I’m teaching later this arvo, so I don’t have time to do any analysis, but I thought people might like a discussion starter on the Petraeus report to Congress on the progress of teh Surge. I do think recent events have only reinforced the validity of this conclusion:
The fate of the surge (and Omaar makes the point that larger numbers of troops have been in Iraq before) essentially rests not on anything the US does, but on the willingness of al-Sadr and his troops (and his grassroots) to maintain a ceasefire - basically for their own reasons. That’s all of a piece with the fundamental illusion that still grips what passes for discussion of the war in America - the denial that what America does, or doesn’t do (short of getting out altogether) really is one of the least important factors driving the changing nature of the situation in Iraq.
… And you can get a sense of that from this excerpt from TomDispatch:
Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shiite cleric who emerged triumphant from an Iraqi government assault on his Mahdi Army militia in Basra (and Baghdad) has called for a “million-strong” march in Baghdad tomorrow to mark the fifth anniversary of the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq. The demonstration just happens to fall on one of the days that General David Petraeus is to report to Congress on post-surge “progress” in Iraq. This is unlikely to be pure happenstance.
Whatever’s happening in Washington today might not have all that much to do with whatever’s happening in Iraq today. It’s likely to have more to do with how Iraqi events are spun through a frame which is heavily coloured by the American presidential election, and Bush’s desire for a “legacy”. And the Iraqi actors understand that only too well.
Operation Next Administration’s Problem is go!
It’s interesting that Iraq has just disappeared from Australian political debate with the impending withdrawal of troops.
While our direct involvement has ended, it’s still a disaster in a volatile region of the world of huge economic importance.
Wow. What would the internet be without people like Engelhardt trumpeting their stupidity from the rooftops?
Well, I guess for a start that there’d be more room for RWDBs to prate their neanderthal misunderstandings of the world.
If Sadr copped such a bollocking, why is it necessary for Maliki to threaten to ban his movement from running in the forthcoming elections?
[link]
I’d have thought that a defeated movement should be allowed to be proven to have lost its credibility by being encouraged to be given a shellacking by the voters in a democratic election.
But then again, I’m not an RWDB fool, so how could I possibly “understand” the world like they do?
#3: apart from the whole bit where Maliki’s party went to Qom to get a ceasefire off Al-Sadr, mediated by the commander of Qods Force, yeah, the internet is great for that
I Sadr had such a triumphant
surrendervictory, why is he continually begging for truces? A: because hisgang-membersmilitias are being wiped out, just like the other times they tried it on.Still, who am I to rain on lefty fantasies? Enjoy them before the cognitive dissonance sets in!
So wiped out that two senior Dawa and ISCI officials went to Qom to broker a truce with the aid of the commander of the elite IRGC Qods Force, upon which Maliki dropped his disarmament terms, called off the Basra offensive and the US is still fight in Sadr City a week later?
Craig Mc, I’m not sure which lefty fantasy you’re being scornful of. Is it the one where we shouldn’t have illegally invaded Iraq to steal its oil in the first place, or the one about the whole situation in Iraq being such a clusterfuck primarily because of CotW interference, or the one about the democratically elected government of Iraq being mostly a kleptocracy, or the one about al Qaida having had exactly zero interest in Iraq (except to despise Saddam) until after the invasion. Please clarify this for me, as I’m eager to understand what passes for your thought processes.
Incorrect.
Correct answer: He has recieved enough free publicity and kudos to ensure an even happier electoral campaign.
Because he can. If Sadr’s militias have evaporated/run away/disbanded then Sadr, who has been a thorn in Maliki’s side, is no longer in a position to treathen him and so Maliki can sideline him politically as well as militarily. Or he can set terms for Sadr’s participation in the election which neutralise Sadr as a threat to the stability of the next government.
Your question, raises another one. If Sadr’s militias have not suffered such a bollocking why on earth is he disbanding them?
By your reasoning the NSDAP, though thoroughly defeated in the little contretemps called World War 2, should have been allowed to participate in Germany’s post-war elections just to demonstrate its loss of credibility. Of course the Allied Powers, RWDBs all, didn’t see it that way at all.
The real world is much more of a rough-and-tumble place than your fantasies would make of it.
I’d have thought that the notion that Saddam’s army “evaporated” or “ran away” in 2003 and was then “disbanded” by the occupation might give us a bit of a pointer to what might be going on!
It doesn’t have economic importance for Australia though. People here stopped talking about Iraq about 3 years ago.
In this case it’s Sadr seeking to disband his own militia. There is a difference.
He’s a clever politician, that Sadr.
CraigMc is partially correct - Sadr is seeking to get rid of some of the more disloyal and uncontrollable elements of JAM, by his hand or the US’s. The mainstay of his forces he will leave intact, for whenever the real struggle against the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and the Islamic Call (yes, those are the US’s allies) for the South breaks out.
