That said, I think the best way to describe Iraq right now is "unstable." Not that that's a big change, but the instability is more obvious and on a sharper point. It's like having a pile of dishes balanced on top of a narrow stick: As long as you react in just the right way to the small changes, you're okay. But the effect of one slip will be magnified dramatically and the result will be very loud and very messy.
Or, if you're of a more scientific bent, it's like the butterfly effect in chaos theory, where a very small change here and now can lead to a catastrophic change there and then.
In the south, Moqtada Sadr, perhaps realizing he tried too much too soon (or perhaps having expected a mass uprising and not getting it), has pretty much retreated to his headquarters in Najaf. Under pressure from leading Shiite clerics, he withdrew his forces from police stations and government buildings they had occupied in Najaf, Karbala, and Kufa.
(I also suspect that, as I suggested last week, the prospect of his forces being "ground down ... by the sheer mass of the overwhelming ... firepower they face" figured in this decision.)
It would seem, if the goal really is to put an end to the conflict, an opportune moment to press that advantage - not the advantage of arms, but the advantage of Sadr having backed off.
One way would be to note the success of negotiations so far. The clerics who contacted Sadr not only got him to pull back his militia, but to drop his other initial demands, which were for
the cessation of all military operations, U.S. withdrawal from all Iraqi cities and release of all "innocent detainees."He "is now ready to negotiate without preconditions," said an aide.
Then, note that those same clerics also assured Sadr that they were opposed to a US attack on Najaf, home to the holiest Shiite site, the Imam Ali Shrine. That shrine is a short distance from Sadr's office, and any strike at him carries a grave danger of damaging it. Respond to the clerics' concern by saying the US has no intention of undertaking any action that would harm such a holy site. Even play a bit of psyops, suggesting that Sadr is "hiding" there precisely because he knows the US military won't risk damaging the shrine.
Most importantly, be prepared to negotiate. Stop living the macho fantasy that negotiations are a sign of weakness or failure. Perhaps as a sign of good faith, offer to let him reopen his newspaper (the closing of which was a proximate cause of the current mess). Bluntly, Sadr is at least for the moment a player, and it's foolish to pretend otherwise. Moreover, refusing to deal with someone that Sistani is prepared to deal with, is insulting not only to him and his followers, but to the rest of the Shiite community.
(An indication of how important appearances can be in this is that Sadr insists he's not negotiating with US forces.
"Negotiations have been held through groups and parties. I do not negotiate with anyone who kills my people, the people of Iraq."We would consider that a distinction without a difference. He doesn't and neither, I suspect, do others.)
But what do we get instead?
The top U.S. commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, said "the mission of U.S. forces is to kill or capture Muqtada al-Sadr."This is madness. Right now Shiites are seriously split on Sadr, with even the support being not so much for him personally as for the demand for an end to the occupation. But one damned misplaced shot in Najaf could inflame the entire Shiite community, including the top clerics, who so far have kept their distance from him. It would turn this recently-small-time fanatic in the personification of Shiite pride and desire for independence.
As of now, there are some 2,500 US troops, backed by tanks and artillery, surrounding the city and
al-Sadr militiamen appeared to be preparing for a fight, moving into buildings and onto rooftops on Najaf's outskirts, said Col. Dana J.H. Pittard, head of the ... U.S. troops amassed outside the city....(Sidebar: To his credit, Pittard seems much more aware of the delicacy of the situation than Sanchez, saying "We've got to get this right" because screwing up will anger "the whole Muslim world between Morocco and Indonesia.")
Sadr, for his part is talking like he's preparing for some kind of martyrdom, no doubt spurred on by Shrub's declaration the US military is prepared to use "decisive force."
"I fear only God. I am ready to sacrifice my blood for this country. But I call on the Iraqi people not to let my killing put an end to their rejection of the (U.S.) occupation," al-Sadr told Lebanon's Al Manar television station.Another danger of the US posture is that if Sadr becomes convinced that the intention is to kill him, he may take action to provoke the reaction that will produce the martyrdom he has come to expect. A fanatic is bad enough. A desperate person is bad enough. A desperate fanatic is ten times worse. And we are on the verge of creating one.
Meanwhile, in the north, the not-ceased-fire in Fallujah is falling apart, if indeed it ever actually existed.
Fallujah, Iraq (AP, April 14) - U.S. warplanes and helicopters firing heavy machine-guns, rockets and cannons hammered fighters in the besieged city of Fallujah, and the commander of Marines here warned Wednesday that a fragile, often-shaken truce will not last much longer.It seems everyone is anticipating things will get worse before they get better (whatever "better" means under these conditions):
Marines and insurgents were fortifying their positions in preparation for more fighting.This after what has already been the bloodiest month - certainly for Americans and very likely for Iraqis - since the invasion began. And it's not even half over.
In abandoned homes a few blocks into the city, Marines punched bricks out of walls to make holes through which to fire, and knocked down walls between rooftop terraces to allow movement from house to house without descending to the street. They spread shards of glass across doorsteps to hear the boot of an approaching insurgent.
Insurgents were also organizing. Gunmen were believed to be digging tunnels under the houses they hold to allow them to move without being targeted by Marine snipers, Marines said.
I saw an interesting comment on a website the other day to the effect that "we can admit now that Iraq was a mistake and get out with 500 dead - or we can admit it in a few years and get out with 50,000 dead." That's obviously not what could be called a complete peace plan but it does in a general way approximate my own feelings. In yet another Vietnam echo, "out now" is not a viable slogan if only because it's physically impossible, but "set the date" is.
I promise to expand on this within a day or two.
Update: Today's (i.e., Wednesday's) New York Times reports that
the day after a delegation sent by some of the most powerful Shiite clerics appealed to him to avoid a showdown, [Sadr] also hinted at a face-saving compromise, saying he was ready to "implement any order" issued by the religious establishment. ...Maybe my powers of prediction aren't so bad, after all.
A spokesman for the clerics who met with Mr. Sadr on Monday, Ali Adnan, told the BBC that a tentative deal had been struck.
Mr. Adnan said that if the Americans agreed not to send forces into Najaf, and not to seek the immediate arrest of Mr. Sadr on the pending warrant, which charges him with complicity in the April 2003 murder of a rival cleric, Mr. Sadr would agree to dismantle his militia. ...
[In response, US] officials emphasized disbanding the Sadr militia; on the murder warrant, they were evasive, suggesting that was a matter for an Iraqi judge, a position some Iraqi leaders believe could allow the warrant to be deferred until after June 30.
Update April 15: Edited to clean up a confusingly-written paragraph.
Posts
