Middle East News
Iraqi government vows to demilitarize Basra (2nd Lead)
Mar 31, 2008, 12:47 GMT
Iraqi soldiers stand at a checkpoint in Basra, southern Iraq on 31 March 2008. After Shi\'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr ordered his followers off the streets, life returned to normal in the southern Iraqi city of Basra on Monday. EPA/HAIDER AL-ASSADEE
Baghdad - The Iraqi government vowed Monday to demilitarize Basra as relative calm was returning to the southern city, an interior ministry spokesman said, a day after Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr ordered his followers to stop fighting government troops.
'Security forces will carry out orders of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to take away all weapons in Basra by the April 8 deadline,' interior ministry spokesman Brigadier-General Abdel-Karim Khalaf told the Voices of Iraq (VOI) news agency.
Al-Maliki, who launched a major military offensive in Basra Tuesday, gave armed groups in the Shiite-dominated city a deadline to surrender their weapons and renounce violence.
'Since the launch of the operation in Basra, 210 gunmen were killed, 42 of them dangerous criminals, 600 wounded and 155 arrested,' Khalaf said.
Large quantities of weapons and military equipment were seized, and a number of car bombs and 80 explosive devices detonated, Khalaf said.
The operation does not target any political groups but outlaws and gangs involved in drug trafficking, fuel smuggling and the killing of academics, doctors and professionals, the official said.
Al-Sadr ordered his Mahdi Army militia to stop fighting government forces and urged them to cooperate to stop 'Iraqi bloodshed' and 'achieve security.'
The cleric, believed to be staying in Iran, called on the government to apply the general amnesty law, end random raids targeting his loyalists and release detainees.
The government welcomed the move but said the crackdown on 'lawbreakers' would continue.
Shops and markets were opening and vehicles could be seen amid a big troop deployment in the oil-rich city.
Estimates of the death toll since the outbreak of violence vary. As many as 250 people died and over 500 were injured in Basra, according to medical sources.
Meanwhile rockets fell on Baghdad's fortified Green Zone Monday, witnesses reported.
A succession of rockets fell on the Green Zone in central Baghdad, witnesses told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa.
Reports on casualties were not immediately available.
The fortified area houses the US embassy and other diplomatic missions, as well as Iraq's cabinet, parliament and several ministries.
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
RE: 'This is the acid test for the Iraqi government. If they fail this test, they are helpless.'
===============
Yep - it's over (for now), and they're incompetent. All done. al-Maliki is on his way back to Baghdad. The U.S. played John Wayne one more time, and Iran negotiated a cease-fire continuation. Iran helped back al-Sadr into a corner a bit by closing the border and letting his people run low on ammo. The point has been made as to who really runs the 60 percent Shia majority.
Don't think for a moment that the people of Iraq don't know the details. The regional elections are coming.
www.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUSCOL144127._CH_.2400
BAGHDAD, March 31 (Reuters) - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's crackdown on militias in the southern oil port of Basra appears to have backfired, exposing the weakness of his army and strengthening his political foes ahead of elections.
U.S. President George W. Bush has praised the crackdown, calling it a 'defining moment' for Iraq, but it has unleashed a wave of destabilising violence in southern Iraq and in Baghdad that risks undoing the security improvements of the past year.
It has also exposed a deep rift within Iraq's Shi'ite majority -- between the political parties in Maliki's government and followers of populist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
Analysts say Iraqis may be about to witness a new phase in the cycle of violence that has gripped the country since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 -- intra-Shi'ite bloodletting that could tear Iraq apart and more deeply embroil U.S. forces.
Sadr on Sunday pulled back from all-out confrontation against Iraqi security forces and their U.S. backers, ordering his Mehdi Army militia to stop fighting. While Basra was reported to be calm on Monday, mortar attacks shook Baghdad.
'It will be a short honeymoon, especially with election time coming up,' said Mustafa Alani, an analyst at the Dubai-based Gulf Research Centre.
Provincial elections are due to take place by October, with the Sadrists, who boycotted the last polls in 2005, vying for control of the mainly Shi'ite, oil-producing south with a powerful rival, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council.
'The stand-off is not over yet, it's only a truce ... provincial elections will trigger the battle again,' predicted Hazem al-Nuaimi, a political analyst based in Baghdad.
www.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUSCOL144127._CH_.2400
Maliki flew to Basra last Tuesday to personally oversee a military operation he said was aimed at 'cleaning up' the lawless city, which is controlled by criminal gangs and militias allied to various Shi'ite political parties. The operation was lauded by U.S. and British officials as evidence of the growing strength of the Iraqi army, but by the weekend it had largely stalled, with Iraqi troops having failed to dislodge the gunmen from their strongholds.
Embarrassingly, Iraq's defence minister had to admit that despite much preparation, his forces were not ready for such fierce resistance. U.S. and British forces have intervened, launching air and artillery strikes to support Iraqi troops.
The fighting provoked a furious backlash by Mehdi Army fighters in other towns and cities in the oil-producing south. Hundreds have been killed in violence that Iraqi security forces have struggled to contain without U.S. military help. 'What has happened has weakened the government and shown the weakness of the state. Now the capability of the state to control Iraq is open to question,' said Izzat al-Shahbander, a moderate Shi'ite politician from the Iraqi National List party.
Gareth Stansfield, a professor of Middle East politics at the University of Exeter in England, said Maliki had staked his political credibility on the show of force in Basra and lost. 'Maliki's credibility is shot at this point. He really thought his security forces could really do this. But he's failed,' he said.
(same link)
While Maliki has sought to portray the operation as an effort to reassert his government's control over Basra and crack down only on 'criminals', not political parties, many analysts believe it is politically motivated.
The Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, the biggest Shi'ite party in government and an ally of Maliki's Dawa party, is battling for control of Basra in an often violent turf war that pits it against Sadrists and the smaller Fadhila party, which controls the local oil industry.
Sadrists accuse Maliki and the Supreme Council of trying to crush them ahead of the October provincial elections in which they are expected to make big gains at the expense of the Council, which controls many local authorities in the south.
'This is him (Maliki) basically preparing for an election. They need to disarm Sadr. The strongest militia in the city will control the vote,' said Alani. But Sadr aides say the Mehdi Army will not give up their weapons, raising the prospect of another confrontation, as the Iraqi military says it will press on with the Basra operation.
Sadr, ironically, may emerge stronger from the affair. 'Clearly Sadr has gained a victory. This was not a fight he picked and his forces looked strong. He has consolidated his position,' said Stansfield.
The cleric, who is widely believed to be in Iran furthering his religious studies, now looks like the victim of political manoeuvring by Shi'ite parties in government. 'The Sadrists may have been strengthened in many people's minds. Many have seen the onslaught as unfair,' said Reidar Visser, an expert on southern Iraq who edits the Web site www.historiae.org.
Iraqis will now be watching to see what happens next, but after enduring a bitter Sunni Arab insurgency and then a wave of sectarian violence between Shi'ites and Sunnis, they have become accustomed to expecting the worst. 'It's true there are no clashes, gunmen or explosions,' said Jabbar Sabhan, a civil servant in Basra, 'but the situation is still dangerous. I don't trust the words of politicians.'
SP4 where are you when we really need you? We need a good pep talk to rally around our cause, and with the real SP4 possibly MIA, I will humblely try to fill in for him even though his boots are much bigger than mine. For starters, it is a sick joke of very perverted deadheads to talk about 'demilitarizing' our war against the criminal-terrorist psychopathic nation of Iraqalqaeda. Such treasonous talk of appeasement is just the venom of the loser-oriented traitors among us. And, we don't need no anallicki or alsadist to pretend to be the Boss, when we all know there is only one Boss. That would be the ingenious commander in chief of the glorious US-led coalition of the willing. It is not the fault of our fearless leader that the stupid, criminal ingrates in Iraqalqaeda can not begin to appreciate the freedom and democracy so graciously given to them by our occupying forces. Our forward thinking President GWB worked real hard to do the hard work to make Iraqalqaeda be free. Don't you know he didn't say it was going to be easy mounting the humanitarian effort known as Shock and Awe to free the slaves of the super-villian, or to play 52 card pick-up when the joker is wild. And it would require a lot of hard work, and working hard everyday to get rid of all the tons of WMD, and to build the magnificent WMA [Weapon of Magnetic Attraction] that we would use to pull in, by force if necessary, all the criminals being drawn into Iraqalqaeda, so we could kill them when and where we wanted to kill them.
Only the foolish lemmings and sheep who are fed endless lies by the nefarious cult-like subversives who control the MSM, and who become brain dead zombies, are in denial, refuse to recognize what hard work it is working real hard to capture dead or alive a super-villian mastermind and his criminal gangs.
There are also those who are enemy here and there, who have drank the terrorists' koolaid, and who have been brainwashed by the anti-American propaganda of the MSM, like the cut and run crowd at Investors Business Daily. You can not run a war just like it were a big business. You can not fold up your hand like a gambler at a casino, after an 8 percent loss in your bad investment. Sound business principles and war stategies are not similar. In war, you have to commit everything, for an endless amount of time, and regardless of your losses. Everything has to be dedicated to the concept of victory, not defeat, even if you have to continuously change what the definition of winning is. You have to be willing to dig a giant, deep hole in the sand, and pour everything you've got into the effort regardless of the outcome or cost; in the belief that you are going to strike payday oil someday. As our wise VP Cheney very astutely remarked- 'It is what it is.' There is no need for further discussion. Winning is about getting our oil regardless of the cost. After all, the idiots over there don't need it because they can all ride camels, when they're not humping them, and just like the French, they fight with their feet. And of course the oil actually belongs to the United States despite what the libnazi, cut and run defeatocrats say.
The true patriots all know we are winning, and that the enemy, and demonrats want us to be losers, and pervert our magnificant victory into defeat. We can not let whiners, wimps, and cut and run business men run our war in Iraqalqaeda. We must win if it takes 1000 years of hard work.
andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/our-man-in-iraq.html< br />
The continuing fighting on Sunday left the ultimate significance of the statement uncertain, said Qassim Daoud, a former national security adviser who leads a secular Shiite party that has supported Mr. Maliki in the past. But the muddle that has emerged from what was supposed to be a decisive assault has serious consequences for the prime minister, Mr. Daoud said.
“The government now is in a weak position,” he said. “They claimed that they are going to disarm the militias and they didn’t succeed.”
Asked if the erosion of support for Mr. Maliki could cause his government to fall, Mr. Daoud paused and said, “Everything is possible.”
A fighter from Sadr's Mahdi Army in Baghdad, speaking to The Washington Post, sees things similarly: 'The fighting has proved they have learned a lesson. The government is dead from our point of view.'
www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,544471,00.html
At the same time, the Americans' portrayal of Sadr has also changed. The Evil One of the last civil war, a man wanted by authorities and dubbed the 'most dangerous man in Iraq' by Newsweek, has been repackaged as a leader to whom General Petraeus now attests a sense of responsibility. US military officials speaking on Iraqi television refer to him respectfully as 'His Excellency Muqtada.'
They know that they owe their successes partly to his withdrawal, and still do today. 'Sadr is not the enemy,' Ambassador Ryan Crocker said last week in Baghdad. The Americans, he added, are battling 'special groups' and 'extremist military elements' that Sadr apparently 'doesn't have under control.' But this is not the view of Sadr's Iraqi rivals, who now seek to deprive him of his power.
All of the militias are vying for one grand prize: the vast oil reserves in the earth below Basra. The profits on those reserves may be sparse at the moment, but hardly any other nation on earth has so much potential wealth concentrated in one place -- or is so vulnerable in one place.
The Baghdad government's insistence that the goal of the offensive was to indiscriminately disarm all militias in Basra proved to be disingenuous within the first few days of the fighting. The neighborhoods controlled by the Hakims' Badr Brigades and the Fadhila militia remained calm, while fighting raged on the edges of the Hayaniya and Qibla neighborhoods, the Mahdi Army strongholds. 'This is where the problem lies,' says Alani. 'The government is not a neutral party in this conflict.' According to Alani, the government forces focused on Sadr's militia while ignoring their own allies.
The Brussels-based think tank International Crisis Group (ICG) warned in February that seeking to destroy the Mahdi Army, which grew rapidly in reaction to the acts of terror committed by the Sunni al-Qaida organization, is a dangerous undertaking doomed to failure. According to the ICG, the Mahdi Army, the militia of Iraq's poor and disenfranchised Shiites, is already too deeply entrenched.
The Americans seem to have understood this. They are now taking the same approach with the Shiites that has already been effective with the Sunnis: They recruit tribal leaders, promising them material benefits in return for refraining from violence and cooperating politically. Tribal loyalties tend not to be as strong among Shiites as among Sunnis. Still, buying the support of Shiite sheikhs is a tried and true practice -- one that Saddam Hussein used to secure his power for decades.
But the Iraqi government, now little more than a vestige of the grand Shiite coalition that won the election more than two years ago, has opted for a different principle, and it too is one with which the Iraqis are all too familiar from the past: military offensives and street fighting in their own country.
(McCain seems as baffled as Bush - not a good thing for a President.)
blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/31/mccain_expresses_surprise_ at_i.html
MERIDIAN, Miss. -- Sen. John McCain expressed surprise that Iraqi leader Nouri al-Maliki instigated a battle in the southern Iraqi city of Basra in recent days without, according to McCain, notifying the U.S. first.
'Maliki decided to take on this operation without consulting the Americans,' McCain told reporters on the Straight Talk Express as he began a week-long biographical tour. 'I just am surprised that he would take it on himself, to go down and take charge of a military offensive.'
McCain said that he believed 'generally accepted strategy' was to complete operations in the city of Mosul, where the Americans and Iraqis are still battling insurgents, before moving to deal with the situation in the south. 'I didn't think that he would do that yet,' McCain said. 'We have a battle going on in Mosul, which most of us, all of us agreed, would take 2-3 more months to get Mosul under control.'
McCain said the situation underscores the involvement of Iran, especially in southern Iraq. And he said he was disturbed by some of the demands of Moqtada al-Sadr, who called for a cease fire yesterday. But McCain declined to say which demands he found 'unreasonable,' and he said he could not predict the outcome. 'We'll see how it turns out,' he said.
...run...hide....some towelhead has a gun!
Why is this anyone's problem except the Iraqi's???? Why are we saddled with forming a peaceful, co-existing society in Iraq? What divine declaration told us this?
Beats the sh-t outa me!
RE the imbecilic:
Why is this anyone's problem except the Iraqi's???? Why are we saddled with forming a peaceful, co-existing society in Iraq? What divine declaration told us this?
Beats the sh-t outa me!
=============================================
Bush was a bigger idiot than you, and had no idea what going after Saddam entailed in terms of the aftermath. His father did in 1991; and left Saddam in power.
The conventional Neocon argument is that we have to remain to keep the place from either falling apart, or seeing a population of over 20 million, of which the Shia make up 60 percent, succumbing to about 5,000 al Qaeda.
SP4 badly needs to figure out where he stands. He's supported Bush's policy, and now is complaining about the blowback. You can't take a dump and then complain about the smell.
Bush is conveniently off one one of his many trips, after declaring recent events as a 'defining moment'. Here's what the idiot actually said, verbatim:
'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.'
(He seems to badly need a 'defining moment' of his own - and he can begin with definitions of 'defining' and 'victory' and 'incompetence')
www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/opinion/30cordesman.html?em&ex=1207022400&en =d57d230757d3ef61&ei=5087%0A
But it is equally important not to romanticize Mr. Maliki, the Dawa Party or the Islamic Supreme Council. The current fighting, which the government portrays as a crackdown on criminality, is better seen as a power grab, an effort by Mr. Maliki and the most powerful Shiite political parties to establish their authority over Basra and the parts of Baghdad that have eluded their grasp.
Moreover, Mr. Maliki’s gamble has already dragged American forces part-way into the fight, including airstrikes in Basra. Striking at violent, rogue elements in the Mahdi Army is one thing, but engaging the entire Sadr movement is quite another. The official cease-fire that has kept the mainstream Mahdi Army from engaging government and United States forces may well be rescinded if the government’s assault continues.
There was no real debate over how bad the overall governance of the south was at the provincial level, how little money the region was getting from Baghdad, and how poor government-related services were, even in Shiite areas. Incompetence and corruption are not sectarian. An ABC News poll released this month showed that only two-thirds of the Shiite population in Basra had a favorable opinion of the central government, down from three-quarters last summer, and that only 14 percent of all residents felt they could move about safely.
Hell yes, lefties. You and your blow buddies in the MSM are truly blessed with supreme knowledge and insight regarding all manner of subjects. Never mind the facts.
Let's talk 'global warming' for example.
No problem. If Wisconsin this year experiences one of the heaviest snowfall totals ever recorded, it's obviously caused by global warming.
Next year, if the snowfall is below average, why hell, the reason is gonna be quite elementary (you guessed it): global warming!!
Now, Sadr and his ragtag 'army' get their asses kicked and are forced to withdraw from the field of battle. Why hell, campers, anybody with a lick of sense knows what this means: Obviously, Sadr WON!!!
Let's throw a big demonstration to celebrate the grand victory.
And the examples could go on and on and on...
When it comes to being smart fellers, you lefties are definitely up there near the top.
ROFLMAO
but the surge itself is still working. I am not wrong, so don't bother to try and correct me.
RE: but the surge itself is still working. I am not wrong, so don't bother to try and correct me.
===================================
What would really hurt is if they stopped your methadone treatment.
'numbnuts777'
Who could improve on that with a discussion.
Numbnuts, say Hi to SP4's rear end. Enjoy yourselves.
www.csmonitor.com/2008/0401/p06s02-wome.html
Mr. Sadr has demonstrated his power, despite the blows dealt to his movement over the past few years. The government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, thanked him profusely on Monday for his decision, but vowed that the fight would continue in Basra, where militiamen have now largely melted away from the streets, but remain very much in control of their strongholds.
In August 2004, US and Iraqi forces battled Sadr's militias in Najaf, Iraq. It was billed as a crucial test of then-Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's ability to extend authority over a key city in Iraq that was controlled by armed militias. The Najaf showdown ended in much the same way this one did: a Sadr negotiated truce.
But this time, analysts say, the widespread instances of surrender among the Iraqi forces and the seizure of their equipment and vehicles by the Mahdi Army shows that despite all the funding and training from the US, Iraq's soldiers remain greatly swayed by their sectarian and party loyalties and are incapable of standing up in a fight without US backing.
The fighting has also firmly wedged the US in an intra-Shiite struggle that has been bubbling for some time and will probably only intensify. The battle has also spawned more popular anger and frustration, especially in places like eastern Baghdad, toward both US forces and Mr. Maliki's government, which already had been teetering on the verge of collapse.
This popular anger is like an adrenaline rush for the Sadrist movement, which, in contrast to other Shiite parties, particularly the one led by rival Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, is seen as being on the side of the young, poor, and downtrodden.
Already Sadr is gearing up to capitalize on this comeback with a huge anti-American rally planned in Baghdad on April 9, the day Saddam Hussein's statue was brought down in the capital five years ago.
(al-Maliki has now demonstrated that the Iraqi Army, actually his own militias, could not control the situation. He went to Basra without letting the U.S. government know - or so they say. Despite running low on water and ammo, the Mahdi Army brought it to the point that al-Maliki's people had to get Iran to intervene and bring about a cessation of the current round of violence. Iran is backing all sides, and therefore controls the situation)
ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gVIOMhmLVrGXcHQE2nOlxvNVV06QD8VOK6601
Al-Sadr is believed to divide his time between Qom in Iran and Najaf, another Shiite holy city 100 miles south of Baghdad. Prior to the interview, he was last seen in May when he delivered a fiery sermon in Kufa, Najaf's twin city.
Al-Sadr ordered his Mahdi Army to stand down seven months ago — earning him praise from U.S. commanders and officials. That cease-fire, in theory at least, remains in force. Militia commanders, however, say it was aggressively used by al-Sadr and his top aides to restructure and better arm and train militiamen.
The commanders, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information, said they have recently been taking delivery of new weapons from Iran, including rockets, roadside bombs and mortars. They have also received an infusion of cash and sent militiamen to Iran for training.
'It is a clever ploy,' a militia commander in Baghdad's Sadr City district, the Mahdi Army's largest stronghold, said last week. 'We can take on anyone in Iraq now.'
(Ya gotta love it - like an old horror movie, 'follow it, and see what it eats')
'but the surge itself is still working. I am not wrong, so don't bother to try and correct me.'
-------------------------
www.tni.org/detail_page.phtml?act_id=18100
The inability of Iraqi government forces to defeat or even halt Sadr's militia in Basra, Baghdad or elsewhere even with massive U.S. military support, and the resulting escalation of overall violence in Iraq, also proves the failure of the so-called 'surge.'
It wasn't primarily the 'surge' that brought about the dramatic decrease in violence from late spring of 2007 till about last November, but rather Sadr's ceasefire - a choice that could, as recent actions show, be reversed at any time. Sadr's very public demonstration of his power to unleash or rein in his military forces may well provide a new kind of 'defining moment' indeed.
The surge was never the primary reason for the decline in violence. The combination of factors included Sadr's ceasefire, the creation and paying off of the U.S.-backed and largely Sunni 'awakening councils' (who are now accepting money not to attack occupation troops, but who could, like Sadr's forces, reverse that decision at any point they choose), and finally the horrifying 'success' of the ethnic cleansing that was the goal of so much of the violence. Especially in mixed areas such as most of Baghdad, the escalating sectarian violence of 2005-2006 into 2007 largely aimed to force people out of their heterogeneous neighborhoods and into separate Sunni or Shi'a communities. That has largely been accomplished, with much of Baghdad's population (those who haven't fled altogether…) now having been forcibly herded into walled-off enclaves kept separate by armed sectarian militias. So the raison d'être of the brutal violence that created that new sectarian reality has ended.
Iraq Study Group in 2006:
'Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation. A senior American general told us that adding U.S. troops might temporarily help limit violence in a highly localized area. However, past experience indicates that the violence would simply rekindle as soon as U.S. forces are moved to another area. As another American general told us, if the Iraqi government does not make political progress, 'all the troops in the world will not provide security.' Meanwhile, America's military capacity is stretched thin: we do not have the troops or equipment to make a substantial, sustained increase in our troop presence. Increased deployments to Iraq would also necessarily hamper our ability to provide adequate resources for our efforts in Afghanistan or respond to crises around the world.'
LOL, You are a neurotic maniac. This was an obvious victory for the Iraqi government against a rogue iranian militia.
Yet you blather on and spam the hell out of M&C with random posts that do not back any kind of argument.
Good work idiot, you have demonstrated that you are completely incapable of seeing anything that you don't want to see...
Good lord, I have been counting the posts that you have neurotically spammed this website with... You need to get mental help. I don't know how you are going to pay for it because you are obviously unemployed, how else could you waste your day posting random articles to fill up forums that might indicate that progress is being made in Iraq?
The elected government came down on an iranian backed militia and killed off about a thousand of the sons of dogs. This is more good news for the future of Iraq.
============================================================
Will They Admit Progress?
Posted by: Curt
Great job as usual by Michael Goldfarb in describing the fighting in Basra. Basically saying that those who moan and cry about Iraq always like to point out that the militia’s are still running rampant. Well now Maliki is doing something about it and what do we get? More whining. Michael:
Faced with an intractable problem, Maliki bet big and confronted the most powerful militia in Iraq. When one looks at the rest of the Middle East, it’s not at all apparent that the region’s more problematic regimes are inclined to do the same. Take Pakistan, where broad swaths of the country are controlled by militias, the Taliban, al Qaeda. If only Musharraf had the resolve to violently confront these threats to his government’s sovereignty. It’s the same in the Palestinian territories, where Mahmoud Abbas must rely on the IDF to keep him in power. Abbas might be willing to confront Hamas, but he is unable. And in Lebanon, a weak central government lacks the resolve to strike at Hezbollah. It strikes me as a good thing that Maliki can and will go after those who directly challenge his government–even to the New York Times it looks like progress.
Meanwhile Obama said this today about the fight:
“I don’t want to suggest I’ve absorbed all of the facts,” about the situation in Basra, Mr. Obama said. But, he continued, what he had heard “appears consistent with my general analysis. The presence of our troops and their excellence has resulted in some reduction in violence. It has not resolved the underlying tensions that exist in Iraq.”
Really? There are tensions in Iraq that have not gone away? Get outta here….
