Another political step forward
By Charles Bird Posted in War — Comments (49) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Muqtada al-Sadr straddles the line between the political and military, so when the junior cleric announced that his Jaish al Mahdi (JAM) militia will stand down against Iraqi and coalition forces, it is both a political and military step forward. AP via FoxNews:
Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has ordered a six-month suspension of activities by his Mahdi Army militia in order to reorganize the force, and it will no longer attack U.S. and coalition troops, aides said Wednesday.
The aide, Sheik Hazim al-Araji, said on Iraqi state television that the goal was to "rehabilitate" the organization, which has reportedly broken into factions, some of which the U.S. maintains are trained and supplied by Iran.
"We declare the freezing of the Mahdi Army without exception in order to rehabilitate it in a way that will safeguard its ideological image within a maximum period of six months starting from the day this statement is issued," al-Araji said, reading from a statement by al-Sadr.
In Najaf, al-Sadr's spokesman said the order also means the Mahdi Army will no longer launch attacks against U.S. and other coalition forces.
"It also includes suspending the taking up of arms against occupiers as well as others," Ahmed al-Shaibani told reporters.
Asked if Mahdi militiamen would defend themselves against provocations, he replied: "We will deal with it when it happens."
Read on . . .
AP goes on to mention that the decision was made two days after the fracas in Karbala. It's important to note that al-Sadr said nothing about suspending militia activities against rival Shiite gangs such as the Badr Brigades and others. He also didn't say anything about extra-judicial killings of male Sunnis, which is also a serious problem, especially in the Baghdad area. He also didn't say that he would be joining the Iraqi government anytime soon.
But with al-Sadr standing down, the "rogue" Shiite paramilitias will stand out, making the job easier for American and Iraqi forces. The U.S. command can basically say that they're going after al Qaeda terrorists and "rogue" Shiite militias, especially those Shiites who are supported by Iranians. Al-Sadr's decision should improve the security environment, which in turn improves the political environment.
Why did al-Sadr make the announcement? My take is this. The cleric will do whatever it takes to save his own skin, and standing down is currently his best option. His lieutenants were taking serious hits in the current counterinsurgency campaign, and he realized that he would be putting his career--and perhaps life--more at risk by continuing this tack. Better to let the coalition take out his more militant rivals, leaving him available to expand his power and influence over the rest.
But al Sadr's losses to the coalition look to be a secondary reason, because there's another factor involved. The Supreme Islamic Iraq Council (SIIC) controls the shrine in Karbala, and the Badr Briages are aligned with them. The melee in Karbala must have incensed quite a few Shiites, especially when it's well accepted that JAM paramilitants were neck-deep in the violence. Instead of al Qaeda or other Sunni paramilitants attacking pilgrims and shrines, JAM is the group responsible for trashing the holy observances.
My guess is that al-Sadr had nothing to do with stoking the violence. Other JAM leaders not aligned with him were responsible. Because al-Sadr has lost quite a bit of control over his own group, and he wants to dissociate himself from what took place, he chose to take his loyalists off line for a while in order to rebuild and regroup. Also, it may be better for al-Sadr to let the coalition do the infighting for him, because it may also be true that if his militia and the Badr Brigades go head-to-head, al-Sadr may just come out on the short end.
Let’s call it as we see it, shall we? Any “force” standing up to the US forces are being flamed. Our actions have decimated insurgent ranks and their strategy is in disarray. Sure they can engage in the usual IED, VBIED and sniper attacks but in the end what does that buy? Very little and the only plausible option is to rely on our withdrawal to weaker, less capable Iraqi elements that may even include some of their members. Al Sadr is just the latest to realize this along with Iran and other tribes who surmise that once we are gone, their chances are better; thus the increasing importance of both a political and factional reconciliation complemented by economic revitalization, clearly all parts of the next front in this war.
Should a strengthened government and more cohesive society not arise and fill the void from the growing cessation of conflict, I fear for the long term consequences. These would include substantial discontent and chaotic power struggles characterize by parochial, factional goals as we see in other regional countries.
The Lebanon analogy is also completely relevant although the inability for the various groups to organize effective political elements (and participate) is currently the main difference. Let’s hope they never accomplish this in any meaningful way.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
Any victory in Iraq would require constant U.S. babysitting of the 1,400-year old Sunni-Shiite hatred. America would be forced to bribe both groups for decades (or centuries) to stop killing each other. It would require trillions in extra defense spending with MY tax dollars. "Victory" in Iraq would resemble the Israeli-Palestine conflict, where America has spent TRILLIONS defending Israel since 1948. The minority Sunnis in Iraq would resemble the Palestinians in Israel. We've spent BILLIONS bribing Egypt since 1978 to stop attacking Israel. America cannot afford to bribe everyone to love each other. The trillions we've spent manufacturing a bogus "peace" for Israel has only benefited big defense contractors and foreign policy wonks who need an excuse for a job. It has NOTHING to do with the safety of average Americans who are paying for this farce.
