Middle East News
Mahdi Army tightens Basra grip, al-Maliki extends deadline (Roundup)
Mar 28, 2008, 13:08 GMT
Fighters loyal to Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr take up position at a street in Basra , southern Iraq on 27 March 2008. Fighting between Iraqi security forces and the Mehdi Army militia continued in Basra. A health official said 50 people had been killed and 200 wounded since a major Iraqi military operation began on 25 March 2008. EPA/HAIDER AL-ASSADEE
Baghdad - The Shiite militia the Mahdi Army increased its grip on Basra Friday amid fierce fighting, with no arms handed over to the Iraqi army as demanded by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. Ongoing clashes in other Iraqi cities were also reported.
Witnesses told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa the militants had not handed over any arms, and had further spread across Iraq's second largest city.
Al-Maliki meanwhile extended until April 8 a deadline for the Mahdi Army, loyal to radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, to lay down weapons, the Voices of Iraq (VOI) news agency said.
Al-Maliki on Wednesday had set a 72-hour deadline for Shiite militants to lay down their arms or face 'severe penalties.'
Clashes between Iraqi security forces and Shiite fighters in Basra raged Friday for the fourth day as unrest spread to other Shiite cities and Baghdad.
Medical sources told dpa that at least 75 people were killed and 250 wounded since heavy fighting broke out between Iraqi forces and the Mahdi Army in the late hours of Monday. Sources said casualities include civilians, police officers, Iraqi forces and militants.
Iraqi ground forces backed by US air and ground support launched a large-scale operation to break the grip of Shiite militias and criminal gangs controlling the city.
Nearly 30,000 Iraqi soldiers and police officers are involved in the operation, which is directed by al-Maliki, who is commander-in- chief of the armed forces.
In Baghdad's Sadr City, at least four militants of Mahdi army were killed Thursday in clashes with the Iraqi forces in the area of Jisr Diyala, witnesses told dpa. Medical sources told VOI that clashes in the Sadr City left 39 people killed and 398 wounded since Tuesday.
Intense clashes between Iraqi forces and militants also broke out Friday in the city of Nasiriyah, some 350 kilometres south of Baghdad, resulting in the deaths of two police officers and four injuries, VOI said.
Five militants were killed and another eight were detained in the city's Fadaa district.
Also in Nasiriyah, four police officers were killed and another 12 were injured in clashes between Iraqi forces and militants in the late hours of Thursday.
Seven militants were also injured in the heavy clashes.
In the city of Diwaniyah, some 200 kilometres south of the capital, two police officers were injured and a militant was killed in fighting between the Iraqi forces and militants in Akrad district, VOI said.
Also in Diwaniyah, militants targeted an Iraqi patrol in Somar area on Thursday, leaving one civilian dead and another two, seriously injured.
US military forces meanwhile said a mass grave containing 37 bodies was found Thursday in Baquba, some 60 kilometres north of Baghdad.
'All the bodies were badly decomposed and appear to have been there anywhere from two to eight months. Some of the bodies showed signs of torture,' a US military statement said.
COMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in Middle East
- 1. Jerusalem prelate tells Arab Spring youth to have confidence
- 2. More than 100 killed in Syria ahead of ceasefire deadline
- 3. At least 43 killed in Syria, despite UN criticism
- 4. 19 killed in Syria as ceasefire deadline approaches
- 5. Pilgrims flock to Jerusalem for Easter, Passover
Older Talkback
page: 1
why is it that in the so-called 'coalition of the willing' fighting for freedom in Iraqalqaeda only the United States is willing to go after and kill enemy? The cowardly brits hide behind walled compounds while our guys bravely engage the terrorists in this war on evil. Certainly we can not expect the analicki shia to fight anyone since they are brothers with the Iraqalqaeda terrorists. And, the communist oriented beaurocrats at the UN are just a bunch of effeminate wimps who only want to cry about global warming. So leave it to America to have to go solo, as usual, in a glorious, patriotic effort to save the world from the forces of evil.
Once we get control of our oil, we will have the resources necessary to quickly strike at all the evil in Iran, and eliminate it. By then we will be prepared to take the battle just a few hundred miles further, to Armageddon for our final fight between good and evil. In the shock and awe of it all we shall fight many enemy, and many terrorist nations. We will really find out who is with us and who is against us, but we will not be surprised when some of our so called friends in the coalition bear false witness against us and become enemy. That is ok because we are used to enemy ganging up on us, and our God is on our side, and therefore we will win anyway.
Clearly the much touted American surge has failed.
The Mahdi Army has shown that it not subject to the authority of the American backed Iraqi National Government, and the destruction of a major pipeline demonstrated that the idea of the Coalition ensuring security in Iraq is chimerical.
In the face of robust and continuing Iraqi resistance to the overwhelming military might of the coalition, the American public remains in the thrall of politicians stoking their vast egos with cries for victory in Iraq.
The only intelligent American policy is to leverage the remaining influence we have in Iraq and make the best deal we can before we lose all power to affect events.
The Republican Party, which is pinning its electoral hopes on bare chested appeals to American chauvinsm, is in no position to offer anything constructive.
The Republicans remain pollyannishly optimistic in their assessments of events in Iraq and childishly naive in their endless preoccupation with military force.
One can only hope that the Democrats will not become faint hearted and cave in to Republican bullying, and fight the election by advocating a realistic foreign policy.
Both U.S. and British forces have the airpower and firepower, and are in active support of al-Maliki's forces.
al-Sadr's ceasefire was what brought the casualty numbers down markedly during the 'surge' period, but the 'surge' itself had nothing to do with the Shia areas in the South. We acted as though this problem did not exist, and instead magnified the role of al Qaeda in the 'violence totals', blaming them for EVERY act of violence. Now that the cease-fire seems to have broken down, the real underlying problems in Iraq are once again visible. The Shia are battling for power between themselves. The Sunni are complaining that the U.S. wants to stop paying them, since the problems have moved from Baghdad to the North. The Parliament is all over the place, when not ducking for cover.
al Qaeda will simply hunker down until they get the opportunity to act again - that's why in the earlier strategy we occupied areas; only to lose them once U.S. forces withdrew. That's because we did not have enough troops to hold all of the areas at once. Between the training of the Iraqi Army and the surge increase, finally we were able to leave forces behind to hold areas, and also pay off the Sunni to battle al Qaeda, who the Sunni resented fully by this time. We also constructed walled enclaves around Sunni areas to physically keep enemies (al Qaeda or Shia) out.
The Iraqi Army is divided up into units along sectarian lines, and Shiite units are doing al-Maliki's work in the South (Basra). Some are defecting to the Shia militias, and even handing over weapons. The Iranians are supplying better weapons to their Shia allies than the Iraqi Army has; so U.S. airpower and marines are being used to back up al-Maliki's forces.
While the theory of building up the Iraqi Army to become self-sufficient looks good on paper, getting to the point of having an Army with 'first loyalty' to the central government, and well-equipped and well-trained enough to protect the people on its own, is years away from happening.
The problem, as it always will be, is political and sectarian. Saddam succeeded for decades by having a strong Sunni army to hold the majority Shiite population in check; and it was U.S. policy to have that situation in place. Bremer dismissed that Army, and they became the roots of the Sunni insurgency, and we've not replaced the stabilizing factor that a strong Iraqi Army was for all of those years.
Sometimes you replace a tyrant; and without good planning you eventually get chaos.
Bring our troops home. Let God sort 'em out.
Don't hurt me I givy up.
spfool has it's thumb right in his place to solve the problem. You should be an advisor to your beloved presiden.
...what do I give a crap if these chuckleheads want to kill each other? Why should the USA be the supernanny?
What Bush and Rumsfeld did was not the work of a supernanny but rather one of the most stupid acts in the history of the USA,it was the consequence of a carefully crafted campaign to tie Al Quaida to Iraq.And look what happened ,they managed to provoke it .Don't blame the Iraqi's ,they are the prime victims of all this .
..they were victims when Saddam's Sunnis' oppressed them. Then, libnazis groused for 9 years that we needed to intervene.
Hillary, and Bill, backed the play!
We cut Saddam loose, and now...they are victims again.
Who's victimizing them now??? Certainly not the USA. These chuckleheads are victimizing their own folks.
I have the feeling thses folks are going to be doing this in another 100 years.
'Clearly the much touted American surge has failed.'
1) This was a British controlled area and not a part of the American 'surge'.
2) If Iraqi thugs are killing Iranian thugs and vice versa why stand in the middle?
'n the face of robust and continuing Iraqi resistance to the overwhelming military might of the coalition,'
Again, idiot: This is not the 'robust and continuing Iraqi resistance' to anything. This is their version of the crypts and the bloods fighting for control of their turf.
Deal with al qaeda and Iran? LOL...
'The Republican Party, which is pinning its electoral hopes on bare chested appeals to American chauvinsm, is in no position to offer anything constructive.'
'One can only hope that the Democrats will not become faint hearted '
There won't be anything left of the democrats after they eat themselves alive.
We are not going to come as far as we have in order to surrender to the filthy iranians or the dirty al Qaeda.
'al-Sadr's ceasefire was what brought the casualty numbers down markedly during the 'surge' period, but the 'surge' itself had nothing to do with the Shia areas in the South. '
You are lying again. The casualty figures dropped because al Qaeda had pressure brought to bear upon it by coalition forces and Iraqi Sunnis.
'and instead magnified the role of al Qaeda in the 'violence totals','
They were responsible for most of the spectacular attacks and nearly all of the suicide bombings according to any reputable source.
'The Shia are battling for power between themselves. '
Oh well... As long as no humans get in he way.
'al Qaeda will simply hunker down until they get the opportunity to act again -'
They will if the democrats keep tossing them lifelines and reasons to hope we are going to turn the country over to them, otherwise they will quit and cause death and destruction elsewhere.
'that's why in the earlier strategy we occupied areas; only to lose them once U.S. forces withdrew.'
So your solution is to withdraw and hand them the country? Sh*t head.
'etween the training of the Iraqi Army and the surge increase, finally we were able to leave forces behind to hold areas, and also pay off the Sunni to battle al Qaeda, who the Sunni resented fully by this time. We also constructed walled enclaves around Sunni areas to physically keep enemies (al Qaeda or Shia) out.'
All of which you hysterically whined about and promised would never, ever work. You were wrong then and you are wrong now. ' walled enclaves is no way to run a modern society,'' Waah waah waah..
Your defeatism was wrong then and it is certainly wrong now.
'While the theory of building up the Iraqi Army to become self-sufficient looks good on paper, getting to the point of having an Army with 'first loyalty' to the central government, and well-equipped and well-trained enough to protect the people on its own, is years away from happening.'
Simply stated, we need to stay In Iraq until it is a reality. Whining that criminal thugs are killing each other in an area that we never asserted our control over is another lame excuse for turning Iraq over to Iran and al Qaeda... The terrorists wou have called 'freedom fighters'.
'Don't blame the Iraqi's ,they are the prime victims of all this '
It is Iraqi thugs killing Iraqi thugs... with Iranian help... Rummsfeld is no where around tonny..
That's right ,Rumsfeld is not around anymore to watch the result of his wonderful invasion.As if the present quagmire was not the direct result of the actions of a neocon conspiracy .Or are the american troops perhaps in Iraq due a flaw in their compass .Now that the aftermath of this great and bold initiative is unfolding it is hard to find a republican associating himself with this mess :blame the victims is the new name of the game .You fail the draw the only consequence possible from such a stance,leave Iraq to the Iraqi .Common sense so to speak....
What makes some of you think I blame the USA ,anyway,I blame neocons,so I guess only neocons should feel targeted,like the nut case who is accusing those that propose leaving Iraq to the Iraqi as traitors defeatists,etc ,etc.Do the voices of the 71 percent of Iraqi that want the troops to leave count for nothing ?
RE:
'al-Sadr's ceasefire was what brought the casualty numbers down markedly during the 'surge' period, but the 'surge' itself had nothing to do with the Shia areas in the South. '
You are lying again. The casualty figures dropped because al Qaeda had pressure brought to bear upon it by coalition forces and Iraqi Sunnis.
===================================================================
Hey, stupid - if you add the casualty figures NOW due to the Shia to the figures kept down by the cease-fire in the prior period, you'll see that the native insurgents are the real problem. Even before al-Maliki brought in his own Shia militia (the Army), there were casualties galore in the South. Had there been no cease-fire, we could not have conducted the surge with the same results.
Since the Pentagon is now discussing NOT paying the $300 a month any longer to the Sunni CLC's (we won't pay them to guard 'safe' areas), the question arises as to whether the Sunni will remain loyal 'for free', or seek 'employment' elsewhere. Part of the surge strategy was to get the Sunni on our side, rather than shooting at us as they previously did. We walled off their cities, and trained them, and even armed them. No one knows if this lasts if you're not paying them off.
The quantitative difference would have been in terms of U.S. casualties, since the U.S. surge forces were in Baghdad with the Sunni, while the British were in the South (and look at how well THAT went!). In terms of IRAQI casualties, you're now seeing what happens when you add the Shia back in, without the fortunate ceasefire of al-Sadr as before.
The other problem with al Qaeda is that you're not defeating Rommel's army - these are terrorists and fanatics, and will not be dissuaded from their long-term goals. What solves that is an Iraqi Army who can take care of themselves; as Saddam's military was in terms of domestic affairs.
Check the next post as to how well al-Maliki's troops are doing (or not!)
Saddam's error in 1991 was coming face to face with superior allied forces in the desert, and his Republican Guards dropped their weapons in the road and escaped back to Baghdad. There were lots of questions at the time as to why we did not pursue them and attempt to take Baghdad, and Saddam - and current events show why Bush Sr. was a HELL of a lot smarter than his alcoholic offspring.
(As you as you hear Bush stridently puffing it up, you know there's trouble. Here's a direct quote demonstrating his mangled thought processes)
'This is a defining moment in the history of a free Iraq,' Bush said. 'There have been other defining moments up to now, but this is a defining moment, as well.'
(and we all know how well those other 'defining moments' turned out. For Bush, getting out of bed without falling down is a 'defining moment'.)
www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/28/bush.basra/
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Iraqi military push into the southern city of Basra is not going as well as American officials had hoped, despite President Bush's high praise for the operation, several U.S. officials said Friday.
A closely held U.S. military intelligence analysis of the fighting in Basra shows that Iraqi security forces control less than a quarter of the city, according to officials in both the United States and Iraq, and Basra's police units are deeply infiltrated by members of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army. 'This is going to go on for a while,' one U.S. military official said.
But since the beginning of the government offensive four days ago, violence also has picked up in a wide area of southern Iraq, including in Baghdad's International Zone -- also known as the Green Zone -- which has been targeted by rocket and mortar attacks.
Coalition bombers have joined in the fight, hitting targets in Basra and Baghdad.
The Basra analysis also shows that militia forces control a wide swath of cities in Iraq's southeast, including areas near the airport, where British forces are located, the officials said.
The fighting has sparked fears that a seven-month cease-fire by al-Sadr's Mehdi Army, regarded as a key factor in a dramatic drop in attacks in recent months, could collapse or that the U.S. military will have to bail out the Iraqis.
'That's right ,Rumsfeld is not around anymore to watch the result of his wonderful invasion.'
Iraqis have been killing each other for ages. Saddam killed 400,000 with european help.. I didn't hear you whining about that. Your 'government' was probably making money off that as well.
'As if the present quagmire was not the direct result of the actions of a neocon conspiracy '
No, it is the Iranians trying to destabilize the south.
'.Or are the american troops perhaps in Iraq due a flaw in their compass'
Nope.
'blame the victims is the new name of the game'
Once again, sh*t for brains, this is Iraqis killing Iraqis.
'You fail the draw the only consequence possible from such a stance,leave Iraq to the Iraqi '
I am all for letting shiites kill each other.
'What makes some of you think I blame the USA'
Because of your incessant, stupid, bigoted, idiotic, uninformed, childish rantings that you post here to give yourself a sense of unearned superiority over a people who have out done you by every measure imaginable.
'I blame neocons'
Whatever that means.
'.Do the voices of the 71 percent of Iraqi that want the troops to leave count for nothing ?'
Citing more George Soros funded 'statistics'?
Since a vote for McCain is a vote essentially for a Bush third term, the voters have a clear choice to make. Neither Obama nor Clinton can bring Iraq to any sort of quick conclusion by a rapid drawdown of troops; but we could not, in the end, be any worse off by forcing their government to GOVERN. The current action is exposing the weakness of the Iraqi army; which is why the neighboring nations need to be actively involved, for their own sakes.
Bush must be highly annoyed that all of this fighting is smack in front of Petraeus' testimony - I figure Cheney put the bug in al-Maliki's ear that he had to get control of the oil in the South, partly also to block Iran's influence, as well as to get some control of the upcoming provincial elections, where the various Shia factions have been providing for the local poor - the same tactic that Hamas used to win their own election. As usual, it's taking longer then was planned. Nothing new here.
Just as Bush had no clue insofar as what would be required to stabilize Iraq post-Saddam, he also had no concept of the problems that al-Maliki would run into. Time and time again al-Maliki had U.S. forces ready to help control Basra, as well as a significantly larger British contingent. This whole 'push' to get control of Basra has allowed time for the breakaway factions to be backed and armed by Iran, to set up the competition that has brought about the Shia sectarian battling.
Lots of interesting material in the link below originating from the Council on Foreign Relations - far too much to include here:
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/28/AR200803280222 7.html
There's little disagreement Iran has influence in Iraq, from political ties to economic links. Kenneth Katzman of the Congressional Research Service notes Iran's strategy for achieving 'strategic depth' in Iraq has been to foster strong ties with Iraq's Shiite-led government. Many in that government spent time exiled in Iran during the eight-year Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s.
Murkier are alleged Iranian ties to Iraqi militants. The Bush administration accuses Iran of supplying money, weapons, and training to Shiite insurgent groups in Iraq, a charge President Bush reiterated on March 27. U.S. military officials say much of the Shiite-on-Shiite violence in Iraq's south can be attributed to criminal gangs and 'special groups,' fighters that have broken ties with Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. But Rear Adm. Greg Smith, a U.S. military spokesman, says 'Iran has influenced' the violence in recent months.
