As the conflict in Syria continues, countries in the region and dissidents within Syria are becomingly increasingly concerned about the limited effectiveness of international organizations. Our analysis reveals that the vast majority of political cartoons published in Arab media outlets over the last few weeks have focused on the U.N.’s (and in particular Kofi Annan’s) failure to stop civilian bloodshed.

More specifically these cartoons have focused on three specific issues as seen by the artists:

• International Organizations’ de facto free-pass for Assad to continue suppressing the uprising
• Kofi Annan’s lack of preparation for/comprehension of the situation
• The ineffectiveness of U.N./Arab League observers.

1. Ineffectiveness of international organizations

This category of cartoons focuses on the broadest issue facing the Syrian opposition: the international community is unable to control Assad’s actions (or chooses not to). Many of the cartoons directly label the U.N. or the Arab League; some simply imply “the world.” Very few show the U.S. or a direct U.S. representative (ex. Barack Obama). This demonstrates that the Arab media focus the blame for the inaction not on a failure of U.S. leadership (as many in the U.S. would believe), but rather directly hold the U.N. or Arab League accountable. Emad Hajjaj, a Jordanian artist, takes this idea one step further. His cartoon implies that not only is the U.N. unable to stop Assad, but that the time given him is directly killing Syrians. Assad is (quite literally) using the time to continue his massacres.

2. Satirical depictions of Kofi Annan’s failure.

The caricature of Kofi Annan as a complete failure was widespread across the Arab media space. In one example he is struggling toward Syria under the weight of his peace plan, being told “Out…” by “Murder” and “Violence”. In another he is portrayed cheerful and optimistic entering Syria but dismayed with his hair blown back leaving. It is readily apparent that the initial hope and enthusiasm for the involvement of a distinguished diplomat has faded, replaced with amusement. The situation in Syria has “blown up” in Annan’s face, and the Arab media is quick to make that clear.

3. Disappointment in observers

There is a universal disbelief throughout the Arab media that the observers (either Arab League or U.N.) are missing the bloodshed in Syria. The most common theme of the cartoons is of an observer blatantly looking the wrong way while atrocities are committed around him. The idea of the blind observer was also a recurring one throughout the media space, exemplified by Osama Hajjaj’s cartoon. The obviously blind man (Observers) is reporting back that “The situation is very reassuring!!” even though he his soaked in blood after leaving “Syria.” These cartoons are prevalent throughout the media space, showing a distrust (and disgust) for the inefficacy of the multiple teams of observers sent to Syria. It is important to note that both the Arab League’s observers and the U.N. observers are portrayed in the same light.

Though these cartoons were collected from Arab media outlets, they offer incredibly similar content and messages to many published in the West, mainly the ineffectiveness of the U.N. Whether it is a portrayal of a bumbling Kofi Annan, a blind observer, or Assad under the direct supervision of his “elders,” the message is the same. As traditional media and citizen journalism have played a large role in bringing the story of the Arab revolutions to the fore, English-language cartoons may be attempting to appeal to the international community.  Similarly, Arab revolutionaries have used English in social media and their own protests to broaden their audience.

“Hip Hop Diplomacy: Connecting through Culture,” hosted March 27 by George Washington University, also posited that cultural diplomacy efforts can play a significant role in furthering global relationships and, as my colleague noted, help sustain international stability in the future.

The focus of GWU’s event was how music, sports, arts, and media programs can aid in the empowerment of women worldwide.  By teaching women leadership, technology, and business skills, these types of programs are able to facilitate the elimination of cultural stereotypes against women, the amendment of male-only political systems, and the rise of women in economies that do not allow them to hold land or own businesses. The State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) is an important funder of these types of programs and cultural diplomacy efforts in general.  Indeed, many of the event’s participants had at one time participated in a State Department-aided cultural program. Some of these women were:

1. Toni Blackmon – The State Department’s first hip-hop artist to be designated as an American Cultural Specialist.  She conducts many workshops and concerts abroad, aiming to connect with other cultures through music.
2. Soultana: A Moroccan hip-hop artist who participated in a State Department cultural exchange program in 2011. Her songs attempt to bring a greater attention to injustices against women in Morocco.
3. Tiffany Roberts Sahaydak: Former U.S. Women’s Soccer player who has worked as a State Department Sports Envoy for the past five years. She has provided sports leadership and training programs in many countries, including Brazil, Thailand, the Philippines, Uganda, and Morocco.
4. Belia Zibowa: A Zimbabwean basketball coach who is currently participating in a State Department cultural exchange program. She will be participating in teambuilding exercises and workshops over the course of the next week, culminating in a trip to the NCAA Women’s Final Four on April 3^rd.

What is especially beneficial about cultural diplomacy programs like the ones in which these women participated is that they provide a high return on a low investment. Indeed, the ECA’s $400 million budget is just a drop in the bucket compared to the State Department’s $53.1 billion overall budget.  For this relatively low cost, the ECA can build strategic partnerships to promote mutual understanding, an international exchange of ideas, and leadership development.  Its programs aimed at women specifically act to increase both economic prosperity by giving half of the world’s population a greater role in the business sector and political participation through a larger role for women in government. Thus, all types of cultural diplomacy programs can help reduce areas of economic disparity and sites of possible conflict, increasing stability both for the United States and the international community in general.

In essence, as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the ECA noted at the GWU event, these cultural diplomatic partnerships help “advance national security simply by helping others.”  This seems like a prudent investment in international relationships and the prospect of a more peaceful future.

The memo, prepared by Daniel Byman, Michael Doran, Kenneth Pollack, and Salman Shaikh, and the discussion sought to explain their opinions on the policy options facing the Obama administration with regards to the current conflict in Syria. There were a number of interesting points brought up in the resulting discussion that have so far flown under the radar of the U.S. media

1.  The possibility of war by proxy. With the NATO intervention in Libya there was a clear goal; it was “the world vs. Gaddafi.” NATO had a cut-and-dried mission with the support of the international community.  Syria, however, is not so simple. Syria’s strategic importance gives rise to consideration of a proxy war between Iran and the U.S., between the U.S. and Russia, or between the Gulf States and Iran. Consider that Russia supplied 78 percent of Syria’s arms imports from 2007-2011 (source: SIPRI), the presence of a Russian Naval Base at Tartus, and Iran’s close ties with Syria. If the U.S. or others supply weapons to the Free Syrian Army, it is increasingly likely that the civil war in Syria could become a drawn out proxy war. On March 19, the Twitter space was alight with reports of a Russian “counter-terror” team deploying to Tartus. Russia has since denied the reports, claiming that a Russian oil tanker simply had a security team on board. Regardless of the veracity of the reports, it is telling that for some Syrians the first assumption was that Russia’s military was directly supporting Assad’s regime.

2. Israel’s role in the conflict. A question came from the audience in Doha regarding Israel’s involvement in a possible intervention. Somewhat surprisingly, the questioner was looking for insight on Israel’s desire to maintain a weak and conflicted Syria to its north, perhaps indefinitely. There has been very little talk in the U.S. media space regarding Israel’s involvement in Syria, however it is a fairly hot topic in the Israeli media. This past weekend opposition leader Tzipi Livni said “the crimes committed by Assad give Israel a diplomatic opportunity…with the Arab League and the more moderate Arab countries against Syria- a partnership that can also help in the struggle against Iran in the future.” This may not be reassuring to Syrians, however, as some of them likely supported Assad’s strong anti-Israel stance.

3. What the Syrian opposition wants/needs.  Salman Shaikh, director of the Brookings Institute in Doha, spoke extensively on what the Syrian opposition believes it needs and why. He said the opposition do not want “sympathy and tears” from the West. Instead, the opposition is in dire need of weapons. The will to fight is there but the ability is not. Shaikh discussed a recent interview with an opposition tribal leader in Syria who said, “[Ambassador] Ford’s visit was welcome, but conditional.” He went on to say the U.S. has the opportunity to open a new chapter in relations with the Arab world and “expunge recent memories.” A recent article published by the LA Times discussed the shortage of black market arms for the Free Syrian Army. In this article a Lebanese arms dealer said weapons’ prices have increased drastically as supply dwindled. Most weapons now costs Syrian opposition fighters more than double what they paid at the start of the conflict, if the weapons can even be found. According to this article a militia leader claimed, “We don’t want intervention or safe corridors… All we ask for are weapons to be able to protect the people.”

While the international community’s reactions to Assad may vary from its unanimous posturing against Gadaffi, the issue of arming revolutionary fighters is strikingly similar and concerns about the issue have not gone unfounded as the Libyan transitional government is still unable to rein in and demilitarize local tribes. The Libya example also demonstrates that despite the opposition’s support for varying levels of international assistance, it may be nearly impossible to intervene without resulting negative public opinion. In focus groups performed by Strategic Social in Libya during May and June of 2011, Libyans in Benghazi valued NATO assistance, but were quick to point out the possible self-serving aspects of the intervention. Alternatively, the respondents believed Arab countries’ assistance was purely humanitarian and came without the “strings” often attached by the West.

