Associated Press reported yesterday that Moqtada al Sadr had threatened to end his cease fire. According to the AP Sadr's call for an end to the cease-fire could set off more fighting in southern Iraq.
Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr raised the stakes yesterday in his showdown with government, threatening to end formally a seven-month cease-fire unless authorities stop attacks on his followers in Baghdad.
Formally ending the cease-fire could trigger renewed fighting throughout southern Iraq, nine days after a deal brokered in Iran calmed the region.
Apparently, the mainstream press story line has Moqtada al Sadr in the drivers seat, and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki in a jam. According to that script, Maliki bit off more than he could chew by ordering a chancy showdown in Basra. How fortunate that the Iranians stepped in to save his bacon. Or so the mainstream reporting seems to imply.
General Petraeus presented a different viewpoint. According to Petraeus, not only is there no cease fire in effect, Maliki's crackdown is expected to go on for months.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's crackdown on gunmen in Basra is expected to last months, the US Army commander in Iraq says.
"It is safe to say that Basra is going to continue for months," Gen. David Petraeus told the US House of Representatives Armed Services Committee on Wednesday.
"It is far too soon to say that Basra has succeeded or has failed," he said on the second day of hearings before Congress on Iraq's security and political situation.
The crackdown "has fused political support for Prime Minister Maliki and his government in a way that we just haven't seen," said US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker.
Maliki ordered the confrontation between Iraqi forces and cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army forces two weeks ago that sparked fighting in Baghdad as well as the southern city of Basra.
According to Amir Taheri, Prime Minister Maliki wasn't the one guilty of taking big chances. In his New York Post column, Taheri described an Iranian gamble that proved too costly
The Iranian plan - developed by Revolutionary Guard's Quds (Jerusalem) unit, which is in charge of "exporting the Islamic Revolution" - aimed at a quick victory. To achieve that, Tehran spent vast sums persuading local Iraqi security personnel to switch sides or to remain neutral.
The hoped-for victory was to be achieved as part of a massive Shiite uprising spreading from Baghdad to the south via heartland cities such as Karbala, Kut and al-Amarah. A barrage of rockets and missiles against the "Green Zone" in Baghdad and armed attacks on a dozen police stations and Iraqi army barracks in the Shiite heartland were designed to keep the Maliki government under pressure...
...After more than a week of fighting, the Iraqis forced the Quds commanders to call for a cease-fire through Sadr. The Iraqi commander agreed - provided that the Quds force directly guaranteed it. To highlight Iran's role in the episode, he insisted that the Quds force dispatch a senior commander to finalize the accord.
The Iran-backed side lost more than 600 men, with more than 1,000 injured. The ISF lost 88 dead and 122 wounded.
The big story, seemingly missed in the mainstream press, is the coming of age of the Iraqi army. While it's true they relied on American air support, the operation on the ground has been all Iraqi, in planning and execution. Should the Taheri and Petraeus perspective be the more accurate -- and there is no reason to think it's not -- this has been a huge victory for the new Iraqi government under Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki.
That would make for a very entertaining presidential campaign season over here.
"Should the Taheri and Petraeus perspective be the more accurate -- and there is no reason to think it's not..."
Except for the fact that Taheri has a long history of making up stories, citing non-existent sources, etc. Indeed, you've read his most recent article. Where are the sources he cites?! Where is the evidence?
Frankly, it seems to me like he makes a living from anonymously citing those who are Iran's answer to Ahmed Chalabi. Not only do we not know his sources -- if they exist -- we don't know the motivation of those supporting them, apart from conflict with Iran. That's no basis for informed decisionmaking... and without knowing such things, it is hard to consider Taheri's article as anything more than a work of speculative fiction.
Posted by: Mark Kraft | April 10, 2008 at 05:42 PM
From your link on Taheri,
You're relying on The Nation as a reliable source on Taheri? Please. Be serious, now.
Posted by: Tom Bowler | April 11, 2008 at 06:38 AM