The Fogs Of War And Politics, Part Two
The New York Times reports that Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army has mostly melted away in Basra. Nobody quite knows why
Nobody knows why?? Let me hazard a guess, Kevin: it may have something to do with the thousands of Iraqi Army troops flooding the city with tanks, helicopters and armored vehicles, not to mention the accompanying U.S. forward air controllers calling down death from above. Just an idea.
But wait — it gets better:
The current government is, after all, more pro-Iran than Sadr has ever been, so this is hardly unthinkable.
That would be the same government that just spent the better part of a month slaughtering hundreds of Iran’s proxies in Iraq. You know, those rogue Sadrist “Special Groups” who always seem to be armed with Iranian weapons.
Keep in mind, this is supposed to be serious analysis. This isn’t some random Kos diarist, or a MyDD poster.
It’s tempting to assert Drum knows what he writes cannot be true, but as they say: never attribute to malice what can be explained by simple ignorance. I would imagine he does not regularly read Bill Roggio’s factual summaries, but has instead been relying on the same analysts that had the MSM claiming Sadr won in Basra. He probably really doesn’t know the IA controls Basra’s streets or that the Special Groups are Iranian-armed Sadrists. This information is of course readily available from the MNF-Iraq news site, but most lefty commentators instinctively distrust military sources.
Thus we have two mutually incompatible narratives, one of which must be false, and in fact one is being falsified . The fogs of war and politics have been especially thick of late, and as they clear some people are finding themselves somewhat embarassed.
UPDATE: A good basic primer on Iraq’s parties and militias.
UPDATE: Drum’s linked story does raise one interesting point:
Whether to counter allegations that Iran actively supported the Mahdi Army, or simply because, as many Iraqis have recently speculated, Mr. Sadr’s stock has recently fallen in Iranian eyes, the Iranian ambassador, Hassan Kazemi Qumi, on Saturday expressed his government’s strong support for the Iraqi assault on Basra. Even more strikingly, he called the militias in Basra “outlaws,” the same term that Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has used to describe them.
Why would Iran simultaneously arm the Sadrist militias and loudly support an operation against them? The above speculation that Iran is trying to counter the public perception of supporting such groups, which are increasingly unpopular in Iraq, may be correct, but it’s also possible that it’s just the schizophrenic, splintered nature of the theocratic regime, in which some hardline clerics with their own loyal military factions act in opposition to what the elected government sets as policy.
Subscribe to Dean's World by Email
9 comments
Unambigous military and political victories are so confusing. No one really understands them.
It appears to me that Kevin understands several things you just do not get:
1) The SIIC and Dawa parties are more pro-Iran than Sadr is.
2) Iran has been arming and training several competing militias in Iraq, including the Sadr militia and the Badr Corp (SIIC).
I am not sure anyone really understands what Iran has been doing in Iraq. Iran has been supporting both the SIIC militias and the Sadr militias. But the Badr Corp militia of SIIC was formed in Iran in the 1980s, fought on the Iranian side of the Iran-Iraq war, and only returned to Iraq after the US invasion. The Badr Corp and SIIC are obviously very close to Iran. The Badr Corp has now been largely absorbed into the Iraqi Army and police forces. Another 10,000 Badr Corp members were brought into the Iraqi security forces after the Basra operation ran into early difficulties.
Sadr has tried to position SIIC as Iraqi traitors and that SIIC are Iranian agents attempting to occupy Iraq.
Your OP poking fun at Kevin just shows your own lack of understanding of what is going on in Iraq.
“1) The SIIC and Dawa parties are more pro-Iran than Sadr is.”
In what conceivable sense is this true? They just spent the better part of a month massacring Iranian-backed Sadrist groups. All I see is a repeated assertion contradicted by the facts.
“But the Badr Corp militia of SIIC was formed in Iran in the 1980s, fought on the Iranian side of the Iran-Iraq war”
And we helped what became Al Qaeda in the 1980s when they were fighting the Soviets. Would you say we’re close to them now? When a common enemy is eliminated, alliances of convenience often end quickly.
As you yourself admit, the Badr Corps has largely joined the government. They are the ones who just spent several weeks fighting Sadrists armed with Iranian weapons.
“Sadr has tried to position SIIC as Iraqi traitors and that SIIC are Iranian agents attempting to occupy Iraq”
Hilariously, he has done so from within Iran.
“Your OP poking fun at Kevin just shows your own lack of understanding of what is going on in Iraq.”
Because SCII/Dawa worked with Iran 20 years ago? Your defense is as ridiculous as Kevin’s post.
