Originally Posted by SSG Rock
I agree, but how would he do that without eroding popular support? The central gov't is just as much of a nonentity as he is. JAM, Mahdi and the rest are the guys who have boots on the ground and run the day to day lives of the Iraqis in many of the cities. If Maliki attacks the militia, he has to have a force to do it with. The ISF are crippled with members who gave their loyalty to a militia and just show up every now and again for a paycheck.
The "wishful thinking" part of me would have liked to see "militias" worked into any political solution.
Many moves and counter-moves
Al-Sadr sends representatives back to their government positions, has militiamen stop brandishing weapons in the open, but hasn't demobilized his forces and relinquished areas under control...
It looks like he is playing us hardcore right now, offering just enough carrots and concessions our way to stay off the skyline. I'll bet there is a considerable amount of back-channel maneuvering going on, and deals are still being cut by Maliki even now.
I do not believe that he has the sincerity and conviction to see Sadr and the Mahdi Army put down. He just doesn't have enough ploitical capital to do it, and if the sovereign government is allowed to take point on the issue, it will never be resolved.
Unless coalition forces are in the lead and tell Sadr that he has "X days to demobilize his militias", the Mahdi is simply going to decrease its profile for a while and wait until this blows over. Maliki can waive the banner that he has brought Sadr to heel, but that will be nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
If we do go after the Madhi full bore, cordon Sadr City, and flush out all the militiamen and heavy weapons (if it's at all possible), the Maliki government will surely fall. For that reason, I suppose the next announcement will be along the lines that neighborhood militias will give up their heavier crew-served weapons, but will be responsible for local population security in conjunction with IP and IA elements. Sort of a beefed up neighborhood watch. It will be a compromise that looks palatable, because Maliki will have cried to the coalition that he has to do it or risk further fractures in the government.
If that proposal is ever laid on the table, we will surely be screwed.
We believe that Sadr and his band of merry men are not condusive to long-term stability in Baghdad or the Hillah - Najaf corridor. Maliki does not have the power to eradicate their de-stabilizing influence without causing open fighting on the scale of Najaf 2004. Were is all this really headed, because it sounds like a lot of wind to me?
EDITED TO ADD: And as the two recent car-bombings have indicated, we should expect an insurgent surge to meet our surge, aimed at further eroding American will to support an increased footprint for a new strategy. I cautiously predict that we will see several spectacular incidents (mass civilian casualties) over the next 30 days to try to tip with willpower scales.
Maliki and Ray Nagin bear a striking resemblance.
Last edited by jcustis; 01-22-2007 at 05:37 PM.
If we are to believe reporting that Sistani and other clerics were the targets of the massed insurgents in Najaf, then a counter-surge may already have begun. Perhaps this will be their Tet, grand and bold, but a tactical failure. We must make sure that it doesn't become an IO failure for us in the process, as many historians point to Tet as the beginning of the downward slide for us then. All we need now is to await the bold dash into the Green Zone any day now, with a suicidal attack on a meeting of elected government leaders.EDITED TO ADD: And as the two recent car-bombings have indicated, we should expect an insurgent surge to meet our surge, aimed at further eroding American will to support an increased footprint for a new strategy. I cautiously predict that we will see several spectacular incidents (mass civilian casualties) over the next 30 days to try to tip with willpower scales.
These guys are good, and are definitely following history's lessons. I am still perplexed about targetting Sistani though, if the claims are true. A martyred Sistani would, in my view, unleash the wrath of Shi'a backlash that would certainly send the country into the abyss. Why would they do that? I could understand eroding the coalition's will through somewhat high-profile attacks and continuing the slog to cause casualties, but could the Sunni insurgents really expect to kill Sistani and not have an open civil war the next day? Could the Sadrists expect to do it?
Then again, it may all just be more wild rumor, as tequila has offered in another thread: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=2061
What I don't understand is why we aren't beating that IO drum to a crescendo right now, separating fact from fiction and removing grist from the rumor mill.
Likely because our own sources of information aren't very good. Our contacts in the Iraqi government aren't reliable and our own intel services don't have much more to offer. Our troops are handicapped by lack of good, reliable translators. I mean, who really knows what's going on in Iraq? Were these dead people in Najaf dangerous cultists out to kill the Hawza, or were they just a bunch of political opponents of SCIRI gathering for Ashura? Maybe we'll never know. Either way, it appears that American gunships and tanks were involved in killing them.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks