Today's Horror Show In Iraq

The cover of this "Battle of Basra" story in the mainstream media has been nauseating. It's being spun along the same familiar lines that has characterized the entire conversation on Iraq in this country. First of all they're focusing on Basra, when the unrest has spread all over Shia strongholds in the country. At least 70 deaths have been reported nationwide, including many in Sadr City in Baghdad.

Second of all, this is being called an "Iraqi mission" with "minimal support" from the United States. Air support is NEVER minimal. Air strikes are POUNDING various cities, with 10 civilians dead in airstrikes in Tikrit and American planes firing on residential areas of Sadr City. I know that Nouri al-Maliki is playing dress-up by traveling to Basra to personally direct the fighting, but believe me, there is PLENTY of US support.

Third of all, this is being seen as a test for the Iraqi security forces and not what it is, essentially an intra-Shiite sectarian battle for power. Maliki is trying to eliminate a rival, and invading a major population center in order to do it.

And now, the question: How will the U.S. media portray this? As the Iraqi Army cleaning up a renegade militia in Basra? Probably. But the Iraqi Army in Basra is mostly composed of another renegade militia--the Badr Corps, an organization founded by Iran and answerable to ISCI--the Shi'ite faction led by the Hakim family, Sadr's great rival. There are no heroes here. The Sadr movement is populist, nationalist, anti-Iranian, in favor of a strong central government...but it's also anti-American and oriented toward a stricter Islamic state than the current Maliki government is. The Hakim family's movement is both pro-American and pro-Iranian. It is federalist, rather than nationalist, in favor of a weak central government with a strong Shi'istan in the south (which would be heavily influenced by Iran).

What Klein doesn't mention is that the Badr movement is far more hollow than the Mahdi Army, which has a mass of popular support. We know that his cease-fire is one of the main reasons for security gains in Iraq. If he halts it, our troop numbers really aren't going to matter - hundreds more are going to die. The New York Times has a good in-depth piece today.

It is not clear how responsible the restive Mahdi militia commanders are for stalling progress in the effort to reduce violence. In recent weeks, commanders have protested continuing American and Iraqi raids and detentions of militia members.

If the cease-fire were to unravel, there is little doubt about the mayhem that could be stirred up by Mr. Sadr, who forced the United States military to mount two bloody offensives against his fighters in 2004 as much of the country exploded in violence [...]

“We are doing this in reaction to the unprovoked military operations against the Mahdi Army,” said a Mahdi commander who identified himself as Abu Mortada. “The U.S., the Iraqi government and Sciri are against us,” he said, referring to a rival Shiite group whose name has changed several times, and is now known as the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, which has an armed wing called the Badr Organization.

“They are trying to finish us,” the commander said. “They want power for the Iraqi government and Sciri.”

Let's go a little in-depth ourselves about SCIRI. As said before, they are very pro-Iranian and theocratic. With the tentative agreement to hold provincial elections in October, their survival is predicated on keeping their majorities in Basra and southern Iraq, instead of losing control to the Sadrists. This is a clash for political power being waged by force, and it's not some new idea but a sustained effort.

It is no secret that America's main ally in Iraq (and Iran's), the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), is likely to lose ground to the more popular Sadrist current in the upcoming provincial elections (the Sadrist current boycotted the 2005 round). Absent some extracurricular activities to level the playing field that is. As Cernig noted quoting an AP article on Friday, ISCI, whose Iran-trained militia (the Badr Corp.) has heavily infiltrated Iraqi Security Forces, has been moving aggressively (in tandem with US forces) to help overcome what it lacks in popular appeal.

A Sadrist member of parliament alleged that the crackdown in Kut and elsewhere in the south was part of a move by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa party and [ISCI] to prevent al-Sadr's followers from winning control of key southern provinces in provincial elections expected this fall.

"They have no supporters in the central and southern provinces, but we do," Ahmed al-Massoudi told the AP. "If the crackdown against the Sadrists continues, we will begin consultations with other parliamentary blocs to bring down the government and replace it with a genuinely national one."

We know that the deadlock over provincial elections was broken with the possible aid of Fourthbranch Cheney, who was in the region last week, and just days later this offensive is launched. Spencer Ackerman plays this out a bit more.

As long as Maliki is in the prime minister's chair, and as long as we proclaim the Iraqi government he leads to be legitimate, Maliki effectively holds us hostage. "I need to go after Sadr," Maliki says. "The situation is unacceptable! In Basra, he threatens to take control of the ports, and in Baghdad, he's throwing my men out of their checkpoints. Would you allow the Bloods or the Crips to take over half of Los Angeles?" And as soon as he says that, we're trapped. It simply is not tenable for Petraeus to refuse a request for security assistance from the Prime Minister to deal with a radical militia.

Now, some Iraq-watcher friends of mine point out that this is absurd. "Sadr is, of course, a thug," they say, "but he's a nationalist. And he's far less beholden to Iran than the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq or Maliki's Da'wa Party -- both of whom we're supporting! And most importantly, Sadr remains perhaps the most popular figure in Shiite Iraq. Petraeus can do business with him. This doesn't make any sense!" And they're right. It doesn't. But as long as we sponsor the Iraqi political process -- and a Sadrist doesn't actually become premier himself -- this will keep happening.

The US military is being used as the muscle in an internal political fight, and thousands will be killed in the exchange. Imperial occupiers always get this wrong, picking sides based on expediency and always winding up angering large groups of the public. And yet John McCain continues to believe this is somehow a central front in the war against terror. That's absurd. Our troops are pawns in Iraq. Our real fight against extremism is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We're being played as fools in Iraq.