| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
By Ghaith Abdul-Ahad for The Guardian:
On a recent overcast afternoon in Basra, two new police SUVs drove onto a dusty, rubbish-strewn football pitch where a group of children were playing. The game stopped and the kids looked on.
Three men in white dishdashas got out of one of the cars. One, holding a Kalashnikov, stood guard as the other two removed some metal tubes and cables from the back of a vehicle. As the two men fiddled with the wires, the man with the gun waved it at a teenager who wanted to film with his mobile phone.
Then, amid cries of "Moqtada, Moqtada" and "Allahu Akbar", there were two thunderous explosions and a pair of Katyusha rockets streaked up into the sky. Their target would be the British base in Saddam Hussein's former palace compound. Their landing place could be anywhere in Basra, and was most likely to be a civilian home.
The men got back in their cars and drove away, and the children resumed their match.
"Since the British started deploying the anti-rocket magnetic fields our rockets are falling on civilians," Abu Mujtaba, the commander of the group of Mahdi army men told me later. The "magnetic fields" are the latest rumour doing the rounds of Basra's militias; another is that the British are shelling civilians to damage the reputation of the Mahdi army.
[...]
"If the Prophet Muhammad would come to Basra today he would be killed because he doesn't have a militia," a law professor told me. "There is no state of law, the only law is the militia law."
An attempt at hyperbole, but the comparison just doesn't seem to work.
[...]
Like many I spoke to, he said the appearance of a functioning state was largely an illusion: "The security forces are made of militiamen. In any confrontation between political parties, the police force will splinter according to party line and fight each other."
[...]
The general
One afternoon I went to meet a senior Iraqi general in the interior ministry. A dozen gunmen in military uniforms lay dozing as a junior officer led me through a maze of corridors padded with sandbags.
The general was on the phone to another officer when I entered. He was jokingly threatening the caller: "Shut up or I will send democracy to your town."
When he finished his conversation, the general - who didn't want his name published because he feared retribution from militias -stretched out his hand to me and said: "Welcome to Tehran."
I asked him about British claims that the security situation was improving. His reply was withering: "The British came here as military tourists. They committed huge mistakes when they formed the security forces. They appointed militiamen as police officers and chose not confront the militias. We have reached this point where the militias are a legitimate force in the street."
He and other security officials in Basra, including a British adviser to the local police force, described a web of different security forces with allegiances to different factions or militias.
"Most of the police force is divided between Fadhila which controls the TSU [the tactical support unit, its best-trained unit] and Moqtada which controls the regular police," the general said.
"Fadhila also control the oil terminals, so they control the oil protection force and part of the navy. Moqtada controls the ports and customs, so they control the customs, police and its intelligence. Commandos are under the control of Badr Brigade."
The relationship between militias and the security units they had infiltrated was fluid and difficult to pin down, he said. "Even the police officer who is not part of a militia will join a militia to protect himself, and once he is affiliated with a militia then as a commander you can't change him ... because then you are confronting a political party," he added.
More than 60% of his own officers, and "almost all" policemen, were militiamen. "We need a major surgical operation, to clean the city," he said.
The British army's Operation Sinbad was designed to do just that. The army has claimed it was a success but the general saw it somewhat differently. "The Sinbad operation failed miserably, because it didn't cleanse the police force," he said. "Ahead of us we have years of fighting and murder, a militia will be toppled by another militia and those will split so day after day we are witnessing the formations of new groups. And the British withdrawal is leading to a power struggle between the different factions."
[...]
When there was a clash between two militias, the police force split and one police unit began fighting other units. Police cars became militia cars. (One Mahdi army commander was aghast that I found this strange: "Of course I should travel in a police car, do you want the commander to travel by taxi?")
Complicating matters further, Samer said most militiamen had multiple IDs associated with different groups. "They switch depending on who pays more."
Like the general, he said much of the blame for the current situation lay with the British: "The British officers are very careful about their image, they are too scared to go into confrontation. They allowed the cancer to [take over the body]. Even if the militias burn the city tomorrow, [the British] won't go into confrontation. They know they are outnumbered and they have huge losses if they do so."
Why stay?
The next day I went back to see the general. He was sitting with two other officers discussing his day."Our uncles, the British, flew me today to Ammara to attend the security handover ceremony," he said. "Give it one month and it will collapse," one of the officers replied.
"One month?" the general laughed . "Give it a few days."
The Iranians
You can't move far in Basra without bumping into some evidence of the Iranian influence on the city. Even inside the British consulate compound visitors are advised not to use mobile phones because, as the security official put it ,"the Iranians next door are listening to everything".
In the Basra market Iranian produce is everywhere, from dairy products to motorcycles and electronic goods. Farsi phrase books are sold in bookshops and posters of Ayatollah Khomeini are on the walls.
But Iranian influence is also found in more sinister places. Abu Mujtaba described the level of cooperation between Iran and his units. His account echoed what several militia men in other parts of Iraq have told me.
Sitting in his house in one of Basra's poorest neighbourhoods, he told me: "We need weapons and Iran is our only outlet. If the Saudis would give us weapons we would stop bringing weapons from Iran."
He went on: "They [the Iranians] don't give us weapons, they sell us weapons: an Iranian bomb costs us $100, nothing comes for free. We know Iran is not interested in the good of Iraq, and we know they are here to fight the Americans and the British on our land, but we need them and they are using us."
Despite this scepticism about Tehran's motives, he said some Mahdi army units were now effectively under Iranian control. "Some of the units are following different commanders, and Iran managed to infiltrate [them], and these units work directly for Iran."
Most of the Shia militias and parties that control politics in Basra today were formed and funded by Tehran, he said.
His assessment was shared by both the general and the intelligence official. "Iran has not only infiltrated the government and security forces through the militias and parties they nurtured in Iran, they managed to infiltrate Moqtada's lot, by providing them with weapons," the general told me. "And some disgruntled and militias were over taken by Iran and provided with money and weapons."
In his office, littered with weapons bearing Iranian markings, Samer showed me footage his men had shot of a weapons smuggling operation after they captured six brand new Katyushas.
"In Basra, Iran has more influence than the government in Baghdad," he said. "It is providing the militias with everything from socks to rockets."
Read it all.
Posted by Marisol at May 20, 2007 4:09 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Time to rile up Khuzestan. Let the Iraqi Shia then figure out which side they are on ;-)
Posted by: Infidel Pride![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 20, 2007 4:45 PM
Ah of course!
It is the fault of the Infidels that those righteous muslims have to murder each other!
Let us try to solve their problems for them and failing that let us just send them all the money and weapons they desire.
*sarcasm deactivated*
No seriously, just secure the oil and get out of the other areas ASAP. Let them rot!
I wish some major news network would at least put Islam "on notice":
http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/9449/islamonnoticexp1.jpg
at May 20, 2007 5:01 PM
Vile people. Not one more American dead in order to bring 'democracy' to this vomitous lot.
Posted by: poetcomic1 at May 20, 2007 5:08 PM
"More than 60% of his own officers, and "almost all" policemen, were militiamen. "We need a major surgical operation, to clean the city," he said."
So just do it. Aren't the Iraqis in charge?
Isn't it funny? We were told that the British were old hands at this and that they avoided all of the problems the Americans ran into because the Brits quickly put everything into local hands, while the US forces fought the militias. The Americans fought the Iraqis while the British worked with them.
See the results, on both ends. Why stay?
at May 20, 2007 5:16 PM
Greetings:
Maybe this also explains the flipflop on Prince Harry's going to Iraq.
Posted by: 11B40 at May 20, 2007 5:40 PM
islam breeds dictators to bring in relative peace, ie saddam.
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at May 20, 2007 5:41 PM
"If the Prophet Muhammad would come to Basra today he would be killed because he doesn't have a militia," a law professor told me.
Ever since their trek up to Yathrib, Mohammed has always had his bad-boyz posse. They worded up at the Fist the Pledge of Aqaba and did up again at the Second Pledge, 1,385 yrs ago. The Holy Prophet and his Companions don't go nowhere no how without no protection. No way.
Word up.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at May 20, 2007 5:42 PM
And don't these law professors ever shut up?
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at May 20, 2007 5:43 PM
This is what Democracy looks like and acts like. It is why the Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton were key to America as much as James Madison's monumental work and compromise in the Constitution.
It is though without leadership the perfect solution for Iraq. Iraqi's hate Iran, but use Iran. Iran hates Iraqi's but uses them.
All this exposes the difference in a Tony Blair socialist pretender to a real Conservative in Pitt or Maggie Thatcher. This nonsense would not be occurring if they had been leading the rather WW I British.
There is a simple way to fix this, but since Brits are getting out of Iraq it shines wonderfully on the advocated American policy being a dim bulb.
Manuc s'kah sikatah don nay ibod siktah.
Posted by: Lame Cherry at May 20, 2007 6:15 PM
After we get out of Iraq, the Iranians will be next on the totem pole for the people there to start hating and killing. We will benefit far more by leaving than staying. Anyone who thinks Iran can rule Iraq is out of their mind. Let them choke on this bone.
Posted by: Quijybo at May 20, 2007 6:33 PM
Control the oilfields, move the rest of the coalition forces into the Kurdish region, and watch the "Religion of Peace" go to town.
From now own, let cruise missiles do the talking.
Try hitting one of them with an IED.
Or setting up an ambush for one.
Or cutting of its head.
(Maybe we can sell the Great El Jorge "embassy" to the Saudis?)
at May 20, 2007 7:11 PM
How they took control basra?
simple...political correctness won the day over common sense, much like it has in our own respective countries.
Posted by: jcom972 at May 20, 2007 8:06 PM
Oh yeah...almost forgot...bad publicity by bogus sources that never existed (read that as 5th columnists)...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274097,00.html
Although such aiders and abettors of the enemy, for the most malicious and fraudulent reasons should be hanged by the neck until dead (which is the clean version of what is preferred upon such lying militants), better late than never on justice...too bad it's been allowed to take hold for so long.
Case in point for political correctness mentality, backed up by the MSM (who deserve to be taken into even harsher acount).
at May 20, 2007 8:21 PM
Well, we got suckered into this by that Iranian stooge, his brother and a gaggle of others, so, quelle surprise, the Iranians have taken over.
I'm shocked, SHOCKED , I tell you.
Posted by: ewha1 at May 20, 2007 8:43 PM
I'm waiting for them to blame this muslim on muslim bombing on Israel.
"If only the US and UK would stand by the militia.....
Backward Barbarians
Posted by: The Goobs at May 20, 2007 11:19 PM
CNN has already detailed what's happening in sourthern Iraq. See the Transcript -- Jan. 30, 2007 -- Michael Ware's interview with Anderson Cooper (program 360). Ware discusses the "hidden wars" -- including the covert war with Iran. Iran sent people into southern Iraq back in 2003, at the beginning of the war. From the transcript:
[begin quote]:
WARE: With everything. What they did is, in the chaos and the vacuum of power that was left behind the advancing coalition forces, they took power. They took the governor's office, the police chief's office, the Baath party headquarters, and they never really left.
And, indeed, what the British found, as we learned from the British army report into the execution killing of six of its military police in 2003 by Iranian-backed Iraqi militias, is that when they arrived in one of these major border provinces here, they found that the militias were already so strong that the report said the British had a choice, to either confront them or to accommodate them.
And the report says that for the sake of stability and security, they felt they had no other choice but to accommodate these militias. So that entrenched the militias in power.
COOPER: And they have given the militias of -- like, for instance, Muqtada al-Sadr, they have given them training, they have given them arms and money?
WARE: Yes. What we saw with many of these networks and these organizations that were in Iran is that they were kept in place and they moved into Iraq. And with them came what's essentially Iranian green beret advisers. You had Iranian form of CIA advisers. All coming with them. To guide, direct, to channel them.
And even elements within Iraq, like Muqtada al-Sadr, the rebel anti-American cleric and his Mehdi army militia, Muqtada and his militia were very different to these others. They never fled Iraq. They didn't go into Iran. They remained in Iraq. Now, in the beginning, that was a great rallying cry for Muqtada. He was able to represent himself as a true nationalist -- I stayed while these people left. I suffered with you. That was very persuasive. That drew a lot of people to his cause.
But over time, we've seen Iran not only court Muqtada, but then militarily support him. We've seen a flow of money, a flow of arms and a flow of training back and forth.
[end quote]
at May 20, 2007 11:56 PM
Although the article doesn't provide anything of "news" per se, the article does (yet again) document the role of "irrationality" (for example, the rumors of Brits using "magnetic fields" to ward off the rocket attacks -- this stated merely so as to ward off criticism that the so-called "insurgents" aren't murdering innocent Iraqi civilians...so, blame it all on the Brits (now just where have we heard that before? or maybe we should all re-phrase the question and ask: "When have we NOT heard others being blamed for the failures of Muslims? or, put another way, when have Muslims ever, EVER, acknowledged an error? Where is the self-critiquing? It does not exist. Nor does any form of reliance on "facts" or "evidence" -- you simply make things up as you go along...so what if it's improbable, implausible or even impossible -- so what? very anti-Western in terms of logic, oh so apropos in the Muslim world.)
Posted by: J.S. at May 21, 2007 12:27 AM
Iran is not all that 100% united that it thinks it is.Or that it says it is.
Every brutal beating it gives to those who tasted freedom,every little thing they take away from those at university.
The tightening of the islamic grip for the mullahas own agenda will give them all the rope they will need to hang themselves.
There are plenty in Iran and outside of Iran,Iranians, that wish to remove the mullahs.
Islam is not the umma that it thinks it is in the way it thinks it is.
Islam is surrounded.
The madness does have an end.
The only question remaining is who will be the person to reckognize it?
Rudy Giuliani just about does,he can almost say it and deep deep down or even behind the scenes he knows the truth.They all do at the end of the day.
The Pelosies and the clintons of the world would toss thier own children to the crockodile to escape the bite,in the end it will be they who are eaten.The last lunge of the dieing beast mortally wounded by all the Heroes.
Turn the page.
Posted by: Dar al-harb at May 21, 2007 12:28 AM
If we'd stop with this democracy pretense and just make sure the Muslims don't get control of Iraqi oil, we'd have an achievement to point to. As it is, we'll wind up at less than zero when the dust settles, which I guess is what happens when you cam't define the enemy properly.
Posted by: jewdog at May 21, 2007 3:09 AM
From the article:
The relationship between militias and the security units they had infiltrated was fluid and difficult to pin down, he said. "Even the police officer who is not part of a militia will join a militia to protect himself, and once he is affiliated with a militia then as a commander you can't change him ... because then you are confronting a political party," he added. [...] Complicating matters further, Samer said most militiamen had multiple IDs associated with different groups. "They switch depending on who pays more."
We see this time and again in different ways in different stories: the "complexity" of Islamic loyalties. "My brother against my brother, but both of us against our cousin".
Our leaders don't even understand the difference between Shi'a and Sunni; can they possibly understand the rivalries within the Shi'ite and Sunni blocks? Or the geographic/tribal loyalties that can be independent of religious affiliation? Can anybody (other than a Hugh Fitzgerald) understand their loyalties at any given moment? Do they themselves understand their loyalties? And even if we did or they did, would that help, since their loyalties can change in the next instant, based on "who is paying more"?
What is the point of making treaties under these conditions, or taking on one group or another as our "ally"? What is the point of having anti-insurgency missions, if we are briefing their military and police units beforehand and bringing them along on the mission?
The Islamic world is the opposite of monolithic; it is full of fractures and fissures and is a simmering cauldron of resentments and animosities and ancient scores to be settled when the time is right. But unless we are willing to untangle the "complex" web of their loyalties, we would do well to treat Islam as if it were monolithic. We should be aware of those fractures and fissures, but, as Hugh has pointed out, only in regards to how those fractures and fissures can be encouraged and those animosities nurtured.
at May 21, 2007 3:39 AM
The tightening of the islamic grip for the mullahas own agenda will give them all the rope they will need to hang themselves.
There are plenty in Iran and outside of Iran,Iranians, that wish to remove the mullahs
from Dar-al-Harb
If the Iranians really want to get rid of the mullahs they can. They got rid of the shah they can get rid of the mullahs. It's called revolution. They won't, for two reasons:
1. They're cowards. They rose up against the shah only when Jimmy Carter yanked his support.
2. They're Muslims. They don't want to give up theocracy. They're just putting on a show to get Western support and it's working.
Posted by: PMK at May 21, 2007 10:08 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)