Also, a victory in Iraq would inflame radical Muslims everywhere. They will NEVER sit quietly while America builds Wal-Marts and Burger Kings on the "land of the holy." So, for America's safety and security, be happy that Bush has been defeated in Iraq. I'm certainly happy!
That's a new low, even for you. Not only is my position -- the policy I advocate for maximizing our chances of SUCCESS in Iraq -- way, way different than this person above, but you basically are taking your bitterness from one thread in which you looked silly and dropping meaningless, silly ridicule (in lieu of argument, of course) on other threads. Did you miss the part on the other thread tonight when I told you to grow up? And to start making sense? You're a real tool, Hinzy.
oh, I forgot to add, ridiculing me on threads I'm not even on. That's not just lame in same way as your mindless ridicule on threads on which I'm present, but adds a new dimension: cowardice.
an anonymous blogger hiding behind a pseudonym who savages anyone who calls him out on the clap-trap he is pedaling, calling someone a coward. Rich, truly rich!
It has not been me that has resorted, again and again to personal attack.
As someone said the other day, you are the Smartest Man In The Room™! L real legend in your own mind! The trouble is, you are a phony...
It has not been me that has resorted, again and again to personal attack.
Cough! Cough! You should get that amnesia treated. At least so you can remember things for more than an hour or so. I wasn't even on this thread and you insulted me -- unbelievable, lol. And on the other thread tonight, you didn't address any point I made or offer any other argument at all, but instead just chimed in to post ridicule toward me. Double lol!
calls him out on the clap-trap he is pedaling
Funny how YOU don't try to "call me out" on the supposed "clap-trap" I'm "peddling" (I hope you don't mind that I corrected your spelling to spell out the word you intended, unless you were saying that I was riding my clap-trap like a bicycle). That's another example of your cowardice. You drop lines of ridicule without any argument challenging what I've said about the issues at hand. You should try actual debate or substantive discussion sometime. Or perhaps you've learned that it's just not a good fit for you.
The trouble is, you are a phony
Hmm, just for laughs, in what way and on what basis do you claim I'm a phony?
Once again, Hinzy, two pieces of advice: Grow up. Make sense.
You could have stopped after the first sentence and still gotten the 5, even.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
His first comment yesterday was a doozy: a copy and paste troll AND a name violation. A double whammy of blammy goodness.
There are Sunni-Shiite divisions, but the schism wasn't a major issue in the past and doesn't have to be in the future.
You defeatists are so utterly predictable. The folks who want us to lose in Iraq never mention the fact that al Qaeda has made Iraq its central front, and they fail to mention the threat of a hardline Iranian regime that would love nothing better than a power vacuum after we leave prematurely.
al Qaeda will follow our troops. Had the US not deposed Saddam Hussein, but instead put all of our troops in one basket (so to speak) with 200,000 troops combing the mountains of Afghanistan, we would be seeing the same attacks from al Qaeda insurgents there, as they would have made Afghanistan the central front against the US.
If we pulled out of both Iraq and Afghanistan, and, as the libs all wish, sent peacekeepers into Darfur, you can bet that we would soon be fighting an al Qaeda insurgency there as well.
These people fail to recognize that we are at war, a fact that the enemy has no difficulty recognizing.
to the ethnic make up of Turkey.
http://lexicorient.com/e.o/turkey_4.htm
It is predominantly Muslim, 75% Sunni and the rest Shia. Now, for some reason even though their rivalries also go back 1400 years, these people aren't killing each other every day. This idea that Iraq will be in a constant state of rivalry is simply nonsense.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
"Constant" covers a lot of ground. If you mean that such conflict is necessarily a natural or inescapable condition, based on religious differences, than I see your point. But if you're talking about Shia and Sunnis today in Iraq (vs. Turkey), there's a boatload of differences. Perhaps at some point at least relative stability and peace/security can be achieved. But the animosities run deep on both sides, and the situation and dynamics are quite different and much more conducive to conflict in Iraq.
in Turkey there is a sophisticated government and semblance of law and order. What I don't see as being much different is the ethnic make up in Turkey compared to Iraq. What defeatists say is that the ethnic make up of Iraq makes it impossible for all of the groups to live peacefully. I say the current situation on the ground makes it impossible. What we need to do is break the gangs and militias and then the people will show everyone that Sunnis and Shia can live together.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
As I said, I see your point (and agree) that there is nothing inherent in their religious differences that would preclude their living together in relative stability and peace/security, so I agree with you on that and disagree with anyone who says otherwise, and your Turkey point seems well-taken, although I can't speak to any differences that may exist between Iraqis and Turks in the degree/intensity or their religious convictions or differences in beliefs that could affect tensions and spark conflict. (I would add, by the way, one more important adjective to the government in Turkey that distinguishes it from what may emerge in Iraq: "secular", which hopefully won't change much now)
As for Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites, there's obviously a lot of bad blood, not just from opression under Saddam but from all the bloddy conflict, ethnic cleansing and power struggles since the invasion, and it will take a lot of changes, plus time, before they can get along with each other. But that SHOULD be our objective, at least to the extent that we prevent or substantially mitigate the consequences of civil war there.
agree on the way the situation looks. I think that the militias plus AQ stoked a lot of this bad blood. I think that crushing militias and creating law and order will go a long toward calming the tensions between the two groups down. I firmly do not believe that the average Iraqi has vengeance in their heart.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
using terror to maintain its control, and then that minority is deposed, it is natural for the repressed to take retribution. Look at South Africa after apartheid.
The decades of repressed rage has risen up to create a state where the majority is now repressing the past agressor. Over time, as that rage is assuaged, a balance will be reached and eventually, equality will come to the country.
The problem with Iraq is that we cannot wait for this equalibrium to be reached, as stability in the region is dependent upon a stable Iraq.
Of course, SA doesn't have the added problem of armed neighbors importing explosives and insurgents to prevent such an equilibrium from happening.
Good points. One note, though: South Africa is not a particularly good example of a repressed minority "taking retribution" after gaining power. Read up on it. And if I'm missing something, please bring it to my attention. One notable and quite "Christian" (if I'm allowed to say that) policy the blacks in power adopted and implemented was the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, through which many who had committed human rights abuses under apartheid were essentially forgiven, or at least not punished, in exchange for their testimony. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_Reconciliation_Commission_(South_Africa) It's debatable whether or not punishment for the sake of justice should have trumped reconciliation, but the black SA leaders thought the latter the more important, so they just wanted to clear the air and move forward together as a nation.
I'll try that link again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_reconciliation
To be precise, I didn't mean to suggest that ALL those who had committed human rights abuses were granted amnesty (they weren't). But that commission was notable for it's degree of forgiveness for the sake of national reconciliation.
with very lofty stated goals.
From ABC
Many are now being forced to rely on soup kitchens to survive. White unemployment has risen by almost 200% in five years. The Trade Union Solidarity is helping to feed the most desperate in the white population.
KALLIE KRIEL: [SOLIDARITY] We think unfortunately the situation is that the current government that we have has in the past said they fought for a non racial society, free of racial discrimination and what we’re seeing now is the same kind of system that we had in the past, it’s just being implemented by other people and it is a racially driven society we see more and more.
DANIEL: Solidarity was formed from the remnants of the Mine Worker’s Union, which campaigned hard to keep both low skilled Afrikaaners and black people out of the workforce during the apartheid years. Now, it’s lobbying against affirmative action.
Do you understand how ironic it sounds for white South Africans to complain about a government being racially motivated, considering the history here?
KALLIE KRIEL: Yeah well but from our side we also see it ironic that a government that fought against racial legislation is now doing exactly the same what they fought against.
DANIEL: The ANC, formerly a group of freedom fighters, came to power promising to create a non racial society but there’s now declared discrimination on the basis of colour.
From a Gallup Poll in SA;
These are the findings of a nationwide survey conducted by Plus 94 Research, a marketing research company. An affiliate of the Gallup group, it interviewed 2000 people about their experiences at shops, hospitals, transport outlets, municipal offices, financial institutions and other places.
They were asked if they had been discriminated against because of their race in the past year, and if so, where and the race of the person who discriminated against them.
Almost half of the respondents said they had received racially inspired “prejudicial” treatment in hospitals and clinics and 39% in shops. Twenty-six percent said they had been ill-treated by municipalities because of their race, and 32% said they had been treated in this manner by government agencies such as the police and the Home Affairs Department.
The survey found that even though African people were most likely to be victimised by other races, almost half of South Africans had experienced discrimination at the hands of Africans.
I am not making any moral judgements, merely pointing out that human nature is human nature. It is natural to want to get back at those who have oppressed you.
