Pro-Liberation
Pro-acts of resistance vs. the occupiers, aka the Great Satan. That’s us. It’s Moqtada al-Sadr a couple of days ago, via MEMRI. Saddam was bad but America is worse. Baathists are still abroad in the land. The goal of the Mahdi Army is to liberate Iraq, whatever it takes. Also, a more Islamic society, the Mahdi will be here shortly, and al-Sadr’s got Iran on-side. No big surprises there, but it’s nice to hear our latest partner for peace say it. Â
The interesting part is that he says the battles against the Great Satan must take place in the open, not in the cities where they might harm civilians. This would be something new and different for the Mahdi Army, which reiterated its preference for the urban, human-shielded battlefield as recent as last weekend. I hate to say it, Mookie, going out in the open is probably not a great idea. But you gotta do what you gotta do …
So what was accomplished over the past week or so? Al-Maliki freelances an operation in Basra, bollixes it, leaves al-Sadr intact and claiming a victory after Iraqi pols go hat in hand to Iran.  Now the Pentagon is rethinking the drawdown.
Kagan, looking on the bright side, notes that al-Maliki didn’t entirely lose, al-Sadr didn’t actually win, and the Iraqi forces at least showed an ability to mobilize quickly. I’d suggest that while showing up on time with your shoes tied is half the battle, showing up ahead of time, in your socks, is another matter altogether.  What this means is that there is something to work with. The problem, both in Iraq and in Washington, has a lot to do with perceptions. Kagan says the question of who is perceived to have won, and who stared down who remains to be answered. I’d suggest that’s an optimistic take.
Al-Sadr, like all guerrilla leaders, wins every time he is not destroyed, but in this case it is worse than that. He magnanimously relented. This situation is likely to be used in Congress when Petraeus fronts up there April 8 and on the campaign trail as an excuse to grandstand, declare failure and demand withdrawal, rather than as evidence that Iran’s ability to spread violence and chaos is undiminished, possibly heightened, and that the job of the United States is not quite done. The cherry on top will be when a congressman or candidate cites Iran’s role in the Mahdi Army standdown, such as it was a standdown, as evidence that Iran is a partner for peace.Â
Gateway on Republican plans to counter Dem disinformation about a death surge. Fine. Frankly, a bit of a sideshow. I’d like to know what the GOP plans to do about the fact that Iran is calling the shots in Iraq.
Merc News editorial presents the picture with some clarity, though it oddly suggests there’s some benefit to al-Sadr’s political engagement, and stops short of the obvious conclusion. It is in the interest of Iraq and the United States that Iran’s agents and military/terrorist actors in Iraq be neutralized.
Ricks, Washington Post online discussion, the War over the War. He wants to know what Iran’s percentage was in stopping the fighting. Howzabout, just to show they can.
Developing: Iraqi commander of the Basra operation leads a convoy into a Mahdi Army stronghold. That could get interesting.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:54 am on Wednesday, April 2, 2008
4 Responses to “Pro-Liberation”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:30 am
I don’t think it was the loss for Maliki that people are painting it out to be. He created an opening for the national government to increase its influence in southern Iraq. He has clearly refused to cede power to Sadr and the local militias. He’s proved that the IA is a force to be reckoned with. Now it’s up to the government to come through with improvements to basic services that the south is looking for. They have their foot in the door, now let’s see if they can push it open.
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Jules,
People tend to forget…Iraq has never been an Alcohol Free Society. Moqtada has been pushing prohibition. The question is finding a balance between Moqtada politically defeating himself and the IA military defeating Moqtada.
Allowing Moqtada to burn down liquors stores provides for the political defeat. It also drives an impression that he is “Undefeatable”. Somewhere there is a balance point.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Web Reconnaissance for 04/02/2008
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Why have we not
beggedasked Mossad nicely (and promised to let up on our boneheaded pressure to make “peace” with the Pals) to simply go in and eliminate this bastard Moqtada? Yes, he would be replaced immediately, but not with anyone who has his “martyrist” credentials. I submit to those who insist that every assassination leads to a Hydra, that each new head is weaker than before.