Showing posts with label Al-Maliki. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Al-Maliki. Show all posts

Thursday, July 12, 2007


The Leader Of Iraq

In a previous post I mentioned that elements of the Al-Mahdi Army (JAM) had clashed with US forces north of Baghdad, and I interpreted it as very bad news for The Surge. Here is a glimpse into Iraq's possible future. This briefing on the Sadrist party, and why it will one day run "The Rump" of Iraq, was written by markfromireland, a former UN peacekeeper who lives in Iraq. It is available in full at Gorilla's Guides, and you won't find better analysis of Iraq's internal situation anywhere, at least not in English. The Sadrists earned the respect of the Iraqi people by delivering security and welfare, and by reaching out to the Sunnis and sending both supplies and fighters. Ironically, Moqtada al-Sadr is a dedicated nationalist who is also anti-Iranian:

"The falling out between the Iraki Shia political establishment represented by green zone government Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki and Muqtada al-Sadr’s movement has reopened interest in the Shia nationalist leader. It has been clear for some time the U.S. “surge” has as a major goal the elimination of Al Sadr’s political movement which is backed by an irregular force the “Jaish Al Mahdi” (”Mahdi Militia”, henceforth JAM). )

Muqtada Al-Sadr is is the fourth son of Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Sadiq as-Sadr, who was assassinated by Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath Party in 1999 because of his blunt criticism of its policies. The remainder of his family - including two of his older brothers Mu’mil and Mustapha, his uncle Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Sadr was murdered by Ba’ath Party operatives in 1980.(His other brother now lives as a recluse studying religious texts)

His political movement, or trend, is one of several blocs competing for dominance within the majority community and positioning themselves for when the Americans are forced out of Irak. For present purposes I intend to concentrate upon four trends or blocs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(other blocs omitted)

The Sadrists

They have demonstrated considerable ability to mobilise and to assume control of important population concentrations. At present they control Sadr city, some areas of Baghdad, and various population centres in the governorates in particular the southern governorates. They are attempting to establish or strengthen their control of centres such as Samawah, Nasiriya, and Diwaniyah. Thereby striking at the power centres of Dawa and SIIC.

عاجل القوات الأمريكية المحتلة تعتقل الشيخ ناصر الساعدي القيادي البارز في الخط الصدري

قامت قوات الاحتلال ليلة امس الأحد باعتقال الشيخ ناصر الساعدي مع كافة إفراد عائلتة في مدينة شعلة الصدرين ويعد الشيخ من احد قيادي الخط الصدري،ولم توضح القوات المحتلة سبب هذا الاعتقال وهذا الاعتقال ليس الاول من نوعه.كما ويعد هذا الحدث الابرز بعد تصريحات نوري المالكي حول التيار الصدري ، ويأتي اعتقال الشيخ في اطار بركات تصريحات المالكي الاخيرة التي تضمنت اشارات تلغيزية تطال ابناء الخط الصدري ومما يجدر ذكره بأن الشيخ الساعدي كان من مناهضي النظام البائد وممن ذاق مرارات المعتقلات والسجون في مستوطنات البعث العقابية

…:: شبكة أخبار العمارة المجاهدة::… - عاجل القوات الأمريكية المحتلة تعتقل الشيخ ناصر الساعدي القيادي البارز في الخط ال

By taking the initiative in Shi’ite neighbourhoods and cities, establishing militias to maintain order and security after the disintegration of authority, and providing welfare and health services, they have made a strong bid to lead the Shi’ite community in Irak. Additionally they can draw on the rich heritage of political and religious thought created by the late Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Sadiq as-Sadr.

The Sadrist trend’s bid for leadership is strengthened by its strongly nationalist stance, which in the eyes of many gives it a credibility lacked by organisations such as the Dawa party and SIIC that are closely linked to Iran. Moreover much of its leadership such as the recently detained (and subsequently hastily released) Sheikh Nasser al-Saadi, can, like al-Sadr himself genuinely claim to have resisted the Ba’athist government when others remained silent or moved out of Iraq. (See sidebar for an example)

Al Sadr is now the major player on Irak’s political stage. He was always going to be prominent but a combination of political skill, American hamfistedness, and successive ruinously ineffective puppet governments in the green zone have combined to ensure that he and the JAM are stronger than ever. In the instability and chaos created by deliberate American destruction of the instruments of government, al-Sadr acted. He sent his followers into the streets to supply residents with food and with water. He sent his militia onto the Baghdad streets to maintain a modicum of social order and security for the populace all the while denouncing the United States invaders in general and the Coalition Provisional Authority (C.P.A.) in particular. Nor was these operations confined to such parts of the capital as Sadr city, Al Shula, and Kadhimiya, similar operations were conducted in, Kut, Amara, Nasiriyah, East Baghdad, Karbala, Kufa, Najaf, Basrah, and Samawa to name but a few.

