I'm pretty sure that a portrait of Grand Ayatollah Khamanei belongs in this picture as well. The ceasefire/truce/whatever was negotiated in Iran, with the full backing of the Iranian government.
So if you are keeping score at home, you can add this one to Israel v. Hezbollah in June 2006 to make it Iran 2, Bush administration 0. And thousands dead all around.
Yeah, I think Sadr won by not losing. Maliki was talking crap, and had to eat his words.
And was the truce worked out in Qom? Iran? Wow. American influence down the crapper in a big way.
Big propaganda windfall blown away. Can you imagine if Maliki had put Sadr on the run, and how the Petreaus hearings this month might have gone? Judging from all the crowing Bush did last week, even a marginal victory would have had them all pounding their chests and ape dancing on the tables. But as it stands, there will probably be only a prolonged unannounced period of silence about the matter. And then bush will find some way to unceremoniously beat Maliki sensless with a bag of oranges.
anna:
"prolonged unannounced period of silence about the matter..."
You sum it up well. Maliki has become a "heckuvajob" unperson. Expect personnel changes in the Mesopotamia provincial administration soon. (Not too soon, mind, but in a few weeks, when the cameras of the Imperial capital are aimed elsewhere. And announced on a Friday afternoon, of course.)
The stunning part of this whole adventure is that it seems that Mqlqki really did launch this without the US being involved. Otherwise US troops would have been waiting in reserve to prop up the Iraqi Army when it stalled. Sadr's boys were fighting an existential battle while the Malaki/Hakim crew were just fighting to make their bosses richer. Sadr survives to fight another day. That is the best he could haxe hoped for and must be seen as a victory for him.
As to who really won big? Why that is simple: Iran.
Yup.
Iran won this. Bigtime.
This sort of thing has happened before. Recall who the winner of the 30 Years War was? Yeah, France.
Steve was telling us years ago that al Sadr was going to come out on top in the internal power struggle. That seems to be exactly the way this is playing out. But the big winner is Iran.
Here is Peter Galbraith's review of Trita Parsi's "Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States": The Victor?.
This piece was dated almost six months ago.
You didn't need to be clairvoyant in order to figure out how this was going to fall out.
Ordinary common sense and a grasp of the rudiments of European history would have done just fine. Nobody in the Regime seems to have had the smallest bit of either.
any one supriesed that iran won again...they have played us big time from day one...jesus the guy who got us to go into iraq and get sadam in the first place was an iranian agent. the score board should read iran 3 us 0
"Ordinary common sense and a grasp of the rudiments of European history would have done just fine. Nobody in the Regime seems to have had the smallest bit of either."
''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
The reality-based community, we fools who studied history judiciously, saw this coming years ago.
Every day we're in Iraq brings us closer to the conclusion that Dick Cheney was a sleeper agent for Iran all along.
No.
Curveball didn't get us into Iraq, and neither did Chalabi.
They simply told the Bush regime what they knew it wanted to hear. That's all. If they hadn't done this, the regime would have found somebody else who would have.
They exploited the gullibility, criminality, and voracity of the Busheviks like the good con-men they were. Chalabi expected more out of this than he actually got: he wanted to be installed as the US puppet himself.
I'll bet Chalabi is counting his blessings from Allah that he didn't get installed as puppet dictator right now. Because during the endgame, Maliki is going to go into exile if he steps nimbly enough. Otherwise, he's going to the wall or he's going to swing.
The events of the last week show as clearly as needs be that Maliki's position in Iraq isn't tenable. The cops in Basra were photographed handing over their arms in return for Korans and olive branches. Jesus. Just how graphic does this have to be?
Maliki's people had to win this fight. This was make or break for him. They broke. They never even came close enough to success to glimpse it briefly. They never had a chance.
All that's left for Maliki is a poor man's endgame. He decamps, very quietly and with maximum deception until he's completely clear of the killing floor. Or he dies.
Stormcrow's last post is right on the money. Maliki basically went in to the fight because at the end of the day, he hadn't much choice if he wanted to keep power after the election. Now he's toast.
Like Hezbollah - or Obama on super-Tuesday, for that matter -, Sadr just had not to lose big to win the day.
And Iran wins as well - I mean, the truce was brokered by a general of the US-outlawed paramilitary wing, recently labeled as terrorists.
As Steve said, the US is just spending billions of $$ and thousands of US lifes - not to mention a million of Iraqis - to make Sadr the next ruler of the country.
He's been right all along.
Also reminds me of one of the original Iraqi bloggers, though I forgot if it was Salam Pax or his friend Raed Jarrar, who said right after Saddam's fall that the true challenge, the biggest obstacle to US occupation and vassalisation of Iraq was Sadr. This was in April or May 2003.
