Make HuffPost Your HomePage
Get Email Alerts
Moqtada & McCain
Things are not what they seem inside Iraq. Boiling just below the surface of the U.S. military's painstaking efforts to quell urban violence throughout Baghdad and the still violent-ridden cities of the north is the evil Shiite cleric Moqtada al Sadr. Moqtada announced today that he may call off his self-imposed cease fire that has kept the Shiite militia known as the Mahdi Army from resuming its bloody war against American and Iraq forces.
Moqtada's statement may be just a ploy to compel the shaky Iraqi government to pay more lip service to his political agenda that ultimately aims at taking over the Shiite dominated government of Iraq. Or, it could signal an actual end to the ceasefire because he is increasingly worried that the newly-armed Sunni militias, whether by default or by design encouraged by our military, are increasingly targeting his Mahdi Army.
Whatever may be Moqtada's motive, a resumption of warfare against American troops will have a direct impact on John McCain's presidential ambitions. Why?
McCain has been cheeleader-in-chief of the military's Iraqi "surge" strategy. He has ridden the surge like a magic carpet arguing to the American people that he deserved a good deal of the credit for forcing the Bush Administration to adopt it. Even on the ashes of a failed policy, poll after poll shows that the surge's success in quelling much of the violence in Baghdad and in Al Anbar province has effectively taken Iraq off the political agenda of the presidential campaign as the top issue of concern to Americans.
But keeping the lid on Baghdad's violence has less to do with Al Qaeda in Iraq (largely reduced to a band of scattered terrorists), and far more to do with the venom that could be once again unleashed by Moqtada's Mahdi Army and the other Shiite militias that take their orders from Iran's Revolutionary Guard leadership just across the border.
If Moqtada decides to revert to violence, the U.S. military will be forced to turn its sights against the Mahdi Army and the casualties will surely ramp up and grab front page headlines back in the U.S.
That would certainly not augur well for McCain's presidential campaign.
Despite the surge's military gains, the last thing that Gen. Petreaeus needs is to have to reengage the Mahdi Army, which has proven time and again to be a force to be reckoned with. And the last thing McCain needs is a media that begins reminding the American people why his unyielding support for a long term commitment of U.S. forces in Iraq is just a carryover of Bush's Iraq disaster.
Moqtada is no fool. He is a cunning chameleon who has successfully played us like a fiddle. His ultimate goal is to become leader of Iraq, and if that happens, surge and all, that would constitute the ultimate measure of defeat for the America's failed Iraq policy. Moqtada is not yet that close to the prize, but he will make a calculated determination whether even a limited break of the cease fire could compel the Iraqi government to more forcefully reign in the Sunni rearming taking place under the guise of the Sunni Awakening.
Last night in Columbus, Ohio, McCain turned his sights on Barack Obama and fired away at his inexperience as a potential commander in chief. But McCain's unfair attacks on Obama may backfire on him. Like any other terror leader in the world, Moqtada is carefully watching the Presidential campaign in the U.S. Moqtada knows that a McCain victory will keep American troops in Iraq far longer than he can tolerate in order to fulfill his political ambitions. That's why Moqtada may soon decide it is time to send a signal to the American people that McCain's Iraq strategy is full of holes. If that happens, McCain's magic surge carpet may fast lose its altitude, and there is nothing that he will be able to do about it.
Unfortunately, in this dangerous game of "surge political chicken" it's the American military that will have to defend McCain's misplaced bravado.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The great level playing field for the people would be....
Immediately reinstate the draft...
That will bring the real change.....
sierra
"Obama will then go down in history as having destroyed all the security gains made by the surge and be branded by the Iraqi people as the worse Hussein to hit their country since Saddam."Apollo MIS Speaks
That might happen. But as history stands
I'm sure you meant Bush instead of OBAMA.
Bush will go down in history as having destroyed all the security gains made by Saddam when the GOP helped him gain power by arming Saddam with weapons to gas his own people and go to war with Iran.
Somehow the CONstipators who thought this war would be a cakewalk forgot the reason they helped Saddam in the first place. It was to stop the influence of Iran and this war has had the complete opposite effect.
So Bush gets a call form the Saudis who don't like the Iranians and now don't you find it ironic that we are arming and training the same people we were supposed to remove from power in Iraq.
That goes back to your original post.
Bush will go down in history as having destroyed all the security gains made by Saddam when the GOP helped him gain power by arming Saddam with weapons to gas his own people and go to war with Iraq.