Over the past week, American advocacy group Invisible Children’s Kony 2012 video campaign has garnered nearly 84 million views on Youtube and prompted cause-touting celebrities, activists and professionals to express shock and awe at Kony’s long-underreported crimes. But a considerable amount of the enormous attention generated by the video has been less than flattering. While the Western media has tended to focus on the somewhat questionable finances of Invisible Children, the over-simplicity of the campaign and the group’s defense of the problematic Uganda People’s Defense Force, most reporters have largely ignored public reaction to the viral video in the country where it matters most: Uganda.

A small sampling of the Ugandan press presents decidedly negative coverage of the Kony 2012 campaign and its aftermath. The Ugandan government has warned of “misrepresentation of the LRA threat,” stating that, “They [LRA] are a diminished and weakened group with numbers not exceeding 300. The threat posed by the LRA in our neighboring countries is considerably reduced and we are hopeful that it will be altogether eliminated with the help of U.S. logistical support.” A New Vision op-ed titled “Is Kony 2012 film a hoax?” summarized what the author viewed to be the typical Ugandan response: “Ugandans were angry that once again, the West had hijacked an African struggle; putting themselves at the front line of the fight against Kony and making it look like Uganda was sitting by idly as Kony murdered, abducted and raped.” The author additionally cites one Uganda district representative who supports policies to capture Kony, but emphasized that longer-term rehabilitation policies are necessary to put Uganda back on track.

Al-Jazeera reported that a viewing of the Kony 2012 video in the Uganda town of Lira ended in violence as angry viewers began “throwing rocks and shouting abusive criticism.” One local woman drew a comparison that could serve to highlight to the international community how Ugandans have reacted: “[it’s like] selling Osama Bin Laden paraphernalia post 9/11 – likely to be highly offensive to many Americans, however well-intentioned the campaign behind it.”

Yet another op-ed in Uganda’s Daily Monitor, “LRA leader Joseph Kony and Western hegemony”, offers a more afflicted perspective as author Timothy Kalyegira points out that, “Uganda’s best-educated political, academic and media elite had tried their best to report on, analyze and publicize the story of Joseph Kony [for more than 20 years]…and by Thursday night March 8, 2012, the [Kony 2012] video has spread into every nook of the Internet…”

Ugandans and others from the region have also taken to social media to combat what they perceive to be the Kony 2012 campaign’s flawed depiction of the state of the conflict, exaggerated sense of self-importance, and marginalizing presentation of Africans more broadly. Others have collected samples of some prominent voices on the topic.

Rosebell Kagumire is a Ugandan journalist who filmed a video to describe the “danger of portraying people with one single story and using old footage to cause hysteria.”

TMS Ruge is a prominent Ugandan blogger who has also posted a longer, and widely circulated, critique of the campaign on his blog, Project Diaspora.

Angelo Izama is a journalist at Uganda’s leading independent newspaper, The Daily Monitor, where the controversy is currently making headlines. He has also posted a longer critique on his personal blog.

Numerous other critiques have sprung up from other Ugandans, members of the African Diaspora, and long time activists and scholars of the region. Some have taken to humor to present themselves: there is a drinking game and a spin of the “[Expletive] People Say” video meme making the rounds.

Through social media, Ugandans and others have been claiming their own place in the discussion about the affairs of their home country and continent, and for that they take a certain amount of pride:

Despite the criticism it has received, Kony 2012 is a masterful messaging campaign that has already partially achieved its goal of making Joseph Kony a household name.  Kony 2012 represents the crème de la crème of messaging campaigns, utilizing high-production values and tugging at the emotional heart-strings of its target audience (international youth with the time and money to devote to the new cause-celebre). However, in any digital awareness campaign, the message is only as good as the legitimacy of the communicator.  Therefore, Kony 2012’s flaw lies in its lack of local insight and cultural and historical accuracy to uphold Invisible Children’s credibility in the fight against insurgency and extremism in East Africa. It also doesn’t help when the campaign’s founder, Jason Russell, is detained and hospitalized for running around in “various stages of undress.”

