The balance of power in Iraq and the bombings today
There were several bombings across Baghdad today, the largest being a carbomb outside a university that killed 65.
The reason I'm posting is that I take issue with the characterization I'm seeing in the alot of the press.
I don't think that's it at all.
I would guess that these attacks are related to the latest "crackdown," but not as a last effort to "get in some violence" before the US gets in place. That assumes a mindlessness to the attacks when all past evidence is that the Sunnis are using these attacks for specific tactical ends.
The Maliki government is trying to construct this new security operation in such a way as to leave the Mahdi Army intact while degrading his/their Sunni factional opponents. In the interim, Sadr and Mahdi have agreed to "go quiet," leaving them with a substantially lower presence on the street.
The key to this is that Sadr/Mahdi have risen to prominence specifically because they are perceived as offering protection for the Shia civilians against their Sunni attackers.
By conducting these horrific attacks, one of them in Sadr City itself, the Sunnis have placed Sadr/Mahdi in a major political bind.
Do they lose their main cause of support by not returning to the streets?
Or do they return to the streets to protect their people increasing the probability of conflict with the US and greatly complicating Maliki's one sided implementation of the security plan?
Terrorism is a "tipping point" strategy. It is intended to force an alteration of decisions or policy through the use of horror. That's its sole use.
The violence in Iraq, at least that conducted by the large groups, is not random. It is conducted to achieve specific purposes, and in this case, the goal appears to be to complicate Maliki's plan to use the US to fight the Sunnis for him.
(Sorry for the long rant, but I think this is a very important point.)
The reason I'm posting is that I take issue with the characterization I'm seeing in the alot of the press.
"in what appeared to be a final spasm of violence ahead of an imminent security operation by the Iraqi government and U.S. forces to secure the capital."
(Updated link.)
I don't think that's it at all.
I would guess that these attacks are related to the latest "crackdown," but not as a last effort to "get in some violence" before the US gets in place. That assumes a mindlessness to the attacks when all past evidence is that the Sunnis are using these attacks for specific tactical ends.
The Maliki government is trying to construct this new security operation in such a way as to leave the Mahdi Army intact while degrading his/their Sunni factional opponents. In the interim, Sadr and Mahdi have agreed to "go quiet," leaving them with a substantially lower presence on the street.
The key to this is that Sadr/Mahdi have risen to prominence specifically because they are perceived as offering protection for the Shia civilians against their Sunni attackers.
By conducting these horrific attacks, one of them in Sadr City itself, the Sunnis have placed Sadr/Mahdi in a major political bind.
Do they lose their main cause of support by not returning to the streets?
Or do they return to the streets to protect their people increasing the probability of conflict with the US and greatly complicating Maliki's one sided implementation of the security plan?
Terrorism is a "tipping point" strategy. It is intended to force an alteration of decisions or policy through the use of horror. That's its sole use.
The violence in Iraq, at least that conducted by the large groups, is not random. It is conducted to achieve specific purposes, and in this case, the goal appears to be to complicate Maliki's plan to use the US to fight the Sunnis for him.
(Sorry for the long rant, but I think this is a very important point.)
posted by mikevotes at
11:06 AM
2 Comments:
Good points and well expressed.
By
Bravo 2-1, at 12:50 PM
Thanks.
I just don't think it's helpful to underestimate what we're up against.
The violence exists for reasons far beyond an inability to "impose security," and unless the causes driving the violence are addressed, it will continue.
(And, it's not the simple answer that Iran is driving it.)
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 1:08 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home