What might motivate Iran to destabilize Iraq militarily is harder to pin down; U.S. intelligence on Iranian thinking is lacking, as this Backgrounder explains. An American Enterprise Institute report says that while Iran and its Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah, 'have been actively involved' in supporting Shiite militias, 'the precise purpose of this support is unclear and may have changed over time'. Some experts speculate Iran wants to ensure a Sunni-led government never returns to power in Iraq. Others suggest Iran favors a kind of managed chaos in Iraq, to keep the U.S. military busy. Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution tells The Nation, 'Iran is putting money on every number of the roulette wheel.'
(My opinion concurs with Pollack - Iran is backing everyone in the game, as they cannot really pick the winner)
www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/who-is-the-iraqi-army_b_93837.html
The Bush administration claims the Iraqi Army is a unified force of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds who fight together for the centralized government of Iraq. That's complete nonsense.
In fact, the different divisions of the army are segregated by sect. The so-called Iraqi Army fighting in the south right now is mainly the Badr Corps. This is a rival Shiite militia to Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.
The Badr Corps is connected to the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council. Don't get freaked out, they're theoretically the good guys. Well, at least they are the largest political party in Iraq and the ones we are supporting. Here's the problem - they're not the good guys at all. They ran death squads and torture chambers out of the Interior Ministry throughout the period of ethnic cleansing in Iraq.
And get this, out of all the parties in Iraq, the one most closely linked to Iran is - the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and their militia partners in the Badr Corps.
So, who is the Iraqi Army? The ones fighting Sadr's forces right now is the Badr Corps - a Shiite militia with closer ties to Iran than Sadr.
Why are we backing the most pro-Iranian group inside Iraq? Two possible choices. 1) We don't know our ass from a hole in the ground in Iraq. 2) We don't really believe Iran is a threat to Iraq (or to us).
Youtube discussion - Who's who in Iraq?
youtube.com/watch?v=o8887Soatr4
'if you add the casualty figures NOW due to the Shia to the figures kept down by the cease-fire in the prior period, you'll see that the native insurgents are the real problem.'
????
The spectacular attacks against the coalition and civilians came from al Qaeda. These 'casualties' that you are now speaking of as if they signified something are not innocent victims as were the al Qaeda targets but a bunch of thugs who are killing each other off for control of their turf. This isn't an 'insurgency' but gang warfare.
'Even before al-Maliki brought in his own Shia militia (the Army), there were casualties galore in the South'
OK, then your next sentence, in your usual cutting the legs out of your own argument fashion:
' Had there been no cease-fire, we could not have conducted the surge with the same results.'
So there were casualties galore but because of the ceasefire there weren't casualties galore. Makes a whole lot of sense you babbling moron.
This violence is because the British did not do what they had pledged to do and allowed a power vacuum to be created in Basra that the militias and Iran were more then happy to fill. It is a PERFECT lesson on what will happen to the rest of the country if the cut and run policies of idiots like Obama are put in to place. It will be a disaster.
'Since the Pentagon is now discussing NOT paying the $300 a month any longer to the Sunni CLC's'
The Sunni areas are doing fine at the moment, one issue at a time.
'In terms of IRAQI casualties, you're now seeing what happens when you add the Shia back in, without the fortunate ceasefire of al-Sadr as before.'
Again, al Sader's 'army' was spanked by the USA twice. He didn't have much of a choice but to accept a cease fire. The Shiites have caused a fraction of the casualties that al Qaeda and the sunnis have. that is just the fact.
'The other problem with al Qaeda is that you're not defeating Rommel's army - these are terrorists and fanatics, and will not be dissuaded from their long-term goals.'
So they will just stick around in Iraq if we hand it over to them... Again you undercut your own argument.
'What solves that is an Iraqi Army who can take care of themselves;'
WHICH WONT HAPPEN IF WE ABANDON THE EFFORT TO BUILD ONE.
'Check the next post as to how well al-Maliki's troops are doing '
So in other words, we can't turn security over to the Iraqi government without having the country turn in to a disaster area... Agreed.
'Bush Sr. was a HELL of a lot smarter than his alcoholic offspring.'
That was then, this is now. We are IN IRAQ. We can't go back in time and NOT BE IN IRAQ. WE ARE THERE. At this point in time we have turned it around to the point that we can salvage our objectives there but NOT IF WE ABANDON THE COUNTRY TO IRAN, AL QAEDA AND CIVIL WAR.
Get your head around that you neurotic, Asperger syndrome afflicted, rainman like, annoying idiot who needs to be medicated. WE ARE ALREADY IN IRAQ. Withdrawing as your racist preacher loving, kickback taking, grievance trading dangerous incompetent candidate wants to do will have SERIOUS consequences for the USA and will ultimately lead to the end of this country as a superpower. (Which is exactly what scumbags like you and tonny want) It will also have serious consequences for the world economy (a worldwide depression caused by the constriction of 82% of the worlds oil supply) and most of all the Iraqis. (A bloodbath that made the aftermath of the vietnam withdrawal look like a picnic.)
For those reasons, and many mopre we have to finish what we have started there. The GOOD NEWS is that this ENTIRE 'issue' is not nearly as important as you wish to hype it to the eventual conclusion of the US mission in Iraq.
'Neither Obama nor Clinton can bring Iraq to any sort of quick conclusion by a rapid drawdown of troops; but we could not, in the end, be any worse off by forcing their government to GOVERN.'
Well yes, Obama or Clinton could force a precipitous draw-down, which is exactly what they have promised to do. The best hope there is that they are liars, something that they have proven themselves to be.
' The current action is exposing the weakness of the Iraqi army;'
YES, YOU UNDERCUT YOURSELF AGAIN! We need to remain until the Iraqi Army and government can put down any thug uprising without our aid.
'which is why the neighboring nations need to be actively involved, for their own sakes.'
Iran is involved in that they are promoting the violence in order to destabilize the Iraqi government and help useful idiots like you pin it on the republicans in time for the election.
'[experts] suggest Iran favors a kind of managed chaos in Iraq, to keep the U.S. military busy. Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution tells The Nation, 'Iran is putting money on every number of the roulette wheel.'
Those pointing to Iranian meddling say Tehran's activities undermine U.S. and Iraqi interests. Katzman argues Iran's aid to Shiite militias has 'accelerated competition among Shiite factions in southern Iraq,' as evidenced by recent violence in Basra. Iranian support has even prompted an anti-Iran backlash (WashPost) from disenfranchised Iraqi Shiite civilians. Iran's alleged support to militant groups also bodes poorly for U.S. prospects of victory, some experts say. As Department of Homeland Security analyst Ryan Carr notes in Strategic Insights, successful insurgencies 'often depend on some measure of external support.''
www.washingtonpost.com
The statement:'the weakness of the Iraqi army; which is why the neighboring nations need to be actively involved, for their own sakes.' is among the most incredibly stupid statements you have ever made. IRAN WANTS TO CONTROL THE IRAQI OIL PRODUCING AREAS. They see that they can't defeat us militarily so they are doing what they do best: supporting thugs and terrorists in the hope that they get big headlines and traitors like you and sell outs like Obama will give them what they demand. Only in this case what they demand is domination over most of the worlds oil reserves. We can simply not allow a dirty regime like Iran to have control over the region any more then we can turn it over to al Qaeda, which is exactly what you propose.
'Bush must be highly annoyed that all of this fighting is smack in front of Petraeus' testimony'
Why? This is nothing on Petraeus, Bush or even the Iraqi government. The villains here are the warlords in Basra, the Iranians for supporting them and the British for cutting and running and leaving the mess. This area wasn't a part of the surge.
' where the various Shia factions have been providing for the local poor - the same tactic that Hamas used to win their own election.'
Look how well that worked for Hamas...
'Time and time again al-Maliki had U.S. forces ready to help control Basra, as well as a significantly larger British contingent. '
The USA has stayed out of Basra and the British turned it over to the warlords which is exactly how this problem arose. You stupidly ignore that fact and you even more stupidly advocate for those who would make the same mistake on a country wide scale.
'This whole 'push' to get control of Basra has allowed time for the breakaway factions to be backed and armed by Iran, to set up the competition that has brought about the Shia sectarian battling.'
IDIOT!!!! IT WAS THE PUSH TO PREMATURELY GET OUT OF BASRA BY THE BRITISH. THE EXACT SAME MISTAKE YOU WANT TO MAKE WITH THE REST OF THE COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
'U.S. Voters will bring it to a conclusion'
This is what this is really about. You are desperate, seeing the very real yet fragile gains made in Iraq by better people then you are as a threat to electing the incompetent child who was voted in by most of the lemmings before they got a chance to see how unelectable he really is. You understand that it is still possible to still lose this war, something that you have hoped for and promoted for years here and you understand that you could get both of your fondest wishes in one fell swoop: Electing someone who will emasculate the USA and ignore islamist terrorism and someone who will abandon Iraq to the terrorists who you have shown your solidarity with here repeatedly.
Why don't you get the hell out of the USA? You have shown nothing but seething hatred for this country.
Friday, March 28, 2008
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday....
Looking ahead to the General Election in November, John McCain continues to lead both potential Democratic opponents. McCain leads Barack Obama 49% to 42% and Hillary Clinton 49% to 41% (see recent daily results). McCain is now viewed favorably by 54% of voters nationwide and unfavorably by 43%. Obama’s reviews are 49% favorable and 49% unfavorable. For Clinton, those numbers are 45% favorable, 53% unfavorable (see recent daily results).
''Neither Obama nor Clinton can bring Iraq to any sort of quick conclusion by a rapid drawdown of troops'
=========================================================
At the core of the Democrats seeking office for the first time is a signed and sealed commitment to retreat and defeat in Iraq. From the Washington Post:
More than three dozen Democratic congressional candidates banded together yesterday to promise that, if elected, they will push for legislation calling for an immediate drawdown of troops in Iraq that would leave only a security force in place to guard the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
Rejecting their party leaders' assertions that economic troubles have become the top issue on voters' minds, leaders of the coalition of 38 House and four Senate candidates pledged to make immediate withdrawal from Iraq the centerpiece of their campaigns.
The candor of these Democrats contrasts with the positions of Senators Obama and Clinton, both of whom have left some ambiguity in their comments on Iraq, so as not to completely lose the Reagan Democrats who understand we are in the middle of a war. (One which has entered a crucial phase in Iraq as the legitimate government of Iraq confronts the Shia militias.)
Senator McCain's great advantage in November is his clarity about the stakes in Iraq and the war's other fronts. These 42 Democrats have helped make sure the public doesn't get fooled on the key issue of our time: The Democrats want to cut, run and hope for the best, even as our enemies among the radical Islamists telegraph their intention to continue and expand the war.
www.townhall.com/blog/g/9b17b1c9-b1fb-495d-917f-d8b660f1a022
In order to approximate what WOULD have happened if there were NO cease-fire, you'd have also added in what the Shia are NOW doing to each other in the total count of Iraqi casualties. THAT'S why the cease-fire made the numbers look better. Had there been NO cease-fire by the Shia, the 'during the surge' TOTAL Iraqi casualties would have been higher than they were.
Similar to using 2006' lousy figures as a baseline rather than 2005, to show more net gains. Since 2006 was a worse year, it was an easier goal to exceed in terms of showing 'improvement'. If you drive to work AFTER the rush hour, you probably get there faster, because there are fewer cars to contend with; NOT because you're a better driver at that moment.
Just as the surge postponed some al Qaeda-created violence, the Sadr cease-fire just postponed the inevitable rivalries between the Shia factions we're seeing now. Why al-Maliki picked THIS moment to act is the question, as he had ample opportunities to crack down WITH direct U.S. military assistance, and the British as well.
If this is the 'demonstration project' to show that the Iraqi military can handle the Shia militias, it's not going well at all. The Iraqi Army (all Shia in this case in the South) is defecting in some numbers, and handing over weapons. Nothing new here - we've seen this constantly when recruiting Iraqis to serve in the police.
Long-term, the surge does zilch. The whole idea was to give the Iraqi government time to pass the oil law and other benchmarks, and to learn to get along with each other. Nothing meaningful has been achieved; just the Iraqi version of the photo-op, accompanied by the usual cacophany in their Parliament. Since al-Sadr was allied with al-Maliki originally in Parliament, it will be interesting to see where we're headed, politically speaking.
Anything the reversal of de-Baathification does in terms of reinstating Sunni comes at the expense of the Shia now holding those jobs. Zero-sum game all around.
----------
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/28/wirq428.xml
But while the post-Saddam government is headed by a new Shi'ite elite, this week's mass uprising demonstrates that most Shi'ites are as cut off from the country's leadership as they were under Saddam. For a time the challenges among the Shi'ites receded into the background while America engineered a dramatic improvement in Iraq's security by blunting the Sunni insurgency with a flood of troops. No longer.
Moqtada al-Sadr, the young upstart who parlayed his family name and an extensive welfare network into a national movement, had lately appeared to be on the defensive. In response to a backlash against extremists who used his name as a cover for criminal activities, Sadr moved to Iran and called a ceasefire last year. So when Mr Maliki decided the time was ripe to stamp his authority on Basra, he gambled that his rival had been eclipsed.
But while Sadr was in abeyance there was no government incentive for his followers to transfer their loyalties elsewhere. Their lot was no better than under Saddam. Sewage still runs raw in Shi'ite neighbourhoods, electricity supplies are negligible, jobs are scarce and health care sporadic. Sadr, at least, provided them protection. Although he is respected as an Arab nationalist, he ultimately relies on Iranian financial and organisational support.
Therefore the current test of wills between Sadr and Maliki brings closer the prospect of a proxy war for control of Iraq between the Iranian-backed Sadr and the American-backed government. Mr Maliki is gambling not only with his country's future but also the fate of America's intervention in the Middle East.
(First of all, al Qaeda is far from finished, in Iraq or elsewhere. They're getting funding from Arab fundamentalists, and likely from opium in Afghanistan - the job we did NOT complete. Note where this article was published in para. 4 below the link!)
www.usnews.com/articles/news/iraq/2008/03/28/the-risks-of-defeating-al- qaeda-in-iraq.html
But terrorism experts are warning that defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq could bring a whole new set of risks. For one thing, as U.S. intelligence agencies have told Congress, its operatives could shift their efforts to plotting outside the country if it becomes significantly more dangerous for Al Qaeda in Iraq to stage attacks in Iraq.
'Defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq could actually lead to the spread of violence to other places because those guys could be leaving to find other safe havens to continue their fight,' says Mohammed Hafez, the author of Suicide Bombers in Iraq: The Strategy and Ideology of Martyrdom. 'They are likely to go to places where there are existing conflicts.'
The two most obvious destinations are Afghanistan or Pakistan, where they could potentially link up with other jihadists who have been carrying out a growing number of suicide attacks. Fighters could be drawn to the relative lawlessness of Yemen, the total anarchy of Somalia, or to Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon.
Writing in the current issue of CTC Sentinel, the monthly journal of the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Hafez analyzes the experiences of Arab jihadists who went to Afghanistan in the 1980s to the fight the Soviet Union and later formed the backbone of al Qaeda, the terrorist network headed by Osama bin Laden.
Thousands of Arab volunteers were trained to fight the Soviets, but when the conflict ended, many migrated to other conflict zones around the world to continue the fight. They also had forged close ties with each other, helping them to put together a global jihadi network that allowed al Qaeda to spread its tentacles into Europe, Africa, and Asia.
Today's jihadists in Iraq are getting even more hands-on combat experience than their predecessors in Afghanistan. 'What's just as important as the fighting skills are the logistical skills—the back administration office work that needs to be done for terrorism to take place,' says Hafez. He is talking about skills like raising money for operations, forging documents, and smuggling fighters across international borders.
It is unclear how much U.S. officials or Iraq's neighbors have done to prepare for this threat. Hafez says that border controls must be strengthened and that American and Iraqi officials need to share intelligence on these militants with all of Iraq's neighbors to prevent them from escaping Iraq.
Of particular concern is Syria, through which the bulk of foreign fighters entered Iraq. 'But they won't be willing to host the jihadis in the way Pakistan did' in the 1990s, says Hafez. 'They will probably have to cross multiple borders, which increases their chances of being caught.'
One other key factor could also limit how many Al Qaeda in Iraq members end up fighting elsewhere in the future. The bulk of these foreign fighters came to Iraq to be suicide bombers. 'That means,' says Hafez,' many won't be around.'
This discussion, of course, could be premature. Al Qaeda in Iraq has not yet been defeated and could still regroup successfully.
Iraq is also experiencing a new surge of violence in several Shiite cities and in Shiite neighborhoods of Baghdad. For now, most of the fighting appears to be between Shiite factions, but if it spreads, it has the potential to reignite some of the Sunni-Shiite sectarian bloodletting that paralyzed the country last year.
'In order to approximate what WOULD have happened if there were NO cease-fire, you'd have also added in what the Shia are NOW doing to each other in the total count of Iraqi casualties.'
If the equivalent to the Iraqi crypts and the Iraqi bloods are killing each other why is that our fault or even our business? You betray yourself because you and yours have always regarded any Iraqi criminal who was killed committing his crimes as a political 'casualty' to be touted as an indictment against your favorite scapegoat. If 114 and counting shiite thugs are killed fighting each other it is not our fault. I think they should be left to it. Napoleon said you should never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
'THAT'S why the cease-fire made the numbers look better. '
Because shiites weren't killing each other? Bull. They were killing sunnis in retaliation for al qaeda killing shiites. The occasional drive by was not driving up the 'casualties' like the al qaeda truck bombs and suicide bombs were.
'Had there been NO cease-fire by the Shia, the 'during the surge' TOTAL Iraqi casualties would have been higher than they were.'
By a couple perhaps.. It certainly doesn't account for the 60-80% reduction as you tried to imply earlier.
'Similar to using 2006' lousy figures as a baseline rather than 2005, to show more net gains. '
Gee Idiot, you unbelievable idiot, you complete fuc*ing idiot... WHICH COMES LATER? 2006 or 2005? You use 2006 figures because they were the most recent. Either way you moron, the violence reduction statistics remain the same.
'If you drive to work AFTER the rush hour, you probably get there faster,'
Pathetic, just pathetic. 2006 follows 2007, you moron.
', the Sadr cease-fire just postponed the inevitable rivalries between the Shia factions we're seeing now.'
