Iraqi PM Maliki Gives Shiite Militias Ultimatum
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Iraq, Military, War
Basically, they have 72 hours to put down their weapons or they’ll face the consequences. What those are is not yet clear, but it’s a safe bet it won’t be good for either side.
BAGHDAD — A day after launching a huge operation that ignited heavy fighting in two of Iraq’s largest cities, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki gave the Shiite militias controlling the southern oil city of Basra an ultimatum on Wednesday: lay down their weapons within 72 hours or face more severe consequences. [...]The fighting threatens to destabilize a long-term truce that had helped reduce the level of violence in the five-year-old Iraq war. Mr. Maliki, who considered the operation so important that he traveled to the city to direct the fighting himself, issued his ultimatum on Iraqi state television.
“Those who were deceived into carrying weapons must deliver themselves and make a written pledge to promise they will not repeat such action within 72 hours,” he said. “Otherwise, they will face the most severe penalties.”
And here’s the thing that’s most interesting…
As the fighting in Basra and Baghdad intensified on Wednesday, the American military command, speaking for the first time about the crackdown, characterized it as an Iraqi-led operation in which American-led forces were playing only an advisory role. [...]An American military spokesman, Maj. Gen. Kevin J. Bergner, repeatedly sought on Wednesday to distance Western forces from the operation, saying that Mr. Maliki and his security ministers planned and carried it out on their own. He said American-led forces were on standby.
This is one of the points I’ve been making. If we weren’t there, the Iraqi forces would be more inclined to fight harder because there’s no safety net. But because we are there, they know that if they fail, well, no big deal…they can count on us.
Also, if we set a timetable, they’ll know they’ll have to get their act together or else face the reality of these militias controlling cities…militias which, by the way, are NOT run by al Qaeda…but a situation they don’t want nonetheless.
Time for some ultimatums of our own.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 26th, 2008 and is filed under Iraq, Military, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 26th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
A lot of wishful thinking. It could be that, if we weren’t there, they would be more likely to cut a deal with the militias in order to avoid a conflict they are not ready to fight themselves, giving the militias substantially more power - as they already have done in Basra after an undermanned British occupation failed to clean up the place.
If your theory were true, the surge in Bagdhad would be failing to achieve results. Instead, with a renewed commitment from U.S. forces, local Iraqis are no longer afraid to take on Al-qaeda and are doing the bulk of the fighting now. The coalition is once again the “strong horse”, and fear of reprisals from Jihadists if they were to retain control of the region is no longer an issue for the Iraqi soldiers.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Strangely, I find myself agreeing with at least part of what Jimmy the Dhimmi is saying….wow. My head hurts.
In addition to his comments about cutting a deal, a possibility, it is also likely that while the Iraqi administration might not try as hard, the commanders and front line folks aren’t exactly going to treat such a scenario lightly. In a military operation like they are implying, going anything but all out means not only failure, but death.
To suggest they will do less because they have a safety net seems to be more about trying to argue for a timetable then a realistic assessment of the situation.
Now, that said, to counter the “surge is working” point–what working? There was certainly a lull, but whether that is a tempoary break in hostility as the insurgents reassess the situation or a real “working”" is unclear.
The truth that many surge supporters want to ignore is that violence began declining before the surge thanks to the Sadr ceasefirem but the last month has seen a significant uptick in violence.
Even John McCain who a month ago was talking about the importance of victory (whatever that means) in Iraq as being critical to his campaign, has subtly changed his tune from the “we need to fight the islamic terrorists in Iraq” to “We have a moral responsibility”not to abandon the Iraqi people.
Gee, another Republican changing hos story on why we need to be there….I’m stunned.
March 26th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
i think the main point here is the fact that it is written in a major American mainstream publication…. this sounds a bit of a build up to me to me, to keep the war-flow going for another while, and they can certainally kill atleast another 72 hrs with this one……
“ya see, the Iraqi’s just f%&k it up when we leave it to them…. think we need to hang on here and assert control for some more time, until the poor oul sods can manage it themselves”
If it is true, well then of course theres the language, “face the consequences”, this will unsettle and unnerve local innocent populations… its just not right! theres a whole bunch of normal people, including millions (literally) of kids involved in this, history will tell its own story as it always does!
anybody got any reactions from locals in Iraq to this statement? or did the Iraqi PM just announce it to the US press?
March 26th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I don’t think it’s necessary to gamble on the chance that things will get better once we leave. I certainly hope they do, and there’s evidence that they might. But even if the whole country goes up in flames the day we leave, we still cannot afford to stay, nor have any obligation to do so.
Saddam Hussein was a ruthless, inhumane prick because that’s what it took to keep Iraq together. I hate to say it, but chances are it will take another ruthless inhumane prick to do it again. Since we can all agree we’d have been better off leaving Saddam in power - why can’t we come to terms with that?
March 26th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Now, I know that we in the US don’t like that nasty Mahdi Army, and we don’t like their thuggish leader Moqtada Al-Sadr, but - They are not “Al Queda” and they are not Baathists or Sadaamites. They are not the people we went into Iraq to fight. In fact, they are the very Iraqi’s, the exact oppressed religious sect that we presumably went into Iraq to offer the gift of democracy at the point of a gun.
Perhaps it will be useful for Americans to recall that when the statue of Saddam Hussein was torn down in 2003 it was in the in the middle of what we now call “Sadr City” and it was the supporters of Moqtada al-Sadr that we cheered dragging Hussein’s head through the streets. When Saddam’s portrait was defaced, it was a poster of Sadr that went up in in its place.The Mahdi Army and Moqtada Al Sadr have majority support in the largest majority sect in Iraq - The Shia. They voted in the elections we insisted they have and under the constitution we made them write. Maliki only formed this government with al-Sadr’s support. Maliki can only stay in power militarily because of the US military presence. The reason why this war never ends, is that the Bush/Cheney administration specifically and the American people generally do not want to admit that the face of “majority rule”,and “regime change” and “freedom” in Iraq is the face of Moqtada al-Sadr. We will be able to leave Iraq when Moqtada al-Sadr takes over, and not before.