Via Juan Cole I noticed this story from El Pais:
The U.S. high command ordered the closing of the Sharia courts set up by the Shiite clergy in Najaf to run the city in accordance with Islamic law.The U.S. Provisional Authority in Baghdad headed by Paul Bremer was working on establishing a secular legal system in Iraq, and the Americans saw the Sharia court as a challenge to their plans -- particularly as the power behind it was the radical cleric Moqtada al Sadr.The Spanish commander refused to comply, explaining that closing down the court would upset the delicate stability in the town that his troops had worked hard to achieve and would result in violence.The American response was to dispatch a U.S. special forces unit to Najaf to arrest al-Sadr's right hand man Mustapha al Yaqubi without warning the Spanish forces.As the Spaniards had warned, the arrest, said El Pais, sparked "the bloodiest battle the Spanish troops were involved in during their turbulent mission," and produced "the worst falling out between the U.S. and Spanish commands since the beginning of the (Iraqi) invasion."With the arrest of al Yaqubi -- considered a moderate in al Sadr's organization -- the Spaniards lost a useful go-between to the radical cleric.The U.S. authorities also, incidentally, also had a warrant out for the arrest of Moqtada al Sadr, but it was quietly dropped.When the Spanish commanders demanded an explanation for arresting al Yaqubi without warning, the U.S. response was that the proper procedures had been followed.The force of the attack by Moqtadar's Mahdi army caught the Spaniards by surprise, but it was a U.S. soldier who lost his life in the fighting along with an Iraqi and another soldier from El Salvador.
This kind of thing isn't remotely surprising. Disputes among the NATO allies over Kosovo were far more severe. Wesley Clark's book provides many enlightening and disconcerting examples of these sorts of fights. But even if it's not surprising, I think it's useful to always keep this kind of thing in mind when planning foreign operations. Alliances are far from easy to maintain. And engaging in these types of operations can do as much to endanger them as to strengthen them. And if running alliances is difficult, it needs to be a task put in the hands of those who can do it ably since we live in a world where it's impossible for the United States to accomlish many of its aims alone.
Posted by armand at March 24, 2005 01:11 PM | TrackBack | Posted to International AffairsRight...just because al Sadr's henchman helped kill al-Khoi (and some other lovely Saddam loyalists killed his son this month while he was PRAYING in a MOSQUE) doesn't mean we should bring him to justice, let's just let them keep killing Islamic judges and Islamic clerics, as long as it keeps the peace, if that makes sense to you.
Posted by: Morris at March 25, 2005 11:39 PM | PERMALINKMorris - Where does it say in this post that I (or the Spanish for that matter) don't want al Sadr brought to justice? That's not (remotely) the point I am making.
But of if that's a measure you feel we should use for judging our success in Iraq, we've been stunningly ineffective at achieving that. And if it's a question of backing-off or backing-down against al Sadr, the US has done that more than once.
Posted by: Armand at March 26, 2005 11:21 AM | PERMALINKI will admit I am a little confused as to how arresting someone for murder is a direct response to the Spanish unwillingness to close the Sharia courts. It seems to me the more direct response would be to, I don't know, maybe...close the Sharia courts. It sounds a little paranoid to me to ascribe this motivation when the ultimately more plausible explanation is that we got intel on Yaqubi was and we went in to get him with special forces just as we did with Saddam, Oday, Qusay, and so many other members of the insurgency. I'd like to know how this was connected to the Spanish refusal, but unfortunately World Peace Herald and New Karala (they've got some great recipes there for chutney) were the only news websites I can find that picked up this story, and they don't have more details than that.
if we take the article at face value, the arrest etc. followed the U.S. order to close the courts, as Morris suggested, which was unequivocally defied by the spanish, who apparently had the temerity to not want to be swept up into a needless firefight precipitated by yet another imperial and foolishly shortsighted american imposition.
Posted by: joshua at March 26, 2005 07:46 PM | PERMALINKJoshua,
As I pointed out in my first post, the firefight you call "needless" was sparked according to the above article, not by the closing of the Sharia courts, but when US special forces arrested a man for participating in the murder of an Iraqi judge. I hadn't realized you'd converted to espouse anarchy, which I think is the only form of government that considers bringing murderers to justice to be an "imperial and foolishly shortsighted...impostition," in your words.
My point here is that there are effective ways of bringing bad guys to justice, and ineffective ways. And this case appears to be yet another example of one of our policies in Iraq not being planned and coordinated at all well - and with entirely predictable unfortunate results. And beyond that - it's this kind of thing that makes it very hard for us to attract allies - something we need to accomplish a host of our foreign policy goals.
Posted by: Armand at March 27, 2005 11:12 AM | PERMALINKArmand,
So, by planned and coordinated well, you're saying we should have taken time to notify the Spanish, at the risk of the communication being intercepted when we've had all kinds of trouble with that in Iraq, and at the cost of time when as little as a minute has been the difference between us stopping Zarqawi and him getting away. We caught a bad guy, and instead of being grateful for that you suggest it's our fault that the other bad guys attacked us after we captured him.
i haven't heard squat about intercepted transmissions. i'd be curious for a report. best i can tell, the insurgents are short on most technology (except, of course, the explosives we pretty much let them loot in the early phases of the way). if we can't keep people from intercepting our communications in iraw, i shudder to think what happens when we go up against a real military.
Posted by: joshua at March 27, 2005 04:28 PM | PERMALINK