It’s the Strategy, Stupid

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.


al_sadr.jpg I blogged in February that insurgents’ discovery of chlorine bombs was an especially ominous turn in Iraq—optimistic assessments of the “surge” notwithstanding—because the bombs have far higher death tolls than standard I.E.D.’s.

Today the sixth chlorine bomb in 2 months exploded in Anbar province. A chlorine-laden truck bomb in Ramadi killed 20 and wounded at least 30.

The only believable good news regarding the surge was a drop in the death toll between mid-February and mid-March. In reality, the drop was likely due to Moktada al-Sadr’s order that his Mahdi Army militia cease resisting the Americans by violent means.

Even though the military hasn’t come right out and told the press that al-Sadr is responsible for the surge’s apparent success, they know he is. Last week, the military released a key aide to al-Sadr, which the Sacramento Bee called “a sure sign U.S. officials are working hard to keep al-Sadr’s support for the Baghdad security plan.” Al-Sadr has called for a demonstration against the American occupation on April 9 and ejected two associates who met with Americans, but he has continued to say that his followers should not resist the security surge by violent means.

So why is the U.S. killing civilians and militiamen in al-Sadr’s home turf of Sadr City? Earlier today, U.S. and Iraqi forces raided residential neighborhoods there. They killed 4 and wounded 3 militiamen. But they didn’t stop there. After distributing pamphlets encouraging people to cooperate with security forces, American helicopters fired missiles that wounded 15 civilians. The New York Times reports, “American forces later fired on a Toyota sedan, killing all three passengers inside. And two students were killed by mortar when Americans fired on a college residence by mistake, Iraqi police said.”

What? What kind of perverse incentive is that to retain the (albeit lukewarm) cooperation of the Sadrists? Predictably, a representative of al-Sadr’s group—which is big and powerful—expressed anger and confusion. Haydar Al Natiq, of the Sadr office in Diwaniya, told the Times, “This operation is unjustified and will stir up the situation in the time where a peace conference was supposed to be held between the Sadrists and the security forces.”

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest