Thanks, Badger!

Our striped-face friend Badger writes that he’s taking a few days off. That’s a huge pity, because in the few weeks it’s been in existence his ‘Missing Links’ blog of (mainly) English translations of extremely strategically chosen items from the Arabic media has added a whole new dimension to our ability to understand what’s going on in Iraq.
And right now, Americans and all other members of the English-speaking world are sorely in need of greater understanding. Even for those of us who can read some Arabic, it is really, really hard to keep up with everything that’s out there. Besides, there really is a lot happening in Washington DC that needs writing about, too, these days…
Hence, the strong value of having someone of good judgment choose what Iraq-related Arabic sources to delve into and translate. I guess nosing around and digging deep are badger-y things to do.
So after writing this JWN post this morning, I made a long-overdue visit back to Badger’s blog and found a wealth of great posts that he’s put up there in recent days… And most especially, the posts dealing with the meeting held in Istanbul on Dec. 13the and 14th by a group of leaders of Sunni political currents from Iraq and from elsewhere in the region, and the political ‘fallout” from that meeting.
On Dec. 14th, Badger told us that the “government” of Iraq was protesting the holding of the meeting.
On the 15th, he told us about a statement Moqtada al-Sadr had issued, expressing his support for the gathering. Badger translated part of Sadr’s statement thus:

my whole concern is for the success of meetings like this, [of people] aiming to extricate themselves from the clutches of the occupation and the Baathists…I am ready to attend conferences in support of the Sunnis, those in support of the Shiites, or those in support of Iraq as a whole or indeed of any Islamic country”.

On the 16th, Badger gave us lengthy translations from the Az-Zaman and al-Hayat accounts of the conference.
On the 19th, he gave us a translation of a summary, posted on Aljazeeratalk.net, of a televised discussion held among participants after the wrap-up of the conference in Istanbul. Including this portion of the Aljazeeratalk text:

there was unanimous agreement on the concluding recommendations… but there was also one major point of disagreement: Is the Iraqi conflict sectarian or is it political?
Dulaimi is quoted as a proponent of the former view, as follows: He said (according to this summary): “[There is a] Shiite Safavid Persian Majousi threat originating in Iran and aiming to consume all of Iraq, and after that neighboring countries including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, by way of reviving the dream of a new Persian empire.”
Harith al-Dari disagreed and said this is “a political struggle plain and simple”. He said (according to this summary): “There are both Shiites and Sunnis on the one side under a single banner, and on the other side, arrayed against them, is the Occupation along with its Iraqi agents, aiming at the realization of its colonialist aims. [And this is the case] whether or not those [agents] connive with the Iraqi government and its institutions, or with the death-squads and the militias that are supported from outside”.

(I just note that the accusation about “Safavid Persian Majousi threat” is straight out of the Arab-nationalist– and also, anti-Iranian– script that Saddam used to use. Far as I can figure, “Majousi” has something to do with the “Magi”… and Hans Wehr seems to agree.)
In that post, too, Badger made this comment of his own:

It is worth considering the nature of this debate, alongside the comparable “debate” in America, on whether the Iraqi situation is “civil war, yes or no”. The trick here is that if you can pin the “civil war” label on Iraq (meaning essentially “sectarian conflict”), then in Dhari’s terms, this would be seen as no longer a political struggle at all, but a religious war. America would supposedly become a non-combattant, supposedly turning into a humanitarian assistant and peacekeeper. And America’s continued involvement would thus be justified. So while there are huge stakes for the Iraqis in correctly understanding what is going on, there are also stakes for Americans. Which is why I repeat: I am spooked by the fact that there is not a word about this conference, or the issues it raises, in any of the American media, or in any of the big, supposedly enlightening blogs either.
This AlJazeera item concludes with some remarks on the mechanics of the Istanbul conference. It is worth highlighting this: The meeting was held in Istanbul, Turkey, because Turkey is a country that enjoys the benefits of democracy, and allows for the free expression of a wide range of opinions. Food for thought.

Yesterday, Badger wrote a little about a storm of criticism that met some of Dulaimi’s statements from some figures in the Iraqi “parliament”.
(He also, inter alia, makes reference to something that’s a very salient fact regarding the depth of Iraq’s political crisis today: Namely, that this “parliament” has been quite unable to muster anything like a quorum for some time now. And I think that even predates the Sadrists’ walkout…)
Further down in this post, Badger notes that, “Americans got their first report about the Istanbul conference this morning, via Juan Cole.” Well, make that “most” Americans, Badger, since there were a few of us who had read about it earlier.
He then goes on to criticise Juan’s portrayal of the conference and the subsequent political flap around it, in quite strong terms. He wrote that Cole,

(1) called statements of Dulaimi “incendiary”, but failed to mention the more enlightened comments that Harith al-Dhari made in rebuttal; (2) quotes a Shiite website that reported allegations about an arrest-warrant against Dulaimi, without telling readers that this was false; (3) failed to pay any attention to the more balanced Al-Jazeera summary of the Istanbul proceedings (mentioned here in a prior post). Cole presents a one-sided account, followed up with something equally incendiary (and false to boot). It is a case study in how to go about taking a contentious event, and instead of explaining the dynamics in an even-handed way, using it instead in a partisan way to fan the flames higher.

I think that’s a fair criticism, though I don’t know if Juan was doing that with bad (inflammatory) intentions or simply through lack of attention to the details of what he was writing about. I suspect the latter. I do know that Juan has been paying far less sustained attention to the Arabic source media than he used to in the early months of the war.
Which is one of the reasons I am particularly glad we have Badger addressing himself to the task there.
In addition to writing about the Istanbul conference and the developments that flowed from it, Badger also gave us this timely offering on Monday (Dec. 18th). It gives translations from items in both al-Hayat and Aswat al-Iraq that reported that Moqtada Sadr had sent a delegation to Basra to thank a group of political leaders connected with the Islamic Party, with the Muslim Scholars Association, and with something called the League of Islamic Unity– all of them Sunni-based organizations– in which these leaders issued a fatwa banning the killing of other Muslims, and the killing of Shiites, in particular.
The statement was issued shortly after the series of incidents Dec. 12th in which three car-bombers killed some 70 day-laborers in a busy square in a Shiite part of Baghdad.
Badger told us the Aswat al-Iraq account reported that,

The (above-mentioned) spokesman for the Sunni group added that there was a meeting between the Sadr representatives and the Sunni group, at which “a spirit of understanding and cooperation prevailed”. He said they agreed on the need to support Iraqi unity, and to denounce terrorist operations and “anything that detracts from the unity and the fabric of Iraqi society”.

Again, a development of which we heard zero in a US MSM that is still– and quite in line with the spin from the Bushites and other American hawks– far, far too intent on painting everything in Iraq in starkly sectarian and belligerent colors.
So anyway, thank you Badger. Have a happy Christmas break. But please get back to your badger-y pursuits as fast as you can.