Apr.01.2008
4:44 am
by dni
Basra - Sadr wins; did America Lose?
From “Basra Battle Strengthens Sadr,” by Yochi J. Dreazen in today’s Wall Street Journal.
The Iraqi government’s inability to oust Moqtada al-Sadr’s militia from Basra has boosted the fortunes of the Shiite cleric while damaging the standing of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
We’ll see. The more interesting aspect is the potential effect that al-Maliki’s failure has on US politics. The Journal goes on:
Worsening conditions in Iraq pose a particular challenge for likely Republican nominee Sen. John McCain, who has staked his candidacy on his ability to persuade antiwar voters that victory in Iraq remains possible.
McCain’s immediate response appears to be to double down on al-Maliki:
“Apparently it was Sadr who asked for the cease-fire. It wasn’t Maliki,” Sen. McCain noted. “Very rarely do I see the winning side declare a cease-fire.”
The New York Times today captured a little of the complexity of Middle Eastern political negotiations, giving a idea of what might have taken place:
Senior political leaders involved in the negotiations that led to Mr. Sadr’s statements on Sunday indicated that Mr. Maliki had been directly involved, essentially agreeing to Mr. Sadr’s demands in advance.
The upshot is that Moqtada al-Sadr’s political strength has grown both by the results of the fighting and by his offer to end it. That offer, which stopped (at least for now) Iraqi-on-Iraqi as well as Muslim-on-Muslim violence will be seen as magnanimous by many Iraqis both in and out of al-Sadr’s movement. As the Journal article notes:
If the elections were held today, “there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Sadrists would win across the south,” said a U.S. official at the American Embassy in Baghdad who monitors Iraqi politics.
This does not have to be bad news for America, unless we have for some reason defined our “victory” in terms of particular Iraqi politicians, such as al-Maliki of the Dawa party or al-Hakim of ISCI.
Filed in Iraq and the Middle East |
20 Responses to “Basra - Sadr wins; did America Lose?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It is axiomatic that the Bush administration and its various domestic supporters will insist that “our side” is “winning,” no matter what the underlying facts may be. Accordingly, is is pointless to debate such matters with them, for demonstrably their lung capacity - if nothing else - is robust.
The factual issue for the rest of us is, first, whether this Basra episode will embolden guerrillas and would-be guerrillas not only in Iraq but points elsewhere, such as Chechnya, the Balkans, Somalia, Nigeria, and Columbia. The answer is almost certainly yes.
The impact upon America is less clear because - for deeply rooted psychological and economic reasons - large portions of the US population will continue to believe that its technological military is “superior” regardless.
Accordingly, in response to whether this Basra episode may be another Tet, the answer is , “No.” Rather, it is more like another 2006 Israel / Lebanon War.
Duncan –
I couldn’t agree more. Of course, given what’s happened so far, I’m not sure they could be much more emboldened.
Emboldened ?
Perhaps ?
In as much as the recent experience in Lebanon
and fighting the Israelis to a standstill by 4GW
elements demonstrated to anyone with a
critical perspective.
Demonstrably “empowered,”* for sure !
* A favorite of our dear Professor Fabius.
Where Creveld and Lind call our attention to
the crisis in the legitimacy of the state,
the current situation in Iraq underscores
the increasing viability of the alternative.
What ever you chose to call it.
Beautifully written post by Duncan.
The only way to win at this game maybe to pull
the rug out from under the aggrieved parties,
that means mitigating the underlying grievance
to an extent where the radicals are exposed for
what they are, and become subsequently alienated.
M
The entire Basra story is interesting.
Some Neocon sources have sprayed a lot of reports asserting that Sadr has lost control of his militia(s) long ago and that those militias have turned into criminal gangs and are disliked by the population.
The different reports from Southern Iraq don’t fit together - someone is lying.
“someone is lying.”
I can’t imagine who that might possibly be ?
Washington ?!
Vested interests in the US Military Industrial-Congressional,
Think Tank and Service sector ?
Mainstream media who are beholden and realiant to those listed above ?
What possible motive could there be ?
*”Turns out it’s not that difficult to get a country to go to war, ”
MaX
Well, the most extreme source on irritatingly optimistic Iraq/Afghanistan ‘information’ (the others are bad guys and they blunder all the time and they are doomed - American troops are geniuses and all other troops need to learn from them) which I still consume (sometimes) is http://www.strategypage.com .
[...] “Basra - Sadr wins; did America Lose?“, Chet Richards at Defense and the National Interest (1 April 2008) - Excerpt: The upshot is that Moqtada al-Sadr’s political strength has grown both by the results of the fighting and by his offer to end it. That offer, which stopped (at least for now) Iraqi-on-Iraqi as well as Muslim-on-Muslim violence will be seen as magnanimous by many Iraqis both in and out of al-Sadr’s movement. … This does not have to be bad news for America, unless we have for some reason defined our “victory” in terms of particular Iraqi politicians, such as al-Maliki of the Dawa party or al-Hakim of ISCI. [...]
