Email This to a Friend
Behind the Bloodshed in Basra
Why is the Iraqi government clashing with Sadr's militias?
One of the most notable things about the fierce and bloody confrontation taking place the government and Sadr’s militia is the spin on the operation by the commanders and the government; that it is a crackdown on outlaws with emphasis that the operation targets no particular movement or political line.
This generic label, includes the so-called rogue Sadrists. Sadr announced only weeks ago that whoever doesn’t uphold the ceasefire would no longer be considered a member of the movement.
Now, Sadr is watching those rogue elements being hit hard by the government forces. Instead of disavowing those who blatantly disobeyed his ceasefire orders we see him call for negotiations and condemning the government, thus once more revealing his real face as a defender of his own version of terrorism.
Another important dimension in this confrontation, largely ignored, regards Sadr’s rhetoric about security situation in Basra. The anti-Multinational Force powers always blamed British troops for insecurity in the province prior to their withdrawal.
Now it must be asked in a loud clear voice – who’s responsible for insecurity now that British troops are gone?
Another important aspect of this operation is the excessive enthusiasm of the UIA-led government in striking the Sadrists, who are supposed to be part of the UIA and are also Shiites.
This is the first sign of the rising election fever in the south. Word on the street is that Sadrists want to hijack the provincial elections. Everybody knows that their criminal methods can severely reduce the chances for holding fair elections and may grant Sadr’s people huge gains at the expense of other Shiite factions such as the SIIC, Da’wa and Fadheela. The stakes are high for the SIIC in particular whose federal dream in the south, which Sadr is opposed to, hinges on the results of provincial elections.
If Sadr is to be cut down to size before the provincial election law can be passed, presumably his rivals would be able to compete in a relatively more civil way.
The outcome of this operation in my opinion will not involve the extermination of Sadr’s militia but rather the reduction of its power.
A truce would then be put in place with mediation by senior clerics, tribal leaders and third-party politicians.
But this would be a mistake – similar to former interim prime minister Allawi’s when he didn’t finish the job back in Najaf four years ago, except that the situation is more complicated this time as both belligerents are from the UIA.
Why? Because leaders like Saddam, Nasrallah and Sadr is always manage to turn defeat into symbolic victory for domestic consumption. If Sadr and a decent part of the movement’s command survive this round, he will portray his movement as an innocent victim of the “occupation and its agents” and will use this for an even louder propaganda campaign after the battle.
Those killed in the fighting are poor unfortunate followers, but the real outlaws, the heads of the movement, will likely escape punishment.
Just like Desert Storm or the summer 2006 Lebanon war, the survival of the leader can easily become synonymous to victory in their twisted dictionary.
And let’s not forget Iran. Its role in this chapter of the struggle for power in the south is still unclear to observers. Both sides of the conflict are friends of Iran, yet I think Iran will support the SIIC and prime minister Maliki this time.
It appears, for now, that Iran has begun to abandon this undisciplined movement. Iran has learned over time that Sadr’s militia, although powerful in some regions, is reckless and unpredictable – unlike the rest of the UIA which is consistent and organized in utilizing the power granted to them as the biggest party in the government to their advantage.
It is true that the grand strategies of Tehran and Sadr are quite the same when it comes to their ambitions in spreading their version of totalitarian Shia Islamism in the region. However, Sadr’s ambitious aspirations are not in harmony with Tehran’s tactical plans. He rejects a federal system in Iraq because he wants to control the whole country, while Iran at this stage is only looking forward to having an ally in a stable Iraqi south.
This is why supporting the SIIC makes more sense for Iran as the most reliable party that may be able to make the autonomous region in the south a reality—a reality in which Iran has a strategic interest, as it can turn the south into a friendly buffer zone instead of a thorn in its side.
Mohammed Fadhil is Baghdad editor for Pajamas Media. His blog is Iraq The Model.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
36 Comments
1. Iraq’s Charge of the Knights:[...] Continue Reading [...]
Mar 28, 2008 - 4:19 am 2. fred lapides:Lots of explanations but what we have is a non-working surge and a govt unable to meet benchmarks or to defend its new “democracy,” and we keep pouring money and troops into that country. In fact, when Saddam–I knowp; bad person–in charge, Iran afraid to take on Iraq again. Now Iran ruling the region, with or without American forces being in the region.
