Meanwhile, back in Najaf, Iraq

A U.S-Iraqi military operation launched Aug. 12 in an attempt to neutralize the Mehdi Army. The purpose of the operation is to deny radical Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr an armed force, but it does not seek to eliminate him. The offensive will not result in a political weakening of the renegade leader. It will alter the nature of his movement -- a high number of casualties would energize the public support, which al-Sadr could then galvanize in the form of protests as an alternative to an armed insurrection.

the locals have turned against Sadr's fighters, since they've begun firing indiscriminately at civilians

supposedly firing artillery out of the mosque compound into residential areas.

one or more panelists on 'to the point' today suggested that even if sadr is eliminated, the problem of winning support for the government remains. they suggested that the problem isn't really sadr, but the situation. if he becomes a martyr, someone else could step in. it seems like the central government doesn't have authority in the southern provinces. it seems like they'd need to get the support of provincial leaders in addition to the support of the people.

in describing who is in command of the military, one of the panelists adopted a flippant tone in a remark, as if it were common knowledge that the iraqi forces could only claim to be in command if and when the us army let them. i could see how sadr and his supporters could gain legitimacy from this.

Like every other decision made by US occupation, this was a miscalculation. The world Shi`ite and Sunni reactions are growing. The statement by Iranian spiritual guide Khamene'i was categorical, but the statement by Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Husayn Fadlallah was more significant. This Najaf-born (his father was a teacher in Najaf) Beirut-based Grand Ayatollah (whom I had interviewed 3 times in the past) is hugely popular in Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. He was even approached by Iraqi Shi`ites to relocate to Iraq to fill the religious void after the fall of Saddam. He seriously considered it. He has evolved in his views over the years, changing from somebody who was closely associated with Hizbullah in its most radical phase, to a voice of moderation and even enlightenment in the last decade. (And he is now at odds with Hizbullah). In the statement that he issued today, he called on Iraqis to fight US occupation "by all possible means." That is quite significant.

From Angry Arab blog

* fresh fighting on the one hand

* Michael Rubin's conflicted assessment in the National Review on the other. The continual internal twists in logic is starting to result in self-loathing -- while still desperately trying to pin everything on an overarching conspiracy of the State Department and the CIA doing things 'wrong,' Rubin at least is acknowledging that now there really is a quagmire, if not in so many words. The banal simplicities of what a post-Hussein Iraq would be like must seem so far away now.

The Americans will have to eliminate all independent military powers in Iraq if their proxy government is to survive, and that's whay they are trying to crush Al-Sadr.

My expectation is that the current fighting *will* crush the Mehdi army and lead to the death or arrest of Al-Sadr. I am not sure whether remnants of the Mehdi army will continue fighting as guerrillas, but it seems likely.

As has been true pretty much from the beginning, the media are only reporting a fraction of the actual resistance that is taking place.

(Anyway, sorry to lower the level of political discourse, but: Fuck America.)

25

http://icasualties.org/oif/prdDetails.aspx?hndRef=8-2004

I wonder if it's not the other way around. As for taking the shrine, it's looking like Iraqi forces backed by U.S. forces will do it.

They may view it as such but the Americans will try to 'Iraqicise' the fighting so they can get out. Eventually, this will be about the power of the Iraqi government to do its own dirty work.

Mortar Rounds Hit U.S. Embassy in Baghdad
1 hour, 46 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A mortar attack on a building housing offices of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad Thursday wounded one American, an embassy spokesman said.

The mortar round hit the roof of one of Saddam Hussein's former palaces inside Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone, a spokesman for the U.S. Embassy said on condition of anonymity.

A gray plume of smoke could be seen rising from the multistoried building, topped by a green dome, after the blast. Dozens of U.S. diplomats work in the building alongside officials of the U.S.-led military coalition.

U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte, who works out of the nearby chancellery, was not in Baghdad at the time, the spokesman said.

The U.S. military said in statement earlier that two mortar rounds exploded in the Green Zone, injuring two people. The statement gave no other details and it was not clear if it included the mortar attack on the embassy building.

Thousands of American and Iraqi citizens work in the riverside enclave, which is a frequent target of guerrilla attacks.

The building hit Thursday used to serve as the headquarters of the former U.S. occupation authority.

"One member of the embassy staff was close enough to be shaken, his ears were ringing, but he didn't require medical treatment," the official said. "The other was injured and required some medical attention, but nothing serious."

Iraqis no, U.S. media - yes

yes, that is kind of what I was saying. All governments tend to rely on having a monopoly of force, except in the USA where headbangers are allowed form their own heavily armed militia groups.

The Iraqi "Government" is in a particularly awkward position, however. It has little legitimacy, being essentially the appointees of the occupying power. It is reliant on the occupying power to remain in position. The occupying power will get bored sooner or later and pull out, and then the "Government" is going to be in big trouble. It might actually be that they have pressurised the USA into cracking down on Al-Sadr to prevent him overthrowing them when the USA pulls out. But I suspect the occupiers have just gone after him themselves and the "Government" are going along with it.

It is an interesting question, whether the current regime survives the pull-out of US forces. Many Arab states are ruled by pro-western dictatorships or princes that no one there likes very much, so the Iraqi regime could maintain itself the same way that they do. But the "Government" are so obviously creatures of the USA that it's hard to imagine anyone taking them that seriously.

Would the Quisling Iraq army attack the shrine? I don't know. Maybe they could send mainly Sunni units in to do it (is the shrine sacred to Sunnis?). How much of the fighting has the Iraqi army been doing anyway?

US warplanes and tanks have been bombarding areas around the Imam Ali shrine in the Iraqi city of Najaf.

Radical Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr has continued to defy calls to end his insurgency, despite a "final call" from Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi.

Orange flashes lit up the night sky as US warplanes flew overhead and thick black smoke rose from the old city.

A BBC correspondent says there is no word on casualties, but the mortars of Mr Sadr's men have fallen silent.

Nighttime bombing by us near the shrine, eh? The words 'not a good idea' come to mind.

In vaguely related news. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3579792.stm
(I don't know how to do links)
I don't know why this saddens me - it was kind of obvious that medics must have turned a blind eye. I just have much more respect for doctors than soldiers.

Police reported to have taken shrine then they deny it. Wonder what's really going on here.