Iraqi Army, Sadr militia clash in Basra
posted at 7:57 am on March 25, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The Iraqi Army has moved to establish central-government control of the southern city of Basra after the British pullout ignited a turf war between the Badr Brigades and Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army. The Mahdis have resisted with force despite orders from Sadr to stand down, and four people have been killed in action this morning:
Fierce clashes between Iraqi security forces and militiamen loyal to radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on Tuesday killed at least four people and wounded 18 in the southern city of Basra, police Major Abbas Youssef told AFP.
“They were killed in clashes in the northern Al-Mawana neighbourhood of Basra,” Youssef said.
The fighting broke out early on Tuesday between the Mahdi Army militia and Iraqi forces as the government launched a crackdown on armed groups in Basra, which is a engulfed in a turf war between rival Shiite factions.
British military officials said Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was in Basra to personally oversee the major security force sweep in Iraq’s second largest city, but that British troops were not taking part.
Sadr’s organization already has issued a statement asking for a negotiated peace. They know that they cannot defeat the Iraqi Army, even if Sadr decided to fight all out in Basra. The Mahdis have never really represented a military threat to either the US or trained Iraqi forces; their only victories came against green IA units in the first days of their reconstitution, four years ago. The Mahdis are nothing but a gang with military pretensions, and Sadr knows that better than anyone else.
The Sadrists want to blame this clash on the Iraqi central government, but Nouri al-Maliki had little choice. The Mahdis and the Badr Brigades have been fighting a gang war for control of southern Iraq, and the central government had to put an end to it to demonstrate that their writ runs in all of Iraq. Sadr should have gotten a clue when Maliki quarterbacked a political deal between the central government, the Kurds, and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council that runs the Badr Brigade last summer. The writing was on the wall, but Sadr apparently didn’t bother to read it.
Maliki himself has come to Basra to show that the Baghdad government intends on restoring order in the South. That sends a powerful message of confidence to the Shi’ites who found themselves stuck between the warring militias. It also sends a message to Iran that they backed the weak horse in Basra. The defeat of the Mahdis will also boost the confidence of the Iraqi Army, which has gone into a significant engagement without robust assistance from Western forces for perhaps the first time.
Some news outlets act as though this negates the surge, and shows Iraq on the brink of heightened hostilities. However, Basra had always awaited a final reckoning, and the longer Maliki waited, the worse it would get. This will test the Baghdad government’s control over the entirety of Iraq and bring the province in line after it slipped from Maliki’s control last year. It doesn’t negate the surge but shows how the surge allows Maliki and the elected government to enforce a rule of law and displace the gangsterism that had engulfed Basra.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















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 thought the Brits handed Basra to the Iraqis after establishing peace, law and order there.
Nothing can be more perfect than a waving Queen.
Indy Conservative on March 25, 2008 at 8:10 AM
I’m sorry all of this is making me a bit verklempt. Talk amongst yourselves. I’ll give you a topic. The Mahdi Army is neither led by the Mahdi nor an actual army. Discuss.
BohicaTwentyTwo on March 25, 2008 at 8:12 AM
so when the surge is working it doesnt matter because its still american troops, but when the IA is taking over it negates the surge /headexplode
so glad we have a media that can explain all this nonsense
pmoshields on March 25, 2008 at 8:18 AM
True, but names are important in gang culture. Think of The Bloods or The Latin Kings. Mahdi Army is a decent gang name, and let’s face it, Mookie’s Kids sound like they need a telethon, not RPG’s.
Now the question is, are the Dems smart enough to take a positive outcome here, if and when one comes, and declare that the Iraqis can handle security for themselves and we need to get out immediately? One hopes they’re too busy destroying each other to take the time to destroy any progress in Iraq.
trubble on March 25, 2008 at 8:24 AM
Every time I see a picture of Sadr I for some reason see a bullseye on his forehead, and I think taking advantage of it is far overdue.
Maquis on March 25, 2008 at 8:41 AM
I must have missed seeing this in the news where they have discussed the implications of leaving Iraq too soon.
faraway on March 25, 2008 at 8:50 AM
good on maliki :thumbsup:
trailortrash on March 25, 2008 at 9:08 AM
Sadr’s presence fit well into the old Iraq…not so much with this democracy business. He’s the guy that doesn’t realize that the party is over and you just want to clean up…he’s still on the couch drinking your beer while you start making a big fuss over cleaning. Ridiculous.
blankminde on March 25, 2008 at 9:09 AM
One of the problems the US had is that we didn’t take out Sadr 3 years ago
billhedrick on March 25, 2008 at 10:26 AM
The IA doing exactly what it should be doing, just the way we trained them to do it. Cool!
Next stop Tehran!
The Opinionator on March 25, 2008 at 10:32 AM
We should have squashed Al Sadr’s “army” when we first went into Iraq. Instead we stood back and let the corrupt Iraq government try to make peace with him. They forgot it takes two to make a peace but only one to make a war.
TooTall on March 25, 2008 at 11:00 AM
BohicaTwentyTwo on March 25, 2008 at 12:11 PM
The entirety of Iraq? Including Sunni and Kurdish territory?
MB4 on March 25, 2008 at 12:27 PM
“If you kill ‘em… He won’t learn nothin’!”
Jim Carey as the Joker.
Sadr now is neither a martyr nor a leader. He has been revealed to be an inept contemptible hack for the iranian mullas. If we had taken him out, perceptions may be much different. As it is, he is nothing, which for megalomaniacs, is a fate worse than death. IM-ABH-O
Swinehound on March 25, 2008 at 12:36 PM
So Sadr asks his former followers to stand down and they don’t . Isn’t it obvious that he lacks effective control over ‘his’ militants and they now work under new management… .
Funny how this war is turning out. The Iranian leader lands in Iraq and gets the big welcome and makes a big public speech while US leaders visit secretly.
lexhamfox on March 25, 2008 at 12:51 PM
I agree with you. That’s why I said his “army”, not Al Sadr. Nothing more patetic than an “inept contemptible hack” without an army in the Middle East.
TooTall on March 25, 2008 at 2:13 PM
I`ll take a guess the Dems will use this as a “see, they can handle it, let`s bolt” moment.
ThePrez on March 25, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Comment pages: