidi said.
"This agreement will be executed from tomorrow. The Sadr movement has agreed to the contents of the deal and it has now become an official document.
Obeidi, who took part in the negotiations leading to the clinching of the deal in Baghdad, said the two sides had reached agreement on most issues.
"The two groups agreed on 10 of the 14 points discussed. The agreed points do not include disbanding of Jaish al-Mahdi," he said, referring to Sadr's feared Mahdi Army militia.
The Sadr movement says it needs its weapons for self-defence until other Shiite and Sunni groups nurtured by the US military and the Baghdad government are also disarmed.
Now, essentially, 10 of the 14 points that Maliki demanded were agreed to, what is noticeably absent from the agreement is the continued US use of gunships and artillery that has killed 19-20 people(depending upon which report you look at)and wounded over a hundred others, the US claims only one individual was killed, btw, in the past 24 hours in on-going air strikes! As several of the articles point out the US has not commented or participated in the cease-fire, that is one major detail that needs to be addressed ASAP!
It will be interesting to see how the ceasefire is spun, politically, in Baghdad and Washington. Some will argue it is a victory for Maliki because it allows the ISF to assert more control over Sadr City. The McClatchy piece, for example, frames the agreement as "a surprising capitulation that seemed likely to be hailed as a major victory for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki."
Others will argue that Sadr is the winner because he was not forced to completely disband his militia. (In this context, it will be interesting to see if Maliki still tries to bar Sadrists from upcoming provincial elections if JAM remains intact.) Still others will say that Sadr was allowed to have a "partial win," and that this shows that the American and Iraqi governments are going back to their core strategy of trying to co-opt moderate elements of JAM by allowing Sadr to save face. Dr. iRack suspects (and hopes) that this is part of the story given the overall strategy against JAM articulated in the joint campaign plan (which calls for seperating "reconcilable" from "irreconcilable" elements of the movement). It may also help explain the verbal gymnastics and ratcheting down of anti-Iran rhetoric in recent days--which were perhaps part of a concerted effort to provide enough discursive "slack" to allow Sadr (and the Iranians?) a face-saving exit strategy.
How Betrayus and the Odorous One, receives or reacts to it is critical to it's success. I'll reserve judgment until I see what the US response is... In the meantime, I am encouraged to see some action on redressing the tragic conditions imposed on the residents in Sadr City. Hopefully, it'll bring much needed respite and vital food and meds to the beleaguered residents...! We shall see...
The people setting up the displaced camp in the stadium today didn't seem in any rush, despite the fact that some media outlets had announced that the government was advising Sadr City residents to evacuate their homes in anticipation of a security crackdown against the Mahdi Army militia there.
Only Sadr City residents are allowed at this camp, which has made for some awkward moments.
Several families from other areas arrived Thursday but were turned away. "There was also this crazy guy who drove in with his girlfriend and wanted to stay with her overnight. We had to kick them out. He just wanted to have a free honeymoon," Saqr said, laughing.
Sadr City residents have to get accreditation from one of their local police stations to qualify to stay in the stadium.
The next mea culpa, as I had alluded to yesterday when I said it wasn't confirmed by MNF-I, AQI's #1 wasn't captured. As the article points out, it wasn't the first time...
"We called the commander of Ninevah operations 10 times and every time he insisted it was Abu Hamza al-Muhajir because when they caught him, they asked him whether his name was Abu Hamza al-Muhajir and he said yes," the Associated Press quoted Askari as saying.
This isn't the first time confusion has surrounded the reported arrest or death of a high-ranking AQI leader. "Iraqi officials have reported his death three times, his capture twice and a mortal wounding once."
Elusive critter, even with a $5 Million price tag on his head... Now, the biggest mea culpa, or rather, a presumed one through the deafening silence... IRAQ: The elusive Iranian weapons...
There was something interesting missing from Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner's introductory remarks to journalists at his regular news briefing in Baghdad on Wednesday: the word "Iran," or any form of it. It was especially striking as Bergner, the U.S. military spokesman here, announced the extraordinary list of weapons and munitions that have been uncovered in recent weeks since fighting erupted between Iraqi and U.S. security forces and Shiite militiamen.
Not once did Bergner point the finger at Iran for any of these weapons and munitions, which is a striking change from just a couple of weeks ago when U.S. military officials here and at the Pentagon were saying that caches found in Basra in particular had revealed Iranian-made arms manufactured as recently as this year. They say the majority of rockets being fired at U.S. bases, including Baghdad's Green Zone, are launched by militiamen receiving training, arms and other aid from Iran.
All those armaments and no accusations leveled at Iran, hmmm...
This article has several different perspectives on the Iran issue...
First, the Iran response...
Hussein Shariatmadari, a representative of Iran's Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and editor of the hardline Kayhan newspaper, responded, "When Americans and Iraqis bring such accusations, they are facing difficulties in Iraq. When they face difficulties, they blame Iran for them and not themselves." Speaking to the pan-Arab daily al-Sharq al-Awsat, he added that evidence presented to Tehran by Iraqi officials "was not conclusive".
Next, the Sadrist response...
A spokesman for the Sadrist movement of Muqtada al-Sadr, accused by the Americans of receiving funds and weapons from Tehran, added, "Iran sells weapons to anyone who wants and the Sadr movement, al-Qaeda and the parties in Iraq's political process have Iranian weapons." He added, "Therefore, it is quite natural to find Iranian weapons because they are sold and bought and any party can buy them."
Here's another pertinent quote...
Strangely, the Bush White House now condemns Muqtada's Mahdi Army, but turned a blind eye to its activities when Muqtada was working with Maliki in 2006-2007. And it says nothing about the Badr Brigade, another Shi'ite militia that is equally dangerous, but unlike the Mahdi Army it is pro-American.
As the BBC and MSNBC report today, Iraqi and American troops told residents of Sadr City to take 'sanctuary' in several key locations. Through leaflets dropped out of helicopters and Iraqi soldiers using loudspeakers mounted on vehicles, they ordered residents to go to nearby soccer stadiums.
One can easily predict what is being readied. A massive push in Sadr City! The audacity is astounding, and, I doubt the effectiveness of this tactic. I truly bemoan the actions of Maliki and MNF-I... Well, I'll report further as the gruesome details come in. In related news on Sadr City, GG reported the forced closure of a radio station in Sadr City...
“An Iraqi-U.S. force stopped al-Ahad radio station’s broadcast, according to a memo that carried Premier Nouri al-Maliki’s signature,” Abid Abu-Zahra told Aswat al-Iraq – Voices of Iraq – (VOI).
“The force did not show a legal memo to stop the station,” he said.
“This step made by the government is a dangerous measure that deprives people from the voice that represents their pains,” he added.
Also in Iraq, Iraqi forces are saying they've captured AQI's Number One, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, MNF-I has yet to confirm it, as it was first announced by the Iraqi Defense Ministry and reported by the BBC.
"The commander of Nineveh military operations informed me that Iraqi troops captured Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq," he said.
Interior ministry spokesman Maj-Gen Abdul-Karim Khalaf told al-Iraqiya TV that security forces had "arrested one of al-Qaeda's leaders at midnight and during the primary investigations he admitted that he was Abu Hamza al-Muhajir".
Al Jazeera had an interesting interview with L. Paul Bremer, "I regret the term 'Occupation'."...
In my view, one of the more unfortunate aspects of having lawyers involved in the project was they determined that under international law, we became an occupying force and that was confirmed by the UN security council resolution.
I used to say to the Iraqis it is also not very fun being an occupier, especially for an American; I always thought it was an unfortunate term.
There was nothing I could do to change the noun, occupation. When Iraqis raised their concerns with me all I could do is sympathise and say "I understand you’re problem but there it is, it’s the international law."
The political ramifications and psychological ramifications I think were in many ways more important because of the implication to the Iraqi’s that we were an occupying and not a liberating force.
For many Iraqis they were delighted we had thrown out Saddam Hussein and his cronies. But they wake up the next day and hear that we’re occupying them and look out the door of their house and see Americans in tanks… I think it had an important, negative political ramification.
I think it was the case that as we were unable to provide security for Iraqi citizens, that’s when the coalition became less and less popular.
We could see in the opinion polls we did starting in September of 2003; there was a steady decline in the Iraqi view of the occupation as their concerns about security rose - you could see a direct relationship.
Yep, that's where we got it wrong, it's all in the name...! F*ckers...!
Update-The AP is reporting this; "US troops deny asking Sadr City residents to leave." Hmmm... that refutes McClatchey, BBC, NBC,... etc...! Time shall tell!
The Christian Science Monitor filed this report...
Meanwhile, Sadr City residents in the embattled southeast corner of the district reported that soldiers – some said Iraqis, others said Arabic speakers in US military vehicles – used loudspeakers to encourage residents of the area to leave. The US military called the reports "rumors," but some residents said the messages confirmed speculation running through the neighborhood for days that the government is planning a major offensive.