How are thugs killing each other the fault of the coalition?
'If this is the 'demonstration project' to show that the Iraqi military can handle the Shia militias, it's not going well at all. '
Guess we can't just hand responsibility for security over to them then, eh? I guess your idiotic idea of cutting and running would result in a complete meltdown instead of 'forcing their government to GOVERN'....
Obvious huh? Why do I know you will continually say the same stupid, self contradicting blather then? Your argument is: The Iraqi army isn't ready to handle security so we should leave because then they will be forced to.
No, then they will lose to the Iranian and al qaeda backed terrorists and the whole country will plunge in to civil war.
'Long-term, the surge does zilch. '
You are wrong, if we maintain a presence and keep training the army, keep pushing for political reform which HAS been coming the surge will be regarded as the point where Iraq was turned around. If we abandon it it will be regarded as the lost opportunity that the defeatist democrats threw away and you and yours will not be forgiven for decades. The 'other benchmarks' have been passed ands the oil monies are being split up de facto if not de jour.
'. Nothing meaningful has been achieved; '
Just a 60- 80% reduction in attacks and casualties, you filthy lying pig...
'Anything the reversal of de-Baathification does in terms of reinstating Sunni comes at the expense of the Shia now holding those jobs'
LOL, you were whining about the fact that the de-Baathification reform was slow in coming now you are whining that it has come.... You truly are an propagandizing clown.
'First of all, al Qaeda is far from finished, in Iraq or elsewhere.'
Gee, I thought you said they weren't there... OK fine, they are not finished. I guess we shouldn't abandon Iraq to them then as you advocate doing. As Bin laden said: 'Iraq is 'the perfect base to set up the jihad to liberate Palestine and'Muslims in neighboring countries' to 'do their best in supporting their mujahadeen brothers in Iraq.' This is what you want to turn Iraq over to...
'They're getting funding from Arab fundamentalists, and likely from opium in Afghanistan - the job we did NOT complete.'
We need to complete that too. You have advocated invading pakastan in order to do it, then you flip flopped and said that would be a bad idea, so what is it this minute? Never mind, your mind is a mess and you will just change it if you think it will help your political party at the expense of the country that you loathe.
'But terrorism experts are warning that defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq could bring a whole new set of risks'
LOL! So we should let them win?
Killing off al Qaeda is our duty to ourselves and humanity. They have declared Iraq to be their central front against us repeatedly. Bin Laden just said so last week. Whatever the cost we need to decisively defeat them in Iraq and if they regroup elsewhere we need to defeat them there as well.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/28/AR2008032803622.ht ml
As U.S. warplanes attacked targets in Basra yesterday, Bush administration officials acknowledged that their hands-off strategy toward southern Iraq in recent years has left them with little knowledge of the conflicts among competing Shiite groups there and few ways of influencing them.
'This is a precarious situation,' a senior official familiar with U.S. intelligence in southern Iraq said, with 'a lot to be gained and a lot to lose.' This official and others said that even as Maliki takes needed military action in Basra, he appears to be positioning himself and his Shiite political allies for dominance in provincial elections this fall.
Competition for power and resources in the oil-rich south has been ongoing for months among the Mahdi Army of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr; the Badr Corps militia of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, the largest single party in the Iraqi parliament; and the breakaway Sadrist movement known as Fadhila. The Shiite groups are opposed and allied with each other in a tangle of national and local issues, with many divisions reflected in factions of the Shiite-dominated Iraqi security forces.
Although the Bush administration has tried to monitor the growing conflict in Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, 'our intelligence in that area is far less than we would like. We don't have any forces there,' the senior official said, adding that 'we are operating with a good dose of opaqueness.'
As outlined by several civilian and military officials, none of whom was authorized to speak on the record, a victory in Basra against what Bush described as 'those who believe they are outside the law' could prove Maliki's mettle. 'Basra's been a mess for a long time,' said a U.S. official in Baghdad, 'and everybody's said to Maliki, 'What are you doing about it?' '
But this official and others said that if the fighting in Basra leads to a breakdown in the cease-fire observed since August by the bulk of Sadr's forces elsewhere in the country, it could easily shatter the tenuous U.S. security gains of recent months.
The violence has already spread to Baghdad, where Iraqi and U.S. forces yesterday continued sporadic fighting with militia members in the sprawling eastern enclave known as Sadr City. Despite indications that many of the fighters were mainline Mahdi Army, U.S. officials chose to consider them members of 'special groups' that have resisted Sadr's authority. To acknowledge otherwise would be to declare a de facto end to the cease-fire.
A renewal of significant violence in the capital and the surrounding area of central Iraq could lead to the collapse of U.S. security arrangements with former Sunni insurgents known as the Sons of Iraq. 'All the same players and all the same weapons are still out there,' said Stephen Biddle, a military expert at the Council on Foreign Relations who has advised Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.
'There is nothing preventing Iraq from going right back to October 2006 except voluntary agreements by the players. That's why Basra is so dangerous,' Biddle said. 'It's a real policy problem' for the administration, he said, 'and the fact that there are no coalition forces on the ground in Basra is really coming home right now.'
RE: You have advocated invading pakastan in order to do it, then you flip flopped and said that would be a bad idea, so what is it this minute?
===========================
What I SAID, schmuck, is that we should have pursued al Qaeda after Tora Bora, when we had Musharraf's implied consent; and the world's implicit approval for 'hot pursuit'.
Instead, in 2007-8 we have bin Laden appearing like some runaway anchor on Fox News, and the same with al-Zawahiri.
Right now, we have no real options insofar as Pakistan is concerned.
Musharraf's position is fragile, and the Pakistani population see our bombings of selected targets as an intrusion into their country. Opportunity lost. We CAN operate in Afghanistan; but our allies pulled out long ago, and we cannot even raise funds for Afghanistan.
Timing is everything, and Bush blew it. Since you have zero idea of timeframe, I assume this will fly right over that head full of crap sitting on your neck.
We're out of options all over the place, except to spend more money and lives to prop up a failed regime, in a country riven by sectarian feuds going back centuries. As one of my recent posts noted, al Qaeda would simply cause trouble elsewhere, if we pressured them in Iraq.
The only upside is that once the Shia REALLY control Iraq, they'll make short work of al Qaeda themselves. From link just posted:
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/28/AR200803280362 2.html
'A renewal of significant violence in the capital and the surrounding area of central Iraq could lead to the collapse of U.S. security arrangements with former Sunni insurgents known as the Sons of Iraq. 'All the same players and all the same weapons are still out there,' said Stephen Biddle, a military expert at the Council on Foreign Relations who has advised Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.'
www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/middleeast/la-fg-gunmen21mar21,1,263 563.story
After five years of trial and error, the strategy of recruiting tribesmen to help defend their neighborhoods against Islamic extremists has proved one of the most effective weapons in the U.S. counterinsurgency arsenal.
But restoring a measure of calm to what were some of the most violent places in Iraq has in turn presented the U.S. military with one of its biggest headaches: what to do with the more than 80,000 armed men whose loyalty has been bought with a paycheck that cannot go on forever.
'We don't want to pay people to stand on street corners with guns if they don't need to be there. What we want to do is we want to get them into a transition to more gainful employment,' said Army Col. Martin Stanton, who oversees the effort.
After months of U.S. entreaties, Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's Shiite-led government grudgingly agreed in December to hire a portion of the mostly Sunni Arab fighters for the official security forces. But the process of vetting and approving the job candidates is painfully slow -- some say deliberately so -- and less than a third of them are expected to qualify.
U.S. and Iraqi officials are now hammering out details of a plan to revive local economies and create new opportunities for the fighters through vocational training, public works schemes, farm revitalization programs, micro-grants and business start-up loans. The two governments have committed $155 million apiece to the projects.
But these are long-term strategies, and the fighters need jobs now. If not, many openly declare they will have no choice but to work for the insurgency, which has tried to lure some of them back with offers of more money.
(This article relates to the fact that NO weapons have been turned in by the Shia in response to al-Maliki's demands, and the situation where we were able to 'buy' the Sunni for $10 a day won't work here)
latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/03/iraq-guns-for-m.html
A spokesman for the government's Interior Ministry, Abdul Kareem Khalaf, acknowledged today that not a single weapon had been turned in since Maliki ordered the disarmament Wednesday and gave fighters a three-day deadline. The call came as Shiite Muslim militias battled Iraqi security forces in the aftermath of Maliki's crackdown on militiamen. The offensive was launched Tuesday in the southern city of Basra and has since spread to Shiite strongholds across Iraq.
Khalaf said Maliki had extended the deadline until April 8 and that a 'financial reward' awaits militiamen who comply. There's no word on how much this reward could be. Maliki has said fighters who disarm must also sign a pledge to refrain from future militia activities and follow Iraqi law.
If it sounds familiar, that's because this is similar to the model in use by U.S. forces as they work to keep former insurgents from resuming anti-U.S. activities. That program, launched in late 2006, has been aimed mainly at Sunni Muslims who once supported the insurgency but who, for a variety of reasons, have opted out of the fight.
Now, some 80,000 of them receive about $10 per day from the United States military in exchange for manning checkpoints in their neighborhoods and bolstering security. Before earning their positions in the so-called Sons of Iraq program, they had to go through background checks and sign pledges of loyalty to the Iraqi government.
