ANALYSIS: Iraq crackdown strengthens radical cleric and Iran
Middle East News
Apr 1, 2008, 15:50 GMT
Other features coming soon.
Talkback
page: 1 2
If Sadr (and Iran) were doing so well at winning in Basra, why the cease-fire? Could it be too many dead or wounded to be able to keep
a hold in the South of Iraq from his main rival there? Could it be he
expected the Iraqi government forces to fold early and often, but
instead they gave better than they got with little American help?
...quarterbacks above, neglect to mention this only turns out one way:
Bad
That being the case, go in and do it fast. If you're pimping yourself as the government, it's better to be seen as failing, if that is even the case here, than not being seen at all.
Not consulting with the Americans is a sign they feel confident and builds credibility.
There are lots of ways to measure success.
What ever happened to the good old days of Saddam.
Oh ! Piss on Iran's radical cleric !
What a numbnuts analysis that was!!?!?!??? What do you take the readers for? Fellow arab wingnuts??? We're just not that stupid out here.
Muqtada called it quits because he knew the Americans would be no more than 5 steps behind Maliki in this offensive. Imm glad it was a surprise, because at least this gives the rest of the free world hope that Maliki is beginning to become the commander-in-chief he must in order to shit- can this 'wannabe somebody' Sadr!! Sadr is finished now and he knows it.
Not even Ahm in my dinnah jacket is going to bring any further influence to Basra nor the north of Iraq anymore. Get your fat ass out of the way Sadr---You're far too radical to have a positive influence inside Baghdad.
Either get lost or face a few F-16's and MOAB's til u learn what an honest military will do to you.
all i ever want in my life ,is to have Sex with Farrah Fawcett !
Contrary to SP-4's opinion, there is much positive here: talk to someone
who has been on the offensive in urban warfare (whether a Marine in Hue during Tet of 68 or one of the men involved in Somalia during the Black-
Hawk down incident or one of the current vets) there is every advantage
to the defender in this type of warfare. Yet, the Iraqi national forces
managed to take 1/3 or so of Basra. Despite the bluster of Sadr's militia,
they know that they were being beaten and their morale will have taken a blow - they'll be less willing to try this again. Correspondingly, the
Iraqi national forces have gained morale, confidence and cohesion that
they otherwise might not have had.
Secondly, this is a message to others who would rather fight than cooperate
that there is now a willingness and ability in the Iraqi national forces
to work for stability and security even to the point of combat.
'SP4: Monday Morning
...quarterbacks above, neglect to mention this only turns out one way:
Bad'
Dead Mahdi militia are always a good thing. kicking the legs out from under one off one of Iran's proxy's is priceless.
www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/32055.html
Iranian general played key role in Iraq cease-fire
BAGHDAD — Iraqi lawmakers traveled to the Iranian holy city of Qom over the weekend to win the support of the commander of Iran's Qods brigades in persuading Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr to order his followers to stop military operations, members of the Iraqi parliament said.
Sadr ordered the halt on Sunday, and his Mahdi Army militia heeded the order in Baghdad, where the Iraqi government announced it would lift a 24-hour curfew starting early Monday in most parts of the capital.
thinkprogress.org/2008/04/01/mccain-sadr-facts-wrong/
As Mother Jones’ Jonathan Stein notes today, McCain’s description of what happened is “completely misleading” and wrong. In fact, Sadr’s call for a ceasefire only came after members of Maliki’s political party traveled to Iran to broker a deal with him:
The backdrop to Sadr’s dramatic statement was a secret trip Friday by Iraqi lawmakers to Qom, Iran’s holy city and headquarters for the Iranian clergy who run the country. There the Iraqi lawmakers held talks with Brig. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Qods (Jerusalem) brigades of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps and signed an agreement with Sadr, which formed the basis of his statement Sunday, members of parliament said.
Ali al Adeeb, a member of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s Dawa party, and Hadi al Ameri, the head of the Badr Organization, the military wing of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, had two aims, lawmakers said: to ask Sadr to stand down his militia and to ask Iranian officials to stop supplying weapons to Shiite militants in Iraq.
According to the AP, “the peace deal between al-Sadr and Iraqi government forces” not only “left the cleric’s Mahdi Army intact,” but it also left Maliki “politically battered and humbled within his own Shi’ite power base.”
thinkprogress.org/2008/04/01/mccain-sadr-facts-wrong/
As Mother Jones’ Jonathan Stein notes today, McCain’s description of what happened is “completely misleading” and wrong. In fact, Sadr’s call for a ceasefire only came after members of Maliki’s political party traveled to Iran to broker a deal with him.
online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120695720918576769-0pc9ooRI2xihRh9C_ukvjPe2 O4M_20080501.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top
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.
Mr. Sadr appears to be the one clear winner from the inconclusive fighting in the country's second-biggest city, which began to taper off Monday after the cleric urged his followers to observe a truce.
The failure of the Iraqi strikes against Mr. Sadr's Mahdi Army has implications for both U.S. policy in Iraq and the presidential campaign.
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. Sen. McCain departed from his usual talking points about Iraq Monday to say that he was surprised by Mr. Maliki's decision to order the Basra strike. 'Maliki decided to take on this operation without consulting the Americans,' he told reporters traveling with him in Mississippi. 'I'm surprised he'd take it on himself to go down and take charge of a military offensive.'
U.S. and British commanders said that Mr. Sadr's Mahdi Army fought the Iraqi forces to a draw and were able to retain their control over large portions of Basra and other Shiite areas of the country.
Want to see 'getting it wrong'?
''“I don’t want to suggest I’ve absorbed all of the facts,” about the situation in Basra, Mr. Obama said. But, he continued, what he had heard “appears consistent with my general analysis. The presence of our troops and their excellence has resulted in some reduction in violence. It has not resolved the underlying tensions that exist in Iraq.”''
www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/us/politics/30campaign.html?_r=1
As if that’s not everyone’s analysis.
Neither George Bush or John McCain or David Petraeus has ever said anything to contradict Obama’s valueless declaration. They have never suggested that the surge had “resolved the underlying tensions.”
This is the all-or-nothing rhetorical game the Democrats play with Iraq. They pretend the McCain side of the debate makes outlandishly sunny claims and then they “disprove” them. They overstate non-scandalous aspects of both McCain’s Iraq plan (the hundred-year war) and our present Iraq strategy: Last Tuesday in Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton said, “President Bush seems to want to keep as many people as possible in Iraq. It’s a clear admission that the surge has failed to accomplish its goals.” Wrong and wrong. And shameful, to boot.
So, Obama admits he has not “absorbed all of the facts,” but that’s because he doesn’t need to. He just needs to spin stories of violence into the narrative of Bush’s failed miracle. However, if he bothered to “absorb” just a little more of the admittedly confusing Basra situation, he’d have to confront the conflict’s one crystalline detail: the British pulled out too soon. And there’s no way for him to spin that.
www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/greenwald/3127
So Obama hasn't absorbed all the facts... or any for that matter, he quite simply tells idiots like you what they want to hear and you eat it up like the ignorant, salivating jackals that you are.
'As Mother Jones’ Jonathan Stein notes today, McCain’'
So you get your news from:
Alternet
Mother Jones
thinkprogress
mcclatchydc
As well as Kos, commondreams, and you have even posted garbage from uruknet.info...
No wonder you are so screwed up, you consume nothing but spin and propaganda and outright lies. That may be fine for an idiot like you but it is an insult to other peoples intelligence to post this garbage as if it were fact.
'Iranian general played key role in Iraq cease-fire'
cknowledging Iran's War [Steve Schippert]
In the great game that is the largely one-sided Iranian conflict with American forces in Iraq (and the greater international psychological image of the American presence there), many factors are in play right now. And I think Richard Fernandez at The Belmont Club is on to something here. [...]
ne of the rumored frictions between Petraeus and former CENTCOM CINC 'Fox' Fallon centered around how strongly to respond to threats from Iranian sponsored groups. And Sadr's men would fall under that category. Maj Gen Paul Vallely was quoted as saying CENTCOM may not have been done all that it could to prevent Iran from endangering American troops.
“The fact is that [Central Command] had the external responsibility to protect our troops in Iraq from the outside and under Fallon they failed to do it,” said retired Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, a military analyst. “We have done nothing to protect our soldiers from external threats in Iraq.”
I said yesterday that '[i]t's not entirely up to us whether or not we are in conflict with Iran.' The Iranians have (and have had) plenty to say about that.
But for goodness sakes, don't take General David Petraeus's word for it.
Oh, no. Instead, cry out, 'O Admiral Fallon, where art thou?' That should help.
And with Admiral Fallon out at CENTCOM, Iran has lost some level of protection, if the rumored friction between him and General Petraeus is believed by the Iranians (what you and I think does not matter here). That may be driving Iran's latest move in the great game: Stoking the embers of conflict.
This strategy affords Iran two things: Engineered instability within Iraq that plays greatly to their advantage and, equally significant, the ability to prod the U.S. military into more aggressive public statements about Iranian involvement in Iraq. The Iranians are smart, and they know that a significant number of voices in America are ready, willing and able to continue painting the Bush Administration as overly aggressive and seeking a hot war with Iran.
Of course, the fact that Iran is actually prosecuting such a war through its proxies is less important than criticizing the president. And the Iranians know this. Stoking the conflict and drawing anti-Iranian words and military actions from Petraeus and the administration on the heels of Admiral Fallon's exit is a move to shape perception and position. If one looks at how 'Fox' Fallon's exit was portrayed in the U.S .media - as the loss of presumably the one sane mind between the Bush Administration and war with Iran - the tone of the media response to U.S. military action against (barely) cloaked Iranian aggression in Iraq is predictable.
For what it's worth, readers may appreciate a bit of a flashback to a 2007 analysis of the dynamic now at play: A New Course In Iraq...For Iran.
As recently as mid-August, Major General Rick Lynch said that his forces and military intelligence were tracking about 50 members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps in his area of operations, which includes the southern edge of Baghdad and some of the provincial areas to its south, including Karbala. Of the IRGC operatives known to be active in his region, Major General Lynch said, “We’ve got about 50 of those. They go back and forth. There’s a porous border.”
And just across those porous borders lie myriad Iranian terrorist training camps, teaching, arming and paying Iraqis to fight their proxy war against America and the Iraqi state, seeking instability in Iraq in the immediate and increased Iranian infiltration, influence and control in the longer term. And the better they can achieve this, the fewer of its own valuable and highly trained Quds Force operatives and terror facilitators need be put at physical risk of being killed or captured in Iraq by a new American commander [who] clearly seeks to engage without hesitation those within his Iraqi theater of operations who kill his men, Coalition forces and Iraqi civilians. Even the fearsome Iranians who never lack for threat and bluster.
So, while General Petraeus reported that Iran’s Quds Force and their Lebanese Hizballah terrorist facilitators have vacated Iraqi territory, he did not say that the Iranian threat has abated as a result nor did he say that all Iranians have left the theater. He, in fact, said just the opposite: The Iranian threat continues to grow.
That was in September, 2007. He was clearly correct.
Meanwhile, Muqtada al-Sadr is having statements read in Iraq on his behalf. It is hard for Muqi to deliver a speech in Najaf, Iraq when he is in Iran. And his written words are no doubt the product of Iranian direction. Remember, Sadr has always been little more than a slumlord from Sadr City, named for his father, who was decidedly of greater import than his son. And his Mahdi Army has always been a consortium of simple street thugs. Iran now finds them useful and trains and arms them - and directs Daddy's son to play the right part.