Try tough love and let them bottom out!
Mar 28, 2008 - 7:40 am 3. mishu:Hey fred, with your ‘tough love’ strategy, you can’t say the ensuing carnage would not in your name. Own it tough guy.
Mar 28, 2008 - 7:51 am 4. TallDave:Bah, Iran barely rules Iran.
The other Iraqi factions are so fed up with Sadr they are refusing to meet with him, calling this a “law and order” issue not a political one.
The IA should beat the Sadrists up pretty good after the 72-hour deadline passes.
Mar 28, 2008 - 7:54 am 5. dan:I thought the most interesting thing is the most obvious: Maliki had been the Sadrist pick, and now the results of the surge have apparently compelled Maliki to turn and join SCIRI/Dawa/Badr, the more established parties. Sadr is obviously a threat to both American goals (stable friendly Iraq) and Iraqi goals (coherent integral Iraqi state, even if only for the worst-case purpose of most effectively embezzling from it). It is unfortunate that Maliki has extended the cease-fire to April 8th. The survival of Sadr is the one irrefutable strategic error in OIF. For some reason everyone is spooked by the martyr theory, which as virtually no basis in reality, or otherwise manipulated by the ulema who suggest that Sadr’s lineage would galvanize mass support. Both are wrong: a live Sadr has proven a calamity many times. The success of the surge has always depended significantly on the truce Sadr called last year. Here, yet again, the Coalition/Iraqi National Gov’t has a situation in which to destroy Sadr – just neutralize the basta*d. Yet again, for some truly inscrutable reason, he will probably escape. This is pure idiocy.
Mar 28, 2008 - 8:32 am 6. Wolf Pangloss:Mr. Fadhil, thanks for your take on this. It’s hard to see what’s really going on from outside.
I would be astonished if Iran was taking sides against al-Sadr given that he has enrolled in ayatollah school in Iran (and not in Iraq). I think it’s more like Iran seeing the Sadrist uprising in Basra and Baghdad as an opportunity to destabilize its neighbor, which will widen openings for terrorist infiltrators and jihadist organizers from Iran. The goal of this would be to Hezbollah-ize Iraq.
I’m agnostic over whether al-Sadr is behind this play or is just a figurehead.
Mar 28, 2008 - 8:56 am 7. Big Kahuna:This may be too radical an idea, but perhaps we should see how it plays out first before drawing conclusions? Was WWII over when the Germans bombed Peral Harbor?
Mar 28, 2008 - 8:59 am 8. JCD:Fred: “The non-working surge”…
I just have to shake my head and chuckle every time I hear things like this anymore. What’s the sense in arguing with people like Fred? Their pre-conceived notion of this war trumps facts and reality in their minds.
Mar 28, 2008 - 9:59 am 9. Matthew in Austin:“Was WWII over when the Germans bombed Peral Harbor?”
Really?
Mar 28, 2008 - 10:07 am 10. abu al-fin:Iran will go all-out to destabilize Iraq in a US election year. That is too obvious for anyone to miss. Getting the US out of Iraq is Iran’s biggest goal by far, and the best way of doing that is to help elect Barack Obama as US President.
Mar 28, 2008 - 10:08 am 11. A Decisive Moment in Iraq » The American Mind:[...] U.S. troops have gone in to help the Iraqi army in Sadr City. While disappointing it makes sense since much of the surge has focused on securing Baghdad. I think the important battle is in Basra where Prime Minister Maliki himself is leading his forces. For months British troops hunkered down at the airport while Shia factions took over the city. Iraqi government forces have come in to squelch the insurgents (partly in preparation for future elections). [...]
Mar 28, 2008 - 10:25 am 12. Dave:“Was WWII over when the Germans bombed Peral Harbor?”
lol
Mar 28, 2008 - 10:34 am 13. Don Cox:“when the Germans bombed Peral Harbor”____I think he means Plymouth harbour.
Mar 28, 2008 - 11:09 am 14. Papa Ray:It seems that Sadr’s rebellious gang has been given 10 days to turn in their guns and be good.
Who is behind this extention?
And why?
Stay tuned!
