Has Moktada Al-Sadr, the Shi’ite strong man, been bought off, somehow? This is just a theory, an intellectual exercise — not even a guess — based on the President’s speech.
Hear me out: A big part of Bush’s plan relies on Iraq’s cops. “18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades [will be] committed to” securing Baghdad. And “these Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations” there. But last time I checked, these police units were largely fronts for thuggish militias like Sadr’s Mahdi Army. Also, the President talked about avoiding the “sectarian interference [that] prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods in Baghdad.” How is that interference being avoided, or run over? By buying off its leadership, maybe?
UPDATE 01/11/06 10:50 AM: Or maybe not. “Iraq’s prime minister has told Shi’ite militiamen to surrender their arms or face an all-out assault by U.S.-backed Iraqi forces, senior Iraqi officials” tell the AP.
On the other hand, “An Army officer who recently commanded a battalion in Baghdad predicted [to the Washington Post] last night that the plan would fail because Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his government ‘will do things to maintain protection’ of Sadr’s forces.“
UPDATE 11:24 AM: “I would suggest that PM Nuri al-Maliki’s warning to the Mahdi Militia to disarm or face the US military is in fact code,” Juan Cole says. “He is telling the Sadrists to lie low while the US mops up the Sunni Arab guerrillas. Sadr’s militia became relatively quiescent for a whole year after the Marines defeated it at Najaf in August, 2004. But since it is rooted in an enormous social movement, the militia is fairly easy to reconstitute after it goes into hiding.“
(Big ups: Nicholas Weaver, in the comments)
UPDATE 12:47 PM: Check out the weirdly ambiguous interchange between a reporter and SecDef Gates today, courtesy of Inside Defense.
Q: Is the United States military and/or the Iraqi government prepared now to arrest or kill Muqtada al-Sadr as part of this new increase?…
SEC. GATES: I think a source of frustration for both Iraqi and American forces in the past has been political interference during clearing operations… I think one of the most important commitments that the prime minister has made is that in this offensive, the military will have the authority to go after all law breakers. There are no exceptions. I’m not going to hang specific targets on specific people, but all law breakers are susceptible to being detained in this — or taken care of in this campaign.
Q: Sir, why are you vague on the treatment of al-Sadr? Because he has a long history here in this conflict as being on the most-wanted list of the United States; then the Iraqis persuaded the U.S. not to arrest him; he leads the Mahdi Army. I mean, this is the bad guy that the United States makes clear is helping to bring down this government, so why not commit to what our posture is with regard to him now?
SEC. GATES: What I will say is that all parts of Baghdad are going to be involved in this campaign, including Sadr City. (Cross talk.) (Laughter.)
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }
It’s called magic, that’s how, the same magic that got us into the war.
For that matter I didn’t expect you to be a conspiracy theorist.
Bought off, or just given a slice of the pie?
Just watch out for that knife boys … hey, we’ve installed/supported thugs like Sadr before, and in the same region.
Just watch out for that knife …
Not just the same region TB, Same country. Then we fought a glorious war to get rid of him. Maybe that’s Bush’s new angle. Install Sadr, then go in and oust him in 2008.
Sadr’s militias have shown willingness to buck his authority before. If this leadership *has* been brought off, I expect a new leader to fill the insurgent vaccuum — unless serious clerical power is brought to bear. But haven’t religious leaders already condemned the bloodshed, at least in public?
Best case scenario from my inexperienced perspective, Sadr or his lieutenants have been bought off to a point where they are willing to arrange the arrest or ambush of significant insurgents and stockpiles, neutering resistance early in the contest.
-TTm
Since this “new plan” will use the police stations as bases, it seems that Sadr’s cooperation is essential. Thus, this “bought off” theory makes some sense. But what is the cost? What does Sadr get? I tend to agree with cowalker.
I seriously doubt that all the money in Allah’s creation could buy of al Sadr. Look at the fit he provoked when Malaki just went to meet with Bush in jordan. He will tolerate the US as long as the US is helping to kill the Sunni insurgents (who he semes to view as a greater threat for the moment, after all, it was Sunni radicals, not the US, who blew up that Shrine), but that is about it.
