Just read two fascinating articles about the situation in Iraq and it amazes me how little I understand about Iraq. I truly believe that our lack of understanding (ours AND reporters) is why we get the wrongly framed stories that we do (well, that and a little propaganda for good measure).
The Iraqi government that the US is supporting - including air cover for current operations - is our latest role in avoiding the nationalization of Iraqi resources. We are actively supporting the takedown of a group that supports a strong national Iraqi government that wants its resources nationalized before the October elections.
UPDATED: Joshua has diaried his own article here.
In "Five Thinkgs You Need to Know to Understand the Latest Violence in Iraq", Joshua Holland and Raed Jarrar explain that Sadr's party platform includes:
- a strong central government free of the influence of militias
- opposes the privatization of Iraq's energy sector
- favors a U.S. withdrawal on a short timeline
- opposes al Qaeda and the ideology of Osama Bin Laden and, to a lesser degree, Iranian influence on Iraq's internal affairs
This platform is very popular and contrast's with the al Maliki governments positions on all but al Qaeda. The current government is a coalition of 5 separatist groups - parties that want a "soft partition" of Iraq and are as popular as Bush is here (about 66% unpopular). Nouri al Maliki is the head of the Dawa party - a party with strong Shiite and Iranian ties. The other main party is the SIIC (with its Badr militia) - also with Iranian ties.
So why the uptick in internal fighting? The article claims that
The "crackdown" comes on the heels of the approval of a new "provincial law," which will ultimately determine whether Iraq remains a unified state with a strong central government or is divided into sectarian-based regional governates. The measure calls for provincial elections in October, and the winners of those elections will determine the future of the Iraqi state. Control of the country's oil wealth, and how its treasure will be developed, will also be significantly influenced by the outcome of the elections.
Also worth reading is Paul Kiel's piece at Talking Points Memo which does show that the Mahdi army has some splits. I think that this has given the government the reason to take action against these splinter groups, but it is not the Mahdi Army that the government is fighting. Al Sadr has called for civil disobedience and self-defense, but not an outright attack. Per Kiel's piece
But now Mahdi representatives say that the offensive is not so "targeted." And Sadr issued a statement two weeks ago permitting the Mahdi Army to fire on U.S. and Iraqi forces in self-defense. So no matter the talk of "outlaws," everyone perceives this as a hit against Sadr.
The media is portraying this as a fight between the government and Iranian-backed Shiite militias, but it would be better to say that this is a conflict between separatist US and Iranian-backed Shiite militias (the government) and nationalist Iranian-backed Shiite militias in attempts to influence the upcoming provincial elections. According to Holland and Jarrar,
Ahmed al-Massoudi, a Sadrist member of Parliament, last week "accused the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, his Dawa Party and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) of planning a military campaign to liquidate the Sadrists."
The Sadrist have called for civil disobedience but the government is attempting to criminalize dissent.
Sadr called for nationwide civil disobedience that would have allowed his followers to flex some political muscle in a nonviolent way. His orders, according to Iraqi reports were to distribute olive branches and copies of the Koran to soldiers at checkpoints.
The Maliki regime responded by saying that individuals joining the nationwide strike would be punished and that those organizing it are in violation of the Iraqi Counter-Terrorism Act issued in 2005. A spokesman for the prime minister promised to punish any government employees who failed to show up for work.
The surge didn't work and the current fighting has more to do with what Iraq will look like in the future - a Columbia-style democracy or a Venezuela-style democracy. "Success" for our President means the former - or perhaps - not the latter.