The Situation Room: Michael Ware On Who Wields Power In Iraq
By Nicole Belle Monday Apr 07, 2008 4:00pm
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t BillW)
As the Senate Armed Services Committee grandstands through their oversight hearing with Iraq Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus, with the Republicans willing to look at anything and everything as signs of progress, CNN correspondent Michael Ware has recently returned from Iraq, shows that the situation on the ground is far more complicated than Congress and Petraeus/Crocker wants to make it.
BLITZER: Quick question, we just heard Nic's report from Sadr City. Can the Iraqi forces loyal to the prime minister Nouri al Maliki crush these Shi’ite militias in Sadr City with U.S. military help?
WARE: Well, first Wolf, I think you'd have to find which of these Iraqi units actually have soldiers loyal to Nouri al Maliki. Because, let’s bear in mind, much like the government itself, the Iraqi security forces are comprised of and drawn from the militias themselves. Now, whilst you do have other recruits who've just shown up for a paycheck, at the end of the day, the troops on the ground are drawn from the militias, are drawn from the political factions. These are the building blocks of Iraqi political power. And Nouri al Maliki, the prime minister, doesn't have a militia and given that guns, the barrel of the gun is still the currency of political power in Iraq; Nouri al Maliki has little but words and some influence. Real power rests elsewhere.
And this gets to crux of the problem. By what definition of "success" is Petraeus claiming the "surge" has caused? The initial justification was to reduce the violence to allow the government to gather strength, but as Ware points out, that's not happening. To subdue neighborhoods in Baghdad--in an admittedly fragile, highly temporary way--how exactly is that "success" and how does continuing that policy pave the way for anything that will enable us to leave, ever?
And most pointedly, when will there be a Democratic Senator that asks that question, because we know the Republicans never will?
Login or Register to post comments.
I have a cunning plan...
Since the Surge worked so well, why don't we just surge the surge? If that works, we can surge the surge of the surge.
If we run out of money, we'll just have the Fed rescue us.
Let's face it people, this disaster isn't going away. No matter what Betrayus tells us, whenever we leave, the violence will explode. We have to start pulling out our troops now! The Iraqis have billions of dollars in oil revenues. Let them start rebuilding themselves. It sounds cold, but damn it, I'm tired of our guys dying.
I'm sure everything will work itself out in, say.....100 years or so.
Hillary asked exactly that, as I recall.
I'm glad to see Michael Ware is still alive.
Old Billy Hussein @ 5:
Have to agree. The man must have brass ones. Wish he was on CNN constantly.
ww @ 4:
She did indeed. I wrote this post early this morning, before Clinton's questioning.
Interesting how Blitzer works in "the Anti-American" Al-Sadr but neglets to mention that he is also one of Iraq's strongest anti-Iranian, anti-colonialist, anti-occupier, anti-Hezzb'u'llah, anti-anybody-who-would-usurp-Iraq's-sovereignty figures. Or that al-Sadr is probably one of the strongest proponents of maintaining a unified Iraq.
This whole thing that is going down now is that Maliki is trying to destroy what he sees as an obstruction to his plans to parcel out Iraq's natural resources to the likes of Exxon-Mobile and his plans to become a de facto client state of Iran. If the US were serious about all the self-serving propaganda it is spewing, it would be supporting al Sadr, because he's the only powerful figure in Iraw whose actions most closely match our rhetoric.
Here it is:
What conditions would have to exist for you to recommend to the president that the current strategy is not working? And it seems apparent that you have a conditions-based analysis, as you set forth in your testimony, but the conditions are unclear, they certainly lack specificity, and the decision points, with respect to these conditions, are also vague.
So how are we to judge, General Petraeus, what the conditions are or should be and the actions that you and the administration would recommend pursuing based on them?
P.D. @ 2:
Isn't that what we mandated congress to do in 2006?
Al Maliki doesn't have a militia???
I don't care that he just came back from Iraq, that's simply clueless (on the levels of McCain's Iran-is-backing-al-Qaeda).
Google Dawa, dude.
And what a surprise that Wolfie didn't argue the point.
YourMom @ 1:
We should just pull out, then reinvade to get rid of the corrupt leadership we installed.
I love how every "Repuglagant" comes ouy of their way in the hearing to thank Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus for the absolutely wonderful job they have done in Iraq. Are they looking at a Iraqi war from some other planet?
Nicole Belle @ 7:
Ya, cool Nicole. Wasn't playing gotcha, just recalling. :) thx
"And most pointedly, when will there be a Democratic Senator that asks that question, because we know the Republicans never will?"
it's an election year. no one will do or say anything that will
cause them to lose their position. it's not govt. for the people,
it's govt. to keep the candidates for ALL offices in their
seats.
don't rock the boat--you stay afloat.
Why is this so hard for these so called "experts" to tell this story straight?
Al Sadr draws power from the urban Shia through the network of mosques set up by his father. The Mehdi Army is loyal to him (or at least, mostly loyal to him). Al Maliki was annointed by Al Sistani, who ran a different group of mosques that was much stronger in the rural south than in Baghdad or any urban centers. The Badr brigade, trained by the Iranian republican guard, has had a long simmering tension with the Mehdi Army because of this difference in loyalty.
If the US commanders had any brains what so ever, they would realize that if they want to limit Iran's influence or re-develop any Iraqi national identity, they would want to strengthen Al Sadr because the Badr brigade, Al Sistani, and Al Maliki have much more formal ties, and Al Sadr at least is based in Baghdad. Especially last year, when Al Sadr declared a cease-fire, the Americans should have reached out to him.
The development of the relationship between Al Sadr and Iran embodied in these "special groups" spells the end of Iraqi unity, and it portends more influence by Iran in the region.
I wonder what they are basing this "special group" business on, but one can clearly see that its the new justification for whatever Bush/McCain intend to do. Crocker, Patreaus, and McCain were all leaning on that theme heavily today; and Ware demonstrated that the media got the memo. Its the new "IED/EFP/Al Quds" keyword.
We're winning! We're supplying the arms to both sides.
It's win win...We fight them there so we don't have to fight them there....they shoot at us with our own bullets and then have to order more bullets from us!
Capitalism at its best!!
YourMom, Yeah, But nobody seems to have the balls.
Iraq is on the way to becoming a state in sub-Saharan Africa: the national government powerless, with real power in the hands of armed groups. How...unfortunate that state occupies a central position in the Middle East. How...unfortunate.
Paul @ 8:
I was writing my comment before you posted yours, Paul; but I'm glad to see that you are getting the same impression as I am.
Old Billy -
Problem is, al Sadr wants the US out of Iraq, so we're kind of stuck. Do we back a group that is open to the US but also pro-Iran or do we back the group that is anti-US but least open to Iran?
So far, since controlling the oil is the most important, we've back the pro-Iran folks. That's why we're talking 100 years, not surge and get out.
JTM @ 21:
See, in my book, that's a win-win. We back Al Sadr, and we get out of Iraq. Of course, I don't own an oil company.
Old Billy Hussein @ 22:
I'd rather get out and let Iran have it, too. When I wrote "we" I meant the US (as a thing unto itself), not the citizens of the US.
JTM @ 11:
Maybe because even Wolfie is not that dumb.
I googled Dawa and got wikipedia's mention of the Dawa party and being headed by Maliki. No mention of the militia.
Then I googled Dawa militia and got Juan Cole's post here:
http://www.juancole.com/2003/04/apparently-two-nights-ago-there-was.html
And this tidbit.
For instance, in Nasiriya the US Marines are in control of the city quite firmly. The Al-Da`wa Party appears to be hugely influential there politically, but there hasn't been effective al-Da`wa militia activity, and al-Da`wa leaders have fretted that SCIRI and the Sadr Movement are outflanking them elsewhere because they do have militias.
It's 5:35 and Obama just asked the question - didn't get an answer.
The second session today was much more interesting than the first. Both dems and repubs were pretty much on the same page. They were saying this thing can't go on forever. Not enough troops or money and at some point we have to leave. Obama's questions were good. He said maybe we have set the bar so high for success that it can't be reached. He made some really good points.
Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama made their party proud today. Neither is a suck up or a dummy. Not by a long shot.
Barbara Boxer just put the question on the table just now. Watch her questioning with Crocker and Petraeus. Equally as effective.
As long as this occupation is defined as a 'War' the American people will not oppose it's continuation.
Americans know one thing.
We don't lose wars.
Of course we''ve lost every one we've fought since WWII but Americans know on thing.
We don't lose wars.
So we will stay and fight....not because we have to 'whip them thar so they cain't com heah...' not to 'Give the Malarkey government time to create the political process....'
Nope, it's simpler than that.
We don't lose wars.
Five Questions for Petraeus and Crocker:
1. Did Iranian personnel play a role in the recent fighting in Basra? If so, on whose side(s)?
2. What is the status of Al Qaeda in Iraq? Is it on the brink of defeat? If so, is the primary rationale for a continued American presence evaporating?
3. Can the Sunni "Sons of Iraq" be trusted? Might they come to pose a threat to the Iraqi government in Baghdad?
4. Who is the enemy for the United States in Iraq? Do the United States and the Maliki government share common foes and common friends?
5. Are the Iraqis "Standing Up?"
Mr Ware asks, "If Iran is feeding the insurgency, what exactly are you doing to stop them?"
This puts their warmongering on Iran to the test.
Al Sadr, the Sunnis and Al Qaeda in Iraq do not HAVE to be odds with each other. They are choosing to continue the hatred in spite of an opportunity to broker a peace and participate in a new government. Therefore, my opinion is FUCK IRAQ. At this point we owe them NOTHING more. Pull our guys out NOW and let the scumbags have at it.
Remember how we were told this conflict/war was so totally different from Vietnam? And yet we have people toting the progress we are making as insurgent bombs go off almost daily, and people in the green zone are killed. We cannot even secure the green zone, so how in the hell are we supposed to secure Iraq? It doesn't seem to matter, as long as some people are making a hefty profit from this conflict.
Old Billy Hussein @ 16:
http://www.motherjones.com/interview/2008/03/who-is-iraqs-firebrand-cler...
In short the US is dumping Billions of dollars into the Al-Maliki government, but they are just stuffing their pockets with it and the rest of the war profiteers, while Iran funds Moktada Al-Sadr and he gets it out to the poor and that is his base of support.
Iran has used this successfully with Hezbollah in the Palestinian territories and it has won them their political and military support as well.
Again we see the classic US response of supporting a corrupt and ineffectual puppet regime when we should have reached out to Al-Sadr to really win the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people. It sort of reminds me of what the US did in Cuba before Castro when they backed a military dictator and the American casino and resort interests threw in with him... only to be thrown down in a revolution later.
However, Maliki controls the oil and that is what Bush, Cheney, and the Halliburton crowd want, but his control of the country will be challenged eventually and down he will go and so will the "American interests" in the region.
Kerissst! You'd think that someone in our government would learn!
r @ 31:
American compassion at its finest!
We reap what we sow...
Paul @ 8:
Indeed. And, as Ware accurately states, he "owns the streets"
Al-Sadr is maybe the enemy of the Bush Admin. but he sure aint no enemy to the Iraqi people.
Not that the neocons ever gave a shit about the Iraqi people, of course
Michael Ware needs a long vacation. I love his reporting, he's the only guy in mainstream media that actually knows journalism, but he's looking pretty bad (health-wise). Did anyone also think he looked a like he'd had some kind of nervous beak down?
Agree with an earlier comment, it is interesting how Blitzer calls Sadr "anti-American". We are occupying Iraq and control Malaki. Sadr is against the occupation, has at times fought the occupation and has the support of millions of Iraqis. Our media erroneously calls him "anti-American". Should the media be calling Bush "anti-Iraqi" for fighting the Iraqi's fighting for freedom?
'Who really wields power in Iraq?' Who indeed.... A lot of so-called experts offers opinions... A lot of folks on this site offer their assessment as well... I don't know myself at this point...it's gone so far sideways as to be practically Terry Gilliam sized surreal....Except they couldn't write this shit as fiction in Hollywood and make it believable.. But I do know this much... Whoever it is with the real power over there, Sadr, the Iranians, whoever, it clearly isn't George goddamned Bush's bullshit puppet.... And that is clearly significant for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it puts truth to the lie of that this oh so required surge bullshit is actually working or accomplishing anything other than prolonging the death and distruction.......of Iraq and America...