No one has said The Surge has done this, not Bush, not McCain, no one. Does anyone really expect tensions to ease in a few short months, or years? Hell, there are tensions in this country that have existed for centuries, from political to racial. It’s called life. And to suggest that he, or anyone else, can reduce those “tensions” by running from the fight is just naive and foolish. If we leave before that country can defend itself from outside influence, and from within, then you can bet your ass that there will a bit more going on other then some tension. There will be wholesale bloodshed as al-Qaeda takes that country as its own.
Abe Greenwald:
This is the all-or-nothing rhetorical game the Democrats play with Iraq. They pretend the McCain side of the debate makes outlandishly sunny claims and then they “disprove” them. They overstate non-scandalous aspects of both McCain’s Iraq plan (the hundred-year war) and our present Iraq strategy: Last Tuesday in Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton said, “President Bush seems to want to keep as many people as possible in Iraq. It’s a clear admission that the surge has failed to accomplish its goals.” Wrong and wrong. And shameful, to boot.
The fact of the matter is that the Iraqi government has been criticized for not taking advantage of the reduction in violence caused by The Surge. Well, here they are stepping up and the MSM quickly steps up and gives the gloomiest reporting possible. You would think that those who want us out of Iraq would take heart in this fight…..one more step closer to getting out of there.
But not if it means they can’t bash Bush.
Basra
Like Obama, I don’t want to suggest I’ve absorbed all of the facts, but a couple of thoughts.
First, it's too soon to tell the outcome. As Roggio pointed out on Friday, 'this operation needs to develop before it can be called a success or failure, and that will take weeks or even months.' We and our Iraqi allies were going to confront these militias at some point. Ever since al Qaeda was routed from Anbar, critics of the war pointed to the remaining Shia militias as the insurmountable obstacle to victory. Now we're finally seeing some action on that front--it's not clear that this particular action will be successful, but at least there's movement, and from the Iraqis.
Anthony Cordesman says the fighting 'is better seen as a power grab, an effort by Mr. Maliki and the most powerful Shiite political parties to establish their authority over Basra and the parts of Baghdad that have eluded their grasp…' That doesn't sound so bad to me.
Faced with an intractable problem, Maliki bet big and confronted the most powerful militia in Iraq. When one looks at the rest of the Middle East, it's not at all apparent that the region's more problematic regimes are inclined to do the same. Take Pakistan, where broad swaths of the country are controlled by militias, the Taliban, al Qaeda. If only Musharraf had the resolve to violently confront these threats to his government's sovereignty. It's the same in the Palestinian territories, where Mahmoud Abbas must rely on the IDF to keep him in power. Abbas might be willing to confront Hamas, but he is unable. And in Lebanon, a weak central government lacks the resolve to strike at Hezbollah. It strikes me as a good thing that Maliki can and will go after those who directly challenge his government--even to the New York Times it looks like progress:
For starters, the Shiite rebels are fighting mainly Iraqi soldiers, rather than Americans. Their leader, Moktada al-Sadr, is not defending against attacks from a redoubt inside the country’s most sacred shrine, but is issuing edicts with a tarnished reputation from an undisclosed location, possibly outside the country. And Iraq’s prime minister, a Shiite whom Americans had all but despaired would ever act against militias of his own sect, is taking them on fiercely.
'(McCain seems as baffled as Bush - not a good thing for a President.)'
LOL! Not at all, what he said was very reasonable considering this was an Iraqi operation. Now THIS IS BAFFLED:
The Dems’ Basra Babble
From today’s New York Times:
“I don’t want to suggest I’ve absorbed all of the facts,” about the situation in Basra, Mr. Obama said. But, he continued, what he had heard “appears consistent with my general analysis. The presence of our troops and their excellence has resulted in some reduction in violence. It has not resolved the underlying tensions that exist in Iraq.”
As if that’s not everyone’s analysis.
Neither George Bush or John McCain or David Petraeus has ever said anything to contradict Obama’s valueless declaration. They have never suggested that the surge had “resolved the underlying tensions.”
This is the all-or-nothing rhetorical game the Democrats play with Iraq. They pretend the McCain side of the debate makes outlandishly sunny claims and then they “disprove” them. They overstate non-scandalous aspects of both McCain’s Iraq plan (the hundred-year war) and our present Iraq strategy: Last Tuesday in Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton said, “President Bush seems to want to keep as many people as possible in Iraq. It’s a clear admission that the surge has failed to accomplish its goals.” Wrong and wrong. And shameful, to boot.
So, Obama admits he has not “absorbed all of the facts,” but that’s because he doesn’t need to. He just needs to spin stories of violence into the narrative of Bush’s failed miracle. However, if he bothered to “absorb” just a little more of the admittedly confusing Basra situation, he’d have to confront the conflict’s one crystalline detail: the British pulled out too soon. And there’s no way for him to spin that.
www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/greenwald/3127
Sadr orders followers to end fighting
By Bill RoggioMarch 30, 2008 11:27 AM
Map of Iraq. Click to view.
Six days after the Iraqi government launched Operation Knights’ Charge in Basrah against the Mahdi Army and other Iranian-backed Shia terror groups, Muqtada al Sadr, the Leader of the Mahdi Army, has called for his fighters to lay down their weapons and cooperate with Iraqi security forces. Sadr’s call for an end to the fighting comes as his Mahdi Army has taken serious losses since the operation began.
'Sadr has sent a message to his loyalists urging them to end all armed activities,' the Al Iraqiya television channel reported. Sadr 'disowned anyone attacking the state institutions or parties' offices and headquarters.'
'Based on responsibility towards Iraq and to stem Iraqi bloodshed and to preserve the country's unity and integrity as a prelude to its independence, I call on the people to be up to their responsibility and awareness in order to maintain Iraq's stability,' according to a statement issued by Sadr and sent to Voices of Iraq. Sadr has called for the government to free members of the Mahdi Army and the Sadrist Movement captured during recent operations.
The Iraqi government has welcomed Sadr’s call for his followers to cease fighting. 'The order to pull off gunmen off Basra along with all Iraqi provinces and to disavow those who has taken up arms against government offices and security forces is responsive and patriotic,' Ali al Dabagh, the spokesman for the Iraqi government, told Voices of Iraq. The Iraqi government has not called for a halt in military operations.
Sadr’s call for an end to fighting by his followers comes as his Mahdi Army has taken high casualties over the past six days. Since the fighting began on Tuesday, 358 Mahdi Army fighters were killed, 531 were wounded, 343 were captured, and 30 surrendered. The US and Iraqi security forces have killed 125 Mahdi Army fighters in Baghdad alone, while Iraqi security forces have killed 140 Mahdi fighters in Basrah.
From March 25-29 the Mahdi Army had an average of 71 of its fighters killed per day. Sixty-nine fighters have been captured per day, and another 160 have been reported wounded per day during the fighting. The US and Iraqi military never came close to inflicting casualties at such a high rate during the height of major combat operations against al Qaeda in Iraq during the summer and fall of 2007.
US and Iraqi forces are maintaining the high pace of operations against the Mahdi Army and the Special Groups. While the daily reporting from Iraq is far from over, initial reports indicate at least 18 Mahdi Army fighters have been killed and another 30 captured.
US soldiers killed 14 Mahdi fighters in Baghdad during a series of separate engagements. Iraqi security forces killed four Mahdi Army fighters and captured another 30 in Babil province, where a major offensive led by the police has been underway.
:-D
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3656300.ece
Nouri al-Maliki humiliated as gamble to crush Shia militias fail
ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkx-3oYeFwuWKCusr2jrojs98w8wD8VOL7780
Truce Calms Iraq, Weakens Prime Minister
ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gVIOMhmLVrGXcHQE2nOlxvNVV06QD8VOK6601
Al-Sadr Trumps in Latest Showdown
www.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/world/middleeast/31iraq.html?hp
Mr. Sadr’s willingness to negotiate represents a significant shift from his stance in 2004, when he ordered his militia to fight to the death in the holy city of Najaf, and suggests that his political sophistication and strategic skills have grown in the last two years.
After the statement was released Sunday, a spokesman for Mr. Maliki, Ali al-Dabbagh, appearing on the television station Iraqiya, said that the government welcomed the action and that Mr. Sadr’s gesture demonstrated his “concern for Iraq and Iraqis.” And he insisted that the government offensive in Basra was not aimed specifically at Mr. Sadr’s militiamen but rather against rogue Shiite factions there, seemingly trying to leave room to maneuver with Mr. Sadr’s political organization.
Mr. Mashadani said negotiations on the statement involved senior Iraqi clerics and at least 10 senior Iraqi politicians from the main parties, including Iraq’s president, Jalal al-Talabani, a Kurd, representatives of Mr. Sadr in Najaf, and the prime minister himself.
There was some disagreement over exactly which government representatives traveled to Iran to meet with Mr. Sadr, but several negotiators said they believed that two members of Parliament were involved: Ali Adeeb, of Mr. Maliki’s Dawa Party, and Hadi al-Amiri, who heads the Badr Organization, the armed wing of the Supreme Council.
www.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUSCOL144127._CH_.2400
ANALYSIS-Iraqi crackdown backfires, strengthens Sadrists
BAGHDAD, March 31 (Reuters) - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's crackdown on militias in the southern oil port of Basra appears to have backfired, exposing the weakness of his army and strengthening his political foes ahead of elections.
U.S. President George W. Bush has praised the crackdown, calling it a 'defining moment' for Iraq, but it has unleashed a wave of destabilising violence in southern Iraq and in Baghdad that risks undoing the security improvements of the past year.
It has also exposed a deep rift within Iraq's Shi'ite majority -- between the political parties in Maliki's government and followers of populist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
Analysts say Iraqis may be about to witness a new phase in the cycle of violence that has gripped the country since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 -- intra-Shi'ite bloodletting that could tear Iraq apart and more deeply embroil U.S. forces.
Embarrassingly, Iraq's defence minister had to admit that despite much preparation, his forces were not ready for such fierce resistance. U.S. and British forces have intervened, launching air and artillery strikes to support Iraqi troops.
The fighting provoked a furious backlash by Mehdi Army fighters in other towns and cities in the oil-producing south. Hundreds have been killed in violence that Iraqi security forces have struggled to contain without U.S. military help.
'What has happened has weakened the government and shown the weakness of the state. Now the capability of the state to control Iraq is open to question,' said Izzat al-Shahbander, a moderate Shi'ite politician from the Iraqi National List party.
(lots more, dum-dum propagandist. I WISH we had a smart President, instead of someone who's consistently screwed up every opportunity. I WISH there were lasting good news, but there never was any. Petraeus has put a giant tire patch on it, but we're seeing how much the reduction in 'surge' violence depended on the Sadr cease-fire - and meanwhile, al-Sadr has bettered his own position)
Sadr Offensive Reveals Failure of Petraeus Strategy
www.alternet.org/waroniraq/80722/
The signs that the Madhi Army will no longer be passive mark a major defeat for the U.S. military command's strategy.
The rocket attacks appear to have been one of several actions by the Mahdi Army to warn the United States and the Iraqi government to halt their systematic raids aimed at driving the Sadrists out of key Shiite centers in the south. They were followed almost immediately by Mahdi Army clashes with rival Shiite militiamen in Basra, Sadr City and Kut and a call for a nationwide general strike to demand the release of Sadrist detainees.
Even more pointed was a strong warning from Sadr aide Abdul-Hadi al-Mohammedawi to the United States as well as to the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), whose Badr Organization militiamen, in the uniforms of Iraqi security forces, have targeted the Madhi Army throughout the south. 'They don't seem to realise that the Sadrist trend is like a volcano,' he told worshipers Friday in Kufa. 'If it explodes, it will crush their rotten heads.'
The signs that the Madhi Army will no longer remain passive mark a major defeat for the U.S. military command's strategy aimed at weakening the Mahdi Army.
When he took command in Iraq in early 2007, Petraeus recognized that the U.S. occupation forces could not afford to wage a full-fledged campaign against the Mahdi Army as a whole. Instead it adopted a strategy of dividing the Sadrist movement. Petraeus and the ground commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, hoped that there were leaders in the Sadrist movement who would be willing to give up further military resistance and accept the U.S. occupation and the existing government.
For months, the command tried to generate a 'dialog' with 'moderates' in the Sadrist camp. It issued a series of statements hailing Sadr's willingness to change the purpose of his movement. Most recently, on Jan. 17, Odierno said, 'I believe he is trying to move forward with more of a religious organization and get away from a militia type-supported organization.' But he admitted, 'That could change.'
Meanwhile, Petraeus targeted selected elements of the Mahdi Army in raids in Sadr City and the Shiite south, portraying its targets as 'criminals' and 'rogue elements' which had broken away from Sadr and were armed, trained and financed by Iran. Odierno suggested in his Jan. 17 press briefing that such renegade groups were causing 'the majority of the violence.'
But the 'moderate' Sadrists who would be willing to make a deal with the U.S. never materialized. Last July, a U.S. commander in Baghdad claimed that Sadrist representatives had initiated 'indirect' talks with the U.S. military. But in January, Odierno would say only that they had been meeting with 'local leaders' in Sadr City, not with representatives of the Sadrist movement.
The Mahdi Army's blunt warnings of military countermeasures followed months of raids against Sadr's political-military organization by both U.S. forces and the Badr Organization. According to a senior Sadrist parliamentarian, between 2,000 and 2,500 Mahdi Army militiamen had been detained since Sadr declared a ceasefire last August.
latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/03/iraq-fog-of-war.html
Sadr, meanwhile, insists that his militia is innocent of the wanton violence that Maliki says prompted the crackdown, yet he showed a masterful command of the bloodshed. Shortly after his cease-fire call Sunday evening, the fighting that had raged in Iraq's strongholds ground nearly to a halt.
The U.S. military said it was surprised how quickly the effects were felt. Navy Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, a military spokesman, said that as of this afternoon, there had been a 20% drop in attacks nationwide compared with the previous day.
Iraq's government now is faced with trying to portray the Basra offensive as successful, even though Maliki's security forces proved unable to flush militias from Basra, as the prime minister had vowed to do. Three days into the battle, he called for help from American and British forces. U.S. warplanes conducted airstrikes, and U.S. Army special forces were involved in some ground operations.
As this was going on, U.S. officials hammered away at the idea that the Basra offensive was Iraqi-led and Iraqi-organized and a promising display of Maliki's determination to take on the country's militia problem — but not the Sadr's militiamen, they hastened to add. President Bush called it a 'defining moment' for Iraq.
There has been no U.S. reaction to the news that Iran, whom Washington accuses of meddling in Iraq's violence, played a key role in bringing the standoff to an end. Iraqi lawmakers have said they went to Iran and asked for help in brokering a deal between Sadr, who is believed to be in Iran, and Iraqi leaders.
The real political power in the middle east is IRAN. They brokered the ceasefire in the unwarranted attack on the peace loving Sadrists. This attack was a political move on Maliki's part to destroy any opposition to him becoming Saddam Hussein the 2nd. The infidel dogs sat in their caves and cowered like little children. A few sat in their warplanes and dropped bombs from 30,000 feet, killing children. What brave warriors they are. Iraq for the Iraqis. USA out. Now. Go home before more of your children die here. You aren't wanted here.
latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/03/iraq-fog-of-war.html
'Iraq's government now is faced with trying to portray the Basra offensive as successful, even though Maliki's security forces proved unable to flush militias from Basra, as the prime minister had vowed to do. Three days into the battle, he called for help from American and British forces. U.S. warplanes conducted airstrikes, and U.S. Army special forces were involved in some ground operations.'
-------------------
(It's actually very simple in the 'real world'. You say you'll do something, and either you DO, or you DON'T, and ON TIME. The Mahdi Army is intact as an organization. Some portion of al-Maliki's troops did not do their job, as they realized they were fighting their own sect. al-Maliki asked Iran to intervene, as al-Sadr was IN Iran at the time. al-Maliki had to settle for less than he intended, and is now praising al-Sadr, an odd path to 'victory.)
(I am distinctly reminded here of Afghanistan and AQI - we did NOT win in Afghanistan, because the enemy still has control of major areas. AQI simply pulls back and regroups elsewhere in Iraq. Even MCCAIN understands that Mosul, which al-Maliki said he'd deal with, is yet another open issue)
blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/31/mccain_expresses_surprise_ at_i.html
McCain said that he believed 'generally accepted strategy' was to complete operations in the city of Mosul, where the Americans and Iraqis are still battling insurgents, before moving to deal with the situation in the south. 'I didn't think that he would do that yet,' McCain said. 'We have a battle going on in Mosul, which most of us, all of us agreed, would take 2-3 more months to get Mosul under control.'
(Maliki extended his deadline in Basra, where no weapons have been turned in, and no one was disarmed. What happens after 10 days - another extension? It's easy to 'win' if you never admit that you didn't.)
(I guess not EVERYONE sees this as a victory)
electroniciraq.net/news/newsanalysis/Embarrassed_U_S_Starts_to_Disown_B asra_Operation-3311.shtml
WASHINGTON (IPS) - As it became clear last week that the 'Operation Knights Assault' in Basra was in serious trouble, the George W. Bush administration began to claim in off-the-record statements to journalists that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had launched the operation without consulting Washington.
The effort to disclaim U.S. responsibility for the operation is an indication that it was viewed as a major embarrassment just as top commander Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker are about to testify before Congress.
Behind this furious backpedaling is a major Bush administration miscalculation about Moqtada al-Sadr and the Mahdi Army, which the administration believed was no longer capable of a coordinated military operation. It is now apparent that Sadr and the Mahdi Army were holding back because they were still in the process of retraining and reorganization, not because Sadr had given up the military option or had lost control of the Mahdi Army.
On Mar. 30, the New York Times reported from Baghdad that 'few observers in Iraq seem to believe that al-Maliki intended such a bold stroke,' and that 'many say the notoriously cautious politician stumbled into a major assault'. The Times quoted a 'senior Western official in Baghdad' -- the term usually used for the ambassador or senior military commander -- as saying, 'Maliki miscalculated,' adding, 'From all I hear, al-Maliki's trip was not intended to be the start of major combat operations right there, but a show of force.' The official claimed there were 'some heated exchanges between him and the generals, who out of hurt pride or out of calculation or both then insisted on him taking responsibility.'
These suggestions that it was al-Maliki who miscalculated in Basra are clearly false. No significant Iraqi military action can be planned without a range of military support functions being undertaken by the U.S. command. On Mar. 25, just as the operation was getting under way in Basra, U.S. military spokesman Col. Bill Buckner said 'coalition forces' were providing intelligence, surveillance and support aircraft for the operation.
Furthermore, the embedded role of the U.S. Military Transition Teams (MTTs) makes it impossible that any Iraqi military operation could be planned without their full involvement.
(much more in the linked story)
This is the face of backing out. Someone finally realized we do not need this crap.
'Mr. Sadr’s willingness to negotiate represents a significant shift from his stance in 2004, when he ordered his militia to fight to the death in the holy city of Najaf, and suggests that his political sophistication and strategic skills have grown in the last two years.'
Well seeing that his militia is only about 60% of what it was in 1994 the SOB didn't have much of a choice. Good frigging luck trying to spin yet another sadr ass kicking into a glorious victory. By the way, the millitia is STILL getting it's ass kicked as of this evening.
'ANALYSIS-Iraqi crackdown backfires, strengthens Sadrists'
Reporting by Randy Fabi, Waleed Ibrahim and Ahmed Rasheed; Editing by Samia Nakhoul!!!
'exposing the weakness of his army and strengthening his political foes ahead of elections.'
LOL! His army won the thing, they killed off about a thousand of sadrs walking turds. They are still mopping up. Id sadr won such a glorious victory how come he isn't in charge of Basra this evening? How come the fat pile of pig lard is hiding in Iran? Answer that please..... You can't can you?
't has also exposed a deep rift within Iraq's Shi'ite majority -- between the political parties in Maliki's government and followers of populist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
As long as it is shiite on shiite violence who cares? It will only cause a civil war when they are fighting sunnis or kurds.
' intra-Shi'ite bloodletting that could tear Iraq apart and more deeply embroil U.S. forces.'
Nope. Just one Iranian backed group of thugs killing off another.
'Embarrassingly, Iraq's defence minister had to admit that despite much preparation, his forces were not ready for such fierce resistance. '
Gee, guess we can't withdraw like you have been advocating then.
'U.S. and British forces have intervened, launching air and artillery strikes to support Iraqi troops.
Which did the trick.
'The fighting provoked a furious backlash by Mehdi Army fighters in other towns and cities in the oil-producing south. Hundreds have been killed in violence that Iraqi security forces have struggled to contain without U.S. military help.
How on earth can hundreds of mhadi militia (About a thousand actually) be viewed as a bad thing?
'I WISH we had a smart President, instead of someone who's consistently screwed up every opportunity'
LOL, shiites kill shiites and you blame Bush. (Or give credit)
' Petraeus has put a giant tire patch on it, but we're seeing how much the reduction in 'surge' violence depended on the Sadr cease-fire'
The Surge had nothing to do with sadr. He had had his ass kicked by the USA twice and the Iraqis once before the surge. Basra wasn't a surge area. You must know this by now yet you repeat the same drivel over and over... When you repeat something that is wrong out of ignorance you are just an idiot, but repeating something that you know to be untrue makes you a liar.
But that has already been established here.
edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/31/iraq.shiite/
(CNN) -- The deal to end the weeklong fighting in Iraq's Shiite regions appeared to be holding Monday, but left lingering questions about Iran's growing influence, the Iraqi government's military resolve and the chances for more intra-Shiite hostility.
The fighting -- much of which raged in strongholds of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army militia -- swiftly worked its way up to Baghdad. The violence subsided only after Shiite lawmakers traveled to Iran Friday to negotiate with Iranian officials and with al-Sadr, who later called on his followers to end violent battles in the country and to cooperate with the Iraqi security forces.
Senior U.S. military officials said the move doesn't solve the turf wars in the Shiite heartland and believe they could easily flare again. And it leaves Sadrists and others in control of large swaths of territory.
The government's Basra offensive, spearheaded by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, highlights the fledgling Shiite-dominated Iraqi government's efforts to engage militias on their own, the U.S. officials say. At the same time, it leaves al-Maliki in a precarious political position because he has staked his future on the offensive, and he has left himself little room to maneuver.
The U.S. assessment of the situation is that it's good Iraqi forces are conducting the Basra offensive largely on their own. At the same time, the officials said, Americans need to be prepared for the Shiite power struggle to continue.
Mahmoud Othman, an Iraqi parliament member and a Kurd, said what happened 'is another victory for Iran,' which he says has 'the upper hand' in Iraq. Speaking from London, England, Othman said Iran has created problems by fostering close relations with Shiite groups, including the Mehdi Army and the government. When Iran realized the situation was getting out of hand -- threatening a wider war and America's participation in it -- it got involved in the recent talks to stop the violence.
'They make problems,' Othman said. 'Then they end it the way they like.'
'Sadr Offensive Reveals Failure of Petraeus Strategy'
Morons... the adolescent Trotskyites at alternet who, and i am qupting here, want to build a 'progressive echo chamber'... LOL! Yeah, these clowns are interisted in the truth:'AlterNet is working hard with many partners to build the progressive echo chamber that will fight back.'
Idiot, once again, for you and the morons at alternet: Basra was not a surge area. It was a British area that the British cut and ran from, leaving a vacuum that sadrs thugs and other iranian backed thugs filled. Once again morons, for the 50th time, this was not a surge area, it was prematurely abandoned by the British. Got it yet? Probably not, because you are a liar.
'The signs that the Madhi Army will no longer remain passive mark a major defeat for the U.S. military command's strategy aimed at weakening the Mahdi Army.'
Well they are passive again! :-D
'Petraeus recognized that the U.S. occupation forces could not afford to wage a full-fledged campaign against the Mahdi Army as a whole. '
The Madhi army has had it's asses kicked by the USA twice. Americans have captured their Imam Ali Shrine in Najaf. That's right, AMERICAN INFIDELS have entered their precious mosque. Is that another sadr victory? lol!
'THIS is the definition of NOT winning'
ONE QUESTION TO YOU? WHO IS RUNNING BASRA? IF IT IS SADR (Who is hiding in Iran like the big fat pussy he is) then he has won.
'Sadr, meanwhile, insists that his militia is innocent of the wanton violence that Maliki says prompted the crackdown, yet he showed a masterful command of the bloodshed. '
Poor baby, just misunderstood.
' Shortly after his cease-fire call Sunday evening, '
You know, because calling for a ceasefire is somehow a victory...
'The U.S. military said it was surprised how quickly the effects were felt'
Yeah, his thugs seem to have collapsed. Sounds like victory to you, eh?
'There has been no U.S. reaction to the news that Iran, whom Washington accuses of meddling in Iraq's violence, played a key role in bringing the standoff to an end.'
Sure, the thugs they were backing were getting killed off. Of course they helped with a ceasefire, their terrorists were getting killed.
'The real political power in the middle east is IRAN.'
LOL!
'They brokered the ceasefire in the unwarranted attack on the peace loving Sadrists'
LOL!!!!
'The infidel dogs sat in their caves and cowered like little children. '
That is EXACTLY WHAT SADR DID!
' few sat in their warplanes and dropped bombs from 30,000 feet, killing children.'
LOL!!!!
'You aren't wanted here.'
You go back to iran, chimp.
''Iraq's government now is faced with trying to portray the Basra offensive as successful, even though Maliki's security forces proved unable to flush militias from Basra'
They are in hiding. They popped their heads out, scores of them got killed, now that it was clear they were going to be wiped out they melted away in to the civilian population like the despicable cowards that they are. Again, sade does not control Basra, his 'mhedi army' is not in charge of the area. The operations against them are continuing and he is hiding in Iran. How can you possibly try to portray THAT as 'victory'.
'It's actually very simple in the 'real world'. You say you'll do something, and either you DO, or you DON'T, and ON TIME.'
If you mean that they should have gone in with an Iron hand and wiped oyt every last one of the bastards, well that would be nice, but they can achieve their objectives without doing so.
'The Mahdi Army is intact as an organization.'
They are just over half the size that they were before the 2nd battle of najaf. Their 'leader' is in hiding. They are under a 'ceasefire'. Whenever they DO try to mobilize they get pounded. The Girl scouts is intact as an organization too, that doesn't mean they run the country.
'Some portion of al-Maliki's troops did not do their job, as they realized they were fighting their own sect.'
18 was the number that I saw reported. They should be made to patrol fallujah, alone, at night. :-D
'al-Maliki had to settle for less than he intended, '
He has control of the city. Sadr is humiliated again.
' we did NOT win in Afghanistan, because the enemy still has control of major areas.
Not in Afghanistan. You are wrong again.
'Even MCCAIN understands that Mosul, which al-Maliki said he'd deal with, is yet another open issue)'
Unlike Obama who demonstrated again (above) that he doesn't understand jack s**t.
We've stymied Iran in Iraq
We've stymied Al Qaeda in Iraq.
We've secured most of the country.
We've stood up the government, gotten all but a couple of these nutballs dealing.
In fact, we've done so much I'm not sure there is much left.
We don't need long posts to recognize these fact.
SP4: That does not make him wrong Apr 1st, 2008 - 04:00:27
We're screwed, with Iran in Iraq
We're stymied by Al Qaeda in Iraq.
We've screwed most of the country.
We've stood up the government, and they keep falling down
In fact, we've pooched so much I'm not sure there is much left to fubar.
(Even that famous left-wing rag, the Wall Street Journal, is stating that Sadr made out better from this fiasco. Dum-dum, you're brainwashed, and living in a fantasy where everyone who disagrees with you is the enemy. Grow the flock up, as the chicken farmer said.)
online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120695720918576769-0pc9ooRI2xihRh9C_ukv jPe2O4M_20080501.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top
U.S. and British commanders said that Mr. Sadr's Mahdi Army fought the Iraqi forces to a draw and were able to retain their control over large portions of Basra and other Shiite areas of the country.
The Iraqi government's inability to oust Moqtada al-Sadr's militia from Basra has boosted the fortunes of the Shiite cleric while damaging the standing of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
Mr. Sadr appears to be the one clear winner from the inconclusive fighting in the country's second-biggest city, which began to taper off Monday after the cleric urged his followers to observe a truce.
The failure of the Iraqi strikes against Mr. Sadr's Mahdi Army has implications for both U.S. policy in Iraq and the presidential campaign.
Worsening conditions in Iraq pose a particular challenge for likely Republican nominee Sen. John McCain, who has staked his candidacy on his ability to persuade antiwar voters that victory in Iraq remains possible. Sen. McCain departed from his usual talking points about Iraq Monday to say that he was surprised by Mr. Maliki's decision to order the Basra strike.
(You don't get partial credits in Iraq - the Mahdi are still armed. The only 'success' came from Iran's getting al-Sadr to get his militia to cease fighting per the first linked story.)
english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D5054B56-56A3-4ED7-8774-7EA619F69AC2.ht m
Nuri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister who personally supervised the Basra operation, admitted that the crackdown had not been entirely successful.
'We came here [to Basra] to pursue criminal gangs and murderers ... our forces were not ready for this battle and we were surprised,' he told al-Iraqiya, a state television service.
The deal with al-Sadr meant that his supporters were able to keep hold of their weapons despite the best efforts of government forces to take control of the city.
However, Major-General Abdul Aziz, Iraqi commander, said that by Sunday security forces had managed to clear five areas of Basra which were known Mahdi Army strongholds - Al-Najibiyah, Al-Makkal, Al-Ashhar, Al-Zubair and Qarmat Ali.
Iraqi political officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Iran had played a key role in brokering the peace deal between the Iraq's Shia-led government and al-Sadr.
www.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUSCOL144127._CH_.2400
Embarrassingly, Iraq's defence minister had to admit that despite much preparation, his forces were not ready for such fierce resistance. U.S. and British forces have intervened, launching air and artillery strikes to support Iraqi troops.
The fighting provoked a furious backlash by Mehdi Army fighters in other towns and cities in the oil-producing south. Hundreds have been killed in violence that Iraqi security forces have struggled to contain without U.S. military help.
'What has happened has weakened the government and shown the weakness of the state. Now the capability of the state to control Iraq is open to question,' said Izzat al-Shahbander, a moderate Shi'ite politician from the Iraqi National List party.
If they cannot get one angry towelhead under control, what good is their central government?
Next Question: Why should it be OUR problem???
WELL IS IT? ANSWER THAT.
ONE QUESTION TO YOU? WHO IS RUNNING BASRA? IF IT IS SADR (Who is hiding in Iran like the big fat pussy he is) then he has won.
I see you didn't bother to answer that. Again, who is the authority in Basra and who is hiding in Iran like a pregnant tub of lard?
Sadr is an iranian backed pig who periodically orders his diminishing army of thugs, (Again, about 60% of what it was in 2004) to get themselves killed.
In 2004, over the course of several 'uprisings' he lost about 2000 idiots when he took on the USA until he begged for a 'cease-fire'.
In 2005 he just ate, ate and ate.
In 2006 he had his fat cottage cheese ass spanked by the Badr brigades and the Iraqi Iraqi Army until he cried like a little she-dog for a 'cease-fire'.
In 2007 the enormous tub of pig lard who was getting money and guns from the dirty republic of Iran goot smacked around by the Iraqi police until he waddled over and begged for a 'cease-fire'.
In 2008 the enormous, playground stalking, obese turban wearing pile of excrement got about 800 of his rage monkeys killed or wounded and another 200 captured until he rolled like a sow in a sty and begged his Iranian puppet masters for a 'cease-fire'.
All this time he has not been able to hold an inch of ground. He has lost najaf. He just lost basra. Sadr city is walled off and sewerage flows down the streets. Whenever his hapless, idiotic, untrained followers come out of hiding long enough to put on their ski masks they get pounded by either the US, British or now even the Iraqi army. They were unable to keep the kuffar out of their holiest shrine. A serious humiliation which couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
At this point he is in hiding in Iran. His Iranian backed militia got spanked, again. The Iraqi army is STILL engaging them when they are not hiding like the pussies they are and patrolling the streets of Basra in control of the city.
Add this all together, you unbelievable moron:
Sadr is hiding in Iran.
His 'militia' is almost half the size it was 4 years ago.
He has called for another 'cease-fire' and is cooperating with the Iraqi government.
He had over 800 of his gorillas killed or wounded at the loss of about 20 humans.
If you think that is 'victory' I would hate to see what you would label as defeat.
Nope. The Iraqi army showed that it was not afraid to take on fellow shiites (Although admittedly they need work) and Maliki showed that he was not afraid to kill Iranian backed thugs to assert his control. Jump up and down and hold your breath but you are not convincing anyone other then your fellow iranian welfare cases that this is not another small positive development for Iraqis.
'You don't get partial credits in Iraq -'
So I guess running to Iran and getting scores of your thugs killed and then begging for a ceasefire doesn't count as a 'victory'... Eh?
'the Mahdi are still armed.'
Congratulations, so am I. The difference is that I am not hiding. The other thing is they have demonstrated to be completely useless as a fighting force, over and over.
'The only 'success' came from Iran's getting al-Sadr to get his militia to cease fighting'
Why wouldn't Iran beg for help on sadr's behalf. They were seeing their precious shiite terrorists get blown to pieces. :-D
Maliki: 'Security operations in Basra will continue'
By Bill RoggioMarch 31, 2008 3:08 PM
One day after Muqtada al Sadr, the leader of the Mahdi Army, called for his fighters to abandon combat, the fighting in Basrah has come to a near-halt, and the Iraqi security forces are patrolling the streets. While Sadr spokesman said the Iraqi government agreed to Sadr's terms for the cease-fire, Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki has said the security forces will continue operations in Basrah in the South. Meanwhile, the Mahdi Army took heavy casualties in Basrah, Nasiriyah, Babil, and Baghdad over the weekend, despite Sadr's call for the end of fighting.
Maliki was clear that operations would continue in the South. 'The armed groups who refuse al Sadr's announcement and the pardon we offered will be targets, especially those in possession of heavy weapons,' Maliki said, referring to the 10-day amnesty period for militias to turn in heavy and medium weapons. 'Security operations in Basra will continue to stop all the terrorist and criminal activities along with the organized gangs targeting people.'
The Iraqi military said it was moving in more forces into the South after admitting it was surprised by the level of resistance encountered in Basrah. 'Fresh military reinforcements were sent to Basra to start clearing a number of Basra districts of wanted criminals and gunmen taking up arms,' said Brigadier General Abdel Aziz al Ubaidi, the operations chief for the Ministry of Defense. 'Preparations for fresh operations have been made to conduct raids and clearance operations in Basra ... [and] military operations would continue to restore security in Basra.'
The reasons behind Sadr's call for a cessation in fighting remain unknown, but reports indicate the Mahdi Army was having a difficult time sustaining its operations and has taken heavy casualties. 'Whatever gains [the Mahdi Army] has made in the field [in Basrah], they were running short of ammunition, food, and water,' an anonymous US military officer serving in South told The Long War Journal. 'In short [the Mahdi Army] had no ability to sustain the effort.
TIME's sources in Basrah paint a similar picture. 'There has been a large-scale retreat of the Mahdi Army in the oil-rich Iraqi port city because of low morale and because ammunition is low due to the closure of the Iranian border,' the magazine reported.
McClatchy Newspapers indicated a member of the Maliki's Dawa party and the leader of the Badr Organization, the military wing of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, traveled to Qom, Iran to lobby Qods Forces officers to get Sadr to halt the fighting. The trip 'had two aims, lawmakers said: to ask Sadr to stand down his militia and to ask Iranian officials to stop supplying weapons to Shiite militants in Iraq.' The two men met with Brigadier General Qassem Suleimani, the commander of Iran’s Qods Force, the foreign special operations branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps.
The Mahdi Army has also taken high casualties since the fighting began on March 25. According to an unofficial tally of the open source reporting from the US and Iraqi media and Multinational Forces Iraq, 571 Mahdi Army fighters have been killed, 881 have been wounded, 490 have been captured, and 30 have surrendered over the course of seven days of fighting.
Baghdad
There have been few reports of clashes in the Shia districts of New Baghdad, Sadr City, and elsewhere on Monday. US and Iraqi security forces killed 48 Mahdi Army fighters during a series of clashes throughout Baghdad on Sunday. US and Iraqi security forces captured at least 22 Mahdi Army fighters in Baghdad. Twenty of those were captured in Sadr City. An unknown number of Mahdi Army fighters in the Iskan and Washash neighborhoods have gone against Sadr's demands to keep their weapons and have surrendered them to the military in accordance with the amnesty offer issued by Maliki.
