Transition time in Najaf and all Iraq?

The latest reports from Najaf show a point in Iraq’s history that seems to be a real turning-point. The Greek word for that is “crisis”. It seems the situation still could go either way; and no doubt about it, the stakes are very high.
From here, it could go radically either toward fitna (widespread breakdown) or toward peace.
Sistani, currently sitting on the edge of Najaf, has called for both the Sadrists and the occupation forces to stop fighting and also to evacuate the city. According to Al-Jazeera:

    Minutes before al-Sistani’s arrival, interim Prime Minister Iyyad Allawi said he had ordered his forces to observe a 24-hour ceasefire in Najaf to allow the negotiations to take place.
    He also offered an amnesty deal to besieged al-Mahdi Army fighters and safe passage for their leader al-Sadr.

That’s good news. Until now, the Americans have all been pretending that Allawi and his henchmen have been “calling the shots” around Najaf. It would be nice if the US forces participated in the ceasefire and the broader Sistani peace plan, too.
More than nice!
Another Jazeera story notes that while the US forces were still maintaining their potentially offensive posture around the Sadrists in the shrine, it was the UK command that provided the air cover for the Sistani trip to Najaf. There’s doubtless much more of a story to be teased out there. (Including the whole story of who it was who persuaded Sistani that he “needed” to be whisked off to London 18 days ago, in the first place.)
Sistani’s plan also calls for the “Iraqi security forces” to take over security in Najaf. Those forces are a real wild card. They’ve suffered a lot of attrition from (generally, pro-Sadrist) defections, and now seem in many respects to be acting like a lot of deracinated, war-crazed goons. For evidence, see reports like this one (Reuters, 9:30 EST), that:

    At least 10 supporters of Iraq’s top Shi’ite cleric were shot dead in Najaf Thursday when gunmen opened fire at police who were trying to control the crowd, prompting the police to return fire, witnesses said.

Or, the many reports of the forced-attendance “press conference” the local police chief held late Wednesday. Chris Allbritton wrote that “he”–presumably the police chief?– told the forcibly rounded-up journos that:

    The Shrine would be stormed tonight…, and we would be allowed to get on a bus and go visit it tomorrow to see the damage the Mahdi Army had done to it. The Sistani protesters in Kufa were really Mahdi guys and they had to be killed.

Since I’m working so intensively these days on the early-1990s transition to democracy in South Africa, I have to quickly note some possible parallels.
One is the real danger of so-called “third force” activities…


Back in South Africa’s transition to democracy, the essential political deal was being worked out between the ANC and those pillars of the apartheid system, the National Party. But hardliners in the Afrikaner community did two things to try to prevent/undermine the transition. Some of them formed or expanded the more hardline rightwing parties. Others formed truly mischievous alliances with forces in the black community that competed with the ANC: principally, the Inkatha Freedom Party. Both those sets of hardline Afrikaners were well represented in the national army and police, where they had access to lots of weaponry and logistics.
Actually, the years of transition 1990-94 ended up seeing the worst physical violence of the whole apartheid era. Mainly, it was between Inkatha and ANC supporters, concentrated in two areas of the country. Thousands of black people were killed, maimed, forced out of their homes.
The ANC always accused the white hardliners inside the NP government of having stirred up Inkatha, and supplied it with weapons and other support. They said that it was the security forces who were behind the arming of Inkatha as a “third force”. Most of those allegations were proven true by the revelations of later years.
… Of course, “divide and rule” is an old, old trick of colonial conquerors. I think there’s a huge potential for some of the hardline elements inside the Iraqi security forces to act as “third force” agents provocateurs in the days ahead, by people who seek to prevent any movement toward truly pacifying the situation…
And then, I really can’t believe that Amb. Negroponte or whoever really is in charge on the US side being delighted at a deal that allows Moqtadad Sadr to get away with his life and his freedom, and that seems to deal a blow to the Bush administration’s apparent determination to continue to impose its will on Iraqis???
The dangers of deadly mischief are truly huge.
On the other hand, presumably one of Negroponte’s chief operating instructions is not to let the situation in Iraq be too chaotic, and the numbers of US casualties there be too high, in the weeks leading up to the election?
Let’s see how it all works out.

10 thoughts on “Transition time in Najaf and all Iraq?”

  1. What was gained in the battle of Najaf? Nothing.
    Just a demonstration to the Iraqi people (and to the world) of our willingess to kill lots of people. And, oh yeah, what a big, bad killing machine we have. And how all the firepower in the world means nothing.
    Sadr is free. The Mahdi Army was allowed to slip away. All of Najaf, other than the Shrine of Ali itself, has been reduced to rubble. Sistani’s reputation enhanced a zillion-fold.
    So. What was this battle all about?
    But I’m not really asking you. I’m asking John Kerry. Will John Kerry even talk about this defeat, this humiliation, this shame?
    Well, I can tell you one thing: if he doesn’t, he is going to lose.
    This election is about who’s tough enough to protect us in dangerous times. Translation: who’s willing to fight.
    If John Kerry does not exhibit the willingness to take on George Bush – who is a big, fat, easy target – how can we trust him to take on Osama bin Laden?
    This is what the American people are looking for in a president in the year 2004.
    We are approaching the thousandth death in the Iraq war. John Kerry is too polite to mention it.
    This administration has done just about every bone-headed, INSENSITIVE thing it could do at every turn in this war, from Abu Ghraib to Falluja to Najaf. Kerry is too polite to mention it.
    Arthur Miller wrote a brilliant piece during the last presidential election, about politicians as actors (http://www.neh.gov/whoweare/miller/lecture.html). Among many other brilliant insights in the essay, he said that what the American people are voting for when they cast a vote for president, is someone to kill for them. That’s what makes a presidential election different from all other elections.
    If John Kerry thinks he can withstand being poked fun at by the president; if he thinks he is showing strength by not responding to Bush’s bullying; if he thinks that he can win this election by just not being Bush – he is dead wrong. He’s just another Dukakis in a tank. The American people will not elect a man president who does not demonstrate the willingness to fight.
    How many died in Najaf? And for what?
    If John Kerry does not start asking basic, obvious questions like these, if he does not get off the defensive…if he is not willing to show he can be Commander in Chief of the Anti-Bush brigade, he’s got no chance of becoming Commander in Chief of the United States.

  2. Glad to see you bring up the probability that the US will try to recoup its losses in all phases of the Iraq fiasco by arming Iraqi proxies to pick off opponents. At least that is how I read your reference to such formations as the Nat Party-supported Inkatha.
    Of course this is Negroponte’s stock in trade; he managed the contra army’s terrorist campaign against the people of Nicaragua when ambassador to Honduras in the 80s.
    Whether he can do this before the US election will probably depend on whether the mainstream US press in Iraq looks at all beneath the surface of events. That he is there to ensure covert control through some means before the Iraqi election (whenever it happens) I have no doubt.

  3. IN RESPONSE TO BEN BOCHNER’S POST
    >What was gained in the battle of Najaf?
    What was gained in the battle of Gettysburg?
    Just a demonstration to the world of our willingness to kill lots of people. And, oh yeah, what a big, bad killing machine we had in the Union and Confederate armies. And how all the firepower in the world at that time means nothing.
    Afterward, Lee and Grant were both free. The Confederate Army was allowed to slip away. All of everything in the area was reduced to rubble. Nobody’s reputation enhanced even a little.
    So. What was this battle all about? Najaf and Gettysburg were both about the same thing: the stuggle for human rights and freedom against those who want to crush the individual under the Islamic fascist boot.
    The battle in Najaf and the battle in Gettysburg involved victories and defeats. Everyone dead (63,000 in one day in Gettysburg — anything similar in Najaf?) lost their lives (very profound) but their lives were part of the march of humanity toward the freedom God intended from the start.
    >Will John Kerry even talk about this defeat, this humiliation, this shame?
    What nonsense.
    >This is what the American people are looking for in a president in the year 2004.
    >We are approaching the thousandth death in the Iraq war. John Kerry is too polite to mention it.
    He mentioned it today, and said they all died for freedom and America’s safety. What? Hello? Didn’t he mean to say they died for oil — or national hubris — or Bush’s bullying?
    >This administration has done just about every bone-headed, INSENSITIVE thing it could do at every turn in this war, from Abu Ghraib to Falluja to Najaf. Kerry is too polite to mention it.
    Kerry did say he would fight a more sensitive war. Gave me real goose bumbs! Let’s be sensitive and the Islamic terrorists who just this week tortured, shot in the back, and blew up over 300 children will love us.
    >How many died in Najaf? And for what?
    A lot fewer than 63,000 … and for man’s freedom and dignity … and for the safety of us back here at home.
    >If John Kerry does not start asking basic, obvious questions like these
    He’s a little too smart to ask basic, obvious questions where the answer is right in front of us and we somehow refuse to open our eyes and see it. He is a lot smarter John Kerry than he is painted here to be.

Comments are closed.