Patrick Cockburn on Muqtada al-Sadr

Muqtada al-Sadr: the white clothing indicates that he expects martyrdom and is prepared for it

Patrick Cockburn, author of a new book on Iraqi Shi'a leader Muqtada al-Sadr, describes him in this article, Warlord: The Rise of Muqtada al-Sadr Independent 04/11/08, which is an excerpt from the book.

It's also good to see Cockburn's work appear in the Los Angeles Times, A cleric, a pol, a warrior 04/12/08.

Cockburn's Muqtada: Muqtada Al-Sadr, the Shia Revival, and the Struggle for Iraq was released this month. It's a "life and times" biography of the Iraqi Shi'a leader that gives some very helpful background on the recent history of the Iraqi Shi'a and their relationships to Iran.

In the LA Times piece, Cockburn talks about the recent attempt by Al-Maliki's government to crack down on JAM (Muqtada's Mahdi Army):

The [I]raqi government has decided that the moment has come to crush the Mahdi Army and the followers of Muqtada Sadr once and for all. Despite its failure to eliminate his militiamen in Basra at the end of March, the government, with American backing, is determined to try again, according to senior Iraqi officials.

It is a dangerous strategy for both Prime Minister Nouri Maliki and the U.S. Sadr remains one of the most powerful and revered leaders of the Shiite community -- and the Shiites make up 60% of Iraq. What's more, the 34-year-old Sadr is not exactly the mercurial "firebrand" or "renegade" cleric portrayed by journalistic cliche-mongers; rather, he has repeatedly shown himself to be a cautious and experienced political operator. (my emphasis)

His book offers a plausible explanation for this disconnect in the standard perception of Muqtada's capabilities. His father was an important Shi'a political leader, who was murdered along with Muqtada's brothers under Saddam. Muqtada was the youngest son. Cockburn suggests that he deliberately created a public reputation for himself as not especially capable as a leader in order to be able to survive inside Iraq.

But he has clearly shown since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 that he is a shrewd political operator and a capable leader. The fact that he's a leader of death squads who have committed terrible atrocities is something no one should forget. But he's not simply a hothead or a figurehead for his movement. Cockburn continues in the LA Times article:

What makes Sadr different from other Shiite leaders, and gives him credibility among the Shiite masses, is that he opposed the U.S. occupation from the beginning. When the U.S. invasion overthrew Hussein, Sadr said that "the big snake has succeeded the small snake." He pulled his followers out of the Iraqi government in 2006 because Maliki would not condemn the occupation. He also became increasingly reliant on Iran in the face of U.S. hostility.

The once impressive political unity of the Shiite community is now collapsing. Maliki (who is a Shiite) and his small Dawa Party, along with his main ally, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, believe that they can isolate the Sadrists and, with American help, marginalize them before the October provincial elections in which the Sadrists were expected to do well. The long rivalry of the Sadr family and the Hakim family (the founders of the Supreme Islamic Council in 1982) has once again exploded. The U.S. may come to regret taking sides against the Sadrists in this intra-Shiite feud. (my emphasis)

Iran is clearly supporting both the Sadrist JAM as well as the governmental Shi'a party's, primarily the SIIC (formerly SCIRI), which is the main governmental party and the partner of the also-savage Badr Brigade militia, although Al-Maliki himself is associated with the Dawa Party.

Cockburn says of the current moment in Iraq:

Ever since the battles for Najaf four years ago, Sadr has tried to avoid direct military confrontation with U.S. military forces. He has agreed to truces and cease-fires, and two weeks ago, he even called his militiamen off the streets in Baghdad and Basra when they seemed to be winning.

But for the Iraqi government, those clashes were only the first round in a battle to crush the Sadrists as a political and military force. Going by past experience, Sadr will try to arrange a compromise to avoid the destruction of his movement. But if he is forced to fight, the U.S. will face a whole new front in the war in Iraq.

The fact that Sadr's JAM militia mostly held back from attacks against Americans during The Surge helped the escalation to show a decrease in violence by the end of 2007. Surge partisans can even argue with some plasibility that JAM's stand-down during that period was in response to the surge.