Adding to residents' expectations of an imminent escalation was an early Thursday raid by Iraqi Army soldiers that shut down Al Aahad, a local radio station run by Sadr loyalists
I find it astonishing that so many of the 'players' in Iraq recognize the situation on the ground, and still fail to act accordingly. A case in point, as Al Jazeera reports today...
A fourth round of talks between the United States and Iran over the security situation in Iraq is unlikely to go ahead, says Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi foreign minister.
"I don't think we will succeed in holding the fourth round of talks ... there is increased tension in the area," Zebari said on Wednesday.
What would that tension be?
"We can't currently make this happen,with both countries trading accusations against each other."
Zebari said fighting in Baghdad's Sadr City between US forces and Shia militia have contributed to the tensions between Washington and Tehran.
Zebari said the situation in Sadr City has "contributed definitely to tension".
"Tension has always been there but it escalated. Since the drive began in Basra, Baghdad and other areas ... tension increased."
So Maliki's Foreign Minister recognizes Sadr City as the main culprit, yet, they persist... And, persist they do...
Iraqi soldiers yesterday detained dozens of policemen and closed down a hospital suspected of treating Shiite militiamen in a Baghdad stronghold of cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.
The soldiers detained 42 policemen suspected of collaborating with "outlaws" yesterday, an officer of Baghdad's security spokesman Major-General Qassim Moussawi's office said.
Iraq's police are being seen as infiltrated by Shiite militiamen, using the cover of their uniforms to mount attacks.
The soldiers also raided the Mohammed-Bakr Hakim hospital, arresting 35 workers, including orderlies and cleaners, and forced its closure, said hospital chief Dr Yassin al-Rikabi.
Hmmm... The National Police is infiltrated... What's going on with the Sunnis and Maliki's efforts to incorporate them into the Iraqi Army...
The Awakening fighters are growing increasingly frustrated that Iraq's Shiite-led central government has been slow to integrate them into the Iraqi police and military services. U.S. officers say the fighters appear to be breaking into factions.
"Everyone in our chain of command acknowledges that the government of Iraq would be wise if they were to acknowledge the Sunnis," said Maj. Ike Sallee, operations officer for the 3rd Squadron. "Just give these guys a paycheck, a weapon and ID cards. Just acknowledge them and get them into shape. Hold them accountable."
Yes, give them a paycheck and acknowledge them, sounds simple enough, eh? But nooo...
One Army civil affairs officer in Adhamiyah said applications had been returned because they were submitted in the wrong color of ink. The Americans say they are not sure if it's just bureaucratic fumbling or if the applications are being blocked as sectarian payback.
Wrong color ink? WTF?
Dr iRack posted another excellent post today, summing up the situation...
The notion of "special groups"--JAM factions that supposedly have close ties to Iran's Quds force--is, in many respects, a useful fiction. Now there is no doubt in Dr. iRack's mind that there are some JAM elements that deserve the title, but the U.S. military has made a habit of describing all JAMsters who violate the "freeze" on armed activities declared by Moqtada al-Sadr last August as "special groups."
More than ever, as fighting has escalated in Sadr City, the fiction of special groups has seemed especially fictional. It's been clear throughout the recent conflict that rank-and-file JAM have entered the fray. Now, to be clear, some of these regular JAMsters also receive Iranian weapons, but they are not trained, directed, or controlled by Iran. They are simply opposed to the U.S. presence in Iraq and are willing to take weapons from anybody who will help them fight Americans.
That assessment meshes nicely with this Dar Al Hayat article...
This explains why Iran's position was as confusing as it seemed to be. It demanded an end to the bloodbath but also supported the efforts of the Iraqi government to disarm the militias "without a confrontation with the residents." This position includes an implicit criticism of the ongoing battles and an accusation to the government of harming civilians in its campaign to impose security as it claims. If reports of Muqtada al-Sader's presence in Iran and his refusal to meet the Alliance's delegation are added to this position, all this leads to serious conclusions about Iran's real position and its negative perception of the accusations directed by Al-Maliki's government at the Revolutionary Guard of supporting anti-government militias, accusations that Tehran considers as nothing but the reiteration of American accusations.
Like all "wars of elimination" that aim at wiping strong opponents out, al-Maliki's battle with al-Mahdi Army is not likely to be decisive in settling the security situation in Iraq. It will not redraw the political map in al-Maliki's favor either. All it can accomplish is to dismember the Shiite power on the inside just as the case was between the "Awakening" and al-Qaeda on the Sunni side. This would reinforce Iran's position as a major power that can single-handedly resolve the conflict between the two Shiite sides since neither side is capable of breaking up with Iran's influence. It would also reinforce the position of the United States as the only military power that al-Maliki can rely on to impose his faltering authority on his opponents.
The first article mentions a significant rise in women as suicide bombers...
"Between January and April, there were 12 suicide attacks by women in Iraq. That marks an exponential increase," Farhana Ali, a US international policy analyst of Pakistani origin, said after a symposium on terrorism at the American Psychiatric Association's annual meeting in Washington.
Twelve women carried out suicide attacks in Iraq in the first few months of this year compared with 11 between 2003 and 2007, according to Ali.
Ali goes on to explain why they're participating...
"So long as this conflict continues, you will see greater instability in Iraq and women will be greatly victimized -- you will see more women in Iraq choose suicide terrorism in the next few months," she predicted, adding that she had warned US officials and policy makers of the threat since 2005.
"It's only in the past two months that we have given serious attention to this issue. Why? Because female attackers in Iraq are hurting our efforts for peace and stability in that country."
"Iraqi women, slowly, over the course of the conflict have been marginalized," she said.
"They were at the forefront of their society. They were in the Iraqi cabinet, in government, in NGOs. We stripped them of those opportunities.
"Many have left but those who stayed behind are also victims of rape and torture and kidnapping. So they are being victimized twice," she said.
"Women use attacks as a protest. In Iraq, they are protesting at the loss of their men, the loss of their society and the loss of their country," said Ali.
I would agree with much of what she says, but, I would disagree with her premise that they're a threat to peace and stability. They are, in essence, but, it's our actions that precipitated their actions, and, we need to address our actions, first! The Kurds are similarly dispossessed, in that, it's our actions(giving the Turks actionable intel and overflight allowances) that is fostering their actions...
Kurdish rebels could launch suicide attacks against American interests to punish the US for sharing intelligence with Turkey after Turkey bombed rebel bases, a spokeswoman for a wing of a rebel group warned.
Derseem blamed the United States for helping Turkey in an interview late Sunday.
She said some rebels want to join suicide squads to avenge the deaths of their comrades but that "combatants are under the control of the organization," which she said is against such attacks. That may change, Derseem hinted.
"We have changed our stand toward the United States government and we are standing against them now," she said. "Maybe some day ... individual combatants might launch suicide attacks inside Iraq and Turkey, and even against American interests."
Kurdish rebels have staged several suicide attacks against Turkish targets in the past in Turkey.
"They want to annihilate us. But we will not surrender," said Derseem. "We have been hiding in caves and nearby mountains."
It's amazing what desperate people will resort to... When will we wake up and realize what our bad policies and actions are wreaking on the Iraqis? I am truly saddened to see this level of desperation, but, it doesn't surprise me! We need to leave now!
"My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will -- that will then prevent us -- that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East,”
U.S. commanders in Iraq are for the first time seeking private contractors to form part of the small military teams that train and live with Iraqi military units across the country, according to a notice for prospective bidders published last week.
The solicitation, issued by the Joint Contracting Command in Baghdad, says the individuals that a contractor recruits -- who would include former members of the U.S. Special Forces and ex-Iraqi army officers -- will be trained in the United States with military transition teams (MiTTs) and shipped as a single team to Iraq. The recruits will live on Iraqi military bases "under Iraqi living conditions and participate with MiTT special operations and convoy duties," the solicitation says.
Last March, the Boston Globe reported that KBR — one of the top profiteers of the Iraq war — has avoided paying more than $500 million “in federal Medicare and Social Security taxes by hiring its workers through shell companies” based in the Caymen Islands.
Today, the Globe reports that another Pentagon contractor, Virginia-based MPRI, has also established offshore havens that have the appearance of avoiding payment of millions of dollars in Medicare and Social Security taxes and also evading scrutiny from the IRS.
In March, House Oversight Committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) announced that he was investigating the accidental electrocution of troops in Iraq and pressed Defense Secretary Robert Gates for uncensored details on at least a dozen deaths since 2003. Contractor KBR is at the center of the probe, with questions about whether it irresponsibly ignored wiring problems.
Today, The New York Times has more details on this malpractice, including the fact that senior KBR and Pentagon officials repeatedly ignored warnings by KBR electricians.
Let me know what you have laying around... I take requests for UTubes, too!
Today, Erdla sent me this tragic story! Here's an excerpt...
According to the director of health services for Sadr City the bombing of the hospital by an American warcraft:
“resulted in the injury of 20 patients who are hospitalised, a number of senior medical workers, also damaged were nine ambulances, and about 40 civilian cars.”
The bombing of the hospital also damaged the right rear entrance to the hospital and the emergency unit. One of our members working in the hospital contacted by ‘phone said the toll is expected to rise as the wounded succumb to their injuries. She added that the wounded were mostly children and some women.
"I can confirm that we conducted a strike in Sadr City this morning," a US military spokesman told AFP. "The targets were known criminal elements. Battle damage assessment is currently ongoing."
However, witnesses and an AFP reporter at the scene said the main Al-Sadr hospital had been badly damaged and a fleet of ambulances were destroyed.
Just outside the hospital, a shack which appeared to be the target was reduced to a pile of rubble.
A shack? Are you kidding me? Ahh, but, it wasn't just any ordinary shack...
The military said it destroyed a "criminal element command and control centre" at approximately 10 am (0700 GMT).
"Intelligence reports indicate the command and control centre was used by criminal elements to plan and coordinate attacks against Iraqi security and coalition forces and innocent Iraqi citizens."
Hospital staff said at least 20 people wounded in the air raid were taken to the same hospital which had its glass windows shattered, and medical and electrical equipment damaged.
Doctors and hospital staff were livid they had been hit.
Wow, sounds like a real hot bed of criminal activity, so what did we hit it with...?
Hospital guard Alaa Mohamed, 26, was at a side entrance when the bombs exploded. "There were five missiles that exploded outside the parking lot," he said.
An AFP reporter saw three huge craters, each with a diameter of six metres (yards), created by the impact of the explosions. Youngsters climbed on top of the rubble and looked for anyone trapped underneath.
Residents said the shack that appeared to be the main target of the air strike was a transit point for Muslim pilgrims.
The AFP reporter witnessed several US helicopters sweeping above Sadr City amid a steady barrage of gunfire.
A bit of over-kill doncha think? WTF are our military geniuses thinking about when they ordered the airstrike? Sadr City is the most densely populated area in Iraq, why are we caught up in MOUT ops? We are only further enraging the Iraqi populace, it's a lose-lose situation all around! I am thoroughly fed up with our misguided and immoral leadership, enough is enough! Please, help atone for our sins, by contributing to the Red Crescent!
Today, Dar Al Hayat published this op-ed from Harvard Professor Roger Owen, entitled: "Understanding The Recent Changes In Iraqi Political Dynamics." By and large, I concur with much of what he asserts, but, I do take issue with some of his premises. Most notably...
I have often argued that, whether they intended to or not, the American and British occupiers have forced Iraq into a pattern of political sectarianism with many similarities with Lebanon. To work, it needs cooperation among the sectarian leaders at the top, a prospect that has become more of a possibility as a result of al-Maliki's actions in Basra.
Yet, like Lebanon, there are many obstacles to permanent agreement even after the exit of the major occupying forces. Neighboring states can continue to exercise a powerful influence from outside. While internal actors, like Hizbollah, like al-Sadr's Mahdi's army, are able to play a positive or a negative role by turns, cooperating with the other sectarian parties where they feel it useful, but determined at all costs to hang on to their militias for self-defence and on the grounds that they are needed to protect the country from dangerous enemies outside.
You don't have to be a Max Weber to understand the importance Iraqis attach to the notion that governments seek a monopoly of violence. If you are powerless you may welcome it. If it appears threatening, you will seek to offset it with military power of your own. Iraq has now reached one of those turning points where, with a large number of its citizens beginning to welcome the appearance of a strengthening national army, the problem of either disarming or
incorporating the sectarian militias has at last reached the political table.
Even if there is still no consensus as to how it can most properly be
addressed.
I'd say that the prospect of cooperation amongst the major political blocs has been diminished by the current Knight's Assault operation of Maliki, in both Basra and most certainly Sadr City! As I pointed out in this post , this rhetoric is not gonna win him any friends...
Iraq's prime minister has threatened to disarm Shia militias and Sunni fighters by force if they refuse to lay down their weapons.
The tough talk from Nuri al-Maliki, who launched a crackdown on Shia groups last month, came as at least 13 people died on Wednesday in the latest clashes in Baghdad's Sadr City.
Al-Maliki said that the al-Mahdi army of Muqtada al-Sadr, a Shia leader, along with groups such as al-Qaeda in Iraq must be dissolved.
He demanded that they hand over their weapons, stop interfering in state affairs, give up wanted men and stop running their own courts.
"The alternative is the continuation of force and clashes until we reach the end, to get rid of the weapons and the gangs who are carrying weapons," he said.
"We can't build a state along with militias."
That's a piss-poor way of extending your hand across the aisle... I would also dispute the notion that the Iraqi people are beginning to embrace the strengthening National Army, as I've posted about before, the use of the IA in Sadr City has been rejected by all the Political Parties in parliament with the exception of Maliki's SCIRI party and Dawa which is also affiliated with Maliki... We're talking about opposition from the Sunnis, Shi'a, and Kurds! So where's the love...?
Also, Maliki failed to get this memo from Betrayus...
"The important focus has to be on the way ahead and Iran truly wanting its neighbour to the west... a fellow Shia-led government, to succeed, so there can be a constructive relationship," Petraeus said.
"I think it's very important to recognise that the Sadr trend, as a political movement, has every reason to be engaged in the political spectrum, in the political arena, in Iraq."
"It represents an important constituency in the citizenry of Iraq."
Juan Cole recently delved into the hazards of our Sunni policy in "Is the U.S. creating another Al- Qaeda in Iraq...?"
Given these political and sociological realities in Iraq the emergence and strengthening of the Al-Sahwa forces is a matter of concern. By arming a Sunni segment of the population, which had been close to Saddam Hussein, the U.S. is re-enforcing sectarian and political divisions within Iraq. The Al-Sahwa, much like the Taliban, is attempting to achieve its religious and political aims through the U.S. The activities of Al-Sahwa clearly demonstrates this fact. In February this year, the group suspended cooperation with the Coalition Forces and demanded resignation of the Police Chief of Diyala Province, who happens to be a Shia.
The common people still live in the midst of fear as according to them members of the Al-Sahwa have merely changed allegiance from Saddam Hussien to the Coalition Forces. A representative from the Iraqi Interior Ministry has expressed the opinion that Al-Sahwa has emerged as third security force in the country along with the Army and Police. Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki has agreed that intelligence reports establish that the Al-Qaeda operatives have been able to sneak into the Al-Sahwa groups creating major security concerns. The members of the Al-Sahwa are operating with a strategic purpose in mind and have clearly stated that they will resist any attempt by the U.S. to abandon the group after the short-term goals of the Coalition forces are achieved. In an interview with Patrick Cockburn, one of the Al-Sahwa leaders threatened to go war against the U.S. forces and Iraqi government if the demands of his group were not complied with.
Under these given conditions will the Al-Sahwa emerge any different from the Al-Qaeda after the Coalition Forces withdraw and these armed Sunnis are deprived of any role in the regular Iraqi Army?
What a Cluster F*ck! BTW, we killed two 'outlaws' today in Sadr City...! If ya have a little extra time, Pepe Escobar wrote an excellent article; The Iranian Chessboard
Today marks the fifth anniversary of Commander Codpiece's swaggering across the deck of the USS Lincoln, all dolled up in his flight suit, and, boldly proclaiming that major combat operations have ended...! Meanwhile, fluttering high above the podium was the banner proudly proclaiming "Mission Accomplished!" In honor of this infamous anniversary, I offer you this nifty little anniversary gift! Have fun!
Let's look back on the various different spins on the banner the WH has put forward over the years...
The president told reporters the sign was put up by the Navy, not the White House.
"I know it was attributed somehow to some ingenious advance man from my staff -- they weren't that ingenious, by the way," the president said Tuesday.
-snip-
White House spokesman Scott McClellan told CNN that in preparing for the speech, Navy officials on the carrier told Bush aides they wanted a "Mission Accomplished" banner, and the White House agreed to create it.
"We took care of the production of it," McClellan said. "We have people to do those things. But the Navy actually put it up."
“I wish the banner was not up there,” White House political strategist Karl Rove said Thursday at an editorial board meeting with The Columbus Dispatch in Ohio. “I’ll acknowledge the fact that it has become one of those convenient symbols.”
Rove echoed Bush’s contention that the phrase referred to the carrier crew’s completing their 10-month mission, not the military’s completing its mission in Iraq.
After shifting explanations, the White House eventually said the "Mission Accomplished" phrase referred to the carrier's crew completing its 10-month mission, not the military completing its mission in Iraq. Bush, in October 2003, disavowed any connection with the "Mission Accomplished" message. He said the White House had nothing to do with the banner; a spokesman later said the ship's crew asked for the sign and the White House staff had it made by a private vendor.
"President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific and said `mission accomplished' for these sailors who are on this ship on their mission," White House press secretary Dana Perino said Wednesday. "And we have certainly paid a price for not being more specific on that banner. And I recognize that the media is going to play this up again tomorrow, as they do every single year."
She said what is important now is "how the president would describe the fight today. It's been a very tough month in Iraq, but we are taking the fight to the enemy."
Here's some critical snippets from Shrub's speech...
• Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.
• We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people.
• The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq.
• The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.
• Other nations in history have fought in foreign lands and remained to occupy and exploit. Americans, following a battle, want nothing more than to return home. And that is your direction tonight.
And, finally, here's an awesome takedown of the MSM's salacious responses to Shrub's performance...
On May 1, 2003, Richard Perle advised, in a USA Today Op-Ed, "Relax, Celebrate Victory." The same day, exactly five years ago, President Bush, dressed in a flight suit, landed on the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln and declared an end to major military operations in Iraq -- with the now-infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner arrayed behind him in the war's greatest photo op.
Chris Matthews on MSNBC called Bush a "hero" and boomed, "He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics." He added: "Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It's simple." PBS' Gwen Ifill said Bush was "part Tom Cruise, part Ronald Reagan." On NBC, Brian Williams gushed, "The pictures were beautiful. It was quite something to see the first-ever American president on a -- on a carrier landing."
Bob Schieffer on CBS said: "As far as I'm concerned, that was one of the great pictures of all time." His guest, Joe Klein, responded: "Well, that was probably the coolest presidential image since Bill Pullman played the jet fighter pilot in the movie Independence Day. That was the first thing that came to mind for me." Everyone agreed the Democrats and antiwar critics were now on the run.
When Bush's jet landed on an aircraft carrier, American casualties stood at 139 killed and 542 wounded.
Since that day we've added 3,912 KIA's and 28,853 WIA's, sounds like the end of major military operations to me! Definitely, Mission Accomplished...!
Maliki tells the PM Delegation: 'Shut Up or You're Next'...
Iraq's prime minister has threatened to disarm Shia militias and Sunni fighters by force if they refuse to lay down their weapons.
The tough talk from Nuri al-Maliki, who launched a crackdown on Shia groups last month, came as at least 13 people died on Wednesday in the latest clashes in Baghdad's Sadr City.
Al-Maliki said that the al-Mahdi army of Muqtada al-Sadr, a Shia leader, along with groups such as al-Qaeda in Iraq must be dissolved.
He demanded that they hand over their weapons, stop interfering in state affairs, give up wanted men and stop running their own courts.
"The alternative is the continuation of force and clashes until we reach the end, to get rid of the weapons and the gangs who are carrying weapons," he said.
"We can't build a state along with militias."
Well, well, give up willingly or we'll continue to hunt you down...
As Badger points out...
Prime Minister Maliki gave his response on Wednesday to the cross-party group of legislators that conducted a sit-in in Sadr City on Sunday and demanded and end to the fighting and an investigation of human rights abuses. Maliki told them the attacks in Sadr City will continue until the Mahdi Army is disarmed and dissolved (this is the first time Maliki has openly said that is the aim); he associated the Mahdi Army with AlQaeda and others as groups to be terminated; he said nothing about the Badr organization which is his own party's militia; he told the legislators it is they who are are responsible for the prolongation of the fighting; and in not-so-thinly veiled terms he threatened the legislators, telling them that if they continue to object, they could be charged with inciting to violence and fitna.
You're either with him, or you're against him...! Can you believe the audacity? Is Maliki determined to have every bloc turn against him? Apparently... (also from Badger's translation)
...Maliki threatened the voices of those within the system who criticize the government's military operations against armed groups, and he accused them of being instigators stirring up the state, adding: "These people--whether they are members of parliament or members of political blocs or parties, or [even] members of the government, who are not hesitant about stirring up fitna--these people will bear the responsibility". The Prime Minister said: "I say to them: Be patient because the affair will come to an end, and the judiciary is available, because it is you who are pouring oil on the fires and fanning the flames of fitna."
Got that? It's their fault they're in that mess, it wasn't Maliki's assault on Basra and Sadr City...! So what does Sec. Gates have to say...
US Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates admitted on Tuesday that the reduction in US troop casualties in recent months had ended in the past few weeks, because of the fighting in Sadr City in the capital.Over 40 US troops have been killed in April. Gates also brandished a second aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf at Iran, which the US accuses of supplying the Mahdi Army with arms that are used against US troops.
Juan Cole further points out the flaw in Maliki's grand scheme...
Professor Juan Cole, an expert on Iraq from the University of Michigan, told Al Jazeera that efforts to tackle al-Qaeda in Iraq, a Sunni group, had to some extent succeeded.
"Now Maliki and the American are turning their sights on the other major armed group outside the government," he said.
"There will be a lot of violence if Maliki attempts to eliminate the al-Mahdi army."
"The Sadr movement is a very large social movement, the Mahdi army is to some extent street gangs and young men with guns and you can't crush a thing like that very easily, its organic."
"You can't take a social movement out and shoot it."
Clashes between fighters and US and Iraqi security forces in the predominantly Shia neighbourhood of Sadr City have killed more than 900 people, according to Iraqi officials.
"There were 925 martyrs in Sadr City and 2,605 others have been wounded," Tehseen Sheikhly, spokesman for the government's Baghdad security plan, said.
Wow, that's a lot of Militia men killed and wounded, if there were no innocents killed or wounded as the US always claims... This is a sorry situation and it looks like there's no end in sight!
Which brings me to a point I'd like to make, in that, while we're engaging the enemy in MOUT operations in the slums of Sadr City, how many innocents are caught in the crossfire? Is this counter insurgency fight really achieving the intended result? Has it produced any tangible results? I'd say we're actually losing ground, rather than gaining ground! For every militant we slay, two more are made with the loss of a family member caught in the crossfire!
Let's be clear about one constant refrain I hear about the bad guys cowardly hiding behind the skirts of innocents... For instance; "Why are they putting their families and friends and neighbors in danger," he asked me. "Why are they shooting from rooftops of civilian buildings?" Okay, how about the fact it's their home they're defending and we're the aggressor along with Maliki's Badr Brigades infested Iraqi Army... Do you expect them to mass in one designated area and be mown down by Artillery strikes or Hellfire missiles alongside Apaches...? Let's get real here, folks!
“The U.S. shelling in sectors 10 and 11 in Sadr City from 11:00 am until 6:00 pm on Tuesday left 24 dead and 60 wounded, most of them women and children,” the source, who asked for anonymity, told Aswat al-Iraq – Voices of Iraq – (VOI).
Sadr City, a stronghold of Sadr's Mahdi Army militias, has been witnessing armed clashes since Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced last month the commencement of a security operation codenamed Saulat al-Forsan (Knights' Assault) in the port city of Basra, Iraq's second largest province and an oil-hub, 590 km south of Baghdad, which he said targeted "outlaws."
In this photo 2 year old Ali Hussein is seen being pulled from the rubble of his family’s home in Sadr City Tuesday, April 29, 2008.
Ali’s home was one of four destroyed by U.S. missiles.
Ali died in hospital a few hours later.
Now, let's look at what many Iraqis are now demanding...
Cross-party group called for a human-rights investigation into the Sadr City attacks
There has been unusually blatant mis-representation of the parliamentary sit-in in Sadr City yesterday in the corporate media and elsewhere, the gist of the media strategy being to leave out three key points.
(1) The group included members of every major parliamentary political party except for the Supreme Council, and the Dawa Party, which are the main Shiite parties supporting the Maliki administration.
(2) The delegation, in its final statement, called not only for an end to the military operations against Sadr City, and a lifting of the blockade. It also called for an investigation into the human-rights violations that Sadr City residents have been subjected to.
(3) The delegation said the government should coordinate with the Sadrist organization in any arrest operations it wants to carry out in Sadr City, rather than attacking them.
Interesting, everybody but, Maliki and Betrayus wants us to lift the siege... Very interesting... They want al-Sadr to have his 60,000 strong militia to lay down their arms before they will allow the Sadrists to participate in the political process, how far will that go...? Here's a good synopsis...
Al Sadr has, over the past year, been taught several lessons:
* Unilaterally declaring a ceasefire does not protect you from being attacked;
* Participating in the political process does not protect you from being attacked;
* Allowing Tehran to broker a ceasefire in Basra does not protect you from being attacked in Baghdad;
* If you have a political perspective (unified state, rapid U.S. troop withdrawal) that puts you at odds with other power centers, you are at risk.
Would you disarm...? Sounds like a rock and a hard spot... Gawd, I hate this war and this Maladministration...!
Today, Sunday, an amazing scene unfolded in Sadr City. Over 50 members of parliament, representing members from all parties in the Iraqi parliament, except, most notably members of Maliki's own Sciri party and Dawa... As the NY Times reports...
...members of Parliament from across the political spectrum — with the exception of the Shiite parties that are part of the government — appeared to be trying to transcend the fight for power and focus on the terrible conditions for residents of Sadr City, a sprawling Shiite slum in the capital, where fighting has gone on for more than a month. “What is different about this delegation is that it is composed of all kinds of Iraqis,” said Azzad Barbani, a Parliament member from the Kurdistan Democratic Party, one of 40 members who participated in the protest Sunday.
“The situation is so bad,” he said, adding, “But from a political point of view, the solution is dialogue, without getting rid of any bloc in Parliament.”
“We want to solve the problem peacefully,” said Dr. Mustafa al-Heeti, a Sunni member of Parliament from Anbar province who led the delegation on Sunday.
The residents of Sadr City “are Iraqis,” he said. “They are very poor people with very few services, and the military action has caused so much loss of life.”
The NY Times only mentions 40 MPs, but, Voices of Iraq (VOI) reports...
More than 50 lawmakers representing different blocs staged on Sunday a sit-in demanding the blockade imposed on the eastern Baghdad district of Sadr City for three weeks now be lifted and for military operations to cease, a legislator from the Sadrist bloc, or Iraqis loyal to Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr, said.
And...
Shanshal said that the sit-in was attended by Safiya al-Suhail, an independent member of parliament, Ahmed Radi, an MP from the Sunni Iraqi Accordance Front (IAF), Samira al-Musawi, an MP from the Shiite Unified Iraqi Coalition (UIC) and Mustafa al-Lahiti, a lawmaker from the Arab Bloc for National Dialogue.
Meanwhile as they're staging this Sit-In, nearby, the US launches a 'vicious attack' in Sadr City... As GG reports...
The Americans launched a “reckless” assault on Sadr city during the sit-in by GZ parliamentarians:
Aswat al-Iraq quote the MP from the Sadrist bloc Maha Adel as saying in a telephone conversation with their reporter that:
“U.S. aircraft and armoured vehicles launched a reckless attack against Sadr City”
that the American attack had been “vicious” and that they had seen a person killed by sniper fire.
Vicious would be an understatement if they used clusterbombs...
Deputy says there is proof the US is using cluster bombs in Sadr City
A member of the health and environment committee of the Iraqi legislature, Liqaa Al-Yassin (Sadrist) says Iraqi authorities have medical and forensic proof that the Americans have been using cluster bombs in their air-strikes on Sadr City, the proof being in the form of the type of marks these weapons leave on the bodies of the dead and wounded.
Honestly, this madness needs to stop ASAP! Their blood is on our hands, folks...!
In today's NY Times, I was left with some questions about what really do we know about Iran's actions, and, who are they supposedly training and arming? Further along, as Sen. Feinstein states: “This is not a new thing,” she said of Iran’s involvement. “Why all of a sudden do the sabers start to rattle?” A very good question!
Some intelligence and administration officials said Iran seemed to have carefully calibrated its involvement in Iraq over the last year, in contrast to what President Bush and other American officials have publicly portrayed as an intensified Iranian role.
It remains difficult to draw firm conclusions about the ebb and flow of Iranian arms into Iraq, and the Bush administration has not produced its most recent evidence.
But interviews with more than two dozen military, intelligence and administration officials showed that while shipments of arms had continued in recent months despite an official Iranian pledge to stop the weapons flow, they had not necessarily increased.
So what's the deal? As the article claims repeatedly, Iran's Quds forces is training and arming Shiite militias, what it fails to do is say which militias they're training... Is it Dawa, Sciri's Badr Brigades, or Sadr's JAM/Mahdi Army, amongst several others?
Iran seems to have focused instead on training Iraqi Shiite fighters inside Iran, though the exact number remains unclear. Some officials said only handfuls of fighters at a time had recently trained in Iran. At the same time, Iran has sought to retain political and economic influence over a variety of Shiite factions, not just the most extremist militias, known as “special groups.”
“They don’t want to be identified with activities that might be seen by the international community as illegitimate,” a senior official familiar with the intelligence about Iran said in an interview.
Iran has sought to spread its influence inside Iraq not only by its support to militias, officials said, but also through legitimate economic assistance, in particular across the oil-rich Shiite south.
The Iranians also support a number of Shiite parties and militias — including providing weapons to militias fighting the Shiite-led government in Baghdad as well as to militias supporting that government.
Rather generic and inconclusive in my book... Where's the beef? Or rather, the Dossier...
At the White House, the Pentagon, the intelligence agencies and the military headquarters in Baghdad, officials declined to detail publicly the extent of Iran’s support for fighters in Iraq, referring instead only in broad terms to training, equipping and financing Shiite militias.
But in the wake of his briefings to Congress on April 8 and 9, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the senior commander, ordered his subordinates to prepare a public dossier on Iranian involvement as part of the administration’s efforts to expose Iran’s covert activities and sustain support for the war, which is increasingly unpopular at home.
Publication of the dossier — which includes pages of charts and photographs of seized Iranian-made weapons — has been widely expected but has now been delayed while the government of Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, confronts Iran diplomatically with new evidence of Iranian assistance to Shiite militias, one of the officials said.
The administration’s focus on Iran has raised alarms among the war’s staunchest critics, who accuse the White House of overstating the threat and laying the groundwork for military action against Iran.
I definitely concur with the overstating part... The last thing we need to do is bomb Iran...
Here's another look at what is in play with Basra and the tangled web created by Maliki, the US, and Iran...
Ultimately, the Basra battle has multiple political dimensions in addition to the oil dimension. These include the conflict between the Shiite parties in the south (Supreme Council, Sader's Movement, al-Fadeela Party, and al-Da'wa Party and its different branches), the powerful militias engaged in stealing and smuggling oil, and the disagreement over whether or not the Basra province will support the proposal made by Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim's Supreme Council to form a southern district that includes the province of Basra (a proposal vehemently rejected by other Shiite parties) and other southern and central provinces. Moreover, the battle represents a significant confrontation between the US and Iran which has been expanding its influence in Basra through its multiple intelligence agencies. This battle is therefore part of the struggle between Washington and Tehran in the Middle East as the case is in Lebanon and Gaza.
The Sadr Movement claims that the timing of the battle of Basra was determined by its decision to participate in the upcoming provincial elections and the attempt to prevent its candidates from winning them. It is worth mentioning that the Sad Movement had previously boycotted these elections allowed the candidates of the Supreme Council and Al-Fadeela Party to win those elections.
Early this morning, Erdla from GG left me this interesting tidbit on al-Sadr...
Al-Sadr is reportedly going to end the Mahdi Army standdown. According to the report in al-Khaleej linked to above an anonymous “high ranking” GZG security told al-Khaleej that he had received intelligence information that al-Sadr would lift the freeze on Mahdi army activity today and that he expected them to be active starting tomorrow.
The report also quotes al-Sadr’s spokesman in Najaf, Sheikh Salah al-Obaidi, as having told al-Khaleej that al-Sadr would make an important statement about the situation in Basrah and Sadr City in Baghdad, in response to the green zone government’s intensification of its operations against the his followers. He added that he could not say more until after Friday prayers."
So, as I was skimming the headlines today for any news on Iraq, and, looking for specific references to al-Sadr and the message, I ran across this! My jaw dropped... I could not believe my eyes! Is McCain really that deluded...?
Here is a decent translation of al-Sadr's message...
A statement by Moqtada alSadr was read out at a mosque in Sadr City on Friday April 25, explaining the meaning of the "open war until liberation" that he warned of in a statement last Saturday.
"This is in fact the aim of the honorable resistance, which should be our pride and that of all Iraqis--indeed of all Muslims and of all free people throughout the world. And we will not permit the resistance which targets the occupation, without [targeting] Iraqis, to become criminal*, in the way that the destroyer turned pilgrims of the Imam Husayn to crime ...--which god forbid--because jihad is until victory.
You, brothers in the Iraqi army and police, and you, brothers in the Army of the Imam Mahdi: Enough of spilling of [each others'] blood. Concentrate on the infiltrators and the defamed [occupier]. And let us become a single hand for the implementation of justice, and security, and the good, and support for the resistance in all its types, so that Iraq can become a secure and confident Iraq, with respect to its land, with respect to its people, and with respect to its neighbors."
Well, al-Sadr is taking off the gloves and calling off the ceasefire!
Let me refresh your memory on what this entails... This site offers some history and probable outcomes...
Fast forward to August 2007. The surge is in full bloom and Sadr declares a "freeze" on JAM's armed activities. His goals were many: avoid another 2004-style clash with the Americans; rehabilitate JAM's increasingly criminal reputation; and allow coalition forces to purge his ranks of the worst Iranian-backed factions, thereby enhancing his command-and-control. The effects of the freeze were profound. Go back and look at all those MNF-I slides from the September and March Petraeus testimonies. The steepest decline in violence occurred once the JAM ceasefire took hold
.
Recent events in Iraq have now put this in jeopardy. In the wake of Maliki's ongoing offensive in Basra, the JAM ceasefire has teetered on the brink of total collapse. True, there has been some apparent political benefits. Da'wa, ISCI, the Kurds, and the Suni IIP have all rallied around the Prime Minister against JAM. As Ambassador Crocker recently noted: "The prime minister, the Iraqi government and the broad political leadership, since the Basra and Baghdad events that began last month, have been unified in their view that the time has come for an end to militia presence." Condi Rice went so far as to claim that "we've seen the coalescing of a center" in Iraqi politics. "The Sunni leadership, the Kurdish leadership and elements of the Shia are working together better than at any time."
But the danger in cornering Sadr/JAM is profound. If this is not handled in the right way, the ceasefire may completely shatter. And, if this happens, Iraq is screwed.
This is why we have to watch events in Sadr City very carefully. The fighting has been brutal over the past month, with hundreds of civilians caught in the crossfire. Efforts to restore basic service in the sprawling Shia slum have also lagged, undermining efforts to win over local residents.
Okay, so it's gonna get ugly... Now what did McCain have to say about the turn of events...?
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is happy with the outcome. In a blogger conference call today, he said the results in Basra and southern Iraq were a “pleasant turn of events” in his view. Sadr, McCain says, is now marginalized. The bloggers reported on McCain’s responses:
Hot Air: It’s a “pleasant turn of events.” We’ve been pressing Maliki for action, and he persevered through some setbacks to success. Basra now is under Maliki’s control, and it has united the central government. Sadr is marginalized. “Overall, I’m rather pleased.”
Commentary: He described the outcome as a “pleasant turn of events” and said that Prime Minister Maliki “surprised us all.” McCain conceded that there were setbacks at first, but said that with limited American support the Iraqi army has wrested control of Basra from the Sadrites.
Are you f*cking kidding me, McInsane...? Do you really think it's a pleasant turn of events...? Sometimes, I'm just left mind-numbingly speechless...! sometimes...!
Today, Gorilla's Guides reported that... "U.S. kills 800 in 3 weeks in Sadr City."
U.S. occupation forces have killed more than 800 people, most of them innocent civilians, in their three-week long military campaign to subdue the Mahdi Army in Sadr City, the leader of Sadr movement in Baghdad said.
Sheikh Salaman al-fariji said the troops have also injured more than 1,800 people and caused large-scale destruction of private property and the city’s rickety infrastructure
U.S. troops have imposed a tight embargo on the city and bombing by war planes and helicopter gun ships in the densely populated Baghdad neighborhood continued...
Interestingly, not only have we walled them off, and, are hitting them daily from the air, we're also sniping at them
Civilians caught up in the crossfire during raging street battles between Shiite militiamen and security forces in Baghdad's Shiite bastion Sadr City are blaming an unseen danger – US military snipers.
At least 321 people have been killed in Sadr City since March 25 and hundreds more wounded, many of them brought to hospitals with wounds that doctors say appear to be caused by high-powered rifles and "American bullets."
Medics at Al-Sadr Hospital say some bullet wounds are difficult to explain as being caused by random fire.
"Random shots usually hit anywhere, but these people have wounds on specific parts of the body ... like their stomachs and legs," said Doctor Ala Haider.
That is not the way to win the hearts and minds...
Meanwhile, a parliamentary delegation visited Sadr City to view the damage, and most blocs were represented, except for the conspicuous absence of any representative of the Supreme Council (political counterpart of the Badr Organization). The Kurdish representative said the government should be more careful about the humanitarian situation. The Iraqi List person said the government is resorting to collective punishment, and this is a very dangerous thing to do because of the repercussions. The delegation recommended lifting the siege on Sadr City. The government replied that there is no siege.
“Almost a month after the outbreak of armed clashes pitting Coalition and Iraqi forces against the Mehdi Army, the situation in Sadr City, in eastern Baghdad, is putting further strain on the civilian population,” says Patrick Youssef, head of the sub-delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Baghdad. “The clashes that began on 25 March did not let up until they eased briefly on 12 April. However, the lull in the fighting did not give the population enough time to stock up on food and water or to seek appropriate medical care.”
Al Jamila market, one of the largest in Sadr City, was severely damaged by the fighting. The market used to provide enough supplies to cover everyday needs in Sadr City. People are now short of food, especially as prices of fresh vegetables have increased considerably.
According to ICRC staff in Baghdad, who are in permanent contact with hospitals and health officials, several hospitals have exhausted their stocks of medical supplies as a result of the ongoing fighting.
The ICRC has had difficulty transporting food and medicines where they are needed because of the ongoing fighting.
BTW, you can donate to the Red Cross/Crescent here...
Here's an excellent article that describes what Sadr City represents to us and our failed policy...
1. Yes, the war has morphed into the US military's worst Iraq nightmare: Few now remember, but before George W. Bush launched the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, top administration and Pentagon officials had a single overriding nightmare -- not chemical, but urban, warfare. Saddam Hussein, they feared, would lure American forces into "Fortress Baghdad," as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld labeled it. There, they would find themselves fighting block by block, especially in the warren of streets that make up the Iraqi capital's poorest districts.
When American forces actually entered Baghdad in early April 2003, however, even Saddam's vaunted Republican Guard units had put away their weapons and gone home. It took five years but, as of now, American troops are indeed fighting in the warren of streets in Sadr City, the Shiite slum of two and a half million in eastern Baghdad largely controlled by Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia. The US military, in fact, recently experienced its worst week of 2008 in terms of casualties, mainly in and around Baghdad. So, Mission Accomplished -- the worst fear of 2003 has now been realized.
You should read that entire article: "Unraveling Iraq" with this subtitle; "12 Answers to Questions No One Is Bothering to Ask about Iraq." I personally didn't agree with all of it, but, it did raise some very valid questions and answers... Foremost among them, Civil War will not 'breakout' because we leave... We Need To Get Out Now!
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice mocked anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr as a coward on Sunday, hours after the radical leader threatened to declare war unless U.S. and Iraqi forces end a military crackdown on his followers.
Rice, in the Iraqi capital to tout security gains and what she calls an emerging political consensus, said al-Sadr is content to issue threats and edicts from the safety of Iran, where he is studying.
Okay, Sadr is a coward because he's supposedly in Iran, Where's Shrub and Darth issueing their threats and edicts from...?
"I know he's sitting in Iran," Rice said dismissively, when asked about al-Sadr's latest threat to lift a self-imposed cease-fire with government and U.S. forces. "I guess it's all-out war for anybody but him," Rice said. "I guess that's the message; his followers can go too their deaths and he's in Iran."
"Some of the violence is a byproduct of a good decision," to take on militias and consolidate military power, Rice told reporters following a few hours of meetings and lunch with Iraqi leaders.
"That, I think, is what has given the sense to the Iraqis that they have a new opportunity, a window of opportunity," Rice said. "I don't think you would have seen this kind of unity," before.
Uh, It was a good decision and there's unity...! Excuse me...?
With the top U.S. ground commander, Gen. David Petraeus, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker looking on, al-Maliki told Rice that security has improved. She nodded agreement. After lunch with President Jalal Talabani, Rice smiled as the Kurd told her Iraq is enjoying a "political spring." Rice also met with a relatively new decision-making council representing Iraq's major sectarian and ethnic groups.
At the time it seemed "as if the Green Zone itself has been under attack," Rice told employees, but the effort is worthwhile. "It's been a long five years, there's no doubt about it."
How safe was it...?
Warning sirens sounded at least twice while Rice was inside the temporary embassy, housed in a beat-up Saddam-era palace. She did not visit the site of a new fortified U.S. Embassy set to open in a few weeks.
Ms. Rice said that she was not sure how to interpret a statement on Saturday by the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army fighters have been battling Iraqi and American forces in Sadr City and in the south, that he would declare “war until liberation” if the fighting against his militia forces continued.
“I don’t know whether to take him seriously or not,” Ms. Rice said.
But she said that American and Iraqi forces were not trying to block the Sadrist movement from Iraq’s political process. “I didn’t hear anybody say” that the Sadrists “shouldn’t try again to get the votes of the Iraqi people, as long as they are not armed,” Ms. Rice said.
This encapsulates the whole Alice-in-Wonderland logic...
Earlier this month, Iraq’s national security council issued a statement saying that all political parties must disband their militias if they wished to participate in provincial elections scheduled for October.
Some political analysts have said that what underlies the Iraqi government’s move against the Mahdi Army is a rivalry between two armed Shiite political groups, Mr. Sadr’s and the Badrists, the armed wing of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a large Shiite political bloc that supports Mr. Maliki. Many members of the Badr organization joined the government’s security forces early in the Iraq conflict, and they have been battling the Sadr-led forces.
But Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, who joined Ms. Rice at the news conference, drew a distinction between Mr. Sadr’s supporters and the Badr group. “The Badr organization, made the choice a while back that they were going to step away from a militia identity and move into politics,” Mr. Crocker said. “That’s the choice now in front of the Sadr movement.”
Mr. Crocker cast the Iraqi government’s initiative in Basra and Baghdad as “a defining event,” and said it represented “the state asserting itself against those who would attack the state.”
Did ya catch that? The Mehdi Army must disarm to join the political process, meanwhile, the Badr Brigades who are incorporated into the IA are waging war against the Sadrists in the name of the state... What a mess, we need to get out now!
Update: Voices of Iraq reports: "Govt. making up crisis with Sadrists to pass security deal with U.S. – spokesman"
To wit:
"There were parties that signed (the agreement) on behalf of the prime minister (Nouri al-Maliki) and he has to respect this agreement to guarantee citizenship rights for Iraqis in general and the Sadrists in particular," Sheikh Salah al-Ubaydi told Aswat al-Iraq – Voices of Iraq – (VOI).
