Al-Ghad

On March 19th, 2008, the day after Vice President Richard Cheney’s unannounced visit to Iraq, events for the battle for Basra started to take off. The Jerusalem Post (March 20, 2008) welcomed the results of the visit with a whiff of ecstasy:

“US Vice President Richard Cheney visit to Iraq on the fifth anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom was given scant coverage in the media. And yet it may go down in history as a pivotal moment in the transformation of post-Saddam Iraq into a beacon of democracy and freedom in the Arab world.
Hours after Cheney’s departure, the Iraqi presidency council announced that it had approved the Iraqi parliament’s elections law. The long-awaited act will facilitate Iraq’s development into a federal state and so cement the grassroots-level political progress that has made such strides in the last year as a result of the revised US counter-insurgency or “surge” campaign.”

Shortly After Cheney’s departure, Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri Maliki ,suddenly appeared in Basra to declare a curfew in the port city and issue a deadline of 72 hours for the people of Basra to surrender their arms. He ordered the occupation of the city deploying a military force of thirty thousand, with support of American Navy jets, and British military helicopters, tanks and artillery. President Bush hailed Maliki’s offensive as marking a “” for Iraq’s history.

Halfway through the 72 hours Maliki had to eat his own words. His threat ended in a resounding flop. In the short encounter Maliki “blinked first”, in the words of the BBC. The Cheney-Maliki saga, was like a replay of the five years of US occupation of Iraq: starting with a huge fanfare, and ending, most times, in disgrace. But it is the unfortunate fate of the Iraqi people to pay the heavy price in blood for American madness and the treacherous puppet government.

Satisfying the Oil Companies

There is now mounting evidence that Maliki’s “sudden” offensive on Basra was decided during Cheney’s visit to Baghdad. Cheney was present in Baghdad, at a press conference called by Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of the occupying forces in Iraq. Oddly enough Petraeus said that he was speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to call on the major Western oil companies to invest in Iraq’s energy sector, as Iraq looks outside to boost oil, gas and power production. He said: “The prime minister is very keen on getting large Western corporations re-engaged in the oil and electricity sectors.” (UPI, Ben Lando, March 18, 2008).

Why it was left to General Petraeus to speak on behalf of the prime minister of occupied Iraq in the presence of the US Vice President and the American Ambassador was not explained. But it was obvious that the major oil companies need strong military backing to enter into huge investment and long-term projects. The UPI report also pointed out:

“if deals were to be signed there’s no guarantee the companies will send money, let alone people, to Iraq until the security situation improves.”

Later on Shell, which is actively working to secure entry in exploiting Iraq’s rich natural resources, publicly expressed such condition. Its chief executive declared:

“We are very much prepared to go back to Iraq … But first, Shell employees must be able to work safely in the country and a petroleum law must be passed”.

(Reuters, April 1, 2008). Other major oil companies must have been reluctant to sign even limited oil agreements called “Technical Support Agreement”, TSAs, and that they would prefer to wait for the big deals of Production Sharing Agreements, PSA’s.

These calculations seem to be confirmed by Charles Ries, U.S. State Department minister for economic affairs and coordinator for economic transition in Iraq. He said the proposed Oil Law isn’t necessary for Iraq to produce oil “but it would clearly be much, much better and incentivize private investment to help Iraq produce more if a bill would pass.”

Operation Knights Charge

It is clear U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney came to Iraq Monday March 17, to make sure everything was in order, as there was no time to waist. To secure passing of the Oil Law and pacify the regions of the oil fields, Basra had to be under total control. Here comes “Operation Knights Charge”.

This operation was, for months, under preparation by the British forces occupying Basra. The Daily Telegraph (Sat. March 29. 2008), disclosed the plan, but it was over-ruled by the US during Cheney’s visit to Baghdad. The paper said:

“In preparation for Operation Knights Charge, British forces spent months training Iraqi soldiers in urban warfare. Basra was where Mr Maliki was to prove that Baghdad had the control over the whole country.”

The British were furious as they were ignored. Writing in the Sunday Times, March 30, 2008, Professor Michael Clarke, director of the Royal United Services Institute, said: ”This battle of Basra, say British military spokesmen, is what we have been working for.” Explaining the different agendas of the two powers in Iraq, he said: “Britain and the United States have been fighting different wars in Iraq since they crossed the start line in March 2003. America’s war will go on. Britain’s war may in effect end with a victory for Iraqi forces in and around Basra… If this was the battle the British have been working for, they did not want it now.”

The writer explained what happened:

“General Mohan, commander of the Iraqi 14th Division in Basra _ the unit at the heart of the fighting – may have been planning an operation like this for later in the year but Maliki summarily arrived in Basra, swept aside and started it immediately. General David Petraeus, the US commander, had merely hours’ notice of the operation, the British none at all. Far from acting under British advice, Maliki has done his best to ignore UK commanders and is working with the US corps commander at his side.”

What happened next is well known. It was the courage of the Iraqi masses, the impoverished and the deprived, rallying around the Sadrist Current, that defeated the US and British armies together with their air forces, not only in Basra but also in Baghdad and other cities of Iraq. Maliki and his US masters have gambled and lost, making it sure that what the fate of US invasion would be. In the words of the Daily Telegraph, quoted above: “Mr Maliki is gambling not only with his country’s future but also the fate of America’s intervention in the Middle East.”

As a kind of post mortem*, the Wall Street Journal (April 1, 2008), quoted Vali Nasr, a scholar who has advised US policy makers: “President Bush was right that Basra marked a defining moment for Iraq, but not in the way that he intended.” adding: “This is the birth of Sadrist power.”

Al-Ghad

(*) The Uprising of Basra, Baghdad and the rest of Iraq truly marked a defining moment. Al-Ghad hopes to publish a series of comments about the New Iraq.