Foreign Correspondence

[StephanieVanbryce]

A new war against al-Sadr breaks out of the shadows

.. all links embedded..


Mar 26 2006 - 8:49pm

A couple of days ago, Juan Cole wondered why Zalmay Khalilzad, our frustrated puppetmaster ambassador in Iraq, would make these claims in a Washington Post interview:

Iran is publicly professing its support for Iraq's stalemated political process while its military and intelligence services back outlawed militias and insurgent groups, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said Thursday.

Iranian agents train and arm Shiite Muslim militias such as the Mahdi Army, linked to one of Iraq's most powerful clerics, Khalilzad said, and also work closely with Sunni Arab-led insurgent forces including Ansar al-Sunna, blamed for dozens of deadly attacks on Iraqi and American soldiers and Shiite civilians.

. . . Khalilzad expressed particular concern over Iran's ties to the Mahdi Army, an armed group loyal to the outspoken Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr that the ambassador said was responsible for many of the recent killings, despite Sadr's public pleas for calm.
Prof. Cole commented:

The major force in Iraq trained by the Iranians is the Badr Corps of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a relative American ally. It is bizarre that Khalilzad should tie Iran to the Mahdi militia but not bring up Badr.
Subsequent events, as they are wont to do, have shed some light on the context for the accusations. In this case, the New York Times reports tonight:

American and Iraqi government forces clashed with Shiite militiamen in Baghdad on Sunday night in the most serious confrontation in months, and Iraqi security officials said 17 people were killed in a mosque, including its 80-year-old imam.

The American military, clearly worried about exacerbating a combustible situation that many Iraqis are already describing as civil war, denied that American forces had entered the mosque. But it said in a statement that 16 insurgents were killed and 15 captured in a nearby combat operation against a terrorist cell.

. . . American officials are now saying that Shiite militias are the No. 1 security problem in Iraq, more dangerous than the Sunni-led insurgents held responsible for many of the suicide bombings, homemade bombs, kidnappings and other attacks since American-led forces ousted Saddam Hussein three years ago.

The deadly clash in Baghdad on Sunday could also reopen an old wound — the Iraqis who were killed apparently had worked for Moktada al-Sadr, a young radical Shiite cleric with ties to Iran who has led several bloody rebellions against American forces.

. . .American officials have been more overt in the past week than ever in blaming Shiite militias, in particular Mr. Sadr's, for a wave of sectarian bloodshed that seems to have no end.
You see, based on the standard Orwell Bush administration template, Iran can be held responsible for anything bad that happens just about anywhere, and especially in Iraq. And even if the Iranians are in fact much more in bed with SCIRI and the Badr militia than with Moqtada and his crew, it's al-Sadr that the U.S. is worried about -- so that's who we tie to Iran.

(As I noted in mid-February, both the Bushites and their allies in the Kurdish leadership seem to believe that the SCIRI thugs politicians are more amenable to deal-making, even if their reasons don't appear all that plausible. So the Badr death squads apparently get a pass, while al-Sadr's don't.)

The downside is that since Mookie is currently a major force keeping prime minister Jaafari in power, he's able to get PR support from high places, as the NYT story goes on to imply:

American and Iraqi Army forces surrounded a mosque in northeast Baghdad on Sunday night that is also used as a headquarters for Mr. Sadr's militia, Iraqi officials said. Helicopters buzzed overhead as a fleet of heavily armed Humvees sealed off the exits, witnesses said, and when soldiers tried to enter the mosque, shooting erupted, and a heavy-caliber gun battle raged for the next hour.

. . . Iraqi television showed what appeared to be a prayer room filled with more than a dozen bodies. Several of them looked well beyond military age. Some had identification cards lying on their chests, jagged bullet holes cut through the plastic.
Reuters adds more detail on the TV footage:

With Baghdad under night curfew it was impossible to pin down what happened. But unusually strident anti-U.S. coverage on government-run state television showed a fierce confrontation between the ruling Shi'ite Islamists and the U.S. administration.

. . . Iraqiya state television carried lengthy footage of the bloodied corpses of men in civilian clothes, in a room where no weapons were visible, calling them victims of U.S. gunfire.

"American forces raid and burn Mustafa mosque. A number of citizens martyred inside," it said in an on-screen headline.
In fact, the Washington Post adds an especially ominous note:

An aide to Jafari, who was endorsed by Sadr's political wing to retain his job in the next government but is opposed by other Iraqi factions, said the government was not notified about the raid in advance.

"The incident has injured the whole political process," said the aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, referring to the deliberations about the composition of the next government that have deadlocked since elections in December. "Some leaders will be dismayed of this situation and hesitate to participate knowing that such an incident took place and how the government was not aware."

If the U.S. is launching raids, purportedly supported by elements of the Iraqi army, without notifying the government, how close are we to escalating the current guerrilla conflict to open warfare between the Americans and the regime we've taken credit for installing?


http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2778