That system has its own problems, as the Times reported in a recent story that outlined the potential pitfalls of paying people not to shoot you. But getting the Sunnis to agree to the deal was not as difficult as it could be to get Shiites to accept a guns-for-money plan. As analysts such as Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations has noted, the Sunnis are vastly outnumbered in Iraq. Unlike the one-time Sunni fighters who switched loyalties, Shiite militiamen have a far better chance of coming out on top in the power struggles raging across Iraq.
'The real tough nuts are the Shiite militias,' Biddle said in an interview with the Times last year, as he discussed the chances of success of President George W. Bush's plan of using additional American troops to pacify Iraq. The Sunnis, he explained, saw themselves as 'potential losers' in any Iraqi conflict, so they had plenty to gain by switching sides.
'The big hurdles to overcome are persuading the people who think they're going to win a civil war to settle for less,' he said.
'. Nothing meaningful has been achieved; '
Just a 60- 80% reduction in attacks and casualties, you filthy lying pig...
'Anything the reversal of de-Baathification does in terms of reinstating Sunni comes at the expense of the Shia now holding those jobs'
LOL, you were whining about the fact that the de-Baathification reform was slow in coming now you are whining that it has come.... You truly are an propagandizing clown.
==============================
The 'reduction' was because of the cease-fire of the Shia. WHERE THE HELL HAVE YOU BEEN THE PAST WEEK????
The new policy re 'acceptance' of the Sunni means little, if they don't get the jobs that they lost. The Shia now hold those jobs, so it's all an empty exercise. What do the Sunni GET out of it? A piece of paper? Not even amnesty.
www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2008/01/11EC9FA1-9ADD-4323-8122-AB5D5DF13 799.html
Undoubtedly, reversing the de-Ba'athificaiton process has been one of the thorniest issues in Iraqi politics. Many Shi'ite groups, particularly Muqtada al-Sadr's political bloc, have been strongly opposed to allowing any Ba'athists to enter the mainstream, for fear they may one day take power. Indeed, after 35 years of repressive policies by the former regime, Shi'a and Kurds have reason to be wary of the Ba'ath Party.
Ba'athists, too, may feel unease at the new legislation after more than four years of being sidelined in the new post-Hussein political landscape. Many may feel unwilling to confess their former affiliation or complicity in crimes in exchange for their government jobs or pension. Since there was no guarantee of amnesty, the price of incarceration may be too high for some Ba'athists to enter the mainstream.
Furthermore, some Ba'athists may also be wary of revealing themselves for fear of retribution. Former Ba'athists coming in from the shadows may face the ire of those who want to settle old scores. In this instance, it may be difficult for Ba'athists, who have been marginalized to believe that the Shi'a-dominated government would be able to protect them.
Finally, to temper Shi'ite and Kurdish fears, the new law bars former Ba'athists from certain positions in government, essentially making them second-class citizens. Many Ba'athists joined the party out of necessity, not out of party loyalty and punishment via association may further inflame the ire of the Ba'athists and the Sunni Arab community in general. For many, it may reaffirm their fears that the current government intends to sideline them as much as possible.
www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1726415,00.html
Despite having been initiated by the Iraqi government, the offensive by Iraqi security forces against militiamen in Basra is increasingly drawing in the United States, both militarily and politically. U.S. air power was used in the key port city for the first time on Thursday night in support of Iraqi forces trying to dislodge fighters of Moqtada Sadr's Mahdi Army, and U.S. troops clashed with Mahdi Army militants in the Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City on Friday.
'There has been Coalition air presence for four days,' said Maj. Tom Holloway, a spokesman for the British military in Basra. He said that the request for air support had come from the Iraqi military, relayed through American and British liaison officers at the scene, and approved by U.S. military officials.
Whatever the specific weapons used in the U.S. close air support operations in Basra, their significance is clear. Taken together with Friday's announcement by Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki that the three-day deadline he had originally given militia fighters to surrender their weapons had now been extended to 10 days (and that those who complied would be financially rewarded), the U.S. air strikes appear to indicate that the fighting has been tougher than Iraqi government officials had anticipated. And while they insist that the offensive is aimed only at 'rogue elements' of the Madhi Army and other militias, the Sadr movement is treating it as a politicized attack by their Shi'ite rivals in the government aimed at weakening their position ahead of October's local government elections.
The United States, which had earlier emphasized that the offensive was the Iraqi government's initiative and responsibility, has now increased its political and military commitment to the operation's success. The longer the fighting in the south drags on, the greater the chance of an escalation in militia violence across the south and in Baghdad's Shi'ite neighborhoods — an escalation that could jeopardize many of the security gains made in the course of the U.S. troop surge.
(This will go on and on, despite al-Maliki's alleged timeframe, because the Iraqi Army is not meeting their goals, and a majority of Basra is held by the opposition. The longer it drags on, the more inept U.S. policy looks, as now we have air power committed, and ordinarily we'd be winning this. This is why battling an insurgency smack in the middle of a civilian population is so difficult, and Petraeus had to write a new manual. No point even discussing it, as either al-Maliki gets his way and actually defeats the opposition, or it goes into stalemate to be (hopefully) settled politically. Sadr has asked for talks, and al-Maliki has refused to hold them)
(Meanwhile, the risk is open violence in Iraq, which could impact the Sunni, and put whatever temporary gains we've made at risk. Nothing the surge has done will have lasting effects, unless the Sunni decide to stick with us DESPITE losing their CLC payments, and al Qaeda continues to mute their attacks - which does not FOR ONE INSTANT mean that they consider themselves 'defeated'; but rather impeded while we have the force strength and Sunni support to make it work)
(Go back to the original stated surge premise - the surge was to allow the Iraqi Government enough breathing room to accomplish key benchmarks, INCLUDING disarming the militias. It's not happening. We're seeing the 'true' violence level now, INCLUDING the Shia, who had fortunately been observing the cease-fire up to now. In any equation, ALL of the variables matter - not just the ones you want to select)
www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/03/resurging_violence.html
The explosion of fighting this week among Iraq’s leading Shi’a militias and political factions is the latest episode in a long-standing intra-Shi’a civil war. This latest violence highlights that the Bush administration’s surge of combat troops into the country last year has temporarily masked tensions between rival groups competing for power, instead of creating a sustainable security and political solution to Iraq’s conflicts.
Resurgent fighting stretching from Baghdad to Basra pitting elements of Muqtada Al Sadr’s Madhi Army against Abdul Aziz Al Hakim’s Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq’s Badr Organization (also known as the Badr Brigade), with support from Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki’s Iraqi Security Forces and the U.S. military only brings into the open this long-running intra-Shi’a civil war. Adding another layer to just one component of Iraq’s complicated civil wars, a third Shi’a faction, the Fadhila movement, is also engaged in the struggle for power in Basra, Iraq’s second-largest city.
At the same time, Maliki’s mostly Shi’a and Kurdish Iraqi Security Forces are facing pressure from the U.S.-backed “Awakening” militias, which are growing increasingly restive over the Maliki government’s failure to include them in supposedly national ISF military units.
Well, it’s equally difficult for the U.S. military to sort out friend from foe in Iraq these days, as our forthcoming report “How Does This End: Strategic Failures Overshadow Tactical Gains in Iraq” will make clear. In it, we detail how Iraq’s fractured and well-armed political factions all paused for a bit in their confusing, multiple civil wars amid the U.S. military’s surge. Now, it seems, all that fighting is about to break out again in earnest.
Hopeful happy talk from the Bush administration and its conservative allies in Congress about the success of the surge will not mask the underlying realities on the ground in Iraq. In fact, the Bush administration’s approach to Iraq and the wider Middle East today could be best described as “strategic confusion.” For the sake of short-term and fleeting security gains, conservatives have strengthened the hand of Iran’s closest allies inside of Iraq, including the ruling Shi’a elite in the central government. At the same time, the United States has sent millions in U.S. taxpayer money to former Sunni insurgents with the blood of American soldiers on their hands.
Problem is, conservatives in Washington and key Iraqi factions expect the United States to remain as the chief of police in Iraq trying to referee their multiple civil wars. With the surge now winding down and unraveling, more American casualties are unfortunately in the cards because of this strategically misplaced task. Instead of remaining trapped in the trenches of Iraq’s multiple internal conflicts, the United States needs to get back to its core strategic interests and focus on other fronts, including Afghanistan and Pakistan, where Al Qaeda central is located.
There’s clearly a better strategic way forward. The United States cannot impose democracy on Iraq. Only the Iraqis can do that, and they will not attempt to do so (and perhaps fail) until the United States begins a strategic reset of its military forces in Iraq and around the region. That will force Iraq’s warring factions and Iraq’s neighbors—all of whom have critical stakes in finding stability in Iraq—to face up to the difficult task of sectarian and ethnic reconciliation.
Excuse me again if I interfere with your private little war ,but do the Iraqi have the right to an opinion in your decisions that concern them ?71 percent of the Iraqi population want the US troops to leave NOW .61 percent support the insurgents .And all some of you can reply to that is that I want to undermine the USA as a superpower ?I thought that this war was azbout introducing democracy in Iraq .And now I'm told that all that matters is how your administration is perceived in the world .How many lives are you willing to sacrifice for that ?Until now hundred thousands have died ,more are mutilated,millions have fled Iraq;the infrastructure is in tuins,living condirions for the population are appaling ...is this realy necessary to sustain the image of the USA as a superpower ,as some seem to think ?I disafreeof course .But thanks for demonstrating so clearly that democracy has nothing to do with it,Iraqis are not asked for an opinion .A shame....