The Iraqi government has lifted the curfew for much of Baghdad, but Sadr City remains under curfew. 'Terrorist groups are trying to exploit the current situation, and target the residential compounds there,' said Dr. Ali al Dabbagh, the spokesman for the Iraqi government.
Today, Mahdi fighters targeted the International Zone in central Baghdad with mortars and rockets. No casualties have been reported.
The official spokesperson for the Baghdad Health directorate for eastern Baghdad said 109 people have been killed and 634 wounded during the past week of fighting. 'This is only in Sadr city, and according to the statistics from the two local hospitals Imam Ali and al Sadr,' Qassim Mohammed told Voices of Iraq.
Basrah
The Mahdi Army has vacated the streets of Basrah and the Iraqi security forces have begun to reassert control throughout the city. Fighting in Basrah has been fierce, with the Mahdi Army putting up stiff resistance in some neighborhoods it controlled prior to Sadr's call for the end of fighting.
Prior to the end of fighting, Iraqi security forces overran the eastern neighborhood of Tanuma and surrounded the central Timimiyah neighborhood as US and British forces pounded Mahdi Army positions, McClatchy Newspapers reported. 'But the Iraqi security forces still couldn't penetrate the vast Shiite slum of Hayaniyah or al Qibla, two Mahdi Army stronghold of Basra.' Some Mahdi Army fighters said they would continue to fight Iraqi security forces despite Sadr's orders.
The Mahdi Army has also taken heavy casualties in Basrah. 'The Iraqi security agencies killed 210 gunmen, including 42 dangerous criminals, while 600 others were wounded and 155 captured since the commencement of a military campaign in Basra,' Major General Abdul Kareem Khalaf told Voices of Iraq on Monday. 'Security agencies seized a large amount of weapons including developed explosive charges, and dismantled three car bombs and 80 improvised explosive devices.'
Nasiriyah
After days of heavy fighting, the strategic city of Nasiriyah is under control of the Iraqi government, a US military officer told The Long War Journal. 'Nasiriyah is approximately 90% under the control of the Iraqi security forces,' the officer said. The Iraqi forces have only received assistance from a small team of US advisers assigned to the police. The government has ordered the curfew to be eased in the southern city, while a Sadrist leader called for followers to 'abide by [Sadr's] directives' and put an end to the fighting.
The Mahdi Army took heavy casualties in the fighting for Nasiriyah, according to the provincial governor of Dhi Qhar. More than 85 fighters were killed, 200 were wounded, and 100 were arrested, said Governor Aziz Alwan, noting that the figures have not been finalized. Seven police were reported killed and 44 wounded during the fighting. Twenty-eight 28 civilians were killed and 60 wounded, many after the Mahdi Army launched mortar attacks on a civilian neighborhood.
The Dhi Qhar police have relieved a police unit of its duties, Voices of Iraq reported. 'A 60-member police unit was sacked in al Fajr district, 100 km north Nasiriyah for neglecting their duty during the clashes with armed groups,' the deputy commander of the provincial police said. It is not clear if the police unit refused to fight or sided with the Mahdi Army.
Guess that makes you a liar and a propagandist...
Question: When does a transaction require two signatures?
Answer: When the principal signatory is underqualified.
Ever helpful in thwarting international terrorism, the commanding general of Iran's Quds Force effectively co-signed Muqtada al-Sadr's ceasefire agreement issued to the Mahdi Army in Iraq. Yesterday, Rich Lowry drew attention to a USA Today report. Now, McClatchy has more reporting.
There [Qom, Iran] the Iraqi lawmakers held talks with Brig. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Qods (Jerusalem) brigades of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps and signed an agreement with Sadr, which formed the basis of his statement Sunday, members of parliament said.[....]
Bill Roggio noted the report early Monday evening and remarked that the Mahdi Army was taking significant losses at the hands of the Iraqi Army and security forces while PM Maliki is standing his ground with the Iranians.
Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, who has been accused of receiving his marching orders from Iran, refuses to abide by the Iranian diktat. Maliki has said Iraqi security forces will continue operations to target anyone who fails to comply with Sadr’s order, and has demanded that the Mahdi Army surrender its medium and heavy weapons. The Iraqi military, for its part, is moving more forces to Basra. The Mahdi Army has taken significant casualties in Baghdad, Basra, and the greater South after seven days of fighting.
The significance of the Quds Force signature in the underlying agreement is profoundly significant. I added a couple of thoughts on a bit of that significance.
If Muqtada al-Sadr held the power he is attributed in major media reports circulating pervasively, the ceasefire would not have required Iran’s Quds Force commander’s co-signature like a father on his son’s first car loan.
When US commanders discuss arms shipments from Iran to Iraqi groups they are often dismissed or even derided (along with their Commander in Chief) for trying to engineer a war with Iran. Perhaps Iraqi lawmakers actually asking Iran to stop the weapons shipments will resonate among those who roll their eyes at US commanders on the subject.
Too much significance is applied to Muqtada al-Sadr in virtually all traditional media reporting. The name with weight is Qassem Suleimani. Perhaps you've heard of him.
al-Makiki has learned exactly one thing out of this - how to redefine 'success' based on failure to achieve the original objective. Same school Bush went to.
Hell, the WALL STREET JOURNAL called it a failure! The whole WORLD has called it a failure. Now, he's done what he should have done in the first place, and with Iran in control of al-Sadr again, al-Maliki's forces can function as they should have in the first place. The Mahdi Army retained both arms and territory. So what did al-Maliki win going up against al-Sadr?
What he's done NOW is to change objectives; leaving the Mahdi Army alone, and instead going after the criminal elements. Come to think of it, that's exactly why al-Sadr called the cease-fire last year ... to go after the SAME criminal elements running Basra, fighting amongst themselves, and stealing the oil revenue. This should have been the objective in the first place - NOT engaging al-Sadr, which led to the world's seeing that al-Sadr could handily repel the Iraqi Army. In the annals of military history, that never was judged a success.
al-Maliki's job now is to construct a permanently stationed militia of his own in Basra, fully vetted as to loyalty to the central government (and to whomever al-Maliki's eventual successor might be). Basra was far too important for the Brits to have left in the hands of the native population; and now Britain has called off further troop withdrawals. al-Maliki needs to do the same.
=======================
Fresh links:
ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkx-3oYeFwuWKCusr2jrojs98w8wD8VP6BS00
'BAGHDAD (AP) — Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, returning from the southern city of Basra, claimed Tuesday that a week-old operation against Shiite militias has been a 'success' despite a cease-fire that did not disarm the gunmen and left him politically battered.'
(Note the presence of the quote marks around -success-)
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3661892.ece
Nouri al-Maliki asks militants to return 50 cars and armoured vehicles
'Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq’s increasingly isolated Prime Minister, claimed yesterday his campaign to stamp out illegal armed groups in Basra had been a “success” despite being forced to sue for peace with al-Mahdi Army militia who fought his men to a standstill.
The Prime Minister, whose future is looking uncertain after he staked his reputation on the stalled military offensive, also asked gunmen to return the 50 government cars and armoured vehicles they captured from his forces during a week of fighting that left close to 500 people dead.'
(I won; now gimme back my vehicles!)
edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/31/iraq.shiite/?iref=mpstoryview
'The fighting -- much of which raged in strongholds of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army militia -- swiftly worked its way up to Baghdad. The violence subsided only after Shiite lawmakers traveled to Iran Friday to negotiate with Iranian officials and with al-Sadr, who later called on his followers to end violent battles in the country and to cooperate with the Iraqi security forces.
Senior U.S. military officials said the move doesn't solve the turf wars in the Shiite heartland and believe they could easily flare again. And it leaves Sadrists and others in control of large swaths of territory.'
(I suppose anyone deluded enough to see 5+ years of conflict as a 'victory' could make the same error here - kind of like seeing the Chicago Cubs as 'winners' as well in the 20th Century)
'The Chicago Cubs have not won a championship since 1908. It is the longest title drought in all five of the major American professional sports leagues, which includes the NFL, the NBA, the MLS/MISL and the NHL, as well as, of course, Major League Baseball.'
(al-Maliki's people (Dawa and Badr groups) went to Iran to ask for help, as al-Sadr was already there. The Iranians got al-Sadr to back off and resume a cease-fire. Read the damned articles)
www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-03-30-iraqnews_N.htm
BAGHDAD — Iranian officials helped broker a cease-fire agreement Sunday between Iraq's government and radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, according to Iraqi lawmakers. Osama al-Nujaifi, a Sunni lawmaker who oversaw mediation in Baghdad, said representatives from al-Maliki's Dawa Party and another Shiite party traveled to Iran to finalize talks with al-Sadr.
The backdrop to Sadr's dramatic statement was a secret trip Friday by Iraqi lawmakers to Qom, Iran's holy city and headquarters for the Iranian clergy who run the country. There the Iraqi lawmakers held talks with Brig. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Qods (Jerusalem) brigades of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps and signed an agreement with Sadr, which formed the basis of his statement Sunday, members of parliament said.
Ali al Adeeb, a member of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's Dawa party, and Hadi al Ameri, the head of the Badr Organization, the military wing of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, had two aims, lawmakers said: to ask Sadr to stand down his militia and to ask Iranian officials to stop supplying weapons to Shiite militants in Iraq.
'The statement issued today by (Muqtada al Sadr) is a result of the meetings,' said Jalal al-Din al Saghir, a leading member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. 'The government didn't have any disagreement with the Sadrists when it went to the city of Basra. The Sadrist movement is the one that chose to face the government.' 'We asked Iranian officials to help us persuade him that we were not cracking down on the Sadr group,' said an Iraqi official, who asked for anonymity due to the sensitivity of the subject.
www.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/world/middleeast/31iraq.html?hp
Mr. Mashadani said negotiations on the statement involved senior Iraqi clerics and at least 10 senior Iraqi politicians from the main parties, including Iraq’s president, Jalal al-Talabani, a Kurd, representatives of Mr. Sadr in Najaf, and the prime minister himself. There was some disagreement over exactly which government representatives traveled to Iran to meet with Mr. Sadr, but several negotiators said they believed that two members of Parliament were involved: Ali Adeeb, of Mr. Maliki’s Dawa Party, and Hadi al-Amiri, who heads the Badr Organization, the armed wing of the Supreme Council.
edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/31/iraq.shiite/
(CNN) -- The fighting -- much of which raged in strongholds of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army militia -- swiftly worked its way up to Baghdad. The violence subsided only after Shiite lawmakers traveled to Iran Friday to negotiate with Iranian officials and with al-Sadr, who later called on his followers to end violent battles in the country and to cooperate with the Iraqi security forces.
'al-Makiki has learned exactly one thing out of this - how to redefine 'success' based on failure to achieve the original objective.'
RIGHT BACK AT YOU, IDIOT.
IS SADR IN CONTROL OF BASRA? YES OR NO?
'Hell, the WALL STREET JOURNAL called it a failure!'
The editorial was written before sadrs capitulation was complete. He has NOT had prisoners released and the government operations in Basra are continuing. Bottom line, sadr is out.
' The whole WORLD has called it a failure.'
Lol, another one of your lies.
'Now, he's done what he should have done in the first place,'
Agreed, straightening out the south after the British prematurely withdrew.
'nd with Iran in control of al-Sadr again, '
They always have been, HE IS IN IRAN, the tub of cr*p.
'al-Maliki's forces can function as they should have in the first place. '
Isn't that a success? You undercut yourself again.
'The Mahdi Army retained both arms and territory. '
Arms perhaps, (Not much of a concern because they don't know how to fight, just get themselves killed) but territory no. Can't you even read? Look at the above post By Bill Roggio. The way it is going they are going to lose their heavy arms as well.
'So what did al-Maliki win going up against al-Sadr?'
He won control of Basra. He tested his army. He established with the Sunnis that he was not going to let them get away with whatever they want. He showed the US government with this, and the passing of the election law (ANOTHER VITAL BENCHMARK MET, IDIOT) that there is the effort being made to establish self governance in Iraq and most importantly he killed off a bunch of iranian backed thugs.
