Having passed the tragic milestone of 4,000 Americans killed,
world focus is once again, on the war in Iraq. Baghdad's fortified
"Green Zone" came under repeated rocket and mortar attack
last month, with up to 17 people killed by rockets falling short
of the government and diplomatic compound. Following soon after,
factions of the Mehdi Army, led by the notorious anti-American
cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, attacked checkpoints throughout the city
of Kut, 150km southeast of Baghdad. It was a first outbreak in
violence, by al-Sadr's forces, following the break in a six months
unilateral truce, declared by the Shi'ite leader.
All this was the harbinger of Sadr's next move,
his real objective- Basrah. The crisis began when Iraq's Prime
Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, launched a military offensive
supposedly aimed at crushing gangs and armed militias in Basra.
The move, quicky inflamed violence in the city and threatens to
destabilise the already highly tense situation all over Iraq.
In and around Basrah city, two powerful factions
of Iraq's Shi'ite majority, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council
and Sadr's Mehdi Army militia, are fighting for power in the city
along with a smaller Shi'ite party, Fadhila. The Sadr loyalists
are widely regarded as the most influential group on the streets
of Basrah, his political movement and Mehdi Army militia seem
to have considerable popular support. The Supreme Islamic Iraqi
Council (SIIC) also has a strong following in Basra and, like
the Sadrists, has built up powerful support by running charities
to help the poor. The party, engaged in a power struggle with
Sadr's followers across much of the south, but had joined Sadr
in opposing the governor of Basrah, who belongs to the smaller
Shi'ite Fadhila Party.
he SIIC favours the creation of a large federal
region with wide autonomy that would include the nine southern
mainly Shi'ite provinces, which Muqatada al-Sadr vehemently opposes.
As for PM al-Maliki's forces, these number over some 30,000 soldiers
and police to keep the peace in Basra. They are commanded by army
Lieutenant-General Mohan al-Furaiji and police chief Major-General
Abdul-Jalil Khalaf, both of whom were appointed in June as part
of the central government's plan to combat militia influence.
After their withdrawal from Basrah city, last September,
British forces numbering about around 4,00 troops are still based
in a fortified encampment at Basra air base just outside the city,
but rarely venture outside, apart from routine security patrolling.
In fact, the British government hoped to draw down at least half
of the troops left in Iraq and possibly pull out the entire force
by the end of the year, but those prospects are looking less likely
because of the renewed violence. There is little doubt that Basrah
has become a special case in the Iraqi power struggle. Since the
American-led invasion, in spring 2003, it had been under the protection
of the British Army, which preferred a strategy of virtually laissez
faire to the militias, as long as left in relative peace. Thus
the continued power struggle in the city - Iraq’s main port
- differed sharply from that in the other Shiite areas. Basra
was essentially divided up among Shiite warlords, each of which
had its own form of extortion and corruption. Fighting each other
in brutal feud, criminal gangs had established a crude modus vivendi
in the city, which escalated sharply as the Brits left.
But there is more. Basrah, due to its geographical
neighbourhood to Iran, makes it highly lucrative for the influence
of Iran, which has for generations eyed its oil as a major strategic
objective, especially the large refineries, which Iran itself
is lacking. Thus, Iran’s religious paramilitary force, Al
Quds, has been an equal-opportunity supplier of weapons and money
to all the Shiite militias, effectively ensuring that it will
support the winner, regardless of who the winner turns out to
be. There are good reasons for the central government and the
US military to reassert control of Basrah. Being not only the
key to Iraq’s oil exports, the city and it's environment
sits across the main logistical landline ensuring vital supplies
for US forces in Baghdad as well as the only land axis for an
eventual withdrawal, when ordered. With Iran only a "stone
throw" away to the east, over the Shat-al Arab waterway,
Basrah, under hostile control could become a dangerous strategic
bottleneck for the US Army.
Still, viewing the larger picture in Iraq, the fighting
in Basrah is probably an ugly prelude of what will ensue if the
next U.S. president decides to pull U.S. troops out of Baghdad
prematurely - a collapse of weak governmental institutions, with
Iraqi factions fighting one another once foreign forces no longer
separate them. Indeed, the looming power struggle has shifted
focus from another brutal actor inside Iraq- al Qaeda, which may
be making a comeback, to re-establish its own powerplay in the
Iraq fiasco. Analysts warn that al Qaeda, which is believed to
be behind some of last month's brutal attacks, may be shifting
tactics to it's former headline grabbing warfare, which could
lead to renewed inter-ethnic civil war in Iraq. “We
have some indicators that they may be planning on executing a
kind of a large media type event”, said Major-General
John Kelly, commander of the I Marine Expeditionary Force in Western
Iraq.
