Iraq’s Upcoming Summer of Blood: Cheney has Guaranteed it

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

•  Cheney has hedged his bets one too many times...

  by markthshark on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:47:39 AM PDT

  •  the ultimate shell game

    except his shells are the excuses alibies and delusions he keeps isnsiting are rational arguments. If they seem to be getting weaker, its because we're winning. If on the other hand they are doing more damage, its because we're winning. It doesn't matter what shell you pick with this guy, it only covers an empty answer and a valueless prize.

    by JohnB47 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:31:49 AM PDT

  •  We're lucky if the Senators

    know the difference between Shiite and Sunni (we know McCain doesn't) much less divisions within these groups.  Not much hope of action from the Senate, I'm afraid.

    by mkfarkus on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:05:01 AM PDT

    •  They might understand more about Iraq if they...

      read the international press once in awhile instead of getting all their news from the U.S. MSM.

      I wonder sometimes if they even try to understand.

      by markthshark on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:19:21 AM PDT

      •  That would be unpatriotic

        after all, we have the greatest press in the world and the greatest health care system in the world, and the.........

        Besides that might mean thinking, and for most pols thinking disturbs their normal mental processes.

        by mkfarkus on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:08:10 PM PDT

•  A purple-finger October surprise?

  Is that what Cheney is counting on?  A blood-stained Iraqi election that can provide more purple fingers for John McCain to point to in an effort to save his candidacy?

  Cheney's maneuvering sounds like more of the same:  the divide-and-conquer strategy we've been playing to keep Iraqis at each others' throats so we can maintain our occupation.  It's the oldest trick in the imperialist's handbook, and it shows America's ahistorical nature that nobody calls him on it.

  by Dallasdoc on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:55:06 AM PDT

•  May day Action

  WEll, there might not be too much that we can do from here, but perhaps we can support the 1 day action that the ILWU has called for?

  I wrote about it about an hour ago.

  http://www.dailykos.com/...

  by Bendygirl on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:57:50 AM PDT

•  Recommended

  We need to focus on this, and NOT Mark Penn. This is going to be a pivotal issue this summer against McCain.

  by akr nyc on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:12:59 AM PDT

•  Cheney and Crew

  are short sited, and idiots. At this point the one thing we here are failing to factor in as well as that bunch of snakes in the WH is the American populations tolerance for this game of chess with American service men and women caught in the middle. It is my hope cooler heads will prevail, and some one will pull Petreaus' chain and yank him in, but my sad prediction is the games will continue with enough service members having to pay the ultimate price for oil until the public is so PO'd McCain and the Repugs will be running for cover. The Iraqi's know this and this Administration set up their own failure by using GI's as their center pieces and call for support. The support exists, but enough have died and this will be the major factor in ending the war, as it was in Vietnam.

  by utopia on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:22:42 AM PDT

  •  But the American people are not hearing this

    story.  The only one who carryied the Iraq story last night, that I saw, was Lou Dobbs. If we truely care, we should be e-mailing CNN and MSNBC, and demanding they cover whats going on in Iraq? We are bombing again, for Gods sake. Bombing in a City.

    by Owllwoman on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:31:04 AM PDT

    •  Olbermann had it too, along with Abrams

      by utopia on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:10:28 AM PDT

•  The trouble with Cheney is,

  he does not have the interest of the Iraqi People at heart.  He doesn't care if they have to slaughter a million more people, just so he gets his oil.

  by Owllwoman on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:26:20 AM PDT

•  And again, tipped and rec'd.

  Great diary Mark, thanks.

  by Owllwoman on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:27:07 AM PDT

•  My guess is Petreaus will think....

  That he woke up at Softball World.

  by manwithnoname on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:33:25 AM PDT

•  megalomania

  Cheney has but one goal and that is his own aggrandizement.  In another time and place he would be regarded as one of history's more regrettable despots.

  by eightlivesleft on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:33:48 AM PDT

•  The 800 LB gorilla in the room

  One thing the media never mentions in reporting this story. They always talk about the Iraqi government versus the "Iranian backed" Mahdi Army. What they fail to mention is that the Supreme Islamic Iraq Council and it's Badr brigades militia were founded by the Iranian revolutionary guard in Iran during the Iran Iraq war. The parties that we are supporting with American blood and money are even more under the control of Iran then the Sadr movement.

  So we have 2 anti-American pro Iranian groups jockeying for power. No matter who wins the Iranians remain in the drivers seat. The only Shiite leader to show a certain amount of Iraqi nationalist independence from Iran is Sadr. Hakim and his Badr organization sided with Iran in the Iran Iraq war.

  That surge is really working!

  by hankg on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:38:26 AM PDT

•  I love your diaries and this should be on the

  recommend list.  

  Re: the substance of your post:  It is very strange as a lay person to watch individuals playing chess w/ live players.  It is also infuriating.

  New rule:  Kings must fight in their own wars or they can't play at all.

  by real world chick on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:52:01 AM PDT

•  This is Bush & Cheney "democracy"

  Torture shops, ethnic cleansing, millions of displaced refugees, bribery, military threats and military raids.

  I seem to remember that, not long ago, our country persuaded the UN to send in an international police force into Kosovo to STOP such practices. And as I recall, the leaders who implemented such policies were indicted as war criminals.

  We, as human beings, cannot tolerate such practices. The day of judgement must surely come for all who practice them. Nothing less will suffice.

  The Bush and Cheney regime have a policy to spread these practices with wars of aggression. They have made this the long-term policy of the United States. They have already shown that they will do this by using fabricated pretexts for war, which they have done at least once, possibly twice, and now are attempting a third time.

  This is the pattern of behavior that was practiced by the Nazis. It is not simply an epithet to throw at Bush and Cheney, it's a matter of fact. Myriad policies both foreign and domestic mirror policies used by historical fascist regimes.

  We must come to grips with the fact that we have anti-republican enemies who have seized power in our country. That is not an overstatement. The invasion of Iraq violated the AUMF and UN Resolution 1441. Bush seized power when he ordered the invasion. There are other examples of power seizure, such as fiat declarations in which Bush seized legislative and judicial powers.

  Bush and Cheney are not simply the worst criminals to occupy the Executive Branch, they are active enemies of the republic, who have cultivated and nurtured a fascist movement among corporate elites. Several acts of treason accompany their policies. They have propped up our enemies abroad, and provided them with arms and funding, in order to increase the justification for our own defense spending, benefitting their cronies, and providing excuses for what can only be called a global protection racket.

  Their base of support is located among gatekeepers who control large corporations through an interlocking corporate directorate. These gatekeepers maintain an unconstitutional anti-republican title system, which actively uses bribes and threats to frustrate democracy and republican government.

  The corporate interests cooperate with the Bush/Cheney regime to violate our liberties, spy on us, and collect information for malicious prosecutions, false arrests, and political intimidation.

  These anti-republican enemies are cultivating mercenary private armies, which serve a corporate master, are paid with public money and operate outside of our laws. They are building paramilitary installations on our soil, along with concentration camps.

  These intolerable acts of treason and inhuman crimes must meet with the death penalty for each and every one of the 33 members of the neocon cabal. The fascist movement must be rooted out of our military, our corporations, our media and our government. No less than life in prison without parole must be the penalty for the hundreds of them who are actively betraying us.

  There must be no path to authority of any kind for at least a thousand of the followers of this despicable scheme to remake our country in the mold of the Third Reich.

  Corporations must be reformed with republican principles, with divisions of power within, abolishment of multiple titles, abolishment of perptual majority share, abolishment of anti-republican interlocking directorates, and regular review of charter to ensure that public benefit remains the primary reason for grant of charter.

  These things we can do, and I would argue, we must do them. No corporate reform will take hold if done by statutory means or with voluntary compliance. The changes needed are constitutional, and they must be enforced by swift incarceration for refusal to cooperate. We must recognize that the current scheme of corporate organization is a fascist scheme, and that the threat to republican government is real, and that it is being carried out by active enemies of the sovereign power of the United States.

  Thomas Paine and others fiercely denounced aristocratic title systems, and make no mistake, the corporate title system is an aristocratic, imperialist system in corporate clothing. The Founders declared that armed revolution was an appropriate response to secure our liberties from titled pretenders who claim to own them.

  If we act in the manner that I describe above, we can perhaps avoid having to take up arms against the fascist enemy in our midst. Failing to act ensures that we will either have to fight for our liberties, or forfeit them, at a later time.

  For those who oppose the death penalty, I implore you to allow justice to take it's course, and then, when all is lost, appeal the sentence in the spirit of mercy. But do not put mercy before justice, or the sycophants of our enemies will seize upon it and declare that there were no crimes, and there should be no punishment. If the criminals are put to death despite our pleas for mercy, then we must be consoled that, first, these monsters have no mercy in their schemes, and second, that many lives will be saved by avoiding revolution.

  by taraka das on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 07:12:37 AM PDT

  •  What can I say -- I agree with everything you...

    said. It's just too bad that your words -- will sadly but ultimately -- fall upon deaf ears.

    We must [first and foremost] change the collective, complacent mindset of the American people.

    by markthshark on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:08:02 AM PDT

•  Petraeus Still Wearing His Rose Colored Glasses

  by DFutureIsNow on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:20:47 AM PDT

•  Petraus Admits Maliki Hucked Up In Basra

  Operation. Oops I tought Maliki was perfect, he is Bushs buttler after all.

  by DFutureIsNow on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:25:58 AM PDT

•  The entirety of Crocker and Petraeus

  is tobaffle the Congress,and create a standoff. The pointis to create a space for McCain or failing that leave enough problems in Iraq so a Democrat willbe forced to go along with these plans for several years.  

   The UN extended it mandate forthe US toprovide security until Dec 31,2008. Bush and Cheney are looking for a loose SOFA to govern the legalstationing of troops indefinitely in the Iraqi oilfields for many years to come. Minders and "advisors' thru a super embassy willbe present to instigate and direct the Iraqi fractions.