Working they say? successful is it? The truth is, this surge business is a total bust... Just like every other six month to a year bullshit plan these pricks have trotted out periodically almost on a schedulet since 03 when this clusterfuck was orginally started... The only thing that is perplexing, aggravating, surprising and fairly creepy to me personally at this point,is the fact that this far down the line.. This much ruin, dead and maimed later... There are still actually 20 to 28% or so of this nations population who still buys the kool-aid and other Bush supplied bullshit totally... And it's not so much the fact that 28% of this nations population has shown itself to be so freaking stupid as to probably be legally certified as retarded... No, I get that... a lot of idiots are everywhere.. But, it's the fact that the other 72% of us continue to allow ourselves to be led off this cliff by these mindless morons of which the biggest one still sits in the oval office along with his criminally insane vp....
These two continue to hold office instead of sitting in a prison cell awaiting sentencing. To have not seen these cretins impeached, thrown from office and imprisoned for crimes against humanity has gone from unbelievable, to infuriating, and on past national embarassment... to the point now where it's just fucking pathetic... Sickeningly pathetic... Those big shot patriots inside the beltway who aren't totally compromised and tainted themselved by this sick shit.. Those for whom taking action would only elevate their stature as politicians and (gasp) actual statesmen... have instead shown themselves to be gutless appeasers with no courage or sense of place and history whatsoever... Fucking worthless and weak would be an improvement for these Quislings...
Piss on the lot of them............ This nation is not finished yet, I ain't ready to quit on America, nation of my birth and up and leave, but put McCain in there and that might just be the final nail in the coffin. We are now looking at a point in time, where it's actually possible that the kinds of action likely to pull our asses out of this shitstorm in a hurry is not the kinds of acts anyone really wants to advocate seriously, no matter how good it might momentarily make one feel inside.. No matter how deserving some assholes are of a violent solution. Those kinds of acts truly would wreck the nation in the effort to rid ourselves of this cancer we know as the Bush administration. We need to fix this mess with the existing system, if we want that system to survive at all.. and without a decent replacement, it's all we got, this representational democracy..
So, really, we need the people ressonsible for running that system to find some goddamned guts and pull the plug on this shit once and for all and then hold the assholes who caused it, who dug this hole we're in accountable, really accountable with real consequences that they need to face.....And that just might mean long prison sentences for some... It might mean death sentences handed down by a court of law in some cases.. That's the truth of it, that's what we need to see happen. Yea, I know, its a non-starter, never going to be 'on the table' .. Right, read the memo Nancy... Our leaders would rather see the nation go down the shitter than do the right thing... Do what's required.. do their damned jobs... I might as well be pissing into the wind......JD
Michael Ware is a CNN gem! I've always listened to him carefully and have never heard him parrot the administration lines. He always tells it as he sees it. I, too, hope he remains unharmed.
IndridCold @ 36:
S @ 37:
The only Western journalist seized by al Qaeda to have lived to tell the tale. I dont know if the reporter named Jill from the Christian Science Monitor was seized by Al Qaeda or not but Ware was and his Sunni counterparts he was trying to interview were able to win his release
he(Michael Ware) looks like he is 'jonesing' , ya he needs some rest for sure and probably deserves like a nobel peace prize or something he has been there thru thick and thin reporting, and man you can just tell he knows what is going on .. get some rest Michael we need you healthy bro !
S @ 37:
It's all part of the framing. These assholes have nothing on 1984's newspeak.
For example, the use of the term "insurgent" rather than the more correct one "resistance." Of course with that last term comes the implication of the Americans being the invaders, which is the reality, but fascism is all about manipulating perception and manufacturing consent.
We are fucked... too late....
US slays how many people? 300000-1000000 and it talks about succeeding in iraq. isn't a success that rich amers have obtained all of iraq? is it a failure that 200 darkie legs are worth one american finger? that's a fantastic ratio.
isn't it a success for US to wage its 165th war? can nepal boast that it had waged so many wars. no it can't. it can't wage wars because it takes oodles of money to wage most wars or to maintain occupation. so, no money no wars.
in any case, some people are getting richer from the war and occupation but it aint me. that war costs mostly worlking class. if rich people would have to pay for it, it would have never been waged. thank you
Anyone who thinks Obama made progressives proud today wasn't listening. He supports a "timeline." Clinton said start to get out now. I was an Edwards supporter, but I've switched to Clinton as the most progressive of the two on healthcare and Iraq.
casper46 @ 6:
Aye, good to see he's still alive to kick ass on CNN and tell the truth as it is.
r @ 31:
Sunnis and shias were living AT PEACE side by side and there wasn't any al qaeda in Iraq,so the sunnis and shias weren't at odds with each other before OUR AMERICAN PRESIDENT junior bush that jugged ears little lout DECIDED to invade Iraq,started a civil war and invited al qaeda there. Your opinion is ridiculous,the iraqis weren't on T.V asking america to save them fromm big bad Saddam. On the contrary,WE OWE THE IRAQIS EVERYTHING,we invade their country,start a civil war,kill,rape,steal,destroy their infracstructures and way of life,radicalize their country,and ENHANCELY INTEROGATE them. We need to pull the troops out of the middle east ,but we need to pay the iraqis for the pain and suffering inflicted to them by our great dear leader. How dare you call the iraqis scumbags? You are a joke,so you think the iraqis should be greatful that your president turns their whole world upside down. Do you know that the nazis went to trial in Nuremberg for the same thing that your leaders did in Iraq. In that story ,we americans are the scumbags,the iraqis are OUR victims. We are the invaders,tortures and occupiers. Get off your high horse, hang your head down in shame.
JEN @ 44:
Ah, intellectual honesty.
Refreshing.
Edwards would make a great AG .
Mr. Ware has done prize winning journalism and is one of the few that understands the Iraq disaster.
I consider him to be an expert and he should write a book.
Ware Is Pro War And Don't Forget It
Michael frequently states we should not pull out of Iraq. In fact, much of what he says is very close to what Bush tries to say about Iraq. "You broke it; you got to own it" is the line he ends with. Ware uses a hook to pull viewers into his logic, and he ends with the usual call to stay in Iraq.
At best, Ware is complexed. After he made the comments challenging John McCain's assertion Iraq was safe, he seemed to be reeled in by CNN. In the link, he almost backed up out off the scene. It was clear to me, CNN has the last word with Ware.
Joseph
Can the Iraqi forces loyal to the prime minister Nouri al Maliki crush these Shi’ite militias in Sadr City with U.S. military help?
Yeah, that the kind of in depth analysis for which the pay Wolf Blitzkrieg the big bucks. No examination of why two shi'ite factions are engaged in a Civil War; No analysis of why Moqtada has infinitely more popular support; No examination of Al Maliki and why his "government" is teetering toward total collapse (Oh, by the way, if media "superstars" like Wolf Blitzer actually bothered to do any research, he would find that Al Maliki - "our" guy - is the one who is really tight with the Iranians and not Moqtada Al Sadr. But of course, such research is never done. Lowlife's like Wolf Blitzer just keep taking the paychecks and spouting the government line).
"And most pointedly, when will there be a Democratic Senator that asks that question, because we know the Republicans never will?"
Never, the Dumbocraps are too busy funding the stupidity (war).
Man, I love Michael Ware and respect the hell out of him, but I am sad that I can't watch his face anymore. The idea of a broken nose gives me maximum willies and that's all I see! But I LISTEN, and he is constantly in my prayers and I hope he continues to stay alive and report un-goverment-varnished truths for many moons.
Why are the best field reporters the U.S. has (Mike Ware and Lara Logan) not from the U.S., but somehow able to give true perspectives on a war the U.S. started???
It's nice to see someone putting it so straightforward so that any fool can understand.
It's sad that no one from the decisiton-makers side is listening.
And even if they were - there are lots of big money still to be made before this war is over.
It took the Russians 10 years to get out of Afghanistan - I guess it'll take at least that much for the Americans to get away from Iraq...
And then there will be another 20 years of war-movies to cure the syndrom; then after 20 odd years the lesson will be forgotten and the US will attack yet another country. it goes all in circles - it's just the American public forgets so fast.
So the whole world is about to go through the same shit again. Exporting democracy, my ass!
themediamyth @ 52:
That's the simplest question too answer this year.........You won't fiend British Commonwealth reporters compromising their integrity for economic or stature gains...........as in an American media personnel, especially newsprint.
Login or Register to post comments.