Now that Iraq's national security adviser has joined the Prime Minister in calling for the US-Iraq status of forces agreement to include a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops, it's time to place these remarks in context.

Nouri al-Maliki is trying to win an election.  He wants to outflank the Sadrists who have been resisting the US occupation for some time.  There have been massive demonstrations among the Shiite community to drive the occupiers out.  It's significant that the NSA, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, made his comments in the Shiite holy city of Najaf, and after discussions with the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, no less.

But the actual withdrawal proposal put forth by Maliki and the Iraqi government is far less than it seems.

You guys, I'm not an expert on Iraq and I'm hardly qualified to write this diary, but I think this is really bad news. Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shiite cleric who ordered his Mahdi Army to hold their fire against Americans last summer, has withdrawn the ceasefire.

You might remember the outbreak of fighting in Basra that took place earlier this year; that was a result of al-Sadr giving his forces the order to resist Iraqi troops. As CNN said at the time:

The violence has sparked fears that a seven-month cease-fire by the Mehdi Army -- regarded as a key factor in a dramatic drop in attacks in recent months -- could collapse or that the U.S. military will have to bail out the Iraqis.
link

It was considered a political/moral victory for al-Sadr, as he was able to withdraw his forces mostly on his own terms, following a plea from the Iraqi prime minister to do so. It was troubling at the time to see so many Iraqi soldiers unwilling to stand up to the Mahdi Army.

As dday and others noted recently, El Numero Uno Shiite cleric in Iraq has finally become disquieted by the enduring American presence in his country.

Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric has been quietly issuing religious edicts declaring that armed resistance against U.S.-led foreign troops is permissible — a potentially significant shift by a key supporter of the Washington-backed government in Baghdad.

The edicts, or fatwas, by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani suggest he seeks to sharpen his long-held opposition to American troops and counter the populist appeal of his main rivals, firebrand Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia.

We have the potential for a major problem in Iraq.  As Shiites jockey for power, the most prestigious cleric in the country is sensing the value among the population of fighting the US-led occupation, and very quietly permitting the targeting of US troops.  It may have as much to do with internal politics as anything else, but it makes Iraq incredibly dangerous for any American, and reinforces the need to take our men and women off the front lines and out of gun sights and back home where they belong.

Tuesday:

The No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq expressed hope on Wednesday that radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr would use his influence to stop his followers from attacking U.S. and Iraqi forces as clashes spread to the outskirts of Baghdad.   [...]

Despite heightened rhetoric by al-Sadr and his followers, U.S. commanders have been careful not to directly link the cleric to the current fighting...

"We do not attribute what we've seen to JAM," said Lt. Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, using the Iraqi acronym for the Mahdi Army.

But he acknowledged that al-Sadr could stop the attacks.

Now imagine the reaction had a Democrat traveled to Iraq three days ago and:

...mocked anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr as a coward Sunday, hours after the militia leader threatened to declare war unless U.S. and Iraqi forces end a military crackdown on his followers.

Think of the outcry and the outrage.  They would be denounced by the White House, with every T.V. talking head and newspaper dutifully repeating that those irresponsible words have endangered U.S. troops and threatened all of our success in Iraq.  But since it was Condoleezza Rice who said it, there's been nary a word.  

Rice went on to say:

I know he's sitting in Iran. I guess it's all-out war for anybody but him. I guess that's the message; his followers can go to their deaths, and he's in Iran.

It seems that Ms. Rice got everything right but the country.    

from: http://therealnews.com/...

A story in today's Los Angeles Times quotes U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice mocking Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. In Rice, in Iraq, lashes out at Muqtada al-Sadr, she said of al-Sadr:

"He is still living in Iran," she said. "I guess it's all-out war for anybody but him.

"His followers can go to their death and he will still be in Iran."

Has George W. Bush served alongside American troops in Iraq, or can they go to their death while he is safe in the United States? Is Dick Cheney part of the "surge" in Iraq, or does he have other priorities? Is Rice going to be leading troops on the ground now in Iraq?

Of all the hypocritical things to have ever come out of Rice's mouth, this is Hall of Shame worthy.

Wow...even Fox is reporting this (just saw it on MSNBC as well)

from Fox.com, below

The title is total supposition but follow me through the argument and I think you will agree with the conclusion that Iraq is on a knife edge that hinges on the outcome of the US election.  Consider first the players – you’ve got the Kurds in the north who are generally tolerant of our presence but would prefer we were gone so the can finish with kicking the Arabs and Persians off their oil territory in the north.  You’ve got the Sunni’s in the middle who’ve been fighting us tooth and nail for five years and who’s only marginal benefit from our presence is preventing the Shia from taking over completely.
Then you’ve got the Shiite government which is essentially the Iranian-backed Badr Brigades, which we support and who would, in their hearts like us gone, but get a lot of checks and security from us.  Finally you’ve got the other Shiite group,  Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi army.  It is this last group that will rule Iraq when we leave.  It is only a matter of time, time which they are bidding until the right moment.