This prompt and effective action particularly in the vast and densely populated Sadr city earned him and his followers considerable kudos amongst the populace and is the basis of the position of power that he retains to this day. By the time the C.P.A. headed by self-styled “terrorism expert” Paul Bremer recognised that he was a threat to their plans for Irak it was already too late.

Their first attempt to rid themselves of al-Sadr failed as miserably, as completely, and as predictably as everything else the Americans have done in Irak. Like the Soviets in Afghanistan the failure sprang from an attempt to impose an alien ideology onto a people at the point of a gun. Following the “Foolish Bremer” editorial Bremer, who is singularly devoid of amour propre sent American troops on March 28, 2004 to shut Al-Hawza down. The pretext Bremer used was that the paper was inciting the population to violence against the invaders.

The next step was to detain one of al-Sadr’s chief lieutenants on an April 2003 murder charge. This was seen both by the Sadrists and the populace at large for what it was. An attempt to punish Al Sadr. He responded by calling for and getting a civil disobedience campaign reasoning that doing so would provoke the Americans to yet further folly. This calculation turned out to be correct. On April 4th Bremer issued a second arrest warrant this time for al-Sadr himself using the same April 2003 murder charge used against his lieutenant as the pretext for al Sadr’s arrest. Al-Sadr and a large part of his militia fortified themselves in Najaf and al Sadr expedited his fulfillment of promises he had made to the fighters resisting the American rape of Fallujah. JAM fighters and supplies streamed west.

The fighting however was not confined to Fallujah and Najaf, JAM forces engaged Badr brigade (SCIRI) and Kurdish peshmerga “Iraki” soldiers throughout Irak. As predicted by those who had seen them in action against determined opposition they performed miserably and were forced to call upon the Americans for support. - A pattern that has remained the case to this day. This open uprising caught the Americans by surprise and proved, if further proof were necessary, that the military defeat of America in Irak was only a matter of time. The Americans backed down. Despite Sanchez’s bluster that al Sadr would be captured or killed the JAM fought the Americans to a standstill and his popularity surged.

Smarting under their defeat the Americans sought another round. In August 2004 hostilities recommenced throughout southern Iraq, JAM fighters engaged invader troops in Basrah, Amara, Nasiriya, Kufa, Karbala, Najaf, and Sadr City. In Najaf pausing only to take his personally signed pair of Bremer’s Booties® from his mouth Colonel Anthony Haslam, commanding officer of the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit in Najaf announced to a rapt audience of in bedded embedded western journalists that he was preparing to “root out” Al Sadr once and for all and that the forces under his command were;

“making final preparations as we get ready to finish this fight that the Moqtada militia started,”

Those whom God would destroy he first permits to afflict themselves hubris and the good Colonel’s words proved as meaningless as every other piece of flagrant propaganda churned out by the truckload by the U.S. military in Irak.

Given the odds against them the JAM performed surprisingly well a function of their willingness to sustain casualties without running away. All the Americans succeeded in doing was in blooding them and increasing their unit cohesion."

Monday, April 16, 2007


Al-Sadr Pulling His Representatives Out of Parliament

6 of the 37 seats are being abandoned to protest the lack of a pull-out date, which the Maliki government had tentatively promised. Maybe I'm wrong about the Maliki/Sadr machinations, but it would seem this is the opening salvo in dissolving the Government in order to create a partitioned Shia "Rump" Iraq which is free of Sunnis. Either way the effects and outcome will be the same. This strengthens Iran's hands further.

On the military side: don't forget about the bridges. They are critical to the supply roadnet which runs through the Shia southeast sections of Iraq. When Iran (or Al-Sadr, for that matter) gives the word, those bridges will be blown, and Coalition (mostly U.S.) ground forces will be in deep doo-doo.

