We all now that Gaza was, until now, the biggest open air prison in the world, a Gulag for Palestinians, so to speak. Now the Empire is in the process of “Gazatizing” (as in “Gitmoize Abu Ghraib”) and creating an even bigger (3’000’000+ people!) Gulag for Iraqis.
Check out Pepe Escobar’s report for Real News Network:
One needs to remember that the Empire just suffered a rather humiliating defeat in the battle of Basra. As Clinton had done after failing in Kosovo, and just as Olmert did after having his “elite” forces defeated by Hezbollah, Bush is now making the civilians pay for their support for the Sadrists.
It is also quite apparent that the Zio-Americans have learned their lesson from the Hamas election debacle and that they have no intention of allowing the Sadrist to participate in the next elections. So in this sense, the upcoming Iraqi elections are also being Gazatized.
So there we have it. The Israelis have taught their American puppets well: Gaza has become the nightmarish “model home” for the many Gulags in which the Empire intends to house all those who dare oppose it.
The objective of PM Maliki in Basrah was to deploy the IA throughout the city and sieze control over all primary ports, and institutions. It was to ensure government control, not at the first instance to dismantle JAM loyal to Muqtada.
This has been achieved. JAM has willingly ceded territory and institutions to the IA.
Notice in Petreaus’ testimony to Congress how many of the militias that fought in Basrah were not JAM (20 significant militias, most associated with orgized crime including Iraqi Hezbollah, Fadheela’s militia, and others that Petreaus mentioned by name.)
Petreaus admitted under questioning that PM Maliki only gave him 4 days notice of the IA operation. Maliki’s ISC (Iraqi Support Command) moved a division equivalent of his best ISF to Basrah by itself. Petreaus further admitted that he was surprised that the ISC was able to do this so quickly.
Petreaus advised that the operation be delayed by several months until more IA units were available. PM Maliki chose to go forward. And now he controls Basrah, although at the cost of tying up many of the ISF’s best units in Basrah.
How was Basrah a defeat for the GoI or IA?
“…willingly ceded..”
What news have you been watching? Sadr won this battle hands down. Hew is still in control of his neighborhoods. The “Iraqi army” had massive defections and were repelled repeatedly. What “institutions” were seized and who effectively controls the streets and the people? That is how you gauge success.
@anonymous: What news have you been watching?
Anand gets most of his info from official or corporate US sources. He actually even believes that there is a “government of Iraq” and any such thing as “Iraqi armed forces”.
I also believe that he honestly, sincerely, believes all the stuff he hears and repeats in his posts. So until there is a “helicopter evacuation scene” in the Green Zone like the one which took place in Saigon, he is not going to be affected by facts or logic.
We can appreciate his kindness without paying any attention to his nonsense, I think.
VS
Petreaus admitted under questioning that PM Maliki only gave him 4 days notice of the IA operation.
hahahahaha, nice framing anand. admitted? more like he spun a tale.
Petreaus further admitted that he was surprised that the ISC was able to do this so quickly.
yawn. lol
Anand gets most of his info from official or corporate US sources.
surely you jest? anand IS your blog’s corporate US source.
I also believe that he honestly, sincerely, believes all the stuff
well then you are a sucker indeed. all of our friendly government sponsored trolls have their unique ‘personalities’. ananda just happens to be the lovey dovey of the group. don’t let facads fool you, he is one of them for sure. they monitor all the cites.
nice blog btw, thanks for the video.
Hello Saker,
Hope you are well.
The situation in Sadr City rather the whole of Baghdad is quite tense. The reports coming out from there from various sources give a mix reaction to the conduct of the US army forces. Having said that this is a big moment for the Shia majority. Maliki’s decision to attack the Sadr army could have serious consequences amongst the Shias. The feeling in the Shias who are out of Iraq is that Maliki is right however on the ground it seems there is a very mixed reaction with majority calling on Maliki to remove himself from the office since he touched a very sensitive no-go area by calling for the occupational forces to kill his own kind – the Shias.
Regardless of thes situation in Basra and now in Baghdad there was something important to pick up from this latest twist. After the report from the Pentagon regarding the Iran nuclear program everything was calm. No threats on Iran, ceasefire by Moqtada and all was running smoothly and in a matter of days everything has turned on its head. Iran is back in the spotlight, Mahdi army are on the verge of breaking the ceasefire to ensure their survival, American forces pull out has been indefinitely stopped. It always seemed hard to accept that US had given up the Iran issue so easily and we see now that it was just waitin to blow things up so much that they find a viable excuse to attack Iran.
