All you can do when caught in bovine feces is to change the topic! Hokay...
Iraqi Militias Feeling Pushback
By Sharon Behn and Sara A. Carter
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080412/FOREIGN/561785141/-1/RSS_FP
Tribal leaders in southern Iraq are starting to push back against Iranian-supported militias in Basra, cracking their hold over the economically crucial province, Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker said yesterday at two separate roundtable interviews with reporters.
The militia led by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr "is something that has to be dealt with," said Gen. Petraeus at a meeting with reporters at the Pentagon.
"The population has turned against the militia in most areas in Basra. Interestingly, it has turned against them in a number of areas in Baghdad as well," the top U.S. commander in Iraq said, though he cautioned that turning against the militias does not necessarily mean that the population "will act on it."
Mr. Crocker said he had returned from a recent visit "sobered by the extent ... the militias had free rein in Basra."
The U.S. envoy added that he got "an earful" of complaints from southern sheiks about the behavior of the militias, who are believed to be influenced and supplied by Iran.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki "tapped into this" frustration and the Iraqis now are "standing up tribal lines as contract security forces" to help battle the Shi'ite militias, Mr. Crocker said, although he did not say whether these tribal forces had participated in the battles in Basra in the last two weeks.
Meanwhile, in the Shi'ite holy city of Najaf, gunmen yesterday killed a senior aide to Sheik al-Sadr, a pro-Iran cleric who nominally controls militias from Basra to Baghdad that are clashing with U.S. and coalition forces.
The aide, Riyadh al-Nouri, was killed as he drove home after attending prayers. Authorities in Najaf immediately announced a citywide curfew and deployed security forces on the streets, the Associated Press reported.
The cleric's office issued a statement in which Sheik al-Sadr promised he would not "forget this precious blood" but urged his followers to "be patient," called for "an investigation [to] punish the criminals. We call upon all political and religious groups to work toward ending the killing of clerics."
But still, Sheik al-Sadr blamed the killing on "the hands of the occupiers and their stooges reaching out traitorously and aggressively against our dear martyr."
Gen. Petraeus, who called the al-Nouri killing a "cause for significant concern," said he did not know the "basis" for Sheik al-Sadr's statement, as the U.S. has no forces in Najaf and it "is under provincial Iraqi control."
"I'm sure that there will be pledges to bring to justice whoever it was that carried out this murderous action," he said, adding that he also expected "rapid efforts among the leaders of the different parties to communicate with each other and to work together to preserve the calm that has prevailed in Najaf."
He added that this is "an act that we condemn, as do all other Iraqi leaders and coalition forces."
Mr. al-Maliki, a Shi'ite, condemned "this savage crime" and ordered an investigation "to pursue and arrest the killers," but many of the thousands of mourners at Mr. al-Nouri's funeral later yesterday chanted "al-Maliki is the enemy of God."
The killing came as U.S. troops battle their way into Sheik al-Sadr's Baghdad stronghold of Sadr City and less than two weeks after a showdown between his Shi'ite militias and Iraqi forces in Basra.
Mr. al-Maliki's decision at the end of March to confront the militias in Basra and regain control of Iraq's second-largest city has been praised by U.S. officials. He also won a measure of political support from Sunni and Kurdish groups, and gained credibility from some Shi'ites fed up with the militias' violent street tactics.
Although Sheik al-Sadr is able to rally large numbers of armed supporters, the level of his control over all the militia who claim loyalty to him has been questioned. A U.S. defense official familiar with Sheik al-Sadr said that the sheik has been viewed as "erratic" by both the Iranians and some of his own people.
But he remains an important political figure; his followers walked out of the current Cabinet and still hold a strong bloc in the Iraqi parliament.
"He is a significant political figure, and clearly, if he is willing to work within — we want him to work within the political process in Iraq," said Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.
Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters yesterday he felt Sheik al-Sadr was "somewhat of an enigma" and it was not clear what would happen next.
"I think Sadr clearly is a very important and key player in all this. Exactly where he's headed and what impact he'll have long-term I think is out there still to be determined," Adm. Mullen said.
In 2004, Sheik al-Sadr's followers led an uprising against the U.S. and Iraqi authorities that quickly spread through central and southern Iraq before it was crushed in Najaf. His followers also helped to push the country to civil war with attacks against Sunnis after a Shi'ite holy mosque in Samarra was bombed in February 2006.
Despite the influence and weapons Iran has provided the Shi'ite militias, Mr. Crocker said, Iranians were not going to take over Iraq.
"My sense is the harder they push, the more resistance they encounter," he said at a breakfast meeting with reporters.
President Bush yesterday said he has no intention of attacking Iran but said he would act to protect Americans or Iraqis from Iranian actions in neighboring Iraq.
"The message to the Iranians is: We will bring you to justice if you continue to try to infiltrate, send your agents or send surrogates to bring harm to our troops and/or the Iraqi citizens," he said in an interview with ABC News.
Asked for details on that "justice" meant, Mr. Bush replied: "It means capture or kill, is what that means."
In the same interview, Mr. Bush said the U.S. has no intention of attacking Iran in the dispute over the Islamic Republic's nuclear program. When ABC asked whether it was his intention not to attack Iran, he responded: "exactly." He elaborated that while "I have always said all options need to be on the table my first effort is to solve this issue diplomatically."
The Arab Spring Is Happening Now
The Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, elections in Egypt, reform in Turkey — the democratic promises of 2005 did not fail to materialize. They just took three years to arrive.
by Abe Greenwald
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-arab-spring-is-happening-now/Around this time of year in 2005, the media toyed with a catch phrase to describe the budding signs of democratic reform in states throughout the Middle East. They called it the “Arab Spring,” but it was an unprecedented time for America too. Hawks were downright chipper, aloft in “I told you so” heaven. Liberals were contrite.
None of it lasted. Not the democracy, not the hawk happiness, and not the liberal contrition. In the first category, the setbacks have been numerous and horrifying. As for hawks and liberals, they’ve both spent increasingly less time arguing about Arab democracy and more time arguing about military viability. It’s now assumed by many that the best we can hope for after the heavy loss of blood and treasure is a lessening of the carnage and a staggered exit from the region, politics be damned.
This will soon change.
The famed and failed Arab Spring of 2005 was, I think, only delayed—and is due to arrive right about now. There are several recent indications that what many thought was happening in the spring of 2005 is occurring in 2008, but in a slightly different form. In fact, with sharia being rejected in Iraq and embraced in, say, London, it seems the “Arab spring” may work out just fine; it’s the Western fall that we have to worry about.
Three years ago, even the harshest critics of America’s democratic mission in Iraq were acknowledging the possibility that the War had set a kind of political reformation in motion. The Toronto Star’s Richard Gwyn, for example, declared, “It is time to set down in type the most difficult sentence in the English language. That sentence is short and simple. It is this: Bush was right.”
The evidence was compelling. Iraqis had just participated in their first general elections since the U.S. invasion, sticking a purple thumb in Ba’athism’s eye; Afghanistan—Afghanistan!—saw the election of its first female governor; Saudi Arabia put together municipal elections that bore a passing resemblance to the workings of consensual governance; and Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak passed a constitutional amendment permitting multi-candidate presidential elections. Additionally, there were various regional pro-democracy demonstrations, including a march for women’s suffrage in Kuwait. And after Syrian dictator, Bashar Assad blinked in a stare-down with the advancing forces of reform, and pulled some of his occupying troops from Lebanon, Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt offered, “It’s strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq.”
It’s one thing to hear a member of the Council on Foreign Relations talk about bringing democracy to the Middle East and quite another to hear a man of Jumblatt’s regional credibility praise the U.S. for its effort.
Finally, in the midst of Lebanon’s “Cedar Revolution,” former Lebanese President Amin Gemayel pronounced, “Now with the new Bush administration we feel a stronger determination in liberating Lebanon and in promoting democracy in the Middle East.”
April is of course the cruelest month. The Arab Spring didn’t even endure long enough to earn a Wikipedia entry. One barely needs to recount the dispiriting and bloody turnaround. Iraq fell to sectarian violence and al Qaeda terrorism, and the government lapsed into coma (if not paralysis). Afghanistan got locked into a Sysyphusian stalemate with Taliban fighters who descended from mountains every year to be killed or chased back up by Afghan and Coalition forces. Saudi Arabia’s elections proved to be a kind of PR offering to George W. Bush and achieved a mere handful of quasi-appointments to meaningless offices. When Egypt’s multi-candidate elections arrived, all aspects of the electoral process remained in the hands of Hosni Mubarak—who was reelected. Bashar Assad continued to assassinate Lebanese leaders and support terrorism within Lebanon’s borders, and between that and the diplomatic complications that grew out of Israel’s ongoing conflict with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, that revolution was stopped in its tracks.
It is April again, and you may call me a fool but this time we are likely on the verge of a genuine, if less sexy, Arab Spring—one that will continue to bloom.
Yes, the 2005 case for the Arab Spring was overstated and made too soon. No, this does not mean the case can never be made again. The argumentum ad traditio is after all a logical fallacy. The fight for abolition, for example, failed—until it didn’t. This goes for any number of revolutions occurring throughout world history. There’s no reason not to assume the same when thinking about the struggle for Arab democracy.
To paraphrase Talleyrand, the Arab Spring of 2005 was at once too weak and too strong. It’s now obvious that back then we found evidence for political reform in what proved to be either superficial gestures of democracy or frustrated bursts of the real thing. But today we witness a slow-moving, organic galvanization of the democratic spirit in the Muslim world. We just have to know where to look.
In Iraq today there’s more than a day’s worth of purple fingers to demonstrate citizens’ commitment to statehood and consensual government. It’s been over a year since Sunni Awakening groups first took up arms against Sunni terrorists in Anbar, and the intra-sectarian battle has led to nothing less than the viability of a legitimate Iraqi state. The relative calm allowed the business of government to move forward, and in February the Iraqi Parliament passed three laws vital to the survival of a federalist Iraq: the 2008 budget, an amnesty for many prisoners, and, most crucially, a law outlining provincial powers.
Recently, Iraq has seen fighting in Basra and elsewhere, but properly understood this is also compelling evidence of the Maliki government’s commitment to a pluralistic state. The Shiite Maliki’s willingness to wage war on Shiite militias in the interest of nationhood demonstrates that the country is not the crude sectarian powderkeg many detractors describe. Additionally, a March 4 article in no less an anti-war bastion than the New York Times details how young Iraqis rejected Islamic extremism in favor of a secular approach to law and order and government. This wholesale denouncement radicalism by the upcoming generation is as spring-like as one could dare hope for.
In February elections were held in Pakistan. That country’s most extreme Islamist parties got crushed. With Pervez Musharraf’s power fading and moderate opposition groups such as the Pakistan Peoples Party permitted to run, Islamists went from claiming 17 percent of the seats in the National Assembly to just 1 percent. In the country’s North-West Frontier Province, where Islamist government had proved particularly disastrous, the secular Awami National Party was voted in. The Pakistan election was a massive undertaking with months of genuine campaigning behind it, not a public relations spectacle to be undone when no one’s looking.
Then there’s the curious example of Turkey. Turkey’s ruling AK Party has a confusing relationship with Islamism. It was founded in extremism and today still retains some signs of its roots. However, recently AK Party leaders have proposed the mother of all “clash of civilizations” paradigm shifts: a modernized non-literal reinterpreting of the Quar’an and the Hadith. Here’s the BBC on this development:
“According to Fadi Hakura, an expert on Turkey from Chatham House in London, Turkey is doing nothing less than recreating Islam - changing it from a religion whose rules must be obeyed, to one designed to serve the needs of people in a modern secular democracy.”
Finally, there’s Saudi Arabia. People often claim that the problem with reforming Islam is that there’s no clerical hierarchy that functions like that of the Catholic Church. But, as Mark Steyn has said, Saudi Arabia is doing a pretty convincing imitation of the Vatican of Islam. Which is why the following is so significant. Recently Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah has called for “representatives of all monotheistic religions to sit together with their brothers in faith and sincerity to all religions as we all believe in the same God.” This kind of group-hug interfaith dialogue stuff wouldn’t mean much coming from some good Western liberal, but from the Saudi King—even if it proves to be a PR gesture, it’s not an insignificant one. That kind of talk in a country where the observance of religions other than Islam is outlawed could cost a ruler dearly. Furthermore, the Vatican has confirmed that it’s in negotiations with Saudi Arabia to establish the first Catholic Church inside the Kingdom.
Islamist societies in the Arab world are, somewhat predictably, imploding. Unable to achieve satisfactory levels of governance, services, and safety, radical Muslim leaders are being rejected by citizens who simply want a livable existence. Some politicians see the writing on the wall and are attempting to recalibrate their versions of Islamic rule. Nations such as Iran will find themselves less favored by neighboring democracies and under increasing pressure to bend toward the will of their people. However their weapons programs may necessitate Western military intervention in advance of any such shift.
The only places we’re faced with renewed Islamic radicalization are in the Muslim enclaves of the West. The Archbishop of Canterbury speaks about the inevitability of sharia in England; France is at a semi-permanent boil of ghettoized Islamic discontent; last month a week of cartoon-inspired riots in Denmark was capped off by a (shockingly unpublicized) bomb in Copenhagen; Canada’s courts are clotted either by alleged terrorists or by “human rights” violators who dare criticize the alleged terrorists; and in Lodi, California more and more Muslim families are home schooling their daughters so that they may “clean and cook for [their] male relatives” and also “to isolate their adolescent and teenage daughters from the corrupting influences that they see in much of American life.”