As many combatant commands see their budgets being markedly cut (read EUCOM and the 2011 dissolving of Joint Forces Command (JFCOM)), SOCOM and CENTCOM are unique.  Neither is at risk for significant budget cuts and each appears to be either maintaining or requesting additional funds. SOCOM’s role in the future of conflict was discussed in particular as some congressmen questioned the transparency and accountability of the command, especially as it collaborates with the CIA. These concerns are not new; a New York Times article in mid-February argued that Admiral McRaven has a desire for “[a] freer hand in deployment of elite forces.”

The bulk of the hearings served to justify budget increases by focusing on the ever-increasing threats to American interests emanating from the Middle East and Central Asia, areas which, according to Gen. Mattis, have never been so tumultuous.  These threats are fourfold:

1. Iran – The commanders emphasized that Iran is the primary threat to U.S. security, due to its increased overseas activities, like the attempted assassination of the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., and its influence in Syria, Bahrain, Kuwait, Yemen, and Sudan.  An Iranian attack could take the form of nuclear weapons, long-range missiles, blockades, or the clandestine Quds Force.
2. Syria – The situation here is growing ever more chaotic, with over 7,500 now dead.  Gen. Mattis remarked that the situation will likely get worse before it gets better and that a longer conflict means a greater risk of civil war, as Assad might be capable of retaining power indefinitely.
3. Al Qaeda – The organization is regaining strength, as evidenced by the recent killing of 139 civilians in Yemen and the reemergence of the group in western Iraq.  While Al Qaeda may be unable to significantly threaten any Middle Eastern government, it still poses a danger to the lives of their citizens.
4. Afghanistan – The situation here has worsened recently due to the violent demonstrations against the U.S. military’s burning of Afghan prisoners’ Korans.  The commanders stressed that the military will not change the current strategy in Afghanistan but violence must be stemmed and security improved before the U.S. can pull out as planned in 2014.

This week’s Senate hearings generated a considerable amount of activity in the blogosphere and media space.  Interest was likely heightened by the recent statement by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder arguing the legality of the U.S. targeting its own citizens abroad if they pose a risk to national security. Despite Holder not mentioning the role of SOCOM in these operations, both the traditional and digital media spaces were quick to draw the connection, with tweeters adding a SOCOM hashtag (#socom) to tweets regarding this announcement.

While the blogosphere and foreign policy community rage over the possibility of U.S. military interventions in Iran or Syria, the commanders’ comments on the post-2014 presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan appeared to gain the most traction the media space.

She covered the globe with five major areas of interest:

1. Sustainment of national security missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan;
2. A new focus on the Asia-Pacific region;
3. Moving forward from the events of the Arab Spring in the Middle East and North Africa;
4. Use of economic statescraft — using diplomacy and development to create jobs in the U.S.; and
5. The elevation of development alongside diplomacy and defense to help build strategic depth in vulnerable areas.

In every sense, the State Department’s $51.6 billion budget request for Fiscal Year 2013, and the five priorities it’s centered on, value the development, maintenance and growth of relationships.  Investment in strengthening existing relationships and building new ones is vital to our country’s ability to engage and lead abroad.

The U.S. seemed slow to respond to the opportunities presented by the events of the Arab Spring.  Our efforts to engage and assist seemed uncoordinated and incomplete in the wake of sweeping changes across the region.  Secretary Clinton seems to recognize this, too, since her department’s FY13 budget request includes a $770 million incentive fund for the Middle East and North Africa.  The fund will enable the U.S. to be more flexible and speedy in its efforts to build relationships and assist in the region.  Unfortunately, the funds are needed now for such an effort, not at the end of this year.

Similarly, in the Pacific region, the landscape change brought by North Korea’s leadership shift and China’s growing influence calls for a concerted focus on building relationships that endure current challenges and create strength for the future.  Traditional partners like Japan and South Korea will be key to the diplomatic efforts.  Untraditional or new partners like Vietnam will play an increasingly important role.  The efforts of the Defense Department will clearly be important complements through programs such as joint, combined exercises and the military-to-military contact programs in the quest to build meaningful relationships that can help affect the future.

Clinton also testified to the importance of development and said her budget request would elevate that type of engagement to the equivalent level of defense and diplomacy.  The focus on development is a wise one and will help to ensure there are actions to back up the diplomatic words about the need to stabilize areas hindered by disease, poverty and hunger — destabilizing factors that provide fertile ground for violent extremism and conflict.

While many will argue against investment outside the U.S. while so many domestic demands face the country, only the U.S. has the reach, resources and existing relationships to help secure a more peaceful and prosperous world.  While relationships always have mattered in the realm of diplomacy, the dynamic nature of the modern geopolitical and economic landscape make these associations even more important.  Simply put, investing now in our country’s ability to grow and maintain key, international relationships will help to underwrite the future of stability at home and abroad.

The realization was at first somewhat uncomfortable for me. As a military officer, my experience in combat zones included body armor, weapons and restricted exposure to the local population. In contrast, during my recent trip I traveled the streets of Kabul with my colleagues, visiting restaurants and interacting with the citizens.

At first, I felt exposed and vulnerable without the protective elements. However, I soon began to develop a level of local insight that is uncommon in my experience. It helped me to better understand the linkage to the larger, strategic picture – the global perspective.

I was pleased to see our team’s operations across the full scope of our company’s core capabilities:  Socio-Cultural Research, Communication and Engagement, Enterprise Solutions and Capacity Building. In every case, I found we’re delivering success for our clients because of our reliance on the unique level of local insight and our ability to think strategically about the global connections. We gain that insight through a blend of research and the perspectives of our employees who are either from the local areas or have gained a level of understanding that allows them to empathize with the population.

My travels allowed me to see clearly how our clients benefit directly from the investment we make in building a foundation of understanding. Our understanding is directly applied to the strategies and solutions we create, making them precisely suited for the issue of interest to our clients, or the audiences they wish to reach.

I also saw firsthand the lasting effects our efforts can have. For example, our engagement in literacy training in Afghanistan is opening new doors for the students and building capacity for the country. Our own employees also provide an example of the enduring outcomes our company seeks to achieve. They bring unique skills and expertise to our team and gain new attributes through their work with us. Someday, they will likely sustain our business in their home countries while their western counterparts move on to new challenges.

I returned to Washington, D.C, with a new appreciation for my company’s work.  Our team makes a significant difference every day in the most important of ways:  We deliver local insight and global perspective in ways that can change the future.

I first became acquainted with this unique company while serving in Baghdad as an active duty Air Force public affairs officer.  In that role, I helped to lead strategic communication for U.S. Forces – Iraq and I leaned heavily on a team of Strategic Social employees deeply integrated into our team.  They helped us to understand a very complex environment, to make sense of seeming chaos and to use that insight to engage in meaningful ways.  Through our communication engagements, we built public awareness, understanding and confidence as Iraq grew more stable.  People in Iraq, the Middle East, the U.S. and in many other countries were better informed because of our team’s efforts and that gave Iraq new opportunities important for its future.  It is a clear example of engaging to create outcomes that endure.

I’m pleased to now be on the Strategic Social team, having retired from active duty service earlier this year.  I am also pleased to find that the company not only has maintained, but also sharpened, its focus on helping to improve conditions — to leave them better — in the areas in which it works.

Strategic Social’s work is grounded in social science research that provides our teams with the ability to know an audience at the local level.  By being of and among a population we achieve a level of empathy with them concerning challenges, issues, desires and goals.  This enhanced understanding allows our teams to create engagement strategies that work, whether they be communication efforts or a form of capacity building like training, education, leadership development or finance.  The interaction is mutually beneficial for our clients, the intended audiences or participants, and us.

The white paper at this link goes into more detail about the Understand, Empathize, Engage, Transact model that guides our work.  I think you’ll find it interesting.

Strategic Social White Paper: Enduring Outcomes Through Soft Power Engagement

In the days following the terrorist attacks, our changed world presented an environment that called for action; the past decade features some incredible efforts and achievements as a result.  These successes serve as a solid beginning to the efforts of US and its partners around the world.

Over the past 10 years, the U.S. and its strategic partners have aggressively combatted violent extremism and worked to eliminate opportunities for it to grow.  Many of the domestic and international successes are well known.  Less well known, however, are the valuable advances made by governments, industry, non-governmental organizations, philanthropic foundations and others toward improving conditions for people who may otherwise be manipulated by violent extremists.

Around the world, schools and hospitals have opened, vocational programs and cultural exchanges have been conducted, freedom of the press has emerged, women have gained societal status and opportunities, and forms of the democratic process have been adopted.  With these important successes, environments that allow violent ideologies to flourish have been marginalized. Just now, 10 years after that tragic day, are we starting to see tangible results from a decade of effort.  We are on the verge of destroying Al Qaeda and we are seeing the Arab Spring bring democracy to countries that have suffered decades of dictatorship.  However, there is much work remaining. Future efforts must build, not rest, on these successes.

