w/o US, Maliki Lacks Troops To Take Back Basra--Official Civil War Soon?

[Dems Will Win]

It's really too bad Bush didn't know there were two warring sects of Islam before he decided in 2001 to invade Iraq. Of course most Americans don't know that within each of the Sunni and Shia sects, there are further warring sects, with the Shia being historically very bloody among each other. It looks like the Civil War is now spreading beyond the battle between Sunni Shia and Kurd and is about to erupt big-time between many different Shia sects trying to take control in the south of Iraq.

The US and UK are caught in the middle.

So here is more information on Basra, which now has a Federal Emergency Government, and a duly elected local government of Shia militia/party leaders who refuse to give up their power. And their power is fueled by stealing up to 30% of the oil being sold.

Only problem for al-Maliki is the Shia militia, police and army units outnumber anything al-Maliki can throw at them, outside of full US and UK intervention, and we would have to bring more troops into Iraq just to do that. The Brits just left Basra for a camp outside the town, btw.

This certainly looks like the official start of the Civil War.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has appointed a three-man council to takeover security matters in Basra, Iraq’s southern port city. Basra is Iraq’s largest Shi’a majority city, and it has been rife with Shi’a militia squads loyal to either the Fadhila Party or the Sadriya movement of Muqtada al-Sadr. While Basra lacks the high-profile suicide attacks which grab headlines in Baghdad and surrounding areas, the militias and simple criminality have hampered the city during the three years in which British troops have overseen external security while attempting to train local police to maintain law and order.

Basra has furthermore been a sore spot for the central government in Baghdad because of conflicts over control of the local oil infrastructure. During the interim government of Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the Fadhila controlled the oil ministry and were widely accused of using it to enrich themselves. When Maliki came into office he sacked the Fadhila minister and appointed an independent, Hussein al-Shahristani, who has been given credit for cracking down on corruption. Fadhila was elected as part of the ruling United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), but retaliated by refusing to participate in the government, and is now in opposition. Although Fadhila is the smallest of the four Shi’a parties which make up the UIA, its power base in Basra gives it strength there (Reuters provides more background on this local power struggle).

Now, as reported in the Iraqi newspaper Al-Rafidayn, the prime minister has appointed a three-man council made up of Ali Hamadi (former border guard chief) as chair, Abd al-Khadr Mahdi (current legate of the Interior Ministry), and General Ali Ibrahim (from the Defense Ministry). The article notes that they were chosen in part because of their independence from local Islamic parties, presumably meaning Fadhila and the Sadriya. The article states that they carried a letter from the prime minister giving them authority over “all the security organizations” in the Basra Province, including the ability to appoint chiefs of each entity. Effective Tuesday August 7, their authority was to last one month subject to renewal by the prime minister.

Not surprisingly, the decision has not been popular among local officials, and as reported in Al-Hayat, some local officials called on Maliki to rescind the order. While opposition may have been stirred, at least directly, by the loss of authority, this report by Al-Hayat indicates that they are framing their objections in terms of objections to the federalism plan promoted strongly by SCIRI leader Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim, who also heads the UIA. Hakim’s plan, which was included in principle in the Iraqi constitution and has been endorsed by the Grand Ayatallah Ali al-Sistani, provides for the creation of a regional authority in the Shi’a south similar to that now existing in Kurdistan, along with another in Baghdad and a fourth in the central areas of the country dominated by Sunnis. While many Sunnis have opposed this, these Shi’a critics claimed that the plan would subsume Basra into the larger Shi’a province, which would naturally be dominated by SCIRI and Maliki’s Dawa Party.

Interestingly, Al-Hayat also quoted Sahib al-‘Amaari, a leader among the Sadrists, as saying that those who favored federalization sought to control the south and “spoil the good things we have here and our link with Iran.” Sadr has come to be viewed as the Shi’a leader most closely aligned with Iran, which also has been providing support to his Mahdi Army. While some have feared that Hakim favored a federal system in order to partition Iraq, and Sunnis have complained that he sought to ensure control over southern Iraq’s oil reserves, this suggests that Hakim may be using it as a power play to outmaneuver his Shi’a rivals.

http://www.myantiwar.org/view/89417.html

This is a good intro. The local Shia warlords have refused to abdicate to al-Maliki so this appears to be the start of an official large-scale civil war.

Everyone should know that al-Maliki seems to do what he says he'll do most of the time, so if he doesn't chicken out asking the Americans to help, he will fight the Shia sects there for control of Basra and that will be a horrendous street-to-street battle.

The Basra Shia will see it as their rival Shia sects trying to wipe them out and take total control of the South.

Here's some more background:

Iraqi PM Nouri Maliki has declared a month-long state of emergency in Basra, which has been plagued by sectarian clashes, anarchy and factional rivalry. Visiting the city, Mr Maliki said he would use an "iron fist" to crush those who threaten security.

The prime minister has accused criminal gangs of holding the city's oil exports and other trade to ransom.

More than 100 people have died in the last month in Basra - until recently seen as one of Iraq's safer cities.

Relations between Basra's garrison of 8,000-odd British troops and the city's dominant Shias used to be cordial but have deteriorated rapidly in the past few months.

Nine British soldiers were killed in May alone.

Many Sunni mosques have also been closed amid rising sectarian divisions, and there are growing tensions among different Shia groups vying for political power and a share of the area's vast oil wealth, the BBC's Ian Pannell says.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5032294.stm

al-Maliki's first decrees failed so now he is taking away Security from the Basra Council:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's first major security initiative, a 30-day state of emergency intended to restore peace to Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, appears to have failed, residents there report.
...

