Headlines: 31 July 2008

• Sexuality bias seen at Justice Department: Margaret Chiara, the U.S. Attorney in Grand Rapids, MI, was fired because of rumors that she was a lesbian.
• A Shiite Militia in Baghdad Sees Its Power Wane*: The Mahdi Army, led by Moqtada al-Sadr, has lost significant influence as PM Nouri al-Maliki asserts his legitimacy.
• The Kirkuk Impasse: Recent attacks in Kirkuk have exposed an underlying tension between the Kurds, Turks, and Arabs.
• Olmert to Quit After Elections in September*: The Israeli PM is resigning over corruption charges, but where does this leave negotiations with the Palestinians and Syria?
• China Angered by Lobbying on Rights*: China doesn't like the U.S. House of Representatives passing a resolution urging them to uphold their pledge to improve human rights before the Olympics. Maybe they should have thought about that before they broke it.
• Judge Rules White House Aides Can Be Subpoenaed*: Shocking.
• Sleazy Campaign Tactic of the Day: The head of the Virginia RNC is worried you might register to vote.
• The Recession Election: The pendulum swings left?

*Note: The New York Times may be changing their website, and you may have to register/login to see these articles.

Fear and Trembling

From Joe Klein:

[Attacking Moqtada al-Sadr] would have been extremely foolish. The U.S. would have been inserting itself into a part of Iraq that we don't know very well—the south—and taking sides against what is probably the most popular mass movement in Shi'ite Iraq. But the Petraeus battle plan apparently includes an anti-Sadrist move, which may mean a spurt of violence as widespread and vicious as the worst of the Sunni insurgency. Is that why the general wants a "pause" in the U.S. withdrawal this summer?

What could possibly be the rationale for this? Perhaps it is that Sadr's Mahdi Army is the most potent force opposed to long-term U.S. bases in Iraq—and that a permanent presence has been the Bush Administration's true goal in this war. I suspect the central question in Iraq now is not whether things will get better but whether the drive for a long-term, neocolonialist presence will make the situation irretrievably worse.

Some Good News?

Moqtada al-Sadr is ordering his militiamen to stand down. Will they listen?

"I'm so worried about what's happened today in the Middle East, you know"

You know how the surge was supposed to foster a reconciliation among the Iraqis? Apparently, that didn't happen.

It's hard to make sense of everything, but this much is certain: Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has launched an offensive against the Mahdi Army, a militia led by Moqtada al-Sadr, and is personally leading the troops in Basra. Both Sadr and Maliki are Shi'ites, but Sadr is popular among the urban poor, nationalistic, and opposed to foreign influence--whether the influence is American or Iranian. Abdul Aziz al-Hakim's Badr Corps, allies of Maliki, are supported by both the U.S. and Iran. The U.S. has provided air cover for Maliki's forces.

From there, things get a little fuzzy: The New York Times paints a picture of limited U.S. and British involvement. The Times also seems to say that the Mahdi Army is upholding its end of a cease-fire agreement and that Iraqi forces are fighting splinter groups who are not controlled by al-Sadr. The Washington Post seems to think that the U.S. will involve itself (or is involved) more deeply in Basra than what the Times portrays. Also, the battle in Basra could last a good while. Meanwhile, Joe Klein's analysis is that American involvement is a bad idea: It will cause more American deaths, it could lead to Sadrist retaliations across Shi'ite Iraq, and it will not solve anything. Also, there's disagreement among officials both in the military and in intelligence about with whom we should have sided in the first place, if at all. Sadr, with his independent streak, could be the best hope for a stable Iraq. And we're launching air strikes at his followers.