"The Iraqi government's campaigns against the Sadrist bloc are politically motivated with the aim of making gains from in the forthcoming provincial elections and passing an economic-security deal with the Americans," Ubaydi said.
"If the Iraqi people remained preoccupied, the government could pass this agreement with all its weaknesses that grant the U.S. side privileges at the expense of Iraq," Ubaydi indicated.
Sadr had on Saturday threatened "open war" with the government unless it chose what he called the "path of peace".
"I'm giving the last warning and the last word to the Iraqi government -- either it comes to its senses and takes the path of peace ... or it will be the same as the previous government," Sadr said, referring to Saddam Hussein's fallen regime but without elaborating.
The cleric added: "If they don't come to their senses and curb the infiltrated militias, then we will declare an open war until liberation."
Sadr's movement accuses other Shi'ite parties of infiltrating their militias into the Iraqi security forces.
When we practice to deceive... This is astonishing, and, an excellent follow up to my two prior posts... The New York Times reports today that the "U.S. and Iran Find Common Ground in Iraq’s Shiite Conflict."
Huh?
The United States says that Iran has backed thousands of attacks on American troops in Iraq, bitterly opposes its nuclear program and has not ruled out bombing Iran if Iranian policies do not change. Meanwhile, at the level of senior officials at least, Iran takes quite seriously its depiction of the United States as the planet’s Great Satan.
Yet...
In the Iraqi government’s fight to subdue the Shiite militia of Moktada al-Sadr in the southern city of Basra, perhaps nothing reveals the complexities of the Iraq conflict more starkly than this: Iran and the United States find themselves on the same side.
The causes of this convergence boil down to the logic of self-interest, although it is logic in a place where even the most basic reasoning refuses to go in a straight line. In essence, though, the calculation by the United States is that it must back the government it helped to create and take the steps needed to protect American troops and civilian officials.
Iranian motivations appear to hinge on the possibility that Mr. Sadr’s political and military followers could gain power in provincial elections this fall, and disrupt the creation of a semiautonomous region in the south that the Iranians see as beneficial.
The party that Iran and the United States are backing, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, is a bitter rival of Mr. Sadr’s political movement and has managed to play to the interests of both countries. Under Iraq’s Constitution, provinces can form regions with considerable independence from Baghdad. The Supreme Council advocates a large, semiautonomous region in the south, similar to Kurdistan in the north, made up of the nine southern provinces. And because many of the council’s leaders lived in exile in Iran during the rule of Saddam Hussein, Iran has political ties to the group.
Coupled with Iran’s shared Shiite heritage, such a region would amplify Iran’s influence over the oil-rich area.
Let's see... The US dislikes Sadr because he wants to unify all of Iraq and wants Iraqi oil to remain in Iraqi hands... Iran also wants to see a fractured Iraq and also desires the oil rich Basra... Hmmm... Imagine that!
The Americans have treated the Supreme Council as an ally from the beginning of the fight against Mr. Hussein. Its members were guaranteed safe passage when they returned from Iran and were made charter members of Iraq’s first governing body after the American-led invasion toppled Mr. Hussein’s regime. Since then, the United States has backed the Iraqi government, which in turn relies on the Supreme Council to stay in power in the country’s parliamentary system.
But this position could have damaging unintended consequences. It could push the United States further into the vortex of an intra-Shiite political struggle and could lead to the creation of a large, Iranian-influenced region in southern Iraq.
But the political calculus that has landed the Americans and Iranians on the same side of the Shiite conflict in southern Iraq breaks down in the capital. The foremost example is Sadr City, the dusty, impoverished enclave of more than two million Shiites in northeastern Baghdad where Mr. Sadr has his base of power.
But there is at least one crucial difference from Basra: in Sadr City, American troops are playing a much bigger role in the battle. For the Iranians, who have consistently opposed the American presence here, that difference comes with consequences.
Iran stridently opposes the operation against the Mahdi Army in Sadr City.
What is the central theme of this charade? OIL! Pure and simple! I am sick and tired of this BS!
Today, I read some disheartening news. In that, "Cleric Sadr threatens 'open war' on Iraq government." I would like to address why I tend to support Sadr over Maliki in many of my posts. I've read numerous articles and reports, in both the foreign and American press, over the past five years we've been mired in Iraq. I'm often disappointed with the lack of true reporting from the American media, I'm always left with the distinct impression that they merely regurgitate the propaganda issued by Betrayus and Baghdad Bergner and their predecessors. Generally, the foreign press does a far better job of ferreting out the truth and talking to actual Iraqis to get the true consensus of what is occurring on the ground. It is out of that critical analysis of what is reported, I've leaned towards Sadr's side rather than our puppet Government established under Maliki.
First, I don't consider Sadr a saint by any stretch of the imagination, but, as I allude to in my title, I consider him to be the lesser of two evils...
Sadr's movement accuses other Shi'ite parties of getting their militias into the Iraqi security forces, especially in southern Shi'ite Iraq where various factions are competing for influence in a region home to most of Iraq's oil output.
Sadr launched two uprisings against U.S. forces in 2004.
His movement then entered politics and backed Maliki's rise to power in 2006. But the youthful Sadr split with Maliki, a fellow Shi'ite, a year ago when the prime minister refused to set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
"Do you want a third uprising?" Sadr said, adding that he wanted Iraq's Shi'ite clerical establishment to set a date for the departure of American troops.
Why is he concerned about the installation of SCIRI or Dawa militias in the Iraqi Army...ME Online
It is widely believed in Iraq that parties who call for unity are using the issue to get public support against federalism, seen to be supported by the US and Iranian backed parties such as the SIIC and Maliki's Dawa Party. Many in Iraq see federalism as the break-up of the country.
Division has broken out also within tribes; many have now come to back Sadr, not because they like him, but because they hate the Badr militia of Hakeem's SIIC and Maliki's Dawa party.
"Our problem in the southern parts of Iraq and other Shia dominated areas is that all options are bad," the chief of a major tribe in Basra who fled for Baghdad, told IPS on condition of anonymity. "Iranian controlled militias killed so many chiefs of tribes because they refused to support these division projects concealed under the flag of federalism."
Basically, Maliki is seen as a puppet of the Americans and his Badr Brigades have terrorized many Shi'a and Sunni communities in Basra and north to Baghdad.
Many Iraqis have come to believe that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is just as much a dictator as Saddam Hussein was.
"Al-Maliki is a dictator who must be removed by all means," 35-year-old Abdul-Riza Hussein, a Mehdi Army member from Sadr City in Baghdad told IPS. "He is a worse dictator than Saddam; he has killed in less than two years more than Saddam killed in 10 years."
Following the failed attempt by the US-backed al-Maliki to crack down on the Mehdi Army militia of Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, the situation in Iraq has become much worse. Iraq appears to be splintering more widely under this rule than under Saddam's.
Juan Cole presents a compelling case of what's going on...
My reading is that the US faced a dilemma in Iraq. It needed to have new provincial elections in an attempt to mollify the Sunni Arabs, especially in Sunni-majority provinces like Diyala, which has nevertheless been ruled by the Shiite Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. But if they have provincial elections, their chief ally, the Islamic Supreme Council, might well lose southern provinces to the Sadr Movement. In turn, the Sadrists are demanding a timetable for US withdrawal, whereas ISCI wants US troops to remain. So the setting of October, 2008, as the date for provincial elections provoked this crisis. I think Cheney probably told ISCI and Prime Minister al-Maliki that the way to fix this problem and forestall the Sadrists coming to power in Iraq, was to destroy the Mahdi Army, the Sadrists' paramilitary. Without that coercive power, the Sadrists might not remain so important, is probably their thinking. I believe them to be wrong, and suspect that if the elections are fair, the Sadrists will sweep to power and may even get a sympathy vote.
As Cole alludes to, Maliki is a tool of Darth's and advocates for a long term presence and the soft partitioning of Iraq... Which is not in the best interests of Iraq, nor our troops...
As the NY Times reports among other outlets; "U.S. Begins Erecting Wall in Sadr City." To wit...
The construction, which began Tuesday night, is intended to turn the southern quarter of Sadr City near the international Green Zone into a protected enclave, secured by Iraqi and American forces, where the Iraqi government can undertake reconstruction efforts.
“You can’t really repair anything that is broken until you establish security,” said Lt. Col. Dan Barnett, commander of the First Squadron, Second Stryker Cavalry Regiment. “A wall that isolates those who would continue to attack the Iraqi Army and coalition forces can create security conditions that they can go in and rebuild.”
Hmmm... A wall to isolate those who would attack the GZG... That is a crock of shit! As the Iraqis complain...
Followers of anti-U.S. Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr denounced the American military's construction of a concrete wall through their Sadr City stronghold in Baghdad, the scene of renewed clashes Friday between his militiamen and U.S. and Iraqi troops.
