Saturday, March 29, 2008

The Battle of Baghdad

According to news reports here, here, here, and here, an uprising has begun (once again) in Iraq. If you are too lazy to read the articles, the short story is that Al-Maliki has ordered Al-Sadr's Mahdi Army to surrender all weapons. The militia refused and so fighting has broken out. The U.S. is supporting Iraqi security forces in Baghdad, while the British support them in Basra (where the conflict has spread to).

One thing that is interesting is that Al-Sadr's side claims that this is an attempt by Maliki to destroy his party before the elections. My view is (and tell me if you disagree because it is an American view) that Sadr is missing the point that his militia is essentially a private army in the heart of the capital. What would an American think if (insert any politician's name) had a private army outside of Washington D.C. to help support his/her power in the Government. Chances are it would make you a little uneasy. Besides the obvious conflicts of interest involved in having two armed groups in the country following rival political leaders, it is extremely counterproductive for both sides.

Sadr is destroying his own party before the elections. It is not unreasonable for a government to disarm gangs and militias while trying to take over security operations. By refusing to lay down arms and promote peace in the war-torn city his bloc is committing political suicide because they will likely be imprisoned, killed, or lose backing. Had they laid down their weapons and promoted peace, or at least pretending to, they could have much more clout to use at the elections.

What do you think about this?

3 comments:

Lord Nazh said...

Good reasoning; of course it's according to whom you ask the question, but most thinking people wouldn't like a politician of any stripe to have a private army in DC

Mark Wright said...

Hey thanks for coming by my site and bringing this to my attention.

You've got some good points, but you've got the sequence wrong. al-Sadr didn't start an uprising that is being pushed down by Maliki. Maliki invaded Basra without talking to al-Sadr, and al-Sadr resisted.

I'm not saying it's ok to have a private army in Iraq, but everyone knew they were there, and the US had a cease fire agreement with al-Sadr. Maliki is the aggressor, and has put everyone in a tight spot.

My opinion here: http://issuesandcurrentevents.blogspot.com/2008/03/now-they-done-it.html

Norman Poormanov said...

Mark, I have to disagree with you on this. Maliki may have started this by demanding unconditionally that Sadr disarms his soldiers, but the point is that he is trying to establish a democracy in Iraq and no democracy will work when people turn to armed gangs to push political agendas. In any 'stable' or 'free' nation a political party cannot use force within the country and that is exactly what Maliki is trying to do: Disarm the militia so that everybody's voice can be heard in a safe and fair way.