Yesterday, bitter fighting broke out in
Karbala, one of the Shiite "holy cities"
presently full of several "hundreds of
thousands" of pilgrims. Apparently,
from fragmentary reports both
yesterday and today, the clashes were
started by a tussle between members of
Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army and
members of the Badr Brigade, a rival
Shiite militia. The fighting reportedly
spread quickly, not only in Karbala with
at least fifty plus killed, but elsewhere in
the country, most notably in Baghdad.
This morning, al Sadr reportedly
"commanded" his militia to "stand down"
for six months, although whether this
will really happen remains in doubt. The
leaders of the Badr Brigade, whoever
they are, made no such call.


AN AP story over the weekend suggests that
the killing goes on, at roughly 62 persons a
day, up from 33 a day in 2006. This year, about
14,800 people have been slain in various types
of violence from murders to bombings as
opposed to 13,800 a year ago, with four
months left in the year. The provinces outside
of Baghdad have seen an increase in violence
from 22% of the total violence in the country to
35%, according to the story by Steve Hurst.
However, Baghdad has subsided back to its
percentage of roughly a year ago - 52% -
from a high of 76% of all the violence in the
country in January.

I alos heard yesterday that roughly two
million people inside the country are "displaced,"
and another two million are refugees. A sizable
number have landed in Jordan, placing great
strains on that country's social network.

One American general, deputy director of
planning for the Joint Chiefs, Brig. Gen. Richard
Sherlock, made the claim on Saturday that
"violence in Iraq has continued to decline and
is at its lowest level since June, 2006," but
offered no figures to back up his statement.
The other numbers cited above, and 75
American deaths this month, suggest that he
could be wrong (although the number of
Americans dying is under 100 for the second
month in a row).

Although the surge *has* made inroads against
the insurgents since it began in February, General
Sherlock pointed out three dates that probably
would see an upsurge in insurgent (and militia)
activity - Ramadan (13 September to 11 October),
the sixth anniversary of 9/11, and the Petraeus
and Crocker report to the US Congress on 15
September.

Lastly, one unnamed US commander was quoted
on Monday as saying that US forces "in some
strength" will have to stay in Iraq "for years,"
which was echoed by Ted Koppel in a report last
night. It would seem that Warner's talk of a token
withdrawal in December to put pressure on the
al-Maliki government to meet "benchmarks" will
be just that, if it even happens - a token move.
Many commentators have suggested in recent
weeks that "the surge" will have to stay in place
until next summer, and at least one US general has
suggested that withdrawal of *any* troops would
seriously jeapordize the mission of training Iraqis
to take over security, on the grounds that they are
"not yet ready to do this on their own."

There may be improvements, although not as many
as anyone would like, and it would appear now that
reconstruction monies have bought arms for the
insurgents in addition to all the other not-so-good
news from this beleaguered place. Al-Maliki may able
to be defiant about calls from Democratic Senators
Clinton and Levin that he should go, but I agree
with Koppel's assessment of last evening - it
doesn't much matter whether it remains al-Maliki
or someone else - the US will continue to maintain
a presence in Iraq to forestall a wider war in the
region and to keep Iran at bay as best as can be
done. VMS
Note: Written Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:45:37

Unedited as of 13 October, 2007