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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

War on Iraq

Iraq: Sadr's Brief Uprising Bloodied Maliki's Nose (and Bush's)

By Robert Dreyfuss, The Nation. Posted April 1, 2008.


As the smoke clears over new rubble in Iraq's second city, the big winners are the forces of rebel cleric Muqtada al-Sadr
Advertisement

At the start of the military offensive launched last week into Basra by U.S. -trained Iraqi army forces, President Bush called the action by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki "a bold decision." He added: "I would say this is a defining moment in the history of a free Iraq."

That's true -- but not in the way the President meant it. As the smoke clears over new rubble in Iraq's second city, at the heart of Iraq's oil region, it's apparent that the big winner of the Six-Day War in Basra are the forces of rebel cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army faced down the Iraqi armed forces not only in Basra, but in Baghdad, as well as in Kut, Amarah, Nasiriyah, and Diwaniya, capitals of four key southern provinces. That leaves Sadr, an anti-American rabble rouser and nationalist who demands an end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq, and who has grown increasingly close to Iran of late, in a far stronger position that he was a week ago. In Basra, he's the boss. An Iraqi reporter for the New York Times, who managed to get into Basra during the fighting, concluded that the thousands of Mahdi Army militiamen that control most of the city remained in charge. "There was nowhere the Mahdi either did not control or could not strike at will," he wrote.

The other big winner in the latest round of Shiite-vs.-Shiite civil war is Iran. For the past five years, Iran has built up enormous political, economic and military clout in Iraq, right under the noses of 170,000 surge-inflated U.S. occupying forces. (For details, see my March 10 Nation article, "Is Iran Winning the Iraq War?") Iran has strong ties to Iraq's ruling Shiite alliance, which is dominated by the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, whose militia, the Badr Corps, was armed, trained, financed and commanded by Iranians during two decades in exile in Iran. Since then, hedging its bets, Iran built a close relationship to Sadr's Mahdi Army as well, and Sadr himself has spent most of the time since the start of the U.S. surge last January in Iran*. In addition, Iran has armed and trained a loose collection of fighters that U.S. military commanders call "Special Groups," paramilitary fighters who've kept up a steady drumbeat of attacks on American troops. Thus, it was no surprise when Hadi al-Ameri, the commander of the Badr Corps and a leading member of ISCI, traveled over the weekend to Iran's religious capital of Qom to negotiate the truce with Sadr that resulted in a shaky ceasefire in Basra.

That Sadr emerged victorious, and that Iran succeeded in brokering the deal that ended the fighting, is a double defeat for the United States. It is also a catastrophe for Maliki, and there is already speculation that his government could collapse. An ill-timed offensive, poorly prepared and poorly executed, resulted in an embarrassing defeat for Maliki.

Why was the offensive launched in the first place? By all accounts, Maliki, his faction of the ruling Islamic Dawa party, and ISCI intended to crush Sadr in Basra for reasons both political and strategic. Political, because Sadr's movement is positioned to register a massive win at the polls in Basra and throughout southern Iraq in provincial elections scheduled for October, an electoral defeat that would portend the end of the Dawa-ISCI regime. Strategic, because Basra is the economic engine of all of Iraq. The city controls Iraq's South Oil Company, which pumps and exports the vast majority of Iraq's oil -- and for years Basra has been under the control of militias loyal to Sadr and to a Sadrist splinter party, the Fadhila (Virtue) party. By controlling the Oil Protection Force, a quasi-military force, and through its own militia, Fadhila is an important player in Basra, too, and Basra's governor is a Fadhilist. Though Fadhila has had its own clashes with Sadr's Mahdi Army, Fadhila kept its powder dry in the recent fighting, and there is no doubt that Fadhila is a bitter opponent of the Dawa-ISCI alliance. Last year, Maliki tried to oust the governor of Basra, Mohammed al-Waeli, who defied Maliki and refused to step down.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iran, iraq, shiite, basra, mahdi army, nouri al-maliki

Robert Dreyfuss is the author of "Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam" (Henry Holt/Metropolitan Books).

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

Advertisement
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:
Your Title is a little misleading
Posted by: chuckjs on Apr 1, 2008 2:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have yet to see any evidence that the recent violence in Iraq was instigated by Sadr. By all accounts I have read the uprising was Mailiki's alone. The title should read Mailiki's brief uprising destroys his credibility(and Bush's)

Otherwise a good read!

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

» RE: Your Title is a little misleading Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Where's Lawrence Posted by: Ripcord
time to evolve carbon
Posted by: The Big Raven on Apr 1, 2008 5:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mccain was right yeah right that stinking oldman was and is NEVER right about anything except when hes talking to the Viet cong to get better treatment for himself all the while his countrymen suffered.For gods sake man have you not hhave had enough war? stop the warmongers remember what that crook nixon done killed more while pretending to look for peace.

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

Next President?
Posted by: soowee on Apr 1, 2008 6:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whoever is elected the next President is going to have to deal with all of this, plus the other extraordinary damage that the Bushies have done. PLUS, the next round of "stag-flation" driven by the recent spike in oil prices is going to rear its ugly head in about 2-3 years, and the much-more-empowered Fed will hike interest rates to "deal with the problem" and put a lot of people out of work and out of business. Oil has more than doubled in price during the past 11 mos. from ca. $52/bbl. to over $106/bbl. That rapid a spike cannot be readily absorbed into our economy without massive trauma.

The Republicans could well be setting the stage for a takeover in 2012 that could last 40 years.

We are so screwed. So is the next President. It will be like poor Jimmy Carter all over again. Neither Obama nor Clinton is facing up to this problem.

