I'm finding the stories out of Iraq the last few days to be pretty confusing. I'll summarize what I think I know, but I reserve the right to back out if I misunderstand something.
Prime Minister al-Maliki decided to flex some muscle (for reasons that people are debating) and take back the lawless city of Basra. I gather that Basra is a lot like Casablanca in the movie, where there are swirling factions in uneasy balance, and the British troops were keeping the lid on without taking absolute control. Now the British troops have been reduced, and the Mahdi Army led by al-Sadr has gained influence. Since Basra is a major port and one of the main economic centers of Iraq, the al-Maliki government would like total control.
What some find unusual is that both fighting factions are Shi'a, complicating the issues of what might happen if we pull our troops out. The assumption is that sectarian violence would increase, but it is quite possible that there will be intra-sect fighting as well.
Now it seems that there has been a negotiated peace; ominously, Iran was involved and al-Maliki may not have been. Whatever else may be happening, chaos or near-chaos seem to continue to be the order of the day.
What troubles me is that, from all accounts (including that of CIA director Hayden on Meet the Press yesterday), al-Maliki started this fight all on his own, without consultation with anyone from our side. However, our military was involved because of our commitment to the Iraqi government.
So, if I've got this right, American troops can be committed, put in harm's way, due to the whim of al-Maliki. Does that mean we've given him effective command over our troops? For a country that is reluctant to be part of UN peacekeeping forces because we'd have to cede our control, this seem like inconsistent policy.
Prime Minister al-Maliki decided to flex some muscle (for reasons that people are debating) and take back the lawless city of Basra. I gather that Basra is a lot like Casablanca in the movie, where there are swirling factions in uneasy balance, and the British troops were keeping the lid on without taking absolute control. Now the British troops have been reduced, and the Mahdi Army led by al-Sadr has gained influence. Since Basra is a major port and one of the main economic centers of Iraq, the al-Maliki government would like total control.
What some find unusual is that both fighting factions are Shi'a, complicating the issues of what might happen if we pull our troops out. The assumption is that sectarian violence would increase, but it is quite possible that there will be intra-sect fighting as well.
Now it seems that there has been a negotiated peace; ominously, Iran was involved and al-Maliki may not have been. Whatever else may be happening, chaos or near-chaos seem to continue to be the order of the day.
What troubles me is that, from all accounts (including that of CIA director Hayden on Meet the Press yesterday), al-Maliki started this fight all on his own, without consultation with anyone from our side. However, our military was involved because of our commitment to the Iraqi government.
So, if I've got this right, American troops can be committed, put in harm's way, due to the whim of al-Maliki. Does that mean we've given him effective command over our troops? For a country that is reluctant to be part of UN peacekeeping forces because we'd have to cede our control, this seem like inconsistent policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment