Violence in Iraq increases as Shiite militias battle for control of oil in Basra

[motivez]

BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraq's prime minister on Wednesday gave gunmen in the southern oil port of Basra a three-day deadline to surrender their weapons and renounce violence as clashes between Shiite militia fighters and Iraqi security forces erupted for a second day.

At least 55 people have been killed and 300 wounded in Basra and Baghdad after the fighting spread to the capital's main Shiite district of Sadr City, police and hospital officials said.

The ultimatum came as Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was in Basra to supervise a crackdown against the spiraling violence between militia factions vying for control of the center of the country's vast oil industry located near the Iranian border. The violence has raised fears that the cease-fire declared in August by Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr could unravel, presenting the gravest challenge to the Iraqi government in months.

Suspected Shiite extremists also unleashed rockets or mortars against the U.S.-protected Green Zone in central Baghdad for the third day this week.

Three Americans were seriously injured in the attacks on Wednesday, U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo said. At least four Iraqis also were killed after at least two mortar or rocket rounds fell short in Shiite areas of Baghdad.

A resumption of intense fighting by al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia could kill more U.S. soldiers and threaten - at least in the short run - the security gains Washington has hailed as a sign that Iraq is on the road to recovery.

The burgeoning crisis - part of an intense power struggle among Shiite political factions - also will test the skill and resolve of Iraq's Shiite-led government in dealing with Shiite militias, with whom the national leadership had maintained close ties.

The Sadrists are angry over recent raids and detentions, saying U.S. and Iraqi forces have taken advantage of the cease-fire to crack down on the movement.

They also have accused rival Shiite parties, which control Iraqi security forces, of engineering the arrests to prevent them from mounting an effective election campaign. The showdown with al-Sadr has been brewing for months but has accelerated since parliament agreed in February to hold provincial elections by the fall.

On Wednesday in Basra, gunfire echoed through the streets as Iraqi soldiers and police fought the Mahdi Army, police said.

Reinforcements were sent to Basra from the Shiite holy city of Karbala, Interior Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf said, adding a large number of gunmen have been detained.

Mortar rounds also hit a detention center in central Basra and injured 10, police said.

Sadiq al-Rikabi, a chief adviser to al-Maliki, said gunmen who fail to turn over their weapons to police stations in Basra by Friday will be targeted for arrest. He added that they also must sign a pledge renouncing violence.

"Any gunman who does not do that within these three days will be an outlaw," he said.

Iraqi officials say at least 40 people were killed and 200 wounded in the fighting in Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, 340 miles southeast of Baghdad.

British troops have remained at their base at the airport outside Basra and were not involved in the ground fighting, although British planes were providing air surveillance, according to the British Ministry of Defense. It said Wednesday that the Iraqis had not asked the British to intervene.

British forces turned over responsibility for Basra to the Iraqis in late December but say they will assist the Iraqis upon request.

Followers of al-Sadr also have been fighting U.S. and Iraqi forces in Baghdad and other cities in reaction to the Basra crackdown. Fifteen people were killed and 100 wounded in clashes in Sadr City that broke out Tuesday, according to police and hospital officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to release the information.

Hundreds of Sadr City residents took to the streets on Wednesday, demanding the government stop military operations in Basra and other cities and withdraw all security forces.

"We strongly condemn the assaults being conducted by the occupation forces along with the Iraqi security forces who have sold themselves to the renegade occupier," said demonstration leader Sheik Saleh al-Eraibi.

Nobody claimed responsibility for the attacks against the Green Zone, which houses the American and British embassies as well as the Iraqi government headquarters.

The U.S. military blamed Iranian-backed Shiite militia factions for a spate of rockets that struck the sprawling area on Sunday, killing an American financial analyst working for the embassy. Another volley slammed into the area on Tuesday, but Nantongo said no deaths or major casualties were reported.

A mortar shell or rocket that apparently fell short on Wednesday also struck a minibus in the mainly Shiite district of Karradah, killing at least two passengers and wounding seven others, according to police and hospital officials.

Two other Iraqis were killed and four wounded when another round struck a residential area in a Shiite neighborhood in western Baghdad, police said.

---
By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA

Associated Press writers Bushra Juhi and Sinan Salaheddin contributed to this report.

My Way News - Iraqi PM Gives Basra Gunmen Ultimatum

Stories like this are all over today, and have been for the last few days..

Sadr himself has said stuff like this:

The fighting, sparked by a crackdown on militant and criminal activity, prompted the radical Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al Sadr to threaten a "civil revolt" across the nation.