It goes to say:
With friends like the GOP America will always have enemies.
What I find interesting is Ginsberg's characterization of al Sadr as "evil." Evil of course has different meaning but I'm not sure how Ginsberg means the term given the context with which he uses the term. Regardless of his meaning, I expect several hundred thousand Baghdad Shiites feel differently. There is nothing inherently wrong with expressing bias but characterizing al Sadr as evil is frankly wrong headed in much the same way as characterizing Ho Chi Mien, Castro, or anyone our government opposes or has opposed as evil. It is good to keep in mind that millions in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine see America as evil and their characterizations are as wrong as Ginsberg's
Ginsberg is incorrect in calling Sadr "evil". While he is a Muslim cleric, he is not a demon, and his actions are a mixture of good and evil like any other human being, and he is no more evil than many of the other leaders of the area, possibly even including some that are not Muslim. The militias associated with him have participated in "neighborhood protection" and associated violence, as have all the other militias in this civil war, including the occupying forces. His enemies have taken advantage of his ceasefire to kill and imprison many of his allies. Ginsburg is also incorrect in saying he follows the leadership of the Iran Revolutionary Guard. He has consistently opposed control of Iraq by any foreign power, including Iran as well as the United States; many of his Shiite opponents are strongly associated with Iran. As one of the few Iraqi leaders that is not viewed as a collaborationist with Saddam, Iran or the U. S., he may have a significant role in the establishment of an independent Iraq, should that ever be permitted, and it is inappropriate to demonize him. He may be the only leader who can keep Iraq out of Iranian control.
From a soldier's perspective :
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sgt-john-bruhns/unforgivable_b_87658.html
Hey Patriots,
Where are our dreams? They are not coming to us from the waisted tool called the TV, which I call a MEDIA-RIGHT STORM!
This Jim Croce clip, 'Which Way are You Going sums up our time better than anything I have yet to see, read or hear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NB2c5ZRX9cg
Though there is a Peace Treaty site out there with a whole bunch of good ideas.
http://www.thepeacetreaty.com/
And inch by inch this care2 network of 8 million concerned Humans is on the move.
http://my.care2.com/leoburg
Thanks very much for the Jim Croce link. It is amazing how the very thing that is happening today was sung about by Jim Croce years ago. That the link shows the horrors of war is the reality america is missing. Thanks again.
MR. ambassador:
Suppose that you are right. How is Obama better equipped to handle Sadr than McCain?
Is everything negotiable? With all the "negotiations" (in quotes because I don't think there was a sincere bone in Arafat's body) were you and the Clinton Administration able to get one step closer to peace?
Is Sadr's "cease fire" out of the sincerity and goodness of his heart or was it watching the U.S. get rid of Al Qaeda in Iraq (with the help of the Iraqis, of course)?
Jan, why are you showing off your ignorance. It is plain to see you've never even considered the Democratic platform viewpoint on war. Obama is a part of that platform and he stands for bringing back our troops, negotiations be damned. We were getting all the oil we wanted and needed BEFORE the war and we'll get it after. This war is for and about the oil conglomerates who are the chimp's benefactors. If you're one of the 28%'ers who are still swallowing the 'terrist' bullshit you need to sign up right away! By the by, Arafat represented the palestinians, NOT the Iraqi people. Now hurry and go get your little gold star and be proud.
JanP,, why do you arrogany Americans feel that you all can " handle" anybody? You are in Sadars Country ILLEGALLY.
Is there a sincere bone in ANY Republican's body? Liar Bush? Liar Cheney? Keating 5 Lobbist Loving Mass muderer McCain?
The day you stop thinking you have some superior right to impose your Imperialist will on others is the day of Peace.
You are entirely correct about "playing the US like a fiddle." This is a very well-reasoned analysis.
History repeats itself.
Talleyrand's opposition to Napoleon wanting to invade Spain:
"We shall have to fight insurrection, which is the worst kind of war. I predicted so before, when I tried to stop Napoleon from meddling in Spain's affairs. Napoleon did not listen. In the hornet's nest he entered he ingloriously wore out his army. This was the beginning of his fall. Well now! We insist on going to Spain. History will repeat itself."
Pity Bush doesn't read much.
The truth is that none of these 'top-tier' candidates will change the situation in Iraq, or in the Middle East.