Yes, I agree with that natural tendency, and that many people don't resist that urge, but let's maintain some perspective here. First, there's a difference between vengeance and a previously oppressed group seeking to gain economic opportunities that until very recently have been denied by the previously dominant group (and I say that as one who very strongly opposes race-based affirmative action in OUR country, particularly at this point in our history). Second, my point was that SA was not a particularly good example of the "retribution" to which you referred. Racial preferences in hiring (and I'm not familiar with degree, nor do your excerpts provide a sense of degree, much less degree relative to what might be appropriate, given the level of black unemployment and poverty caused by the previous policies) and the other stuff you cited are hardly on the same scale as many, many, many other examples of retribution you could have cited, and that's all I was saying.
But let's not forget that Turkey has been mostly a very repressive regime that has had their military impose secular government since Atuturk created their modern government.
And I think you should ask a Kurd living in Turkey what he thinks of the cultural harmony of Turkey.
While Turkey is one of the better states in the regions it has taken a long time to get there and is still pretty badly flawed.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
But it's not like oppression of the Kurds in Turkey is a recent phenomenon.
Let's also remember that it is Turkey that is preventing the creation of a independent Kurdish state.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
What does opposition to the balkanization of its southern border have to do with oppression? You throw that out there like it's all the proof we need.
If I oppose the creation of Aztlan out of parts of the Southwest, am I oppressive of Mexicans?
They oppose the creation of a Kurdish state in Iraqi territory. This is why the Kurds have to get all Taiwanese about how independent they really are.
I'm not sure what you mean that's all the proof we need. Proof of what?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Having utterly failed to slip in your attack on our ally Turkey unchallenged, and are now just going to completely change the subject in order to claim you were right on some minor point, and then act like that's what we were arguing about the whole time.
You LOSE! Good DAY Sir!
Which one of my comments was wrong?
"attacking an ally"? That's what I'm doing?
Do you deny that the Turks have violently oppressed the Kurds living Turkey for decades?
Do you deny that the Turks oppose the creation of Kurdistan in Northern Iraq?
How I am completely changing the subject, I literally have no idea. But this is SOP for you. Anytime I down respond with "Why of course, Neil. You are completely right" you respond with some variant of this comment. Instead of having an actual civil discussion, which we were perilously close to having here, you choose to go right back to ad hominems.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Watch out, flyer. No telling what he could do to cause trouble for ya'. After all, he's Your Company's Computer Guy http://youtube.com/watch?v=R7RuolTf9ho&mode=related&search= (yeah, this one's different from the other one)
I have that html for that somewhere. But it involves a few more steps. I guess I should do it more often as a courtesy if it actually bothers people. Do you think it does, or are you just being snarky toward me as usual.
but alas, in this case I was being quasi-snarky (asking Neil - since it was Neil you had your jaws into), but the short answer is YES! It is distracting to weed through the link to get back to the text, especially when long links are involved. Look at the link that Mike has provided right below this post...it detracts from the post.
I would not go so far as to say it actually bothers me, but it bothers me!
Hmm, that link below really bothers you? Do you think it would bother many others or just you? Seems like an attention-deficit problem, Hinzy ;>
Of course, if the answer above is that it's just you, the follow-up question I'd have to ask myself is "Is bothering Hinzy a GOOD thing?" :P
But I can see how some links that are a few lines long could be distracting and aesthetically unpleasing, so thanks for mentioning it, even though your intent was mostly malicious, you snark-o-matic.
Hmm, moral dilemma here. On the one hand, it might be bothering some folks. But on the other hand, it bothers Hinzy. Hooh, tough call.
there is no doubt plenty of Shia who just want to hunt down someone that killed their friends and families, however I don't for one second believe that is the majority of them. In fact, this was a piece of a previous diary of mine...
http://redstate.com/blogs/mike_volpe/2007/aug/27/my_trip_to_minnesota
I agree that this dynamic makes things more difficult, however this retribution is almost exclusively being carried out by militias, like JAM. They must be crushed. If the militias are crushed, most Iraqis are just going to want to go on with their daily lives.
Besides it wasn't the Sunnis per se, but rather the Baathists, who of course were entirely Sunni, however most Sunnis weren't involved in the systematic repression, just members of Saddam's party.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
It's hard to know (except, PERHAPS with RELIABLE polling) what percentage of Shiites and Sunnis want what degree of reconciliation on what terms that could be agreeable to both sides. It would be hard to know that before the occupation, and it's much more difficult now due to all the conflict that has transpired and the struggle for power. I would imagine that, particularly at this point, there is not only a substantial amount of widespread animosity, but also a sense of great insecurity/fear and deep distrust of the other side, as well as irreconcilable demands.