Papa Ray
Mar 28, 2008 - 11:11 am 15. mishu:Papa Ray, it’s not an extension. See Confederate Yankee for an explanation:
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/258833.php
Mar 28, 2008 - 12:58 pm 16. AubreyJ:May the Iraqi Government prevail with strength and do it in the name of all Iraqis.
Keep up the good work and as always… stay safe…
Mar 28, 2008 - 1:48 pm 17. Shields Green:AubreyJ………
I think a very important observation is this statement:
“Another important dimension in this confrontation, largely ignored, regards Sadr’s rhetoric about [the] security situation in Basra. The anti-Multinational Force powers always blamed British troops for insecurity in the province prior to their withdrawal.
Now it must be asked in a loud clear voice – who’s responsible for insecurity now that British troops are gone?”
It is important to extrapolate that observation to the situation in Iraq as a whole. There are many people who say that the cause of instability and violence in Iraq right now is our mere presence, and that if we, the “occupiers,” left, then there would be no reason for conflict in Iraq to continue. Therefore, the violence would drop just as a function of our departure. This position is taken by people like Sadr, people like Bin Laden, and also by far left liberals in the U.S. (funny how often one can find this kind of commonality between these groups).
All of the groups of people who push this sentiment have alterior motives. None of them truly believe that our pre-mature departure would lead to stability in Iraq. In the case of Sadr, this sentiment is part of their strategy to gain power. In the case of far left liberals, it is based on their desire for the Iraq policy to fail.
I’m particularly interested in the latter. To me, it shows how little the “get out now” crowd actually cares about the Iraqi people. I think they are smart enough to understand the repurcussions of leaving a power vacuum in the country. They just don’t care. They are quick to point out their usually highly inflated “statistics” about the number if Iraqis killed as a result of this war. But, they couldn’t care less if that number were to increase ten-fold as a result of our abandonment of the country–as long as we get out. They couldn’t care less if Iraq returned to dictatorship after a long and brutal period of anarchy, as long as we get out. They couldn’t care less if our departure opened the door for a regional war between Iran and Saudi Arabia with Iraq caught in the middle, as long as we get out.
So, this brings us back to Basra. If the British “occupation” was the reason for the unrest and conflict, then why are we dealing with this difficult problem there now long after the British have left? And, why would Iraq as a whole, especially Baghdad, be any different? No, this is evidence that we need to finish the job. Regardless of whether you agreed or disagreed with the war, the fact is that the decision was made by our Executive and Legislative branches five years ago, and we have a responsibility to see it through, even if it takes another five years before the Iraqis can take full control. The alternative is unacceptable.
Mar 28, 2008 - 2:22 pm 18. RJ:No, we don’t know how it will turn out, but I’m putting my money on the IA.
The “surge” is working fine, Fred. This wouldn’t be possible without it.
Mar 28, 2008 - 2:39 pm 19. CMAR II:[fred lapides] Lots of explanations but what we have is a non-working surge and a govt unable to meet benchmarks or to defend its new “democracy,” and we keep pouring money and troops into that country.
Newsflash, fred. This operation ticks off #13 of the benchmarks. And this operation would be impossible without the successes against AQI and the Sunni insurgency secured by the Surge.
If you are looking for an excuse to prove Iraq is a failure and can’t succeed and the US should leave so there can be a genocide without us watching too closely then you should look elsewhere.
Mar 28, 2008 - 3:45 pm 20. rotwang:There’s very little doubt that Iran is supporting the other Shi’ite organizations (including the Maliki government). Their relationship with Sadr has historically been much less clear, since he’s a) an Iraqi nationalist and b) a less reliable proxy than the other groups. He’s rather impulsive and something of a free agent. Overall, his major sins seem to be a) opposing a foreign occupation, b) being more popular than Maliki (whom he helped install) and posing a real threat in the upcoming provincial elections, and c) successfully competing with the other Shi’ite militias for partial control of Basra’s booming oil-smuggling and corruption booty.
By attempting to take Sadr out ahead of the elections, Maliki has succeeded in undoing the ceasefire, rolling back the surge successes (such as they were) and forcing the Coalition to serve Iran’s interests — a real trifecta. He also risks a total collapse of his own (and the IA’s) credibility, and igniting a Shi’a-on-Shi’a civil war which the Sunnis will doubtless capitalize on.