Experts’ views about the recent fighting in Basra « Fabius Maximus…
We lost, if for no other reason than Iran mediated the cease fire. Not that the American public really knows about this - But everyone else does.
By and large, in the back pages of newspapers, this is being referred to as a victory for Sadr. But the Iranian role is barely mentioned.
Dave
I think there’s an additional aspect to the recent fighting in Basra that’s been overlooked/marginalized, and which should color outside commentators (such as ourselves) appreciation of the relation to the large, long term problem Baghdad is stuck with there and absolutely must solve. Namely, controlling it’s National oil revenue and principal port of entry.
It should be quite obvious that any serious expectation of recognition as a legitimate National government for the whole of Iraq by officials in Baghdad will only go as far as its authority over its oil supply, period. As recent fighting and details regarding the scale of the “smuggling” problem have made clear, this can’t currently be claimed to be the case. Whether the problem is local militias or Iranian meddling or etc., the bottom line is that while controlling Basra is necessary in order to control Iraq’s oil and trade, actively doing so must be a zero sum strategic priority second (perhaps) only to control of the capital itself.
As I’m confident we all can agree that it is NOT clear the Iraqi government or military can claim practical control in Basra, I’d suggest that until this is demonstrably and firmly resolved, there isn’t much chance of seeing a checkered flag declaring a “winner”. Why? Because no one can claim to control Iraq without controlling Iraq’s oil revenue… and I assure everyone that there’s no way to “smuggle” $40 billion worth of oil anywhere! lol. Likewise, there’s no way to disarm local militias if the country’s main port is a paradise for smugglers… (even in America smugglers tend to be very well armed!). SO while agreeing that there’s a very complex dynamic to recent increases in fighting in Iraq, I’d suggest that it’s overly naive to assume deep political or religious motives are the cause of fighting when pure and cynical profit motive present a parallel hypothesis of at least equal weight… but then again, maybe I’m just a cynic.
Best,
A. Scott Crawford
Duncan wrote;
“It is axiomatic that the Bush administration and its various domestic supporters will insist that “our side” is “winning,” ”
It’s almost comedic, and in the same spirit as the infamous
“Bagdad Bob” of the initial invasion fame.
As was “Mission Accomplished.”
The spin from Presidential front runner MCCain was particuarly
entertaining, saying (I paraphrase) with the insurgence side
declareing a cease fire, McCain said “it’s obvious to the interests
of the losing side. ” So Apparent He’s declared “victory” in Basra.
But there’s an old, old cliche, “it ain’t over till the fat lady sings.”
And the facts that materialised in the years and decades after
Vietnam, underscores that.
Now this,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080402/pl_afp/iraqunrestusmilitary
Too soon to tell who won, lost in Basra: US military chief
Wed Apr 2, 5:19 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The chief of the US military said Wednesday it was too soon to tell who won or lost the Iraqi government’s fight against Shiite militiamen in Basra.
Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, welcomed Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s effort to crack down on the Shiite fighters in the southern city.
Sven,
which I still consume (sometimes) is http://www.strategypage.com .
I gave that up some years ago, finding it about as usefull
as I imagine a crack cocaine addiction.
MaX
Let’s all do some math.
Or rather associative deductive reasoning as practiced
by our revered late USAF Col. John Boyd.
1) “It is axiomatic that the Bush administration and its various domestic supporters will insist that “our side” is “winning,” no matter what the underlying facts may be.”
2) ““someone is lying.”
I can’t imagine who that might possibly be ?
Washington ?!
Vested interests in the US Military Industrial-Congressional,
Think Tank and Service sector ?”
3) http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/03/america/NA-GEN-US-Congress-Defense-Investments.php
New study shows US lawmakers have as much as $196 million invested in defense companies
The Associated Press
Published: April 3, 2008
“The review of lawmakers’ 2006 financial disclosure statements, by the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics, suggests that members’ holdings could pose a conflict of interest as they decide the fate of Iraq war spending.”
Why did the Democrats cave in in ther opposition to
Bush after the 04 election, you may ask ?
“The study found that more Republicans than Democrats hold stock in defense companies, but that the Democrats who are invested had significantly more money at stake.”
MaXimillian
US War With China Temporarily On Hold.
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/04/us-cant-stop-ch.html
U.S. Can’t Stop Chinese Missile; No Tests ‘Til 2014
By Noah Shachtman EmailApril 04, 2008 | 11:39:00 AMCategories: Eye on China, Missiles, Ships and Subs The U.S. Navy can’t stop China’s most sophisticated anti-ship missile — and won’t even start testing a defense until 2014.
MaX
What would happen in Washington, if the US became embroiled in a “real battle” and suffered several thousand dead in the span
of 24 hours ?
We saw what happened in Lebanon, and Somalia.
MaX
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080408/wl_mcclatchy/2903213
As Petraeus testifies, Baghdad teeters on edge of erupting
By Leila Fadel, McClatchy Newspapers Tue Apr 8, 11:06 AM ET
BAGHDAD — Army Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker were critical of Iran when they testified Tuesday before the Senate , barely giving credit for an Iranian-brokered cease-fire that curbed the killing after a week of Shiite-on-Shiite bloodshed in southern Iraq and Baghdad .
As they spoke, firebrand Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr threatened to unleash his Mahdi Army militia against U.S. and Iraqi forces. Once again, it was Iran that stepped into the political vacuum and urged a halt to militia attacks into the heavily fortified Green Zone, where U.S. and Iraqi officials, including Petraeus and Crocker, have their offices.
Maximilian—interesting post on that Chinese missile. I’ve long felt that if there is ever an “American Stalingrad”, it will take place at sea, not on land.
As I said before, I don’t see a serious threat to our position in Iraq from Iranian armored columns charging across the border. Sure, sandstorms might hide them from our air force…but can tanks keep going under such conditions? What about the accompanying infantry? Not likely, I think.
A much more serious threat could arise if the Iraqi people were to rise against us en masse—together, of course, with all the various militias. But if that happened, then our mission would have been a success, wouldn’t it? A united Iraq…
Back to Sadr. I can’t figure that guy out—I guess that’s not really remarkable, as long as I’m dependent on what the news tells me about the situation. The impression I’ve gotten is that Sadr is a really peace-loving guy who has nearly infinite patience. Al-Maliki declares war on him, attacks his Basra stronghold, and demands that he lay down his arms, and Sadr doesn’t even call off the cease-fire. Yes, I know some overly enthusiastic Mehdi/Mahdis just couldn’t be restrained from bombarding the Green Zone and fighting back in Basra, but that’s all small potatoes compared to what Sadr could do if he, like…got really mad.
Or is it that Sadr is actually a whole lot weaker than he would have us believe? Was that actually his best Sunday punch, and he has nothing left? Yeah—maybe he only managed to stave off defeat in Basra because of those couple of thousand or so “government” troops and senior commanders who changed sides (presumably because the odds would be so unsporting otherwise)? That would make him one lucky guy.
Then again, maybe my initial assessment was half right: he’s a guy with nearly infinite patience. So that leaves the question…what is he waiting for?
Dr_Vomacton 09 Apr 2008 at 1:21 pm 16
“Back to Sadr. I can’t figure that guy out—”
Good information from a enlightened and reliable source,
this might help, I stumbled across it just today, and so they say,
“timing is everything.”
M
http://www.lewrockwell.com/engelhardt/engelhardt325.html
” Muqtada al-Sadr is the most important and surprising figure to emerge in Iraq since the U.S. invasion.”
SNIP
“From the moment he unexpectedly appeared in the dying days of Saddam Hussein’s regime, U.S. emissaries and Iraqi politicians underestimated him.”
SNIP
”
So far from being the inexperienced young man whom his critics portrayed – when he first appeared they denigrated him as a zatut (an “ignorant child,” in Iraqi dialect) – he was a highly experienced political operator who had worked in his father’s office in Najaf since he was a teenager. He also had around him activist clerics, of his own age or younger, who had hands-on experience under Saddam of street politics within the Shia community. His grasp of what ordinary Iraqis felt was to prove far surer than that of the politicians isolated in the Green Zone in Baghdad.”
Also of potential interest;
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12663
US casulties appear to be rising sharply.
The Surge has failed,
“So now it’s the US has to stay, cause
look what Could happen,,,.”
MC
http://www.antiwar.com/updates/?articleid=12664
April 9, 2008
Wednesday: 7 US Soldiers, 40 Iraqis Killed; 107 Iraqis Wounded
Dr. Vomact wrote:
“Then again, maybe my initial assessment was half right: he’s a guy with nearly infinite patience. So that leaves the question…what is he waiting for?”
I suspect he’s waiting for that country wide rise that was mentioned.
He tried going toe to toe with our army, and got beat. He has seen how ruthless we can be - Fallujah?
So he is patient, and he is careful. What would a war with just his militia do anyway? Sure a lot of American casualties, and Sadr City leveled. We would do it too. And promise to rebuild the rubble.
So he’s using just enough violence to keep himself in the game, and mostly in self defense, because he’s more popular than Maliki anyway.
Dave
maximilliangc
on 09 Apr 2008
“US casulties appear to be rising sharply.”
Confirmed.
http://icasualties.org/oif_a/casualtytrends.htm
“Amid the Background of Battles With the Mahdi Army and the Congressional Testimony of Patraeus and Crocker, U.S. Fatalities Reached their Highest Levels in Months During the Week Ending 4/12.
The Weekly Total, 20, Was the Highest Since August and the Fatality Trend Line Surpassed 10 for the First Time Since October”