...

However, Sadr warned he would launch protests and a nationwide strike if the attacks were not stopped.

Basra, Iraq: Street Battles As Army Tackles Sadr Militiamen |Sky News|World News

I really hope stuff like this illustrates to the "surge is working" crowd that al-Sadr's militia calling a ceasefire with the other rival militias has been the key reason that violence has dropped, and not primarily an increased US presence in the country.

Granted, this isn't in Baghdad, but the point is still the same.

If this continues, and he withdraws the ceasefire agreement, I think we can expect to see violence skyrocket like it was before he called the ceasefire, which was right around the time the surge was starting.

I'm not trying to diminish the great work the troops have done, but I think it's a little silly that our media, and especially the Bush Administration and Republicans in general have, for the most part, ignored the fact that the militias responsible for most of the violence in the country called a ceasefire that coincided with the surge..

I think it overestimates our influence and ability to crack down on the militias, and a false sense of accomplishment doesn't do us any good in the long run.

One positive thing to come out of these stories is seeing Maliki actually IN Basra, trying to exert the national government's influence to get things under control.. and show that the militias don't control the region, the national government does..

The fact that it's been mostly the Iraqi forces responding, though with the support of our air power.. is also encouraging.

However, I think the fact that it's in the midst of a ceasefire might make some overconfident on this issue also, if the ceasefire wasn't in place, would we see this, or would we see them relying more on our ground forces to do the heavy work with them in a support role?

[Thorgrim]

You are highlighting an important half of a two part story

The other problems with the Sunnis have been heating up

But the security that has been achieved here is fragile, the result of harsh tactics recalling the rule of Saddam Hussein, who was overthrown five years ago. Even as they work alongside U.S. forces, Zobaie's men admit they have beaten and tortured suspects to force confessions and exact revenge.

In Fallujah, Peace Through Brute Strength

A telephone survey by GuardianFilms for Channel 4 News reveals that out of 49 Sahwa councils four with more than 1,400 men have already quit, 38 are threatening to go on strike and two already have.

Improved security in Iraq in recent months has been attributed to a combination of the surge, the truce observed by Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi army, and the effectiveness and commitment of the councils, which are drawn from Sunni Arabs and probably the most significant factor, according to most analysts

Sunni militia strike could derail US strategy against al-Qaida | World news | The Guardian

So, now only is the surge process looking like it could collapse infront of us, but those places that are staying "calm" are using Saddam tactics

This is disgusting ironic considering the ONLY rationale we have left for what we did in Iraq to was to rid Iraq of Saddam like tactics

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

You are highlighting an important half of a two part story

The other problems with the Sunnis have been heating up



In Fallujah, Peace Through Brute Strength



Sunni militia strike could derail US strategy against al-Qaida | World news | The Guardian

So, now only is the surge process looking like it could collapse infront of us, but those places that are staying "calm" are using Saddam tactics

This is disgusting ironic considering the ONLY rationale we have left for what we did in Iraq to was to rid Iraq of Saddam like tactics

I think this is proof that the Surge did nothing. The only reason that there was a decrease in violence was because Al-Sadr declared a cease fire. As soon as he called that off, the violence returned to previous levels. The Surge was just a happy cooincidence.
It just goes to show that no matter what our troop levels, Iraq is in the hands of it's own people. They can create peace or violence. We can't stop them.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I think this is proof that the Surge did nothing. The only reason that there was a decrease in violence was because Al-Sadr declared a cease fire. As soon as he called that off, the violence returned to previous levels. The Surge was just a happy cooincidence.
It just goes to show that no matter what our troop levels, Iraq is in the hands of it's own people. They can create peace or violence. We can't stop them.

I hate to continually disagree with people I fundamentally agree with, but I have to say the much bigger happy coincidence was that in 2006 the Sunnis turned on Al Qaeda and started a large offensive WITHOUT ANY SURGE

[motivez]

If you're saying it played a bigger role than the ceasefire, you're wrong IMO.

It played a role, but Al Qaeda in Iraq was only a very small percentage of the violence. Much more of it came from the Shiite militia infighting, and their clashes with the Sunnis.

Al Qaeda's direct role in the violence was always overstated, their attacks that fomented more violence between the militias on both the Sunni and the Shiite side played a big role, and helped to create the dire situation that existed, but not their direct involvement in day to day violence.

We're essentially paying those who were shooting at us months ago to not shoot at us now, I'm not really sure how I feel about my tax dollars going to groups that are just as likely to turn on us a month, or 6 months down the road if things take a turn in the other direction..