   Doesn't anyone get a clue from the "no peace,no war situation that has been in existence since 1967 and before in Gaza, the occupied territories and the Israeli territories?

   Iraq having a four or five way split, and near civil war is to the benefit of the USA as an occupying power that needs an excuse to stay for a long time. If peace and a united front among Iraqis breaks out, the US position would be very tenuous, possibly unsupportable. The Iraqis fought the British for several years after WW1, and the British considered the ongoing occupation to unworkable.

  by Pete Rock on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:45:16 PM PDT

•  Regarding the CNN report . . .

  That’s right, today, the consensus of most of the powerful Shi'ite clerics in Iraq told Sadr not to disband his Mahdi Army.

  That may be inaccurate.  Juan Cole posted this today:  

  Then the US press went wild for this supposed report that Muqtada al-Sadr said he would dissolve his militia if Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani ordered it. Folks, he always says that when there is a controversy. (He said the same thing in spring, 2004). He says it because he knows it makes him look reasonable to the Shiite public. He says it because he knows that the grand ayatollahs are not going to touch the matter with a ten foot pole. They are not so foolish as to take responsibility for dissolving a militia that they had nothing to do with creating. And that is probably the real meaning of this CNN report that they 'refused' when asked. I doubt the grand ayatollahs in Najaf actively commanded Muqtada to keep his militia. They just declined to get drawn in.

  by jlynne on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:53:13 PM PDT

  •  Perhaps it is nothing but a PR ploy by Sadr...

    But the bottom line remains the same: the Mahdi Army still lives to fight another day.

    Sadr's entrenched in a battle for Basra; separate from his clashes with Iraqi and American forces. His main competition down there is the al-Fadhila (Islamic Virtues Party), who are former Sadrists, and one of the parties that Cheney and Maliki are backing now.

    If Sadr picked up a PR boost by the announcement, it was at the expense of al-Fadhila, and can only help him in the long run.

    So far, Sadr's turning out to be quite the strategist. We'll see if it lasts.

    by markthshark on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:14:18 AM PDT

    •  is there a

      doctrinal difference between Sadr and al-Fadhila?  or is it just a power play?  

      This is also from Cole's post:  

      Al-Zaman says its sources in the Sadr Movement confirmed that the Mahdi Army has gained control of the main road between Amara and Basra, allowing it to cut the government troops off from military supplies.

      That just can't be good.

      by jlynne on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:44:01 AM PDT

      •  It's not so much "doctrinal" as it is rivalry...

        When it was aligned with the Sadrists, the al-Fadhila party was more loyal to Moqtada's father, and when he was killed, they began to resent the son.

        When Saddam fell, the al-Fadhila left Baghdad's Sadr City and went south to Basra, and Moqtada's followers stayed in Baghdad. Now Moqtada sees Basra as a very strategic base of operations and since the British pulled out, he's come back to claim it. Only one thing stopping 'em from doing it though: Basra's governor is Fadhila, and he's well protected, and well loved by the party. They're not really ruthless blood enemies but they have been clashing with increasing regularity lately.

        They do have common enemies though [besides the Sunnis] and that's SIIC and the Da'wa Party, both of which are backed by Maliki and the U.S. (right now anyway)

        But, I think if the dire need arose, they could reconcile their differences to fight SIIC.

        This quote from Cole is kinda ambiguous though...

        Al-Zaman says its sources in the Sadr Movement confirmed that the Mahdi Army has gained control of the main road between Amara and Basra, allowing it to cut the government troops off from military supplies.

        Which government has the Mahdi Army successfully blocked? al-Fadhila's government in Basra or Maliki's government coming down from Baghdad?

        I'll tell ya, a lay-observer really needs a scorecard to keep up with everything going on in Iraq these days.

        Bush/Cheney really opened a Pandora's Box when they invaded. (knowing it'd take us years to straighten the country out -- if not decades)

        Bastards!

        by markthshark on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:15:31 AM PDT

•  That's nefarious Cheney-style all right,

  but don't think he hasn't ruled out and planned for the Worst Case Scenario being increase in violence across the board, capitalizing on it for what he can there and here finacially/politically, and then passing on a f*cking mess to surpass all known messes to the impending Democratic President who will subsequently be catagorized with the single term of Jimmy Carter. Cheney and friends will then undermine the probable Dem. President as they did to support Reagan's eventual defaet of Carter.
  As Twain said (roughly), history doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes.

  by Skid on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:18:58 PM PDT

  •  Oh, I would never misunderestimate (sic)...

    the wherewithal and diabolical mental constitution of one Richard Bruce Cheney.

    If he wasn't so nefarious I could probably even grow to respect him -- but his evil knows no bounds -- and he's a grave threat to mankind everywhere. He needs to be interned at a supermax prison for the rest of his [un]natural life.

    Brrr... did it just get cold in here?

    by markthshark on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:27:33 AM PDT