Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Totten: Next door to the Mahdi Army

posted at 10:18 am on August 15, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Another good one, filed from the same Baghdad neighborhood, in fact, that was the subject of his upbeat piece a few weeks ago about how the surge was pacifying (parts of) the city. This one’s bleaker. It opens at an American base which oddly hasn’t come under mortar attacks from the locals. I’ll leave you to follow the link to find out why. Here’s the meat of the piece:

I asked several people what might happen if Moqtada al Sadr was pulled out of the Iranian orbit and flipped to the American side, as the tribal leaders of Anbar Province have been brought around to the American side. Sadr would still live in fear of Saddam Hussein if the Americans never arrived and destroyed the old government. A peaceful coexistence of some sort is at least theoretically possible if he can be peeled away from Iran with money and promises.

“I think the reason the U.S. hasn’t killed Sadr yet is because they are trying to flip him to their side,” said Hammer. “All it takes is money. It’s all about money money money for these guys. He has only 16 percent support among the Shia. I am a Shia. I know lots of Shia in Sadr City who hate and fear him, but he has lots of power and influence.”

“If we flip Sadr Iraq might very well reach a tipping point,” Master Sergeant Tyler told me. “The war might be all but technically over. But there would be some blowback from the Sunni side at first.”

How would flipping Sadr constitute a tipping point, though, unless you were prepared to pay him off forever, long after we’ve withdrawn? Totten compares the Mahdi Army to Hezbollah but he might also reasonably have compared them to a mafia family. If they stand to control Iraq’s oil revenue after we’ve left by liquidating their opponents, why wouldn’t they do so?

The answer, maybe, lies in this clip. Ware makes the point that top priority for Bush right now is simply being able to leave the country with it intact, not necessarily in a condition that will ensure its ultimate survival (which Ware very clearly is pessimistic about). Maybe that’s what Tyler meant: flipping Sadr might provide a temporary peace among all parties which at least would give them a chance to reconcile fully, however unlikely it is that that might happen. Seems self-delusional but it’s the best we can do. Note Ware’s point about Anbar, too, and how tenuous is the “flip” that’s happened there. Petraeus is reportedly thinking of pulling troops out of there, possibly to redeploy them to other hot spots inside the country. Quote:

In a news conference last month, Marine Maj. Gen. Walter E. Gaskin, the commander of U.S. forces in Al Anbar, cautioned against cutting back forces there too quickly.

Gaskin argued that the added forces had allowed the Marines to eliminate havens used by the insurgent group that calls itself Al Qaeda in Iraq.

A “persistent presence” of U.S. forces, he said, would help give Iraqi security forces more experience and confidence, and the ability to keep militants out.

“It takes time to gain experience,” he said. “I see that experience happening every day, but I don’t see it happening overnight. I believe it’s another couple of years in order to get them to do that — and that’s not a political answer, that’s a military answer.”

Right, it’s not a political answer. Which brings us to Ware.

Update: A new study released today in Germany says it’s federalization or bust.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages:

I have no interest in us “flipping Sadr”. He’s an enemy and it’s far past time we took him out of the picture. Actions have consequences, of course, but this is a war, his army is fighting us, get it over with.

CP on August 15, 2007 at 10:34 AM

The cleansing that Ware is referring to is sectarian, not ethnic. It’s Sunni vs Shia and vice versa, not Arab vs Persian or some other ethnicity, and most outlets have consistently failed to report, it’s fueled by al Qaeda as part of the late Zarqawi’s strategy to foment civil war. It bugs me when reporters get the most basic facts in their reports wrong, and casts reasonable doubt on everything else they say. He may well be right about everything else that he reports, but inaccuracy in the little things doesn’t bode well for accuracy in the big things imho.

If he’s right, then the problems in Iraq point to a partition to settle them once al Qaeda has been crushed or driven out. And there are problems with that, too. But the logic of the alliances we have formed with former insurgents does make sense: Drive out the foreign enemy that everyone now hates, then deal with internal problems.

Bryan on August 15, 2007 at 10:35 AM

The cleansing that Ware is referring to is sectarian, not ethnic.

Yeah, but I’ve used those two interchangeably in my posts as well. I don’t think anyone thought he meant Arabs versus Kurds.

Allahpundit on August 15, 2007 at 10:37 AM

This turd will find doom with anything. If you gave him a chocolate ice-cream cone he’d bi*ch about it melting.

TheSitRep on August 15, 2007 at 10:41 AM

What do you expect from CNN whose founder, Ted Turner, cannot decide on whose side he is for in the Iraq war? Keep in mind that CNN is NOT an American channel, it is an international channel by their own admission.

volsense on August 15, 2007 at 10:43 AM

What “terms that the Baath party offered 4 years ago, and had to wait for America to be battered into submission” is Ware talking about?

Pablo on August 15, 2007 at 10:47 AM

Allahpundit on August 15, 2007 at 10:37 AM

I’m sure no one here thought that, but you’d be surprised what people in the CNN audience do think about the fighting in Iraq. To the extent that they know anything about it, most probably assume that it’s the US vs Iraq and that the fighting is ethnic, when it’s based on religious difference and al Qaeda really is the main bad guy. Misreporting key details doesn’t help clear up basic confusion.

The thing is, the sectarian nature of the conflict points in two directions that one the one hand could solve it, but could also make it last forever. On the solve side, we now have Sunnis fighting Sunnis (insurgents vs al Qaeda) and on the side of Shia (the bulk of the Iraqi army) against al Qaeda. If they get used to that alliance, reconciliation is possible and it might be stronger than if it came from the top down (which doesn’t even seem possible at this point). But on the other hand, the Sunni/Shia divide is nearly as old as Islam itself and has been the source of wars for centuries.

Bryan on August 15, 2007 at 10:47 AM

But the logic of the alliances we have formed with former insurgents does make sense: Drive out the foreign enemy that everyone now hates, then deal with internal problems.

It also has the added benefit of keeping them from shooting at us and us from shooting at them.

Pablo on August 15, 2007 at 10:49 AM

If al Qaeda is, in fact, the accellerant, and you remove the accellerant by cutting deals with part of the insurgency, can’t you work on moving some of the insurgents to participating in a legal way in the society and having the society deal with the remaining insurgents in a law enforcement way? Isn’t that one of the goals of COIN as outlined in the Army Manual?

1-3. Political power is the central issue in insurgencies and counterinsurgencies; each side aims to get the
people to accept its governance or authority as legitimate. Insurgents use all available tools—political (including
diplomatic), informational (including appeals to religious, ethnic, or ideological beliefs), military,
and economic—to overthrow the existing authority. This authority may be an established government or
an interim governing body. Counterinsurgents, in turn, use all instruments of national power to sustain the
established or emerging government and reduce the likelihood of another crisis emerging.

1-4. Long-term success in COIN depends on the people taking charge of their own affairs and consenting
to the government’s rule. Achieving this condition requires the government to eliminate as many causes
of the insurgency as feasible. This can include eliminating those extremists whose beliefs prevent them
from ever reconciling with the government. Over time, counterinsurgents aim to enable a country or regime
to provide the security and rule of law that allow establishment of social services and growth of economic
activity. COIN thus involves the application of national power in the political, military, economic,
social, information, and infrastructure fields and disciplines. Political and military leaders and planners
should never underestimate its scale and complexity; moreover, they should recognize that the Armed
Forces cannot succeed in COIN alone.

What am I missing here?

bnelson44 on August 15, 2007 at 10:52 AM

I’d like to flip Sadr. The flip him the bird, that is.

Bigfoot on August 15, 2007 at 10:52 AM

So the troops are having little effect and it is deal cutting that is having the greatest influence.

What an idiot.

csdeven on August 15, 2007 at 10:52 AM

Oops, make that “Flip him the bird, that is.”

Bigfoot on August 15, 2007 at 10:53 AM

Gotta love his smerking

bnelson44 on August 15, 2007 at 10:57 AM

This turd will find doom with anything. If you gave him a chocolate ice-cream cone he’d bi*ch about it melting.

TheSitRep on August 15, 2007 at 10:41 AM

Exactly. Maybe he’d be more positive if he finally got that nose put in the centre of his face.

Aylios on August 15, 2007 at 11:13 AM

Ware is the drunk dude. Not credible.
He is a BDSer.

Stormy70 on August 15, 2007 at 11:17 AM

Fascinating report. Fascinating and enlightening…

“A lot of the people around here are Sadr supporters,” said Sergeant Lizanne. “But they’re also pro-coalition. I don’t really understand how that works.”

Don’t ask me to explain it. Moqtada al Sadr is an enemy of the United States. His militiamen kill or at least try to kill Americans every day elsewhere in Baghdad. How anyone in Iraq could support both him and the Americans is beyond me.

Here’s a part of the answer I think:

“What can I do?” he said. “No one can stop Jaysh al Mahdi. They live in the 16th Century. Everyone I know in Sadr City hates Moqtada al Sadr, but they can do nothing. Many people want the Americans to invade.

”What if the US assaults Sadr City?” I said.

“We would all love that,” he said. “Everyone except the Mahdi Army would love that. Every single person I know hates Moqtada al Sadr.”

“Even Saddam was better than Jaysh al Mahdi,” he said. “They treat everyone bad. Americans treat us good. Sadr does not. They say Americans rape our women. They lie. It is just propaganda. Americans have plenty of women. Jaysh al Mahdi rapes our women for real. They are animals. But soon enough their day is coming.”

They don;t think we’ll be there and so they have to hedge their bets. You’d have to be very courageous or crazy not to.

Now the real question is why haven’t they gone into Sadr city?

* Fear of high casualties?
* Hopeful they can cut a deal and get out of Iraq altogether?
* Some strategic reason tied to Iran?

I wish I knew…

TheBigOldDog on August 15, 2007 at 11:18 AM

PS – It’s also possible they just don’t have the manpower

TheBigOldDog on August 15, 2007 at 11:19 AM

The CNN audience is exactly what I was thinking about. The more times Cooper can pound “ethnic cleansing” into their heads, the more it will be used in lefty bumper sticker arguements.

oakpack on August 15, 2007 at 11:20 AM

Stormy70,

I was wondering if he was drunk during the interview. He seemed like it. Just a feeling I got while watching him. That and he seemed to be hyperventilating. Is that normal for him?

bnelson44 on August 15, 2007 at 11:21 AM

Or maybe the fear of leaving the proverbial large footprint. (on Sadr’s head)

oakpack on August 15, 2007 at 11:25 AM

Now the real question is why haven’t they gone into Sadr city?

* Fear of high casualties?
* Hopeful they can cut a deal and get out of Iraq altogether?
* Some strategic reason tied to Iran?

I wish I knew…

TheBigOldDog on August 15, 2007 at 11:18 AM

That should have lead off my last post.

oakpack on August 15, 2007 at 11:27 AM

Michael Ware has a serious pattern of working while drinking heavily. On an interview with Bill Maher he said, ” I have been given a front-row seat to watch this slow motion-train wreck. I try to stay as drunk for as long as possible while I am here. In fact, I’m drinking now.” If you can’t believe a drunken elitist lemming telling you how evil and rotten our country is then what other sources are out there.

Google: IS MICHAEL WARE CNN A DRUNK

volsense on August 15, 2007 at 11:41 AM

Why would anyone in their right mind ever completely side with America in a situation like this? You know sooner or later they are going to bug out leaving you holding the bag getting yourself and your whole family killed. Now there is even a journalists in the UK saying that’s exactly what you deserve because you’re a traitor. The real heros are the insurgents. Why wouldn’t you at the very least hedge your bets?

Now I’m depressed…..

TheBigOldDog on August 15, 2007 at 11:43 AM

Now I’m depressed…..

TheBigOldDog on August 15, 2007 at 11:43 AM

Guess what, man? That is exactly the reaction the media wanted from you. Don’t give in to despair here. That is what they want. That is why they keep pounding and pounding and pounding with negative reports and focusing on nothing but negative, even though there are positive trends to be found everywhere.

Don’t give up hope. Keep the pressure on our politicians and keep supporting our men and women over there.

Even if everything seems lost, it is our responsibility, nay DUTY, as Americans to keep up our support and not focus on the negative.

Imagine how well your children would do in school if at every turn, no matter how much they were progressing, you only focused on the negative of their education. Always pointing out their mistakes and weaknesses and all the obstacles, etc. After a while, your child would just want to give up, because they were not getting positive reinforcement of their success and just getting beaten and battered for every mistake.

The only reason the situation in Iraq is not better right now is because of the withdrawal and give-up and retreat and surrender talk that has been parrotted by the Democrats, the Treasonous media and the Left for years now. The Iraqis and our enemy hears all that, just as the North Vietnamese heard it during Vietnam. It gives our enemies hope and dashes the hopes of the Iraqis who want to believe America is with them this time.

We cannot give up. We cannot despair. I don’t care what bad news is coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan, I am supporting this effort and our men and women to the end, because failure is NOT an option here. You don’t get in a war unless you intend to win it.

I didn’t see anyone here give up when things seemed bleak with regards to Amnesty. People worked damn hard to make sure that did not go through. Why aren’t people working just as hard to make sure our government does not give up on this war? Do people believe in the importance of this war effort as much as they believed in the importance of stopping amnesty? From some comments here the last few months, it sure doesn’t seem like it.

Michael in MI on August 15, 2007 at 11:56 AM

From Bill Roggio’s latest:

Peterson also told the academy officers the names of a couple of books that he said commanders should be required to read before taking over a Shiite area of operations (the main ones were Col. T. X. Hammes’ The Sling and the Stone, about the new generation of insurgencies, and The Closed Circle, about the mafia, which the colonel said had helped him understand the Mahdi Army’s operations).

This was the Closed Circle I found on Amazon, not really about the mafia, but tribal traditions.

bnelson44 on August 15, 2007 at 12:14 PM

Michael in MI on August 15, 2007 at 11:56 AM

I agree. I’m not giving up but I think I understand where these people are coming from. They can’t risk siding with us until they know we are “down for the struggle” and the Left in this country wants to once again prove America can’t be counted upon. That our word and sense of obligation is worthless. That hurts our ability to take the fight to the enemy unless and until they so damage us we are forced to fight on their terms rather than our own….

