Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Sadr Offensive Reveals Failure of Petraeus Strategy

By Gareth Porter, IPS News. Posted March 30, 2008.


The signs that the Madhi Army will no longer be passive mark a major defeat for the U.S. military command's strategy.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Gareth Porter

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The escalation of fighting between Mahdi Army militiamen and their Shiite rivals, which could mark the end of Moqtada al-Sadr's self-imposed ceasefire, also exposes Gen. David Petraeus's strategy for controlling Sadr's forces as a failure.

Petraeus reacted immediately to Sunday's rocket attacks on the Green Zone by blaming them on Iran. He told the BBC the rockets were "Iranian provided, Iranian-made rockets", and that they were launched by groups that were funded and trained by the Quds Force of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Petraeus said this was "in complete violation of promises made by President [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad and other most senior Iranian leaders to their Iraqi counterparts."

Petraeus statement was clearly intended to divert attention from a development that threatens one of the two main pillars of the administration's claim of progress in Iraq -- the willingness of Sadr to restrain the Mahdi Army, even in the face of systematic raids on its leadership by the U.S. military and its Iraqi allies.

The rocket attacks appear to have been one of several actions by the Mahdi Army to warn the United States and the Iraqi government to halt their systematic raids aimed at driving the Sadrists out of key Shiite centers in the south. They were followed almost immediately by Mahdi Army clashes with rival Shiite militiamen in Basra, Sadr City and Kut and a call for a nationwide general strike to demand the release of Sadrist detainees.

Even more pointed was a strong warning from Sadr aide Abdul-Hadi al-Mohammedawi to the United States as well as to the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), whose Badr Organization militiamen, in the uniforms of Iraqi security forces, have targeted the Madhi Army throughout the south. "They don't seem to realise that the Sadrist trend is like a volcano," he told worshipers Friday in Kufa. "If it explodes, it will crush their rotten heads."

The signs that the Madhi Army will no longer remain passive mark a major defeat for the U.S. military command's strategy aimed at weakening the Mahdi Army.

When he took command in Iraq in early 2007, Petraeus recognized that the U.S. occupation forces could not afford to wage a full-fledged campaign against the Mahdi Army as a whole. Instead it adopted a strategy of dividing the Sadrist movement.

Petraeus and the ground commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, hoped that there were leaders in the Sadrist movement who would be willing to give up further military resistance and accept the U.S. occupation and the existing government.

For months, the command tried to generate a "dialog" with "moderates" in the Sadrist camp. It issued a series of statements hailing Sadr's willingness to change the purpose of his movement. Most recently, on Jan. 17, Odierno said, "I believe he is trying to move forward with more of a religious organization and get away from a militia type-supported organization." But he admitted, "That could change."

Meanwhile, Petraeus targeted selected elements of the Mahdi Army in raids in Sadr City and the Shiite south, portraying its targets as "criminals" and "rogue elements" which had broken away from Sadr and were armed, trained and financed by Iran. Odierno suggested in his Jan. 17 press briefing that such renegade groups were causing "the majority of the violence."

But the "moderate" Sadrists who would be willing to make a deal with the U.S. never materialized. Last July, a U.S. commander in Baghdad claimed that Sadrist representatives had initiated "indirect" talks with the U.S. military. But in January, Odierno would say only that they had been meeting with "local leaders" in Sadr City, not with representatives of the Sadrist movement.

The Mahdi Army's blunt warnings of military countermeasures followed months of raids against Sadr's political-military organization by both U.S. forces and the Badr Organization. According to a senior Sadrist parliamentarian, between 2,000 and 2,500 Mahdi Army militiamen had been detained since Sadr declared a ceasefire last August.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq, maliki, basra, sadr, siic, badr

Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam," was published in 2006.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Iran the bad guy?
Posted by: carbon-based on Mar 30, 2008 3:25 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about ’s purpose of placing his blame on Iran, which is not out of the real of possibilities, it because Iran is supplying training and weapons. Sadr is getting them from some place.

But today Sadr has asked for another cease fire if the government will meet certain requests regarding imprisonment of his forces.

“MSNBC News Services
updated 2:40 p.m. ET, Sun., March. 30, 2008
BAGHDAD - Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr on Sunday ordered his fighters off the streets nationwide and called on the government to stop raids against his followers and free them from prison.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki issued a statement calling the order “a step in the right direction” towards resolving six days of violence sparked by operations against al-Sadr's backers in the oil-rich southern city of Basra.”

Can it be possible. Maliki is actually trying to take control.. Petraeus and McCain may have been right.

Lets hope it’s essentially done and Iraq has control of it’s own nation before we get a new president in office. Bush started it, he should have it ended before he's ended!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Petraeus's surge goal: establishment of the hydrocarbon law
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Mar 30, 2008 10:16 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Written almost one year ago: A retired US Special Forces soldier takes an oil-filtered look at Bush’s “surge” plan for Iraq, by Stan Goff (links added)

"Before any assessment of the balance of forces in Iraq can be undertaken from a purely military perspective (never possible, since military success is always measured against political objectives, it is essential to survey the major Iraqi military and political actors on where they stand with regard to the proposed Iraqi oil law."