But focusing too much on momentary talking points can hide the meaningful trends. It make good strategic sense in 2007 for JAM to let the US and its new Sunni friends in the Awakening Councils fight the nastiest of the Sunni extremists, "Al Qa'ida", as the administration and the generals like to call them. But except for the wilfully delusional (Fred Kagan, for instance), the fight over Basra, Baghdad and other cities in the south showed the political strength and improving military performance of Muqtada's movement.

This article, U.S. Cites Planning Gaps in Iraqi Assault on Basra by Michael Gordon, Eric Schmitt and Stephen Farrell New York Times 04/03/08, shows the US trying to distance itself from Maliki's assault on Basra, which proved to be a military and political disaster for the Shi'a government in the Green Zone. Note that the reporter listed first is Judith Miller accomplice Michael Gordon, who can usually be relied upon to give the Pentagon's preferred version without much pretense of journalistic vetting. I approach news articles with Gordon in the by-line the same way I approach Pentagon PR releases from Defense Department Web sites.

Tags: iraq war, muqtada al-sadr, patrick cockburn

Iraq War: "Mookie" calls for April 9 protest

Crusaders from the old days

Following up on yesterday's post, I see that "Mookie", Muqtada al-Sadr, head of the Mahdi Army or JAM, is calling for public (and presumably non-violent) protests on April 9: Sadr lambasts US for Iraq woes The Peninsula Online (Qatar)AP 03/31/07. AP reports:

Radical cleric Muqtada Al Sadr issued a scathing attack on the United States yesterday, following one of the country’s bloodiest days, blaming Washington for Iraq’s troubles and calling for a mass demonstration on April 9 — the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad. ...

Al Sadr’s statement was his first since March 14, when he urged his supporters to resist US forces in Iraq through peaceful means. Al Sadr has been said by US and Iraqi officials to be in Iran, but his aides insist he is still in Iraq. The latest statement was read to worshippers during Friday prayers at a mosque in Kufa.

"I renew my call for the occupier (the United States) to leave our land," he said. "The departure of the occupier will mean stability for Iraq, victory for Islam and peace and defeat for terrorism and infidels." Al Sadr, whose Mahdi Army militiamen fought US troops in 2004 but have cooperated with an ongoing US-Iraqi security push in Baghdad, blamed the presence of US forces for the rising violence, lack of services and bloodshed. (my emphasis)

The highligted portion of that quote does not mean that Muqtada's fundamentalist JAM are nice people. They aren't. It does mean in the current situation, where the US is backing the Shi'a-dominated government against the Sunnis in their counterinsurgency and civil war, Muqtada and JAM have an interest in seeing the anti-Sunni fighting succeed so far as it can for now.

Rationality often goes out the window in wars, though. If enough Shi'a continue to be killed by Sunnis, Muqtada may decide it's no longer worth playing it safe and become more actively involved in violent action again.

The invaluable Juan Cole adds some details at his Informed Comment blog post of 03/31/07:

Shaikh Abd al-Hadi al-Muhammadawi read out the sermon in the Kufa Friday Prayers Mosque. Muqtada demanded that US troops leave the country "even if the American Congress were to decide they should stay in Iraq." He insisted, "The issue of whether US troops should remain in Iraq depends on the Iraqi people, and no one has a right to extend their stay or to demand that they remain."

He added, "The departure of American forces from Iraq at the present time will bestow security on Iraq, represent a victory for peace, and mete out defeat to terrorism." He called on the Iraqi people "to fly the Iraqi flag above their homes and buildings and government offices to signify Iraqi sovereignty and independence."

He also pressed on all sections of the population "the necessity of letting the entire world hear that Iraqis reject the occupation."

He criticized "what has befallen Iraq during the Occupation, including tyranny, despotism, and the shedding of the blood of innocents." He complained about the lack of health and city services."

He added, "The Occupiers did not content themselves with all this, but also isolated Iraq from the Arab and Islamic worlds" and he accused the US, saying "they have proved able to sow the seeds of sectarian and ethnic conflict among Arabs and others, including between Arabs and non-Arabs among Muslims and others." He called on the people of Iraq to aid Iraq and to stand with it. (my emphasis)

One aspect of Muqtada's Shi'a movement that is important to remember is that, while friendly to Shi'a Iran, it does not have the strong ties to Iran that its larger coalition partners in the Iraqi government, the SCIRI and Da'wa, have long maintained. Muqtada's movement has also been notable for its Iraqi nationalism, emphasizing the need to preserve Iraq as a unified country.

Al Jazeera also reports on Muqtada's statement: Al-Sadr calls for anti-US protests 03/30/07. April 9, the day on which he called for demonstrations, is the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad. They report:

The Iraqi Shia leader in a statement on Friday also renewed his call for an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

"Fly Iraqi flags atop homes, apartment buildings and government departments to show the sovereignty and independence of Iraq," al-Sadr said in the statement.

"[Show]that you reject the presence of American flags and those of other nations occupying our beloved Iraq," he said.

Tags: iraq, iraq war, juan cole, mookie, muqtada al-sadr

Are 'Mookie's boys" escalating in Baghdad?

This photo accompanies a story in the military paper Stars and Stripes. (Photo: Monte Morin/Stars and Stripes)

It's full caption reads:

An Iraqi woman walks her children past a group of U.S. soldiers with Company C, 1st Battalion, 8th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division in the southeastern Baghdad neighborhood of Obaidy. The 1-8 CAV is currently attached to the 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division.

The story itself is about Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army (JAM) in Baghdad, and it uses a common soldier's nickname for Muqtada: Mookie’s’ boys make troops take notice by Monte Morin Stars and Stripes 03/30/07. Morin writes:

The music said it all - Mookie’s boys were back in town.

U.S. Army Capt. Bruce Beardsley and his civil affairs team had barely stepped from their Humvees in this dust-blown quarter of New Baghdad recently when a bank of speakers stacked beside a tattered market began blaring a Mahdi Army militia chant.

"It’s their version of Psyops (psychological operations)," said Beardsley, a 38-year-old reservist and Maryland police officer.

Morin reports that, after laying low elsewhere, Muqtada's JAM is "flowing back into eastern Baghdad’s sewage-scented sprawl." Morin's reporting implies without exactly saying so that JAM is starting to make increased attacks on American troops. And he reports:

At the same time, Sadr has made recent statements renouncing his call for peace at the start of the security plan.

"News of the surge freaked everybody out," Beardsley said of the militiamen.

"They thought it was going to be a Saddam-style surge and that we would kill everybody. Instead, it was an American surge."

Since Morin uses that last quotation to explain what he's describing as a failure of the McCain escalation (The Surge), it's ambiguous at best as to whether Beardsley and/or Morin is saying that the difference between "a Saddam-style surge" and "an American surge" is considered a good thing or not.

In any case, it's far more likely that JAM has been deliberately avoiding clashes with American troops not because they expected the Americans to practice genocide in the Shi'a parts of the city but because they were happy to have the Americans stomp the Sunni guerrillas to the extent they could and thereby help their side in the civil war. Muqtada's political bloc in parliament, after all, is voting with the Shi'a-dominated government.

Juan Cole wrote at his Informed Comment blog on 03/18/07:

Thousands of followers of Muqtada al-Sadr demonstrated on Friday against the new security plan, and one of his lieutenants read out a message calling for non-cooperation with the United States. This was not, as some reports suggest, a call to arms. Muqtada knows that his Mahdi Army cannot fight the US military in a conventional, head-on way. He has only called for such almost suicidal missions when he felt that his own life and the survival of his movement were put in danger by US officials determined to kill him, as in April-May, 2004. Muqtada has ordered his militiamen not to violently confront the US, as WaPo pointed out. Al-Sharq al-Awsat reports in Arabic that Muqtada said in his statement that the people of Sadr City (Shiite East Baghdad) should decline to cooperate with the US because its forces "are trying to besmirch its reputation by upholding false allegations and rumors that there are negotiations and cooperation between you and them." He added, "I am sure that you consider them your enemies ... for the enemy of God is inevitably your enemy." It sounds to me as though Muqtada is embarrassed about the degree of cooperation recently between his movement and the US, and he wants at least publicly to distance himself from the US and the security plan, without having to do more than issue a communique. (my emphasis)

I don't know if the Stars and Stripes report was referring to these stories from around two weeks ago, or if there was new information in terms of Muqtada's "recent statements renouncing his call for peace at the start of the security plan", to which Morin refers.

Morin's article contains some hopeful talk about improving security in the Shi'a parts of town and more cooperation with the Americans. We've heard this kind of talk for over four years now.
Tags: iraq, iraq war, muqtada al-sadr