Viewing Iraq

I mentioned in passing in a comment that, depending on your preferred news source, you could have a completely different understanding of events in Iraq this past week.

Here's a quick example. First, an AP story that will undoubtedly appear in many US newspapers in the morning.

"Any government that presumes to represent the majority of people must confront criminal elements or people who think they can live outside the law," Bush said at the White House. "And that's what's taking place in Basra and in other parts of Iraq. I would say this is a defining moment in the history of a free Iraq."

It's also a key juncture for Bush in the five-year-old war that has claimed 4,000 American lives, worn U.S. forces thin and dominated his presidency.

Bush said Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's crackdown in Basra against Shiite militias vying for control of the oil-rich region is a positive milestone in the birth of a democratic nation. The Iraqi prime minister's decision to move against enemy elements in Basra shows "evenhanded justice" and the Iraqi government's willingness to go after both Sunni and Shiite insurgents and outlaws, he said.

Just as important is how the violence plays out. The ability of Iraqi security forces to control places like Basra will color the president's decision on whether to order more U.S. troop withdrawals beyond the five U.S. brigades already returning home by July — something that's already looking unlikely.

The renewed violence, which has followed months of relative calm, threatened to unravel a fragile cease-fire with followers of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. How much U.S. troops are drawn into the fight will be a telling sign of the Iraqi forces' ability to protect the nation.

Bush stressed that those Iraqi forces remained in the lead, yet U.S. forces stepped deeper into the fight.

U.S. pilots assisting Iraqi forces conducted airstrikes on Basra on Friday. American jets dropped bombs in the city, marking a sharp escalation in the fight against insurgents the Pentagon accuses of having links to Iran.

Here's the London Times:

The intention was to withdraw British forces from frontline duties and concentrate on training Iraqis and offering support when needed. But the problem from the outset has been the failure of the Iraqi army and police to take control of the city, a mission that British troops, with the advantage of modern equipment and training, had failed to do during their four years in southern Iraq. Instead the Shia Muslim militias — the Mahdi Army loyal to Moqtadr al-Sadr, the Badr Brigades of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the smaller Fadillah Party — effectively took over the streets.

The three groups were in open contest for control of the city. The battle has little to do with ideology but everything to do with economics. Basra is the hub of Iraq’s valuable oil industry and the militias are making millions by taking their cut of the exports.

The problem now facing the British is how to respond to the fast-changing situation.

Nuri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, who flew to Basra to take personal control, said that his forces would fight “to the end” against the militias. Unfortunately for him, the end may come sooner than he expected. The Iraqi Army contingent of 30,000 troops has failed to dislodge the Mahdi Army, there are widespread reports of defections from the police to the militias and there are clear signs that the operation could backfire badly.

Before you make the assumption that the Times is taking some DFH, bring 'em home tack, the article goes on to cast the blame for the situation on the British failure to secure Basra in its desire to bring its troops home quickly, credits the surge for reducing violence in Baghdad, and proposes that the US step in to restore order in the south of Iraq as the solution. Probably not going to go over well in the Pentagon.

But it's a more honest portrayal of the situation on the ground than you're likely to read in your morning paper tomorrow.