Another thing to note here is this if you recall back to 2004 when Sayyid Baqir Al Hakeem was martyred in Najaf along with more than 70 people in the bomb blasts was another crucial moment since at the time he was actively calling for the removal of the US forces and end to the occupation however the point to note here is not his actions rather his role. He was going to be a leader of the nation just like Ayatollah Khomeini was for the Iranians. He was mirroring that image amongst the nation and his removal worked greatly in the favour of US since after him there is no natural leader. Moqtada is now imposing himself as the leader but he is naive and needs more experience.
Peace
Ayaz
Dear Ayaz,
I am indeed well, by the Mercy of God. I return your good wishes to you.
Thank you for your insight concerning the situation in the Shia public opinion. I wonder what the reason behind the discrepancy between the opinion of the Shia abroad and inside Iraq is. Of course, I suppose that most upper/middle class Shia had more means to find refuge abroad than the poor people in the slums, but I still cannot understand why Maliki can get *any* support at all.
Frankly, is there any reason to take Maliki (and Dawa) seriously? They are truly pawns of BOTH the Empire and of the Badr forces who, in turn, seem to be very much in Iran’s pocket. Not only that, but I suspect that the Iranians are now quite angry at Maliki for actually attacking his fellow Shia and that, in turn, makes me suspect that Maliki and Dawa are placing their hopes on the occupation forces rather than on Iran.
Why, in your opinion, are the Shia abroad supportive of Maliki?
Sayyid Baqir Al Hakeem is just one more name on the long list of Shia assassinated by the Empire (just think of Musa Iman al-Sadr, Abbas al-Mussawi or even Imad Mughnieyh) and there is no doubt that Moqtada al-Sadr, just like Hassan Nasrallah, knows that the Empire will try to eliminate him.
I think that they have accepted that and that they have already carefully prepared their successor(s). Besides, while these charismatic individuals most definitely play an important and highly visible role, what they represent is much bigger than they are.
For example, I would argue that Ayatollah Ali Khameniei is a far more formidable Supreme Leader than Ayatollah Khomenei every was (that does not necessarily apply to his standing as a theologian, by the way).
The Empire should therefore think long and hard before trying to assassinate their opponents as they might be painfully shocked as to whom they would end up facing in the next generation.
Peace to you too,
VS
I like “Gazafication” better than Gazatize, but to each his own.
Also, I don’t think Fadhila’s militia fought in Basra, or if they did, certainly not on the of the Mahdi Army against the Iraqi government/the Badr Brigades.
Hey Saker,
Thanks for your greeting.
Well there are couple of reasons for the differences. Yes a number of well off and middle class Iraqis moved to the foreign lands during the time of Saddam and even Maliki and a few other members of Dawah were out of Iraq and built a good repoitre with the most influencial Iraqis living aboard. Another thing to note here is I do not know whether you saw the BBC prog called ‘Ten days to War’ however on that they pointed out the meeting between the British Govenrment and the most influencial Iraqi politicians or those involved with the political parties took place in London after the fall of Saddam where the plans were outlined. A number of Iraqi politicians of the Dawah party and other parties are in UK. So the reason why Dawah and Maliki has the support of the Iraqis aboard is because of their role in supporting Dawah indirectly. Having said that today I was speaking to a few people in UK and some of them were supportive of Moqtada and his men.
One thing you have to realise is this that Maliki and the Government on the ground are trying to do as much as they can in order to ensure a secure Iraq, unfortunately they are failing due to the restrictions by the occupational forces and the US administration. Its going to be nearly three years since some sort of Government established in Iraq after the fall of Saddam and what needs to be asked is what has been achieved in this time? The Government points at Moqtada for lack of progress but the truth is far from it. Their progression is restricted by the US and they should blame themselves and no one else for that.
Dawah and Maliki both are quite skeptical about Iran and its motives of being involved in Iraq. Regardless of everything one wishes to say about Iran the question the Shias of Iraq need to address is this who is more trustworthy Iran or US? Iran has supported the cause of rising against Saddam previously twice most notably during the time of Shaheed Baqir Sadr however the Shias remained quiet. Now the question is in order to remove US from the region Iran is taking precaution and that is the reason why the Badr Brigades moved permanently to Iraq. They were founded and trained in Iran. Badr Brigades and Mahdi Army are both entities which have support of Iran however I feel Iran is taking a very firm line in case of Moqtada due to his lack of experience. Dawah party members in majority believe that US came to liberate the Iraqi people and should stay in the region until stability is there. Suffice to say not everyone agrees with them.