H. W. Ellerson
PO Box 90
Hadensville, VA 23067
(804) 457-4243

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

» RE: Next President? Posted by: chuckjs
» rule of law Posted by: openhouse
The "Anti-American" Sadr
Posted by: shinseiji on Apr 1, 2008 10:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"That leaves Sadr, an anti-American rabble rouser..."

Why does The Nation magazine insist on the reproduction of the nonsensical "loony mainstream" US caricature of Sadr?

We are supposed think that if you want a foreign army of occupation out of your country, that this is "anti-American"?

And the Sadr party seems to receive an awful lot of popular support for mere "rabble rousing".

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

Sadr is a genius
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 1, 2008 11:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, Sadr starts an uprising that shows he's a potent force in Basra and the Iraq Army isn't.

Then Sadr calls a ceasefire which allows him to maintain control of Basra. Meawnhile, Iran will continue to strengthen its ties to the all-important port city, establishing banks and commercial enterprises funded by Tehran.

Brilliant!

Hugh E. Scott, Vietnam vet, ex-USAF pilot and author of George Dub-ya Bush, THE PHONY FIGHTER PILOT, published in 2004.

To read a sample chapter and learn about the only smoking-gun proof of White House corruption ever found on the Web, visit www.PhonyFighterPilot.com.

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

It's all about Iraqi oil.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Apr 1, 2008 1:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) is represented by Bush & Cheney, Hakim & SCIRI, the Maliki government, and western oil interests (Chevron, Exxon, Shell, BP).

Their goal: privatization of Iraqi oil resources and establishment of a puppet dictatorship along the lines of Saddam or the Saudi Royals.

Obstacles: Iraqis who believe in a strong central government, a unified Iraq, and nationalization of all Iraqi oil.

This includes Sadr, who is actually not as close to the Iranians as Hakim is. However, Hakim has supported the partition of Iraq and the privatization of Iraqi oil, and is thus an ally of the U.S. despite having close ties to Iran.

For background on this, and on the Shiite political parties in Basra and the Iraqi oil unions (a key player, usually ignored in the U.S. press, as in this article) see http://www.democracynow.org/2007/12/6 /the_battle_for_basra_iraqs_oil.

"Amar al-Hakim is the acting head of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council. His uncle founded the organization in Iran, and its militia, the Badr Brigades, was formed under the leadership of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. While the US publicly criticizes Iran for interfering in Iraq and calls the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, it has allied itself to the Iranian-backed Supreme Islamic Council and has incorporated the Badr militia into the Iraqi army. Al-Hakim is in the paradoxical position of being both America and Iran’s most important Shiite ally in Iraq."

Wow! Not a topic ever mentioned on CNN or FOX, is it?

It doesn't seem to make much sense - but if the U.S. goal is simply to ensure that U.S. oil corporations have control of Iraqi oil, than getting rid of Sadr and other Iraqi nationalists would be a greater priority. For more on this, see Stan Goff: An oil-filtered look at Bush’s “surge” plan for Iraq, Feb 2007:

"The strange attractor—strange mostly because the media never mention it—is Iraq’s “first postwar draft hydrocarbon law,” which would ”set up a committee consisting of highly qualified experts to speed up the process of issuing tenders and signing contracts with international oil companies to develop Iraq’s untapped oilfields.” This law, which is tantamount to privatization with an Anglo-American franchise in perpetuity, is the bottom line for the US, as evidenced by the fact that this is the one, absolute, bottom-line point of agreement between the Bush administration and the so-called Iraq Study Group. The rhetorical scuffle between these two entities is not the what, but the how."

It's all about the oil - and we can expect increasingly desperate attempts by BushCo to settle the deal before they are forced out of office. This was probably all the result of Cheney's recent visit to Iraq - who wants to bet that he pressured Maliki to crack down on Sadr supporters?

And to set the record straight: this was all touched off by U.S. prisoner capture raids on Sadr supporters in Baghdad.

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

Pretty funny
Posted by: evilhobz on Apr 1, 2008 7:56 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author's statement that Iraqi forces are floundering when taking the second largest city Basra is pretty funny. Does that mean the US is floundering in Baghdad? If the worls only "superpower" can't hold Iraq's largest city, why would one of the militias make a difference(and the Iraqi army IS a militia, just like it was under Saddam - check the affiliations of those people).

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

Iraq gut check
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Apr 1, 2008 11:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whatever happens in November, 08 in the U.S., it is certain to follow Maliki's embarrassment in the October, 08 election in Iraq. Sadr is deeply entrenched in oil-rich Basra and welded to the Shiite empowerment in Iran with all of its components. The U.S. will foolishly perpetuate its folly in that Jericho known as the Green Zone and soon enough its walls will come a tumbling down as Sadr expands his influence to the north. At that juncture, full scale civil war will erupt as disenfranchised Iraqis fight to preserve the few pathetic scraps that our "liberation" has provided and the carnage and injustice will endure in perpetuity. Invoking the wisdom and efficacy of all of this development, Bush will defend his actions with the inspiration of his intellectual mentor Homer Simpson...duh, or perhaps dig deeper and call upon the eloquence of Fred Flintstone...yabba dabba doo, fuck Iraq too! Somewhere in all of this lies Allah or Yahwey or God(?) but irrelevance is their collective lot because inanity, criminality and the pursuit of filthy lucre will always trump wisdom and spirituality while the perpetrators bow to the east, shake their tamborines, bang their drums and shout hallelujah as they ravage the landscape in the names of democracy, freedom, justice and salvation.

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