Well, when we look at the straight news stories, we have the New York Times saying that the, “Iraqi Crackdown on Shiite Forces Sets Off Fighting“, and CNN Reporting that Maliki is offering an “Ultimatum” (AFP says the same.)
There are two possibilities here:
- Maliki wants to take out a more political opponent before the provincial elections.
- The US Military demanded this, because they want to show “Iraqi military progress” for the upcoming congressional hearings.
My money is on the second. Even a hack like Petraeus knows that the Iraqi military is not ready for this.
Additionally, the reports that Maliki is “personally supervising” the operations in Basra, seems to indicate a ploy by Maliki, not by the members of the Bush military-political complex/
Spencer Ackerman makes a very good point when he says that the US role in all of this is that of a hostage:
As long as Maliki is in the prime minister’s chair, and as long as we proclaim the Iraqi government he leads to be legitimate, Maliki effectively holds us hostage.
Eric Martin asks if Bush and His Evil Minions™ are backing the wrong horse.
I agree with his concerns. While Sadr is looking for a stricter theocracy, he is the most outspoken Shiite Iraqi nationalist in the game, while the other two main Shiite factions, (ISCI/SCIRI and Dawa) are firmly committed to Iran, possibly near-puppets of Iran.
The reason that the US does not make nice with Sadr is because he opposed to the US’s Iraq forever plan, which Bush is irrevocably committed to.
Finally, Matthew Yglesias makes a very good point about the nature of imperialism:
The would-be imperial power has to back the ‘less popular local elements.’ The key thing is to find groups that are strong enough to hold on to power with external support, but too weak to come to be in a position to kick the ladder of external support away.
Any politician in Iraq who could become popular enough to have a meaningful and independent power base is a threat to the US presence there, and thus will be opposed by the US.