But how much of this matters? Any counter-move(s) by General Petraeus to react to Iranian aggression will be portrayed as a hawkish administration seeking yet another war.
It doesn't really matter much, apparently, that Iran has already found that war. Does it?
'As Mother Jones’ Jonathan Stein notes today, McCain’s description of what happened is “completely misleading” and wrong. In fact, Sadr’s call for a ceasefire only came after members of Maliki’s political party traveled to Iran to broker a deal with him.'
You have no way of knowing who asked for the ceasefire and your crapp. biased article from thinkprogress who cited another crappy biased article from 'motherjones' doesn't even take a stand on that issue.
But thanks for the lies and spam you mental case.
(He's here screeching because he completely screwed up the participants in Iraq!)
news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/news/article_1397691.php/Iraqi_g overnment_vows_to_demilitarize_Basra__2nd_Lead_?compage=40&comcount=64&coml imit=20
give it a rest, idiot.Apr 2nd, 2008 - 01:02:56
'(al-Maliki's people (Dawa and Badr groups) went to Iran to ask for help, as al-Sadr was already there'
YES, they are his backers and he is hiding there after a string of defeats which has cut the size of his muddy army almost in half.
================================================
THIS SCHMUCK DOES NOT EVEN KNOW WHO IS WHO AMONGST THE SHIA FACTIONS!!!
----------
Dawa and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council are two of the main parties in the religious-Shiite United Iraqi Alliance, which won a plurality of seats in both the provisional January 2005 Iraqi election and the longer-term December 2005 election. The party is led by Nouri al-Maliki, who is also the current Prime Minister of Iraq.
Badr Organization (previously known as Badr Brigade or Bader Corps) is the armed wing of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC). Headed by Hadi Al-Amiri it participated in the 2005 Iraqi election as part of the United Iraqi Alliance coalition. Its members have entered the new Iraqi army and police force.
THE DAWA AND BADR FACTIONS BACK AL-MALIKI, NOT AL-SADR!!!
The Mahdi Army, also known as the Mahdi Militia or Jaish al Mahdi is an Iraqi paramilitary force created by the Iraqi Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in June 2003.
Re this nonsensical out-of-context argument:
''“I don’t want to suggest I’ve absorbed all of the facts,” about the situation in Basra, Mr. Obama said. But, he continued, what he had heard “appears consistent with my general analysis. The presence of our troops and their excellence has resulted in some reduction in violence. It has not resolved the underlying tensions that exist in Iraq.”''
www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/us/politics/30campaign.html?_r=1
'As if that’s not everyone’s analysis. Neither George Bush or John McCain or David Petraeus has ever said anything to contradict Obama’s valueless declaration. They have never suggested that the surge had “resolved the underlying tensions.”
=================================================
Obama is NOT saying that ANYONE ELSE suggested that the surge had “resolved the underlying tensions.” He's making the statement on his own; irrespective of what anyone else said, or did not say.
These are the kind of lies that have gotten us 5+ years of wrongheaded strategy and 4,000 dead. YES, the British pulled out too soon - but they're our allies; so why couldn't Bush talk them out of it? Obama did not mention it - and so what?
Here's his complete press conference IN CONTEXT, including the portion of the key sentence omitted:
thepage.time.com/transcript-of-obama-press-availability/
Q: Senator - Basra and Iraq in general has been plunged back into quite a bit of violence in the last few days. I’m interested in your take on that and if this has any effect, for instance, on plans to, you know, your proposals to withdraw troops. What you think the course we might take right now?