McCain, Huckabee, Obama and Clinton have not only continued to fund this war, they've each pledged to stay in Iraq for many years. And they've all threatened Iran and Pakistan. Yes, even Obama, the candidate of change.
The only significant change I've seen in Obama is he's openly threatened to use nukes. I suppose that might guarantee there are no messy insurgencies on his watch.
The forces that propel us to vote for candidates who will maintain the status quo while advocating change are powerful and well-funded. They not only have the media on their side, they are the media.
Listen to the rest of the world if you're looking for change, there is real change coming from outside the US. They"ve become exasperated with us, they are beginning to hold us responsible for the actions of our government. They are beginning to dislike Americans, not just American administrations.
And with good reason.
McCain wants to change the status quo to Victory. Victory is not a word we here much about except as it applies to the Jihadists in iraq, Afghanist, Pakistan and Iran.
Fortunately, our parents and grandparents had an idea what vitory meant in WW-II.
McCain wants to change the status quo to victory? How do you suppose he is going to do that? Is he going to have a surge on top of the surge? How about three years of constant air bombardment of the entire country, of every major city, until Iraq looks like Berlin at the end of WWII? Or, maybe we syhould just nuke a couple cities like we did in Japan. Can you support those two options? If not, don't bring up the ridiculous notion of victory, becuase there won't be the victory you are looking for any other way.
As long as the wealthy control America. As long as they control the media. As long as they control the election apparatus by continuing to lie about money representing Free Speech and needing an Electoral College, we commoners of this country won't matter. We have had very little say since this nation was created only the mirage of representative government which they allow us in order to keep us mollified. They allow us enough luxury just enough to keep us satisfied like cattle. Eating, Sleeping and procreating enough so that we can continue to consume, labor and fight their wars for them. This entire so called experiment in Democracy is nothing but an illusion.
Obama hasn't threatened to use nukes - he was criticized for saying he would not nuke terrorists. McCain and Clinton want to "keep all the options on the table."
You are correct, my mistake. Obama would send US troops into Pakistan, but did not threaten nukes.
But my initial statement is still true, there will be little change in our foreign policy regardless of which of them gets into office.
What will change US foreign policy is our inevitable decline in pursuit of empire, which has already begun.
All al-Sadr has to do is stage a surprise offensive-- maybe closer to the fall than now. Then after Obama wins, Moqtada takes credit for the ensuing US withdrawal. The Mahdi Army attacked the Brits in Basra, who were withdrawing anyway, just to claim credit for driving them out/
If violence in Iraq goes up, McCain will use it to insist that we need to even "surge" more and that we cannot abandon our "mission" there.
I don't think Al Sadr will do anything, though.
Ok Mr. Ginsberg, suppose Obama, the weakest Democratic candidate by experience in our nations history happens to win the election. Let's replace McCain's name with his in the Middle East and see how scary that picture will be. If Obama wins the Presidency the first eloquent words he will utter is "Now what?" He will deal with our security, with terrorism, with Iran, with al-Sadr, with Iraq, with the resurgence of the KGB in Russia and Putin. Obama promises our troops out of Iraq by 2009, well like the old saying, you break it you own it. If he removes the troops and Iraq collapses and Iran moves on Iraq, we will be right back there with a bigger mess. That is if Obama is so naive to do it. Frankly, so far I don't think Obama has a clue of what he will do. He makes a lot of pretty speeches but lacks all substance and one other thing he lacks is experience in politics. All he has managed to do in Washington in his very short time there is to polish his rhetoric. I am going to build my bomb shelter now while I have the chance.
Bondaroid, you are incorrect, my friend.
Do you know what Lincoln's experience was when he was elected in 1860? You don't?
Two years in the House of Representatives, and one losing run at the Senate. That's it. And he was only three years older than Obama is now.
right like bush was known for his. gimme abrake thats why they have advisors.
It is not experience that matters.
It's judgment.
And you are absolutley correct about Lincolns lack of experience.
Did have pretty good judgment though.
The money quote in Bondaroid's comment: "...I don't think..."
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Maybe you can store your 1950's mentality there as well...along with your cans of soup and dried out ideas.
Oh my... where to start?
Cite your source on Obama being "the weakest Democratic candidate by experience in our nation's history." What sort of comparison have you done? What criteria did you use? What were your sources? Be specific.
