Tuesday, 05.13.08
Maliki's Southern Strategy
Photo by Wathiq Khuzaie / Getty Images News
Why Iraq Has No Army
December 2005
James Fallows explores the importance of the Iraqi army, and the failures of its constitution.
Basra
March 2008
Matthew Yglesias remains skeptical about the prospect of progress in Basra.
A Colombian Vision for Iraq
May 2008
Even the most diehard Iraq hawks want to reduce the U.S. military footprint in Iraq and lean more heavily on Iraqi Security Forces to do the hard work of defeating insurgents and sectarian militias. Which is why recent developments in Basra have been so encouraging. At first, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's decision to confront Moqtada al-Sadr's Iranian-backed militas looked like a major strategic misstep. Now it appears to have transformed Iraqi politics, potentially paving the way for real reconciliation between Sunni and Shia.
Maliki had long depended on Sadr's support, on the street and in Iraq's parliament, where 32 Sadrists form a crucial bloc. And, so, understandably, Sadr's Sunni opponents -- who see him, rightly, as a power-mad half-literate street tough with delusions of grandeur -- were reluctant to trust Maliki. The same was true of Sadr's Shia rivals.
These factions recognized what too many American observers miss, which is Sadr's uniquely pernicious role in Iraqi politics -- both as an agent of instability and as a stalking horse for Iran. Virtually all of Iraq's political factions have been at one time or another beneficiaries of Iranian largesse, but the Sadrist relationship with Iran is of a different kind. Sadr first came to prominence as the authentic voice of Iraq's Shia masses, those who endured Saddam's misrule and never had the good fortune of slipping away into exile. He had a level of nationalist credibility other Shia leaders lacked, which is why some Sunni cheered him on when he first challenged the U.S. occupation. Since then, however, Sadrist ties to Iran have deepened: Whereas other Shia factions take money from Tehran, the Sadrist forces are directly armed and trained by Iranians, and some claim that Iranian operatives are embedded with Sadr's so-called "Special Groups." These forces -- which Sadr himself may no longer directly control -- have been particularly agressive in fighting Americans and Iraqis alike.
This is the context in which Maliki launched his "Charge of the Knights," which was meant to be a small-scale police operation in Basra targeted at local warlords with ties to Sadr. Astutely, Sadr interpreted this thrust as part of broader campaign against his influence, and he succeeded in rallying his loyalists within the ISF, a large number of whom abandoned their posts on his command, seemingly dooming Maliki's offensive. Many American observers saw their expectations fulfilled -- once again, Iraq's feckless central government had failed to rein in its opponents -- and decided to tune out whatever came next.
But Maliki did something unexpected: He fired those who refused to fight and pressed on with the offensive, in Basra and also in Sadr City, where a second front opened up. A tenuous ceasefire took hold in Basra, and ISF forces have cleared the streets of the militias, using tactics drawn from the surge. This was done with a strikingly small number of American and British troops, though coalition assistance proved crucial. And now, as The New York Times reported yesterday, something resembling normal life is taking hold. In particular, the vigilantes who use violence to enforce their allegedly Islamic ethical code have been driven out, and you can once again hear music playing in the streets.
Though these gains may be temporary, there has also been a more lasting change: The Sadrists have been marginalized. Even the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who has been reluctant to make political interventions in recent years, pointedly condemned Sadr for refusing to disarm. Leading Sunni faction have also returned to the fold. The Kurds, who have their own problems with Sadr, are also on board. Maliki, suprisingly enough, increasingly looks like the leader of all Iraqis.
So what does this mean for our debate over Iraq? Advocates of withdrawal will insist that Maliki's forces are just as penetrated by the Iranians as the Sadrist militias. But as noted above, this reflects a simple misunderstanding of Iranian influence. The fighting in Basra and Sadr City hasn't simply pitted one set of Iranian-backed militas (one in ISF uniforms) against another, and it's clear that the forces that controlled Basra weren't popular at all: The city really was, as Maliki argued, in the grip of criminal gangs who terrorized the population.
