When your strategy is "bomb them 'till they love us," betting against the nationalists is a stupid thing to do.

And, when the "success" of the Surge™ is dependent on the good will of Sadr, backing his enemies is a stupid thing to do.

But, in Bush's occupation of Iraq, stupid is not news.
.

I gather that Mr. Bush wants both (a) an Iraqui regime agreeable to US bases on Iraqi soil and (b) an Iraqi regime which is stable.

Can he possibly obtain both objectives at once? Will any Iraqi regime that countenances a US presence on its territory be stable? Shouldn't one be surprised if a regime that permits US troops on Iraqi soil isn't overthrown by bona fide nationalists of one stripe or another within say five years at most?

Curious raises the right questions. And the answer is that any Iraqi regime that allies itself to the American Military is not going to be seen as acting in their interest by the Iraqi people.

I have a post on the new "surge", Mahdi Army violence in Iraq at http://swimmingfreestyle.typepad.com
Excerpt:
"After six months of a self imposed cease fire by the Mahdi Army, all hell is breaking loose in Baghdad and Basra as the Mahdi Army is battling U.S. and Iraqi Army forces and the relative stability brought about by the "surge" of U.S. forces is now threatened.

Today, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino delivered what may be the most stunning counter perspective in ages. This, in fact, may well rank in the Hall of Fame for counterintuitive logic. Ms. Perino asserts the new violence in Iraq is not a setback but, in fact, really a positive sign."

I've thought for some time that getting rid of Muqtada al Sadr in some terminal way would go a long way towards establishing order in the bits of Iraq where he and his bullyboys hold power. He's nothing more than a gangster, a Saddam wannabe wrapped in religious robes, and ought to be treated as such.

Good. Good. Actually, great!

If I may be heartless and mercenary about this....this is as good a time as any to have a massive flame up over there.

It'll help put the brakes on the McCain thing and maybe shore up the sagging Deocratic numbers.

Now if we can just get Hillary on a plane to Basra so she might have a chance to really dodge some snipper fire.

The idea is probably to get the rogue elements out of the way. On the Sunni side this was the Salafi Jihadi movement (aka "al-Qaeda", not to be confused with the other organization) that was attacked during the al-Anbar Awakening. Now Sadr is in the sights on the Shiite side. They are trying to provoke him. The overall strategy is to simplify the annexation process.

Susan is very wrong and a political assassin. The Rev. al Sadr's father and brother were murdered by Saddam, probably with her and Reagan's blessing.

The Rev. al Sadr is one of the few Iraqis untarnished by either Saddam or W. Bush. The Rev. al Sadr also represents the largest and poorest population in Iraq, whom supposed democracy advocates ought to support.

Is it a law that anyone speaking of Sadr must say, "He's a thug?" Compared to whom, bush, cheney, scooter, rummy? If he's the most respected leader in Iraq, why must he be described as a thug? Can anyone think on their own without using neocon talkingpoints?

Is it a law that anyone speaking of Sadr must say, "He's a thug?" Compared to whom, bush, cheney, scooter, rummy? If he's the most respected leader in Iraq, why must he be described as a thug? Can anyone think on their own without using neocon talkingpoints?

What people forget is that the ISCI party and Maliki are backed primarily by our good buddies in Tehran and that as despicable as Sadr and his gang of street thugs, er, "Mahdi Army," are, they are Iraqi nationalists and uninterested in taking orders from Iran. If Sadr is taken out, or at least his militia put out of business, it would remove a lot of base criminality from Shiite areas of Iraq. But make no mistake about it: the real winner would be Iran.

In reference to Jay Mcdonough's comment.

Does anyone remember that guy from Iraq who was the official government spokesman during the actual invasion by U S forces when the war started. He kept telling the Iraqi public that they were kickin the U S forces ass and not to worry that things were going swimmingly.
Seems to be a startling resemblence in operating procedure between him and Dana Perino.

"Petraeus can do business with him."

Don't think so. Sadr has been very clear...he will only talk the the Americans if they have a withdrawal schedule. Petraeus has nothing to offer but more of the same.

If anything shows what a misbegotten crock this whole thing has become ... All this dry analysis just makes it look somewhat sensible.

