You’d think the American government would be happy that Iraq’s post-election political process — which has been a perpetual-immobility machine since last spring’s parliamentary elections — is finally starting to inch forward.
But you would be wrong. In a story from Sunday with the bland headline of “U.S. Presses Iraqi Leaders to Broaden Coalition” (yeah, what else is new?), the New York Times buries this detail after the lead paragraph:
The administration has sought and received assurances that Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki will not offer the followers of the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr positions in charge of Iraq’s security forces in exchange for supporting Mr. Maliki’s bid for a second term in office, according to officials familiar with negotiations now under way.
. . . The Sadrists’ surprising support of Mr. Maliki, only weeks after opposing his nomination, raised alarms in Washington and gave new urgency to the efforts to persuade Mr. Maliki to include the country’s other main factions in a new government.
The article goes on to quote U.S ambassador James Jeffrey as saying the Obama administration wants “clarity on whether the Sadrist movement is a political movement or it is an armed militia which carries out political objectives through violent means.” In fact, though, the Sadrists could soon be both. [cont'd.]
Reports to this effect have been cropping up in the fine print of news stories for a few days now. Last week, the Associated Press reported:
A leading member of al-Sadr’s movement said their demands include as many as six of the 34 Cabinet-level ministry posts, possibly the trade ministry and one post linked to security operations.
Meanwhile, Sam Dagher wrote for the Wall Street Journal:
A senior leader in Mr. Maliki’s party said Mr. Sadr’s movement had demanded key ministries [and] a 25% quota of all government jobs, including in the army and police.
Whatever “assurances” the Obama administration has received that these deals won’t come to fruition are likely to be illusory. Although his regime has accomplished little else, Maliki has shown expertise in finding or creating loopholes in any rules designed to limit his power–in fact, that is why the prime minister has had such a hard time finding any allies since March.
And here lies the real explanation of why Sadr, who at one point seemed to be the political figure most opposed to Maliki’s re-nomination, become the first major leader to officially endorse him. The conventional wisdom credited the turnabout to pressure from Iran, but the truth has more to do with cold-blooded horse-trading within Iraq.
Any added power the Sadr faction gains over its previous participation in the government will come at the expense not of Maliki, but of the Sadrists’ erstwhile allies in the short-lived Iraqi National Alliance, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), who named a would-be prime minister (Adel Abdel-Mahdi) with support from the Sadr bloc just a month ago.
Having followed Iraqi politics for a while, that was the announcement that surprised me. You see, ISCI and the Sadrists have had a feud that dates to before the U.S. invasion and has erupted into violence on several occasions since 2003, usually in regard to ISCI’s control of key Muslim shrines in Najaf and Karbala. In fact, Maliki came to power as an unknown in 2006 due to Moqtada’s determination to keep the prime minister’s job from going to… Adel Abdel-Mahdi of ISCI.
That history appears to be repeating itself now. Because, with Sadr’s supposedly secured backing, Abdel-Mahdi and ISCI went hat in hand to other major factions (Iyad Allawi and the Kurdish parties) looking for further support in deposing Maliki — only to have the Sadrists go back to the prime minister and cut a deal that threw ISCI under the bus, leaving their powerful ministries (ISCI had been in charge of the army, police, and finance ministries since the 2005 elections) up for grabs.
Those ministries, and the power they represent, appear to be what Sadr was angling after all along. I’d say, “cue the Scott Joplin piano music,” if it weren’t for the grim implications of what a Sadr-influenced army and police force might have in store for the Iraqi people.




15 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Why is ISCI any better for Iraq than the Sadr bloc? From what I remember, both are backed by Iran, both have standing militia, both participated in ethnic cleansing of Baghdad and both brook no deviation from their brand of Shia Islam.
Imagine how many light rail systems we could have built with the money we’ve flushed down the mideast toilet. Or how many new high schools, how many decent housing units for low income people, how many scholarships for our best and brightest, etc. etc.
Just makes you puke at the utter stupidity of this country’s political class.
You’re right to a very great extent — the Iraqi security forces under ISCI’s control weren’t exactly a humanitarian organization either.
The Sadrists, though, have tended to be less disciplined, and the combination of self-control issues and newfound power is likely to be an unpleasant one.
In addition, the shift of control from one faction to its bitter rival (even if it had been from the Sadrists to ISCI) opens up all sorts of opportunities for score-settling. Think of it as a corporate takeover, except that references to “reducing headcount” will be far more literal.
We destroyed a functioning society, of millions of people, minding their own business.
In addition to destroying its infrastructure, water, electricity, secularism, economy, and rendering one-fifth of its (still alive) people either homeless or exiled, for good measure we covered it in radioactive poison for at least 50,000 years.
For profit and ego.
The Iraq “war” is the final straw that made me realize this country and this species are irredeemable.
Instituting the american theory of Democracy is not easy. The “right” people have to be bought and controlled, the concept of one person one vote must be done away with, election corruption must be a key component in order to have the desired outcome, bribery, fraud, deceit and dishonesty have to be the bedrock of a fully functioning corporate government.
However Obama is up to the task, he is well schooled in chicago politics, has dirty sweetheart deals down to a science, can certainly speak with authority to expanding the police state, is a consummate prevaricator and corruption is his middle name.
Jane has a fresh cross-post up: Question: What Things Can Obama Do Now?
Spot on comment -
With ISCI’s army, police, and finance ministry slots open we go from the pot where Sunni’s were excluded and harrassed to the fire where Sunni’s are killed and we will have monthly “attack the Christian population” events (Baghdad’s Jews population – about 48% of the City in 1948 is, post Sadam’s killings and expulsions and property expropriation, is now nearer only 50 persons and too small to be bothered with).
Full pull out and get the civil war separation into separate countries completed is the only solution. Joe Biden was right on this one.
Sadr has served his people and defended his country from the invading American forces…..he SHOULD be rewarded by the Iraqi government.
It’s been clear for sometime that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was not winnable by the USA, although other parties could win. Sadr is looking like one of the winners.
Yeah, it’s not like the Obama administration would ever try and achieve political objectives through violent means.
Thanks for an insightful post, Swopa.
Roads to Iraq reported from ME sources that the Sadrist got promises from Maliki/SOL that:
1) All Sadrists political prisoners would be released.
2) Sadrists would get control of General Secretariat of Ministries.
3) Sadrists would gain control of the anti-terrorism security apparatus.
3) Sadrists would head up 5 service ministries.
4) Mahdi Army leader Mohamed Abdel Hamid would head the Interior (Intelligence)Ministry.
This is of course on top of the move within the INA throughout the negotiations to empower the clerical establishment to officially negotiate binding fatwas in political matters.
In addition to the above not withstanding, Sadr will no doubt make absolutely sure Maliki keeps with the U.S. withdrawal date.
Also, won’t it be interesting – as Iraq slides irrevocably into the sectarian Iranian model of governance – to see how many experts revert to the standby threadbare adage “no one could have predicted this” outcome.
Thanks, annamissed. FYI for others, here’s a link to the Roads to Iraq post:
http://www.roadstoiraq.com/2010/10/01/malikis-nomination-iranian-pressure-or-a-secret-deal/
How painful. I’m so old that I can remember predicting it in spring/summer of 2003.