On Friday, in the midst of a Maliki-led offensive against in Basra, President Bush described the eruption of violence across the country as a “defining moment in the history of a free Iraq.”
It was, at the time, an odd way to put it. But let’s say, hypothetically, that the president has some sense of reality and that the last week really was a “defining moment.” I’m curious, then, now that the Shiite-on-Shiite crisis appears to be waning, what lessons Bush would have us draw from this “defining moment.” After all, by any reasonable measure, Maliki lost.
The Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr on Sunday called for his followers to stop fighting in Basra and in turn demanded concessions from Iraq’s government, after six days in which his Mahdi Army militia has held off an American-supported Iraqi assault on the southern port city.
The substance of Mr. Sadr’s statement, released Sunday afternoon, was hammered out in elaborate negotiations over the past few days with senior Iraqi officials, some of whom traveled to Iran to meet with Mr. Sadr, according to several officials involved in the discussions.
Yep, after Maliki’s offensive failed, who brokered a settlement? The commander of Iran’s Qods brigades. How encouraging. James Joyner added:
The Iraqi Army has, once again, proven itself to be a collection of amateurs, a substantial number of whom are cowards and/or disloyal. AP’s Charles Hanley provides a timeline of our efforts to stand up a competent force capable of fighting without American support and concludes, “Year by year, the goal of deploying a capable, free-standing Iraqi army has seemed to always slip further into the future.” It’s hard to argue with that assessment.
More importantly, any illusion that Iraq is near political reconciliation has also been shattered. The Western media division of Iraqis into merely three sects – Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd — is obviously wrong, as there is substantial discord within those groups. It’s difficult to imagine that six days of killing one another is going to lessen that in the near term.
Progress has gone backwards in practically every way possible.
The humiliation for Maliki — and, by extension, the Bush administration policy — is rather breathtaking. He launched this offensive, he oversaw the “crackdown” on Shiite militias, he vowed to see this through to “victory,” and he was backed up by U.S. forces, despite his apparent reluctance to tell U.S. officials about his plans before he attacked.
And now look at the landscape.
“If anyone comes out a winner, it’s Sadr,” said Joost Hiltermann, Middle East director of the International Crisis Group. “He’s coming out stronger, and Maliki looks like a lame duck.”
And lest anyone think a negotiated settlement with Sadr means the current surge in violence should now subside, that does not appear to be the case.
The fortified Green Zone came under fresh attack Monday, less than 24 hours after anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr told his fighters to stand down following a week of clashes with government forces. […]
The rocket or mortar attacks on the nerve center of the U.S. mission and the Iraqi government continued more than a week of near-daily fire mostly from Shiite-dominated areas of eastern Baghdad.
The number of rounds going into the zone has dropped in recent days, but the continuing attacks indicate that al-Sadr may not be able to reign in all Shiite militia factions.
Maybe the Bush White House and McCain campaigns can remind us about this being a “defining moment” for Iraq, and what we (or, more precisely, they) have learned as a result.