More On The Move To Isolate Sadr
A couple of days ago I noted with great excitement an attempt to form a new government in Iraq that would be free of the influence of Moktada al-Sadr. Edward Wong has more in the NY Times:
After discussions with the Bush administration, several of Iraq’s major political parties are in talks to form a coalition whose aim is to break the powerful influence of the radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr within the government, senior Iraqi officials say.
The talks are taking place among the two main Kurdish groups, the most influential Sunni Arab party and an Iranian-backed Shiite party that has long sought to lead the government. They have invited Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to join them. But Mr. Maliki, a conservative Shiite who has close ties to Mr. Sadr, has held back for fear that the parties might be seeking to oust him, a Shiite legislator close to Mr. Maliki said.
Officials involved in the talks say their aim is not to undermine Mr. Maliki, but to isolate Mr. Sadr as well as firebrand Sunni Arab politicians inside the government. Mr. Sadr controls a militia with an estimated 60,000 fighters that has rebelled twice against the American military and is accused of widening the sectarian war with reprisal killings of Sunni Arabs.
The Americans, frustrated with Mr. Maliki’s political dependence on Mr. Sadr, appear to be working hard to help build the new coalition. President Bush met last week in the White House with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of the Iranian-backed Shiite party, and is to meet on Tuesday with Tariq al-Hashemi, leader of the Sunni Arab party. In late November, Mr. Bush and his top aides met with leaders from Sunni countries in the Middle East to urge them to press moderate Sunni Arab Iraqis to support Mr. Maliki.
The White House visits by Mr. Hakim and Mr. Hashemi are directly related to their effort to form a new alliance, a senior Iraqi official said.
Last month, Mr. Bush’s national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, wrote in a classified memo that the Americans should press Sunni Arab and Shiite leaders, especially Mr. Hakim, to support Mr. Maliki if he sought to build “an alternative political base.” The memo noted that Americans could provide “monetary support to moderate groups.”
Iraqi officials involved in the talks said they had conceived of the coalition themselves after growing frustrated with militant politicians.
“A number of key political parties, across the sectarian-ethnic divide, recognize the gravity of the situation and have become increasingly aware that their fate, and that of the country, cannot be held hostage by the whims of the extreme fringe within their communities,” said Barham Salih, a deputy prime minister and senior member of one of the major Kurdish parties.
Mr. Sadr’s relationship with Mr. Maliki has shown signs of strain. On Nov. 30, Mr. Sadr withdrew his 30 loyalists in Parliament and 6 cabinet ministers from the government. Mr. Maliki called for them to return, but they said they would do so only if Mr. Maliki and the Americans set a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops. Mr. Sadr reiterated the demand with a fiery message on Sunday.
I question how useful Maliki can be, since he has shown great reluctance to break from Sadr – but if his support is necessary, and if he can truly cut the chord, then more power to him – and to them. This is a very smart move on the part of the administration – and it has the potential to bring that long-elusive word back into play: victory…
Um, so a guy who contols a 60,000 person militia is going to be “isolated?” And what, his fighters will lay down their weapons? Do you remember why Sadr has influence in the government to begin with? Whatever you’re smoking I want some.
Gus, of course he won’t lay down his arms…but the reason he HAS that 60,000 person militia is we’ve been prevented from taking him on. That may change shortly…and when it does, I’ll put my money on the United States military…
Also, Gus, did you read the article I cited extensively? Wong specifically says the move is aimed at isolating Sadr many, many places…maybe you should share what you’re smoking, instead…
If successful at kicking this populist out of representative gov’t aka democracy, the US might manage to get more Shi’ite representation among the insurgents. A bigger, more powerful, more well-armed, more diverse insurgency is a good thing?
The talks are taking place among the two main Kurdish groups, the most influential Sunni Arab party and an Iranian-backed Shiite party that has long sought to lead the government.
Well sure. I don’t doubt that the Iranian-backed SCIRI party would like to have the Shiite field to itself. So if successful at isolating Sadr, the US can increase Iranian influence while strengthening the insurgency, which also puts Iran in a stronger position. Glorious. Maybe our tax dollars will go to SCIRI:
The memo noted that Americans could provide “monetary support to moderate groups.” Anyone know what SCIRI stands for? Hint: you might not want your tax dollars going to a party with “Islamic Revolution” in its name.
I will apologize for not reading the entire article before commenting and for the flippant what are you smoking line. Of course the US military can handle 60,000 lightly armed militia. What I worry about is a bloodbath that kills perhaps tens of thousands of innocent civilians (and yes, I’m aware that concern for Iraqi civilians among a lot of folks on the right is considered quaint), further alienates more moderate Iraqis, and drives Shia into the loving arms of Iran. I also would expect to see American casualties soar in an environment in which the war is already deeply unpopular, and the military is strained. The best victory that could be hoped for would be Pyrrhic in nature.
Someone is likely to counter that US tax money won’t go to SCIRI, because it wouldn’t be considered “moderate”.
Ha. If there’s one thing we learned with Iran-contra, it’s that when the going gets tough, the Republicans will trip all over themselves to provide missiles and other arms, as well as money, to appease the enemy — especially when they happen to be Islamic fundamentalists. When caught, they always claim they are dealing with “moderates”.
Betcha it happens again. It won’t surprise me if it’s happening right now.
Gus, concern for Iraqi civilians on the right is considered quaint?
Come now, that’s a huge slander…if you really believe that, we have nothing to discuss…
…Tubino, the dynamic you describe in Iran-Contra is called realpolitik…it was replaced by the idealism of the neocons…now which is it you prefer? Don’t be trying to have your cake and eat it, too, on us…
But on a more substantive level, Gus, I share your concern, believe it or not, about a bloodbath – had we taken care of Sadr sooner, the casualty level would have no doubt been lower.
However, I think what will alienate moderate Iraqis is if we continue to let Sadr and Maliki destroy the whole dream of a democratic Iraq. The new coalition of Iraqis may not be composed of ideal partners, as Tubino points out, all the way through, but isn’t the status quo exactly what NO ONE (with the exception of Sadr) seems to want?
We’ve got to change, and the ISG options are simply nothing more than managed surrender, as others have noted. This gives another shot (the last one, perhaps) at something actually resembling victory…
Mark, it may be more idealistic than realistic to imagine that a politically-isolated Sadr force (armed, and with popular support) would magically be vanquished in open military combat. Faced with combat helicopter attack, they would of course decentralize, and become an effective insurgent force. I have no idea what you have to smoke to imagine that that leads to victory.
But there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that this administration is determined to take the worst of both realpolitik and crazy neocon fantasy. It has nothing to do with ME wanting to have cake and eat it too. It’s more like them giving us sh*t for cake now, AND putting it on our credit card bill too. It’s more like creating a huge Iraqi refugee problem, AND then denying them entry to the US because it makes the admin look bad. It’s more like spending half a trillion dollars to give Osama bin Laden his birthday wish AND strengthen Iran. It’s like sacrificing US principles regarding torture AND getting faulty intelligence from it.
And it’s more like imagining that disenfranchising a powerful populist movement will help Iraq develop a stronger gov’t, AND weaken the insurgency, when it wouldn’t do either.
Victory is an optical illusion in a situation as chaotic as Iraq. Who are you going to beat? No sooner do you destroy one group but you find that you don’t like the others very much either–we’ll eventually turn on the Kurds, too, since an independent Kurdistan would make it impossible to placate the Turks and the Iranians.
O well, Sadr has a real constituency in Iraq so he will be demonized and then exterminated because only Iraqis whose primary loyalty is to the United States will do. But the kind of lapdogs we’re looking for are never going to be acceptible to the Iraquis themselves. Meanwhile, by crushing Badr, who, for all his warts, is at least not a stalking horse for the Iranians, we’ll greatly increase the influence of Teheran.
“only Iraqis whose primary loyalty is to the United States will do”…
Wrong, my firend. Only Iraqis whose primary loyalty is Iraq will do…
Wrong, my friend. Only Iraqis whose primary loyalty is Iraq will do…
I have no doubt that most of the insurgents fighting to push the US out feel they are strongly loyal to Iraq (by countering foreign influence). Saddam Hussein, I’m sure, still feels he represented the true Iraq. I’m sure the Taliban in Afghanistan feel they are pushing for the true Afghanistan, against foreign influence.
Mark, you’ve given an example of the kind of narrow thinking that has plagued this administration from day 1. Consider that the competing interests in Iraq may ALL think their vision of Iraq is the one and only true Iraq, and they are loyal to that vision.
Well, let me expand my definition, then: loyalty to a Democratic Iraq that protects the rights of the minority Sunni and Kurds.
I don’t give a damn if they are anti-American or not; only that they have a broader vision than their sect…
Maybe I’m thinking too much of the fever swamps of LGF, where it seems the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim, but I’ve also seen a few columns written by more respected conservatives who seem to believe that the only reason we haven’t won this war is we’ve been too restrained and too worried about innocents. If you don’t share those sentiments, the criticism isn’t directed at you personally.
No, I hope I speak for most, if not all, of my readers when I say we don’t share those sentiments. I truly believe that demonization of Muslims is not only prevalent, but morally wrong and counterproductive.
We are not at war with all adherents of the Islamic faith; we are at war with a particular branch of Wahhabism…