Of course, it goes without saying that Obama at his point in his career has much, much more real political experience than does the current occupant of the White House. Can Obama (or anyone else) possibly do as poor a job as our current president has done? You know, Dubya's "experience" was being a failed businessman (several failures, actually) and serving as the weakest governor in all of the 50 states. Read up on Texas politics and you'll see.
Do you seriously think that Obama, or anyone else who runs for president, has no idea what he will do when in office? Have you ever so much as read or listened to a speech by Obama? Reviewed any of his legislation? (FYI, there is no "Presidential University" from which qualified people graduate. Might be nice, tho.)
If Obama removes our troops from Iraq, there is very little chance that Iran would successfully be able to "move in on Iraq". Sure, there are some Iraqi clerics who are cozy with Tehran, but remember that these people fought a long, bitter war against each other and still remember the fight. Most Iraqis have relatives who perished in that war, and I doubt very much that they'd be happier with Iranian occupiers than they are with US occupiers. Besides, how much do you know about Iran anyway? What makes you think that they are in a position to do such a thing to Iraq? Just because both countries are "Muslim" doesn't mean that they are allies.
Obama's political career began LONG before he was elected Senator and moved to DC. How can you honestly say that he "lacks all substance" and "lacks experience in politics"? Truth is, you can't if you really know Obama's record.
Moqtada al Sadr. Ah, yes.
After the invasion, Marine General Mattis ("no better friend, no worse enemy") was on The Online Newshour on September 26, 2003.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec03/marine_9-26.html
He said that he had sent 15,000 of his Marines home in May of 2003 as superflous, and that Moqtada al Sadr was too young to command any respect or following.
"MAJ. GEN. JAMES MATTIS: Sadr is impotent. Sadr has no following. He gets more of a following in the international press than he gets inside Najaf. He is in an area where you are not considered to be a grown man until you're 40. He tries to tell people he is 29. In fact he is about 23 years old. He is just a guy with a very marginal following, and right now the people of Najaf don't even turn out for his sermons more than a couple hundred of them. He is simply not a big influence in the town."
My, how times change.
Whether we're losing one soldier a month or a hundred, whether we're spending $50 billion a year or $150 billion a year, Iraq was, is and evermore will be, a disaster. It created millions of potential terrorists out of ordinary Arabs, it pilloried American prestige and took resources away from the effort to capture or kill Bin Laden. The fact that Iraq is not too big of an issue to torpedo McCain's candidacy, just indicated how short the average American attention span is.
Agreed. The claim that the Iraq campaign can be a success is, at this point, ridiculous.
I liken it to a hypothetical case where a patient is talked into having an operation to fix a hernia. He wakes up 4 months later from a coma, sees that both legs are missing, blind in one eye, paralyzed in what's left of his right side, has to be on dialysis for the rest of his life, needs $1000 worth of meds every month, lost his healthcare coverage and is given a bill for his $400,000 hospital stay. He sees the surgeon who tells him the operation was a success because he's still alive. When the guy asks if the hernia got fixed, the surgeon tells him no, he never had a hernia in the first place. But he is alive and the operation was a success.
At this point, Iraq cannot be a success. All we can do is try to minimize the damage.
How do you know it created terrorists? What about all those Iraqi that have turned on the Jihadist terrorists?
DO you think all those idiots who blow themselves up to kill women and children would be peaceful shop keepers and farmers if we weren't there?
Loading comments…
These are not just the philosophical musings of a new...
I'm pleased to announce the launch today of two new HuffPost...
Long before $150,000-gate, Sarah Palin seemed to...
The Obamas dropped by the Vatican on Friday, with daughters...
Yesterday evening, Greg Sargent reported on The Plum Line that one of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's key reasons...
I never actually heard the words made famous by a certain man on a certain TV show. Instead I got a lot...
Jim Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for...
Don't write off Saint Sarah all you political pundits,...
ANCHORAGE, Alaska — The former fiance of Gov. Sarah Palin's...
Hermione herself, Emma Watson, charmed David Letterman and...
Think Progress flags David Brooks telling...
While we of course do not claim to know anyone's thoughts, we nominate these...
The Daily Show's John Oliver is unhappy with mainstream journalism, and even drearier...
For this week's installment of their "Lunch with the FT" feature the...
Al Franken's been anointed as Minnesota's junior senator, but how did the...
SYDNEY — Residents of a rural Australian town hoping to protect the earth and their wallets...
"What's for dinner?" A lot of us ask that question right...
Posted February 20, 2008 | 08:31 AM (EST)