Sure, GregM, but how real is the “disbandment”? Cf. Leinad’s comment.
Mark, in the state of turmoil that Iraq is in we can’t know. However it is significant that Sadr has said that in deciding whether to disband his militia Sadr has said he will take the advice of Iraqi Muslim scholars, ie Sistani, who has been sitting this whole thing out but who is Maliki’s backer. I think that there is a Shi’ite endgame going on here.
Not significant at all GregM according to Juan Cole
[link]
Peter, as I said in the state turmoil Iraq is in we cannot know.
Such is the chaos of war that even its best informed participants cannot know its outcome.
However Juan Cole is one of the least reliable reporters there is on what is happening in Iraq.
Au contraire this is GregM’s ideationally inflexible misinterpretation of my reasoning.
As GregM have shown frequently, some of his more remarkable work arises from misinterpretation.
This comment appears to be no exception.
I take it that GregM approves of Sadr’s party being disqualified from participation in the forthcoming election.
I note the lack of your evidence GregM to demonstrate that he is the ‘least reliable’. More likely he’s ‘least reliable’ because his reporting doesn’t fit in with your opinion.
One of Cole’s sources for not intending to disband is here, in Arabic. The fact that he uses a variety of Arabic and Iranian sources and analyses these sources apparently in favour of CNN and Fox news certainly makes his reporting more reliable, especially so when when one considers that the “Wogs” are somewhat closer to the action, but most white fellers can’t or won’t read “Woggese” (except perhaps the State Department, and of course Juan Cole)
[link]
On a slightly different topic,the million person march has been postponed.
[link]
It’s wierd seeing people trying to make a partisan point out of this.
I have no love for Muqtada al Sadr or Nuri al Maliki or Abdul Aziz al-Hakim or any other warlord, but the facts on the ground can’t be argued with.
The Basra Offensive was Maliki’s initiative, it was rushed - Lt. Gen. Mohan al Firaiji was planning it for may. It rapidly hit a wall, the Sadrists fought with much greater skill and co-ordination than the rabble of 2004, fronts were opened up in Kut, Diyala and Baghdad. Maliki gave a three day ultimatum, that became an eight day one, then two senior ISCI and Dawa officials visited Sadr in Qom, and got a ceasefire which met none of Maliki’s demands beginning this offensive (i.e. disarmament of JaM, breakup of their Basra fiefdom).
Well certainly, if it is not prepared to adhere to the constitution under which those elections are being held.
We know from a previous thread how much Katz knows about, or cares about, that constitution
Much to his chagrin (and to his never-ending embarrassment), as he said himself after he discovered that the Iraqi constitution had specific provisions about recurrent elections, which he had specifically said it did not have -Katz doesn’t have a clue about the Iraqi constitution or to rule of law in that country, and he doesnn’t care about either.
All he cares about is cheap point scoring even when he is wrong.
Peter, you have introduced the racist term “wogs” into this discussion, No one else has and no one else believes it.
If this is what you believe of the Iraqis then spit it out. At least then you’ll be honest about what your true opinions are.
Whatever. But out here in the nether regions of Sydney my Iraqi barber - who still has family in Baghdad - cannot bring himself to describe the situation there beyond saying that ‘it’s bad - very bad’ and looking as though he wants to cry.
All I know is that the US will not be out of Iraq by December when their UN mandate expires. What will be the ramifications of that?
Nothing. Provided that they have the wish of the Iraqi government, a recognised member of the United Nations, to stay on. Just as they have forces in other UN member states such as Germany, Japan, South Korea, the United Kingdom and so on in accordance with treaties they have with those countries. .
We should be listening to Gen. Odom, not Gen. Petraeus. Gen. Odom addressed the US Congress on April 2nd.
Odom says that it is the presence of US forces in Iraq that is drawing Al Qaeda there. He says the US should withdraw immediately from Iraq. Far from encouraging terrorism, the withdrawal will cause the Sunnis to expel Al Qaeda.
He agrees that violence and chaos will follow if the US leaves Iraq, but then he says that violence and chaos will also follow if the US does not leave Iraq!
He has also accused Cheney and others of aligning with Al Qaeda by trying to spread the war to Iran, which is exactly what Al Qaeda wants.
[link]
Perhaps our RWDB friends missed this story on the infinitely more interesting issue of the future status of the US military in Iraq.
This leaked yesterday:
[link]
These provisions, of course, are nothing like anything in current agreements with Japan, South Korea, Germany, etc.
Inveterate imperialists to the end, Chimpo and his claque are determined to ride Iraq, Slim Pickens-like, to their own annihilation.
Meanwhile, GregM and the Keyboard Kommando get off on their fantasies of military puissance.
