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.

Going To War With The Peacemakers

So, this week David Petraeus stepped up to the war machine Wurlitzer and belted out some anti-Iran rhetoric, calling it the biggest threat to American security and outright calling the Iranian Ambassador to Iraq a terrorist. Of course, it's unclear why we should believe him at all, considering that one of his own advisors is calling his testimony on casualties in Iraq potentially misleading. Not to mention the fact that nobody has been arming Iraqi militants more than the US government. But on a macro level, the notion that Iran is sowing chaos inside Iraq is damaged by this latest revelation, from AJ Rossmiller:

But leaving aside the hypocrisy, on the *very same day,* news came out that Iran had helped broker a peace deal between the two major Shia militias, the Badr Corps of SIIC (formerly SCIRI) and Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of SIIC, who is reportedly undergoing treatment for cancer in Iran, met with Sadr, a frequent rival for Shia following and control in Baghdad and oil-rich Basra province, to bury the hatchet. The plan reportedly has three primary elements: stopping the fighting between Iraqis, urging media to engender a spirit of friendship and forgiveness, and establishing commissions in each of Iraq's 18 provinces to oversee the peace initiative. The agreement was "in the spirit of" Ramadan, the Muslim holy month in which gestures of forgiveness and mercy are often made.

And again, they worked out the agreement in Iran. Not with U.S. officials (with whom Sadr refuses to deal), not with Saudi Arabia, not the UN. Iran. So when Petraeus says (quoting the CNN article, not the General directly) that, "sectarian fighting among militias fueled by Iran could be the biggest long-term challenge for Iraq," well, exactly what sectarian fighting among militias is he referring to? Why are these statement always so vague, so imprecise? *Which* militias? *Where* is Iran fueling fighting? I'm open to being convinced, but the dichotomy of Petraeus accusing Iran of fueling sectarian infighting at precisely the same time two major militia groups are agreeing to a peace accord in Iran doesn't bode well for his case.

And by the way, the news of that peace deal isn't all good, it's clearly an effort to band together against the US backing of anti-government Sunni groups, and will focus the country even more toward civil war. But Iran is making actual efforts to broker peace. Less can be said of St. Petraeus.

Iran in Iraq, Cont'd

There's more on this increasingly bizarre briefing about IEDs in Iraq which "definitely" came from Iran. First of all, it's shocking to note that, despite all this intelligence about enemy weaponry, the military is still not protecting their troops from what they know to be the problem.

The Army is working to fill a shortfall in Iraq of thousands of advanced Humvee armor kits designed to reduce U.S. troop deaths from roadside bombs -- including a rising threat from particularly lethal weapons linked to Iran and known as "explosively formed penetrators" (EFP) -- that are now inflicting 70 percent of the American casualties in the country, according to U.S. military and civilian officials.

The additional protection is needed for thousands of U.S. reinforcement troops flowing into Baghdad, where these devastating weapons -- used primarily by Shiite fighters -- are particularly prevalent, the officials said.

Nobody in this government can ever use the phrase "support the troops" anymore. It's moratorium time. They're hell-bent on blaming specific devices, supposedly Iranian devices, for all the casualties (actually just a fraction), but then refuse to protect troops from those devices. It makes me sick.

So does this entire "deep-background," unverifiable briefing. One of the anonymous briefers has been outed as the official spokesman of the Multi-National Force in Iraq. Yet he will not publicly stand behind the briefing. Neither will The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Indeed it's hard to find anyone willing to swallow the US assertions whole. Here's the very credible Juan Cole reporting a take on the math:

On the Iran weapons story, Al McKee writes:

"Here is my take on the US Killed In Action (KIA) statistics for 4th quarter 06:

Total US KIAs (hostile action) were 265.
Of those, Anbar 112,
Baghdad 107,
Salah al-Din 18,
Diyala 15,
Tamim [Kirkuk] 10,
Ninawa [Mosul] 3.

As you say, one can leave Anbar and the other four provinces to the north out of the equation as they are predominantly Sunni, at least in most areas where US troops are operating.

Of the Baghdad total of 107,
KIAs reported at Taji were 17,

so subtracting that from Baghdad Province yields 90 for the City itself.

The US statement was that less than a quarter of the total US casualties were as a result of these Iranian EFPs.

That equates to roughly 60 of the 265 total. Therefore 2/3 of the Baghdad city US KIAs (60/90) were caused by these Iran-produced EFPs, the implication being that they are all attacks by Shia militia.

But, we don't hear anything like 2/3rds of attacks in Baghdad are by Shia militia. Indeed, this issue continues to be very strange.

How about this as a hypothetical partial explanation. They are produced in Iran, shipped to the Badr Brigade in Iraq who stockpile them for later use. Lots of them then end up on the ubiquitous Iraqi arms black market, and most of them then end up with Sunni insurgents in Baghdad. For some reason (maybe less financial means or a result of competing factions) they don't get to Sunnis in Anbar (The Marines have reported no sign of EFPs in Anbar). I don't konw if this makes any sense, but very little does in this matter."

It strains credulity that the Iranians would be arming Sunnis to kill Shi'a. And the Shiite militia are in no way responsible for 25% of all US troop casualties in the last quarter. It makes no sense. The US wants us to believe that the Mahdi Army is getting all these shipments, but of course SCIRI is far more allied with Iran, a fact which is complicated by the other fact that Abdulaziz al-Hakim met with the President a couple months ago and was praised as someone with a “strong position against the murder of innocent life.”

Meanwhile, the focus on these EFPs neglects the fact that good old-fashioned suicide bombs are the source of most of the violence in Iraq. This one was particularly brazen: in the middle of a government-imposed 15-minute silence to honor the anniversary of the bombing of the Golden Dome Mosque in Samarra, this explosion rang out.

You can look at the PowerPoint presentation on the Iranian ordnance in Iraq for yourself and draw your own conclusions. Me, I think it's garbage. And it's just another cog in the plan during "The Year of Iran".

Hopefully, everyone's figured out that it's not 2002 anymore.