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by motivez

If you're saying it played a bigger role than the ceasefire, you're wrong IMO.

It played a role, but Al Qaeda in Iraq was only a very small percentage of the violence. Much more of it came from the Shiite militia infighting, and their clashes with the Sunnis.

Al Qaeda's direct role in the violence was always overstated, their attacks that fomented more violence between the militias on both the Sunni and the Shiite side played a big role, and helped to create the dire situation that existed, but not their direct involvement in day to day violence.

We're essentially paying those who were shooting at us months ago to not shoot at us now, I'm not really sure how I feel about my tax dollars going to groups that are just as likely to turn on us a month, or 6 months down the road if things take a turn in the other direction..

Al Qaeda was hyped up, but the general insurgency wasn't...military reports from the summer of 2006 was that Anbar was lost, by the winter they were allying with us...that was never the case with Basra...

I'd really prefer not to go break down the attacks (because it'd be a pain in the ass), but I believe 2006 attacks in areas of strong sunni insurgency presence (ie not sadr city baghdad or shia south) were where US troops were dying at a signicantly higher level

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I hate to continually disagree with people I fundamentally agree with, but I have to say the much bigger happy coincidence was that in 2006 the Sunnis turned on Al Qaeda and started a large offensive WITHOUT ANY SURGE

Yeah I think the underlying message here is that the fate of Iraq is not in our hands anymore. Whether we have 50,000, 150,000 or half a million troops there. If those people don't want peace then there will not be peace. I think that the constant framing of "winning or losing" by the Bush admin is particularly offensive. There is nothing to win or lose here. There is only varying degrees of political stability. Whenever he says " The surge is working, we are winning" I want to grab him by his neck and shake him around.

[Thorgrim]

In October 2005, during one of the bloodiest months of the insurgency, before any serious signs of a switch from secular insurgents attackings americans to attacking al qaeda...

Nearly 100 US troops were killed...in places like Salah ad Din province, Babil, Anbar...made up the vast majority of the troop deaths, and these Sunni dominated areas, and if you include mixed regions it's near 100%, only one non-US soldier was killed in Basra, and as far as I can see, any other Shia stronghold

But more to the point, the majority of the deaths occured in areas the Mahdi army had NO presence

Period Details

[Donkey®]

Yay surge.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Yay surge.

I used to love this stuff back in college.

[Thorgrim]

you know, what really sucks is that I used to use the word surge fairly often, now I can't stand to use it in formal papers and such

[Donkey®]

Where are the "it's going great in Iraq" people? They seem to avoid threads like this.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Where are the "it's going great in Iraq" people? They seem to avoid threads like this.

they are hoping that things will be better in a few months, then they'll bring up how intelligent they were to...be "silently brave"

if things ever collapse, they'll say "WELL THE SURGE WORKED IT'S JUST THINGS WERE BAD EARLIER LIKE MCCAIN SAID, BUT WE NEED HIM AND YEAH THE DEMOCRATS WERE ALL NEGATIVE NANCIES...GET IT?"

[avsp]

At the surge's announcement it was pointed out that the enemy would adapt & that CoW would havbeto re-adapt, its in the nature of warfare isnt it? But Bush was already so discredited that few listened to what he actuallt said

At least in the case of Basra its the central govt trying to enforce its edict without, (so far), direct CoW help on the ground, (IIUC CoW airstrikes are being used)

This is exactly what was asked for 'the iraqis stepping up themselves'

The problems are can they actually do it & has the timing been determined by US domestic party political needs?

Essentiaslly, as some genius pointed out exactly 5 years ago next week, CoW needs to loose the the right people

Not handing Iraq, (ie its ooil), to Iran is what this may well be about. Tho' if the Iranians have any gumption then they'll've backed both sides of this conflict & thats what this is really about.

Kurdish autonomy is currently a fact, ..., going to be well hard for Baghdad to 'undo' that

The Sunnis are probably best off on their own

Break up seems the real way forward for short to medium term regional, (& thus world), stability

I daresay any Sunni nation will have significant pro-AQ elements driving policy, ..., probably.

FWIW, Mccain is the only candidate talking sense on Iraq, but his '100 year' comment shows such a massive misunderstanding of the whole deal that he shouldn't be allowed to speak in public. Lets hope the dem line is just cant to get elected. Incidently portraying the significance the '100 year' comment in primarily US terms is so f*cking stupid that it makes me want to declare my own war