*There was more trouble in Falluja yesterday, where US troops again fired on and killed civilians demonstrating against their presence. The troops allege that Baath loyalists fired at them from the protesting crowds, and they had to fire back. It is a very difficult situation. The troops can't lose control of the situation, of course, and obviously cannot allow themselves to become sitting ducks. And, the Saddamists still in this Sunni city are deliberately trying to provoke such incidents. A local Sunni cleric advised the troops to withdraw from residential areas and to avoid shooting into the crowds. But those solutions may not deal with the problem, either. I guess I fear that if these demonstrations and killings go on, there is a danger they will completely alienate the Iraqis from the US and British troops. A lot of them aren't happy at the occupation to begin with, but many are willing to give the US a chance. That number could plummet if this Falluja situation isn't taken care of. Is it a job for Special Forces, who might be able to track down the Saddamist saboteurs?



*There are rumors in the Arabic press that a US attack on al-Qaeda remnants in Eastern Afghanistan may have netted some more big fish, but I can't confirm them yet from the Western press. The rumors come on the heels of the Pakistani Ministry of Interior's capture of Walid bin al-Attash, a key al-Qaeda leader who had been implicated in the bombing of the USS Cole. (I mind them all, but that one I take as a personal affront.) In the same sweep, in Karachi, the Pakistanis caught the nephew of Khalid Shaikh Muhammad.



*The Shiite party-militia Hizbullah in Lebanon is reaffirming its intention to go on fighting in the South until it liberates the Israeli-occupied Shebaa Farms. How complex the US Iraq mission is can be demonstrated by just one question. If given a choice of supporting 1) Israel, 2) the U.S. or 3) Hizbullah on this issue, which do you think the Iraqi public would choose? Which do you think the Iraqi Shiites would choose?



*SORAYA SARHADDI NELSON of the Knight-Ridder newspapers describes the Friday prayer sermon in Kufa last Friday of Muqtada al-Sadr, the young leader of the Sadr movement: "Sadr challenged the faithful to embrace Islamic rule and turn away from four ayatollahs in Najaf who are the present Shiite spiritual leaders. 'We are the true believers, not the others,' Sadr said.*



*In reply on a list to a Le Monde article from Iraq that played down the Shiite radicals:



Sophie Shihab's report from the ground is very useful, and of course she

is correct that the "radicals" are a minority. I don't draw the same

conclusion from that fact that she does, though.



The dangers are manifold: 1) That the radicals will gain enough militia

control on the ground to dictate subsequent politics for urban Shiites; 2)

that their popularity will spread to the rural areas; 3) and that

gradually the Iraqi population will get tired of and annoyed with the

Americans, and the radicals will be able to exploit that sentiment to

catapult themselves to political leadership of the South. Point 3)

depends on how long and how ostentatiously the Americans remain. I read

Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz as being eager to push on this issue, and fear a

confrontation down the road.



I doubt the tribal chieftains or the villagers in the South are interested

in radical clerical Shiism in the least. (One exception maybe the

displaced Marsh Arabs). Where the radicals have shown any strength at all,

it largely is in urban places, towns and cities of 50,000 or more.



The phenomena of the Sadr Movement and the SCIRI militias are mainly

important in places like Baquba, Kufa, Najaf, Karbala, to some extent in

Kut, and in the slums of east Baghdad. Since these towns and cities have

a combined population of several million, they are not insignificant, but

they are not a majority of the Shiites, either.



The problem is that they have armed paramilitaries, and these have seized

a good deal of urban territory, raiding Baath arms depots and storing arms

in mosques. It may be possible to roll these neighborhood militias back,

but there could also be trouble about any attempt to do so. The danger

for the Americans is that Shiites do have a certain amount of solidarity.

If US troops shot a number of Sayyids or descendants of the Prophet in

front of a Shiite shrine in the course of putting down a riot, the

resentments could spread rapidly.



Muqtada's popularity among the poor does not seem impeded by his age (late

20s or 30); they don't care how many books he has written. He has

cleverly inducted Ayatollah Kazim al-Ha'iri (in exile in Qom) as the

Object of Emulation in whose name he speaks.



And, there are many mysterious things going on. Shaykh Muhammad

al-Fartusi suddenly came from Najaf a couple of weeks ago and began

preaching at one of the largest mosque congregations, al-Hikmah. It now

turns out he says he was sent by al-Ha'iri to take over that mosque. How

did this happen? How many other large mosque congregations are being

essentially usurped by al-Ha'iri's/ Muqtada's emissaries? Note that

al-Fartusi is supported by a neighborhood militia of Sadriyyun, and was

briefly arrested for traveling with a fire arm.



While Sistani's quietism could be a brake on the momentum of the radicals,

it is not clear that he will be happy with the Americans still being there

next year this time, either.



Anyway, it isn't a matter of simple numbers.

*Spokesmen for the Shiite Dawa Party and for the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution (SCIRI) in Iraq explained today why key religious leaders boycotted Jay Garner's leadership meeting in Baghdad on Monday. Both rejected the idea of the US playing a mentoring role in setting up a new Iraqi government. SCIRI spokesman Hamid Bayati said his organization would cooperate with Garner only in his capacity as head of Iraqi economic reconstruction, not on a political basis. The Dawa spokesman, Ibrahim al-Ashiqir (sp.?), said that it was not reasonable for the party to attend a conference when it did not know who else would be there or what the outcome might be. He also complained about US neo-imperialism in Iraq. - Asharq al-Awsat



*Megan Stack has a smart article in the LA Times on the situation of Shiites in Iraq. Some quotes:



' "If [the United States] imposes a secular government that doesn't respect the principles of Islam, we will resist it," Abdul Mohdi, the chief religious leader of Karbala, said last week. "The people trust the clergy. The clergy will offer them the right path. We want the American troops off our soil," Mohdi said.'



She goes on, ' "They could cause a lot of trouble for the Americans. There will be resistance from the Shiites," said Saad Naji Jawad, a political science professor at Baghdad University. "There will be clashes in the south. I am sure of it," Jawad said. "Sooner or later the Americans will have to use force." '



She quotes Shaikh Muhammad al-Fartusi, "We want an Islamic rule chosen by the people. We prefer the law of heaven, the law of God, rather than the law of man." '



She adds, ' "By saying they want democracy they mean, 'We're the majority, so we'd have the upper hand,' " said Jawad, the political science professor. "When they say they don't want political parties, they mean that they're the only political party." In his office in Karbala, Mohdi was unapologetic."Political parties always fail in the end," he said. "Our prophet Muhammad made political decisions and military decisions. He was the administrator of the Islamic nation. How can we separate religion from politics?" '



All of this looks very bad and very alarming to me, and I am shocked at how calm about it the cable news networks are. Of course, they've given up on much international coverage starting today. We're back to local human interest stories and very little hard news. Lucky we have the Web.



*An Iranian court has sentenced some Baluchi tribesmen to long terms in prison for running a prostitution/slavery ring. They would approach extremely poor young girls (some as young as 14) in the Mashad area with an offer to marry them. Then they would smuggle them over to Pakistan and make them work in a brothel. I suppose speaking only Persian in Karachi might make it hard for them to contact local authorities or escape. Similar rings are run in Karachi using Bihari girls from India or from Indian-immigrant families. It seems a little unlikely to me that the Baluch could have gotten away with all this for any length of time without the active complicity of the Mashad police and the Zahedan border guards, who no doubt were paid handsomely.



*Quote from Dawn about Pakistan: "President Gen Pervez Musharraf has said that foreigners were not a threat to Pakistan, but major danger to its integrity was from religious extremists which were involved in the politics of hatred."



*Things may be looking up somewhat economically for Afghanistan, according to the Asian Development Bank. Afghanistan's recent cycle of drought has started coming to an end, allowing 82% more food to be produced this year than last. Economic activity in cities like Kabul rebounded in '02, with lots of construction and growth in services, in part fueled by international aid. Lots of Afghan entrepreneurs and professionals are returning. Of course, when the per capita GDP is only $170 per year, it is not that hard to get some economic improvement. What is needed is a lot of it.

*Thousands of Iraqis demonstrated in Baghdad Monday morning against the leadership meeting held under American auspices. The demonstration was boycotted, however, by the powerful Sadr Movement led by Muqtada al-Sadr. They said they wanted to get involved on neither side. The Sadr spokesman, Adnan Shahmani, said that the Sadriyyun did not object to the US removing Saddam and weapons of mass destruction from Iraq, but if the American presence became an occupation, they would resist it. He also said that the Sadr Movement recognizes as the highest religious authority in Shiism not Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani but rather Kazim al-Ha'iri, who has been exiled in Qom for many years. Al-Shahmani maintains that the late Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr had urged his followers to turn to al-Ha'iri when he, al-Sadr, died. He characterized Sistani and his followers as quietist traditionalists, but said the Sadr movement is activist and deeply involved in society, and so is progressive. This statement seems to be code for the Sadrists wanting a Shiite-ruled religious state in Iraq. He dismissed the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the al-Da`wa party as having no standing inside the county (i.e. he sees them as expatriate parties with a shallow membership basis inside Iraq itself).



