Mehdi Army plans state takeover in Iraq

WASHINGTON, Aug. 20 (UPI) -- Moqtada Sadr, the leader of the Mehdi Army Shiite militia in Iraq, can maintain his anti-American credentials, a key to his political legitimacy, with low risk by working politically for the plan of U.S. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, the Democratic front-runner for the presidency, which has been endorsed by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, under which the American occupation troops would leave Iraq by 2010.

If I were in Sadr's position, I would be organizing massive street demonstrations to demand that full withdrawal of all U.S. combat forces by 2010 be the basis of any new Status of Forces Agreement with the Americans. That is a win-win position. If the Iraqi government demands American withdrawal on that timetable, Sadr can claim the credit, and if Maliki crumbles under American pressure and allows the occupation to continue indefinitely, Maliki loses his only chance to gain some legitimacy.

The Mehdi Army will retain its ability to go to war with the United States if it has to. But that capability is most useful as a "fleet in being," maintained as a threat but not employed.

The threat gives Sadr more leverage than armed action would buy him, because the Mehdi Army is not strong enough to force the U.S. armed forces out of Iraq and could suffer a military defeat. More, war with the U.S. armed forces in Iraq would bring more chaos and suffering to the Iraqi people, for which they might blame Sadr.

Sadr's change of horses in midstream may, of course, fail. His movement could come apart under the strain, as militant elements that want to fight the Americans split off. His failure is not in America's best interest, not only because it would mean more American casualties but also because it would undermine the chance for a new state to arise in Iraq.

I continue to think Sadr represents the best available leader for a new Iraqi state, because only someone who has opposed the occupation can have legitimacy. The United States can only win in Iraq if and when a new state emerges there, a real state, not a fig leaf to cover the reality of continued American control.

From the standpoint of Fourth Generation War theory, the Mehdi Army's attempt to move from its status as a 4GW, non-state entity to an organization that can create and control a new Iraqi state is a hopeful sign.

If it succeeds, other 4GW entities may be tempted to do the same. That brings them back within the state framework, a positive development in terms of the interests of the international state system. It is the success and continuation of that system that is America's most vital interest in the face of Fourth Generation War.

Not all 4GW entities will take that track, nor would it be in their interest to do so. But if even some can be drawn back into the framework of the state, the 4GW threat will diminish. Washington will never see it this way, because Washington cannot think strategically. But those who can should pray that Sadr continues to make all the right moves.

--

(William S. Lind, expressing his own personal opinion, is director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation.)