Wednesday, November 22, 2006


Prominent Lebanese Christian Assassinated: Myth-Busting, Pt. III

Exactly when Iraqi Prim Minister Al-Maliki was in Tehran opening up official relations between his country and Iran, which had been cut off for 25 years, the world's attention was drawn to the assassination of Pierre Gemayel, son of a former president of Lebanon, nephew of a former prime minister, a Christian. Sic Semper Tyrannis, as usual, has some of the best open analysis and comments on the subject. Obviously, this is bad for Lebanon and may very well touch off a civil war, like it was clearly intended to. US actors like Undersec of State Nick Burns and Raging Ambassador John Bolton came out to effectively and explicitly blame Hezbollah of the murder, and the Western Mainstream Media (MSM) have mostly lined up behind them like the obedient sheep-shills they are. One small problem: neither Hezbollah or Syria are responsible.

Let's play "Follow the Money." Who benefits? Israel, first off. And Israel has lots of overlap with the people who run the President of the United States (POTUS). There's your motive, enough motive to be straight out of a Godfather movie, with the trademark "Leave the gun, take the cannoli" level of calculation. The means were excellent marksmen--Gemayel's convoy was ambushed by gunfire while driving through a Christian neighborhood. The golden opportunity was Maliki eluding his Agency handlers (you bet he has them) for long enough to visit Tehran and publicly stab the US in the chest. This assassination was a classic false flag operation, and a very well-timed one.

False flag ops are ones in which you make your enemy look bad by attacking something they dislike, and which your side holds dear. They will be seen as the guilty party. Devious things like these rarely happen, except, when, you know...when it's convenient. Like in the Gleiwitz incident in 1939, when German spymaster Reinhard Heydrich fabricated evidence of a Polish attack to enlist public support for a war with Poland. Or the Mukden incident, in 1931, when Japanese officers blew up a section of railway as an excuse to invade Manchukuo (Manchuria). Back in 1962, the most rabid anti-coms (Poppy Bush amongst them) became fairly upset when JFK turned down a plan to execute Operation Northwoods, which featured Cuban exiles "hijacking" a passenger jet and flying it by remote control into a high-value building, as a means to generated public support for invading Cuba. (For more on this, see James Bamford. And of course, turning down the plan had no negative consequences for Kennedy, and all those who suggest they might have are rabid conspiracy theorists.)

I would've been less quick to lay blame in this case had the same crowd not done it within the past couple of months. The attack on the US Embassy in Syria enjoyed similarly nice pre-election timing. At killed at least two birds with one stone, with a low risk of blowback. Except Syrian police disabled the getaway car with return fire, killing three of the four gunmen who had sprayed the embassy with bullets; the fourth, they interrogated, and they learned who hired him.

Chaos can be the cheapest way of maintaining a status quo, especially when everything else you've tried is failing miserably. In this case, the false flag makes Hezbollah and Iran look bad just as they're scoring a monumental victory (resuming relations with Iraq), and stirs up real outrage against Hezbollah and Syria in Lebanon, who were walking with a swagger from kicking Israeli ass. There's a better than 50-50 chance of (yet another) civil war starting in Lebanon; if it starts, it will spill over into Syria, and that in turn will give pretext to Israel and NATO to jointly invade Syria. To establish stability, you see. And of course the first move will be to have the UN investigate the killing and stumble upon the desirable evidence.

There's a twist on the false flag operation: stage an attack on someone you dislike, repel it, and take credit for doing so. Pro-Israeli pundits put this spin onto the US embassy attack. It is true that Syria could've used this method for achieving results, but, having won the last engagement in Lebanon handily, they didn't need to. Over at the Counter Terrorism Blog
they describe the technique (quite inaccurately crediting the KGB for its invention--of course it's far older), and enumerate how Syria supposedly benefitted from it. The dictum goes like this: "If the equation is to your disadvantage, create a new problem, offer to solve it, obtain recognition; and by that you'd change the equation." Nice try, but the equation in question had played very much to the recent disadvantage of Israeli and US interests; it is they who desperately wanted change, and they were perfectly willing to kill an innocent Christian ally in order to get it.