As many of you have, I’ve become somewhat of a keen observer of the ongoing occupation in Iraq over the past 5 years. If your travails have even remotely resembled my own during the course of these observances the past few months; there’s no doubt it’s been an even more confusing and unpredictable effort. But, there’s one thing that is always predictable: if Dick Cheney travels to Baghdad, you can bet the farm on the fact that the security and military situation is about to become markedly worse.
Cheney’s most recent trip is no exception to the rule.
Deep down in the shadowy recesses of Cheney’s brain, information is processed in a different way than it is for most of us. Where we see what’s happening in Iraq with somewhat jaundiced powers of reason and deduction, (we all want the war to end today) Cheney sees thing differently, with an equally jaundiced outlook. (just going in the opposite direction)
Now, ostensibly, Cheney’s trip was productive - at least by his [nefarious] standards. It was at Cheney’s urging that Maliki ordered an attack on the Mahdi Army in Basra. But more importantly, it was the he who managed to convince Maliki to go ahead with provincial elections in October; even though the prime minister had up to then opposed holding elections at all this year, because such a move could conceivably threaten his hold on power.
But, Cheney’s ulterior motives don’t involve Maliki’s hold on power.
No matter what promises of support Cheney made to the beleaguered prime minister, the importance of allowing the Supreme Islamic Iraq Council (SIIC) to reunite with the once militant Dawa Party -- of which Maliki is not a leader but a member-- far outweighed the prime minister’s present need to hold onto power in Baghdad.
But, make no mistake about it; Cheney knows what he's doing.
The course he's sent Maliki on, even if the prime minister fails to realize it, is indeed a perilous one. The heightened threat to Maliki’s government in the next few months is not only very real... it’s inevitable, and indicative of an intensive summer campaign mired in Iraqi and American blood.
With the passing of the provincial elections law, all the parties in power right now will be weakened substantially by the augmented participation of groups like SIIC, al-Fadhila (Islamic Virtues Party), Maliki’s own Dawa Party, and parties with broad Sunni support who elected to boycott provincial elections the last time around.
However, it is Cheney’s fervent hope that the participation of the aforementioned parties will build a façade of [temporary] unity that will in turn provide cover for General Petraeus’ testimony before Congress this week. But, I wonder if our esteemed venal vice president has thought this one clear through. The only unity he’s achieved so far in Iraq with this charade is to bring the Shi'ites together, especially the high-ranking clerics, who just today answered Sadr’s question to the powerful Shiite clerics about whether he should disband the Mahdi Army and other militias with a resounding "NO."
That’s right, today, the consensus of most of the powerful Shi'ite clerics in Iraq told Sadr not to disband his Mahdi Army.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki demanded Sunday that the cleric disband his militia, which waged two uprisings against U.S. troops in 2004, or see his supporters barred from public office.
But al-Sadr spokesman Salah al-Obeidi said al-Sadr has consulted with Iraq's Shiite clerical leadership "and they refused that." He did not provide details of the talks.
The Mehdi Army has borne the brunt of an Iraqi government crackdown on what Iraqi and U.S. officials call "outlaw" militias in the past two weeks.
The government's effort to reclaim control of the southern city of Basra in late March sparked clashes across southern Iraq and into Baghdad, leaving more than 700 dead, according to U.N. agencies.
Al-Sadr's followers have accused the government, which is dominated by al-Sadr's leading rivals, of trying to cripple their movement before provincial elections in October.
The Sadrists hold about 30 seats in Iraq's 275-member parliament and were part of al-Maliki's ruling coalition until August. The cleric withdrew his support over al-Maliki's refusal to demand a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.
Obviously Cheney’s plan is to weaken Sadr enough so that he loses support, and Maliki’s threat to exclude the Sadr movement from the upcoming provincial elections, is an integral part of that plan. However, Sadr can only grow stronger now that he’s received the unambiguous "affirmative" from the high-ranking Shiite clerics. The stronger he grows, the more Iraqis he draws into his movement, and the bigger the movement, the more opposition to Maliki’s Cheney’s policies is applied.
The vice president’s backing of groups like SIIC, whose military arm of the party, the Badr Brigade, regularly targets Mahdi Army members, won’t work for very long. The SIIC only holds so many parliamentary positions in Baghdad because Sadr’s movement was still too disorganized at the time of the last elections, and the Sunnis all boycotted them. The tide has turned now; SIIC is looked upon by many Iraqis as collaborators with the U.S., and are losing more and more support everyday.
But, Cheney obviously thinks that he can consolidate SIIC’s powerbase in Baghdad, keep the Sunni "Awakening" under control by paying them off, and all the while weaken Sadr’s movement.
It ain’t gonna work.
And, that brings us back to Petraeus’ testimony on Capitol Hill today and tomorrow.
This is important, and I certainly hope Democrats in Congress have done their homework.
The Democrats need to ask the good general why he is on one hand accusing Iran of fighting with Sadr’s Mahdi Army, and on the other hand backing SIIC who, out of all the Shi'ite parties in Iraq, is closer to Tehran than any other Shi'ite group in Iraq. In fact, the leader of SIIC, Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim and his father, Mohammad-Baqir al-Hakim, who was assassinated in August of 2003, took refuge in Tehran until the invasion in March 2003. SIIC’s goal is to establish an Islamic government similar to Iran’s. SIIC supports the idea of Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini that Islamic Government must be controlled by the ulema (Islamic scholars) while the Sadrist movement believes that government should be controlled by the ummah (Muslim community as a whole).
So, why is Cheney trying to consolidate the power of those who would impose upon Iraq a theocratic government similar to Iran’s? Is it simple ignorance of the situation? Don’t bet on it. It’s not ignorance; it’s expediency. Cheney is willing to allow an Iran-type theocracy form in Baghdad because the hardliners in SIIC are said to be more open to the Exxon-Mobil backed Iraqi Hydrocarbon law. The populist Sadr movement is not. They are in favor of nationalizing oil production.
So, once again, much as it is back here in the states, [the] Dick is backing hardliners [that he can pay off] instead of the popular quest for a more pluralist democracy... and the truth.
Oh well, another reason for the invasion bites the dust...
Here’s some links, the first of which portends yet another front of the battle for Iraq this summer; an accident waiting to happen in the North.
• A Battle for Land in Northern Iraq
• Framing Iraq's politics, and partition by other names
• More Than 1,000 in Iraq’s Forces Quit Basra Fight
• Iraq's Sadr calls for million-strong march
• Iraq PM promises wider crackdown on militias
• Juan Cole (Informed Comment)
• Preparations for the Next Iraqi Elections
• And, here’s one more on the unraveling of the Sunni "Awakening."
I know this is an exercise in futility, but let’s hope the Democrats in Congress have done their homework, and collectively hold Petraeus and Crocker accountable to the truth, today and tomorrow.
Peace