When it comes to reporting on foreign affairs, the Christian Science Monitor routinely provides excellent coverage. Today, Sam Dagher has an article entitled “Sadr City braces for fresh street battles.”
The usual teeming traffic in Sadr City, Baghdad’s Shiite enclave, vanished Wednesday. Buses stopped running and shops closed. Only the intrepid motorist or occasional scurrying resident ventured out on streets patrolled by Moqtada al-Sadr’s militiamen and marked by burning tires and roadblocks.
Residents and Mahdi Army militants alike appeared to be bracing for a coming battle, guarding against US and Iraqi forces advancing to stop the rockets allegedly fired from Sadr City that hit the Green Zone again Wednesday for the third day since Sunday.
Although it’s in Basra, the oil-rich southern city, where the Mahdi Army and Iraqi forces were locked in a bitter fight for a second day, killing at least 55, many in Baghdad fear that clash will trigger a new battle in Mr. Sadr’s Baghdad stronghold. Already there were reports by US-funded Al Hurra TV, citing hospital sources, that at least 20 people have been killed and 140 wounded in sporadic clashes in Sadr City since Tuesday.
Now, in a place where the US has done battle many times before, a sense of siege and helplessness has replaced some of the flickers of optimism that emerged over the past few months as a result of improved security made possible by the US surge and the Mahdi Army’s seven-month cease-fire, which now looks to be shattered.
Yesterday, Daghr had an article entitled “Across Iraq, battles erupt with Mahdi Army.” Part of the success attributed here in the U.S. to “The Surge” (i.e. troop increases) were attributable to the cooperation of Moqtada al-Sadr and his “Mahdi Army.” Unfortunately, al-Sadr is apparently an unreliable person with whom to do business. A lot of spokespeople for the U.S. government are blaming the recent uprising on Iran. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has squandered its credibility and is known to have some elements itching for a fight with Iran. So, even if they’re being honest this time, it will be tough to get the public in the U.S. up for escalating war efforts to include Iran.
The Iraqi government apparently initiated an operation in Basra, ostensibly to crack down on lawless elements in the city. If I’m following the article correctly, al Sadr is claiming that the crack down is an effort by some of his Shiite rivals in the Iraqi government to neutralize his power. In response, al Sadr and his supporters threatened a campaign of “protests and civil disobedience” throughout the country.
Sadr’s influence was felt throughout Baghdad Tuesday, highlighting the risk that the fight in Basra may spread to the capital, home to a large segment of his supporters. On Tuesday, witnesses reported that gun battles broke out in the capital’s Sadr City district between the militia and rivals from the Badr Organization, which is part of Maliki’s ruling Shiite coalition.
. . .
On Tuesday, all shops in the Mahdi Army stronghold neighborhoods – Bayiaa, Iskan, Shuala, and Washash – were shuttered. Leaflets saying “No, no to America” were plastered on each storefront. Anti-American banners hung right next to Iraqi government checkpoints.Several people interviewed in the Amel neighborhood said they were forced by militiamen to return home when they tried to go to work this morning. “This is anarchy,” says Ali al-Yasseri.
An earlier article by Daghr on March 19 reported on the potential unraveling of the cease fire with the Mahdi Army.
Underscoring the fissures within the Mahdi Army, Mr. Mahamadawi says the confusion about the freeze arose on March 8 when Sadr, who last appeared in public in May 2007, responded in a statement to a question from one of his followers about the legitimacy of self-defense by saying: “I sympathize with those killed while defending themselves and their loved ones during [government] raids.”
My sense is that the security situation in Iraq is more complicated than pre-World War I Europe with its interlocking self-defense agreements that led to a world conflagration after an arch-duke was assassinated by a Bosnian terrorist — a bunch of people who don’t trust each other, more or less spoiling for a fight at any provocation.
…and the US Government is backing an entity calling itself “The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution” !!! How will that play in Pittsboro or Elwood?
But the official mainstream news meme these days is that Americans are bored with or tired hearing about Iraq, and so who cares if Obama said at the outset that it was a terrible idea or that McCain has no problem staying there for 100 years? First there was the “surge,” then when the Iraqis weren’t reaching political settlements fast enough there was going to be a “pause” in sending “surge” troops home, now there’s talk of just plain extending the “surge” or “re-surging” or whatever cutesy name the administration comes up with.
At least they’re no longer under the yoke of Saddam’s oppression.
Be cause that would, you know, suck and stuff.
Just to review: We invaded Iraq to topple Sadam and help set up democracy for Iraqi people,which would spread out from there. Halliburton would go in and use profits from Iraqi oil and rebuild the infrastructure,which at the end of phase 1,May 2003, was still mostly intact,such as it was,and seemed quite a reasonable goal.Now,5 years later we don’t have a goal,do we?
Yes we do! Our goal is to keep the troops there until G.W. Bush can safely leave office and say “I did what I could in the time I had, now it’s the next guy’s problem!”