*Thanks to those of you who saw me on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer Monday evening and sent kind responses. The guests, Michael Hudson, Fawaz Gerges, and I were interviewed by Margaret Warner and were discussing the issues around Islam and democracy in Iraq. I think we all agreed it was possible, but only if it was inclusive and not seen as a mainly American project.



*The leadership meeting in Baghdad sponsored by Jay Garner attracted more than 250 Iraqi notables--mainly technocrats and academics. (Ironically, these are precisely the sort of people the Republican Right tries to marginalize over here in the US :-) They, or at least their sponsoring organizations, had been selected by Garner himself. It was not a representative meeting. Exiles were over-represented. Shiites were under-represented. The Da`wa Party and the Sadr Movement, two of the largest political groupings, refused to be involved. Al-Da`wa has said it will not cooperate with a military administration; Garner's reporting line goes back to the Pentagon. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the most respected Shiite cleric in Iraq, refuses to meet with the Americans. The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq did deign to send a "low-level" delegation. Since the Shiites form a majority of the country, and since the religious parties are among the more organized sections of the community, leaving them out would be a huge mistake. Setting things up so that they feel they cannot on principle attend is also a huge mistake.



*There is trouble looming in Iraq between religious Shiites and religious Sunnis. Despite the demonstrations in Baghdad on Monday calling for Iraqi unity and for an early departure by the US, the mixture of religion and politics will be potent. The Financial Times reports, "Mahmud al-Issawi, deputy head of the Higher Islamic Council, a Sunni representative body, claimed on Sunday that his community formed a majority in Iraq. Nearly every other observer believes the Shia represent at least 60 per cent of the population. 'Of course we want an Islamic government. But we do not want to swap one form of tyranny for another - like in Iran,' he said." The Sunni Arabs have lorded it over the Shiites for hundreds of years in Iraq, and if they attempt to go on doing so, there will be blood in the streets. But al-Issawi is quite right that the Sunnis are not going to agree to rule by ayatollahs, or the implementation of Shiite law, either. Shiites often seem not to realize how offensive such developments would be to Iraqi Sunnis. I have a bad feeling about this.



*Al-Hayat says that the US Marines have emptied a large dam near Kut that had been built at Saddam's orders to dry out the swamps of the south, where the Shiite Marsh Arabs lived. Only 10% of the Iraqi marshlands survive according to satellite photos. The dam served no practical purpose other than to dry out the south and hurt the Shiites, who were rebelling against Saddam.

*The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) may participate in some way in the leadership meeting called by Jay Garner for Monday in Baghdad. The last such meeting, in Nasiriya last week, was boycotted by all the major Shiite groups. The al-Dawa Party and the Sadr movement are determined to boycott Monday's meeting. The Dawa Party objects to Garner's reporting line going back to the US military. If the Baghad meeting has substantial Shiite representation, Garner's process will have been partially validated. But if it is like Nasiriya, mainly Sunnis and Christians, it could be the start of a disaster. If you cut people out, they become spoilers. That is what happened at Mogadishu, i.e. Black Hawk Down. Aidid was cut out by the then coalition, and he attacked the US troops.



*Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi says that "No Iranian officials have suggested the formation of an Iranian-style government in Iraq." Iran is quite divided, with Kharrazi being a relative liberal in Iranian terms. It is the hardliners in Iran who follow Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei who want a theocracy in Iraq. But even many hardliners are making conciliatory noises, at least, toward the Americans. In contrast, Khamenei recently shot down talk of reopening relations with the US. He called such talk "treason and stupidity." One remark I thought was funny came from a hardliner who responded to US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's warnings to Iraq's neighbors not to try to intervene in the country. The Iranian cleric said "The US is complaining about outside interference in Iraq?!"



