"You have your democracy and we have our Islam. Now get out of our country."
~ Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr
Although in recent months Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has stunned the West by insisting on a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces, he remains if not the puppet leader the Bush Administration wanted, little more than the Mayor of the Green Zone.
Iraq does not actually have any viable government or leadership. Despite the false illusion of growing stability as portrayed by American propaganda, Baghdad remains one of the most dangerous cities in the world. Iraq itself sits as a time bomb ready to fraction into at least three distinct states, one Kurdish, one Sunni Arab and one Shi’ite Arab. Of course this is nothing anyone who has followed the events in Iraq does not know.
The presence of US military forces provides the loose glue that appears to hold the country together. But it’s all smoke and mirrors. The US occupation is also the main element preventing Iraq from developing any form of viable stability. It’s more like trying to reattach a severed head with a band-aid for the TV cameras.
The Neocon movement, the White House and John McCain continue with their idiotic delusions of "victory" as if magically one day the people of Iraq will lay down their arms and shower US troops with the flower petals they so rudely neglected to provide after the fall of Saddam Hussein. That’s as likely to happen as Brett Favre winning the Nobel Peace Prize… or another Super Bowl ring.
Big Oil has returned to Iraq. As such, let Big Oil deal with the Iraqis as best they can. Certainly if both parties are making a profit, without the presence of US forces gunking up the works, the motivation to resist will fade away to a small handful of hotheads.
Is an Iraq in a state of perpetual chaos, and thus totally incapable of any military adventurism, the goal of a handful of paranoid Zionists? If so, has the US been duped by our "friends" in Israel into providing that "security barrier" free of charge but at massive US expense?
Is the US afraid Iran will swoop into Iraq and steal the oil profits away… or the "glory of victory?" Foolish paranoia. Iranians will be no more welcomed as "liberators" than the US forces have been. Iran may try to intervene under the guise of security, stability or maintaining peace only to inherit the quagmire of dead troops and bankruptcy.
Sorry Uncle Scam, your adventure has been a total failure, just as has George W. Bush’s Presidency and Nancy Pelosi’s mandate to impeach. The huckster Ahmed Chalabi was not crowned "president" of Iraq as originally intended. Nouri al-Maliki has proven to show more backbone than expected… or desired by the Bush kingmakers. "The surge" is a complete illusion of order as Iraq could explode at the drop of a falafel.
So who really runs this country without a government called Iraq?
Silly question. No one runs Iraq. Like Lebanon before it, Iraq runs Iraq. A more apt question is who has the most power in Iraq? Now we’re getting somewhere.
There is a simple answer; Shi’ite cleric Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr holds the keys to power in Iraq. As the son of the popular Grand Ayatollah Sadeq al-Sadr who was murdered… or martyred if you prefer… along with other influential members of the al-Sadr clan by Saddam Hussein, Muqtada commands great respect amongst the Iraqi Shia. He is a link to Iraqi dreams of liberation… yes liberation… from under the iron thumb of the US-backed dictator Saddam Hussein… or the occupying US forces. As the most popular man in Iraq he heads the largest and most powerful militia, the Mahdi Army.
Dare I remind Gentle Reader of the wording of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution?
Amendment II
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Love him or hate him, Muqtada al-Sadr commands a well regulated militia for the very purpose of providing the security of a free state… free from foreign occupation… the US.
A strict nationalist, al-Sadr has far outsmarted the US leadership by simply refusing to play their game. He has identified the opposition not as Sunni insurgents, Kurds, other Shi’ite militias such as the Badr Brigade or even official Iraqi security forces. Al-Sadr sees the enemy as the US military occupiers. If there is relative calm in Baghdad these days, it is thanks to al-Sadr’s cease-fire orders, not the "surge."
During the early days of the occupation the Mahdi Army had been linked with the ethnic cleansing of Sunnis in predominantly Shi’ite areas. They have put up fierce battles with US and Iraqi forces. At times the US military has considered the Mahdi Army as the biggest security threat in Iraq over and above the Sunni al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Hence they’ve earned a certain reputation for ruthlessness. However, as al-Sadr’s control over the Mahdi Army as strengthened, the MA has become more disciplined. Ethnic cleansing has dropped off.
On of Friday, August 8th, Muqtada played another ace card. With orders to the bulk of his Mahdi Army to disarm he in essence instructed al-Maliki’s "government" to stand tough on the issue of a timetable for US withdrawal. A vague "time horizon" is a meaningless device to stall for as long as possible. Muqtada, like al-Maliki and the vast majority of Iraqis, wants the US out. A "time horizon" is unacceptable.
Of course, Muqtada’s disarmament is all contingent upon such a timetable for US withdrawal. Al-Sadr has been speaking softly but carries a big stick. Behind his disarmament instruction lays a veiled threat of much more violence. Just how ugly can the Mahdi Army make things if al-Sadr chooses to release the hounds?
And what will the disarmed members of the Mahdi Army do? According to Sadrist spokesman cleric Mudhafar al-Moussawi: "Weapons are to be exclusively in the hands of one group, the resistance group," while another group called Momahidoun is to focus on social, religious and community work.
Interesting. Is Muqtada al-Sadr setting up an alternative government in Iraq? It seems so. Are we seeing an evolution in Iraqi government towards a system similar to the Iranian system where there is a popularly elected but largely powerless political branch and a ruling religious branch with Muqtada al-Sadr as the future Supreme Leader?
This may be the inevitable outcome and it may not be a bad thing for the Iraqis. Although, it is far from what the United States (regardless of who is president) and Israel would consider "liberation" or ideal to their interests.
It may also be possible that with US withdrawal, Iraq will explode into a real civil war that could easily continue into some distant "time horizon" set by various warring factors in the manner of Lebanon’s endless fighting. It would be prudent for the US to stay out of such a conflict… for a change.
Nevertheless, it would be wise for the US and al-Maliki’s government to set a timetable for withdrawal now… like immediately, tomorrow. It will have to be set eventually. The US can no longer afford a permanent military occupation of Iraq. And "victory" is meaningless rhetoric.
Al-Sadr and al-Maliki may be willing to agree to such a timetable; however, such gradual withdrawals often end up falling apart. One minor incident, a Humvee getting blown up for example, and the timetable could be turned over in a fit of rage. At other times gradual military withdrawals are simply more illusions perpetrated upon an ignorant and gullible public. The occupying forces could easily bring a token percentage of troops home under a grand fanfare while keeping the bulk of their forces ensconced in permanent military bases out of sight and ready to deploy at the whim of a tin star decider.
The White House and Pentagon could easily fool the American public and remain in Iraq. It’s happened before. It could very easily happen again.