Guess there are not enough protests on the streets of Iraq demanding peace and democracy. Too many extremists minds behind too many weapons of death.
Hey, we could raise some more tariffs to help pay this this hugely expensive war. Ask yourself, is Iraq really worth it?
The only traitors are those who don't give a terrorists' haven about their country.
America the Superpower ?
Of the 4000 US dead, 97% happened after Bush declared victory in the “battle for Iraq” back on May 1st 2003 when he said that “major combat” was over.
A. Clearly Bush had no idea what was happening.
B. America had no strategy for the 'peace' after the 'victory'
C. Since the whole invasion was a fabrication to secure oil supplies for america, just think how much easier and less costly in lives it would have been to spend the 3 trillion (and rising) dollar cost of the war on measures to reduce your gas guzzling dependency on oil, as well as combating global warming (which Bush also thinks isn't happening)
www.voanews.com/english/2008-03-29-voa2.cfm
Iraqi authorities say the death toll from five days of intense fighting between Iraqi forces and Shi'ite militias has surged to more than 200.
Many of the casualties have occurred in Baghdad's Sadr City, a stronghold of militias loyal to Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. A spokesman for the Iraqi Health Ministry says at least 75 people have been killed and nearly 500 wounded in clashes and U.S.-led airstrikes.
There are reports that dozens of policemen in Sadr City surrendered their weapons to Sadr's forces, saying they could not fight their own people.
Fighting between Iraqi forces and Shi'ite militias has intensified since Tuesday, when Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ordered a crackdown on militants in the southern city of Basra.
(The last-paragraph summary wraps it up well - whatever the perceived gains of the 'surge', the risks of the cease-fire collapsing and our once again facing a Mehdi army let loose as in 2004 would eclipse them) ...
'The Mehdi Army twice launched uprisings against the U.S. occupation in 2004 and was blamed for sectarian death squad killings at the height of Iraq's vicious civil strife.'
--------------
www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSL28842315
Maliki's Basra crackdown poses risk for U.S.
(Reuters) - Iraq's crackdown on the Mehdi Army in Basra poses a dilemma for the United States, which wants Iraqi forces to take a lead on security but risks getting sucked into their violent Shi'ite feud.
Security forces have battled the Mehdi Army militia loyal to Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr in Iraq's southern oil city for days, targeting what Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has called 'outlaws'. But there is little prospect of a swift victory. The fighting has spread through southern regions, drew the U.S. forces and led to protests in Baghdad by followers of Sadr, who say Maliki is using force to weaken his political rivals. Sadr pulled out of Maliki's Shi'ite-led government last year when the prime minister refused to set a deadline for U.S. troop withdrawals. But Sadr also ordered his Mehdi Army to observe a ceasefire which has been central to a recent fall in violence.
'The key question now is what the United States is going to do,' said Joost Hiltermann, of the International Crisis Group think tank. 'If it allows (the crackdown) to go forward the ceasefire will unravel and the U.S. will face the Sadr movement in its full power.' 'This will be bad for both sides. Sadr will lose men and the United States will lose the gains of the surge'.
Analysts say Maliki's decision to launch the Basra crackdown, instead of carrying through with a promised offensive against Sunni Islamist militants in the northern city of Mosul, lends weight to the Sadrist accusations of a political agenda. The attacks have targeted the Mehdi Army while leaving two other powers in Basra, the Fadhila party and the militant Badr Organisation of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) -- which supports Maliki's Dawa Party -- largely untouched. 'If Maliki had been serious about ending militia rule in Basra he should also have dealt with the militias of Fadhila and the Badr brigades,' said Reidar Visser, an expert on southern Iraq who edits the Web site www.historiae.org.
Iraq's Shi'ite Muslim power struggles have been heightened by political rivalry ahead of provincial elections in October. The showdown in Basra involved competition for control of oil resources, rivalries ahead of the October elections and disagreement over whether Basra should become part of a Shi'ite federal region in southern Iraq, Visser said. He said the United States had consistently supported Maliki in confronting other Shi'ite factions, and ran the risk of getting deeply embroiled in the latest conflict.
Fighting has broken out across Shi'ite southern Iraq. Mehdi Army fighters seized control of the city of Nassiriya and have also held territory or fought with authorities in Kut, Hilla, Amara, Kerbala, Diwaniya and other towns over the past days. '(The United States) should carefully think through the dangers of uncritically accepting Maliki's definition of who is an unlawful militiaman and who is not,' Visser said.
Vali Nasr, a Middle East expert at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, said the fighting pitted Sadr's Mehdi Army against the SIIC's Badr Organisation fighters -- many of whom have joined the regular Iraqi security forces. 'Maliki is not in control of Shi'ite politics in the south, and that is the real prize right now that Sadr and (SIIC leader Abdul-Aziz) Hakim are fighting for,' Nasr said.
Despite the violence, Sadr has not formally abandoned the ceasefire he announced in August. Hiltermann said Sadr still wanted to avoid direct confrontation with U.S. forces, unless he felt there was no alternative. 'I don't think they will change that unless they see the U.S. openly confronting them instead of Iraqi proxies,' he said.
If the ceasefire were to collapse entirely, U.S. talk of greater stability in Iraq created by the recent troop reinforcements will have proved to be hollow, Nasr said. 'It will make the outcome of the surge look completely different from the way in which it has been interpreted in the United States right now as an unmitigated success in bringing stability to Iraq, reducing the number of casualties for the Americans, and the number of deaths for Iraqis.
...one Johnny towelhead shooting another. Pull back, let them duke it out then send in the Iraqi's to clean up the mess.
For once we need to agree with SP4. And why is this development any surprise - fighting has been going on in the Middle East the minute the earth was inhabited and will be going on 'till the inhabitants are gone! The U.S. and other countries either choose to join in on the war games in the meantime or let them play to their heart's content.
'Rising Iraqi death toll from new fighting'
What you are too stupid to get, even after being told repeatedly is that when the Mehdi Army and the Badr Brigade kill each other it is:
1) A good thing.
2) It is not due to anything the USA has done.
That you are desperately trying to indict the Bush Administration for the actions of Iranian backed thugs in Basra shows how divorced from reality you are. When criminals are killing criminals it is not somehow an indictment on your favorite scapegoat.
www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/world/middleeast/30iraq.html?hp
Mr. Maliki’s forces may also have lost ground in the battle for public opinion when, in a well-publicized event in Sadr City, 40 men who said they were Iraqi police officers surrendered their weapons to Sadr officials, who symbolically gave the officers olive branches and Korans. The weapons were returned after the officers pledged not to use them against Mahdi Army members.
At a news briefing in Basra on Saturday, Iraq’s defense minister, Abdul-Kader Jassem al-Obeidi , conceded that the assault had not gone according to expectations. “We were surprised by a very strong resistance that made us change our plans,” he said.
In Baghdad, the American military was also drawn deeper into the violence generated by the Basra assault, as the military issued a statement saying that American soldiers had killed nine Iraqis that it called terrorists in firefights around Sadr City, the Shiite slum that forms Mr. Sadr’s base of support. The statement said that seven of the Iraqis were killed after they attacked an American unit and two more when they were caught placing roadside bombs. Later Saturday, the military announced that two American soldiers had been killed by a roadside bomb in Shiite-controlled eastern Baghdad.
Clashes between militias and Iraqi government security forces continued elsewhere in the country. There was intense fighting for a second straight day north of Basra in Dhi Qar Province and its capital, Nasiriya, where officials said the toll on Saturday was 28 killed and 59 wounded. There were running battles on a main bridge in the center of Nasiriya, an Iraqi police officer said, and gunmen controlled the town of Shatra, about 20 miles north.
In Basra, mortar shells rained down in the late afternoon on the area of the Presidential Palace and the Shatt Al Arab hotel, where the assault has its operations center. Groups of 10 to 12 militia members set up checkpoints as close as 50 yards from to government positions throughout the northern and western parts of the city, carrying out raids on remaining areas in the city center still controlled by government forces.
“Is this the gift that Maliki promised Basra?” said Walid Nabeel, 25, a medical student. He conceded that security had been far from ideal before the assault, but said, “Now we have hundreds of killed and injured.”
latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/03/iraq-not-quite.html
It appears that Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's ultimatum to Shiite Muslim militiamen to surrender to the Iraqi government might not be working precisely as he had intended.
When nobody had turned up by Friday, Maliki gave members of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr's Mahdi Army militia 10 more days to turn in their weapons and renounce violence.
Instead, about 40 members of the Shiite-dominated Iraqi army and National Police offered to surrender their AK-47s and other weapons this morning to Sadr's representatives in the cleric's east Baghdad stronghold of Sadr City. One of the police officers told journalists assembled at Sadr's office that he was heeding a call by an Iraqi cleric based in Iran, Ayatollah Fadhil Maliki, to stop fighting fellow Muslims.