As Qur’anic government has been a demonstrable failure everywhere it’s arisen, the West is becoming one of the last places in which fanatical Muslims are safe enough and comfortable enough to indulge in the decadence of their caliphate fantasies. In the terror age irony supposedly died, but how then do we classify the contention that we’re fighting them “over there” so that we don’t have to fight them over here?
We Must Not Leave the Iraqis Vulnerable
Today's soldiers know history. They know that abandoning their allies is deadly for those left behind.
By MICHAEL HONEYCUTT
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/17563309.htmlLast week I joined more than 40 other Minnesota Iraq and Afghanistan veterans to attend the Vets For Freedom, Vets on the Hill event in Washington. There, we joined more than 400 other Iraq and Afghanistan veterans from around the country to tell our political leaders that not only is victory in Iraq possible, it is necessary. All we ask is that the our political leaders not pull the rug out from under us and, more importantly, out from under the Iraqi people now that real progress is finally being made.
We did not do this because we are Republicans or Democrats. We don't believe that wanting America to win in Iraq and defeat the forces of radicalism is a partisan goal. It is an American goal, and we support any politician, Republican Democrat or independent, who shares that one belief.
That's why Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent, and Rep. Jim Marshall, a Democrat, were on the stage with Sen. John McCain, a Republican. Whatever the situation was in 2003. Whether or not going into Iraq was the right thing to do in the first place. It doesn't matter. That is a debate for history. It's 2008 now, and we have to make decisions based on the reality we have, not the reality we would prefer.
I was on the ground in Iraq for 16 months, and in that time I talked to hundreds of Iraqis. Some didn't like us; some wanted us to leave, but most did not. What they wanted was for America to live up to its word. They wanted us to rid the country of terrorists and militias so that they could live in peace.
They were willing to help us, but they are not a stupid people. They know that if they commit to the American side and the Americans abandon them as we did in 1991, it means death for them and their families. They know this, and it is real. It is not an abstract idea for them.
Most Iraqis don't support Al-Qaida and the militias, but when our commitment to stay in Iraq and finish the job is in doubt -- as it was when Sen. Harry Reid went on TV and said, "this war is lost" -- Iraqis are going to hedge their bets. They may not support the militias, but when they are betting their lives, most of them are not going to commit to America unless they are assured that America is committed to them.
That's why Vets For Freedom supports any politician who supports the mission in Iraq. We -- all Americans, not just Republicans, not just President Bush -- owe it to the Iraqi people to see this through.
This generation of American soldiers saw what happened in Southeast Asia, and we do not want a repeat of the Killing Fields, this time as Sunnis are massacred by Iranian-backed militias. We do not want an Iraqi version of the Vietnamese boat people. Never again do we want to see our allies forced from their homeland because America abandoned them. America has a choice. We do not have to let history repeat itself. This is why I went to Washington last week, and why I am a member of Vets For Freedom.
Our message to Capitol Hill was: "Let them win." My message to you is: "Never again."
Iraq to Seek Parliamentary Approval for Long-Term U.S. Pact
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080414/pl_nm/iraq_usa_agreement_dcIraq will seek parliamentary approval for a strategic agreement being negotiated with the United States even though it expects heated debate over the deal, Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari said.
U.S. and Iraqi officials began talks last month on a strategic framework agreement that defines long-term bilateral ties and a separate "status of forces" deal outlining rules and protections governing U.S. military activity in Iraq.
The issue has become highly charged in Washington, with members of Congress saying it could tie the hands of the next administration by locking the United States into a long-term military presence in Iraq and arguing Congress should give its consent.
Zebari, speaking to Reuters on Sunday, said the first round of negotiations had been completed.
U.S. and Iraqi officials in Baghdad have said they aim to finish negotiations by July, well before the next U.S. president is elected on November 4.
"There isn't any hidden agenda here. This agreement will be transparent, it has to be presented to the representatives of the Iraqi people, the parliament, to ratify it," he said.
"I'm sure there will be some heated political debate when we come to that but I think on the other hand there is a strong will by the mainstream leadership in this country that this is for Iraq's good. We need that continued engagement."
The deal is sure to be rejected by the movement of anti-U.S. Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, which has 30 seats in the 275-member parliament. Sadr pulled his movement out of the government last year over Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's refusal to set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.
The administration of U.S. President George W. Bush has repeatedly said it will keep Congress informed about the negotiations but not ask for its agreement.
Both Republican and Democrat senators said last week they may try to force the White House to seek its approval.
The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, told Congress last week that the deal would not establish permanent bases in Iraq nor specify the number of forces to be stationed in Iraq.
Zebari said both sides hoped to meet that deadline, adding talks would resume soon. The first round was highly technical, he said, without giving details.
U.S. forces operate in Iraq under a United Nations mandate that expires at the end of 2008. Iraq does not want that mandate extended, so the two governments must agree guidelines to allow U.S. forces to remain beyond the end of this year.
Iran Ordered Muqtada al-Sadr to Return to Al-Najaf - Iraqi Sources
By Ma'ad Fayad
http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&id=12412The situation in the city of Al-Najaf has intensified following Friday's assassination of the brother-in-law of Muqtada al-Sadr by unidentified gunmen and while the authorities imposed a curfew in the city for fear of acts of violence, Al-Sadr called on the government "to carry out a fair investigation" of the assassination of Riyad al-Nuri, the director of his office, after the Friday prayers. On its part, the Iraqi Government condemned the assassination and Al-Sadr Trend Spokesman Salah al-Ubaydi said "Muqtada al-Sadr asked the government to carry out a fair investigation and reveal the parties behind the incident."
Unidentified gunmen assassinated Riyad al-Nuri, the director of Al-Sadr's office and his brother-in-law, near his house in Al-Najaf, only two days after Al-Sadr's arrival in the city after having left the Iranian city of Qom "secretly" on the orders of the Iranian authorities, according to statements made by authoritative Iraqi sources in Qom and Al-Najaf to Asharq Al-Awsat. These sources said Al-Nuri led exactly five years ago an armed attack on the moderate Shiite cleric Abdul-Majid al-Khoei, the secretary general of the Imam al-Khoei Foundation, inside Al-Haydariyah shrine. al-Khoei and Haydar al-Rufayi, the official in charge of the administration of the Imam Ali shrine, were killed in the attack which took place only one day after the collapse of former regime.
The Iraqi sources in Qom and Al-Najaf asserted that the Iranian authorities informed Al-Sadr of the need to leave their territories because of the security problems he had caused in Iraq following the armed clashes between the pro-Al-Sadr "Al-Mahdi Army" militia and Iraqi forces in Basra, Baghdad, Al-Diwaniyah, Karbala, and Al-Kut. They added that moderate officials in Iran denounced Al-Sadr's presence in their territories saying that this was causing problems with the Iraqi Government and that "affects the course of relations between Tehran and Baghdad."
Iraqi sources in Al-Najaf said Al-Sadr "arrived from Qom the night before yesterday and stayed at the house of one of his aides, where his supporters were banned from reaching him, after being forced to stay for six months in an isolated house on the outskirts of the Iranian city of Qom."
An Iranian official last week denied that Al-Sadr was in Iranbut Ali al-Adib, a leading member of Al-Da'wah Party told Asharq Al-Awsat that he met him in Qom less than a week ago.
In other news, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh vowed on Sunday that Iraqi forces will battle militiamen in Sadr City relentlessly until the sprawling Shiite district of east Baghdad has been cleared of gunmen.
"We will continue until we secure Sadr City. We will not come out, we will not give up until the people of Sadr City have a normal life," Dabbagh told AFP.
"(The security forces) will do what they have to do to secure the area. I can't tell you how many days or how many months but they will not come out until they have secured Sadr City."
Raging battles between US and Iraqi forces and Mahdi Army militiamen loyal to radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr have killed around 80 people in the impoverished township since Sunday last week, and the army has warned the streets are littered with booby-traps laid by gunmen.
Sadr's movement has accused US forces of being behind the killing, and the cleric lashed out at Robert Gates late on Saturday, saying the American defence secretary will always remain his enemy because he is the occupier of Iraq.
Sadr also urged his fighters not to target Iraqis "as long as they don't help the occupier."
Basra Residents Welcome Iraq Army Crackdown
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jau8cyaqusv7BMEs2SCe0aFbTabAThree weeks after Iraqi troops swarmed into the southern city of Basra to take on armed militiamen who had overrun the streets, many residents say they feel safer and that their lives have improved.
The fierce fighting which marked the first week of Operation Sawlat al-Fursan (Charge of the Knights) has given way to slower, more focused house-by-house searches by Iraqi troops, which led on Monday to the freeing of an abducted British journalist.
Residents say the streets have been cleared of gunmen, markets have reopened, basic services have been resumed and a measure of normality has returned to the oil-rich city.
The port of Umm Qasr is in the hands of the Iraqi forces who wrested control of the facility from Shiite militiamen, and according to the British military it is operational once again.
However, the city is flooded with troops, innumerable checkpoints constantly snarl the traffic, residents are scared to go out at night despite the curfew being relaxed, and the sound of sporadic gunfire can still be heard.
An AFP correspondent said three northwestern neighbourhoods once under the firm control of the Mahdi Army militia of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr -- Al-Hayaniyah, Khamsamile and Garma -- are now encircled by Iraqi troops who are carrying out door-to-door searches.
Two other neighbourhoods once dominated by the Mahdi Army, Al-Qiblah in the southwest and Al-Taymiyyah in the centre, have been cleared of weaponry and many people have been arrested, military officials say.
Residents expressed relief at the improved security.
"I am very happy about the situation right now. The deployment of the Iraqi army has made gunmen and gangsters disappear from the streets," said court employee Mahdi Fallah, 42.
"The gangs were controlling the ports and smuggling oil. Now the ports are back in government hands. Everything in Basra is better than before."
Taxi driver Samir Hashim, 35, said he now felt safer driving through the city's streets and was willing to put up with the traffic jams caused by the many security checkpoints.
"We feel secure. Assassinations have ended, organised crime is finished and armed groups are no longer on the streets," said Hashim.
"I think Basra will be the best city in Iraq," he added optimistically. "We are finally beginning to feel there is law in Basra."
"We feel comfortable and safe and secure," said civil servant Alah Mustapha.
"The situation in Basra is stable. The Iraqi army controls the city and there are no longer armed groups on the streets."
The Iraqi security operations have not been without severe problems, and on Sunday 1,300 police and soldiers were sacked for failing to do their duty during the assault, which began on March 25 under orders of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.
Iraqi military officers have also come under fire from their coalition force allies for launching the operations without adequate preparation, with American commander in Iraq General David Petraeus saying Maliki had disregarded US advice to delay the assault.
But the security forces were given a boost by the rescue of British photographer Richard Butler on Monday two months after he was kidnapped from a Basra hotel.
The journalist was freed when troops from the army's Fourteenth Division raided a house in Basra's Jubaiyia neighbourhood, not knowing he was being held captive there.
The US military, meanwhile, said that since the crackdown began, the Iraqi security forces have arrested some 430 people, including 28 death row convicts who had been on the run.
And the British military, which is stationed at Basra airport giving logistical and air support to the Iraqi forces, said Iraqi soldiers had uncovered large caches of weapons and had dismantled a car bomb factory.
The Sadr movement has bitterly denounced the crackdown, accusing the government of using the security forces to weaken its political opponents ahead of provincial elections due in October.
A similar crackdown is also under way in the Mahdi Army's eastern Baghdad bastion of Sadr City where around 90 people have been killed in clashes between US and Iraqi forces and Shiite militiamen in the past 10 days.
Sunni Bloc Agrees in Principle to Return to Iraqi Government Nine Months after Quitting
By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23972928/Iraq's main Sunni Muslim political bloc has agreed in principle to return to the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki nearly nine months after quitting the Cabinet, lawmakers from the group said Thursday.
A return of the Sunnis would be a boost to al-Maliki, who has struggled to keep together the disparate factions of his government and attempt to reconcile Iraq's feuding Shiite and Sunni politicians.
Salim Abdullah, a lawmaker and chief spokesman for the Sunni Accordance Front, said that after "positive negotiations" with al-Maliki's government, a deal in principle was reached under which the Front would hold five Cabinet posts, in addition to a deputy prime minister position.
The Front agreed to return in part because of the security offensive that al-Maliki launched last month against Shiite militiamen in the southern port city of Basra, said Omar Abdul-Sattar, another Accordance lawmaker.
The operation has targeted in particular fighters from anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, a militia that is hated by many Sunni Arabs, who blame it for sectarian killings.
Abdul-Sattar did not elaborate, but the offensive appeared to have signaled to the Accordance Front that al-Maliki was willing to go after the Sadrists, whose support won him the prime minister's job in 2006.
If the deal is implemented, it would give Sunnis one more Cabinet position than they had previously.
When the Accordance Front withdrew from the government in August, they had five Cabinet posts, plus the vice premiership. But soon afterward, one of the Accordance figures, Ali Baban, broke ranks and agreed to return to his post as planning minister. He was consequently thrown out of the Front as punishment for defying the group's decision to quit.
The only other Sunni in the Cabinet, Defense Minister Abdul-Qader al-Obeidi, is an independent who remained in his post throughout.
Under the new deal, he would remain in his position, but the Front will regain the four other ministries it left plus one more, Abdullah said. The extra ministry may be the Transportation Ministry, which was previously held by the Sadrists, he said.
Abdullah said he expected the names of the new Accordance ministers would be agreed upon by next week.
The Accordance Front quit the 39-member Cabinet saying Sunni Arabs were not getting enough say in decision-making, a reflection of the feeling among Iraq's Sunni Arab minority that it is being sidelined by the majority Shiites and the Kurds, who dominate parliament and al-Maliki's government.
The Sadrists also left the government last year after al-Maliki refused their demands for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Murder's Mess Ffor Muqtada
Iraq Execution Shaking Shiite Politics
Amir Taheri
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/murders_mess_for_muqtada_106635.htm?page=0Riad al-Noori liked to boast that a "host of angels" protected him, along with his 250 heavily armed bodyguards. Yet, he has just been gunned down in his home in Najaf, Iraq's principal "holy" city, by a three-man hit team that managed to get away without any of the angels or bodyguards making a move.
Noori was a bad man but an important player in the dirtiest corner of Iraqi Shiite politics. He headed the special bureau of Muqtada al-Sadr, the maverick mullah sponsored by Tehran. Himself a mullah, Noori was also married to Muqtada's favorite sister. The two were as thick as thieves. More importantly, perhaps, Noori distributed a good part of the Iranian money in Iraq.
Noori's removal from the scene leaves Muqtada without his eminence grise and his Mahdi Army without its ideologist.
Noori, whose family hails from the Iranian province of Mazandaran, earned notoriety in April 2003 when he organized the murder in Najaf of two prominent clerical opponents of Saddam Hussein just as the Ba'athist regime was collapsing everywhere. The two were Majid Mussawi Kho'i and Heydar al-Rufaii, moderate and reform-minded theologians who had welcomed the US-led Coalition's war of liberation.
A few months later, the transitional authority under Ambassador Paul Bremmer issued an arrest warrant for both Noori and Sadr. But an attempt at arresting the two men led to an armed showdown in Najaf, and Bremmer was asked by his Washington bosses to back down. Nevertheless, Iraqi police managed to arrest Noori and prepared a strong case to try him on a charge of multiple murders.
Soon, however, the case was put on the backburner by Ibrahim Jaafari, the first elected prime minister of new Iraq, in a bid to placate the Sadrists and their Iranian backers. Noori was allowed to escape from prison and join Muqtada in starting the Mahdi Army.
The fact that Noori died on exactly the same day that he and his cohorts had killed Khoei and Rufaii five years ago makes the episode look like an execution.
Having allied himself with the mullahs of Tehran in their bid to seize control of Basra, Iraq's second largest city and most important port, Sadr is clearly on the run. The latest rumors claim that his Iranian masters have asked him to leave the "holy" city of Qom and return to Iraq.
To muddy the waters, Sadr has announced that he has written to senior ayatollahs in Najaf and Qom seeking fatwas with regard to the fate of his Mahdi Army. If the ayatollahs rule that it must disband, it will, Sadr promises. If, to the contrary, they rule that it should stick around, it will, keeping its illegal weapons.
Sadr's move is clearly designed to undermine Iraq's still-fragile democracy. He is saying, in effect: As far as I am concerned, all those million Iraqis who voted in a constitutional referendum and two generals elections, and the institutions they created, count for nothing. The fate of Iraq must not be set by Iraqi people, but by a handful of mullahs, most of whom are not even citizens of the country.
The fact that Sadr included the mullahs of Qom, including two of his Iranian teachers there, shows that he doesn't regard Iraq as a sovereign state whose affairs ought to be decided within its borders.
In the Khomeinist system, "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenei is designated as "leader of the Islamic ummah" as a whole. One must assume that the Qom mullahs to whom Sadr wrote wouldn't issue a fatwa on Iraq without clearing it with their "supreme guide."
That means that Sadr is trying to transform Iraq into a de facto province of the Islamic Republic, just as Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah and his associates are seeking a similar fate for Lebanon.
Sadr may argue that such concepts as nation state, democracy and constitutional rule are Western inventions not binding on Muslims. Most Iraqis, however, don't wish to be ruled even by the mullahs of Najaf, let alone Qom and Tehran.
It's possible that Sadr decided to implicate the ayatollahs because he no longer controls the Mahdi Army. The recent battle in Basra showed that Mahdi Army was just one tool in the hands of the Quds Force, a unit of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in charge of "exporting" the Khomeinist revolution.
Sadr's efforts to bring in the ayatollahs may be his way of trying to distance the Mahdi Army from the IRGC without picking an open quarrel with Tehran. Even if that were the case, however, Sadr's move remains inexcusable.
Sadr may be trying to replicate the move of Lebanese Hezbollah, which wants its bread buttered on both sides - having seats in the parliament and the Council of Ministers while maintaining a private army financed by a foreign power. So far, none of the ayatollahs has responded to Sadr's letters. Let's hope none will.
The Iraqi parliament has decided to disband the militias. Its writ must be obeyed. Any attempt by the ayatollahs to second-guess the parliament and the Council of Ministers could provoke a crisis that would harm Iraq.
In rule by fiat, as was the case under Saddam Hussein, a single despot exercised power. In rule by the gun, a few thousand militiamen and other criminals project power through violence. In rule by fatwa, half a dozen mullahs claim the power of life and death over a nation. Only in a system based on free elections does everyone have a share of power.
Iraq has said goodbye to rule by fiat and is in no mood to succumb to rule by fatwa. The militias must be disarmed so that the new Iraqi state can grow.
Cleric Sadr Threatens "Open War" on Iraq Government
By Dean Yates and Wisam Mohammed
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080419/ts_nm/iraq_dcSalamantis: With waht? He just lost his last base in Basra.
Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on Saturday threatened an "open war" against the Iraqi government unless it halted a crackdown by Iraqi and U.S. security forces on his followers.
The specter of a full-scale uprising by Sadr sharply raises the stakes in his confrontation with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who has threatened to ban the anti-American cleric's movement from political life unless he disbands his militia.
A rebellion by Sadr's Mehdi Army militia -- which has tens of thousands of fighters -- could abruptly end a period of lower violence at a time when U.S. forces are starting to leave Iraq.
"I'm giving the last warning and the last word to the Iraqi government -- either it comes to its senses and takes the path of peace ... or it will be (seen as) the same as the previous government," Sadr said, referring to Saddam Hussein's fallen regime, without elaborating.
"If they don't come to their senses and curb the infiltrated militias, then we will declare an open war until liberation."
Sadr's movement accuses other Shi'ite parties of getting their militias into the Iraqi security forces, especially in southern Shi'ite Iraq where various factions are competing for influence in a region home to most of Iraq's oil output.
Sadr launched two uprisings against U.S. forces in 2004.
His movement then entered politics and backed Maliki's rise to power in 2006. But the youthful Sadr split with Maliki, a fellow Shi'ite, a year ago when the prime minister refused to set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
"Do you want a third uprising?" Sadr said, adding that he wanted Iraq's Shi'ite clerical establishment to set a date for the departure of American troops.
In Sadr's Baghdad stronghold of Sadr City, one Mehdi Army commander said he was "thrilled" about the statement.
"We will wait until tomorrow to see the response of the government. Otherwise they will see black days like they have never seen before in their life."
Sadr's threat could not come at a worse time. On Friday, U.S. forces said they had intelligence suggesting Sunni Islamist al Qaeda, pushed out of Baghdad and western Iraq last year, was plotting a return to the capital to stage major bomb attacks.
ROCKETS HIT HOSPITAL
In Baghdad, police described battles between security forces and gunmen that began on Friday in Sadr City as among the heaviest in the capital since Maliki launched a crackdown on the Mehdi Army in the southern city of Basra late last month.
Police said 12 people had been killed in the Shi'ite slum. Hospitals said they received more than 130 wounded overnight.
Late on Saturday, Ali Bustan, head of the health directorate in the eastern section of Baghdad, said three rockets hit the Sadr Hospital in the slum. It was unclear if there were any casualties. The U.S. military said it was not to blame.
Bustan said the bodies of three women had been brought in along with 40 wounded people following fresh clashes.
Maliki has threatened to ban Sadr's movement from provincial elections this year if the cleric does not disband his militia.
In response, Sadr has threatened to formally scrap a ceasefire he imposed on the Mehdi Army last August, which has already been hanging by a thread given recent clashes.
In his statement, Sadr did not refer to the truce, but his spokesman in the holy city of Najaf, Salah al-Ubaidi, said the cleric was not bluffing.
"We mean every word," Ubaidi told Reuters.
Sadr issued his warning after Iraqi soldiers swooped on the Mehdi Army's stronghold in Basra. Iraqi officials said they now controlled the bastion, known as the Hayaniya district.
The dawn raid by government troops there was backed by a thunderous bombardment by U.S. warplanes and British artillery.
Maliki's initial crackdown on the militia in Basra last month was criticized by U.S. commanders as poorly planned.
It failed to drive the Mehdi Army from the streets and sparked battles across the south and in Sadr City, the cleric's Baghdad stronghold. The government dismissed 1,300 soldiers and police for refusing to fight in Basra, the port for most of Iraq's oil exports.
On Saturday by contrast, Harith al-Idhari, head of the Sadr office in Basra, said the militia had not put up any resistance, in observance of a ceasefire declared by the cleric.
Major-General Abdul-Karim Khalaf, an interior ministry spokesman, described the Basra operation as a major success.
Author
Logged
