Iraqi militia expressing siege mentality

[FVZA_Colonel]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq



Iraqi militia expressing siege mentality
By STEVEN R. HURST

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Two Shiite militia commanders said Thursday that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has stopped protecting radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Madhi Army under pressure from Washington, while the fighters described themselves as under seige in their Sadr City stronghold.

Their account of an organization now fighting for its very existence could represent a tactical and propaganda feint, but there was mounting evidence the militia is increasingly off balance and has ordered its gunmen to melt back into the population. To avoid capture, commanders report no longer using cell phones and fighters are removing their black uniforms and hiding their weapons during the day.

During much of his nearly eight months in office, al-Maliki, who relies on al-Sadr's political backing, has blocked or ordered an end to many U.S.-led operations against the Mahdi Army.

As recently as Oct. 31, al-Maliki, trying to capitalize on American voter discontent with the war and White House reluctance to open a public fight with the Iraqi leader just before the election, won U.S. agreement to lift military blockades on Sadr City and another Shiite enclave where an American soldier was abducted.

[magellan]

1. I very much doubt Maliki has turned on the Shia militias

He's a dead man if he has. This is a tactical move and their moaning is only meant to lend some credence to it. They aren't going to just melt away, never to be heard from again.

[GreenZoneLT]

2. No, but something's up

It's possible Maliki may have thrown in with Aziz al Hakim, and decided that the Iraqi Army is a big enough force to take Sadr on if necessary. One of my translators who lives over near Sadr City asked the other day if the Mahdi Army had been disbanded, because they weren't visibly out and about any more.

There are wheels within wheels in all of this stuff; White House office politics are arcane enough, but Iraqi politics make that seem totally straightforward and transparent. Maliki had his spokesman yesterday deny press reports quoting him criticizing the Republicans, referring media to the transcript of the interview on his website, WHICH SAID EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID HE DIDN'T SAY.

Run iraqi-pm.org through Google language tools, and you'll find the quote that says the Republicans are in disarray after the election.

[magellan]

3. Yep, hedging his bets is more like it

If Maliki's thrown in with al-Hakim, is it possibly because the Mahdi militia has infiltrated the Iraqi Army?

If I had to guess I'd say al-Sadr is pulling his militia back into the shadows to give the US less reason to confront them, thereby relieving Maliki of any need to cross him. That's something Maliki really can't afford to do; Moqtada's parliamentary bloc keeps him in power.

Also, by taking a low profile, the Mahdi Army helps turn Iraqi/US military attention to the Sunni insurgents and the "al Qaeda in Iraq" elements who have vowed to keep fighting (although the targets differ between those groups). IOW we do the clean-up of their Sunni enemies for them. I'm sure the Shia-heavy Iraqi Army would prefer to fight Sunnis than Sadr's people too.

Whatever all the frou-frou is about, it's looking good for Maliki and the Shia and very desperate for the Sunnis.

[bemildred]

4. Whenever I see "mounting evidence" that something is "increasingly"

happening, I know it is the piling up of some sort of bullshit (and bad English) that is at issue. But at least this is better than when we have "mounting evidence of increasing declines" in something.

The Mahdi Army, if I remember the other story right, is just following orders in "standing down".

[mc jazz]

5. I suppose it's not worth pointing out

that Al Sadr is a nationalist who regards Hakim's Badr militia with a certain contempt because he toughed it out in Iraq during Saddam's reign while Badr's lot holed up in Iran for years

I'd have thought Sadr would be a better bet to counter Iranian influence any day if there's any chance of recreating 'Iraq'

Sadr's 'mistake' was to openly want the US out and refuse to work in Malaki's government, he realises * never wants to leave

Seems to me Hakim is simply pretending to suck up to shrub in order to consolodate his power in Iraqi government. End result is an Iranian friendly militia in power instead of an anti-US one. Hakim could well be regarded as an Iranian agent?

Points of interest.
Has the Badr brigades been involved in sectarianism?
If so they are also an illegal militia. So why did Bush meet him?
Secondly the Badr militia has already stated if the US attacks Iran they will attack US forces in Iraq. So he's not much different from Al-Sadr and no ally

I'd boil it down to this. For the sake of Iraqi's an anti-US gov with Sadr in it has best chance of resisting Iranian influence turning the hate against invaders instead of each other. US goes home. It's a defeat but not a disaster

But * blinded by victory, can't face this. Hakim says the right things, the civil war spreads, Iran ends up with it's man in charge

At this stage the choice is between an anti-US gov and a pro-Iranian one, * chooses Hakim merely because he will play the sick game a bit longer

[bemildred]

6. Those are well worth pointing out.

Before the war was started, one of the complaints about the Bushites was that they neither knew nor cared about local politics, and that continues to play out with the same disastrous results we have seen all along.