Back in the good old days when global nuclear annihilation was a real and present danger and not just something Dick Cheney talked about to scare people, the United States fought its proxy wars with superpowers like the Soviet Union.  Today, to hear neocon echo chamberlains tell it, our quagmire in Iraq is a proxy war with Iran, a country with an economy and a defense budget that are barely six percent of America’s.  

That, my fellow citizens, is what became of your Cold War peace dividend.

I was captivated by this revolting development in the history of my country, and decided to take my trusty sidekick Google on an adventure to figure how out how and when such a Monty Python caliber phenomenon got started.

This will be quick and easy: Given the chance, would the United States/Iraqi forces kill the Shi'ite cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr? Are US/IA forces currently trying to do this? If so, why; if not, why not?

Forgive my ignorance, just trying to put all of the pieces of the latest violence/cease-fire/not-cease-fire/strategy/not-strategy together, especially as it concerns recent incursions into Sadr City.  

Bottom line, I know who Al-Sadr is, but what's his status... has he been declared an actual "enemy", or is he recognized as a pseudo-"head of state" by the US?

3 weeks or so ago, the central government of Iraq, led by the Prime Minister, Nouri al-Malaki, engaged militarily the militia forces of Muqtada al-Sadr, al-Mahdi Army, in southern Iraq. The ultimate goal sought from those military operations was political more than militaristic. By engaging the al-Mahdi militia, the Prime Minster wanted to weaken the military power of al-Sadr, thus diminishing his political clout. However, an early reading (emphasis on early) of the fall out of this engagement indicates the opposite might have happened. In this short dairy, I explore those results, and analyze them in terms of winners, losers and their impact on the U.S. presence in Iraq.

PS: It is important to keep in mind that this situation is fluid and consistently evolving. Thus, what is constant today will most likely change tomorrow

NOTE: Please read the whole diary before you post a comment. I am not interested in a shouting match. I am interested in promoting a serious debate about the most serious foreign policy crisis in the history of our republic.

I have to say it again: If the Bush administration put a fraction of the effort it spends on spinning its wars into winning them, it wouldn’t need to spin them.  

We have a big week coming up in terms of our failing open-ended occupation of Iraq.  Here are some dates:

• Tuesday April 8th deadline for Mahdi Army members to turn in all weapons to Iraqi government of be disarmed by force.
• Tuesday or Wednesday General Petraeus to testify before congress.
• Wednesday April 9th big Million person march of Shi'ia in Najaf  making the fifth anniversary of the start of the occupation.
• Thursday April 10th Secretary Gates to testify before congress.

You’d think that after lying continuously about the reasons for the invasion and subsequent five-plus-year occupation of Iraq that the liars in question would be pretty damn good at it by now.

On March 27, 2008, Bush regime officials did tell the truth regarding the fact that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had initiated the fight between Iraqi national forces and Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army. But that’s where the truth ends. The battle was not an indicator of any type of success for the surge. And, the fighting did not prove the fighting prowess of Maliki’s forces. What this little operation did prove however was that:

Nouri al-Maliki got his ass handed to him on a platter.

It was a grave miscalculation on the part of our nutcase-in-chief and the vaunted General Petraeus. It’s clear that it wasn’t even a product of bad intelligence. It was an ill-conceived exercise in incompetence, short-sightedness and very poor judgment.

McBush's supposed signature strength and he flubbed again.

This has to be a sure sign of incompetence or senility. My goodness, he can't even get current events straight. This is the guy who wants to run U.S. foreign policy? Can we afford another Bush?  

when we first went into Iraq 5 years ago, some of my lowest level students were absolutely certain that the only reason we were doing do was because of oil, despite anything to the contrary said by the administration or anyone else, including other possibilities raised by their teacher.  I thought back to those conversations this morning when I read the following:

What, exactly, did the United States use its military might to accomplish last week? We intervened in a struggle among various Shiite power centers for control of a city where much of Iraq's oil industry -- and thus much of its potential wealth -- is based. We supported a political figure who was trying to weaken another political figure in advance of upcoming elections. We boosted the morale and fervor of the most implacable opponents of continued American occupation.

Does any of this have anything to do with our nation's vital interests? I suppose you could argue that Basra is important because of the oil, but the city is no more under Baghdad's control today than it was two weeks ago.

 The words, by Eugene Robinson, appear in this morning's Washington Post and are where I  begin.

Just passing on the news, but I think this story needs to get some more attention given the recent desire some candidates and public officials have shown to "Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran"...

From Rawstory:

It was reported on Sunday that Iranian officials had helped broker a ceasefire agreement in the recent fighting between Iraq's government and radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.