Everyone needs to read this analysis of the renewed fighting in Iraq.

[WilliamPitt]

Teetering
By Josh Marshall
TPM.com

03/28/08

To hear the Bush administration tell it, the current flare-up in Iraq is a sign of the success of the surge. In theory at least there's a certain logic to this argument. What administration officials claim is that the surge has allowed the al Maliki government to consolidate its power sufficiently that it can take on Sadr's militia, the outlaw but until recenlty quiescent Mahdi Army.

Unfortunately, and not surprisingly, that does not seem to be what's happening.

The clearest analysis I've read is Fred Kaplan's short piece in Slate, which explains that this is not so much the Iraqi 'government' standing down an outlaw 'militia' as a face off between two militias, one of which happens to control the government. Labels aside, this seems to be al Maliki's attempt to break the Mahdi Army, possibly because Iraq is soon to hold regional elections and Maliki's supporters fear the Sadrists will do too well in the southern port city of Basra.

Fred doesn't say this, but I wonder myself if this isn't also an effort of Maliki (now allied with what used to be SCIRI) to crush the Sadrists while he still has the power of the US military behind him. Most accounts I've seen suggest that Sadr actually has more popular support than Maliki and his supporters, at least among the Shia population. It must not be lost on Maliki and his supporters that a Democrat may succeed President Bush and that that new president may be much less likely to prop up his government with American money and military might. So perhaps best to crush opponents now, with the help of the US military, in advance of that less certain future.

As an aside, President Bush is saying that Iran is, in the words of the Times, "arming, training and financing the militias fighting against the Iraqi forces." Perhaps that's true. But it's hard not to note that the Badr Organization (formerly the Badr Corps), which Maliki has allied himself with, is the outfit that was actually created in Iran under the tutelage and financing of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. So this at least seems like a rather partial take on what's occurring.

In any case, whatever it is and whoever is behind it, the crackdown does not appear to be going well. The Times has a muted run-down of where things stand. The government forces do not seem to be making much headway in Basra and protests and violence has broken out in a number of Iraqi cities. Baghdad itself is now under a curfew until Sunday. A more breathless piece in the Times of London says that Maliki's "operation to crush militia strongholds in Basra stalled, members of his own security forces defected and district after district of his own capital fell to Shia militia gunmen."

More: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/186077.php

[ThomWV]

1. I think there may be a simpler explaination for the recent increase in violence

Presume for a moment that it was in Sadr's interest to believe that the surge would be successful if unopposed, successful that is in lulling the American's into leaving. In short that he bought part of Bush's lie. So he stood down in the hope that eased tensions would result in a long term reduction in troop levels in his occupied country. Now that he sees that the surge was a sham he is allowing his forces to return to the field, as they used to say.

[babylonsister]

2. I can't wait to hear from Petraeus next month, letting us all know how

great this surge is working. His boss reiterated that yesterday despite all info to the contrary.

[Gman]

3. If there is any "good" that can come out of this

it might be that this counter-surge may keep the US military too busy to try to invade Iran.

[ThomWV]

10. I think yo meant to say Iran

The thing I worry about is that all it takes is a single B1 bomber to start a war with Iran, and we have enough of them even with the war against Iraq.

[Gman]

11. They have never talked about a troop invasion of Iran

but only a bombing campaign so your right on there. However, it defies logic to bomb Iran and then not follow up with an invasion.

...edited my post to correct a pre-first-cup-of-coffee error.

[DemoTex]

17. Iran has a 650,000-man standing army. Invade?

The US ground troops in Iraq will be lucky to hold defensive positions there if Bu$h/Cheney decide to bomb targets in Iran. Battalions of Iran's regular army could seal-off an already weakened Basra very quickly. Iranian regiments could take on US ground forces in situ in Iraq.

Carrier-based air support will come to a halt if Iran fires Sunburn missiles at the US Navy fleet in the Persian Gulf. Re-supply by sea through the port of Basra would also come to a halt.

Iran, unlike Iraq in 2003, has a modest air force, with MiG-29, Sukhoi, and F-4 fighters. Iran has extensive and formidable anti-aircraft weapons. The US would presumably maintain air superiority, but at a high cost not yet seen in the Bu$h Wars (including US POWs .. Geneva Conventions anyone?).

Should the Bu$h/Cheney strike use tactical nuclear weapons, all bets are off. That would leave the US alone, twisting in a cold, harsh international wind. This is probably the main reason Bu$h is meeting Putin next week.

Welcome to Dien Bien Phu in the Desert. It will not .. cannot .. be pretty.

[King Coal]

18. "So.........?????" Dick Cheney.

[DemoTex]

19. The Sultan of So.

[Breeze54]

4. Bookmarking.

I'll read it when I'm more awake.... :(

[malaise]

5. Spot on

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7317935.stm
<snip>
US-led forces joined the battle for the first time overnight, bombing Shia positions, the UK military said.

---

What positions...during a curfew?

[pinto]

6. Progress Report has a good overview,as well, similar conclusions:

March 28, 2008by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, Ali Frick, and Benjamin Armbruster
IRAQ
Sadr's Uprising

<snip>

UNDERSTANDING PLAYERS IN IRAQ'S CIVIL WARS: As Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Brian Katulis explained, the violence "brings into the open this long-running intra-Shi'a civil war." The fighting across southern Iraq has pitted Sadr's Madhi Army against Abdul Aziz Al Hakim's Islamic Supreme Council (ISCI) of the so-called Badr Brigade, which has support from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Adding another layer to just one component of Iraqs many civil wars, "a third Shi'a faction, the Fadhila movement, is also engaged in the struggle for power in Basra," Katulis writes. The result is a show of force from Sadr. "If these violations continue, a huge popular eruption will take place that no power on Earth can stop," said Nassar al-Rubaei, leader of the Sadrist bloc in parliament. Most ironically, if Iraqi security forces and their militia allies prevail, Iran's hand in Iraq will be heavily bolstered. "The Badr Organisation and the ISCI had always been and remained the most pro-Iranian political-military forces in Iraq, having been established, trained and funded by the IRGC from Shiite exiles in Iran during the Iran-Iraq war," notes journalist Gareth Porter.

NOT GOOD VERSUS BAD: The Bush administration has tried to simplify the violence into a government versus militia struggle. "The Prime Minister has gone to Basra....to re-establish the rule of law," said National Security adviser Steven Hadley yesterday. But as analyst Anthony Cordesman noted, it is not that simple. A better explanation is that the Iraqi government -- allied with ISCI militias -- is trying to suppress its political enemies. "his is really a fairly transparent partisan effort by the Supreme Council dressed in government uniforms to fight the Sadrists and Fadila," said Joost Hiltermann of the International Crisis Group. "Maliki in alliance with ISCI are doing their best to marginalize their political enemies locally – in preparation for local elections in October 2008," argued historian Reidar Visser. The result? "It seems far more likely that even the best case outcome is going be one that favors Iraqracy over democracy," says Cordesman. Furthermore, this is not a hands-off situation. The U.S. is providing air support -- "help just in case they need it," explained White House Press Secretary Perino.

<snip>

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/progressreport

[riderinthestorm]

14. "Help just in case they need it".

*snort* Uh huh, reports are all over, including the Admin's complicit MSM, that US forces are actively participating and bombing.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

7. K&R

[Cooley Hurd]

8. Evidently, members of the Iraqi Police are defecting to al Sadr...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3072005

[cynatnite]

9. You know what, Will...this basically says what some of us has been saying...

for some time now.

One of the reasons this war is doomed to failure is because when the military movies in, the militias, insurgents or whatever anyone wants to call them, move out. They lay low, devise new tactics and come back. Whether they're fighting our military or the US propped government's military, the result will continue to be the same. Unending war.

There is no way to win this war.

Fuck you very much, mr. bush.

[DemReadingDU]

13. Unending war

I think that's what the war profiteers want.

[cynatnite]

16. You're probably right n/t

[psychmommy]

12. thanks will.

our puppet gov't will never stand on its own. iraq is going to have to have a civil war to bring it together as a country. we need to get out and stop making things worse for the people. if i didn't have clean water, proper sewage or electricity i would be in the militia too. we are making life harder for these people. who wants democracy if it looks like that. we have ruined this country. we need to step back and give them time to get it together and then help them rebuild themselves-not our crappy contractors doing such a poor job. this "war" has been waged on the backs of the Iraqi and american people. it must end. it won't end until we leave.

[ieoeja]

15. We take out Saddam.

Finally realize that the people Saddam was killing were the people who hate the United States. So we find a Saddam clone to take his place.

It only took the experts 17 years to figure out something a lot of us amateurs figured out 17 years ago.

I hope and pray (or would were I not an Atheist) that part of the conventional Washington wisdom Obama decides to question includes our national security policy.

Only one president since WW-II has done that, and Carter paid a price for it. However, some guy I knew with Pentagon contacts in 1991 said -- got that? I am saying that HE said that THEY said... so take this with a few grains of salt -- the opinion of Carter's foreign policy changed dramatically that year when they were astonished to find the Arab and Muslim nations rallying to our side against Saddam. Time and again Carter was cited as the reason they trusted the United States not to pull a Turkey/Britain/France on them.

Of course, that was 17 years ago. So even if there was a sea change in opinion on Carter, there would be a whole new generation in there who may have only heard the old propaganda instead of the newer analysis.

[Richard Steele]

20. K&R

[yodermon]

21. chaos keeps their oil off the market n/t

[KharmaTrain]

22. A Proxy War Within A Proxy War

Note the timing of this action...Crashcart makes a sudden trip right after Amajeenejad and puts the screws to Malaki. The two things Crashcart wants are elections in October (lots of happy Iraqi waving those purple fingers on TV) to help Gramps and try to negate Iraq as a campaign issue. The other is to push through the draconian Oil bill that would guarantee big oil's control over the production and distribution of the large southern Iraqi oil fields (the Northern are under the Kurds and deal already have been struck)...Basra is the key as its the prime oil distribution center...control the city and control the skim of what flows in and out.

Also, there's a possible crashcart bonus...Iran lies just across the Shatt Al Arab and is nervously watching what's going on here and could intervene to help the Mahdi Army giving this regime the "justification" for its wet dream...a war with Iran.

Our corporate media is gleefully blind to what's happening on the other side of the world. They've been "inbedded" out of being objective and they've "bottom-lined" the coverage to a single reporter sitting on a hotel balcony with Blackwater copters flying cover overhead. This dark, dirty, ugly invasion is entering the next phase and one that will draw the U.S. in deeper.

The end-game is if Malaki knocks out Al Sadr, this regime cashes in big and forces a long-term military entanglement at the "invitation" of the Iraqi government. But if Al Sadr wins, all bets are off. The lull allowed all sides in this mess to restock and re-position...not just Malaki, but Sadr as well and with a ton of U.S. weapons and cash flowing on both sides. In the end, it'll be our stressed-out military that will be stuck in the crossfire.

Meanwhile the corporate media sleeps in the back of McCain's bus...too worried about Obama's preacher and Hillary's pant suits.