Stormcrow; you misunderestimate the effect that having the winner of the purple-fingered-ecstacy lottery disappear, would have on the republican's "we're finally winning!" chorus.
It will be out of tune. :o)
Maliki needs to go through another election, and be "democratically" expunged; not from being quietly forced out of office by bush, or at the point of a Saigon-style coup.
Besides, who is bush going to put in?
I think the notion of bush bestowing the purple on a strongman to try to deal with Sadr is nonsense, at this point.
The fall elections loom large. If Sadr wins most of the power in Basra province, as is likely, then what is bush going to do, if he starts tightening the handle on the oil spigot? The Fadhila's have it, just now, I read, but if Sadr gets the "democracy" imprimateur, he can claim the right to dinosaur-control, and back it up with force which, it just became evident, can only be countered by U.S. bodies taking to the streets of Basra. And the other cities that we now know, will rise up sympathetically, with the Mahdis.
It was also instructive that when bush went begging to the Brits to put THEIR troops back in the streets of Basra, to cover his legacy-ass and John McCain's political ass, they told him to go shit in his hat. :o)
Their contingent went from 5500 to about 4100, in a matter of a few months. It went very quietly, but it WENT.
With Sadr's militia controlling large swathes of Basra, the incentive to keep sneaking the Brit troops out of the airport, will be increasing.
And every one that leaves, will ratchet up the pressure on bush a little.
Brown is trapped between trying to placate the majority of his country men who want their troops home NOW, and not wanting to be seen as cutting and running. But his military is having more and more of a say in this, and the sight of YouTube clips in which the Brit military spokesman in Basra was at pains to say that there were NO British troops fighting in Basra, spoke volumes about time running out for bush to have at least a token British presence to point to, in the south.
As the Brit drawdown continues, Brown can talk about leaving "advisers" and staying the course all he wants, but the militias in Basra will know when the combat capability of what was left of the coalition of the rented, is gone. And if bush wants to protect the oil fields down there, and that Kuwait-to-Baghdad lifeling, the only way to do it will be with american troops, in the middle of an election in which John McCain and the republicans are running around prattling about how we're winning.
Gonna be a hell of a 7 months. And longer, I'd bet.
stormchrow. i think you misunderestiamte what Chalabi did. true he didnt' have to push bush very hard (i was hearign right winngers talk abotu needign to "go get sadam" as early as 9
. what he did do was push teh media (spicaly the NYT and judy). the right wing wanted this war, chabali got the liberal hawlks to give them cover..all while feedign the right bad intel to ramp up the action faster.
From day 1 the only winner in this war has been iran, chabali had a lot to do with that.
That December, 2003 photo of Chalabi shaking hands with Khatami, a shit eating smile on his face, told any American who followed the news: "you've been punked, bi-yatch!" That's right, Mr. Real 'Murkin Bush supporter, he's looking at YOU.
Of course, most of us in the reality-based community knew this was going to be a disaster that would work in Iran's favor long before. But how stupid did one have to be to keep supporting the war past that point? Stupid enough to vote for Chalabi's main marks a year later, I guess.
OtD:
How stupid does one have to be to keep supporting this war?
This is how stupid you have to be. That was March 30th. Today, they have this.
Some folks are just too fond of the neocon delusion to draw the obvious conclusions from facts as they are. Winds of Change is an eternally-renewing source of asshattery. Obviously there's some intelligence over there, but their capacity for being wrong on everything is just amazing.
Whoops. Screwed up the second link.
Here it is: More on Basra.
Apologies to all and sundry.
Oh, hell.
Here.
Maliki may have acted on his own, but I kinda doubt it. Cheney visited Maliki in Baghdad in mid-March. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/r...3/
20080317.html
"With calm restored in Basra, Iraqis ask 'Who won?'"
IRAN.
Iran has just expanded its influence in the region. The US invasion and occupation made the Shia powerful, to the point where the fighting over Iraq's future is done by the Shia in the government who are blatantly Iran's puppets and agents (Hakim and the Iranian puppet Maliki) ably supported by the United States military assets in country ("Long live the Iranian-American alliance in Iraq!") and the Shia of the al-Sadr bloc who see themselves as Iraqi patriots and nationalists first (demonized on US TV "news" for consumption by stupified American idiot audience).
http://americangoy.blogspot.com/...n-
soldiers.html
"This is how stupid you have to be."
Very true. Willfully stupid enough not to understand that sometimes an "offer" is in fact a demand or ultimatum. And far too stupid to wonder why an American MSM outlet would choose the word "offer" over the other two.
Also too stupid to understand what "contrarian" means, unless he was looking in the mirror. 
Tanbark...not so fast on that British "withdrawal" from Basra...looks like it got the kibosh...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/
20080...0NcS_37yRAUewgF
Sounds like Gordon Brown got a desperate call from the Chimperor...
Seeing Iran as a winner is, I believe, a mistake. Sadr is not an Iranian client and in his interview with Al Jazeera on Saturday, he specifically warned Iran to keep their noses out of the fight. Sadr's movement is made up of the Iraqis who did not flee to Iran when Saddam was in power but instead stayed and struggled. They have no love for Iran and many remember well the Iran Iraq war.
It's very important for us to watch out for western, US centric analyses of what happens in Iraq - and to buy the Cheney admin view that Iran is the key instead of a nationalist force fighting for its own interests.
It would have been Maliki - personally trapped in Basra, with his top security advisor killed and his pal Hakim who asked Iran to negotiate a way out ... the negotiation led to Sadr's restatement of his original demands and Maliki caving.
Did the US know in advance - but of course, and it looks like Cheney - in his meetings with Maliki and Hakim shortly beforehand - likely gave the OK (and encouragement) to Maliki and Hakim to take out Sadr since all three (Cheney, Maliki and Hakim) are concerned about Sadr gaining more power in the upcoming provincial elections - elections which Cheney was pushing Maliki and Hakim to ok since they are needed for US political reasons. So the deal makes sense as Cheney saying "you must approve provincial elections - but you can first wipe out Sadr to protect yourselves - and us"
US forces were actively involved on the Maliki Hakim side ... more than 60 air strikes were flown in support of their forces on each day of the uprising (with resulting civilian casualties) and US Special Forces were fighting alonside GZG forces.
This was not a skirmish between Maliki and Sadr but an attempt to defeat and destroy Sadr ... and Cheney/Maliki/Hakim lost.
Siun,
Iran's ultimate goal is to annex the shiite region of Iraq, including all the major shrines, into a Greater Iran. Maliki and Hakim are their point men in this effort. Sadr was working against this goal through his ideology of Iraqi nationalism. A second Iranian goal is to keep the US in Iraq until Iran is able to develop nuclear weapons.
Iran won this round because the price Sadr had to pay to survive is to fall in step with Iran's larger political goals.
As for Cheney's visit, it was for Maliki to ask US permission as the Iraqi Army cannot operate on their own. Iran's President ordered the operation during his visit in early March
Siun,
Hakim is already an Iranian client. His "superior" Maliki is a Shiite who has a choice of two patrons in his search for power: the U.S. or Iran.
As for Sadr, he keeps his movement alive by alternately appealing to Shiite religious fanataticism as much as nationalism, and then leveraging the resulting violence to gain concessions from Maliki and Hakim. As kevin de bruxelles notes, gaining those concessions requires some give and take, and the "give" usually involves something helpful to or approved by Iran.
Ultimately, what the current situation comes down to is a power struggle between three Shiite Iraqi politicians. When the U.S. drops out, Maliki either ends up on a helicopter, dead, or staying on to become a creature of Hakim's and Iran's most craven yes man (something he's been well trained for by the US occupation).
Then it becomes a fight between Hakim and Sadr, running alongside the larger ethnic/religious civil war. If Hakim wins, Iran essentially has its owned and operated client state. If Sadr wins, he'll still need Iranian support to defeat or hold off Sunni and perhaps Kurd insurgents, so he'll eventually be in the Teheran's pocket, too (because the U.S. won't be helping him). If they form an alliance, it'll only be with Iran's approval and support.
Iran, with the help of the Cheney administration, has thus made it almost impossible for itself NOT to become a regional power to rival the Saudis. They may not annex or occupy SE Iraq, but one way or another, they'll be calling the shots there.
After that, watch what happens as the U.S. fails to prop up the House of Saud (just as it failed with the Shah), Arabia gets a Sunni (or even Wahhabi) religious government, and the bloody power jockeying between the two Islamic "republics" really begins.
Bart; Saw that. Big hairy deal. Check back in two months. :o)
They weren't talking about the hundreds that were slipping out of the Basra airport each month over the past three-plus months, either.
At this point, Brown is trying desperately to NOT appear to be leaving, at the same time he IS leaving. Any statements about the Brits left in Basra are trying to cover both ends at once.
Bottom line: the Brits know what's coming, and they're extremely reluctant to throw any more troops into the meatgrinder to cover junior's ass. Very little chance of that changing. :o)
Commenting by HaloScan
