Comments on: Cutting and running from Sadr City

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 23:08:06 +0000

Now agreeing that the violence is based on carving out a piece of Iraqi pie, how is the U.S. presence making things worse?
I don’t think we are making things worse. I just don’t think that we’re making a difference in Iraq at all anymore. Maliki criticizes our troops because its politically convenient for him to blame someone else for the lack of security and because we’re going after his people.
There was a time when we might’ve secured the country and provided enough stability for an Iraqi government to form, but that should have been done before we handed ’sovereignty’ to the Iraqi parliament. The civil war is on and we can’t pick one side over another. Maliki is part of the problem because he’s so closely tied to the Shiite militias. He wants us gone eventually, but not before he can consolidate his power base.

By: Brendan

Brendan — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 22:02:31 +0000

I understand there are different factions, I just didn’t understand their goals, I assumed they wanted the U.S. gone because “Al-Maliki has said he believes that the continued presence of American forces in Iraq’s population centers is partly behind the surge in violence.” By “their own people” I meant Iraqi citizens.
Now agreeing that the violence is based on carving out a piece of Iraqi pie, how is the U.S. presence making things worse? What is it about removing U.S. troops from population centers that will stop this carving?

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 21:08:08 +0000

Is it so much easier to kill your own people than U.S. soldiers in order to make the U.S. look bad and force a withdrawal?
Your question assumes that the main goal of the Iraqi militias is to chase the U.S. out of the country. It isn’t. It’s to secure political power and territory.
They don’t kill “their own people”. The Shiite death squads hunt out Sunni families and kill or drive them from Shiite dominated areas to purify their neighborhoods and establish political control. The Sunni’s do the same in areas where they dominate. Even the Kurds have been driving out Arabs and Turkmen from northern cities. Each faction is attempting to secure as much of the country as they can before the final lines are drawn. Much the same happened in Yugoslavia a few years ago.
The fact that most Americans can’t tell the difference between the different factions means we don’t know how to respond effectively to the carnage.

By: pgl

pgl — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 17:43:49 +0000

Andrew Sullivan has a very good post on our abandonment of this soldier.

By: Brendan

Brendan — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 16:31:15 +0000

If Moqtada al-Sadr has ties to both the government and the sectarian killing going on somewhere in Iraq and the present government in Iraq says that it is the U.S. troop presence that is causing the violence, why is it Iraqis who are dying in far greater numbers? Is it so much easier to kill your own people than U.S. soldiers in order to make the U.S. look bad and force a withdrawal? Does the Iraqi government know the violence will stop when the U.S. withdraws because of people like al-Sadr playing both sides of the fence?

By: Gertrude Stain

Gertrude Stain — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 04:39:02 +0000

I too said “It’s over”, only that was after Abu Ghraib. I think I was right, too. Yet W has lumbered along. He may well stay the course for two more years.

By: Maynard Handley

Maynard Handley — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 02:01:56 +0000

“But why should our troops keep dying to prop up a government”
Wow. Finally an answer to what the US is doing in Iraq. They are there to prop up the current government, not for the oil or for permanent bases or whatever. That clears everything up.
Come on, Mark, this is one of the most inane claims you’ve ever posted. The US is there for whatever insane reason went through GWB’s head, but it damn well had nothing to do with propping up the current Iraqi government. What’s next? A claim that the German’s were in Norway only so they could prop up Quisling’s government?

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 23:16:59 +0000

Mark’s mistake about Sadr being in Fallujah is an unfortunate result of the American habit of refering to all our enemies by the same generic term “them” instead of paying attention to who all the various factions are.
We fight “them” over there so we don’t have to fight “them” over here.
Sadr’s people did fight pitched battles against the Americans, but in the Shiite city of Najaf, not the Sunni dominate Fallujah.
Given the administration’s habit of throwing all factions into the same pronoun, it’s little wonder that many people don’t remember who we’re fighting against anymore.

By: tom

tom — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:14:45 +0000

Also, this…
“Moqtada is a minister in the Iraqi government.”
Huh? I know many of the ministers are ostensible followers of his, but I hadn’t heard he was a minister himself.

By: upyernoz

upyernoz — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:27:57 +0000

as robert and michael pointed out, sadr’s militia was not in fallujah. fallujah was (and is) a sunni stronghold. the shia mahdi army is probably as unwelcome in fallujah as u.s. forces were.
who is sunni and who is shia, and what areas each predominate, is a pretty basic distinction to make. you really need to be aware of it, if you want to make intelligible commentary on iraq

By: Michael Connolly

Michael Connolly — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:37:27 +0000

Here are the first two lines from the Wikipedia article on the occupation of Fallujah.
“Fallujah was one of the most peaceful areas of the country just after the fall of Saddam because the majority of the residents were Sunni and supported Saddam’s Rule. There was very little looting and the new mayor of the city � Taha Bidaywi Hamed, selected by local tribal leaders � was staunchly pro-American.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_occupation_of_Fallujah
Nowhere in the article is there any reference to Sadr, who does not operate that far north.
It took me 2 minutes to look this up. The fact that Sadr was NOT operating in Fallujah – a predominantly Sunni city – is not a minor point, any more than the difference between Sunnis and Shia is a “minor” point.
This post is vitiated by inattention to fact and demonizing of the so-called bad guys, traits that we associate more commonly with the Bush administration. Yes, Moktada alSadr is a bad guy – although not big and bad enough to become a US client like, say, Mobutu, Saddam, Suharto, Noriega, Duvalier, Somoza, or Karimov, the sadist who runs Uzbekistan.
But railing about “bad guys” gives one exactly NO insight into war or any other issue, nor is it intended to. It polarizes dialogue and interferes with critical thinking. Mark’s diaries usually support critical thinking. This does not.

By: Robert the Red

Robert the Red — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:17:20 +0000

I don’t believe we were fighting the Mahdi Army in Fallujah. Earlier, in Najaf for a little while, as I recall.
Otherwise, a pretty nice post.