How pitiable.
But of course Clinton/Obama will up stumps at first opportunity?
Time may tell.
Whichever Dem candidate who runs against McCain will have to distinguish themselves from McCain’s hawkishness. That political imperative may crystalise thiis issue.
Note the inverted commas, GregM, a well known satirical device. For the benefit of all the neo-cons who by their words and/or deeds believe it and a significant proportion of all the people who believe them.
I note you’ve ignored my substantive points on Cole.
On disqualification of Sadr’s lot GregM says:
With one of the greatest kleptocratic series of governments harbouring corrupt leaders in Iraqi history, arguably outdoing Saddam or anybody before him, GregM trots out the constitution.
So I guess we wait with bated breath for Maliki, unilaterally, in his Green Zone “Castle” (in the absence of any legal process) to apply that old, cinematic, Aussie legal principle, the
(Perhaps legislation would do it? The Dicky Maliki (Anti-Uppity Clerici) Bill 2008?)
I continue to be stunned by how much you guys on the Left have completely and utterly nailed your colours to the mast of “the surge has only worked because of Al Sadr’s ceasefire which he chose to do not militarily pressured to do” type theory. No qualifiers, no riders, just simple absolute faith in this concept.
You are either going to be spectacularly right or spectacularly wrong.
At least on the Right we are at least acknowledging the cease-fire has been helpful although we think more borne out of necessity on Sadr’s part than any great magnamity or brilliant “wait them out” strategy.
Conversely you guys just can’t bring yourselves to give any credit at all to superior numbers or COIN or anything that might give just a smidgeon of credit to the US effort.
You guys have delighted in the terrible intelligence failure on WMD where obviously the old adage of assumption is the mother of all stuff ups could not have been more applicable but here you are assuming so very much about Sadr’s control, influence, military effectiveness, intellect, strategic thinking etc.
Very brave in the Sir Humphrey Appleby sense of the word. Maybe you’ll be proven correct but I’d be at least be going for a “place” or a bet each way to some degree. Not put your life’s savings or a patchy performer at best whose best days may be well behind him.
Beside your good self Kingsley, what other rightist has said this?
What can’t rightists understand two simple facts about Sadr:
1. He is a populist. He knows that power will come through the ballot box. His militancy plays a subservient role:
a. the Mehdi army was inactive until provoked by Sunni militants. Initially it played a defensive role only.
b. after severe provocation the Mehdi Army (along with other Shiite miliitias) went on the offensive against not only Sunni militants, but against the entire Sunni population. This evolving policy fed directly into the ballot box strategy. There are very few (about 50%!) of the 2003 Sunni population left in Iraq. That’s going to make electoral victory for Sadr all the easier.
c. the Sadrists represent the only civil government that the vast mass of Shiites know. The Sadrists have built their own administration amongst the people. They are the schools, the hospitals, the doctors, the police force, the court system for the vast mass of Iraqis.*
2. Of all the viable leaders of Iraq, Sadr is the least pro-Iranian. If Bush had any brains he’d be building a stable Iraq on the Sadrist movement. But of course, Sadr is also an economic nationalist when it comes to oil. And that stance doesn’t fit Bush’s strategy for Iraq. Oil dreams trump geopolitics.
__________
*Recall the day Saddam was hanged. Did the executioners chant “Long live democratic Iraq”? Did the executioners thank the US for delivering them from Saddam?
No. The executioners chanted “Muqtada! Muqtada! Muqtada!”
Could there be a starker symbol of the collapse of US ambitions in Iraq than that?
Yes Kingsley, reality is well known to have a liberal bias.
“Who has said the ceasefire is helpful/handy” - Kagan, Bay even Roggio although I think he likes to stay above the politics. Nigh on every report I have read has noted it has been handy including right of centre columnists etc. The US military constantly issues press releases applauding it and warning JAM to stay within it. Petraeus and Crocker applaud it regularly. They ( and the US military) are not rightists as such but this idea that it is handy but Sadr was at least partially forced into is hardly a secret.
I think Katz you mistake Sadr City for all of Iraq. If Sadr was a popular as you say there would have been mass outcry at the Basra operation. There simply wasn’t. Indeed he has had to call of his protest demo.
I think your ethnic cleansing helps him win the election theory has a big hole - you don’t have to be present in Iraq to vote.
As for the oil theory, all the West, the US etc needs in relation to oil is for it to flow. They don’t need Texans on the derricks. If Bush was “smart” and all he wanted was oil he wouldn’t have invaded, quietly dropped the Sanctions on Saddam or put up no fight to the Europeans doing so and watched him ramp up production as fast as he could.