While mikeca’s basic summary is true (Iran has ties to/supports in some sense all Shia factions, ISCI - not “SIIC” any longer - had ties to Iran during the Saddam era (as did Dawa), etc.), it is often overplayed or at least assumed as a matter of fact that ISCI and Dawa (who are running the Iraqi government) are Iranian puppets.
Yes, they maintain ties to Iran, but it is my belief that they don’t trust Iran and maintain some distance. Here’s why:
1. Dawa leadership moved from Iran to the UK more than a decade ago to escape Tehran’s watchful eye.
2. ISCI changed their name to remove “Revolution” and changed their guiding Islamic philosophy from Khomeniest to Sistani … these are pointed snubs of Iranian ties and nods to Iraqi nationalism.
3. Iran is in fact sowing chaos and arming the very militias these parties are fighting.
4. The Iraqi Shia constituencies of ISCI and Dawa hate Iran.
Sadr has been heavily supported by Iran. This support may be waning as his star dims.
Here’s a pretty good summary.
Thanks Bill.
I think the easiest way to understand it is that the SCII/Badrists/Dawa simply do not need Iran anymore. They have Iraq’s official resources, and as Sadr is finding out those resources are vastly superior to what Iran can clandestinely supply to militias.
The other easiest way to understand it is that Dawa and ISCI are keeping their options open as they figure out whether the US will precipitously withdraw. If the US does, Iran is likely to be their best bet for a benefactor.
With $6B a month in oil revenue and half a million ISF, they can be their own benefactors. Why would they need Iran?
Though to be fair that was a legitimate concern this time last year.
But now, with AQ on the ropes and the IA getting stronger they don’t have too much to worry about internally anymore. Maybe if Sunni states moved against them in some big way they’d be looking for Iranian succor, but that seems pretty unlikely.
I think they’re happy to be friendly with Iran for the obvious reasons that they share a long border, trade, and millions of pilgrims.
Yes, they maintain ties to Iran, but it is my belief that they don’t trust Iran and maintain some distance. Here’s why:
1. Dawa leadership moved from Iran to the UK more than a decade ago to escape Tehran’s watchful eye.
Some of the Dawa leadership moved to the UK, but al-Malik went to Syria, not the UK. The SCIRI/SIIC/ISCI leadership and the Badr Corp remained in Iran and did not return to Iraq until after the 2003 invasion.
2. ISCI changed their name to remove “Revolution” and changed their guiding Islamic philosophy from Khomeniest to Sistani … these are pointed snubs of Iranian ties and nods to Iraqi nationalism.
ISCI is trying to convince the Iraqi people and the US that they do not believe in the Iranian style government anymore. Hopefully that is true, or if it isn’t, they will never be able to implement Iranian style government it in Iraq.
3. Iran is in fact sowing chaos and arming the very militias these parties are fighting.
Iran seems to have been supporting all Shiite parties and militias. Perhaps they were not sure who would come out on top in Iraq, so they backed everyone to make sure they were on good terms with whoever came to power in Iraq.
Now they seem to be backing away from Sadr.
4. The Iraqi Shia constituencies of ISCI and Dawa hate Iran.
This is true, but the leadership is on much better terms with Iran. In Dec 2006 two high ranking officers in the Iranian al-Quds force were captured by the US while at the home of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the head of ISCI party. They were later released and sent back to Iran after the Iraq government pressured the US to release them.
Both Sadr and the ISCI/Dawa party have a very different view of Iran than the US.
“Iran seems to have been supporting all Shiite parties and militias”
I haven’t seen any evidence of non-Sadr militia “Special Groups” using Iranian arms. I’m not saying they don’t exist, but they must be a small minority.
“This is true, but the leadership is on much better terms with Iran. In Dec 2006 two high ranking officers in the Iranian al-Quds force were captured by the US while at the home of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the head of ISCI party.”
For all we know, they were invited so Hakim could tell them to stop shitting in his sandbox. Meanwhile, there have been dozens of arrests of Qods guys with Sadrists.
“Both Sadr and the ISCI/Dawa party have a very different view of Iran than the US.”
Maybe. Mostly they just had more use for them because they once had a common enemy.
Liberal democracies naturally tend to ally each other and move away from countries that are not liberal democracies. Iran is making itself less and less popular in Iraq, while at the same time their usefulness to any party is also declining because there is billions in oil revenue, rogue militias are being reined in, and the ISF are now indisputably the pre-eminent local military power.
And the latest fatwa really puts the Iraqi religious leadership at loggerheads with the Iranian mullahs. Iran can’t win, except by doing something they may be incapable of: playing nice.
You must log in to post a comment.