TheBigOldDog on August 15, 2007 at 12:17 PM

TheBigOldDog on August 15, 2007 at 12:17 PM

I get that completely, TBOG. I know that is the problem we are facing right now. My issue is that we are allowing the naysayers to speak for us. And, on top of that, some people, including many here at HotAir, are starting to throw up their hands and just give in to the naysayers. I just don’t get that. This is war. And we cannot just throw up our hands and give up.

I don’t believe that enough people here understand how much WE, American civilians, are a KEY part of this war effort. And that WE, American civilians, have a KEY effect on the political solution and military solution in Iraq. So goes the support and the attitude of the American people, so goes the war effort. The Iraqis are doing their jobs, the Coalition military is doing their jobs. But, WE, the American people are failing.

I go back again to the grassroots efforts of this blog and Michelle Malkin to inspire and put a boot in the @sses of the American people to stop Amnesty. Where is that with regards to the war effort? All I see here lately is people giving up and focusing on the negative and people losing hope and losing will to bother to affect this war effort.

That needs to end.

People need to start reading the Military Blogs and get their heads out of the politics and the media reports and start listening and reading to what the embeds and the soldiers are saying. For every 1 negative thing happening in Iraq, there are tens, maybe hundreds, of positive things happening all over the country.

And I go back to my analogy of helping children learn. You don’t encourage a child to learn by doing nothing but focusing on the negative or just throwing up your hands and saying, forget it, my child, you are hopeless, it’s too hard, I give up. No, you understand the goal is to help this child learn. Period. There is no giving up. There is no just throwing up your hands and saying it’s hopeless. You continue on and try different ways of helping the child learn. You point out the negatives ONLY so as to make sure they understand their weaknesses and can work to improve themselves in those areas. And then you focus on their many, many successes and progresses to encourage them to keep learning and keep trying and keep pushing on.

And then you tell everyone you know, family and friends, about all the progress and success that your child is making in school to help them develop pride in themselves and then have an even bigger support group from their family and friends to help them continue learning.

We American civilians don’t need Boot Camp or a COIN manual to understand what our role is in supporting this war effort. It is as basic as helping our children to learn and succeed. If we all treated our military men and women and their efforts in the same caring and encouraging way we would help our children to succeed, we would succeed in this war effort.

WE, American civilians, are the key to success in this war. The enemy feeds off our lack of will and our lack of support for the war effort. And the Iraqi people are encouraged or discouraged by the same from us. As Michael Yon noted in his last dispatch, the Iraqi people have full faith in the American military, but have no faith in the American government. Well, guess what? The American government responds to the American people. The American people rose up to tell the government to stop Amnesty. Are WE, the American people, going to again rise up to tell the American government to continue supporting this war effort?

Those people who did their all to stop Amnesty, but are not doing the same to support this war effort, I’d like to know why.

Michael in MI on August 15, 2007 at 12:34 PM

Michael in MI on August 15, 2007 at 12:34 PM

Agreed 100%. I’m glad you’re around.

TheBigOldDog on August 15, 2007 at 12:59 PM

“Because They Don’t Shoot At Us”

We’re going to turn them into American haters if we abandon them.

TheBigOldDog on August 15, 2007 at 2:11 PM

I can’t watch that guy.
What is with his nose?

dc84123 on August 15, 2007 at 2:21 PM

“I think the reason the U.S. hasn’t killed Sadr yet is because they are trying to flip him to their side,”

I still say kill him because he needs to be dead. On the other hand, doing it this way may save a lot of innocent lives that would be lost trying to take him out. On the other other hand, those lives might be lost anyway by leaving him in power. Which brings me back to my first point.

JackOfClubs on August 15, 2007 at 4:08 PM

I can’t watch that guy.
What is with his nose?

dc84123 on August 15, 2007 at 2:21 PM

I’m sure that, in his lifetime, he’s been beaten about the face and neck, quite a few times. It’s kinda like a trainwreck, you don’t want to look at that honker, but you can’t help yourself.

OhEssYouCowboys on August 15, 2007 at 5:12 PM

Ware’s nose doesn’t grow by length with he lies. It gets more curved.

He seems to be on every side of the issue when it comes to Iraq. We shouldn’t withdraw because there would be a blood bath he said in recent weeks. Before that, Ware commented that the Coalition is losing.

Now that the surge IS working, he says the indicators are down because there are less potential victims.

Hence, the increasing swerving nose.

Captain America on August 15, 2007 at 7:58 PM

Comment pages:


You must be logged in to post a comment.