April 10, 2008
IRAQ TIDBITS....The British military came under considerable criticism during the Battle of Basra for staying on their base outside the airport and refusing to come into the city to help out government forces. Turns out, though, that the British did offer to help after all, but Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki sent them packing. Apparently he's still mad because the Brits made a deal with Muqtada al-Sadr to avoid attack during last year's withdrawal from Basra city. More fine work from our man in Baghdad.
On another front — and yes, I realize almost no one else will be interested in this — I've been emailing with Eric Martin recently wondering why we hear nothing these days about the Fadhila Party in Basra. Fadhila is the "third" party in the south (along with the Sadrists and the Dawa/ISCI/Hakim partisans), and despite their substantial power in and around Basra they've been virtually invisible during the recent fighting. Today, Juan Cole passes along the most detailed report I've read recently about Fadhila's whereabouts:
The Times also suggests that the governor of Basra Province, Muhammad Misbah al-Wa'ili, is effectively under house arrest, his own guards from his Islamic Virtue Party (Fadhila) having been replaced by Iraqi army troops. Al-Wa'ili lost a vote of no confidence in late April of 2007 in a maneuver organized by al-Maliki's ally, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. But al-Wa'ili brandished his Islamic Virtue militia and refused to step down. If the Times's report is true, it may well be that al-Maliki came south to install the Islamic Supreme Council and its Badr Corps paramilitary, along with the Iraqi 14th Division, in power in Basra. That would give ISCI, led by pro-Iranian cleric Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the advantages of incumbency going into October's provincial elections.
That makes sense. If Maliki was trying to use the military to gain the electoral upper hand in Basra in the runup to elections, he'd need to weaken both Sadr and al-Wa'ili. He may not be much of a prime minister (or much of a commander-in-chief) but Maliki knows who his enemies are.
—Kevin Drum 12:05 PM
Permalink
| Trackbacks
| Comments (8)
...Maliki knows who his enemies are.
Do we?
Posted by: JM on April 10, 2008 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK
Enemies? Who needs 'em when we got friends like our buddy in Iraq?
The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State.”
Josef Goebbels
The lies continue.... our soldiers die.
God Bush America!
Posted by: Tom Nicholson on April 10, 2008 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK
That groups that one expects at a first glance to be working together (all shias, all supported by Iran) are fighting instead is a feature, not a bug, of the occupation.
None of this is surprising if you have even less than rudimentary understanding of the trajectories of the colonial enterprises of the past.
Posted by: gregor on April 10, 2008 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK
[Maliki] may not be much of a prime minister (or much of a commander-in-chief) but Maliki knows who his enemies are.
Heehee. Then he's at least one step ahead of Commander Coocoobananas in D.C., who had Putin pegged as a sincere soulmate, the Iraqis as folks who would shower invaders and occupiers with sweets and flowers, Chalabi as a trustworthy guide to U.S. success in Iraq and Saudi Arabians as good old boys who are working hard on their human rights problems, and who will give the U.S. a price break on oil just because we ask.
Maybe there's a good reason Maliki didn't listen to the U.S. for tips on how to win in Basra. Or anywhere at anything.
Posted by: cowalker on April 10, 2008 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK
17 US troops have died since Sunday. And what are we doing? Clumsily taking sides in a Shiite power struggle that could turn into a full-blown civil war.
Posted by: Speed on April 10, 2008 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK
So, al-Wa'ili was, in essence, caught with his pants down. Sadr is a bit smarter.
Posted by: SocraticGadfly on April 10, 2008 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK
Sadr is a bit smarter
Well, 50-60 thousand militia members sort of adds to that air of erudition. Meaning: Sadr's got more back than al-Wa'ili and so he's a bit harder to pin down.
Posted by: Eric Martin on April 10, 2008 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK