Is this the US plan for dealing with the Mahdi and al-Sadr?
Juan Cole reports on an al-Hayat article that has Iyad Allawi heading to Kurdistan trying to form a new government alliance. Adding weight, reportedly Khalilzad went with him. (Shouldn't Khalilzad be gone by now? Wasn't he replaced?)
But I would guess, as Cole imples, this is all a feint to force Maliki to complete his cabinet shakeup in two weeks that reportedly will cut Sadr out of the government.
This sets up a very interesting situation.
For months the US has been announcing the planned "surge," giving Sadr and the Mahdi Army ample time to evacuate Sadr City and remove their weapons. Many in the leadership even going to Iran.
(AP, WaPo) Today, the US is conducting it's first big security operation in Sadr City since 2004.
Part of the near term plan is to set up a "joint security station" within Sadr City and checkpoints all over the place.
So, the US gets Sadr and the Mahdi to remove their fighters and weapons, "clears" Sadr City, establishes a presence, and only then looks to cut Sadr out of the government.
I don't know if all this is true, but that would be a very subtle strategy designed to draw Mahdi fighters out into the open. The US would certainly be fighting on "their ground," but it would also have the advantage of tracking them as they come back in.
If direct conflict is coming, this would create about the most disarrayed Mahdi organization you could hope for.
But, I wouldn't want to be posted in that joint security station.
More stray thoughts: This would presume that the Mahdi response would be focused primarily on "retaking" Sadr City not spreading chaos elsewhere to draw the US away.
Also, is part of it to establish "security" while the Mahdi is gone and then blame them when the violence rises again? Could you really propagandize the residents and citizens away from supporting Sadr?
This would also presume that Maliki is fully on board with the US plan. How would Maliki continue to govern if Sadr pulled out taking away his majority? Could another majority be formed? Does Maliki stay in power by default?
Just thinking out loud. Comments?
But I would guess, as Cole imples, this is all a feint to force Maliki to complete his cabinet shakeup in two weeks that reportedly will cut Sadr out of the government.
This sets up a very interesting situation.
For months the US has been announcing the planned "surge," giving Sadr and the Mahdi Army ample time to evacuate Sadr City and remove their weapons. Many in the leadership even going to Iran.
(AP, WaPo) Today, the US is conducting it's first big security operation in Sadr City since 2004.
Part of the near term plan is to set up a "joint security station" within Sadr City and checkpoints all over the place.
So, the US gets Sadr and the Mahdi to remove their fighters and weapons, "clears" Sadr City, establishes a presence, and only then looks to cut Sadr out of the government.
I don't know if all this is true, but that would be a very subtle strategy designed to draw Mahdi fighters out into the open. The US would certainly be fighting on "their ground," but it would also have the advantage of tracking them as they come back in.
If direct conflict is coming, this would create about the most disarrayed Mahdi organization you could hope for.
But, I wouldn't want to be posted in that joint security station.
More stray thoughts: This would presume that the Mahdi response would be focused primarily on "retaking" Sadr City not spreading chaos elsewhere to draw the US away.
Also, is part of it to establish "security" while the Mahdi is gone and then blame them when the violence rises again? Could you really propagandize the residents and citizens away from supporting Sadr?
This would also presume that Maliki is fully on board with the US plan. How would Maliki continue to govern if Sadr pulled out taking away his majority? Could another majority be formed? Does Maliki stay in power by default?
Just thinking out loud. Comments?
posted by mikevotes at
11:10 AM
4 Comments:
"...this would create about the most disarrayed Mahdi organization you could hope for."
In an insurgency, I'm not sure 'disarray' is a negative for the insurgents. Is this just another way of dispersing the enemy... of turning a single front into a thousand stinging hornet fronts?
I don't know.
By
-epm, at 10:30 PM
This would presume that the Mahdi response would be focused primarily on "retaking" Sadr City not spreading chaos elsewhere to draw the US away.
I think the latter is more likely. They will instigate small battles elsewhere and then sabotage the troops as they move in reaction. I doubt the Mahdi Army plans to "stand and fight."
By
Praguetwin, at 6:06 AM
EPM, yeah, but it would make them start from the outside.
Mahdi is by no means a unified structure, but, perhaps because of no US attacks for four years, it's more organized than the Sunnis. My understanding is that it's more like an alliance of street gangs at this point in its structure. The local Blood or Crip street gang does operate on orders from above but it's also independent.
You have to "pay respect" to the local leaders and allow them turf and a cut of the action both in crime and politically. It seems to be more an alliance of these group leading "warlords."
.....
Praguetwin, that would be the proper tactical "guerilla" response. Light the rest of the country on fire until the occupier lets up. My only question is how the politics in Sadr City play out. Can they politically allow the US to occupy their "heartland?" If the Sadr City populous stays against the Americans than yeah, but if the resentment fades, they have a problem.
And, I don't really think Mahdi would have to "stand and fight" to conduct battles in Sadr City. They have so much cover among the population, they could snipe and bomb and mortar the bases all day and night.
.....
I don't know.
This post was a speculative idea that came in a flash. I'm getting less convinced of it the more I think about it.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 8:16 AM
So if Maliki does kick out the Sadrist ministers, who does he replace them with? And what is the mechanism? He doesn't just get to do it unilaterally, does he?
Since it seems doubtful that Allawi can put together a ruling coalition without the UIA, perhaps his (apparently U.S.-backed) move to pull out of the government and take the Kurds with him is just a threat designed to give him (and them) more leverage within the current ruling coalition, to make the government more broad-based and less sectarian Shiite?
If this is what's going on, it almost seems like a clever move by the Bushies... to tilt toward the Shias militarily but away from them politically. On the other hand, most of their seemingly plausible moves have turned out to be disasters.
By
Tom Gartner, at 2:08 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home