Food For Thought: Iraq

Two articles that should be read if you want a decent picture of what’s going on in Iraq recently:

This Three Page Article from the New York Times,
And This Short Interview with Ret. Major Will McCallister

The New York Times article is about the Iraqi army's recent successes in Basra. Roughly a month and a half ago, Iraqi PM Maliki declared that all Sadrist forces in Iraq had to disarm. He then ordered the Iraqi army into Basra (a Sadrist stronghold) to enforce his decree.

The assault looked like a bad idea from the start. al-Sadr had actually been pretty quiet for a while, holding his militias to a ceasefire with Iraqi and Allied forces. Many thought that al-Sadr was willing to seek a role in Iraqi governance by democratic means, and unnecessarily provoking him would only decrease the legitimacy of the upcoming elections.

Initial reports were not promising. Significant segments of the Iraqi army refused to fight. The Mahdi army (al-Sadr’s militias) was well entrenched with a friendly population supporting them. Even with American and British assistance, it looked like Maliki was cruzin’ for a bruisin’.

Or so it seemed. Maliki fired any officer in his army who refused to fight in Basra, and pressed on. Eventually, the two sides worked out a new ceasefire in the city. Iraqi and British forces cracked down hard on any segments of the Mahdi Army that Violate the ceasefire, but have otherwise managed to create relative stability within the city.

Will McCallister argues that the ceasefire is holding because al-Sadr is allowing the Iraqi Army to clean house for him. The idea is that any parts of the Mahdi Army that do not acknowledge al-Sadr’s ceasefire are a political liability in the future, so it is better to have them killed/dismantled. Meanwhile al-Sadr keeps his hands clean and avoids creating additional division within his own ranks through a power struggle.

So then, who won? All in all it appears that the Battle for Basra yielded positive results. However, one has to ask if al-Sadr’s powerbase was significantly damaged by the fighting? It certainly appears that Maliki has become stronger, but is that a good thing? Maliki, mind you, has far deeper ties to Iran than even al-Sadr does.

More importantly, where does this leave the US? The results of any positive or negative development in Iraq can be used as proof that we should withdraw or stay in the game.

The way I see it, it is clear that we have become much better at dealing with Iraq in the past year. Things are getting better. What also seems clear is that the US Army is reaching its breaking point in terms of troop levels in the field. So unless we are prepared/able to leave Afghanistan to our allies, I do not see how we can keep a large infantry presence in Iraq much longer.

But most importantly, I am seeing how completely unreliable the reporting and analysis coming out of Iraq is. This may be due to the complexity of the situation on the ground, or to the media’s weariness of covering a seemingly endless conflict. But the only dependable info coming to the US is already months old. Anything concerning events more recent than that is likely to be bunk.