Slapping back Sadr?
This could just be coincidental, but I find it interesting that the US conducted two high profile raids against Sadr's operation in the days after his publicized return.
I'm not trying to argue that these weren't strategic targets, I just find it interesting that the US conducted these Iraqi high visibility operations targeting Sadr's Mahdi in two of their three strongholds upon his return.
On Friday, "About the time he was delivering a sermon at Friday prayers in the holy city of Kufa, Iraqi special forces killed a top leader of his feared Mehdi Army militia in southern Basra."
On Saturday, "American forces raided his Sadr City stronghold and killed five suspected militia fighters in air strikes Saturday.
I'm not trying to argue that these weren't strategic targets, I just find it interesting that the US conducted these Iraqi high visibility operations targeting Sadr's Mahdi in two of their three strongholds upon his return.
posted by mikevotes at
6:59 AM
3 Comments:
It's all connected. Pressuring Iran is the main priority at the moment.
By
Anonymous, at 12:13 PM
Piecing together from various news items...
While Sadr was away in Iran, the Mehdi militia (further) splintered. Sadr doesn't have control over all factions of the militia.
In a seeming change in US diplomatic efforts, US representatives now talk about working with "opposition" groups (yesterday's insurgents) in an effort to stabilize Iraq. Two of Sadr's lieutenants which the US military had captured (kidnapped?) and held for some time (months?) were released without strings attached. These are now being referred to as "moderate" Islamists, whom the US can deal with.
My conclusion: The recent raids may have been directed at Mehdi units that were outside the orbit of Sadr's control. Sadr may have tacitly and/or indirectly aided the US/Iraqi effort with intel. This may have been an effort to drive a wedge between those factions that may be amenable to some form of negotiated settlement and those who are truly fanatical.
My prediction: We will see Sadr raised to the level of political opposition in the coming months, and we will begin treating him as a diplomatic partner in Iraq. Maliki will become even more irrelevant and will be bypassed on security issues.
Just trying to read the tea leaves.
By
-epm, at 1:54 PM
Anonymous, yes, but I would argue that that is partially true simply because the US has run out of things to do in Iraq.
One of the original ideas of the invasion of Iraq was to create a stepping stone for the US to pressure Iran, now, Iran virtually controls Iraq.
...
EPM, I've often used the drug baron/corrupt cop analogy for the US/Sadr relationship. We're not happy he's there, but since he is, we work with him.
We don't seize anybody without checking it out with him first, and he gives up some of the units he can't control.
And, I think your prediction is pretty good.
I'm not too sure about the US/Sadr relationship being that positive above board though because of all the efforts at villainization through 2004 and 2005. That's a hard sell to the American people. (Not to mention unpopular with Sadr's followers.)
However, I would certainly expect back door politics with him. Not so much cooperation as dealing.
Oddly, Sadr is the one major Shia leader with any reach at all across to the Sunnis because he is primarily publicly nationalist and anti-US and where he can, anti-Iran.
The thing to remember, though, is that we need him a hell of a lot more than he needs us.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 2:15 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home