To say Iraq is getting more complicated by the minute would be an understatement. In a span of five days, we've lost effective control of Sadr City and Falluja. Each by a different enemy.
Falluja's current occupiers have no intention of holding the city. Given the region, these are likely former Bathists -- able to mount the well organized and videotaped lynching of the four mercs. The idea being, we're going to make a scene, spur a horrific level of outrage, and spur the US to respond in a heavy handed manner.
Those attackers -- damage done -- are likely gone from Falluja, and it will be the people of that city (the vast majority who have nothing to do with the war) that will suffer the repercussions. People will be killed. New blood feuds will be kindled. Additional Iraqis will take up arms against the occupiers. It's a strategy long used by rebels in places like Peru, Sierra Leone, and yes, even my native El Salvador -- invite massive retaliation that will kill lots of civilians to add fuel to the resistance. Not noble in the least, but effective so long as the US plays along.
Shock and awe doesn't melt opposition away, it merely swells the ranks of the enemy. The solution? I've got nothing. There's a reason Bush I decided not to march to Baghdad in 1991 ...
Sadr City is a whole different enemy -- Shiite supporters of Muqtada Al-Sadr (now under seige by coalition forces). This is a new phase in the uprising, and one that augers bigger headaches than the Sunni uprising (which has already vexed US warplanners).
By unleashing mass demonstrations and attacks in Baghdad and southern Iraq on Sunday, a young, militant cleric has realized the greatest fear of the U.S.-led administration since the occupation of Iraq began a year ago: a Shiite Muslim uprising.
Fighting with U.S. troops raged into the night in a Baghdad slum, and hospitals reportedly took in dozens of casualties. But even before sunset, there was a sense across the capital that a yearlong test of wills between the American occupation and supporters of Moqtada Sadr had turned decisive, and its implications reverberated through Iraq.
The unrest signaled that the U.S. military faces armed opposition on two fronts: in scarred Sunni towns such as Fallujah and, as of Sunday, in a Shiite-dominated region of the country that had remained largely acquiescent, if uneasy about the U.S. role. If put down forcefully, a Shiite uprising -- infused with religious imagery, and symbols drawn from Iraq's colonial past and the current Palestinian conflict -- could achieve a momentum of its own.
The one-day
price -- 8 Americans and one Salvadoran killed. Both my countries took losses today. That's 13 dead coalition troops in an April just barely four days old. 613 dead Americans and 715 dead coalition total.
Despite the sacrifice in lives (both coalition and Iraqi) we're still losing control of Iraq at an alarming rate. And for what? For Chalabi? For war profiteers? And if we fail, who benefits? The Bathists? Taliban-like Islamic fundamentalists? We're screwed whether we "win" or we lose.
And that's the final testament to Bush's Folly.
By the time we're supposed to "hand over" Iraq sovereignty on June 30, we may no longer have anything to deliver. Steve Gilliard nails it:
This, of course, is the beginning of the end. We were baited into going after Sadr's top aide and now, there will be days of Shia funerals in Sadr City. How long will it be before other Shia clerics have to rally around Sadr because of these deaths? Once that happens, all our plans for Iraq are over. Now, we have a situation where the Shia have killed seven US soldiers, wounded 24 and driven a wedge between any deal we could have made with Sistani.
The Kurds are our only real allies in Iraq, and they're not going to fight our wars with both the Shiites and Sunnis.