Rumsfeld's desperate posturing about outside interference is meant to cover up his own mistakes. He was the one who insisted that the US and British go into southern Iraq with a very light force. He was right that it was sufficient militarily. But then they couldn't keep order in the cities when the Baath was toppled suddenly, producing all that rioting and the looting of the Iraqi Museum and Library. Worse, their thinness on the ground allowed Shiite militias to move into the vacuum, some of them backed by Iran. This is a direct result of the Rumself commitment to light, mobil military forces. So Rumsfeld erred, and he is in part trying to cover up his mistake by attempting to intimidate Iranian leaders.



*Asharq al-Awsat reports that the US army has presided over the creation of a new city council for the northern city of Mosul, made up of city notables. The names will be released shortly. This sort of process is going on throughout the country, and is all to the good. But what caught my eye is that the Mosul city council has started a campaign to disarm the inhabitants of the city, including the Kurdish fighters (peshmerga). The process of buying back or confiscating weapons from the civilian population could be extremely important to returning Iraq to normal. Of course, this process itself implies that order can be provided in some other way than by citizen militias. In Mosul the GIs and the Mosul police are doing joint patrols. (Since Mosul is a northern, Sunni, city, perhaps more of its old Baath police force is acceptable to people than would be the case in the Shiite south; and not every traffic cop under Saddam was necessarily complicit in war crimes).

*Craig Smith of the New York Times has reported very interesting and significant developments in the Sadr Movement in Iraq. It appears that the movement has now recognized Shaikh Kazim al-Haeri as its ultimate spiritual head. He is an older Ayatollah with the authority to issue authoritative rulings, and he favors a Khomeinist style government in Iraq. He recognized Muqtada al-Sadr as his deputy in Iraq. Al-Sadr is enormously popular but is only in his late twenties or at most 30, and does not have the standing to issue fatwas or rulings for the laity. He had earlier been insisting that people follow the rulings of his deceased father, Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr, who had been assassinated by the Baathists. But in the Usuli Shiism that predominates in Iraq, it is not permissible to follow the rulings of a deceased jurisprudent. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Muqtada's rival, had circulated a criticism to that effect some weeks ago. In response, Muqtada appears to have secretly reached out to Ayatollah Kazim Haeri, still in Iran. He received the appointment as Haeri's deputy around April 8 and was told to cut off the Saddamists and the second-rung Saddamists. This instruction may have had something to do with the killing of American-backed cleric Abd al-Majid Khu'i on April 10. For some time, Muqtada's links to Haeri had been kept secret. Now they are being openly revealed and members of the Sadr Movement are displaying Haeri's picture through Najaf and eastern Baghdad. It now transpires that Shaykh Muhammad Fartusi, sermonizer at the al-Hikmah mosque, had been sent there not by Sistani but by Haeri. He was arrested Monday and detained briefly by US troops because they found a handgun in his car as he returned to Baghdad from Najaf. (Khu'i is also said to have been armed with a hand gun. Bush finally got his wish--he is now in a cowboy movie, set in Iraq, with the ayatollahs playing the sheriffs and outlaws!) Fartusi's detention sparked demonstrations by thousands of Shiites and the intervention of the other clerics induced the US to release him. He is openly contemptuous of the US, and told an interviewer from Dubai he was beaten and that the US detention was worse that the sort Saddam used to practice.. His leader, Kazim Haeri, wants a Khomeini-style Islamic republic in Iraq. The combination of Haeri's authority and seniority with Muqtada's cult of personality may prove powerful among the poor Shiites of Iraq.



*US Marines have induced Sayyid Abbas Fadil to vacate the mayor's mansion in Kut. A member of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), he had moved in to Kut and claimed to be its mayor, supported by an armed retinue of returning Iraqi expatriates from Iran. The first attempt of the Marines to move against him was blocked by an angry crowd of 1200. The Marines recently gave Sayyid Abbas an ultimatum. He has in the past said that he could as easily control the people of Kut from a mosque as from city hall, and would not be deterred by the Americans. So, the Marines won one, symbolically. But where will popular loyalties in Kut (a city of over 300,000) lie in the long run? Will the mob eventually reassemble against them? They have recently been fired on. In the nearby city of Baquba, pop. about 400,000, a SCIRI government has been installed; there are no Marines in the city. Badr Brigade militiamen patrol the streets. An earlier report said that there were also Faili Kurds among them.



*The Independent reported local Iraqi reaction to Donald Rumsfeld's rejection of a Shiite theocracy in Iraq from the al-Muhsin Mosque in east Baghdad, where 13000 worshippers had gathered:



' "I thought the Americans said they wanted a democracy in Iraq," said Kassem al-Sa'adi, a 41-year-old merchant. "If it is a democracy, why are they allowed to make the rules?" About 13,000 people gathered outside the mosque where the imam, Jabal al-Khafji called for an Islamic state in Iraq. The cleric's view is widely shared by Iraq's Shia majority which is clamouring for the occupying forces to be removed. '

*AP is reporting that at Friday Prayers in Nasiriya, a cleric giving the sermon to 2000 worshipers said, "We have to be ready in the long term to establish our own Islamic state." The words were those of As`ad al-Nasiri, a prominent cleric who just returned from Syria. But like many Iraqi Shiites, he means by that a state governed by Islamic law rather than one ruled by clerics. He is said to have added, "We have to preserve this country by respecting the professionals and not interfere in their work." But of course, if the professionals happen to be secularists who refuse to implement an Islamic state, that might provoke some interference from al-Nasiri and his like, now mightn't it? The last I could tell, Nasiriya is dominated politically by the al-Da`wa Party, an old Shiite revolutionary party. The first thing he said should be taken very seriously.



*Abd al-`Aziz al-Hakim, second in command of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, has reached Baghdad after winding his way through Shiite cities like Kut and Amara, being lionized in each. He came from Iran last week, where he had been in exile. He spoke to a large congregation at a mosque in east Baghdad, saying that SCIRI would not participate in any government "imposed" on Iraq, and that Iraqis are perfectly able to govern themselves. He also called for Iraqi unity. He said his brother, Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim, will come back to Iraq soon. SCIRI is likely to be a major player, but so far their leaders have refused to cooperate with the leadership meetings being called by Jay Garner, the American head of the office for reconstruction.



*Grand Ayatollah Shaykh Muhammad Husayn Fadlu'llah of Lebanon gave an interview with Asharq al-Awsat in which he said that although the American war on Iraq had saved its people from a graven idol (i.e. Saddam), it aimed at reducing the country to a mere military base. He said that the demonstrations at Karbala were an "uprising" that could turn into anti-colonial resistance against US rule. Fadlu'llah is followed by some Iraqi Shiites, having been born and educated in Najaf. Although he has broken with the Hizbullah party (and with Iran), on these issues his stance is probably not far from that of Hizbullah.



*On the other hand, Shaikh `Abd al-Hadi al-Muhammadawi gave a sermon to the largest congregation in the Shiite part of Baghdad, in the al-Mansura district, in which he called for Iraqi independence from any "occupation" but at the same time called for a united Iraq and an end to violence and terrorism. He said it was natural for everyone to cooperate with the Americans for now, since they were the occupying power and had removed the stain of Saddam's tyranny from Iraq. But he said that the US now has a responsiblity to follow through on its promises and to leave as soon as security and stability are restored to the country. He called for a dialogue of civilizations. This phrase comes from Iranian President Muhammad Khatami and shows that Khatami's reformist and moderate principles have some followers among the clerics in Iraq. This sermon is the first evidence I have seen of influence from the Iranian reformers rather than from the hardliners (who seem to have a special line into SCIRI). This could get interesting. In the meantime, give that man a medal!

*Apparently two nights ago there was a major battle in the Mashtal quarter of New Baghdad between US troops and Arab volunteers who had gone there to fight them from all over the Arab world. The word is that 3 US soldiers were killed, but there are no details. - Asharq al-Awsat



*Iran has allowed some 2000 armed men of various factions to infiltrate back into Iraq, according to Ali Nourizadeh of Asharq al-Awsat. These include Badr Brigade fighters of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), as well as some militiamen loyal to the al-Da`wa Party. In addition, several hundred armed members of the Quds Brigade have been sent over, as well. These fighters belong to families of Iraqi Shiites of Iranian heritage, who were expelled to Iran in the tens of thousands by Saddam. Many of their families had been in Iraq for decades, and some for centuries. Many of these infiltrators speak Arabic with an Iraqi accent.



He says the fighters were given arms and loaded down with dollars by Iranian hardliners before they set out. They were instructed to take over 11 major towns and cities with a largely Shiite population, implementing rule by "revolutionary committee" (Persian: Komiteh) as happened in Iran after the Feb. 1979 Khomeini revolution. He says they came in and spread around money to the Shiite seminary students, getting them on their side. He warns that a couple of units who came in with deputy SCIRI leader Abd al-`Aziz al-Hakim had been trained in guerrilla and suicide bombing tactics.



