Why the sudden increase of violence in Iraq right now?

Confused about what's going on in Basra? So is pretty much everyone.

For years, Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army was one of the main destabilizing forces in Iraq. But last summer, he agreed to a cease fire, a move that everyone agrees has done a tremendous amount to diminish the violence in recent months. He renewed the cease fire last month.

But Sadr's group has splintered. And Shiite militias, some connected to Sadr and some not, have been mixing it up in the southern city of Basra. The British haded over control of the province to the Iraqi government in December, and things have been downhill since then.

For weeks (or months), Iraqi forces (with U.S. encouragement) have planned an offensive to reclaim Basra from these rogue militias. Besides the violence, there's the problem of corrupt militias having control of the city's valuable ports. And as the Iraqi general in charge of southern Iraq argued, the militias has to be moved out before the elections this fall, or they might forever take hold.

So the offensive was finally launched this week, with Iraqi forces moving in on the ground with British and U.S. support by air. It came as a surprise to no one, even Sadr's people, one of whom tells The Los Angeles Times that Sadr has initially agreed to support the crackdown, provided that it targeted 'outlaws.'"

But now Mahdi representatives say that the offensive is not so "targeted." And Sadr issued a statement two weeks ago permitting the Mahdi Army to fire on U.S. and Iraqi forces in self-defense. So no matter the talk of "outlaws," everyone perceives this as a hit against Sadr.

So now it's chaos, as the operation deepens in Basra and there are clashes in Baghdad -- where the Iraqi forces are also attacking "special groups" (as an American official calls them, meaning Shiite militias with Iranian backing) with American support. Shiite insurgents have responded in part by firing rockets into the Green Zone. There's also a good deal of violence between the rival Shiite militias in Baghdad and elsewhere.

The big question for everyone is whether the cease fire will hold up. Sadr loyalists, the LA Times reports, "accuse his Shiite rivals in the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and Maliki's Islamic Dawa Party of using the Iraqi army and police to round up the cleric's followers ahead of the elections."

The Washington Post reports that Sadr " is under immense pressure from senior loyalists to lift the cease-fire order." The New York Times gives a vivid sense of how close the situation is to tipping:

Many places in Baghdad were tense. At a checkpoint downtown, a policeman’s radio crackled with the news of the sniper shooting of a police officer in a nearby neighborhood. “We’ve heard that Sadr has canceled the cease-fire, is this true?” he asked motorists whose car he was searching....

Saeed Ammar, a government employee, said he was standing near policemen in the Huriya neighborhood on Tuesday morning when he was approached by Mahdi Army members. “They told me not to stand near checkpoints. They said, ‘We are waiting for the word from Moktada Sadr to attack the checkpoints — it may come at any moment.’ “

So far, though, Sadr has only responded by calling for a nationwide civil disobedience campaign. His statement: "we call on all Iraqis to show restraint, throughout Iraq, as a first step. If the government does not respect the demands of the masses, then the second step will be disobedience in Baghdad and the rest of the provinces." The cease fire is still in effect.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has gone down to Basra to monitor the campaign and has issued an ultimatum for the militia members to lay down their arms.

As the Post observes it's an awkward time for the biggest test yet of the preparedness of the Iraqi forces: "It was unclear why U.S. forces would take part in a broad armed challenge to Sadr and his thousands-strong militia on the eve of Petraeus's assessment, which the Bush administration has said would greatly influence its decision on whether to draw down troop levels."

And White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, as always, has put the brightest face possible on things: "I would characterize it as a bold decision — precisely what the critics have asked to see in Iraq, more movement by the Iraqi Security Forces."

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/todays_must_read_303.php

Al-Sadr's leadership is tired of his group getting attacked by U.S. and Iraqi forces when there's supposed to be a cease-fire in place.

There's only so much pushing someone will take before they push back.

the U.S. forces are pretty much helpless, at the mercy of Iraqi power groups. It's a population of around 22 million (less now). Even at its height, we've only been able to scrape up around 168,000 troops. Of course the reason for this was we simply don't have enough troops to go around. They had to scratch and scrape to find this many.

No way to occupy a country.
It's been an impossible task, all the way around. The US never had enough troops, the money to fund this war has all been borrowed from the future = not one dime has been paid from current funds.

We were far outnumbered the whole time. It's simply impossible to occupy a country of 22 million with a handful of troops. Our power has always been tenuous; we've had to bribe, pay off, beg and scrape to stay. We've never had any permanent hold especially over the cities.
The IRAQIS have always held the upper hand. Always. Any war rhetoric and saber rattling from the administration is simply PR meant for American consumption.

So why didn't they do anything?
The IRAQIS had a lot to gain by having the Americans come in. After decades of a brutal repression, the Sunni's were finally out. The Shi'a who are by far the majority, finally came into their own. Al Sistani was clever enough to see that if they just waited it out, they would finally be in charge. Especially with Iran next door, their Day had finally arrived. So it wasn't all for naught.

And now?
Maybe the Shi'a see that they are now the Kings of Iraq. If their hand is strong enough, they will throw out their occupier. IRAN will then be the new undisputed power in the region.
Moqtada Al Sadr to Bush: Thanks Dude.

sadar was killing rogue militia, so he told them if they were bound to vengeance thru the Koran they could quit and go kill for someone else.. to keep hi agreement with Bu$h to keep our TAX MONEY flow'n in to him.. he plans to run for office and needs the campaign finance

paid them and bought arms back from them.

It's been there willingness to stand down that's allowed "The Surge" to be portrayed as "a success".

Also al Sadr is a nationalist and will not negotiate away Iraqi oil. This is one last roll of the dice.