'We came here to tell our brothers, the followers of Sadr, that we will not be against you,' said the officer, who was dressed in civilian clothes and had his face covered with a scarf and dark sunglasses. Sadr's representatives refused to take the men's weapons, saying they belong to the government. Instead, the representatives offered the men olive branches and copies of the Koran.
Sadr has urged his followers to abide by the truce. But the cleric does not want them to hand over weapons to the current Iraqi government, said Sheik Haider Jabiri, a member of Sadr's political committee based in the Shiite holy city of Najaf. 'They should hand over the weapons to a government that will be able to take out the occupier,' said Jabiri, a reference to U.S.-led forces in Iraq.
'Learn to LISTEN, dum-dum'
Pull your head out of your ass. You are a lying, neurotic, propagandizing traitor who has openly rooted for Americas enemies to kill Americans in order that you might use it as a millstone to hang around the object of your derangement syndrome. 'Listen' to you? You are a mentally ill idiot who probably spends most of his time begging for change.
'The 'reduction' was because of the cease-fire of the Shia. '
That is an outright lie. The reduction in violence came from the sunni population being turned against al Qaeda. That was the strategy of the surge, the tactics were to use superior troop numbers to hold the ground that had been reclaimed. Basra was not a part of the surge because it was a British area. They chose to withdraw as you have advocated that we do and the criminal gangs, supported bu the disgusting, terrorist supporting, evil Iranians stepped into the vacuum.
YOU LISTEN TO THAT, IDIOT. TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN BEGGING FOR COMES TO PASS. The British pulled out too early and that caused the Iranians and home grown thugs to capitalize on the opportunity. You want the same thing to happen across Iraq with the addition of al Qaeda and the Saudis fanning the flames, you complete moron.
'The new policy re 'acceptance' of the Sunni means little, if they don't get the jobs that they lost. '
Well, you obviously know nothing about getting or holding a job because you are mentally handicapped. However regionally government jobs will not be going exclusively to shiites and in baghdad sunnis will be well represented because they made up most of the Saddam era bureaucracy. They have shown that they are the only ones who know how to run things. the latest article that you chose at random to spam this board with your effluence pretty much states that.
'This article relates to the fact that NO weapons have been turned in by the Shia in response to al-Maliki's demands, and the situation where we were able to 'buy' the Sunni for $10 a day won't work here'
The shiites in the area have proven themselves to be completely inept at running the government. Useless as fighters. Loyal only to Iran. Liars, and in the case of sadr's 'Mahdi Army', a whole lot easier to kill off then the sunnis.
'Now Basra is OUR war'
Such hysterics. It is criminals and thugs supported by Iran killing each other. As long as humans don't get caught in the crossfire let them go. They are NOT attacking American troops and they hadn't been attacking Iraqi troops until the crackdown.
'. The longer it drags on, the more inept U.S. policy looks,'
No. US policy was never to sort out local turf wars. This will resolve itself with patience and with a minimum loss of human life if they would just let the animals kill each other off and then crack down on the 'winner'. You shrieking that this s US policy to sort out the differences between the Mahdi army and the Badr Brigade is just another one of your lies. This wasn't even US territory. If al-Maliki wants to take them on so be it, but air power should be our contribution unless the shiites start getting dragged in. Then it could get serious. Unlike now.
It is going to be fun rubbing your nose in your latest frantic rantings.
'More propaganda and bullcrap'
What an apt title for your post, idiot.
'Bush gets the blame for getting us into this,'
Shiites were killing each other in turf wars under Saddam. Iran was supporting it back then as well. You can blame the British for leaving too early and giving control over to the militias.
'and listening to creeps like you, instead of someone who actually knows something'
You are insane.. nobody listens to you.
'Take a clue from SP4, and just shut the hell up and WATCH what's going on. Like Jim Cramer when on his TV show he loudly told everyone that Bear Stearns was just fine.
You are not making any sense in your rantings. You are hysterically trying to make this molehill in to a mountain and in doing so you you are insanely comparing SP4 to Jim Cramer.
'al-Maliki is being condemned now for a failed plan to take Basra,'
It hasn't failed yet. These things do not work in the same hysterical time frame as your adhd messed up mind.
' and the situation insofar as the Iraqi Army's position is deteriorating.'
They just started their operation yesterday... Idiot.
'The U.S. forces are essentially relegated to air strikes,'
Relegated? So you want the US to take a leading role in getting into the crossfire between rival Iranian backed shiite gangs? Did I mention that you are a moron? I think I did.
' where the risk of civilian casualties rises as opposed to operating on the ground.'
Oh well... At least you will have something to hysterically complain about if a US bomb kills the people that the terrorists are hiding behind... again.
'We've handed al-Sadr a gift,'
Bu 'we' you mean the British and Iranians... right? You can't seem to get your empty, crazy head around the fact that Basra was never our area of control. You can't seem to get your stupid head around the fact that if we had followed your hysterical advice then the whole country would be in MUCH MUCH worse shape then Basra. The shiite on shiite violance is NOTHING compared to sunni/shiite violence. That is what you have been advocating by turning the country over to al qaeda and the Iranians.
So go ahead, you neurotic loser, repeat the same thing over and over like you have the slightest idea what you are talking about...
Asharq Al- Awsat says you believe in conspiracy theories PB...
Iraq's FM Denies US Incited Government against Al-Mahdi Army
29/03/2008
By Sawsan Abu-Husain
Damascus, Asharq Al- Awsat- Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari has denied that Washington incited Iraq Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to act against Muqtada al-Sadr's 'Al-Mahdi Army' and underlined the government's commitment to the 'law enforcement' steps.
Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat on the sidelines of his participation in the preparatory meetings for the Arab summit in Damascus, Zebari said what is happening in Iraq at present should be looked at positively because the Iraqi Government was accused in the past of being lax with the sectarian militias and that the latter had penetrated the government's body and were paralyzing its performance. He added that it was for this reason that the Iraqi Government made a decisive decision to confront the outlaw militias.
Zebari went on to say that 'this battle should be decided as soon as possible' adding that the 'ongoing fighting is painful and regrettable but all the Iraqi Government's components agree with its present measures and are in solidarity with it in order to defeat these outlaw militias.' He pointed out that the government's measure is right and its successful emergence from this confrontation with competence would boost the state's authority in the Iraqis' eyes. He expected these operations to end within days and said military reinforcements would go to Basra and also stressed that the outcome would be in the Iraqi Government's favor.
He denied that Washington incited this action and said: 'This is the conspiracy theory. It is in the US interest for the situations in Iraq to appear at this transitional stage to be stable and for matters to be good and progressing forward and we are hoping much good will come from this.' He accused foreign parties other than the United States of interfering in Iraqi affairs.
aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&id=12253
The British are coming out and word is they haven't seen their shadow so they are going to help one group of thugs wipe out the other. Rather nice of them, no?
British Army joins Basra fighting
British forces have become directly involved in the fighting in Basra, as clashes continue between the Iraqi army and militiamen of the Mehdi Army.
British troops launched artillery shells at a mortar position in the al-Klalaf area of northern Basra, which had been firing on Iraqi troops.
It is the first time they have directly joined the fighting since the Iraqi army operation began on Tuesday.
The British Army spokesman in Basra said the engagement had been a success.
Iraqi government forces have been trying to wrest control of Basra and other Shia areas from the Mehdi Army - a Shia militia loyal to the radical cleric Moqtada Sadr.
Across Iraq, fighting has claimed an estimated 200 lives since Tuesday.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7320696.stm
Speaking on state television, Mr Maliki said troops would not leave Basra until 'security is restored' and described the militants as 'worse than al Qaeda'.
Our determination is strong ... those who break the law are punished, and those who draw their weapons in the face of the state are punished,' he.
advertisement
British forces today became directly involved in the battle to stamp out militias from Basra, engaging suspected Mehdi Army positions with artillery.
Field pieces located in the British headquarters at Basra airport fired on a mortar crew in an insurgent stronghold of the southern port city shortly before 12.30pm local time (9.30am UK time).
Previously British troops had confined themselves to providing logistical help and air support to the Iraqi Army forces conducting the operation, which began at dawn four days ago.
“UK artillery engaged a mortar team in the al-Halaf area of Basra at around 12.26pm our time,” said Major Tom Holloway, the British military spokesman in Basra.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/29/wirq229.xml
Meanwhile....
Iraq's oil exports, refinery operations back to normal, official says
BAGHDAD: Iraq's oil exports and refining operations in the southern oil port of Basra are running normally after sabotage attacks and power outages disrupted operations, an official with the country's South Oil Co. said Saturday.
aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&id=12253
Basra has faced fierce clashes since fighting broke out Tuesday between government security forces and Shiite militia loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
Amid the chaos, a bomb on Thursday struck the Zubair-1 pipeline that sends crude oil from the Basra Zubair oil field to tanks for Iraq's two exporting terminals on the Gulf: al-Umaiya and Basra.
'Everything returned to normal as of 10 p.m. Thursday,' the official, speaking on condition of anonymity as he was not authorized to release information.
www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/29/africa/ME-FIN-Iraq-Oil-Exports.php
page: 1
StupidIraqiMar 28th, 2008 - 13:58:32
We are so stupid. Why can't we live together in peace like civilized people ? Sadr is the most uncivil of us all !
Report this comment