Global Policy Forum

By Tom Regan

Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki sharply criticized Monday's pre-dawn US-Iraqi raid on Baghdad's Sadr City. The Associated Press reports that Mr. al-Maliki "was 'very angered and pained' by the operation, warning that it could undermine his efforts toward national reconciliation."

"Reconciliation cannot go hand-in-hand with operations that violate the rights of citizens this way," al-Maliki said in a statement on government television. "This operation used weapons that are unreasonable to detain someone – like using planes." He apologized to the Iraqi people for the operation and said "this won't happen again."

Also on Monday, AP reports that Iraqi president Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, met with Gen. George Casey to discuss the security situation in Baghdad. He told General Casey that it is not in anyone's interest to have a confrontation with the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia loyal to cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. The public position taken by al-Maliki and Talibani signal serious differences between Iraqi politicians and both US and Iraqi military officials on how to restore order and deal with armed groups, many of which have links to political parties. Speaking to reporters after meeting with Talabani, Casey made no mention of al-Sadr but said he had discussed plans with Talabani to bring "fundamental change to the security situation in Baghdad."

Mr. al-Sadr has risen as a major figure in the majority Shiite community and a pillar of support for al-Maliki, [who is also a Shiite]. The prime minister's apology and criticism of the US forces may have helped placate al-Sadr, who on Monday urged his followers to show restraint. The Boston Globe reports that US officials believe al-Sadr has emerged as one of the most powerful figures in Iraq, and holds the key to end the sectarian violence that has rocked the country. He has also modeled his movement on the success of groups like Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza.

Sadr, who was shut out of the previous two US-appointed governments in Iraq, won 29 seats in the Legislature in elections last December and joined the governing Shiite coalition. And in the model of the militant groups Hamas and Hizbollah, Sadr then sought to control social services that affect the daily lives of Iraqis. While other political parties fought to control the ministries of oil or defense, Sadr successfully campaigned for the ministries of transportation, health, and electricity. "It does not bode well for the Iraqi people that Sadr is the most powerful Shiite leader in the country, apart from [moderate cleric Ayatollah Ali] Sistani," said a Kurdish politician who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue. "What people thought Iraq was – this predominantly secular-leaning country – is now developing into a very Islamic country. It is becoming now fashionable to be part of the Mahdi Army."

Although last week US General John Abizaid, the top US commander in the Middle East, told a US Senate committee that the Mahdi Army numbers in the low thousands, the Globe quotes a US official in Baghdad as saying that Sadr now has between 10,000 and 30,000 men in the militia, far more than fought the US in the streets of Najaf in 2004. But despite the sectarian violence, Mr. Talabani denied that his country was having a civil war, reports the Gulf Times of Qatar. "When a car bomb explodes in a Hussainiyat ([Shiite] mosque), markets and [Shiite] regions, it is natural there would be a reaction among enthusiastic Shia youngsters who find the government unable to maintain security," [Talibani] said. "This is a reckless reaction").

However, in a new book, "The End of Iraq," former US ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith argues that the US failure to create a stable government in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq means that it is probably better to just let the country break up into three separate countries – "an independent Kurdistan in the north, an Iranian-dominated Shiastan in the south, a Sunnistan in the northwest." "There is no good solution to the mess in Iraq," Galbraith writes. "The country has broken up and is in the throes of civil war. The United States cannot put the country back together again and it cannot stop the civil war. If it scales back its ambitions, it can help stabilize parts of the country and contain the civil war. But the US needs to do so quickly."

In a review of the book David Ignatius, syndicated columnist for The Washington Post, writes that Mr. Galbraith's idea is not as easy a solution as it might sound. So what of the fundamental question he raises? Is the Iraq venture doomed? Are we wasting American and Iraqi lives pursuing a vision of a new, unitary Iraq that has no connection with reality? Should we conclude, as Galbraith does, that Iraq itself is finished? We're all shaped by our personal experiences and contacts in weighing questions like this. When I put the matter to some of the Iraqis I have met in the 26 years since I first visited that country, they warned that, bad as things are now, they would be even worse if America pulled out suddenly. In the end, accepting partition may amount to accepting reality – but that's a measure of just how bad things have gotten in Iraq. We made the mistake of rushing into Iraq without thinking carefully enough about the consequences of our actions. We should not make the same mistake in rushing out.

Finally, Casey Monday told ABC television that rising violence in the country means the US won't be able to reduce troops levels as it once had hoped to do. AP reports that instead of 'standing down,' the US will now have to battle with Shiite and Sunni extremists to take back the streets of Baghdad. The US currently has around 132,000 troops in Iraq.