Superb article --
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FH13Ak06.html
======
Yes, an excellent overview of the situation - both in Najaf specifically and Iraq as a whole.
What sets Prof. Schwartz's analysis apart is his acceptance of the inevitability of defeat - US military dominance notwithstanding (something few people seem to understand, so dazzled are they by jets and Cobra helicopters and the rest of it) and his identification of the Bush admin's need to create the appearance of victory by picking fights in contained, apparently easily subdued, areas such as Najaf.
If the administration can claim victory by killing a large number of Sadrists in Najaf, the American public, not aware of the depth and long history of the movement or the fact that many other cities and towns are resisting (and the Marines can't stay in Najaf forever, the moment they withdraw - as they must - the militias can return) will see progress.
Or so the gamble goes.
Prof. Schwartz:
[begin quote]
For the Bush administration, the battle of Najaf shapes up as a new Fallujah: if it doesn't win quickly, it will likely be a major disaster. A quick victory might indeed make it look, for a time, as if the occupation, now in new clothes, had turned some corner, particularly if it resulted in temporary quiescence throughout the Shi'ite south. But a long and brutal fight, or even an inconclusive victory (which led to further fighting elsewhere in Shi'ite Iraq or renewed low-level fighting in Najaf), would almost certainly trigger yet more problems, not just in Iraq but throughout the Middle East. And this would lead in turn to another round of worldwide outrage, and so to yet another electoral problem at home.
A loss after a long bloody battle would yield all of the above, while reducing the US military to the use of air power against cities, without any real hope of pacifying them.
[end quote]
Just so.
The media, of course, plays a significant role in masking the full reality that unfolds.
Consider this AP piece:
U.S. Forces Wage Major Offensive in Najaf
By TODD PITMAN, Associated Press Writer
NAJAF, Iraq - Thousands of U.S. troops sealed off Najaf's vast cemetery, its old city and a revered Shiite shrine Thursday and unleashed a tank, infantry and helicopter assault against militants loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr. They also stormed the radical cleric's home, but he was not there.
As billows of black smoke drifted across Najaf amid the clatter of military helicopters, gunmen in a house near the shrine shot at U.S. forces patrolling the 5-square-mile cemetery. Militants hiding in the cemetery took fire from the Apaches and from American soldiers crawling on the roofs of single-story buildings. When the gunships turned away, the insurgents in the graveyard shot back.
As the day began, the military trumpeted the operation as the beginning of a major assault on al-Sadr's fighters.
"Major operations to destroy the militia have begun," said Maj. David Holahan, executive officer of the 1st Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment.
[...]
full at --
<http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040812/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_040812190535
>
...
The news story paints a picture for the reader - US troops sealing off the cemetery and pushing the enemy back into a last stand at the revered mosque.
But look at this image of the cemetery -
http://www.antiwar.com/photos/cemetary.jpg
The article tells us that US troops have sealed the cemetery then goes on to explain that it's "5 square miles" in size. Because of our excessive belief in US military competence we're willing to take this seriously. But when you look at the image of this cemetery, which is really more accurately described as a necropolis, you suspect this to be an empty boast - that it hasn't been "sealed" at all. When you pause for a moment to consider the size of Najaf - the many streets above ground and catacombs below - you get the feeling that all that's happened is the militia has melted away in the face of American firepower but retains the ability to regroup over and over again endlessly.
The Mehdi's move into the mosque forces the Americans'to carry out their threats. Having boasted of bringing this challenge to a decisive end (like Fallujah before and Tora Bora, Afghanistan before that) they cannot withdraw. But they cannot "destroy" the militiamen without damaging the mosque.
It is a nearly perfect trap.
...
I'm convinced that at least some in the Pentagon understand this clearly and would prefer to stand down or never would have escalated things to this level in the first place to avoid a no-win outcome.
But it seems - as Prof. Schwartz describes - the administration's desperation for a veneer of triumph for domestic consumption overrides all other concerns.
As we are learning (and as Dennis Redmond said yesterday), it is obviously not possible to maintain an old style empire of force in the age of instant global telecommunications.
.d.