Putting the squeeze on al-Qaeda in Iraq was a primary
objective of the revised U.S. military "surge" strategy
that Gen. David Petraeus inherited when he became the top commander
in Baghdad 13 months ago. The goal - largely achieved -was to
minimise the group's ability to inflame sectarian violence, which
at the time was so intense that some characterised Iraq as trapped
in a civil war. The militants are weakened, battered, perhaps
even desperate, by most U.S. accounts. But far from being "routed,"
as Defense Secretary Robert Gates claimed , they're still there,
still deadly active and likely to remain far into the future,
military and other officials told the Associated Press. It seems
that Osama bin Laden's men are proving they can survive even the
most suffocating U.S. military pressure.
Counter insurgency experts believe that al-Qaeda
in Iraq's change in tactics comes in response to the turmoil and
self-doubt that arose among its members as they lost the support
of Sunni tribesmen, a process vividly described in a letter by
an unnamed Iraqi al-Qaeda emir, that the U.S. military said it
seized during search operations, last November. The letter, which
referred to the situation in Al Anbar as an "exceptional
crisis," was found in an al-Qaeda safe house in Samarra,
about 65 miles north of Baghdad, along with a half-dozen CDs and
DVDs of secret material from the group. The authenticity of the
document could not be independently confirmed. "We found
ourselves in a circle not being able to move, organize or conduct
our operations," the letter lamented: "There was a total
collapse in the security structure of the organization."
But since, it seems, that Iraq's al Qaeda leaders have found ways
to redress some of their capabilities within a changed tactical
faculties.
Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which practically did not exist
as a coherent group before U.S. troops invaded Saddam Hussein's
regime in March 2003, probably now numbers no more than 6,000,
according to U.S. intelligence estimates. It may have been closer
to 10,000-strong before the severe pummeling it took last year,
when it lost its main bases of Sunni Arab support. It now controls
no cities, but is reportedly, still very active in pockets through
much of central and northern Iraq.
But impressive resilience has been the hallmark
of al-Qaeda in Iraq, since its leader, the notorious Jordanian
born arch- terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, pledged his allegiance
to Osama bin Laden, leader of the global al-Qaeda network, in
October 2004. It has survived innumerable reverses in recent years,
including al-Zarqawi's death in a June 2006 U.S. airstrike. His
immediate successor became Abu Ayub al-Masri, an Egyptian who,
while keeping a lower public profile, for his own safety, did
not rise to Zarqawi's expertise, but nevertheless, until the US
"Surge" operations in Al Anbar, kept al Qaeda's terrorist
activities intact.
According to recent intelligence updates, the group's
other leadership figures also are still foreigners from Arab nations
including Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Yemen, Syria, Morocco and Libya.
Two US defense officials who discussed details of the organization
on condition of anonymity, regard the rank-and-file membership
of Iraq's al Qaeda as being largely domestic.
Only three months ago, as the US troop surge in
Iraq approached its one-year anniversary, the commander of Multinational
Force Iraq said he was encouraged by successes his troops made
with the built momentum, but cautioned that the Army's job was
by far from over. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus told the Pentagon
Channel the new strategy in Iraq -- with more coalition and Iraqi
troops helping quell violence in and around Baghdad and operations
that promote closer cooperation with the Iraqi population -- has
helped stabilise once-violent areas. But Gen. Petraeus was also
quick to warn that the fight has not been won yet. He said that
al Qaeda continued to be public enemy No. 1 in Iraq, and although
most of its forces may have been flushed out of Baghdad and Anbar
province, they remain "very potent in other places around
Iraq" General Petraeus said. "Let's not forget
that al Qaeda in Iraq is still intent on reigniting ethno-sectarian
violence, on carrying out acts of horrific violence, of damaging
the infrastructure and killing innocent Iraqis and going after
us." Now, with the recent upsurge in violence, it seems
clearly that the general's assessment has certainly proven itself
not at all premature.
American military advisers are teaching the Iraqi
troops everything from physical fitness to urban warfare tactics,
and mentor their officers in leadership and mission planning.
But whether all this effort will shape an efffective fighting
force, capable to maintain security in a divided and highly suspicious
population, on its own remains highly questionable. Freeing the
US Army to withdraw, without leaving total chaos behind, seems,
at best, wishful thinking to anyone well versed in Middle East
affairs. In fact, culminating the ridiculous, President Bush,
most astonishingly, had this to say only last March : "Normalcy
is returning back to Iraq!" Is it really?