"Plus there's the fact that ISCI will let us build permanent bases in Iraq while the Sadrists would almost certainly kick us out if they came to power. We can't have that, so ISCI it is."
____________________

Being a political blog, the tendency here is to attribute equal authority to political entities. But ISCI is not the legitimate government of Iraq, anymore than the Sadrists are. Our military must, first and foremost, support the recognized government. For Pete's sake, haven't any of you people ever worked with a foreign government in their country? Dealing with the recognized government is not "absurd." Unless you are a spook, doing anything else is to invite a quick ticket home.

Don't underestimate the power governmental legitimacy. Simply because it's convenient to call them a US puppet doesn't make them one. Having gone to so much trouble to enable the Iraqi people to form a government, no one in the US government is going to be overtly dismissive of that government.

Having gone to so much trouble to enable the Iraqi people to form a government, no one in the US government is going to be overtly dismissive of that government.

Yes of course - except when they act contrary to the wishes of the U.S. government:

On Tuesday, without note in the U.S. media, more than half of the members of Iraq's parliament rejected the continuing occupation of their country. 144 lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal, according to Nassar Al-Rubaie, a spokesman for the Al Sadr movement, the nationalist Shia group that sponsored the petition.

Meanwhile, it's come to light that the Bush administration bullied, badgered, bribed, blackmailed and threatened its allies to join the "Coalition of the Willing." If they were willing to extort our allies, imagine the lengths they're willing to overrun an essentially impotent government like the one in Iraq, where so many resources are at stake.

Two ideas:

1- House of cards. Team Bush CREATED A HOUSE OF CARDS IN IRAQ--DIVIDE AND CONQUER--SHIA VS. SUNNI VS. KURD VS SADR vs. ???. This house of cards is going to somehow right itself, work together and kick us out. They hate us more than they hate each other.

2-Hooked on oil. We can't stay, we can't leave. Oil users in the US will try to overcome the united Iraqis as noted in #1. Expect a grand battle!

Consult with Dr. Wu in the short term to see how the battle is going. Smart readers: We live in one crazy humongous hegemonic empire. As the apocalypse nears consider your options.

not the legitimate government of Iraq

The US Military has no legitimate legal power in Iraq. None. All of its power comes from its ability to kill anyone. Like Saddam's.

"[T]he Bush administration bullied, badgered, bribed, blackmailed and threatened its allies to join the "Coalition of the Willing." If they were willing to extort our allies, imagine the lengths they're willing to overrun an essentially impotent government like the one in Iraq, where so many resources are at stake."
____________________

You are confusing diplomatic pressure, which has always been an acknowledged part of international relations with undermining the stated goals of the recognized, legitimate government to which we have pledged support. We might try to talk them out of a particular course of action, but we will not go so far as to openly oppose them unless we are ready to abandon the whole shootin' works. So far, we are not. For that matter, neither are Senators Obama and Clinton, according to their policy statements.

It's not just Basra. Sadr City is all lit up again, and there is a "locally" imposed curfew. Baghdad is again a full on war zone. Sure glad the surge worked to well.

"The US Military has no legitimate legal power in Iraq. None."
_________________

That's one legal theory. We are operating under a different legal theory. We will continue to do so until ordered otherwise by the proper authority.

Eric Martin has posted often about how arming and organizing local Sunni Arab militias against the al Qaeda types in Iraq undermines the central government's authority by strengthening militias that could threaten it later. Silly Americans!

When it comes to Sadr's forces in Basra -- the port through which much of Iraq's trade in oil and other things must come -- the central government's authority is somehow not such a big issue, because Maliki and his crowd are just Dawa and SCIRI stooges. Silly Americans!

As a practical matter any Iraqi central government could be crippled at will if a group like Sadr's controlled Basra. The government's offensive there creates some big problems for the American forces around Sadr City in Baghdad, but in the planning and timing of the offensive itself it is likely that the government is consulting the British (who have had troops deployed there since 2003) as much as they are us. If Sadr thought he held the strong position I doubt he'd be issuing calls for "civil disobedience." But we'll see.

We are operating under a different legal theory.

The Yoo legal theory, the white phosphorus doctrine and the Pvt. Green policy are different.

Simply because it's convenient to call them a US puppet doesn't make them one.

Ah, more rampant up-is-downism.

Simply because it's convenient to call them not a US puppet doesn't make them not one.

"Simply because it's convenient to call them not a US puppet doesn't make them not one."
_____________________

Equally true. However, no matter which is true, puppet or no, anyone in the US government must deal with the Maliki government as we would with any other government. That includes supporting them if they make clear their intent to regain more complete sovereignty over a part of their country. It also means not dealing with internal political parties as if they were equally legitimate alternatives to dealing with the government. Again, perhaps the spooks might get away with that, but not anyone else in Iraq.

It also means not dealing with internal political parties as if they were equally legitimate alternatives to dealing with the government.

But since we are doing exactly that, that effectively kills the claim that we "must" deal with the Maliki government as we would with any other government -- not even considering the fact that unlike most every other government, the Maliki government only holds power because we're propping it up with our foreign army and mercenaries.

the central government's authority is somehow not such a big issue, because Maliki and his crowd are just Dawa and SCIRI stooges

Not stooges, actually party members! Would it be silly to suggest that Bush will act to further the GOP's interests because Bush is a Republican?

As a practical matter any Iraqi central government could be crippled at will if a group like Sadr's controlled Basra.

But Sadr is nowhere near controlling Basra. Fadila is in a stronger position. This is not about fear of Sadr taking over Basra.

Also: You know, Sadr is a part of the Iraqi central government as well. Hell, he was kingmaker to Maliki!

Also Z,

Eric Martin has posted often about how arming and organizing local Sunni Arab militias against the al Qaeda types in Iraq undermines the central government's authority by strengthening militias that could threaten it later.

Again, it is bad strategy to build up additional power sources outside of the central government. That's different than trying to find ways to deal with existing power structures. We're talking about actively building new ones, and augmenting existing ones.

Once militias form, they are extremely difficult to disband.

With Sadr, we have singled out one militia from among many already in existence and are targeting that group. Oh yeah, and coincidentally, that's the one Shiite militia opposed to our presence.

Fancy that.

Not really "silly Americans" as much as "realpolitik" with an eye toward permanent bases and oil stewardship.

If I may be heartless and mercenary about this....this is as good a time as any to have a massive flame up over there. It'll help put the brakes on the McCain thing and maybe shore up the sagging Deocratic numbers.

That's true. Even McCain admitted the other day that if things start getting noisy and turbulent over there again, American public support for the war will completely evaporate.

The BBC has some more about the Iraq governments motives. Keep in mind that elections were originally vetoed:

Sadrists are convinced the operation is an attempt to weaken them ahead of provincial elections due in October, but Mr Maliki has embarked on a risky strategy, says the BBC's Roger Hardy.

For one thing, it is far from clear that it will succeed, he says.

The Sadrist movement enjoys widespread support, especially among the young and the poor, and is well entrenched in Basra and many other predominantly Shia towns and cities in the south.

The Pentagon on Wednesday said an eruption of violence in southern Iraq, where US-backed government forces were battling Shiite militias, was a "by-product of the success of the surge."

So if southern Iraq was peaceful, that would mean be a sign that the surge had failed....?

I Think by now linking Joe Klein as some kind of informative expert is nothing but a cruel joke.

Even if Klein says something usefully, he's already shown to be worthless as a non-ojective reporter. So who cares what Klein says? It just makes you have to wonder what his angle is? It makes you wonder what Republican owned Washington Monthly's angle is.

I wouldn't waste a nickle on Murdock's TIME magazine trash talk. the Magazine has lost all objectivity, so it's not about news, it's just Murdock's approved spin and rinse BS.

>"All of its power comes from its ability to kill anyone. Like Saddam's. "

Or as plainly stated a half century ago.

"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun"
-- Party Chairman Mao Tse-sung

"So if southern Iraq was peaceful, that would mean be a sign that the surge had failed....?"
_______________________

Or it could have meant that the Maliki government had given up on reclaiming Basra. Which would not have been good from most perspectives.

Trashy, you mendacious swine, there is no legitimate government in Iraq. Try again.

I see Gregory beat me to it. The real ruler of Iraq is the murderous thug George W. Bush. He destabilized that nation and has brought it to this low state where the citizens are far worse off than they were under their previous thug Saddam Hussein.

The most interesting thing to come out of the crackdown on the Sadrists will be its effect on McCain's polling numbers. McCain, despite his pro-war policy has been able to keep up his polling numbers even past the 4,000 killed mark. If heavy violence breaks out with the militia and the U.S. its effects on McCain could be irreparable. I've created a prediction market on this point here: http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/How_will_McCains_polling_numbers_vs_Obama_be_affected_by_crackdown_on_Sadrist_forces_in_Iraq_4931/view

On NPR the correspondent said Sadr City was cowering in fear, waiting for an assault. Sadr City is very densely populated and poor. Long a Shiite refuge. When houses are blown up many civilians will die.

Most Americans will have no knowledge of their deaths and some will cheer them.

That, Brojo, is exactly the problem.

If dozens of well dressed men planted several hundred bombs in Washington DC, there would be an American uprising that would be very nearly unanimous in its desire to go after the perpetrators of such an evil deed. While George W. Bush has been a blight on our nation and is deserving of the most severe punishment allowed by law for one whose every action has undermined our democracy, the rule of law, and all those things that make our nation great, no foreign power has the right to remove him. To remove him violently without concern for the civilians near his suspected hiding places would be unforgivable.

Too bad there are too many who would agree with everything in the previous paragraph without the slightest understanding of what it means.

And, when the "success" of the Surge™ is dependent on the good will of Sadr, backing his enemies is a stupid thing to do.
///
False premise. Success is most definitely not dependent on the good will of Sadr. Not backing the elected government is stupid.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Good. Good. Actually, great!
If I may be heartless and mercenary about this....this is as good a time as any to have a massive flame up over there.
It'll help put the brakes on the McCain thing and maybe shore up the sagging Deocratic numbers.
///

Good. Good. Good to know where your loyalties lie.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So if southern Iraq was peaceful, that would mean be a sign that the surge had failed....?
///
So, if the Iraqi Security Forces "stand up" and bring stability and government control to an important area of the country, that would mean be a sign that the surge had failed....?

Shoulda listened to Brent Scowcroft. The entire Iraq fiasco was quite predictable.

Trashhauler said: However, no matter which is true, puppet or no, anyone in the US government must deal with the Maliki government as we would with any other government. That includes supporting them if they make clear their intent to regain more complete sovereignty over a part of their country.

The way they did "support" Milosevic in Kosovo, FIS in Algeria, Hamas in Palestine, el Assad in Golan, etc.? The fact is that US only supports these operations when carried by a puppet govt. Do you think that US would support a preventive/punitive Ecuador operation against Colombia?

So, if the Iraqi Security Forces "stand up" and bring stability and government control

Stand up? On what legs? The assault on Sadr's forces in Basra and Baghdad is supported by the usual US air power. The Iraqi forces have no armor, no air power, no navy and no artillery, because the US won't let them for (rightly) fear the weapons will be turned upon them.
As previously noted, supporting the Sunnis in the west is a 2 edged sword. The payments are employment but there's no sign that al Maliki is going fulfill his promise to integrate 25% of those militia into the ISF. So, we work with the legitimate gov't to calm the Sunnis by showing the gov't to be for all Iraqis. That gov't then tells us no thanks.
Basra seems to me a contest beween Badr and Sadr for control of the black market oil proceeds. Maliki wants the money available for his sie instead of funding Sadr's forces.
Cherchez la cash.

mary jo - so it's okay for you to support the brutalization of the Iraqi people over the past five years purely for the purposes of keeping George W. Bush in power, but it isn't okay for a Democrat to realize that bad news in Iraq will ultimately lead to the election of a responsible person who will get us out of Iraq and out of the business of propping up George W. Bush's puppet government there?

You are one sick fuck. Your irrational hatred of Iraqis has killed hundreds of thousands of them and displaced millions. I didn't want any of this - but for you to claim some humanitarian high ground is beyond the pale.

Good. Good. Good to know where your loyalties lie.

Majarosh, my loyalties lie in getting our money and, vey especially, our soldiers out of this tar pit.

This current push by the so-called gov. of Iraq is nothing more than one faction (with strong attachments to Iran) trying to kill off their strongest opponents and we are paying wet nurse.

If you have a precise complaint about my statement, please feel free to weigh in, but comments such as:

Good to know where your loyalties lie.

are rhetorically rather lame.