Al-Maliki's Basra initiative had been closely watched as a sign of whether his government would prove more able than its predecessor at reigning in sectarian violence. The government's ability to assert its authority throughout Iraq is an important indicator of when the United States might be able to begin withdrawing troops.


...


Residents complained about the Basra plan almost from its inception. They said it appeared to consist of nothing more than a few checkpoints. They charged that political leaders were more interested in retaining control of the oil-rich port city than in protecting it from militia and tribal violence.

...

The few new checkpoints that appeared disappeared within two weeks as sectarian violence spread. On Saturday, when the plan ended, Sunni families reported new leaflets warning them to flee or face death. Some fled.

...

On June 16, Sheik Youssef Yaquoub al-Hassan, a popular Sunni cleric known for hosting meetings between rival Shiite groups, despite being the secretary general of the Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars, was killed. With that, some residents said they no longer believed moderate politics could survive in Basra.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/14965478.htm

Here is the article reporting the defiance of the Basra Council:

Security worsens in Basra as council rejects PM’s decision
Azzaman, August 10, 2006

The provincial council in the southern city of Basra has turned down an order by Prime Minister Noouri al-Maliki to dissolve and pass its responsibilities to an emergency committee.

Following a meeting, the council issued a defiant statement saying it would not abide by Maliki’s order.

The council is backed by powerful militias who wield immense power in the province.

The province’s security forces and the 10th army division deployed in Basra have declared allegiance to Maliki.

However, it is not clear whether the city’s police forces and army would move against the council if asked by Maliki, who is also the commander-in-chief.

If they do they will risk clashing with the heavily armed militias and causing bloodshed in the city, home to more than 2 million people. Maliki had dissolved the council and stripped it of its powers.

http://www.azzaman.com/english/index.asp?fname=news%5C2006-08-10%5Ckurd3.htm

If al-Maliki attacks the Basra Shia, he will have to do so with US and UK troops, meaning there would be little difference between Israel killing Hizbollah fighters and US troops killing Iraq Shia.

Then our troops will really be up the Shiite creek and have to fight the huge heavily armed Shia militias all through the South. All the while Iran will be arming their Iraqi brethren.

It's called the worst possible scenario and it could happen within days...

[Kagemusha]

1. By the way, Sadr being closest to Iran is a massive crock.

He's a nativist Iraqi Shiite and never was seen to be comfortable with all these Badr Brigade guys who trained in Iran during the Iran-Iraq war to take Iraq over when Saddam fell, and the vast majority of his support is either urban Shiites of longstanding Iraqi Arab descent, or Marsh Arabs, many of which became urbanized when Saddam wrecked the marshes on a broad scale after the failed 1991 revolt that Bush #1 egged on.

Edit: Though no doubt it serves the interest of those like Hakim and Maliki with far deeper ties to Iran to tar Sadr with the bad rap. And it's no doubt that Iran's providing some support at least to him - they're paying off basically every Shiite faction of note out there, so I've heard, just to make sure whoever wins owes them something.

[Dems Will Win]

2. kick

[NNN0LHI]

3. I thought the "official" start of the civil war was a last week?

<scratching head/>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1904569&mesg_id=1904569

[Dems Will Win]

4. Legally - it started

al-Maliki hasn't had the guts yet to ask the US to help him take Basra back, but he has to -- or just give up the whole idea of a unified Iraq.

The official start of a civil war and the shooting phase are typically separated by a period of time as both sides or side hopes for peace. For example, our own civil war:

January 1861 -- The South Secedes.
When Abraham Lincoln, a known opponent of slavery, was elected president, the South Carolina legislature perceived a threat. Calling a state convention, the delegates voted to remove the state of South Carolina from the union known as the United States of America. The secession of South Carolina was followed by the secession of six more states -- Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas -- and the threat of secession by four more -- Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina. These eleven states eventually formed the Confederate States of America.


February 1861 -- The South Creates a Government.
At a convention in Montgomery, Alabama, the seven seceding states created the Confederate Constitution, a document similar to the United States Constitution, but with greater stress on the autonomy of each state. Jefferson Davis was named provisional president of the Confederacy until elections could be held.


February 1861 -- The South Seizes Federal Forts.
When President Buchanan -- Lincoln's predecessor -- refused to surrender southern federal forts to the seceding states, southern state troops seized them. At Fort Sumter, South Carolina troops repulsed a supply ship trying to reach federal forces based in the fort. The ship was forced to return to New York, its supplies undelivered.


March 1861 -- Lincoln's Inauguration.
At Lincoln's inauguration on March 4, the new president said he had no plans to end slavery in those states where it already existed, but he also said he would not accept secession. He hoped to resolve the national crisis without warfare.


April 1861 -- Attack on Fort Sumter.
When President Lincoln planned to send supplies to Fort Sumter, he alerted the state in advance, in an attempt to avoid hostilities. South Carolina, however, feared a trick; the commander of the fort, Robert Anderson, was asked to surrender immediately. Anderson offered to surrender, but only after he had exhausted his supplies. His offer was rejected, and on April 12, the Civil War began with shots fired on the fort. Fort Sumter eventually was surrendered to South Carolina.

http://rs6.loc.gov/ammem/cwphtml/tl1861.html

In Basra, the war has been called, we're just waiting for the bullets to start flying.