Future successes will come by guiding our interactions and efforts with a simple model that has already delivered profound outcomes.  The approach begins by building deep understanding of a population through social science research.  Focus groups, surveys and other direct interaction with people provide a level of understanding of the social diversity and other factors of their society, and the challenges and opportunities they face individually and as a group.  With this level of understanding, a degree of empathy develops that allows solutions and strategies to be designed to meet the peoples’ specific needs and interests.  It is important to see the world through the lens of others;  only then can we understand their perspective and rationale for their actions.

Too often in the past, the U.S. has rushed past attempts to understand a population and instead favored quick solutions that, unfortunately, often don’t deliver the desired, enduring results.

Instead, meaningful success comes from engaging with populations through mutually beneficial transactions, or interaction.  In this sense, these transactions help to meet the objective of creating international stability while also improving people’s lives in the identified population.  By improving literacy rates, security, access to healthcare, rule of law, education, vocational skills and similar aspects of society, the population is strengthened against maligned influence and the foundation of trust and cooperation is built.  Likewise, the international community directly benefits from the increase in stability and resulting threat reduction.

At Strategic Social, we’ve proven the success of this approach in Iraq, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Libya, Mali and elsewhere.  Individual and societal capacity has grown as jobs have been created, new skills have been learned, schools and hospitals have opened, women have attained societal status, a free press has operated, governments have reformed and opportunities for violent extremists have diminished.  The path from chaos to sustainable stability relies on Understanding, Empathy, Engagement and Mutually Beneficial Transactions.

There are lots of ways to earn a living in this world.  The chance to help make the world a better place for our children and future generations is the best I can imagine.  It is also incumbent upon us to work to make the world a better place than we found it.  If you have the ability to make a difference, there is a moral imperative to action.  It is in times such as these that leaders take action and each of us has opportunities to fulfill that responsibility.

As we remember the feeling of ‘what do we do now?’ that came with the attacks of 9/11, we should be reminded that making a lasting change for the future won’t happen in just one decade — it takes continued effort and productive engagement.  Each of us was affected in some way by the attacks of 9/11; we owe it to future generations to stay focused on improving the chances that similar events will never occur.

Looking forward, Muqtada al-Sadr could combine forces from JAM and Promised Day Brigades (PDB) under the banner of PDB in an attempt to lose the negative image and poor reputation associated with JAM’s history.  This scenario would also provide a possibility to please JAM members who want to continue the fight.   With so many Iraqis upset at the potency of USF-I and the Government of Iraq (GOI) since 2003, al-Sadr will not be hard-pressed to find additional recruits among the Iraqi Shia populace.  Alternatively, the permanent freeze could enrage JAM members to once again split from al-Sadr completely and to develop into their own splinter militia.  There is also potential for one of these groups to fully reconcile with the League of the Righteous, aka Asa’ib Ahl al-Haaq (AAH), considering the recent joint attack harvest released by PDB and AAH, whose attacks occurred in April and May 2011.  It seems as if AAH is coincidentally reconciling and returning to the leadership of al-Sadr just as he is about to lift the freeze on JAM.  Whether or not he will disregard their past disloyalty is a possibility, but he will most likely value any additional supporters he can get.

Al-Sadr is not going to leave the Iraqi political or militia sphere anytime soon. Now that AAH seems to be seeking reconciliation with al-Sadr and the Sadrist Movement, he already has a greater pool of supporters than in the past.  He has a substantial Shia following, and is only bound to gain additional supporters in the coming months.  Clearly, al-Sadr’s trip to Iran combined with a diminished USF-I presence, has only motivated al-Sadr to increase his political power in Iraq.  Whether his supporters act under the banner of PDB, JAM, or even AAH, they will actively profess Iraqi Shia/ Iraqi Sadrist dominance in a more professionally-organized way than can be seen in JAM’s history.  Additionally, if an offshoot militia is started from frustrated JAM, it will not be substantial enough to overrule al-Sadr’s control.  Shia Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his supporters are on the verge of incorporating increasing amounts of strict Islamic rules, seen in Iran, into the future of Iraq, potentially destroying whatever evidence of stability enacted by since 2003.

Kelly Seeger served as an Analyst Intern for Strategic Social, LLC. She is currently a senior studying Political Science and Middle Eastern Studies at Franklin and Marshall College. Her academic interests include US National Security and Political Developments in the Middle East. This OpEd was extrapolated from a longer paper and if you are interesting in reading the piece in its entirety you may download the document here: Al-Mahdi Army in the Lead Up to USF-I Withdrawal