Alternatively, proponents of withdrawal will argue that Maliki's Charge of the Knights would have failed without substantial American assistance, which is true -- but it's also true that the ISF has become an increasingly effective fighting force. Moreover, the successes of the last month demonstrate that Maliki's government isn't the Vichy government the most strident anti-war voices have suggested. Rather, it is a government that actually represents the interests of Iraq's vast majority.
The smartest case for withdrawal would acknowledge this new reality, and claim that it demonstrates that coalition forces are superfluous and can thus be safely withdrawn. It's true that Maliki's government now has momentum, and would have a fighting chance to survive if U.S. forces are rapidly withdrawn. But the government's chances would be far stronger with a continued American presence backing its efforts up. Unfortunately, few Americans understand what Maliki has accomplished, and how much international assistance he needs to beat back foreign elements that aim to undermine Iraq's fragile democracy -- which is, as far as neighboring governments are concerned (particularly those that begin with an "I" and end with an "n"), a profoundly subversive influence.
Security vacuumWhen the British withdrew troops from Basra in late-summer 2007, Karen deYoung and Thomas E. Ricks chronicled the violence that followed. |
Sadr's dirty work?Noah Shachtman argues that Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki is doing Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr a favor by attacking breakaway elements of his militia. |
Way back whenIn April, 2003 -- three weeks after the Iraq War began -- Terry McCarthy reported that "Basrans were getting reacquainted with the joys and perils of freedom," variously cheering troops and fleeing bombings. |
Correcting KagansBlogger Abu Muqaqama, a veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, offers a corrective to the optimism of Frederick and Kimberly Kagan. |
(20)
few Americans understand what Maliki has accomplished, and how much international assistance he needs to beat back foreign elements that aim to undermine Iraq's fragile democracy
This is utter hogwash. What the United States has been doing has been the opposite of democracy. Maliki is not the Iraqi people. You are conflating "enemies of democracy" with "enemies of al Maliki". Our definition of who is an enemy in Iraq, sadly, has come to mean "anyone who favors US withdrawal." And so you've arranged for yourself a self-satisfied little Moebius strip of argumentation. Because you've branded those elements in Iraqi society who favor withdrawal "enemies of democracy", you act as though there are no internal forces arguing for withdrawal; and you approve, however tacitly, the elimination of those who don't support the al Maliki authoritarianism. Unfortunately, we don't call eliminating contrary opinions fostering democracy. We call it destroying democracy.
(particularly those that begin with an "I" and end with an "n")
Why is it moral for the United States to meddle in the affairs of Iraq and immoral for Iran to do the same?
Freddie,
Why not address the substance of Reihan's post instead of debating with your own straw men?
I think I understand what Malaki has accomplished. His government is hugely corrupt and Malaki has accrued a fortune from the American tax payer. Cheney will be impressed.
Why not address the substance of Reihan's post instead of debating with your own straw men?
Uh, I did. Reihan claims that the United States is helping al Maliki make Iraq safe for democracy, and ludicrously, "Maliki, suprisingly enough, increasingly looks like the leader of all Iraqis." Which is true, if you happen to exclude from "all Iraqis" people who oppose al Maliki, and Reihan's political opinions. And he equates this elimination of Maliki's sectarian and political enemies with protecting Iraqi's "fragile democracy." But eliminating the opposition isn't democracy; it's totalitarianism.
We have chosen to back one particular corrupt oligarch in a country with many. That oligarch's enemies are being silenced or killed in the name of fostering democracy. And Reihan turns around and claims that this is a way of supporting democracy. It's like something from Graham Greene, or even Kafka.
(I also don't like the constant use of "you don't understand the situation as well as I do." It's logically fallacious, it begs the question, and it suggests that Reihan has superior expertise to many people like, say, Juan Cole.)
Why not address the substance of Reihan's post instead of debating with your own straw men?
I'm not sure how he can address what isn't there. Based on one New York Times article, Reihan decides that the Iranian-backed thug government of Iraq is awesome and that it's great that we're helping Maliki slaughter his political opponents to prevent them from doing well in an election.
And the idea that Sadr is uniquely pernicious is nonsense; it's a conservative belief based on conservatives' own lack of patriotism (since conservatives wouldn't fight for their own country, they hate people like Sadr who oppose foreign occupation, and love those like Maliki who support the occupation and destruction of their own country). Since Maliki, an Iranian/American sock puppet, is far more an Iranian-owned creature than Sadr (since Maliki actively works against the interests of Iraq and helps Iran and America instead), it makes little sense to root for his quest to slaughter Iraqis, let alone to cheer on the deaths of Iraqis and the Walter Duranty-esque reporting from Basra.