Look all I am trying to say here is Sadr is a reasonably important player at the moment but you guys overstate his power, influence and skill by orders of magnitude. I would also argue his power has waned markedly since say middle to late 2006. The media were putting his JAM at 200K plus then (2006), now I read 40 - 60K man operation absolute tops and lots of splinter groups . He had control of major ministries and the facility protection forces going with them, giving him huge ghost worker wages and thousands of Govt paid JAM but all that is gone too.
Whilst it is reasonable of you to point out the Hezbollah nature of his organisation ie the schools etc making JAM popular it is also reasonable to point out the criminal thuggery which obviously doesn’t help his popularity.
We will probably have to agree to disagree but as I have said in previous posts if Sadr ends up being the Al Capone of Sadr City at the end of this he will have done very well. I see little prospect of anything “better”.
The reduction in violence was due to a range of factors, it’d be silly to single one out.
The decision to seize upon long-running Sunni disquiet with AQI and form the Awakening councils, combined with better policing and counterinsurgency tactics, combined with the Sadrist ceasefire all played a role in quelling sectarian violence; though undoubtedly the internal and external displacement of between 10-20% of Iraq’s population to the point where major urban centres like Baghdad went from mixed neighbourhoods to fortified sectarian enclaves (see here).
The problem with all those measures though is that they’re temporary. The Sunnis are looking for improved representation in and real political power at the expense of the Shia-dominated govt. Their compliance is conditional, and unless they recieve a return on their investment they will again shoulder arms. Things like this where as many as 10,000 Shia tribesmen (and possibly Badr Brigade militia) are to be inducted into the Iraqi army while their militia haven’t been only reinforce the message that the current government is a sectarian Shia coalition only.
As for Sadr, I can’t keep track the number of times Instapundit and co. have written his political obituary. The 2007 ceasefire was apparently a sign of weakness and JaM was on its last legs, until a few weeks ago when it was utterly humiliated and now Sadr is _really_ on the run and JaM has been _really_ dismembered, and the current bloodshed in Sadr City and the Green Zone, well…
One doesn’t have to nail any colours to a mast to note that Sadr’s appeal is widespread amongst poorer and less educated Shia (that is, most Shia) and lies in his nationalist rhetoric, populist policies and infrastructre and his credibility as a Sadr and as a stayer, when the other Shia opponents of Saddam’s reign fled to Tehran (people like, I dunno, Nuri Al-Maliki, Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim?). The Jaish al-Mahdi appear to have spent much of the truce retraining and preparing for precisely the kind of crackdown that Maliki launched two weeks ago, and the training looks to have paid off.
The question now is wether ISCI/Dawa plan on letting things die down and cutting some kind of long term deal with the Sadrists or using the ceasefire as a lull to rethink their tactics with an eye on renewing their offensive before the provincial elections.
First paragaph with link and a concluding sentence:
The decision to seize upon long-running Sunni disquiet with AQI and form the Awakening councils, combined with better policing and counterinsurgency tactics, combined with the Sadrist ceasefire all played a role in quelling sectarian violence; though undoubtedly the internal and external displacement of between 10-20% of Iraq’s population to the point where major urban centres like Baghdad went from mixed neighbourhoods to fortified sectarian enclaves (see here) undoubtably played a role.
1. Sadr’s influence extends far beyond Sadr City. Why did Maliki need to fight him in Basra, the other end of the country?
2. It was Maliki who called for a ceasefire. The Mehdi Army don’t want to fight anyone. They are waiting for the elections. (There are some renegade elements that don’t obey Sadr’s orders).
3. No one has explained the postponement of the demo. There can be many explanations for this. Perhaps it is a sign of weakness. Perhaps Sadr lost his nerve. Perhaps there is some other reason. We simply don’t know.
But you do have to be alive to vote. We’re not talking about Chicago here. Admit it. The Sunni of Iraq have been smashed as a political force in most of populated Iraq. The Shiite now dominate most of the Arab parts of the country.
So why continue to insist on denationalisation of most of Iraqi oil? Your hypothetical crashes into reality on this point.
Your arguments don’t hold water, except for the question over the motivations for calling the off the demonstration. But no one knows what Sadr is up to on that score. Sadr hasn’t explained himself.
I notice you didn’t demur about my descripton of Saddam’s execution. I agree. It is very humiliating.
And then this from Kingsley:
Is that perchance the same Kagan as dropped these pearls in March 2004?:
and
and
and
And Kingsley still quotes Kagan as an authoritiy?
Oh, dear…
I think he has Katz, if this Reuters report is correct. Which it likely is.
[link]
Thanks PK.
Looks like a lot of code words to me.
Is Sadr really driven by humanitarianism? Perhaps.
Is he actually afraid that he might lose an open fight against Iraqis? Maybe.
Is he really that disrespectful of Americans? Could be.
Does he want to avoid polarising opinion in the lead-up to the elections? Not impossible.
In short, I don’t get much of a fix at all from this about what Sadr is actually thinking.
Kagan was the guy that invented the surge.
You may have missed Petraeus recently telling the media with a straight face that Maliki (the guy who asked GWB to have Petraeus sacked last July) has asked him to go and find some large western oil companies for some help.
No, I’m not making it up!
[link]
“Speaking at a news conference in Iraq with Vice President Dick Cheney on March 17, Petraeus said Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had asked him to call “large Western corporations” to get them to invest in Iraq’s oil, according to United Press International.”
Meanwhile, in Washington:
[link]
Because nationalisation is the enemy of production. I could point to Hugo’s idiotic nationalisation program where every single one is a harbinger of shortages in that industry. However I don’t even have to name lefty heart-throbs. Even “free” Mexico suffers from the same problem. Pemex has been a disaster not just for Mexico’s oil industry, but also for Mexico’s governance as a whole.
Katz - the Sunni refugees are ALIVE. The ethnic cleansing involve thousands per month dieing not hundreds of thousands and the Shiites lost lives in that terrible period too. There will be millions of votes cast in Syria.
Whilst the provincial elections are not far away the Federal one is I think 18 months to 2 years. That could see quite a few returned refugees by then.
Sadr is strong in Sadr city Slum, Basrah slums and a few other slums in the South. This DOES NOT tranlate to widespread popular support amongst SHia as a whole. You also need to be careful as to whether support for Sadr is coming from genuine approval or fear.
In the 3 plebiscites thus far many Sunnis still stayed away from the ballot box. Sadr got just 30 seats out of 275 yet he’s wildly popular with all Shia? That’s not even 11%. Whoopee! That’s enough to be a nuisance if the parliament is split among many groups which currently it is, any higher claim is a gross exageration.
He is a player yes but a long long way from some sort of all powerful figure you have him dressed up as. He has a reasonably strong following with one demographic in Iraq.
Strange too that he had to “call” for a demonstration, no reflex spontaneous support for this thug being attacked by the government, strangely enough.
As for Kagan - you asked for conservative columnists who acknowledged the Mahdi ceasefire was helpful, I gave them to you. You then proceeded to try and discredit Kagan. A curious tactic on your behalf to discredit someone agreeing with you that the ceasefire has been useful?
The Kagans obviously have got some things wrong as has every other analyst and pundit. Just as even the most brilliant military and political figures of history have got some things wrong.
Craig Mc has said all that needs to be said about your comments on de-nationalising the oil industry other than to say how does de-nationalising = US control? Australia’s oil inustry is de-nationalised, is the US in control of it?
Cheney even has to go cap in hand to the Saudi’s and ask them to lift production and is often re-buffed. The No War for Oil meme is an Urban Myth no more.
Very interesting comparing your views to the more cautious ones of Leinad.
As for JAM not wanting to fight, people who lose real bad the overwhelming majority of the time typically don’t want to fight. Sadr had a good 24 to 48 hours at the start of the Basra operation, once the ISF re-grouped and received some air support and deployed their SF and JAM started counting their casualties he had to back off yet again.
That’s merely speculation.
Ditto.
Sadr’s group is the second biggest Shiite group in the Parliament. Sadr is also reaching out to several Sunni groups. He represents a unifying factor for non-rejectionist Sunni.
Where did I say Sadr was popular with all Shia? Don’t put words in my mouth.
Incorrect. See above.
Newflash! That’s how disciplined movements operate.
Another complete misunderstanding of the point I was making. Contrary to CraigMc’s assumption I wasn’t either supporting or opposing nationalisation. I was merely pointing out the fact that if the US-supplied draught legislation had enabled nationalisation of Iraqi oil, it is likely that much more oil would be flowing now because Sadr would have delivered the crucial votes to enable passage of the oil law.
How fascinating. Care to elaborate?
That’s what guerrilla forces do. Remember Vietnam?
Katz 30 out of 275 is indeed 30 out of 275, there is no escaping the mathematical reality. If he is to “Sweep” the elections he is going to need vast numbers of people who did not vote for him last time to vote for him this time. Not impossible but what are the probabilities of that?
You say my saying the Iraqi Refugees in Syria will vote is speculation, I’d say saying they won’t is the more specualtive viewpoint given the big absentee turnouts in nations all over the world for the previous elections. Why on Earth would they miss the opportunity?
Could there be a bigger stretch of reality than to say the person who was in charge of the death squads who killed thousands upon thousands of Sunnis is a unifying factor for non-rejectionist Sunnis?
You can call the need for a call to protest discipline if you wish Katz but where were the voices of support at any level really? Other politcial leaders, iraqi Media etc, He’s isolated and unloved.
“That’s what Guerilla forces do” to some degree you are correct but they do it because they realise they are losing or about to lose if they don’t pull out. It is not their preference it is a necessity.
I’d suggest you read the analysis at long war journal to see what the military assessment is on the overall Basra situation. Read the comments too as you’ll see there is some debate on how each party faired etc.
My comments on Leinad came from principally this acknowledgement
“The reduction in violence was due to a range of factors, it’d be silly to single one out.
The decision to seize upon long-running Sunni disquiet with AQI and form the Awakening councils, combined with better policing and counterinsurgency tactics, combined with the Sadrist ceasefire all played a role in quelling sectarian violence; though undoubtedly the internal and external displacement of between 10-20% of Iraq’s population to the point where major urban centres like Baghdad went from mixed neighbourhoods to fortified sectarian enclaves (see here).”
I don’t agree entirely but I think it is fair and reasonable.
Katz I might sign off here I think in essence all I am trying to say is Sadr DOES have power he DOES have influence even reasonably significant influence right now but he is not widely popular and he is in a very precarious position. ie we disagree on the degree of power he has, not absolutely ,and you hold out I gather far “higher” hopes for him and his organisation than I do.
Enjoyed the debate, have a good weekend
Pretty good, by the sounds of it. They were quite pleased when the bill got passed.
Thanks for the ref Leinad. The view of that article pretty much coincides with my own.
The important coming trend is an upsurge in Iraqi nationalism that crosses sectarian lines in the Arab community.
Sadr has been working hard at that alliance since the Falluja atrocities.
Sadr is never likely to command a working majority in the Iraqi parliament. Again Kingsley misrepresents me when he implies that I think that Sadr will “sweep” to power.
Rather, Sadr and his movement will be, as they are now (but even more strongly positioned) the swing vote in parliament. This means that nothing can be accomplished by parliamentary majority unless Sadr wants it accomplished.
So far as the Americans are concerned, it means at least two things:
1. The parliament is more likely to demand that the US leave Iraq.
2. The US will never get their preferred oil law.
The Islamic Missionary Pary (aka al Da’wa Islammiyya) and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI)are concerned with Sadrists sweeping them in the South come October, which may have played a big part in Maliki’s calculations in launching the ‘Charge of the Knights’ a few mondays ago. The Sadrists have very strong appeal to the urban Shia poor (in other words, most Shia), a demographic the exile parties haven’t managed to crack yet.
Also, the Sadrists campaigned quite poorly in the January 2005 elections and had to play catchup in December. A few years is quite a long time in any political world, in the maelstrom of Iraq it’s something else entirely.
Katz - told a lie I’m back.
I note this
“Rather, Sadr and his movement will be, as they are now (but even more strongly positioned) the swing vote in parliament. This means that nothing can be accomplished by parliamentary majority unless Sadr wants it accomplished.”
If that is a summary of your position then we are a lot closer than I thought. I’d say Sadr has a reasonable chance of picking up some seats in the provincials because its April already and if Maliki doesn’t clear him out by October he’ll intimdate quite a few voters and someone will be genuine believers.
The national elections I don’t like his chances. He will have been degraded signifcantly by then.
I think it is also a pretty big leap of faith that he will get enough votes nationally to be able to stop other Sunni/Shia/Kurd cooperation. He’ll be a nuisance to be sure but he’ll struggle to be much more.
I see Sistani has said he did NOT tell him to maintain Mahdi Army and it is Sadr’s problem to disarm it. More isolation, depending on how he plays it that could work for or against him. We’ll see. Interesting that not even it’s founders wants to be associated with it (JAM) let alone any other signficant Shia figure.
My prediction this far out from the federal election is the seculars will do significantly better, religious based tickets be they Sunni or Shia will go backwards badly.
Kingsley, I’m pleased to read that you have, at last, got your head around my argument.
However.
First this:
Then this:
With the exception of some small socialist parties connected with oil workers in the South, secularism in Arab Iraq is virtually inert. To justify your faith in the rise of secularism in Iraq you need to have some evidence, not matter how little, that secularists are doing something/anything right now.
Otherwise these above statements are merely Pollyannaish prayers of the kind so prevalent among the “Faith-Based” school of politics made so unjustifiably famous by George W. Bush (who I am pleased to note at this time of writing is suffering the lowest approval ratings in his ridiculous career — mid-20s!)
This is a pretty bad misunderstanding. Sadr offered to disband JaM on Sistani’s word, something he’s done before in 2004. Both times there was a muted reply from Najaf as a) Sistani is a quietist and doesn’t want to get involved in this shit b) ordering JaM to disband would put in the US’s camp and wreck his cred as the voice of the Shia ‘Silent Majority’.