Hazim al-Araji, a senior aide to al-Sadr in Baghdad, said the wall would turn "the residents to prisoners and the city to a big jail. All Sadr City residents reject this kind of siege on their city."
Walls can be effective in the short term...
Such walls have gone up in many other Baghdad neighborhoods and have been effective in cutting violence as the movement of insurgents was curtailed. But they have also raised some complaints from residents over difficulties in moving in and out through checkpoints.
But, the long term effects are not worth the short term success. It doesn't win the hearts and minds, look at the Warsaw Ghetto or the Berlin Wall. The Israeli Wall is not producing any tangible results either...
What we need to truly embrace is the notion of unifying the separate entities involved. We need to foster relations between the Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurdish populations as opposed to walling them off and arming each side to wage war amongst themselves and against us...
Here is an excellent analysis of what our Maladministration has wrought...
The tactics that Washington is pursuing in Iraq appear to be exacerbating several long-term trends that risk destabilizing Iraq even further and may well also undermine U.S. influence.
Washington’s militant intervention into intra-Shi’ite factional politics is pouring gasoline on that dispute, fomenting civil war between the two most powerful Shi’ite militias in Iraq by encouraging (or ordering?) Maliki to suppress Moqtada’s Mahdi Army. Washington is simultaneously laying the groundwork for a civil war between Iraqi Shi’a and Sunni by funding the organization of numerous local Sunni military units (e.g., the Awakening groups), which could evolve rapidly into a Sunni militia that would challenge the Shi’a since these units are gaining power without a commensurate move toward satisfaction of Sunni grievances. Washington is also fighting Iran’s war in Iraq by intervening in Shi’ite factional disputes on the side of the pro-Iranian Badr faction that constitutes Maliki’s main support. And finally, since Moqtada represents the poor urban Shi’ite underclass beyond the reach of government services, Washington is making war on the poor, a bad foundation indeed for building democracy.
A policy of marginalizing the poor by emphasizing the use of force to suppress their representatives, not to mention collective punishment against the poor themselves through both neglecting to provide services and turning Sadr City into a blockaded ghetto, sets up society for a long period of conflict. (For parallels, check out the impact of Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, which provoked the formation of Hezbollah; the half century-long civil war against the rural poor in Colombia; and of course the endless sad saga of the mistreatment of the population of Gaza.)
We need to tear down walls, not build them! Sadly, we fail to learn from history...
In today's post I want to take a look at the current situation in Iraq. I've been distracted of late from covering the events on the ground, particularly by the dog and pony show happening in DC. Well, to start off with US Troops Suffer Worst Week This Year
The U.S. military said the American soldier was killed in a blast Saturday morning in northwestern Baghdad but did not say whether Shiite militiamen were responsible.
The death raised to at least 19 the number of American troopers killed in Iraq since last Sunday.
American casualties have risen with an outbreak of fighting in Baghdad between U.S. and Iraqi forces and the largest Shiite militia — the Mahdi Army of anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
In his statement on Saturday, Moqtada Sadr said: "I heard the statement of the terrorist American defence minister and I feel compelled to give a decent response to such a terrorist. I have no enemy but you. You are the occupier."
At the Pentagon on Friday, Mr Gates referred to Mr Sadr as a "a significant political figure"."Those who are prepared to work within the political process in Iraq, and peacefully, are not enemies of the United States," Mr Gates said.
"[Mr Sadr] has a large following. And I think it's important that he become a part of the process if he isn't already."
But Mr Sadr asked: "Which political process do you want to involve me in when you are occupying my land?"
From the same article...
Saturday's fighting in Sadr City was some of the worst there since Iraqi forces launched an offensive a week ago, residents said. US forces used both tanks and air support.
In Najaf, a curfew remained in place after the murder Mr Nuri.
Hundreds of people have died in clashes between Iraqi forces and militias, mainly in Baghdad and in Basra in the south, since Prime Minister Nouri Maliki ordered his crackdown on armed gangs.
An $833 million Iraqi arms deal secretly negotiated with Serbia has underscored Iraq’s continuing problems equipping its armed forces, a process that has long been plagued by corruption and inefficiency. The deal was struck in September without competitive bidding and it sidestepped anticorruption safeguards, including the approval of senior uniformed Iraqi Army officers and an Iraqi contract approval committee. Instead, it was negotiated by a delegation of 22 high-ranking Iraqi officials, without the knowledge of American commanders or many senior Iraqi leaders.
-snip-
Such weaknesses mean that five years after the American invasion, the 170,000-strong Iraqi military remains under-equipped, spottily supplied and largely reliant on the United States for such basics as communications equipment, weapons and ammunition, raising fresh questions about the Iraqi military’s ability to stand on its own. Iraq’s defense minister, Abdul Qadir, defended the arms deal, saying he had followed proper contracting protocols and had informed Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki every step of the way.
Here's an unvarnished take on the MSM and our Maladministration's errant tactics...
The US's major quandary is that Sadr reflects the views of most Iraqis. His possible victory in the south in fair elections could position him as the new nationalist leader, and a unifying force for Iraqis, says Ramzy Baroud.
Baroud makes several excellent observations...
First, Al-Maliki was blamed for acting alone without consulting with the US government. Even presidential candidate John McCain jumped at the opportunity to chastise Bush's man in Iraq for supposedly acting on his own behest. US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker was quoted in the April 3 New York Times as saying, "the sense we had was that this would be a long-term effort: increased pressure gradually squeezing the Special Groups." Really? Would the US allow Al-Maliki to execute a "long-term effort" -- which is costly financially, politically and militarily -- without its full consent, if not orders?
Second, blame was shifted onto Iran. The media parroted these accusations again with palpable omissions. It is true that Sadr is backed by Iran. It is partly true that he is serving an Iranian agenda. But what is conveniently forgotten is that Iran's strongest ally in Iraq is Al-Hakim's SCIRI, and that the central government in Baghdad considers Tehran a friend and ally. Indeed, it was pressure from the latter that weakened Al-Maliki's resolve in a matter of days. On March 24, Al-Maliki announced his "fight to the end", and on April 4 he ordered a halt to the fighting and compensation for the families of the "martyrs". What took place during this short window of time is an Iran-brokered agreement.
Some more inconvenient facts overlooked:
Even thorough journalists seemed oblivious to the known facts: that the Iraqi army largely consists of Shia militias affiliated with a major US ally in Iraq, Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim and his Supreme Islamic Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI); that the SCIRI's Al-Badr militias have rained terror on the Iraqi people -- mostly Sunnis, but increasingly Shias as well -- for years; that the Sadr movement and SCIRI are in fierce contest for control of Iraq's southern provinces, and that the US allies are losing ground quickly to the Sadr Movement, which might cost them the upcoming provincial elections scheduled for October 1, 2008; that the US wanted to see the defeat and demise of Sadr supporters before that crucial date because a victory for Sadr is tantamount to the collapse of the entire American project predicated on the need to privatise Iraqi oil and bring about a "soft" partitioning of the country.
What we are rarely told is that Al-Maliki, although prime minister, is helpless without the validation of Al-Hakim. The latter's SCIRI is the main party in the ruling bloc in the Iraqi parliament. Al-Maliki's own Daawa Party is smaller and much less popular. In order for the coalition to survive another term, Sadr needed to suffer a major and humiliating defeat. Indeed, it was a "defining moment", but the "criminal gangs" of Basra -- and Najaf, Karbala, Diwaniyah, Kut and Hillah -- have proven much stronger than the seemingly legitimate Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) and their Al-Badr militias. Even the atrocious US bombardment of Basra proved of little value, despite many civilian deaths. More, the additional thousands of recruits shoved into the battlefield -- tribal gunmen lured by promises of money and power by Al-Maliki -- also made little difference. News analysts concluded that the strength of the "criminal gangs" was underestimated, thus someone had to be blamed.
I'm certainly sick and tired of this madness... SNAFU! Is it 20 Jan 09 yet?
Wasn't it just last week that Shrub and Gates vowed to reduce the length of the tours of duty? Well, surprise! As Reuters reports; "Bush to halt Iraq troop cuts!" After the 5 'surge' brigades leave in July the remainder will be put on a 45 day hiatus.
Bush endorsed a recommendation by his commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, to complete a limited withdrawal of combat troops by July, but then impose a 45-day freeze of the total at about 140,000 troops before considering more possible cuts.
"I've told him he'll have all the time he needs," Bush said in Washington.
Sure, screw'em some more too, take on Iran too...
In his speech, Bush stepped up his criticism of Iran, accusing it of backing militants behind attacks in Iraq, and said failure in Iraq would embolden both Iran and al Qaeda.
"Iraq is the convergence point for two of the greatest threats to America in this new century: al Qaeda and Iran," Bush said, although he reassured a weary public that the war will end.
"While this war is difficult, it is not endless," he said of the conflict, now in its sixth year.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates held out the prospect of more troop withdrawals this autumn. "I would emphasize that the hope, depending on conditions on the ground, is to reduce our presence further this fall," he told the U.S. Senate Armed Services Com