Rather, I think al Sadr has already settled on an “evaporate” strategy, as long as the units “pacifying” Sadr city are effectively members of the Mahdi army anyway.
The “evaporate” strategy has been used twice before to great effect against the US military: Fight enough of a battle to “put up a good fight” and maintain credibility, then go back home and ‘dissapear’ as an army, because your army is everyone.
And if the US tries to bring Sunni or Kurdish forces into Sadr City, or significant US presence, we will find out just how quickly “all access” can change. Again, Sadr has had Malaki do this before, he would do that again.
This would be an ideal opportunity for Sadr to consolidate his power – by giving up a few visible insurgents who might represent a future threat to him, he gets the US to do a twofer at little cost to himself or the army people under his control.
It never makes sense to buy off an enemy, at least not an idealogical one. It’s hard to imagine how Bush, or anyone, could make that move.
Sadr has an idealogical cause, or an ambition for power, or both. Any gain that he would get from a deal, financial or otherwise, would only be parlayed later into more power. Bigger problems later.
Just to follow up on the last comment… why does the US ally with Sadr?
Because he is anti-Iranian too. A Sadr backed goverment is almost as good as a sunni government for countering Iran. Sadr thinks Iraq is the righteous homeland of Shia Islam, and geographically he is largely correct. He has already largely defeated the Iranian shia in Iraq for leadership throughout the south.
And in the end, we don’t really care who runs the country beyond opposing Iran and opening up the oil fields for US companies. the fact that the Iraqi congress has apparently agreed to allow US companies to keep more of the oil profits from pumping and transport than any other country on earth seems to indicate that the deal has already been made in that regard.
why does the US ally with Sadr?
See LBJ’s rationale for allying with J. Edgar Hoover.
So let me get this straight: Bush is now defying the Baker Report, Congress, the military, and the American public by escalating the war…Forgive me for not brimming over with optimism…
http://www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com
We did this before by accident, and had him by the short hairs. This time I believe we give weight to the notion, “knock it off, because whether your gov’t and your Prime Minister wants us to do it, we will anyway. This is the endgame, and Sadr will know that when we come for him for the fifth time.
Lancers!!!! Black Knights
Wild speculation here, but:
What if Sadr has been bought off with his life. We promise to avoid harming him, if at all possible, in exchange for him giving up some of his militia and armaments. The rest of his military (those most firmly under his control) go into hibernation until the U.S. finally withdraws, at which point he is excellently placed to grab power again.
This would, seemingly, work well for both sides. Sadr gets to live, power base intact, while the US gets to save face, calm the country before withdrawal, and avoid the messy business of assassinating a popular Iraqi leader during a civil war. At the very least it seems more likely than a monetary buyoff.
Anyone more informed than I care to add thoughts?
Eric:
Wouldn’t work.
A: Sadr knows he can disappear into Sadr City and nobody will be able to find him. Look how long it took to find Saddam Hussein, and Hussein was mostly wanted dead by most of the people.
B: Killing Sadr wouldn’t help, and he knows it. Alive, he can moderate. Dead, he’s a martyr, and he’s enough of a believer that I’m not sure if he’d think it all THAT bad. Anyway, Hussein killed al Sadr’s father, and that didn’t stop the Shiites
A deal to let Sadr take over if he and his forces lie low while we leave?
I believe that during the last days of the Vietnam War, Henry Kissinger (or somebody) called this “a decent interval.” Question is, how much of an interval is “decent?” Nobody was much fooled by the interval between the “agreement” officially ending the war in 1973 and what happened in 1975.
It could be that Sadr has ok’ed Maliki and the Americans going after the rogue commanders who don’t listen to him anymore. There’s a number who’ve gone of his reservation and do their own kidnappings for revenge or profit and think he’s too soft on Sunnis.
This is the guy who afterall is trying to organize
a non sectarian movement to eject the occupation and
helped send an aid convoy to Fallujah back in April 2004.
Afterward I saw that someone is accepting the apprentice, I ran to him said that you accepted me, I will have a good future of cronous money.