Let The Sadrists Play Too

Muqtada al-Sadr, the (at least nominal) leader of the Mahdi Army and the Sadrist Movement, is denounced as a thug by American and Iraqi government officials. This radical cleric and the Sadrist Movement in general, however, are legitimate political actors in Iraq and should be accepted into the political process as such.

Recognizing that this is armchair (or to use a more accurate term, laptop) foreign policy, I am going to argue for this proposal because I think it is important to possible political reconciliation and peace in Iraq. I also want to add the disclaimer that I think the occupation of Iraq is illegal, immoral, and unjust; it must end immediately and American imperialism in the country and region should cease.

First, I would like to lay out my understanding of the background of the political situation in Iraq in the relatively specific situation regarding the Sadrists. Iraq is a nation which is 18-20% Kurdish (Sunni Muslim for whatever it’s worth in context), 12-15% Sunni Arab, and 60-65% Shiite Arab, with a large amount of oil (the most likely largest economic engine of Iraq) that is unevenly distributed throughout the country. The Sadrists are a political and military organization of Shiites whose power bases in the South-Southwest include major parts of the large capital Baghdad (7 million people out of a total population of 29 million) as well as important tracts of oil-rich southern areas. The movement has a political history rooted in bold opposition to Saddam Hussein (Muqtada al-Sadr’s father, father-in-law, and brothers were assassinated by Hussein’s regime) and was organized shortly after the 2003 invasion by Muqtada al-Sadr around the network of charities established by his popular father. Despite many clashes with the American occupation, the Sadrists joined the national unity government of Nouri al-Maliki only to leave it last year, along with many other groups including Sunni Arabs (which means al-Maliki’s government is now in the minority in Parliament). The Sadrist Movement has ballooned over the years and now has some 60,000 fighters and countless followers.

The recent battle in Basra between the Iraqi military and Shiite militias was mostly against the Sadrists. It is hard to not see the offensive as an attempt by al-Maliki and his remaining Shiite political allies (Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or now called Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, and their Badr Organization) to weaken the Sadrists ahead of provincial elections in October (remember that many groups boycotted the previous elections, so these are very important in establishing a more representative and legitimate government in Iraq’s provinces). At stake in this clash is the oil-rich region in southern Iraq. From what I gather, two major factions have formed among the dominant Shiites in Iraq: there is al-Maliki’s Islamic Dawa Party and their ally, SIIC/Badr, and there is the opposition Sadrists. Furthermore, SIIC/Badr seems to represent more middle class Shiites, they are allied to al-Maliki (who is in turn tied to the American occupation), they have connections to Iran, and they favor partition of Iraq (presumably so that they, dominating the Shiite Iraq, can control the oil in the South). On the other hand, the Sadrists are favored by the more urban poor, are against partition, and are vehemently opposed the American occupation.

Alright, so why should the Sadrists, a movement centered heavily on its violent militia, be considered a legitimate political actor in Iraq? First, as mentioned above, they represent the urban poor, which is an important group of people whose political representation is necessary for the stabilization of Iraq. The Sadrists are against partition, which in my opinion would be disastrous in terms of ending civil war between Shiite and Sunni Arabs since oil is so key to the (at least near term) future of Iraq and partition would leave the Sunni Arabs without much of it. Finally, they are against the American occupation, which is a view held by a majority of Iraqis but which al-Maliki fails to demand.

Furthermore, and this is simply prognostication, there seems to be an emerging danger of a Shiite insurgency in Iraq. While this possibility (and reality) has existed all along, it has been prevented from growing due to the dominance of Shiites in the Iraqi government. However, with the hardening of factions within the Shiite community and with one of those factions being tied to the American occupation and the other opposed to it, a more Vietnam-like insurgency is possible to develop in Iraq (by which I mean to parallel the Democratic Republic of Vietnam government with al-Maliki and the National Liberation Front with the Sadrists; as opposed to the insurgency up to now which has been mostly Sunni Arabs fighting the American occupation and Sunni Arabs and Shiite Arabs fighting each other while both being opposed to the American occupation). Such an insurgency has the potential to be much more massive than the mostly Sunni Arab insurgency that has opposed the American occupation since Shiite Arabs are a much larger population.

It seems to me that the Sadrists would win rather heavily in Shiite areas in the October elections so long as they are not harassed further by al-Maliki and the Badr Organization militarily. This would probably mean a tipping in the balance of power among Shiites towards the Sadrists. This might prevent a Shiite insurgency because the frustration with the American occupation would be vented in the ballot box and would probably make further occupation untenable (although who knows what Bush/McCain are capable of even in the face of an unwilling Iraqi government – regime change redux?).

Now, of course, there are issues. The Sadrists do have ties to Iran. However, Badr/SIIC and al-Maliki/Dawa have (arguably) closer ties to Iran. Moreover, the whole Iranian domination of Iraq post-occupation thing is far-fetched; Iran would not want nor would be able to exert any more control over the country than the American occupation has. On top of that, if Shiite factions are allowed to compete against each other in the political arena (instead of the military one), then Iran would have a hard time manipulating a Shiite-controlled Iraqi government since there would be no unified Shiite community to manipulate.

Another issue is political reconciliation for the whole country. So long as the American occupation continues, the Sadrists will not want to work with the Iraqi government to find a political solution with the Sunni Arabs and Kurds. It is possible that the American occupation of Iraq is similar to the Syrian occupation of Lebanon; once the occupation ends, the groups that were fighting a civil war against each other will be willing to come to the table and find a political solution. Bringing the Sadrists into the political process is vital to this because having two Shiite groups would lessen the ethnic/religious divisions which have characterized the civil war and allow divisions that are more political and, thus, more reconcilable (granted that the distinction between ethnic/religious divisions and political divisions and their different potential for reconciliation is questionable).

If this sounds convoluted, that is because the situation in Iraq is so convoluted (and because I am speculating about a country and a situation that I can know little about from my laptop here in Cambridge, MA). If it also sounds imperfect and dubious, that is because there is hardly an easy and nice solution to what is going on in Iraq. In the end, though, the American occupation should not be supporting the military suppression of a legitimate political movement. It is necessary for the stability, political reconciliation, and future of Iraq. But, it seems that Bush/McCain aren’t all that interested in those things anyway…