This account strikes me as inaccurate in detail and overly schematic. It may have been influenced by a similar report of Debka, an unreliable Israeli site that often puts out disinformation. 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. Likewise, in Amara (pop. 340,000), there appears to have been a spontaneous local Shiite revolt against the Baath during the last days of fighting. Last I heard it is in local Shiite hands. A reporter said on April 24 that there were rumors in Amara of Iranian infiltration, but the local British official said he had seen no sign of it. SCIRI fighters do not control Najaf or Karbala or Kufa, as Nourizadeh implies. The Sadr Movement militia seems to dominate Kufa, whereas tribesmen loyal to Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani came in to restore order to Najaf. So, I don't doubt Badr Brigade and Quds Brigade infiltration to some places, but it hasn't resulted in the takeover of 11 towns and cities. Indeed, the Badr Brigade appears to have been chased out of Sadr City, the biggest center of Shiite population.



Allowing these forces to cross the border (which cannot in any case be easily policed, since it is long and cuts through rugged territory) breaks a gentleman's agreement between Tehran and Washington reached during the past two or three months. Nourizadeh suggests that SCIRI in particular had been seeking a way to live peacefully with the "new American neighbor," and its non-confrontational policy may have been over-ruled by hardliners in Iran. I personally disagree with this analysis, though. I think SCIRI leader Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim feels that the US stabbed him in the back when they decided not to allow the expatriate organizations to come in and form a provisional government. Zalmay Khalilzad and Paul Wolfowitz suddenly announced that Iraq would be US-ruled for an indefinite period of time. I think SCIRI infiltration is revenge on al-Hakim's part for what he sees as a betrayal. He has warned the US several times against wearing out its welcome.



*Someone replied to my recent article on how Shiite religious militias have been taking over towns and city quarters by saying that only 20% of the Shiites support the religious parties. And since Iraq is 60% Shiite, only 12% really are in question here, and they can hardly take over the country. But my argument is not about numbers. I cannot see how anyone can know the percentage of support for these various factions, anyway. It is not as if there has been scientific polling. My concern is this. There is a militia of 6,000 or so armed men, mostly loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr, which is patrolling the eastern Shiite slums of Baghdad, now called Sadr City. Some 2 million people live there. Guys, that is something like 8% of the population right there.



It is not that everyone in Sadr City supports Muqtada. But if you had town meetings to elect delegates to anything, surely the very fact of the control of these quarters by this militia is going to affect the outcome of the selection process. Sadr City is likely to be represented by people from the Sadr Movement. The same thing is true in a place like Baquba, a city of 280,000 (i.e. a fairly big urban center for Iraq--this would be like a city of 3 million in the US, proportionally, e.g. Chicago). Last I heard, the hardline Badr Brigade had infiltrated this city near Iran and taken it over. Who is Baquba going to select as a delegate to any decision-making body. And, how exactly are these militias going to be disarmed or rolled back? Are you going to send US troops into Sadr City? Shoot into the resulting crowds? This is a nightmare in the making.



Here is what James Rupert of Newsday writes from Sadr City: 'In the past decade, Hussein's rule and international economic sanctions pushed Saddam City from poverty to misery. Families supplement their diet by combing Baghdad's vast garbage dumps. The community's history and its village roots mean that "many [of its] people have had no education. And they have no experience of getting along with other groups," said Adel, an elderly, educated Shiite from an old Baghdad family. "So it is easy for them to become extremists." '



In Kut when Sayyid `Abbas Fadil came in from Iran with an armed retinue and set himself up in the mayor's mansion, the Marines' first thought was to "just kill him." But when they moved on him, a crowd of 1200 formed and they had to back off. Sayyid Abbas's followers are certainly a minority in Kut (pop. 380,000), but they are nevertheless a force to reckon with in its politics. So, my worry is that Rumsfeld, by sending in such a light force with limited capacity to assert control of urban areas (I don't think there are even any troops in Baquba), gave an opening for these Shiite militias to take over. They have enough popularity that moving against them will be dangerous.



Remember that when the US went into Somalia, Aidid was an ally. But then the US cut him out of the deal when they decided they had to tame the warlords. And that, my friends, is how you got Mogadishu and Black Hawk Down. The US can't afford to cut out the more radical Shiite forces like Muqtada al-Sadr, but so far has no framework for dealing with his militias or for drawing him into normal politics. Things are not hunky dory in Iraq, people, and while Jay Garner may or may not be able to deal with this problem, it isn't that there is no problem.