BO: Well, obviously, we’re still getting news from the front, so I don’t want to suggest that I have absorbed all of the facts. Based on what I’ve seen so far, it appears consistent with my general analysis which is the presence of our troops and their excellence has resulted in some reduction in violence. It has not resolved the underlying tensions that exist in Iraq. If we are going to bring long-term stability to Iraq, it is going to have less to do with our military presence there and more to do with the ability of the various factions, not just Sunni-Shia but, as we’re seeing now in Basra, Shia-Shia, inner-sectarian conflict, to be resolved. And I actually believe that we have a better chance of resolving it by setting a clear timeframe for withdrawal, in consultation with our commanders on the ground, at a deliberate but careful pace. Time would be ample for them to then come together, but they’d understand that we’re not going to be permanently occupying the country. So there’s nothing that’s happened in Basra that either surprises me or undermines my basic view that it is the political accommodations rather than our military presence that is going to bring about long-term stability. Unless you are willing to do what John McCain has suggested, which is essentially to set up a permanent occupation in Iraq, in which we are functioning as some sort of military protectorate. And, setting aside the enormous costs, $10 billion to $12 billion a month, which is unsustainable and would erode our economy here at home - the strategic implications of a long-term presence in Iraq and how that can be used to recruit terrorists, how it distracts us from having to finish the job in Afghanistan, are all reasons why I think that is a fundamentally flawed policy.
www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-04-01-iraqnews_N.htm
BAGHDAD — On the eve of the Iraqi government's showdown last week with radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia, Ismail Shnawa's commander ordered him not to fight.
'He told us not to shoot back even if we get shot at by the Mahdi Army,' said Shnawa, a soldier in Iraq's paramilitary police force that is commanded by the Iraqi army.
The six-day showdown with al-Sadr and other Shiite militias was the toughest test for Iraqi government forces since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. The week of violence exposed troubling signs that the country's security forces have much work before they can take over for U.S. troops. Militias and their followers remain entrenched within the government forces, and units sympathetic to al-Sadr, such as Shnawa's, refused to fight.
In the southern town of Basra, more than 400 Iraqi soldiers and officers handed their weapons to the enemy, Ministry of Interior spokesman Abdel Karim Khalaf said. In Baghdad, at least 65 Iraqi soldiers and policemen switched loyalties, said Baghdad's deputy mayor, Naeem al-Kaabi, a Sadrist leader. Many others either wouldn't fight or willingly surrendered, including Shnawa and 50 others in his unit. Units that did fight struggled to gain ground against the powerful Shiite militias.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki declared victory Tuesday in the vital oil hub of Basra, even as the Mahdi Army he had vowed to crush remained armed and in control of large swaths. 'The Sadrists control more areas in Basra than when the fighting began,' said Osama al-Nujaif, a secular Sunni lawmaker who helped broker the cease-fire.As al-Maliki's crackdown on the militias faltered, U.S. and British forces were increasingly drawn into the fight by launching airstrikes and artillery shells at enemy positions, battling militants on the ground and providing critical logistical support.
British forces in Basra had to evacuate and treat Iraqi wounded, refuel Iraqi aircraft and provide manpower to ferry supplies, said Maj. Tom Holloway, a British army spokesman. In Baghdad, U.S. forces stepped in to resupply Iraqi soldiers with water and ammunition when the Iraqi supply chain broke down, said Lt. Col. Mike Pemrick, who oversees Iraqi security forces for the U.S. Army unit operating in al-Sadr's stronghold in Sadr City on the east side of Baghdad.
In the centralized hierarchy of Iraq's armed forces, each unit's success or failure hinged on the leadership and political loyalties of the commanding officer. 'It came down to individual commanders,' Pemrick said. 'Some ensured their soldiers were getting the supplies they needed and doing their missions, but with some others there were problems.'
Two of the seven Iraqi battalions, or about 600 men, that Pemrick works with failed to follow orders when it came time to fight, he said. 'The commander wanted these guys to get out and man their checkpoints, and they didn't want to,' he said. 'One unit had a lot of soldiers from Sadr City, and their commander felt threatened by the Mahdi Army.'
The other five battalions performed well, he said, but U.S. troops avoided asking the Iraqis to take on difficult tasks, such as patrolling for Mahdi Army teams firing mortar rounds. Instead, Iraqi responsibilities were limited to manning checkpoints that controlled access to al-Sadr's stronghold. 'We focused on what we knew they could do,' he said.
Shnawa's unit, which was operating south of Sadr City, was not one of the brigades that Pemrick works with, but both related similar stories.
(more details in the link)
(The numbers within are coming from U.S. military officials)
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/01/AR200804010316 5.html
Over the week that began March 25, when the offensive began in Basra, there were 728 attacks against U.S. coalition forces, Iraqi security forces and civilians across Iraq, according to U.S. military data obtained by The Washington Post. Of these, 430 -- or almost 60 percent of the attacks -- occurred in Baghdad, the major focus of last year's buildup of 30,000 additional U.S. troops. The forces have begun to withdraw, and the rest are to be gone by the end of July. In comparison, the average weekly attack rate in Baghdad last June was 326 attacks, according to U.S. military statistics.
By Monday, a day after Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr ordered his Mahdi Army militiamen to lay down their arms, the attacks quickly subsided close to levels seen before the government offensive.
On March 23 and 24, the two days before the offensive began, there were, respectively, 42 and 38 attacks across Iraq. On each of those days, there were only 14 attacks in Baghdad. Over the next few days, attacks in the capital spiked to as many as six times that number.
--- Beginning of key point ---
The rapid containment of the fighting suggests that the 'surge' of U.S. forces is but one factor in bringing down violence in Iraq and that in Shiite areas, a cease-fire imposed by Sadr on his militiamen last August may be more significant.
--- End of key point ---
(That's the very point I've consistently made - since the Shia are the majority, the al-Sadr cease-fire has done more to reduce overall violence than the 'surge' involving the Sunni)
The reduction in violence across Iraq on Monday, which appeared to continue Tuesday, also highlights the power Sadr wields on Iraq's streets and the control he exerts over much of his militia, despite assertions by U.S. military commanders that the cleric's movement has been weakened by the buildup.
The figures and analysis offer more evidence of how swiftly U.S. forces were drawn into a power struggle unfolding between Sadr and rival Shiite groups that lead Iraq's government, mainly Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa party and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, led by Abdul Aziz-Hakim.
The data, said U.S. military officials who provided the information on condition of anonymity because it was not authorized for release, are a preliminary but thorough accounting that could be readjusted slightly.
The data include attacks against U.S. troops, Iraqi security forces and civilians. U.S. forces bore the brunt of those attacks last week, suggesting that they were taking the lead combat role in many areas or were perceived by Mahdi Army fighters to be taking the lead. The data square with on-the-ground reports that American soldiers were involved in battles and were being targeted with roadside bombs, rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons in many Shiite enclaves of Baghdad.
(From that noted left-wing publication, the Wall Street Journal - hey, that was irony ... the Mahdi Army retained their weapons and even gained some territory in the deal, while the breakaway criminal gangs continue to function. al-Maliki is seen as an American puppet, and the U.S. ends up getting blamed by the Iraqi people. The question is who will retain control in upcoming provincial elections, which is the real reason that al-Maliki launched the attacks. Every side in Iraq is corrupt and out for their own interests; NOT the interests of a unified Iraq.)
online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120695720918576769-0pc9ooRI2xihRh9C_ukv jPe2O4M_20080501.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top
April 1, 2008; Page A8
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. Mr. Sadr appears to be the one clear winner from the inconclusive fighting in the country's second-biggest city, which began to taper off Monday after the cleric urged his followers to observe a truce.
The failure of the Iraqi strikes against Mr. Sadr's Mahdi Army has implications for both U.S. policy in Iraq and the presidential campaign. 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. Sen. McCain departed from his usual talking points about Iraq Monday to say that he was surprised by Mr. Maliki's decision to order the Basra strike. 'Maliki decided to take on this operation without consulting the Americans,' he told reporters traveling with him in Mississippi. 'I'm surprised he'd take it on himself to go down and take charge of a military offensive.'
