No Soup For You

The Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani has issued a new fatwa concerning the occupation troops.
See here and here for Prof. Juan Cole's take on Sistani's recent rumblings on the approval of attacks on foreign occupation troops. The latest development is that apparently Sistani has forbidden the sale of food to occupation troops.

Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani replied:

' Selling foodstuffs to the Occupying Powers is not permitted.'

He is also rumoured to be preparing public statements in opposition to the new SFA between Iraq and the U.S.

Sistani is a very important Shia leader. Although Sunnis would not consider such a fatwa binding on a Sunni, it certainly carries at least symbolic weight among all of the region's Muslims. The "Awakening" (Sahwa) forces have been getting a generally raw deal from the Iraqi government for some time, and a feeling that they are working against their own long-term interests has been growing. On top of this, Maliki is not honouring his end of the truce with the Sadrists and has arrested hundreds of them during Friday prayers. These Sadrists will be held in the torture centres known as the Iraqi prison system, likely without trial. While wingnuts may applaud such a show of "strength", such an action weakens Maliki by proving that he cannot be relied upon in future truces.

Of course, the ban on food sales shouldn't seriously impact the occupation troops, but it does leave the door open for further decrees of non-cooperation with those troops. It also symbolically bolsters the support of Shia leaders such as Sadr.

The Way Forward? Divide the Sadrists

Once again, the White House is playing a short-term strategy in Iraq. Also, in spite of Al-Qaeda being nearly the sole focus for the past five or six months, Bush is now pulling troops off the AQ manhunt to crack down on "bad" Sadrists.

We've already seen that the strategy with Sunni terrorists has been compromised. When Bush proposed the surge in January, the plan was to have the Iraqi Army disarm or exterminate the sectarian militias with the U.S. providing a support role. Since the Iraqi Army seems to be perpetually in "training", and since the job proved far more complicated and difficult than Bush imagined it would be (big shock there, eh?), the plan was changed. And of course, this change was presented as "what we planned all along".

The "change" was to divide the Sunni terrorists into "good" and "bad" categories. The "good" terrorists were those who would join with the American troops to wipe out their rivals, while quietly being allowed to continue with their shakedowns, extortion, executions, kidnappings, and black market dealings. With the "bad" terrorists on their heels, these opportunities opened up even more as the competition thinned. One can only wonder how the Iraqi Army will deal with these entrenched "good" terrorists who oppose the government when the Army tries to regain control of the country. One also wonders about the consequences when these "good" terrorists stop co-operating or getting what they want from the arrangement. We will then have militias that know our troops' movements, weaknesses, intelligence, and locations as well as possessing the arms that we supplied them with. Since the police and military are heavily infiltrated by the militias, these forces are likely to be a liability, as well.

It should be noted that this "change" in strategy was the major feature of the surge, if not the only real one.

So what to do about the Shia insurgency, then? Let's try the same brilliant approach. What could possibly go wrong?

Yes, we'll divide the Sadrists into "good" and "bad" categories, and use them to do the job that the pathetic Iraqi military can't possibly even begin to approach. What's in it for the Sadrists? Pretty much nothing, of course. Since the Mahdi Army has "laid low" for much of the surge (with Bush taking credit for the corresponding small drop in violence), they now remain probably the strongest Iraqi force. They have no motivation to turn on their fellow Sadrists, since they have emerged as the major player and icon of resistance to the occupation. If they can wait out Bush, they will be the winners. Petraeus needs them, not the other way around. So far, all Bush is offering them is their choice of a slow death or a quick death. If Bush prevails, the Mahdi Army will be neutered and merely be an honor guard for a puppet government; the slow death. If they resist or remain "un-cooperative", then the plan will be to wipe them out; the quick death.
However, we've already seen how effective the "extermination" option was against the militias during the surge. The fact that Petraeus has to use this "good" Sadrist vs. "bad" Sadrists strategy only proves that the U.S. can't defeat them quickly and neatly. Sure, they can bomb, shell, and strafe neighbourhoods wholesale, all the while warning that withdrawal would lead to a huge civilian massacre. That would look pretty stupid, though, if we are merely there to kill off the civilians before the militias can do it.

And meanwhile, the heat will be off Al-Qaeda. Our "awakening" buddies will get slammed. The "good" terrorists will get bolder and more demanding of us. The infrastructure, economy, and political situation will continue to whimper and collapse. It will become much, much, harder to fake statistics, and Iraq certainly won't look more peaceful or stable to the domestic audience. The Iraqi government will ask us to leave, and we will lose the very last illusion of Iraqi sovereignty. And the "drawdown" of troops will have to be put on hold.

But of course, to Bush, the best possible outcome is the only likely outcome. That has been his approach for more than four years now. He's been wrong, excruciatingly wrong, for that entire time. His ill-conceived attempt for a quick fix will backfire simply because he lacks the ability to even conceive of a Plan B, much less the wisdom to see anything but a military solution to everything. In the end, the U.S. will be discredited in the Middle East as a clumsy aggressor and unreliable ally.


full story

US-IRAQ: Unable to Defeat Mahdi Army, U.S. Hopes to Divide It
Analysis by Gareth Porter*

WASHINGTON, Oct 8 (IPS) - Although the U.S. military command's frequent assertions that the primary threat to U.S. forces in Iraq comes from Iranian meddling, its real problem is that Shiite cleric Moqtada al Sadr's Mahdi army is determined to end the occupation and is simply too big and too well entrenched to be weakened by military force.

The U.S. command began trying to enter into a political dialogue with Sadr's followers in early 2006 and now claims that such a dialogue has begun, according to a Sep. 12 article by Ned Parker of the Los Angeles Times.

And Gen. David Petraeus hinted in his Congressional testimony last month at the need to negotiate a deal with the Sadrists. Petraeus said it is impossible to "kill or capture" all the "Sadr militia" and likened the problem to that of dealing with the Sunni insurgents who have now been allowed to become local security forces in Sunni neighbourhoods.

But the George W. Bush administration is not prepared to make peace with the Mahdi army. Instead it believes it can somehow divide it if it applies military pressure while wooing what it calls "moderates" in the Sadr camp. Parker quoted an anonymous administration official last month as suggesting that there were Sadrists "who we think we might be able to work with".

A U.S. commander in Baghdad, Lt. Col. Patrick Frank, told Parker last month that Sadrist representatives initiated indirect talks in late July, which were followed by Sadr's announcement at the end of August of a six-month hiatus in fighting.

But the proposal Frank made to the Mahdi army at a meeting Sep. 3 with both Sunni and Shiite community leaders suggests that Petraeus is on a short leash in negotiating local peace agreements. Frank proposed that the Mahdi army cease attacks for two weeks, and that the U.S. military would "consider reducing their raids in the district".

That was an offer that might have been expected from a newly installed occupation army rather than from one that has already admitted that it cannot prevail by using force and is bound to become weaker in the near future.

The U.S. command intends to increase the military pressure on the Mahdi army. Last week, Odierno announced that more military resources were being shifted from fighting against al Qaeda to operations against Shiite militiamen.

The idea of managing the Mahdi army problem by dividing it between "extremist" and "moderate" elements was integrated into the original "surge" strategy. Even before Petraeus took command in Baghdad last January, he and his second in command, Gen. Ray Odierno, had already decided to avoid a full-fledged military campaign against the Mahdi army.

Instead they adopted a strategy of trying to reach agreement with some of Sadr's followers -- perhaps including Sadr himself -- while targeting selected elements in the Mahdi army.

"There are some extreme elements, and we will go after them," Odierno said at a Jan. 7, 2007 news conference.

The strategy of making deals with "moderates" while attacking the "extreme elements" seemed to be given credibility when Sadr signaled in early 2007 that he was ordering the Madhi army to lie low and even to cooperate with the new U.S. Baghdad security plan.

As Sudarsan Raghavan of the Washington Post reported last May, the U.S. command even released one of Sadr's aides, Salah al-Obaidi, from Camp Cropper after five months in detention, in the belief that he was a "moderate" who could help shift the balance within the Madhi army against those determined to carry out military resistance against U.S. forces.

But contrary to the self-serving assumptions of Petraeus and Odierno, Sadr was avoiding a confrontation with U.S. forces because he believed that the occupation had entered its final phase, in which the Bush administration would be forced to negotiate a settlement prior to military withdrawal, and that he had only to keep the Madhi army intact to emerge victorious over his Shiite rivals associated with the al-Hakim family.

Sadr aides told Raghavan that the Shiite cleric viewed the Democratic takeover of Congress and the struggle over Iraq policy as evidence that the final phase of the war had begun. His expression of willingness to cooperate with U.S. forces was aimed at positioning himself to be the main Iraqi interlocutor for the United States in the transition period.

Significantly, however, Sadr refused to deal with the Bush administration, believing that the Democrats would take a less bellicose posture toward his movement.

In any case, Sadr's hopes that the U.S. command might leave the Madhi army alone were dashed by the aggressiveness of U.S. sweeps in Sadr City and other Sadr strongholds in Baghdad, which began in January even before the arrival of additional troops. By mid-March, Sadr had already begun to backtrack on cooperation with the U.S. occupation troops.

Even as Sadr was returning to open opposition to the U.S. military, the U.S. command was pushing the line that the Mahdi army was "splintering" and that attacks on U.S. troops were coming only from "rogue" Mahdi army elements.

A U.S. military official in Washington told the Associated Press in late March that some Madhi army figures were "breaking away to attempt a more conciliatory approach to the Americans and the Iraqi government", while others were "moving in a more extremist direction".

The key individual in the alleged "extremist" breakaway faction was said to be Qais al-Khazali, who was Sadr's main spokesman in 2003 and 2004. Khazali and his brother, who had just been captured a few days before, were leaders of an Iraqi network which had apparently procured armour-piercing bombs and other weapons for the Madhi army.

In July, the U.S. military spokesman, Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, cited Khazali's alleged testimony under interrogation as supporting the command's argument that the Iranian Quds Force was creating a "Hezbollah-like" Shiite pro-Iranian force to do its bidding in Iraq.

But Maj. Gen. Michael Barbero, deputy director for Regional Operations at the Joint Staff in Washington, had obviously not been consulted about the Khazali breakaway ploy. In a press briefing on Mar. 30, Barbero said, "[W]e assess that there are links between these brothers and Sadr's organisation."

Bergner's portrayal of the Khazali organisation as detached from Sadr's movement was an example of how the U.S. command embraces interpretations that serve its political-military objectives, even when they don't reflect its own intelligence judgments.

When the U.S. command carried out arrests of Mahdi army commanders or cell leaders last spring and summer, they invariably referred to the targets as "rogue" Mahdi army. In one such operation, U.S. and Iraqi troops captured the commander of what were called a "high-level rogue Jaysh al-Mahdi commander" of an "assassination cell" of more than 100 members.

But according to a New York Times report Jul. 28, both the head of the Sadr office in Baghdad and a Sadrist cleric preaching in nearby Kufa condemned the raid and called for the release of the detainees, indicating that they are still part of the Madhi army.

The "rogue" designation apparently referred to their resistance to the occupation, not to their relationship to the Mahdi army command.

The U.S. command's line that Iran is using Hezbollah operatives to train Shiite militias that had broken away from Sadr was further discredited when Sadr admitted in an interview with The Independent in August that his organisation has "formal links" with Hezbollah, has sent fighters to Lebanon for training and would continue to do so.

*Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in June 2005.