'What he's done NOW is to change objectives; leaving the Mahdi Army alone,'
Operations are ongoing and how do you 'not' leave the muddy army alone when they are hiding among the population like the useless cowards that they are?
'Come to think of it, that's exactly why al-Sadr called the cease-fire last year'
Because he was getting his ass kicked back then as well?
'to go after the SAME criminal elements running Basra, fighting amongst themselves, and stealing the oil revenue.'
Better to have the muddy army, you know; a criminal element fighting among themselves and stealing...
'This should have been the objective in the first place '
How can you kill cowards who melt in to the population instead of fighting like men? (Not that you could answer)
'- NOT engaging al-Sadr'
Or his iranian puppet masters to be precise.
'which led to the world's seeing that al-Sadr could handily repel the Iraqi Army.'
Yes, with the brave and clever tactic of getting his men slaughtered at a rate of about 20 to 1 and then calling for a ceasefire. If the army was repelled, why are they patrolling the streets in Basra?
' In the annals of military history, that never was judged a success.'
Yet begging for a ceasefire while you hide in another country is? LOL!
'Basra was far too important for the Brits to have left in the hands of the native population; and now Britain has called off further troop withdrawals.'
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DO YOU SEE, IN THE SMALLEST OF EXAMPLES WHAT THE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES FOR A TOO EARLY AMERICAN WITHDRAWAL ARE?
(... and 'truth' would get rabies in the process. al-Sadr was ALREADY in Qom, and delegates from al-Maliki WENT TO IRAN to ask them to have al-Sadr stand down, once the violence infected Sadr city as well.)
www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/32055.html
Iranian general played key role in Iraq cease-fire
BAGHDAD — Iraqi lawmakers traveled to the Iranian holy city of Qom over the weekend to win the support of the commander of Iran's Qods brigades in persuading Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr to order his followers to stop military operations, members of the Iraqi parliament said.
Sadr ordered the halt on Sunday, and his Mahdi Army militia heeded the order in Baghdad, where the Iraqi government announced it would lift a 24-hour curfew starting early Monday in most parts of the capital.
(McCain is making the same stupid mistake - see next post)
'(al-Maliki's people (Dawa and Badr groups) went to Iran to ask for help, as al-Sadr was already there'
YES, they are his backers and he is hiding there after a string of defeats which has cut the size of his muddy army almost in half.
' Iranian officials helped broker a cease-fire agreement Sunday between Iraq's government and radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr'
Indeed, they didn't want to seethe thugs they have funded getting their asses kicked again.
'The statement issued today by (Muqtada al Sadr) is a result of the meetings,''
The one begging for a ceasefire?
'said Jalal al-Din al Saghir, a leading member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.'
There is an unbiased, completely believable source. Surely they taught you about 'Taqiyya' and 'Kitman' in the madrassah you attended that brainwashed any logic out of your skull and replaced the void it left with excrement.
thinkprogress.org/2008/04/01/mccain-sadr-facts-wrong/
Yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said he was “surprised” by violent clashes between central Iraqi government and militias connected to Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr last week in the southern Iraqi city of Basra. “Maliki decided to take on this operation without consulting the Americans,” McCain told reporters on his campaign bus.
As MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann noted last night, at the same time McCain expressed surprise about the developments in Basra, he also got basic facts wrong about the ceasefire that halted the violence on Sunday. McCain claimed that “it was Sadr who asked for the ceasefire,” not Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Malki:
Asked if the Basra campaign had backfired, he said: “Apparently it was Sadr who asked for the ceasefire, declared a ceasefire. It wasn’t Maliki. Very rarely do I see the winning side declare a ceasefire. So we’ll see.’’
McCain Gets Iraq Facts Wrong Again: Says Sadr — Not Maliki — ‘Asked’ For Ceasefire»
Yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said he was “surprised” by violent clashes between central Iraqi government and militias connected to Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr last week in the southern Iraqi city of Basra. “Maliki decided to take on this operation without consulting the Americans,” McCain told reporters on his campaign bus.
As MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann noted last night, at the same time McCain expressed surprise about the developments in Basra, he also got basic facts wrong about the ceasefire that halted the violence on Sunday. McCain claimed that “it was Sadr who asked for the ceasefire,” not Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Malki:
Asked if the Basra campaign had backfired, he said: “Apparently it was Sadr who asked for the ceasefire, declared a ceasefire. It wasn’t Maliki. Very rarely do I see the winning side declare a ceasefire. So we’ll see.’’
(video on link)
As Mother Jones’ Jonathan Stein notes today, McCain’s description of what happened is “completely misleading” and wrong. In fact, Sadr’s call for a ceasefire only came after members of Maliki’s political party traveled to Iran to broker a deal with him:
The backdrop to Sadr’s dramatic statement was a secret trip Friday by Iraqi lawmakers to Qom, Iran’s holy city and headquarters for the Iranian clergy who run the country.
There the Iraqi lawmakers held talks with Brig. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Qods (Jerusalem) brigades of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps and signed an agreement with Sadr, which formed the basis of his statement Sunday, members of parliament said.
Ali al Adeeb, a member of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s Dawa party, and Hadi al Ameri, the head of the Badr Organization, the military wing of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, had two aims, lawmakers said: to ask Sadr to stand down his militia and to ask Iranian officials to stop supplying weapons to Shiite militants in Iraq.
According to the AP, “the peace deal between al-Sadr and Iraqi government forces” not only “left the cleric’s Mahdi Army intact,” but it also left Maliki “politically battered and humbled within his own Shi’ite power base.”
This is not the first time in recent memory that McCain has gotten basic facts about Iraq wrong. Two weeks ago, he repeatedly made false claims that Iran was training al Qaeda fighters in Iraq.
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3656300.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&at tr=797093
Having vowed to crush Shia militias with a 30,000-strong force in Basra, he ended up suing for peace with the people he had described as “worse than al-Qaeda”. Al-Mahdi Army kept its weapons and turf.
Mahmoud Othman, an independent Kurdish lawmaker, said that the latest spasm of violence merely showed Iran’s huge influence in Iraq, holding enormous sway over al-Mahdi Army and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, the main Shia party in the Government, as well as its own militia, the Badr Brigades. “It’s a big victory for Iran over America and for Moqtada over Maliki,” he said. “Iran has the upper hand in Iraq. They are choosing the time to start trouble and they are choosing the time to end it.”
Mr Othman said that the meeting with the Iraqi delegation – two members of the Sadrist bloc, a member of Mr al-Ma-liki’s Dawa party and Hadi al-Ameri, the head of the Badr Brigades – had been coordinated by Brigadier-General Qassim Suleimani, the head of the Quds Brigades, the foreign operations branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. “Iran is just trying to make Maliki weak so he will accept their conditions,” Mr Othman said. “And he did accept. The United States has made a mess for the last five years, it’s very clear.”
www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/04/7824_mccain_gets_the.html
And just to be clear, contra John Mccain, Sadr got the ceasefire entirely on his terms. Iraqi lawmakers loyal to Maliki had to travel to the Iranian holy city of Qom over the weekend to talk peace with the head of Iran's nasty Quds brigades. Only then did Sadr agree to have his militias stand down. This is not a good turn of events for Maliki:
The Qom discussions may or may not bring an end to the fighting but they almost certainly have undermined Maliki - who made repeated declarations that there would be no negotiations and that he would treat as outlaws those who did not turn in their weapons for cash. The blow to his own credibility was worsened by the fact that members of his own party had helped organize the Iran initiative.
'al-Sadr was ALREADY in Qom'
Yes, hiding there and eating suckling pig. (Cannibalism?)
He has done so since the string of defeats he has suffered in Iraq, Remember?
In 2004, over the course of several 'uprisings' he lost about 2000 idiots when he took on the USA until he begged for a 'cease-fire'.
In 2005 he just ate, ate and ate.
In 2006 he had his fat cottage cheese ass spanked by the Badr brigades and the Iraqi Iraqi Army until he cried like a little she-dog for a 'cease-fire'.
In 2007 the enormous tub of pig lard who was getting money and guns from the dirty republic of Iran goot smacked around by the Iraqi police until he waddled over and begged for a 'cease-fire'.
In 2008 the enormous, playground stalking, obese turban wearing pile of excrement got about 800 of his rage monkeys killed or wounded and another 200 captured until he rolled like a sow in a sty and begged his Iranian puppet masters for a 'cease-fire'.
All this time he has not been able to hold an inch of ground. He has lost najaf. He just lost basra. Sadr city is walled off and sewerage flows down the streets. Whenever his hapless, idiotic, untrained followers come out of hiding long enough to put on their ski masks they get pounded by either the US, British or now even the Iraqi army. They were unable to keep the kuffar out of their holiest shrine. A serious humiliation which couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
At this point he is in hiding in Iran. His Iranian backed militia got spanked, again. The Iraqi army is STILL engaging them when they are not hiding like the pussies they are and patrolling the streets of Basra in control of the city.
Got the time line yet? Let me condense:
Sadr, the big fat loser keeps getting his men killed so he has abandoned his muddy army which is about half the size it was to hide in Iran where his backers are.
I can't boil it down to any simpler then that for you.
'once the violence infected Sadr city as well.)'
Sadr city is surrounded and walled off. Let them kill each other off.
By the way; 'mcclatchy' isn't a reliable source for anything. (Well, other then the lying garbage that you regurgitate here... )
'(al-Maliki's people (Dawa and Badr groups) went to Iran to ask for help, as al-Sadr was already there'
(The height of ignorance in this reply)
'YES, they are his backers and he is hiding there after a string of defeats which has cut the size of his muddy army almost in half.'
==================================================
THIS SCHMUCK DOES NOT EVEN KNOW WHO IS WHO AMONGST THE SHIA FACTIONS!!!
----------
Dawa and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council are two of the main parties in the religious-Shiite United Iraqi Alliance, which won a plurality of seats in both the provisional January 2005 Iraqi election and the longer-term December 2005 election. The party is led by Nouri al-Maliki, who is also the current Prime Minister of Iraq.
Badr Organization (previously known as Badr Brigade or Bader Corps) is the armed wing of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC). Headed by Hadi Al-Amiri it participated in the 2005 Iraqi election as part of the United Iraqi Alliance coalition. Its members have entered the new Iraqi army and police force.
THE DAWA AND BADR FACTIONS BACK AL-MALIKI, NOT AL-SADR!!!
The Mahdi Army, also known as the Mahdi Militia or Jaish al Mahdi is an Iraqi paramilitary force created by the Iraqi Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in June 2003.
(You're just some ignorant parrot plucking links from other know-nothings, so just crawl into your cave and be quiet).
'McCain gets Iraq facts wrong againApr 2nd, 2008 - 01:03:08
thinkprogress.org/2008/04/01/mccain-sadr-facts-wrong/
Yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said he was “surprised” by violent clashes between central Iraqi government and militias connected to Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr...
'
How is that getting it 'wrong'? It is surprising that shiite thugs would kill shiite thugs, they usually shoot sunnis in the back.
'As MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann noted last night,'
LOL!!!! You are a half-witted jackass quoting a half-witted jackass who is quoting a half-witted jackass! A lying, idiot propagandist circle-jerk. It is even funnier watching some of Olbermann's golden oldies to see how badly HE blows it. Something else you clowns have in common.
'McCain claimed that “it was Sadr who asked for the ceasefire,” not Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Malki:'
Maliki says it was sadr who asked for the ceasefire. So you are reposting sadrs propaganda like it were gospel? THAT is supposedly how McCain got it wrong? By not immediately believing a lying bloated fat pussy like sadr? LOL!
You stretch it until it breaks... You are just a fu*king liar, that's all.
Want to see 'getting it wrong'?
''“I don’t want to suggest I’ve absorbed all of the facts,” about the situation in Basra, Mr. Obama said. But, he continued, what he had heard “appears consistent with my general analysis. The presence of our troops and their excellence has resulted in some reduction in violence. It has not resolved the underlying tensions that exist in Iraq.”''
www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/us/politics/30campaign.html?_r=1
As if that’s not everyone’s analysis.
Neither George Bush or John McCain or David Petraeus has ever said anything to contradict Obama’s valueless declaration. They have never suggested that the surge had “resolved the underlying tensions.”
