Developments in Iraq
This morning the main stream media reported that Muqtada al al Sadr has ordered his troops off the streets. From the way this is being pitched on every MSM account I’ve seen so far the reader is left to infer that this is a climb-down on Sadr’s part, and thus perhaps a sign of weakness and/or a loss of face.
However, within the past week I stumbled upon a new blog, Roads To Iraq, about which I know very little, but the writer of which seems pretty closely plugged into what’s going on over there. S/he frequently refers to Arabic publications and offers links to them. From the writing my guess is that English skills are very likely a recent acquisition.
In any case, the Roads To Iraq writer suggests that Sadr’s cease fire is the result of negotiations with representatives of the Maliki regime that took place in Iran following the death of Maliki’s security adviser at the hands of the Mahdi Army. The writer implies, but does not state, that the negotiations were at the behest of the Maliki regime. If this is true, the MSM narrative is very misleading, as is all to common these days.
In another set of insights from off the beaten path, Chet Richards of Defense in the National Interest offers some views on what the events of the past week might mean for the war itself as well as USA politics under the title “Is This the Iraqi Tet?”. Here are some samples:
The differences with Tet are clear — here it’s the government and militias allied (at least temporarily) with it that began the offensive. The grand strategic risk, however, is the same. The president and senior American commanders are all making positive statements about the course of the war,
“If you reflect back on those five years, I think it’s been a difficult, challenging, but nonetheless successful endeavor,” he [Vice President Dick Cheney] said in Baghdad, adding that “it’s been well worth the effort.”
and then all of a sudden, American TV screens show that this may not be correct.
In fact, it may be even worse. Reports indicate that Iraqi forces are doing so poorly that they are calling in US air strikes and, at least in Baghdad, US armor to bail them out
. . .
Every time a US aircraft engages the Mahdi militia, it puts the government’s legitimacy — the holy grail of our counterinsurgency theory and a major justification for the surge — even further out of reach. If the Mahdi Army, which doesn’t seem to have much of an air force of its own, can just survive, it will give them enormous new popularity, much like Hezbollah’s reputation in the Muslim world soared after the July-August 2006 war with Israel.
The big question, though, is whether the disconnect between administration claims of success and the actual performance of Iraqi troops will have Tet-like implications for the US elections. So far, there don’t seem to be any — McCain’s popularity is holding up, no senior administration officials have resigned, and as of yet, the Democrat candidates appear to be focused on attacking each other.
To speak of my political instincts is probably an oxymoron, but wouldn’t the two Democratic presidential campaigns do themselves favors by declaring a cease fire in the circular firing squad and start shooting at Bush, Cheney, McCain and their new Hundred Years War?