The mainstream press is reluctantly coming around to a new reality on Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's decision to disarm the Shiite militias. A month ago operations against the Mahdi Army were said to be botched, succeeding only in boosting Iran's influence in the region. A supposed Iran-brokered cease fire between the Iraqi security forces and the Mahdi Army was described in press reports as a huge setback for Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki.
The Qom discussions may or may not bring an end to the fighting but they almost certainly have undermined Maliki - who made repeated declarations that there would be no negotiations and that he would treat as outlaws those who did not turn in their weapons for cash. The blow to his own credibility was worsened by the fact that members of his own party had helped organize the Iran initiative.
The media were quick to discount al Maliki's credibility. They presented an ineffectual and powerless al Maliki, insisting that his fight will continue until the militias are disarmed, while members of his own party separately negotiated a cease fire. Recent events have contradicted the media version, however. Although it began in Basra a month ago, fighting continues even now in the Sadr City section of Baghdad.
April 28 , 2008: After a month of fighting, the Mahdi Army has disappeared from the streets of Basra, the largest city in the south. The army and police are everywhere, and people are providing information on where Mahdi Army personnel are hiding out, and the locations of their weapons caches. Up north, in the Sadr City section of east Baghdad, the Mahdi Army is still fighting hard. But the army and police have the upper hand, and are pushing the Shia militiamen back block by block. Mahdi Army leader Muqtada al Sadr has responded by threatening to order his men to go after American troops if the government does not back off... He recently ordered his troops to stop fighting Iraqi soldiers and police, and concentrate on the Americans. The Iraqi security forces have not reciprocated, and continue coming after the Mahdi Army.
Elements of the press see Moqtada al Sadr, the anti-American Shiite cleric, as the key player on whom the future of Iraq depends. According to their story line, it was al Sadr's call for a cease fire last August that was most responsible for the decline in violence in Iraq -- not the Petraeus troop surge. Recent reports treated al Sadr's threats of all out war as the greatest danger to the Iraqi democracy. He later qualified his threat, saying it applied only to U.S. led forces. In any case, though, no one but the media seems to be paying any attention to Moqtada.
Clashes between the Mahdi Army and US and Iraqi forces continue in northern and eastern Baghdad over the weekend despite a call by Muqtada al Sadr for his fighters to cease attacks. US air weapons team killed seven Mahdi Army fighters in Sadr City on Saturday and early Sunday morning while the Mahdi Army attacked a police patrol in the Sha'ab neighborhood and launched mortars at the International Zone. Meanwhile, an Iraqi general has said Iran is involved with arming and training Shia terrorists to conduct attacks in Iraq.
Today, the press has finally come around to the notion that Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's exercise of military power against the Mahdi Army has translated into a solidification of his political power.
BAGHDAD — The fortunes of Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have received an unexpected boost from his initially botched offensive against militias in Basra, which has turned into a standoff between al-Maliki and the Shiite Mahdi Army militia.
The showdown is recalibrating the political balance in Iraq in ways that could help break the deadlock that has stalled progress on key measures including a new oil law and the broader issue of national reconciliation.
Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds have rallied behind al-Maliki's insistence that the Mahdi Army loyal to hard-line cleric Moqtada Sadr must disarm, creating a rare consensus among most of the factions constituting Iraq's fractious parliament.
The main Sunni bloc, the Iraqi Accord Front, which pulled out of the government nine months ago complaining about al-Maliki's performance, is now saying it will return, lending hope that Iraq's malfunctioning government can finally get to work.
"It was a very bold step of Maliki's to take on these militias, so we have to say he's doing a good job," said Salim Abdullah, the spokesman for the Sunni bloc, which blames the Mahdi Army for many of the sectarian killings of Sunnis in recent years.
The boost in political support among Iraqis for the al Maliki government is matched In Washington by resignation on the part of congressional Democrats. They are impotent to end the war. This combination may prove to be the final straw that breaks the insurgency.
House Democratic leaders are putting together the largest Iraq war spending bill yet, a measure that is expected to fund the war through the end of the Bush presidency and for nearly six months into the next president's term.
The bill, which could be unveiled as early as this week, signals that Democrats are resigned to the fact they can't change course in Iraq in the final months of President Bush's term. Instead, the party is pinning its hopes of ending the war on winning the White House in November.
Bay Area lawmakers, who represent perhaps the most anti-war part of the country, acknowledge the bill will anger many voters back home.
"It's going to be a tough sell to convince people in my district that funding the war for six months into the new president's term is the way to end the war," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, a leader of the Out of Iraq Caucus who plans to oppose the funding. "It sounds like we are paying for something we don't want."
By funding the war all the way through the first six months of the next presidency, congressional Democrats hope the bill will preclude high profile confrontations between Congress and President Bush that may hurt them in November. Those are confrontations the President is expected to win. While this will not entirely remove the Iraq war from election politics, it will relegate it the back pages of the nation's newspapers which could make it an issue of lesser importance for many voters.
There is another possible unintended consequence to this strategy. It may very well improve prospects for electing a Democratic president, but it may also reduce the chances for ending the war in a manner acceptable to congressional Democrats. Forcing the Iraq war off of the front pages denies the insurgency an important weapon -- a forum for their message. Reduced exposure to American news consumers means a hampered ability to convince voting Americans that the U.S. cause in Iraq is lost, and that is the insurgency's only real hope for avoiding defeat.
Should the Democrats pass their bill, Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki will have a year of U.S. support in which to draw the noose tighter around the Mahdi Army and tighter around al Qaeda in Iraq. In a year's time the Iraqi Army and the Iraqi Police will continue to grow and continue to improve. In a year's time these operations against the Mahdi Army will likely prove to have been pivotal. In a year's time the war may be over for Americans for all intents and purposes.
For Democrats, however, it is not enough to merely end the war. The only acceptable outcome for Democrats is an American defeat which would translate into a repudiation of President George W. Bush. Their new funding bill and the rise in al Maliki's political fortunes lengthen their odds.
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 04/29/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
Posted by: David M | April 29, 2008 at 12:32 PM