Leinad - Not sure if we are in significant disagreement here or not. Sistani as a quietist is simply staying out of the decision to disband as he is claiming he said out of the decision to form the Mahdi Army. Sadr tried to couch it in terms of he will take the Ayatollahs guidance to try and spread responsiblity and they were having none of it. Entirely consistent with the Quietist approach. So Sadr has been re-buffed, he tried to make it a joint decision and he has been told it is solely and wholly his responsiblity. That kind “offer” to disband on Sistanis word doesn’t seem to have been received as an offer at all but as I said above an attempt to pass the buck and Sistani ain’t that dumb.
I’d be interested in yours and Katz’s reading on how you think Sadr will handle the disarm or you can’t participate in the elections legislation proposed.
Kingsley: Offering to disband JaM on Sistani’s say so =/= spreading responsibility.
This offer, like the last, was a gesture on Sadr’s part to show that JaM had the tacit support of the Shia clergy, and that he is a faithful follower of Sistani. It was pure PR as Sistani wasn’t ever going to say ‘yes Muqtada, disband JaM’ nor was Sadr expecting or relying upon a wholehearted endorsement.
Your need to read ‘Muqtada al-Sadr is on the verge of collapse’ into everything is leading you to make mountains out of molehills and add pyroclastic lava-flows on top.
As for the mooted legislation, assuming it gets passed, the Sadrists will make a huge fuss about it, then make a token cave-in while in practice ignoring it. But a) I don’t think it’ll get passed, and b) it’s unenforceable and c) likely to backfire if they actually try and disarm or disenfranchise the Sadrists.
Will any legislation disqualify all and any candidates that Sadr happens to endorse?
If so, then we could be in for a very bizarre electoral season.
If not, then how is Maliki going to stop folks from voting for candidates personally endorsed by Sadr?
What sort of democracy would that be?
Meantime, every time the US bombs some building in Sadr City killing another batch of citizens they are producing campaign literature for Sadr that even Obama’s multi-millions could not buy. What on earth does the US occupation think they are achieving with these heavy-handed displays of impotent rage in a country that is supposed to be gearing up for elections?
Not much empathy is required here. How would you feel about your government if it was conspiring with a superpower in the aerial bombing of Blacktown or Broadmeadows?
Don’t you smell the fear oozing out of every pore of Maliki’s body?
I think the legislation could make real troubles for Sadr depending on how it is drafted. In the first instance it stops any overt Sadrist even being listed on the ballot paper, that’s a big hurdle. Any “closet” Sadrist has to be able to remain closet and if coming out of the closet equals instant disqualification including after the election it is going to be damned hard for Sadr to get significant numbers up. He might be able to get some “closet” candidates up but they’ll have to always be keeping their distance to some degree. Imagine trying to run an effective campaign under those circumstances.
I note too how “unifying” this was with essentially all Sunni and Kurdish groups lining up with Al Maliki on this shoulder to shoulder. Nothing quite like a common enemy to bring people together.
Katz as for what kind of democracy is that - a far far better one than one that allows political parties to have armed militias in the thousands intimidating the populace. No different to asking the IRA to hand over its weapons really.
Leinad you appear to be agreeing with me re the disarming of JAM not getting any buy in whatsoever of Sistani. Sadr was looking for Sistani to at least kind of sort of look like he was involved in the decision, Sistani was wise to him and chuck the potato straight back to him and said it was 100% is problem. He created he has to fix it. This is 100% NOT what Sadr wanted he didn’t even get the veneer of Sistani involvement.
I think the next 100 days are going to be crucial it is clear now that sorting out JAM/Sadr has become priority 1 for GoI and US. Whether Sadr is wiley enough to come out of that reasonably intact we will see. Interesting times to be sure.
Will any anti-militia legislation also apply to
a. the Badr Brigades
b. The Sunni militia armed and funded by the US?
The Badr Brigades, the military tool of Maliki, have simply been rebranded as the Army of Iraq. When once the Badr Brigades were guided and funded by Iran, they are ow merely guided by Iran, because now they are funded by the US!
Every step the US takes simply pushes control further into the hands of the Iranians.
Iraq isn’t my country. It’s up to Iraqis to decide how their country is to be governed.
My sole abiding interest in the Iraq fiasco is to watch how:
1. The Bush Clique sets a program for the future of Iraq.
2. That program fails.
3. The Bush Clique then performs a feat of semantic engineering on its previous statements to assert that outcome 2 was what they really wanted.
4. Then 1 happens again.
5. Then 2 happens again.
6. Then 3 happens again.
7. Etcetera.
The prominence of Sadr was to a large extent a product of one of those crazy Bushite gyrations. Every twist simply results in the rise of the influence of Teheran. If those Bushite apologists who are applauding the travails of Sadr think that Iranian hegemony is a cause worth fighting for, they are welcome to their opinions.
This is becoming a misleading trope of the Right. And it is symptomatic of how the Right does not understand the processes that its representatives are trying to describe and analyse.
Sinn Fein got what they needed out of the ballot/bullet strategy forged by Gerry Adams. Adams didn’t give up the bullet part of his strategy out of weakness. He agreed because it suited him to do so. Some rejectionists held on, like the “Real IRA” that bombed Omagh.
Now it is simply a matter of time before supporters of Sinn Fein make up a majority of the voting population in Northern Ireland.
To put it in stark terms, the Right tends to put too much faith in bang-bang and take little account of tick-tock.
The proponents of people’s war, starting with George Washington and finding perfection with Mao and Ho, and for that matter Osama bin Laden and the Mujahideen supported by the US in Afghanistan, know that time is on their side as the military might and political will of conventional powers degrades.
Katz: “The proponents of people’s war, starting with George Washington and finding perfection with Mao and Ho, and for that matter Osama bin Laden and the Mujahideen supported by the US in Afghanistan, know that time is on their side as the military might and political will of conventional powers degrades.”
Directly put, but also ideationally flexible.
1. The cases gathered together here differ markedly. Discuss.
2. Who deserves the Mantle of “People’s War”? In the case of Ho, did he not spend some efort in liquidating other pro-independence nationalists, in the 40s? If so, how many “people” must one muster before one is due the Honour of leading “the People”? And may one muster them at gunpoint? And is one permitteed to use whatever outside assistance: from USA, China, USSR etc while leading the People, and thereby winning the Katz Seal of Approval? And if one may do all of those, in what sense is it really a War belonging to the People? Sounds more like a War belonging to the Party. Oh, no doubt the People play their part: someone has to do the trench-digging, the scouting, the shooting and the dying; the dragging huge guns to Dien Bien Phu, the maintaing the Trail, the dying, the starving, the shooting and tank driving, the dying, the spying, the hiding, the marching and tunnel-digging. Did I mention the dying?
People’s War? Piffle!
You’re a dill Ambigulous.
Katz believes that democracy has found its perfection in Castro’s rule over Cuba.
So he is capable of believing anything.
Our crackerbarrel moralisers cannot recognise the difference between “ought” and “could”.
A prime exhibit of this incapacity:
1. As for all wars there is such a thing as successful people’s war and there is such a thing as failed people’s war. Therefore, the answer to the “muster” is “sufficient for the task”.
2. Yes, soldiers have been dragooned into fighting for causes they don’t particularly believe in for thousands of years. This task is more difficult and more fraught for practitioners of people’s war because usually they are at a tactical disadvantage.
3. Practitioners of people’s war would be stupid to reject outside help. George Washington accepted aid from the French. OBL accepted aid from the US.
Not having a crackerbarrel close handy, I deny myself the comforting luxury of casting moral judgement.
I content myself with a study of what actually works rather than to imagine myself at St Peter’s side at the Pearly Gates, nudging him in the ribs when Washington, or Mao, or Ho turn up, saying, “But St Pete, maaaate. These coots fought people’s war. They can’t possibly be let into heaven!”
Yes, Katz: I’m a dill.
To be pronounced so by your good self is indeed an honour. I will cherish the compliment.
We now discern that your heroes include Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Minh and Mao Tse Tung. There is a common thread (at least one) IMHO: the use of a rhetoric of brotherhood, advancement, democratic principle, solidarity… with a painful lack of the substance of these.
In plain terms, a “leader” who uses this rhetoric, but subjugates “his People” to his whim, is a liar.
He is also a thief of the deepest hopes of the dispossessed and downtrodden. In that latter he should be condemned. He should especially be condemned by those whose Leftism is said (by them) to hold a special place for the powerless, poor, and disenfranchised. At least, that’s what I would expect and hope for.
Unless of course these Leftists were to be so enamoured of the rhetoric that it blinds them to the actual physical and social circumstances of those the “Leader” lorded it over.
I dunno, Katz…. whadayousereckon?
I notice you didn’t mention George Washington in your little rant Ambi.
Why not?
Because I didn’t think the struggle he led resembled the other wars you cited. Elementary. I am entitled to pick and choose when I comment, Katz. I believe I’ve seen you do similarly, as of course is your right.
All the very best to you and The Lads (Mao, Ho, Fidel)
*************************
Verb Practice:
I opine
You rant
He/she/it is ignorant
We pronounce
You(se) rant again
They are idiots
Katz included: “Our crackerbarrel moralisers cannot recognise the difference between “ought” and “could”.”
Well, thanks, maaaate. I reckon if it’s OK for you to moralise endlessly on Iraq, then it should be fine for others to opine on Ho/Viet Nam or Mao/China.
To paraphrase Churchill: “some barre