"If the top priority is to salvage US access to future hydrocarbon mining in Iraq, then the fundamental requirement is a comparatively “stable” Iraqi government that supports this access. The fundamental show-stopper is any leader or set of leaders who reject this plan."

"The catch for the US is that, as we shall see, the Iraqi leaders who support the hydrocarbon law have no legitimacy upon which to establish stability, and the leaders who have the popular legitimacy to establish stability support neither the occupation nor the hydrocarbon law. . ."

"This explains, to a large degree, why the US is harassing Iranian diplomats, even as it courts Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), as Dawa Party leader and putative Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s replacement. Hakim, after all, is practically an Iranian citizen."

"Why would the Bush administration court the most pro-Iranian leader among the diverse Shiite factions as successor in the event that Maliki fails to live up to US expectations? Hakim has been a consistent and strong supporter of the hydrocarbon law."

"The Shiite leader who has most vehemently opposed this law, and the US occupation, has been Muqtada al-Sadr. The press has frequently portrayed Sadr as pro-Iranian, and nothing could be further from the truth."

"The SCIRI has been most aggressive in the demand to divide Iraq into a very loose federation and transform southeastern Iraq into an Iranian rump state. Sadr has called for Iraqi unification, left the door open to Sunnis for an anti-occupation alliance, denounced the hydrocarbon law, and modeled his political and military leadership on Hezbollah."

So... that was a year ago. Has much changed? No. Sadr is no hero (think Pat Robertson with a gun, defending the U.S. from invasion) but the problem for BushCo is that he's a nationalist.

What exactly is the hydrocarbon law, and why are Iraqis not happy with it? Try Iraqi Labor vs. Big Oil, Feb 2007

"Written by Bush and Blair's big oil business partners who serve as the leaders' advisors on foreign policy, the new Iraq hydrocarbon law opens the door for international investors, led by BP, Exxon and Shell, to siphon off 75 percent of Iraq oil wealth for 30 years. This economic model is called a Production Sharing Agreement." But is a 75/25 split, with bloated oil companies taking 75 percent of the country's wealth and leaving just 25 percent for the devastated Iraqis, a sharing agreement or an armed robbery?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Petreus' Personal Greed A Factor in Army Colonel's Suicide
Posted by: ItsNeverOver on Apr 1, 2008 4:35 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cross-posted from my blog on Daily Kos:

Greg Mitchell posted an saddening, incensing and conscience-rattling post today about the findings of further probing into the suicide of Colonel Ted Westhusing. The beleaguered military ethics scholar left a suicide note, revealing the extent to which personal greed, corruption and lies ruled the decisions and policy formation of his commanders in the Iraq War left Westhusing guilt-ridden and plagued with despair. As it turns out, one of the two commanders Westhusing was referring to was none other than David Petraeus, the point person behind the recent "surge" campaign.

Christian Miller reported in the L.A. Times that, "Westhusing seemed especially upset by one conclusion he had reached: that traditional military values such as duty, honor and country had been replaced by profit motives in Iraq, where the U.S. had come to rely heavily on contractors for jobs once done by the military."

Unfortunately, what is publicly known about the extent to which corruption and deceit is rooted in the activities of U.S.-led initiatives in Iraq is probably just the tip of the ice burg. Not only has the Pentagon manipulated the structure of power and responsibility to eliminate any system of accountability, but there have been increasingly eerie reports on the ways in which the American public has been receiving incomplete, absent, manipulated or slanted news coverage on the war (and how the DoD has been behind a large part of this).

Reports reveal that in the first quarter of 2008, media coverage of the war dropped to a meager 3.5 percent . At the height of Iraq War reporting, immediately following the initial invasion, reporting was at around 30 percent.

It has long been a known fact that the administration has made it a personal policy not to do body counts, learning the lessons from Vietnam that visibility of casualties leads to public outcry. But now a report indicates that the Pentagon is considering hiring, commissioning, or co-opting bloggers “to verbally attack a specific person or promote a specific message." This coincides with a GOP strategy to bolster support for the presumed Republican nominee John McCain (a staunch supporter of the war) by launching multi-lateral attack campaigns against what they see as Democratic attempts to "legislate defeat" in Iraq.

Bottom line: whether its through the tragedies of formerly deployed troops upon their return stateside, the depletion of our economic infrastructure by the careless and fraudulent spending of our tax money on the war, or the descent of our international reputation from the surfacing stories of contractor corrosion, the consequences of the administration's mishandling of the war will follow us home. We need to take action while our country still has some integrity to defend. Sign Progressive Future's petition to enforce accountability for the events that take place in Iraq in our name.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]