U.S. and British commanders said that Mr. Sadr's Mahdi Army fought the Iraqi forces to a draw and were able to retain their control over large portions of Basra and other Shiite areas of the country. Militants linked to Mr. Sadr also showed an ability to inflict pain on the U.S., killing two American officials in sophisticated mortar attacks against the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad in recent days.
U.S. officials said that Mr. Sadr was in a stronger political position, as well, because of the public perception that Mr. Maliki ordered the strikes to weaken the cleric and his followers ahead of provincial elections scheduled for October. 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.
It's critical for al-Maliki that HIS allies win provincial elections in order to exert local control. As American officials indicate in the last post, more important than the 'military' outcome was the 'political' ramifications - and here, al-Maliki came off poorly in the South. Unless he can follow through with promised infrastructure improvements, the Hamas win in Gaza in 2006 could potentially serve as the model.
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/04/usa.israelandthepalestinians
The Bush administration, caught out by the rise of Hamas, embarked on a secret project for the armed overthrow of the Islamist government in Gaza, it emerged yesterday.
Vanity Fair reports in its April edition that President George Bush and the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, signed off on a plan for the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, to remove the Hamas authorities in Gaza. The plan called for Washington's allies in the region to funnel arms and salaries to Fatah fighters who would lead a rising against Hamas.
But the project was controversial even within the administration, the magazine reports. 'There were severe fissures among neoconservatives over this,' David Wurmser, a former Middle East adviser to the vice-president, Dick Cheney, told the magazine. 'We were ripping each other to pieces.'
Wurmser resigned his post in the vice-president's office in July 2007, only weeks after bloody clashes in Gaza between Hamas and Fatah that led to the Islamist organisation taking total control of the territory. 'It looks to me that what happened wasn't so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that was pre-empted before it could happen,' he said.
The Bush administration plan sought to undo the results of elections in the West Bank and Gaza in January 2006 which, to the chagrin of White House and State Department officials, saw Hamas win a majority of seats in the Palestinian legislature.
The project was approved by Bush, Rice, and Elliott Abrams, the hawkish deputy national security adviser.
The 2006 election result was seen as an affront to the central premise of the Bush administration's policy in the Middle East - that democratic elections would inexorably lead to pro-western governments.
With the victory of Hamas, Rice moved swiftly to try to persuade Abbas to take steps to dissolve the Hamas authority in Gaza. When Abbas did not move quickly enough, the US consul general in Jerusalem, Jake Walles, was despatched to Ramallah to deliver a curt reminder.
The magazine quotes a memo for Walles's meeting with Hamas as saying: 'You should make clear your intention to declare a state of emergency and form an emergency government.'
The central man figure in Washington's plan was Mohammed Dahlan, who had been Yasser Arafat's security chief in Gaza and who had established close ties with the CIA as early as the 1990s. The magazine cites three unidentified US officials quoting Bush as saying: 'He's our guy.'
According to the magazine, Rice played a main role in trying to persuade Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to offer training and funding to the Fatah fighters. Israeli officials admitted in December 2006 that Egypt had sent weapons to the Fatah faction in Gaza.
page: 1 2
Similar articles
- Shiite politician gunned down outside northern Iraqi home
- At least one Iraqi killed, six injured, in Mosul
- 10 dead, 50 injured in attacks in Iraq (Roundup)
- One killed, 10 injured in an attack in southern Iraq (2nd Lead)
- Five killed, 35 injured in bombing at market in Iraq (1st Lead)
Latest Headlines in Middle East
- 1. Obama, Netanyahu meet as Mideast peace talks flounder (Roundup)
- 2. Five years on, Palestinians still mourning Arafat (News Feature)
- 3. UN chief welcomes Lebanon's newly formed government
- 4. PROFILE: Lebanon's national unity cabinet
- 5. Netanyahu wants peace with Palestinians "soon"
USA
Your Talkback on this Story