Following up on the recent battle in Najaf, it's never quite become clear exactly what happened. The narrative most media outlets eventually settled upon was that the group, which threatened to overwhelm Iraqi security forces before they called in American support for both ground and air operations, consisted of Shia "death cult" members attempting to hasten the return of the Mahdi (i.e. the 12th Imam). This week's Newsweek reports,
Dhia Abdul Zahra claimed he was the messiah. And on the eve of the holiest day in the Shiite calendar, Ashura, when believers beat themselves bloody with chains and swords, Zahra tried to deliver salvation. Hundreds of his followers, armed with heavy weapons, clashed with Iraqi and American soldiers northeast of the holy city of Najaf on Jan. 28. The Soldiers of Heaven, as the cultists called themselves, apparently planned to storm Najaf and assassinate top Shiite clerics.Not good times. In addition to the group being surprisingly effective and well-armed, it was Shia-on-Shia violence of the type that has largely remained latent.
That's not the story in Iraq, however, and Arab press paints a starkly different picture. Azzaman (translated into English) describes the battle as a U.S. provocation against a group on its way to celebrate the Ashura holiday:
Iraqi officials said 263 members of a little known group they identified as the Soldiers of Heaven were killed. They and U.S. officials who sent in helicopter gun ships and tanks to back Iraqi forces were pleased of their ‘victory’. But who were those Soldiers from Heaven? And how could both Iraqi and U.S. officials persuade U.S. troops to market a story wholly based on lies? The ‘victory’ was short-lived and its impact has already backfired and it could not have come at a worse time for the United States as it is on the verge of launching a new military offensive to retake Baghdad. Now it appears that Iraqi troops had attacked a huge procession by Shiite tribesmen on their way to take part in the Ashura ceremonies. The tribesmen were armed because their areas are among the most dangerous in Iraq. But the slogans they raised and the demands they made seem to have angered the government and prompted a violent response.The article goes on to claim that the group was actually a sect opposed to Iranian influence in Iraq, implying that tribal rivalries led U.S. forces to intervene on behalf of a pro-Iranian tribe against an anti-Iranian one. It's entirely possible that this report is erroneous, of course, and I'm skeptical of the analysis for a few reasons, particularly because Ashura celebrants usually head to Karbala rather than Najaf.
But the overall point is that we still have very little understanding of Iraq's internal conflicts. Further, virtually every U.S. military action will be treated as an attack on civilians by one group or another, feeding a constant cycle of hatred, recriminations, and death. At the beginning of our occupation, the situation was relatively close to classical counterinsurgency: there was a government and a group (mostly nationalist Sunnis with some jihadist types as well) fighting it. Under those circumstances, it is possible to undertake military operations against "the enemy" that is fighting the government. Now, however, the conflict is much more complex, and asking U.S. troops to, essentially, shoot at any group that starts a fight with another group would be laughable if the results were not so deadly.