This is a nice writeup, similar in tone to the commentary routinely offered by Nibras Kazimi. It is very positive. You did well, right up until the paragraph where you explained why Maliki's recent operations in Basra wasn't really just pitting one Shi'ite faction against another. The problem is that you didn't give an explanation of why this isn't so.
It is so, and Iran is deeply embedded into Badr (SIIC), and so much so that many in this organization (which has been loosely brought into the ISF) still receive pension paychecks from the IRG.
Further, while Iran went along with the operations in Basra for the time being, they have yelled loudly concerning the operations in Sadr City. They are deeply embedded there, too. The recent standdown in operations (ceasefire) is cause for interpreting these events with a little darker view than you have.
I'm glad that peace has been temporarily been brought to Basra. The same NYT article you reference also interviews a resident of Basra who says that without ISF there in force, it would disappear in one day. So much for eradicating the forces of Iran from Basra.
This is not an argument to leave Iraq. It is an argument to finish the job rather than aborting it as soon as it gets started - every time.
Basra has been a very positive development for any rational person who cares about positive developments in Iraq. Your article captures the salient points in that regard.
Guys, lay off Maliki. The first ever democratic leader of Iraq isn't going to be the best one. The real progress will come with the next Iraqi election. Maliki has done a good job from what he has been dealt with, which was a terrible security situation because Bush wouldn't listen to McCain back in August 2003 and implement a stronger counterinsurgency strategy. Doing that would have been "defeatist." Turns out it was right.
Maliki isn't just an Iranian stooge. Look at the statements of his ambassador to the US, coming out pretty strong against Iranian meddling.
If it wasn't an election year in the US and if the war wasn't such a polarizing issue, we'd be looking at this more sensibly, but since both are true, if you are a Republican then Maliki is the next Alvaro Uribe, and if you are a Democrat than Bush is Hitler and Maliki is Vichy France. Neither are true.
Some of these comments would be hilarious if they weren't so absurd. Maliki is an "authoritarian", a "totalitarian", a "corrupt oligarch" who is "destroying democracy"? Sounds like an Iraqi leader all right, but not the one who was elected Prime Minister of the current parliamentary democracy. More like the Iraqi leader who was last seen swinging from a rope.
I think I understand what Malaki has accomplished. His government is hugely corrupt and Malaki has accrued a fortune from the American tax payer. Cheney will be impressed.
And your evidence for the above assertions is....? Important safety tip: provide some verifiable backup whenever you make a claim; otherwise, your uninformed opinion is just that--an uninformed opinion.
Dang, buddy, the New York Times has already admitted Maliki won a major victory against Sadr and is increasingly seen as an effective leader. So what are you going to do now? Dismiss the NYT as just another ChimpyMcHalliburton mouthpiece?
Bush was right. Calvery Charge was "a defining moment in the history of a free Iraq" and Free Iraqis won. I'm glad to have been there with them.
Before we get too excited over the Iraq government's success in suppressing some armed criminals, let's all remember that the US has wasted an enormous sum and many lives eliminating the most effective counterweight to its putative opponent, Iran. There's no way to reverse that -- Iran is now the region's major indigenous power.
This crippled client state we've created will only survive so long as our forces back it up for John McCain's 100 years. And it's not morphing into a South Korean future any time soon: its history and traditions are totally different.
We've additionally inflamed the Islamic world against us and are failing to eliminate the actual terrorists who attacked us from Afghanistan. US forces are overstretched and demoralized.
Good job, W.
Starting with when the occupation began it would be interesting to parade examples of announcements of positive turn arounds in Iraq as trumpeted by government and major media. This appears to be one more in a long trail of "victories" that ultimately went sour.
I am reminded that we never lost a battle in Vietnam. How many folks have to die and end up crippled to satisfy the clueless ones.