This is the all-or-nothing rhetorical game the Democrats play with Iraq. They pretend the McCain side of the debate makes outlandishly sunny claims and then they “disprove” them. They overstate non-scandalous aspects of both McCain’s Iraq plan (the hundred-year war) and our present Iraq strategy: Last Tuesday in Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton said, “President Bush seems to want to keep as many people as possible in Iraq. It’s a clear admission that the surge has failed to accomplish its goals.” Wrong and wrong. And shameful, to boot.
So, Obama admits he has not “absorbed all of the facts,” but that’s because he doesn’t need to. He just needs to spin stories of violence into the narrative of Bush’s failed miracle. However, if he bothered to “absorb” just a little more of the admittedly confusing Basra situation, he’d have to confront the conflict’s one crystalline detail: the British pulled out too soon. And there’s no way for him to spin that.
www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/greenwald/3127
So Obama hasn't absorbed all the facts... or any for that matter, he quite simply tells idiots like you what they want to hear and you eat it up like the ignorant, salivating jackals that you are.
'As Mother Jones’ Jonathan Stein notes today, McCain’'
So you get your news from:
Alternet
Mother Jones
thinkprogress
mcclatchydc
As well as Kos, commondreams, and you have even posted garbage from uruknet.info...
No wonder you are so screwed up, you consume nothing but spin and propaganda and outright lies. That may be fine for an idiot like you but it is an insult to other peoples intelligence to post this garbage as if it were fact.
Maliki is on his knees begging for the return of 50 APC's and armored vehicles taken by the Sadrists in battle. Maliki pooched the whole deal. The only winner is Sadr and the Iranians. Everything else is bullcrap.
thinkprogress.org/2008/04/01/mccain-sadr-facts-wrong/
'The backdrop to Sadr’s dramatic statement was a secret trip Friday by Iraqi lawmakers to Qom, Iran’s holy city and headquarters for the Iranian clergy who run the country. There the Iraqi lawmakers held talks with Brig. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Qods (Jerusalem) brigades of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps and signed an agreement with Sadr, which formed the basis of his statement Sunday, members of parliament said.
Ali al Adeeb, a member of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s Dawa party, and Hadi al Ameri, the head of the Badr Organization, the military wing of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, had two aims, lawmakers said: to ask Sadr to stand down his militia and to ask Iranian officials to stop supplying weapons to Shiite militants in Iraq.'
----------------
(Al-Maliki's people went to Iran to ask the commander of the QODS to speak to al-Sadr, and to convince him that al-Maliki was NOT after the Mahdi Army. On the assurance of the Iranian General, al-Sadr agreed to a standdown. al-Sadr did NOT initiate the contact! al-Maliki's people asked Suleimani to speak to al-Sadr on their behalf, because at this point al-Sadr was convinced that al-Maliki was after the Mahdi Army instead of the criminals who are NOW the targets of the Iraqi Army)
Anyone supposedly knowledgeable who thinks that the Dawa and Badr factions are aligned with al-Sadr has no business in pretending to have validity.
Talk to yourself, as no one else believes you.
'THIS SCHMUCK DOES NOT EVEN KNOW WHO IS WHO AMONGST THE SHIA FACTIONS!!!'
Firstly it is inappropriate for you to be using Yiddish phrases when you support the monsters who want to vaporize them.
Secondly, you are wrong.
Thirdly, as long as iranian backed thugs are killing each other off there isn't much reason to write, or read a dissertation on it.
Fourthly, what you posted has nothing to do with what I wrote. A habit of yours. What I wrote was:
In 2004, over the course of several 'uprisings' he lost about 2000 idiots when he took on the USA until he begged for a 'cease-fire'.
In 2005 he just ate, ate and ate.
In 2006 he had his fat cottage cheese ass spanked by the Badr brigades and the Iraqi Iraqi Army until he cried like a little she-dog for a 'cease-fire'.
In 2007 the enormous tub of pig lard who was getting money and guns from the dirty republic of Iran goot smacked around by the Iraqi police until he waddled over and begged for a 'cease-fire'.
In 2008 the enormous, playground stalking, obese turban wearing pile of excrement got about 800 of his rage monkeys killed or wounded and another 200 captured until he rolled like a sow in a sty and begged his Iranian puppet masters for a 'cease-fire'.
All this time he has not been able to hold an inch of ground. He has lost najaf. He just lost basra. Sadr city is walled off and sewerage flows down the streets. Whenever his hapless, idiotic, untrained followers come out of hiding long enough to put on their ski masks they get pounded by either the US, British or now even the Iraqi army. They were unable to keep the kuffar out of their holiest shrine. A serious humiliation which couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
At this point he is in hiding in Iran. His Iranian backed militia got spanked, again. The Iraqi army is STILL engaging them when they are not hiding like the pussies they are and patrolling the streets of Basra in control of the city.
I did not make mention of the various other shiite factions that kicked his ass or the most memorable defeats he suffered which were under the coalition, I merely pointed out that tubby usually gets his ass kicked.
'THE DAWA AND BADR FACTIONS BACK AL-MALIKI, NOT AL-SADR!!!'
Kind of my point there you smart fellow. Regardless, sadr supported Maliki as well.
'Al-Maliki's people went to Iran to ask the commander of the QODS to speak to al-Sadr, '
Lol, Why talk to he monkey when you can talk to the organ grinder. Iran has been propping up sadr for years, they never met a bunch of terrorist thugs they didn't throw money at.
But once again, according to Maliki it was sadr who asked for the cease fire and once again, anything from 'thinkprogress' is suspect of being BS. And, since we are endlessly repeating ourselves because you will not read other peoples comments, just cut and paste from leftist rags.
'On the assurance of the Iranian General, al-Sadr agreed to a standdown.'
Gee, I thought sadr was in charge of the muddy army? Why would he need assurances from the iranians? Did you ever ask yourself that you think progress regurgitating moron? Naaah.
'al-Sadr did NOT initiate the contact!'
How do you know this? It doesn't even say that in 'think progress'. That is groundless speculation on your part. Considering that fatso has begged for a ceasefire before it is not an unreasonable assumption that he called people in from Iraq to negotiate one again, knowing that it isnn't safe for him to go beg for one in person.
'because at this point al-Sadr was convinced that al-Maliki was after the Mahdi Army instead of the criminals who are NOW the targets of the Iraqi Army'
The muddy army ARE criminals and repugnant thugs who hide behind civilians. They are simply that; cowardly thugs. Every time they stand up to a real enemy other then people with their backs turned they get slaughtered.
'dum dum hereby ignored'
LOL! Be my guest, I look forward to mocking your propaganda without having to repeat myself for the benefit of someone who is too stupid to get it the first, second or third time around.
'Anyone supposedly knowledgeable who thinks that the Dawa and Badr factions are aligned with al-Sadr has no business in pretending to have validity.'
Had you bothered to actually READ WHAT I WROTE, which is STILL UP ON THE WEBSITE FOR ALL TO SEE, you will note that I NEVER MADE THAT CLAIM. Indeed, I made the OPPOSITE point which you evidentially did not understand. (BECAUSE YOU ARE A MORON!)
'Talk to yourself'
LOL! Are you asking for a 'ceasefire', you iranian coward? Run and hide then, until the next opportunity to make a fool out of yourself comes up.
Acknowledging Iran's War [Steve Schippert]
In the great game that is the largely one-sided Iranian conflict with American forces in Iraq (and the greater international psychological image of the American presence there), many factors are in play right now. And I think Richard Fernandez at The Belmont Club is on to something here.
One of the rumored frictions between Petraeus and former CENTCOM CINC 'Fox' Fallon centered around how strongly to respond to threats from Iranian sponsored groups. And Sadr's men would fall under that category. Maj Gen Paul Vallely was quoted as saying CENTCOM may not have been done all that it could to prevent Iran from endangering American troops.
“The fact is that [Central Command] had the external responsibility to protect our troops in Iraq from the outside and under Fallon they failed to do it,” said retired Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, a military analyst. “We have done nothing to protect our soldiers from external threats in Iraq.”
I said yesterday that '[i]t's not entirely up to us whether or not we are in conflict with Iran.' The Iranians have (and have had) plenty to say about that.
But for goodness sakes, don't take General David Petraeus's word for it.
Oh, no. Instead, cry out, 'O Admiral Fallon, where art thou?' That should help.
And with Admiral Fallon out at CENTCOM, Iran has lost some level of protection, if the rumored friction between him and General Petraeus is believed by the Iranians (what you and I think does not matter here). That may be driving Iran's latest move in the great game: Stoking the embers of conflict.
This strategy affords Iran two things: Engineered instability within Iraq that plays greatly to their advantage and, equally significant, the ability to prod the U.S. military into more aggressive public statements about Iranian involvement in Iraq. The Iranians are smart, and they know that a significant number of voices in America are ready, willing and able to continue painting the Bush Administration as overly aggressive and seeking a hot war with Iran.
Of course, the fact that Iran is actually prosecuting such a war through its proxies is less important than criticizing the president. And the Iranians know this. Stoking the conflict and drawing anti-Iranian words and military actions from Petraeus and the administration on the heels of Admiral Fallon's exit is a move to shape perception and position. If one looks at how 'Fox' Fallon's exit was portrayed in the U.S .media - as the loss of presumably the one sane mind between the Bush Administration and war with Iran - the tone of the media response to U.S. military action against (barely) cloaked Iranian aggression in Iraq is predictable.
For what it's worth, readers may appreciate a bit of a flashback to a 2007 analysis of the dynamic now at play: A New Course In Iraq...For Iran.
As recently as mid-August, Major General Rick Lynch said that his forces and military intelligence were tracking about 50 members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps in his area of operations, which includes the southern edge of Baghdad and some of the provincial areas to its south, including Karbala. Of the IRGC operatives known to be active in his region, Major General Lynch said, “We’ve got about 50 of those. They go back and forth. There’s a porous border.”
And just across those porous borders lie myriad Iranian terrorist training camps, teaching, arming and paying Iraqis to fight their proxy war against America and the Iraqi state, seeking instability in Iraq in the immediate and increased Iranian infiltration, influence and control in the longer term. And the better they can achieve this, the fewer of its own valuable and highly trained Quds Force operatives and terror facilitators need be put at physical risk of being killed or captured in Iraq by a new American commander [who] clearly seeks to engage without hesitation those within his Iraqi theater of operations who kill his men, Coalition forces and Iraqi civilians. Even the fearsome Iranians who never lack for threat and bluster.
So, while General Petraeus reported that Iran’s Quds Force and their Lebanese Hizballah terrorist facilitators have vacated Iraqi territory, he did not say that the Iranian threat has abated as a result nor did he say that all Iranians have left the theater. He, in fact, said just the opposite: The Iranian threat continues to grow.
That was in September, 2007. He was clearly correct.
Meanwhile, Muqtada al-Sadr is having statements read in Iraq on his behalf. It is hard for Muqi to deliver a speech in Najaf, Iraq when he is in Iran. And his written words are no doubt the product of Iranian direction. Remember, Sadr has always been little more than a slumlord from Sadr City, named for his father, who was decidedly of greater import than his son. And his Mahdi Army has always been a consortium of simple street thugs. Iran now finds them useful and trains and arms them - and directs Daddy's son to play the right part.
But how much of this matters? Any counter-move(s) by General Petraeus to react to Iranian aggression will be portrayed as a hawkish administration seeking yet another war.
It doesn't really matter much, apparently, that Iran has already found that war. Does it?
'The Najaf showdown ended in much the same way this one did: a Sadr negotiated truce.'
What a fabulously one sided narrative this is! Its amazing to see how many people blindly buy into it. 90% of this thread is well choreographed propaganda that the media has bought (or is trying to sell).
The above quote, and the 100,000 other words like it, are perfect examples.
The great and powerful sadr has negoiotiated a truce! All hail sadr!
Sadr was crushed in Najaf. He was trounced. He sued for peace and has besically laid low since then because he does not want another decisive confrontation like Najaf that cost him dearly.
Now someone please try to make the case that I am arguing that things are rosy in Iraq. My day wouldn't be complete without your sophomoric straw man arguments...
'Sadr was crushed in Najaf. He was trounced. He sued for peace and has besically laid low since then because he does not want another decisive confrontation like Najaf that cost him dearly.'
Thank you.
page: 1
SP4: Sure...they have to!Mar 31st, 2008 - 16:11:26
This is the acid test for the Iraqi government. If they fail this test, they are helpless.
Report this comment