Stalled Assault on Basra Exposes the Iraqi Government’s Shaky Authority
The Iraqi army’s offensive against the Shia militia of the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in Basra is failing to make significant headway despite a pledge by the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to fight “to the end”.
Instead of being a show of strength, the government’s stalled assault is demonstrating its shaky authority over much of Baghdad and southern Iraq. As the situation spins out of Mr Maliki’s control, saboteurs blew up one of the two main oil export pipelines near Basra, cutting by a third crude exports from the oilfields around the city. The international price of oil jumped immediately by $1 a barrel before falling back.
In Baghdad, tens of thousands of supporters of Mr Sadr, whose base of support is the Shia poor, marched through the streets shouting slogans demanding that Mr Maliki’s government be overthrown. “We demand the downfall of the Maliki government,” said one of the marchers, Hussein Abu Ali. “It does not represent the people. It represents Bush and Cheney.”
The main bastion of the Sadrist movement is impoverished Sadr City, which has a population of two million and is almost a twin city to Baghdad. The densely packed slum has been sealed off by US troops. “We are trapped in our homes with no water or electricity since yesterday,” said a resident called Mohammed. “We can’t bathe our children or wash our clothes.”
The streets are controlled by Mehdi Army fighters, many of whom say they expect an all-out American attack, though this seems unlikely since the US says that an attack on the Shia militias is a wholly Iraqi affair.
In Basra, Iraqi forces have cordoned off seven districts but appear stalled in their effort to dislodge the Mehdi Army fighters. Masked gunmen in some cases have captured or seized abandoned Iraqi army vehicles and painted pro-Sadrist slogans on their armour.
A co-ordinated mortar bombardment struck the main police base in the city beside the Shatt al-Arab waterway and there was heavy shooting in the main commercial street of Iraq’s southern capital. An Interior Ministry source said that 51 people had been killed and more than 200 wounded in three days of fighting in Basra. There was an attempt to assassinate Basra’s police chief in which three of his bodyguards were killed by a bomb.
Mr Maliki’s surprise offensive against the Mehdi Army is likely to have repercussions far beyond Iraq. The Americans must have agreed to the attack though they had previously praised the six-month ceasefire declared by Mr Sadr on 29 August and renewed in February as being one of the main reasons why violence had fallen in Iraq. Although Mr Sadr has said the truce is continuing it is ceasing to have much meaning.
President George Bush praised Mr Maliki yesterday saying he faces a “tough battle against militia fighters and criminals”. He said that the Iraqi Prime Minister had taken a bold decision “in going after the illegal groups in Basra”.
But the rapid increase in violence may puncture optimism in the US over the “success” of the surge in leading to a turning point in the five-year-long war.
The Green Zone, the heavily fortified centre of American power in Iraq, was wreathed in smoke yesterday as it was struck by rockets and mortars fired from Shia neighbourhoods. In a further blow to the belief that the surge has restored law and order, one of the two Iraqi spokesmen for the Baghdad security plan, which is at the heart of the surge strategy, was kidnapped and three of his bodyguards killed before his house was set on fire. The victim was Tahseen Sheikhly, a Sunni who often appeared with American officials to proclaim the success of the surge.
Clashes are now taking place across Iraq and most of the Shia districts in Iraq. In the middle of last year a Mehdi Army commander said that his militia controlled 80 per cent of Shia Baghdad and 50 per cent of the capital as a whole. This is probably only a slight exaggeration. There has also been heavy fighting in Kut on the Tigris, where 44 have been killed and 75 wounded, and in Hilla on the Euphrates where 60 people died. In past months the Sadrists have been locked in a struggle for Diwaniya, also on the Euphrates south of Baghdad, where they have been fighting police units controlled by Badr, the militia of the other great Shia party, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI).
When he first came to power, Mr Maliki balanced between ISCI and the Sadrists but has steadily become closer to the first party and has shown growing hostility to Mr Sadr. The last great battle between the Sadrists and the Iraqi government backed by the Americans was in Najaf in 2004 and was ended by the intervention of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani who wanted the Sadrists humbled but not crushed. He also did not want to see the Shia community divided into warring factions. It is possible that the Grand Ayatollah may seek to mediate again but Mr Maliki may find it difficult to compromise after his claim that he will win control of Basra.
The government has about 15,000 soldiers and the same number of police in Basra but this is not a great number in a city of two million. The police are closely linked to the militias and are unlikely to prove a resolute ally against the Mehdi Army.
© 2008 The Independent
Whoops! Here we go again with the fibbing. First the facts…
“The streets are controlled by Mehdi Army fighters”…true
“many of whom say they expect an all-out American attack”…if you say so, Patrick
“though this seems unlikely since the US says that an attack on the Shia militias is a wholly Iraqi affair”…right off the rails.
Patrick Cockburn is saying an “all-out” attack on the Shia militias is “unlikely” even though the Yanks have been fighting with various Shia groups for years, starting with the invasion and occupation of the country by the US and the UK.
Patrick is saying this despite the fact that aircraft with US markings are currently bombing Shia areas of Baghdad and Basra ( gee, can it be that they gave their puppet, Nouri al-Makiki, warplanes?) I guess in Patrick’s opinion, 1000-pound bombs don’t constitute an attack, and air raids never precede ground attacks, right?
I ask you, why the poncy reporting, Patrick? All we have to go on here is “the US says”. Come on, since when has the US announced in advance an attacking military operation? I’m a little disappointed in you Patrick.
I don’t get it. Moctada Al Sadre is the shia leader who has called for a thruth for over 6 months and he is the shia leader who is NOT cooperating with Iran like the Bader group of shia is doing with Hakim– Al Sadre is cooperating with Iraqis rather than Iranians. So why are we so against him? He sounds like a possible leader for the Iraqi people?
Is this just because he sees the Americans as occupiers?
Help me out- is this Al Sadre really a murderous criminal or just too clever as politician? Why exactly are we getting rid of him? I thought we were looking for somebody to unite the country. Sadre has come out promising that he will not kill Suni and he has distanced himself from the Madhi army that was a bunch of killers.
Am I totally wrong here? Somebody who knows more speak up.
Unlikely that Americans will attack because it is “Wholly an Iraqi affair”? Come on Patrick Cockburn! when will you people stop believing anything that the White House or the military say? We now know US is up to their ass in supporting the war. As soon as Malaki begins to lose, we will shore up and of course deny it, and then when it is discovered, once again, that we are lying. People will say oh well. next story.
So what we have learned the last few weeks is the Columbia has smart bombs and Iraq has precision air strike capability- Yea Right!
In terms of not Patrick Cockburn (contrary to what someone posted above) but the US saying it won’t attack the Shia fighters the Iraqi [puppet] govt is attacking, the AFP article posted here today evidently proves that these words of Bush-Cheney cabala are strongly or wholly a LIE.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/28/7944
Quote:
BASRA, Iraq - US-led coalition warplanes dropped bombs on Shiite militia positions in Basra overnight, directly entering the fray for the first time since the Iraqi army launched a crackdown in the southern city, a British military spokesman said on Friday.
Two bombing missions were carried out against specific targets, Major Tom Holloway told AFP.
…
“Particularly, we are providing them air power over the top of the city. The Iraqi air force does exist but doesn’t yet have fast jets. …
“And also they have been providing air support in terms of dropping munitions on identified militia targets in the city.”
END QUOTE.
Cockburn has some catching up to do; or else AFP misquoted the British Major, or he lied or doesn’t know what he’s talking about, albeit unlikely, given he’s in Basra or at the airport there.
Cockburn says, “Although Mr Sadr has said the truce is continuing it is ceasing to have much meaning”.
That’s not quite what I’ve gathered so far, including from one of Cockburn’s articles this week and posted here at CD. According to his and the others I read, Al-Sadr’s spokesman said that the ceasefire is desired, that the offer still stands, but not while the Iraqi [puppet] govt keeps attacking and arresting Sadrists.
Given that that is still occurring, I don’t see how the ceasefire is continuing; only the offer is.
Cockburn says, “President George Bush praised Mr Maliki yesterday saying he faces a “tough battle against militia fighters and criminals””, and we can understand that Bush is right on both counts; if we don’t read a little more of the article, anyway. The militia fighters are giving the Iraqi [puppet] govt, and therefore the Bush-Cheney cabala, a ‘tough battle’; while criminals Bush-Cheney cabala are making a ‘tough battle’-of-a-time for the puppet Iraqi govt, and all Iraqis.
Bush did not qualify who he was talking about wherein he said or included ‘criminals’.
Cockburn says, “The Green Zone, the heavily fortified centre of American power in Iraq, was wreathed in smoke yesterday …”, and I sure hope it was a lot worse than only a lot of smoke with little real damage done; else the latter needs to be plentifully increased. Let there be NOTHING left of the damn GZ.
I don’t know what Cockburn thinks is ‘great’ about ISCI, and he should explain such descriptions of it.
Quote:
“The last great battle between the Sadrists and the Iraqi government backed by the Americans was in Najaf in 2004 and was ended by the intervention of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani who wanted the Sadrists humbled but not crushed.”
That was a ‘great battle’? What was great about it? Serious, I can agree with; but great?
Cockburn says, “The streets are controlled by Mehdi Army fighters, many of whom say they expect an all-out American attack, though this seems unlikely since the US says that an attack on the Shia militias is a wholly Iraqi affair”.
jlocke123, above, says or infers that this is likely not true, and I don’t see why the Mehdi wouldn’t have such expectation. After all, the U.S. has repeatedly committed major bombings on Iraq; has been the most strongly involved when attacks on the Mehdi occurred, stronger than the Iraqi govt’s army and police, including the time in Najaf; and … etc., as well as from the AFP aricle quoted above.
Maybe there’s something relevant I’m not thinking of, but I don’t see why the Mehdi wouldn’t expect serious attacks by the U.S.; and directly. And they know enough of U.S. wars-of-aggression history, TOO. I’ve read many times that Iraqis know more about real U.S. history than most “Americans” do, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this is indeed true.
“Heavy Fighting in Iraq
Global Research, March 27, 2008
…
Global Research Editor’s Note
The following BBC report as well as other information coming in from the Iraq war theater suggests that the occupation forces have lost control of the situation on the ground
Bush hails Iraq militia crackdown
Mr Bush said “normalcy” was returning to Iraq
Basra gunfight
US President George W Bush has praised Iraqi PM Nouri Maliki’s “bold decision” in ordering Iraqi forces to crack down on Shia militias in the city of Basra. ”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8461
Where it says ‘Basra gunfight’, above, it’s a link for the BBC video.
Quote:
Speaking at a US Air Force museum in Dayton, Ohio, Mr Bush said “normalcy” was returning to Iraq.
“As we speak Iraqis are waging a tough battle against militia fighters and criminals in Basra, many of whom have received arms and training and funding from Iran,” he said.
End quote.
I wonder why Cockburn omitted the part about purported support from Iran, which he must have surely been aware of being part of what he quoted from the evidently same sentence; unless Bush repeated the sentence without the reference to Iran.
Iran’s surely not doing that, for the Mehdi are with Moqtada al-Sadr, who is indigenous Arab Iraqi, while Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is originally from Iran, is, I believe to have gathered, much more strongly associated with Iran, and Mehdi are fighting against Badr, al-Sistani’s brigade. Yet there’s NO proof that Iran’s doing this with or for any Iraqis at all.
Bush says that bs, while Cheney continues the lie about Saddam Hussein having supposedly been associated with Usama Bin Ladin in the Sep. 11, 2001, attacks; while that’s been debunked for years already, and there’s still NO proof UBL was responsible for the 9-11 attacks. Pathological liars are what? Pathological liars!
They should realise by now that they can cease their lies; their dictatorship is strongly “enough” established, and the Dem. Party helps to cement this fact, while “Americans” are mostly sheep or lemmings anyway. That is, “Americans” won’t seriously resist dictatorship, totalitarianism, and the Bush-Cheney cabala must realise this by now; I think.
They know that most of the world knows that they are pathological liars, as well as psychopaths, tyrants, despots, etc. So why relentlessly repeat the same EXPOSED lies?!
Or is it because they themselves can’t face their own lies?
And why is Sadr a “radical?” Why not call him what he is — a nationalist?