I agree that there are probably a great many ordinary Iraqis who would readily give up their ideal of justice, fairness, revenge, sectarianism, etc., just to have security and a decent standard of living, and I agree that the radical elements causing most of the trouble are probably not representative of the mainstream in degree, and that we should seek to minimize their ability to continue messing things up for everyone. I'm just not nearly as sure as you seem to be that if you could just get rid of some radical fringe elements, the vast majority would quickly arrive at reconciliation and peace.
is right about getting rid of the radical fringe. I certainly didn't mean to make it sound as though it is easy, however I do have faith that our military can and that is mostly a military operation. I think the An Bar model by flipping the sheikhs can be reproduced throughout the country, could I say, and easy for me to say since I won't be involved in the heavy lifting. That said, currently the strategy has been to expel the radical elements from their sanctuaries and then follow them to wherever they try and make a new sanctuary and soon enough they will have no place to go. If given enough time, years not months, this will work, however not only is the benefit of victory huge but the consequence of defeat is even bigger.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
I absolutely agree regarding likely consequences of failure. I'm skeptical, though, of our ability to succeed just via military strategy coupled with seeking local alliances against a particular common enemy (e.g., Sunnis in Anbar vs. AQI). I think (and Petraeus agrees) that political reconciliation at the national level is vital. And the latest National Intelligence Estimate, while noting the progress with those tribal leaders vs. AQI, says that acceptance/support of such initiatives from the national government will be essential if such a bottom-up approach is to have a chance at leading to widespread success (enough reconciliation for stability and peace/security).
And it's important to note that our alliances with Sunnis vs. AQI still leave the tension between Sunnis and Shiites.
however the way I see it national reconciliation can and probably will be the last thing to happen. First, there must a serious quelling of the violence nationwide. It is just frankly impossible for any national progress to happen when death squads roam the streets. Then there needs to be growth on the local and regional levels of government, and after that the national government will be in a position for reconciliation.
Look, if each ethnic group, feels safe in their homes, feels like they are represented in their localities, all of these other things frankly take care of themselves.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
I think what you've laid out in terms of sequence is plausible, but I see it a bit differently. I think the military and the national political reconciliation tracks are synergistic, and to some extent dependent on one another. In other words, there's a bit of chicken-and-egg. Without reconciliation, with all the sources of division, animosity, unresolved tensions, distrust, etc., in place, it's much more difficult, and perhaps impossible for the military to establish enough physical security to get the ball rolling toward reconciliation.
Additionally, I don't think a lack of security in various areas throughout Iraq is holding back national reconciliation to the extent that the Iraqi leaders coudn't have made, and could continue to make, much more progress than they have made, or at least to have shown a good-faith effort at it (and I'm referring mainly to Shiite leaders). People getting shot or blown up in Baghdad and other places doesn't have to stop Iraqi politicians in the Green Zone from reaching (and ratifying) an agreement on how to share oil revenue, for example. So progress toward reconciliation is possible right now IF they want it or are pressured into it by us (the latter of which I've been stressing on RS -- increased pressure). The whole idea of the surge (which, by the way, we'll have to draw down on beginning in April due to manpower and other constraints) was to buy time for reconciliation and to make it easier by reducing the sectarian violence, but the Iraqi leaders, particularly the Shiite leaders, have balked. We need to pressure them much more to work toward reconciliation. http://www.redstate.com/blogs/brooksrob/2007/aug/02/a_common_sense_iraq_...
Also, as a note, I lean toward a federalist solution (soft partition) with regional autonomy and each having it's own security forces (but a national army), and implementation would likely include some assisted population transfer. That approach is far from perfect for a number of reasons, but it seems like the least of the evils at this point.
A Federalist state may be the ideal result but I just don't see how they settle the oil issue equitably.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
currently the oil revenues are being split up, it just isn't written into law.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
I think there are still outstanding issues that haven't been resolved. Also, even if/when they reach a deal, ratification by the parliament is another major challenge. Remember several months ago when the political leadership at the top had agreed upon a measure for reform of de-Baathification? Chalabi -- our past future George Washington, then suspected spy for Iran -- ran to Sistani who nixed it. And that parliament seems to be a collection of real winners, real public servants those guys.
To be fair to the Shiites on the oil deal, from what I've read the Kurds may be taking an unreasonable position on some aspects of the issue.
On its face, this appears to be another victim of the "doomed to fail from the outset" surge the nuts on the left have been tearing themselves up over lately. BUT, given Ahmadinejad's chatter about filling the void upon US withdrawal, I can't help wondering whether this is the re-armament phase (as with Hezbollah in Lebanon) lying in wait to take over the country (or die trying) when our Congressional lunatics force the defeat they long for so desperately.
I SO hope I am just being my usual cynical self...
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).