Assissination of Moqtada will ignite a civil war in the region and this will greatly work in the favour of US. Removal of Moqtada would seal any attempt from the Shias to remove US forces from the region and furthermore any hint of civil war between the Shias would cause the US to play the ‘no confidence’ card in the Government and remove the Shias from the power and replace them with their puppets, such as Allawi. Do note that an attempt on Moqtada was planned but it was nipped in the bud in 2004 when Ayatollah Sistani returned to Najaf.
I see your point in terms of the leadership and in regards to Ayatollah Khamenai and Ayatollah Khomeini however their times are very different. Ayatollah Khamenai is very much restricted internally due to the politics of Iran, while at the time of Ayatollah Khomeini such was not the case. In Iraq, it is very similar as Ayatollah Sistani is under immsense pressure but cannot speak out due to the internal politics.
I have written too much my apologies.
Peace
Ayaz
Dear Ayaz,
Thank you for your most interesting reply. Please believe me when I say that you never write too much here; in fact, I invite you, I *urge* you, to come here more often and to write more. Your perspective is most interesting to me.
Now, in your reply you write One thing you have to realise is this that Maliki and the Government on the ground are trying to do as much as they can in order to ensure a secure Iraq,
In all honesty, I cannot say that I see any evidence of that. How does attacking Sadr and his supporters do anything for the security of Iraq?! All it was supposed to do is weaken Sadr before the next elections, and that plan totally backfired. Instead of defending Iraq from the Zio-American occupier, Maliki and, more relevantly, Hakim’s Badr corps are playing a key role in the Empire’s “redirection”, which is a euphemism for an all-out war on the Shia. Does that not make them traitors to both their country and their faith in your eyes?
You write: Dawah party members in majority believe that US came to liberate the Iraqi people and should stay in the region until stability is there. Does that not clearly indicate that they have had too much whiskey in the Green Zone? Who in his right mind could ever believe this kind of nonsense? And attacking their fellow Shia Muslims in the south is an expression of this desire for stability?
any hint of civil war between the Shias would cause the US to play the ‘no confidence’ card in the Government and remove the Shias from the power and replace them with their puppets, such as Allawi.
Precisely. And this is why Maliki’s attack on Sadr can only be seen as an attempt to create exactly what you refer to: a civil war between the Shias!
Don’t you see the infamous role Maliki and the other collaborators of the Zio-American occupation forces are playing in all this?!
Ayatollah Khamenai is very much restricted internally due to the politics of Iran, while at the time of Ayatollah Khomeini such was not the case. In Iraq, it is very similar as Ayatollah Sistani is under immsense pressure but cannot speak out due to the internal politics.
I still cannot find a valid excuse for Ayatollah Sistan’s departure from Iraq while the Mehdi Army was fighting for its life in Najaf, Kufa, Kut, Kerbala, Diwaniyah and so many other cities. Granted, he did come back, but very, very late. Also, I am puzzled by his silence, at least as far as I know, concerning Maliki’s attack on Sadr.
It seems to me that what is really happening right now in Iraq is an all-out Imperial attack against the Shia and I cannot fathom why Sistani would remain silent.
You know where I see Khatami’s genious? First, he managed to use the Neocon’s blind hatred and ideology to remove Iran worst enemies: the Taleban and the Baathists in Iraq. Second, he managed to never be provoked by the Empire thus never giving it any publicly acceptable reason to bomb Iran. Third, all of Iran’s actions since Khamenei has been Supreme Leader have been strictly in accordance with international law (which was not the case with Ayatollah Khomenei).
I invite you to share your comments and criticisms of all of what I have written above with me and my readers. Please feel free to use as much space as you need to make your points. One of the big advantages of the blog format is that, unlike with traditional media, space is not an issue.
I could, no doubt, immensely benefit from your insights into all these issues. Please share them with us!
Peace to you,
The Saker
Hello Saker,
Let me begin by thanking you for your kind words and your hospitality. I have been reading your blog for sometime from the link you left on AIM a few months back however I am quite reserved in terms of providing a political analysis or commenting on political happenings. I do follow politics and news everyday and write a few things myself but I hardly make them public. I would be glad to comment occasionally on your blog depending on the content.
Let me also make a correction to my last comment. I had stated Iran has supported the cause of rising against Saddam previously twice most notably during the time of Shaheed Baqir Sadr however the Shias remained quiet. I would like to state that the Shias were not silent or quiet per say but the conditions and the situation at the time made things very impossible to do anything.
Maliki and his Government are trying to play both sides here ie try to be free and have their way and also use the support of the occupational forces. Having Moqtada remain active is an obstacle for them and knowing that he is politically involved it could lead to Moqtada being in charge of the Government in the future hence more reason for them to try to nip this in the bud. That is why there was more talk about the political banishment from Maliki. Back to the point was this Maliki is trying best to make progress but the US is pressuring him to take care of Moqtada and his army and hence that is why that part is most evidently seen. I believe in my opinion the US are using him as a puppet and ensuring he follows their orders or meet the same fate as Jafari. However there is much more on the ground which is unreported. Maliki in the past has spoken out against the US and their policies regarding Iraq but it does seem strange that this time he sided with them rather than supporting the Shias. As for Hakim and Badr Brigades well they are non functional even though Hakim supported Maliki in his venture of Basra because the Badr Brigades being in the Iraqi Army now however that has put a strain on the relationship between Hakim and Moqtada. I am not sure whether you saw the videos to the meeting between these two a few months back, it is a must watch to see the difference between both leaders.
Well you have to examine the political background to understand why Dawah have their stance in regards to the US army. After the fall of Saddam in terms of the Shias there were two main parties, SIRIC and Dawah. In 2004 or maybe late 2003, Moqtada formed the Mahdi Army and this made three main political parties of the Shia in the region. SIRIC and Dawah remain the dominant parties but what they lack is the public support. Mahdi Army has generated that support by carrying out a number of civil and social duties in the region. Do note that this is recently maybe as recent as 2007, before that the Mahdi Army were nothing but naïve and immature bunch. Moqtada has reformed them in some ways and is trying to instill the Hezbullah ideology in them, to ensure they are not just a military organisation rather a civil one too. This is where SIRIC and Dawah failed, they are not doing much for the public. There is barely full electricity, water supply etc. Mahdi Army have addressed these issues and made arrangements moreover they have provided security in the main Holy Shia Shrines in Karbala and Najaf. If you recall they were the main targets by the insurgency and a major threat after the destruction of Samarra, this won many brownie points with the Shias of the South.
My opinion on Maliki is undecided as I have seen good things from him and bad things but I wish to get more reports from the ground to make a firm opinion. I agree that Basra is a huge mistake by him and so is the current attack on the Sadr city. Cooperating with the Americans might be a ploy, but doing their dirty work is unacceptable. The father of Moqtada; Shaheed Sadiq Sadr played the Baathis by being very close to Saddam and Saddam trusted him until at the tables turned and he completely came out attacking Saddam and exposed the tyrant greatly.It was a plan that the great Martyr executed perfectly and Saddam knowing what could happen put him to death. If Maliki wanted to do the same then there would have been some indication however it seems that is not the case.
Coming to the situation regarding the departure of Ayatollah Sistani to London during 2004 when intense fighting was taking place well there is much more to the story than what meets the eye. One thing saker you have to know is that within the offices of the Ayatollahs there are people with their own agendas and would push that through at any cost. Whether it was the decision of Ayatollah Sistani to go to London or not, I am not aware of that however I am aware that it was his decision to return to Najaf to ensure the fighting stopped. There was a whole plan by certain individuals to remove Moqtada completely and they even stated to the Ayatollah that he would be returning to a ‘safe and moqtada free’ Najaf. At that point that Ayatollah made the decision to leave London for Najaf. So in essence despite their differences the move was a very thoughtful and wise one since it saved the life of Moqtada as well as resolve the whole conflict at the time.
He is silent now for a much greater reason. The Shias of Iraq are not ready to follow him if he speaks out tomorrow. Due to the different opinions amongst the government and public his stance is very much justified because both parties, Government and Mahdi Army are guilty in some ways and for him to support either would be unacceptable hence his decision is quite wise once more. Also I do believe there is some insight in this decision since in the future the public could then solely turn to him which might help greatly. As for his stance on the recent events of Basra and Sadr City, a lot has been attributed to him by different sources but I would take these reports with a big pinch of salt.
Peace
Ayaz
Dear Ayaz,
Thank you very much for your most interesting reply and analysis which really would deserve to be a separate article rather than a reply to a question. I immensely appreciate your taking the time to provide me, and my readers, with your insights and comments.
Everything you say makes perfectly good sense and provides an interesting alternative reading of the situation in Iraq. While I have to admit that I still harbor a deep distrust of Maliki and Hakim, I was most interested in hearing your possibly more cautious and thoughtful analysis of their actions.
Ayaz, could you please email me at vineyardsaker at gmail dot com?
Again, many, many thanks for your highly interesting posts here!
Peace unto you,
VS
Very informative comments!
Readers, please link this discussion wherever you can!