I am not trying to be disrespectful and I understand people can have differing opinions, but Denis Arvay's post is simply not based in fact. The major power in the Gulf Region of the Middle East is the United States. We liberated one country that had been invaded (Kuwait) and in a matter of weeks did what Iran was unable to do despite a long and costly war, i.e., removed Saddam Hussein from power. We have also spanked Iran in Basra and Sadr City when their surrogates have attempted to engage our Military. The so-called "crippled client state we've created" has much more potential than South Korea because of its natural resources (by the way, what were South Korea's "history and traditions" prior to the United States saving it during the Korean conflict?). In fact, Iraq has a great chance to equal or exceed many of the "client states" we have created in Eastern Europe when we prevailed in the Cold War. The most glaring misstatement is that we have "additionally inflamed the Islamic world". Is it more inflamed than the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Marine Barracks in Lebanon, the Iranian Hostage crisis, the attacks on the African embassies, the Cole bombing, Khobar Towers and the shameful cut and run out of Somalia? The actual facts are that we have eliminated two State sponsors of terrorist activity, i.e., the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, and replaced them with democratically elected governments that are making progress in terms of developing as nations. Also, although we have not caught or killed bin Laden, we have taken down many senior leaders of al Qaeda including Khalid Sheik Muhamed, the mastermind of 9/11. Also, although a lot of people inexplicably want to ignore it, the United States Military has been administering a humiliating defeat to al Qaeda in Iraq. The United States Military may be overstretched, but it is certainly not "demoralized". Re-enlistment rates are at an all time high and the Military routinely meets its recruiting goals. Further, when you read and hear many of the veterans talk about the mission they have undertaken in the war on Terror, they are proud of their accomplishments and want to finish the job (Michael Totten is a particularly good source in this regard). General Petraeus is not leading a "demoralized" fighting force. On the contrary, he is leading the most effective fighting force in the world today. Denis is right about one thing, good job W!
Maliki's forces did not win the fight for Basra a couple weeks ago. They attacked Basra but they were repelled by the Mahdi army. The force was surrounded and contained outside of Basra by the Mahdi army when Maliki and Sadr negotiated a cease fire through the Iranian intermediary. The agreement was Sadr would let the Iraqi military into Basra, but they had to agree not to arrest any of his militiamen or take any other action against him. Also, Maliki agreed to release a whole lot of Mahdi militiamen from Iraqi prisons.
I just think this article totally misrepresents what actually happened.
This worm will turn many times but I've noticed that those anti-war will find the biggest blemish and hype it like that blemish should cause a decision to exit Iraq real quick-like.
Basra, like Falluja, like Sadr City, like the Golden Mosque bombing, was supposed to be the final crumbling curtain. Are there new anti-war folks out there as each blemish fails to turn the tide? Or is it the same people, in argumentative retrograde, fighting from every tenable perch?
Those anti-war ignore The Awakening, free elections, and primitive democracy more representative than what the USA had in the 19th century.
I burn in frustration at the encouraging message those anti-war send to the real enemies of the Iraqi people. They clap for Amhadinijad, and love him even when he tells them that their culture is corrupt such that it promotes homosexuality where in Iran it is non-existant. They diminish the horror of the Saddam years, yet play it up in their arguments over earlier recent history when there was implicit USA support. They ignore Iran's manifold ugly acts. They ignore Iraqi resistance to Iranian influence. Their positions all support relinquishment.
Anti-war guys, please don't change your tune. I want to come visit you with some visitors from Free Iraq in, say, about 30 years. I want to ask you about the positions you took in the debates over involvement in Iraq. I will, of course, want to ask you about the political parties you felt most aligned with.
We already know that the USA would not exist had your hand been the guide of government policy for the last 250 years.
Hmmm... Imagine what would exist instead. A loving vegan Dead Head party? Or 1984? Or Pol Pot?
Respectfully, to Gil Brooks, your understanding of what's been happening is mistaken. Point-by-point:
I said indigenous powers. The US for several decades has been acting as a powerful interloper, creating a puppet regime in Iran (we're still paying the bill for that one) and supporting an aggressive and untenable Israeli outpost in an unchangeably hostile region. Add Lebanon to the failures, destabilized by the recent Israeli bombing. I agree that the action in Kuwait was a good thing we did, with numerous allies, including Muslim nations (hint,hint, W).
Let me add one point. Our blank-check policy toward Israel is actually endangering the lives of its citizens long-term, because as it's presently constituted ( a state whose citizenship is based on racial and religious exclusivity, token Arabs notwithstanding) it will eventually be worn down and eliminated by the unrelenting resistance of the local population. Better to re-locate the Israeli population to the US where they will be welcomed and can live in peace.
South Korea wasn't saddled with the religious illusions of the Middle East and so, like 18th century Europe, was free to embrace capitalism and science. Iraq will take a lot longer to free itself from religious obscurantism, and we're making it worse.
Our inflammation of the Islamic world began with our increasingly one-sided backing for Israel and its apartheid policy (ironically, the Israelis are building a new ghetto wall around themselves). Add to that our backing for reactionary regimes (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Shah's Iran) and you have your result: the World Trade Center attack, the Marine Barracks in Lebanon, the Iranian Hostage crisis, the attacks on the African embassies, the Cole bombing, Khobar Towers. Somalia was much simpler: an absurd intervention which we ended quickly and more intelligently -- otherwise we'd be mired there also. The Ethiopians can tell you how much fun that is. But at least it's in their national interest.
Iraq was never a state sponsor of terrorism, that was a lie. And we haven't eliminated the Taliban, which was a terrorist state, a disgraceful failure caused by W's war in Iraq and the misdirection of our military resources there.
Both the Iraqi government and the Afghan governments are puppets, who wouldn't survive a week without our protection. I'd urge you to think about how you'd feel about ANY US government forcefully installed by a "helpful" power - let's imagine China. I think the both of us would be in the hills with automatic rifles.
We didn't defeat the al Qaeda presence in Iraq that we inspired (it wasn't there before we invaded) we bribed some rival tribesmen to eliminate their rivals.
I wouldn't brag about high enlistment rates as the Army lowers its standards and takes advantage of unemployment to send poor kids to fight.
General Petraeus has achieved some limited and temporary success by using the aforementioned tribal tactics and a more intelligent use of US forces. This will buy us some time so we can get out without the depressing scenes we saw at the end of the Vietnam war with people dropping off helicopters.
Thanks to this new counterinsurgency, the various Jihadist movements have been set back decades. We have finally brought freedom and stability to a core nation in the Middle East.
Not even a Democrat-led political pullout can stop this now.
Sadly, Ted, " freedom and stability" in core nation in the Middle East won't arrive in Iraq until the US gets out and Iran and Saudi Arabia work out an arrangement for the protection of their respective religious communities. Effectively, George Bush has put Iraq into Iran's sphere of influence (not in itself a bad thing. Let the local police police the situation).
We are witnessing the collapse of a decades-old American Middle East foreign policy.
While we've been frittering away our resources in Iraq, Lebanon's government is passing to an uneasy balance between Hizbollah and Sunni guerillas. The "pro-Western" government carefully glued together since Israel withdrew several years ago is impotent and irrelevant, following Israel's insane bombing and defeat by Hizbollah.
The president of Afghanistan was almost assassinated at a public ceremony the other week.
After 60 years of American-funded intransigence, Israel, leg by a corrupt and incompetent government (like ours) faces a demographic time bomb or an impossible-to-maintain apartheid.
Our only military option is to withdraw from Iraq under cover of a negotiated arrangement with Iran (their soldiers dying to sort out the mess would make more sense than ours) and re-deployment of the balance of our army to Afghanistan, where they might finally crush the Taliban.
Our economy is tottering, we're in debt to nations we can't afford to alienate and our armed forces are stretched thin.
Time to realize that force can't solve these problems, that we need to repair our economy and infrastructure and start to re-engage with the nations of the region in constructive ways. We can't be constantly distracted by the wacko outbursts of Iran's president, we need to reformulate our MidEast policy so that it supports rather than damages our national interests and ceases to serve as a rallying call for Osama bin Laden.
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although The Current does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
-->
As always, you're guilty of exactly what you accuse your opponents of doing. Absolutely every position is, to your mind, an argument to stay. Can you credibly argue that there is any turn of events whatsoever which would possibly compel you to support withdrawal?
Posted by Freddie | May 13, 2008 2:07 PM