What is Sadr up to?
Sadr called for a new uprising against US forces, BUT,
Is he creating this new group to unify control and cut out all the fractionalizing local leaders of the Mahdi? Or is he trying to isolate the Mahdi so that it can press on with its populist "social works" without an excuse for the US and Maliki government cracking down? Will this be Iranian trained fighters, an extension of Iranian pressure to get the US out?
The WaPo has a more (framing this in relation to the broad Shia politics against the US presence and paralleling it to Maliki's rejection of the US-Iraq security deal.)
The bottom line to me is that with the US security deal (and permanent bases) on the table, the Iranians have suddenly become much more active. They are Maliki's "Plan B" backstop.
(And McClatchy has a good piece on Maliki's comments on the security deal.)
Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is establishing a new fighting force to battle U.S.-led troops in Iraq, he said in a letter read in Iraqi mosques Friday.
Al-Sadr's letter said that "the resistance will be exclusively conducted by only one group. This new group will be defined soon by me."
Is he creating this new group to unify control and cut out all the fractionalizing local leaders of the Mahdi? Or is he trying to isolate the Mahdi so that it can press on with its populist "social works" without an excuse for the US and Maliki government cracking down? Will this be Iranian trained fighters, an extension of Iranian pressure to get the US out?
The WaPo has a more (framing this in relation to the broad Shia politics against the US presence and paralleling it to Maliki's rejection of the US-Iraq security deal.)
Salah al-Obaidi, Sadr's chief spokesman, said the order was essentially a full-scale reorganization of the Mahdi Army, transforming it from a militia into a permanent peaceful organization with a small armed wing of several hundred or so members. He said the cease-fire for the rest of the movement would remain in force.
The bottom line to me is that with the US security deal (and permanent bases) on the table, the Iranians have suddenly become much more active. They are Maliki's "Plan B" backstop.
(And McClatchy has a good piece on Maliki's comments on the security deal.)
posted by mikevotes at
6:30 AM
4 Comments:
Whatever is going on it's a pretty safe bet Iran will get the blame.
By
Anonymous, at 8:23 AM
From the CNN link:
"Meanwhile, Iraqi officials, frustrated by the lack of success in negotiations with the United States over a long-term security agreement, are contemplating a new tack -- pulling out of security talks and developing their own legislation that would dictate the shape of the American military presence in Iraq."
IOW, the Iraqis (not just the Sadrists) are doing an end run around Bush and using sovereignty against him.
Is he creating this new group to unify control and cut out all the fractionalizing local leaders of the Mahdi?
It sounds to me like he's consolidating his "forces" and creating specialised "political" and "military" wings. He's been trying to simultaneously be a political, social, religious, and military organisation up until now, and he hasn't been able to control the disparate elements. So he divides them up into dedicated groups under his control.
I think it would be mistake to characterise the Sadrists as some kind of Iranian proxies, if that is where you are going with this. Certainly that is how the Administration will spin this development, but they have a dismal grasp of the situation and tend to break everything down into "good guys" and "bad guys".
Isn't it understandable that Iran would be opposed to Iraq being used as a base for an Iranian invasion that neither Iraqis nor Iranians desire or support? And, if so, wouldn't Iraqis and Iranians have a common cause and work together to prevent being pushed into another war between the two nations?
It's more complicated than some devious Iranians trying to thwart our noble plans.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 11:54 AM
Anon, But to some degree, Iran is "behind" some of this. They are supporting and communicating with the Shia groups.
Are they responsible for what the Shia groups do, no, but they are actors within the play.
.....
Todd, I didn't mean to leave the impression that it's just the Sadrists against the SoFA. Pretty much every faction and every politician in Iraq is against it.
As for the groups, I wonder how much of it is control, and how much is separating the social and military for functionalities sake. The social has been plagued by US raids and bad acts by individual armed actors which have seriously undermined some of the positive political effect.
And, I didn't intend that that Sadr is an Iranian proxy, but they are working together to some degree because they are after some of the same things. Although Sadr is functionally Iraqi nationalist, the Iranians benefit from the pressure he puts on the US. It's definitely not a puppet relationship, but it's in Iran's interests to support him, and so long as Sadr can claim the nationalist mantle, it's within his interests to accept that quiet help.
I wrote this post at 6 in the morning after having been up for about 10 minutes, so if it's inexact, that's part of why.
By
mikevotes, at 2:13 PM
I wrote this post at 6 in the morning after having been up for about 10 minutes, so if it's inexact, that's part of why.
Hey, don't I always cut you slack?
The real Iranian proxies are the SCIRI's Badr Corps, which are part of Maliki's government.
And my point is not that it's just the Sadrists against the SoFA. It's that Iraqis across the board are coming up with their own "security agreement" that they will present to Bush, rather than waiting for Bush to come up with something acceptable.
Otherwise, yeah, Iran is 'involved', but they have an immense stake in this whole thing because it will determine if Iraq is to be used as an unwilling base to invade their country. If the shoe were on the other foot, the U.S. would be doing the same thing - and it has in the past in Central America. It's okay for us to intervene in our neighbour's politics to keep them safe from 'foreign influence', isn't it? Grenada comes to mind.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 3:10 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home