In the words of the Guinness Guys: “Brilliant!” (And remember, those who are rooting for Maliki today weren’t quite so sanguine a few weeks ago when he was hugging Ahmadinejad and praising Iraq/Iran cooperation.)
Mar 28, 2008 - 4:28 pm 21. Dan R.:Fred, that’s total crap. What we’re seeing here is something that had to happen eventually. Private militas patroling the streets who are above the law and who are loyal to individual clerics or political parties is fundamentally incompatable with a modern democracy. The Iraqis are taking the lead in this fight and aside from a couple of airstrikes (which were needed because the Iraqis, as yet, don’t have attack helicopters), the Americans appear to be staying out of it.
If the Iraqi Army can ultimately emerge victorious here, it will be a huge boost in prestige for both them and the central government. Sooner or later, they’re gonna have to be able to stand on their own two feet, so this is an important test. I only hope that Maliki doesn’t stop until the Mahdi Army has been thoroughly quashed and the IA is in total, unquestioned control of all the cities in the south.
Mar 28, 2008 - 4:40 pm 22. The Current Violence In Iraq « Tai-Chi Policy:[...] an Iraqi’s take on the current situation, Here’s Michael Yon’s, and here’s an analysis based solely on the [...]
Mar 28, 2008 - 6:10 pm 23. Tom W.:“By attempting to take Sadr out ahead of the elections, Maliki has succeeded in undoing the ceasefire, rolling back the surge successes (such as they were) and forcing the Coalition to serve Iran’s interests — a real trifecta. He also risks a total collapse of his own (and the IA’s) credibility, and igniting a Shi’a-on-Shi’a civil war which the Sunnis will doubtless capitalize on.”
Brilliant analysis. Maliki was doing Iran’s bidding when he authorized Iraqi troops to help take out the Qods Force goons; he also did Iran’s bidding when he approved of the SAS going into Iran and killing gun runners and bomb makers on the border.
According to Bill Roggio, the IA and Coalition have already killed and arrested hundreds of al Sadr’s idiots. And the U.S. military says the stories of Iraqi cops deserting their posts are lies.
I’m positive this will all turn out fine.
Fine for those of us who want to win, I mean. It’ll be awful for Iran, al Sadr, and BDS-infected American defeatists.
Mar 28, 2008 - 6:26 pm 24. Steve J.:the situation is more complicated this time as both belligerents are from the UIA.
Also known as “civil war.”
Mar 28, 2008 - 7:14 pm 25. Steve J.:Getting the US out of Iraq is Iran’s biggest goal by far
It’s also the Iraqis’ biggest goal:
All Iraqi Groups Blame U.S. Invasion for Discord, Study Shows
By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 19, 2007; Page A14
Iraqis of all sectarian and ethnic groups believe that the U.S. military invasion is the primary root of the violent differences among them, and see the departure of “occupying forces” as the key to national reconciliation, according to focus groups conducted for the U.S. military last month.
Mar 28, 2008 - 7:20 pm 26. Rob:If the British stand by and do nothing as Basra descends into chaos around them, it will be the end of them as a serious military power.
Mar 28, 2008 - 11:58 pm 27. Neocon News » Daily Quick Hits 3/28/08:[...] Behind the Bloodshed in Basra [...]
Mar 29, 2008 - 1:24 am 28. Mike:I’m a little confused about Iran’s roles here.
Mar 29, 2008 - 8:09 am 29. GT:It seems as if they’re backing every pony in this race … in which case, does that not imply they’ve bitten off more than they can chew?
It’s often been said by many that the only winner in Iraq is Iran, yet might we be watching the crumbling of Iran’s Iraq policy?
Ahmadinejad cut short his visit to Iraq earlier this month, some reports suggest he was not as welcomed as he expected to be in many Shia locales.
There is certainly more here than meets the eye.
If only Barack Obama were President it would all be fine. You’ll see, Barack will talk them all back from the throws of insanity. When Barack is annointed, I mean elected, Shia and Sunni and Sharia will for the first time in history have the audacity of hope. Because we all know that the real culprit in Iraq is Israel anyway. Right Fred? Yes we can!
Mar 29, 2008 - 8:18 am 30. Michelle Malkin » Basra, Iraq, and Iran:[...] Mohammed Fadhil in Iraq goes behind the bloodshed in Basra. [...]
Mar 29, 2008 - 10:14 am 31. Jim P.:Just a few salient points about Iraq.
1. We should have never invaded in the first place,but..
2. U.S. actions have created a power vacuum which cannot resolve itself without horrific carnage!
3. The United States is morally responsible for the current mayhem, and future potential spillovers into the rest of the Middle East!
4. The U.S. must pay the price for its stupidity: the price being:
A. Acknowledgement of the folly;
B. Acceptance of the human costs to the United States (900 military deaths per year for at least the next 1000 years–McCain’s cut-and-run after only 100 years is unacceptable and overly optimistic;
C. Acknowledgment of the monetary cost by passing The George W Bush legacy income tax surcharge tax to pay for this fiasco. The dollar cost can easily be calculated @ 120 billion per year indexed for inflation for the next 1000 years. Wait a minute, I can’t count that high;
Mar 29, 2008 - 12:38 pm 32. The Basra Media Narrative:[...] Iraqi Mohammed Fadhil from Iraq the Model has a great posting up which speculates that the Iraqi government is going after Sadr in order to ensure fair and free election in the south of Iraq. Many Shiite political parties were concerned that Sadr would use criminal methods to influence the election results and the political parties would not sign off on a election reform bill in the parliament until Sadr’s thugs were destroyed. Fadhil also speculates that this operation has the full backing of Iran as well because they look at Sadr as a loose cannon and want to liquidate him now. [...]
Mar 29, 2008 - 1:10 pm 33. James A. Donald:The Iranians are backing every pony in this race, for what they want is chaos, and chaos is easy to create. We are pursuing a strategy based on creating order. Creating order in the Middle East is like pushing mud uphill.
It rather looks as if the only way Iraq can be ruled is the way Saddam ruled it: Rule by terror, artificial famine, mass murder, and mass state sponsored rape.
As I wrote when the attack on the Taliban was launched, it is easy to destroy our enemies, wherever they may be, but state building is hard, no one knows how to build states, and in recent time the trend is for states to fail. I recommend we abandon state building, and focus on destroying our enemies – including those enemies located in Saudi Arabia, Britain, and Germany.
The choice is not peace with defeat, or victory with endless and expensive war, rather the choice is what kind of endless war we shall fight. This war has been running from the massacre of the Jews of Medina by Muhammad, to the present day, with a brief one hundred and thirty year interruption from 1830 to 1960 caused by colonialist victory over the middle east. To keep the Middle East quiet during that colonial period required mass murder on a very large scale in the most troublesome spots and the frequent and credible threat of mass murder. Islam is a problem. The original message and example of Mohammed was that Muslims must pursue domination and exercise theocratic state power, thus solutions based on tolerance and separation of Church and State are inherently unworkable. We can only coexist with those versions of Islam that accept separation of Church and State – which very few do. Islam is not just another religion, just as the Communists were not just another political party.
If we are reluctant to commit genocide, and therefore unable to credibly threaten genocide, we cannot stop Islam from fighting us, thus must find ways to fight Islam that are less expensive than the way we are doing it now.
Yes, the enemy is Islam. Not radical Islam, not Islamofascism. “Moderate” Islam does exist, but is an insignificant minority, subject to almost as much repression by mainstream Islam as Christians, Jews, and apostates.
Mar 29, 2008 - 2:42 pm 34. Recommended reading for this weekend « Fabius Maximus:[...] “Behind the Bloodshed in Basra“, Mohammed Fadhil, reporting from Baghdad for Pajamas Media (28 March 2008). Excerpt: One of the most notable things about the fierce and bloody confrontation taking place the government and Sadr’s militia is the spin on the operation by the commanders and the government; that it is a crackdown on outlaws with emphasis that the operation targets no particular movement or political line. [...]
Mar 29, 2008 - 5:02 pm 35. Pajamas Media » Blog Archive » Iraq: Whither Sadr and the Mahdi Army?:[...] as predicted in an earlier post, Sadrists have approached tribal leaders and clerics and asked them to mediate between them and the [...]
Mar 29, 2008 - 7:05 pm 36. ME:It seems like the JAM is being hit very very hard by the ISF and the coalition. This is probably due to the sucess of the surge in bringing down violence dramatically across North and central iraq. Now the mess in Basra can be resolved.
Mar 29, 2008 - 10:51 pm