You can feel the utter joy coming from the writers at the NYT’s and the tabloid newspaper, Mclatchy, on their reporting of Iraq today. Joy at maybe, just maybe!, the Surge will fail and they can go back to blaming Bush. First, take a look at this doozy of a headline by Mclatchy, written by Leila Fadel and Ali al Basri:
“Battles Wrack Basra, Threatening Success of U.S. Surge.”
Please.
The Times at least put a few opposing voices into their article:
“Maliki Gives Shiite Militias 72 Hours to Halt Fighting”
But in the Times version they attempt to portray a few acts of violence in Baghdad as somehow connected to the attack in Basra. Makes for a better story you see.
This fight was a long time in coming since central-government control of the city has to be restored if the federal government is going to be successful. After the British pulled out of Basra the turf wars began between the Badr Brigades and the Sadr Mahdi Army. A gang war if you will. Sadr asked his Mahdi Army to stand down but they have refused, which is good. The sooner they are defeated the sooner its over, no way the gang can win this thing. Probably the reason Sadr told them to stand down. He understands they cannot win militarily….but thugs being thugs, they continue to fight and be killed.
Good on them.
The Sadrists can blame Maliki all they want. For a federal government to work there must be central government control. No smoke and mirrors and wink-wink baloney.
The fact of the matter is that those who hope we can leave Iraq soon should be praying that the American trained Iraqi troops perform well in this much needed operation. They succeed and we all have proof that they are one step closer to being able to defend their country by themselves.
See author page
Actually, it’s the Iraqi government that names the fighters in both Basra and Baghdad as Sadrists. US spokesmen are drawing a distinction, calling them "rogue" members unaffiliated with al-Sadr:
(Source: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/26/iraq.main/index.html )
It looks as if we (the US) are tap-dancing around the definition, so as to keep a channel open to al-Sadr.  That’s not a bad tactic–he (al-Sadr) still has influence, of course–but it does seem to contradict what the Iraqi government is saying.
I’d say that the Iraqi government is calling the attacks "connected."
This battle has nothing to do with the surge and everything to do with Iraq’s federal government taking control. If Iraq can knock down Al Qaeda and the Mahdi Army, enemies #3, #4 and #5 will have to think twice before challenging Iraq’s government. If anything it questions the surge on the other end. If Iraq can police itself, then why is the U.S. military there?Â
Fundamentally, what the two articles are saying is this: "The government wants to gain control from the murderous thugs controlling Basra and a district of Baghdad. This may be bad for peaceful coexistence with murderous thugs.".
The idiots lose all semblance of clear thinking when the possibility of America failing seems even remotely feasible to them.
We have needed this fight with Sadr’s army for a long time. As long as they laid low, we might pick off a few arms stockpiles now that we have Iraqi eyes and ears working for us, but the thugs would still by lying in wait. They are not going anywhere because they are funded by Iran. They would never cease to be a threat.
Now that they are sticking their heads up, we can surgically remove them. Great news. Let’s hope they fight to the bitter end like al Qaeda is doing, so we can get them all. They are hiding amongst a hostile population now. If they do anything but lie low, they don’t stand a chance.
The coverage is baffling. They are getting their wish… they wanted the Iraqis to step up to the plate for ages now, and control their own. Gregory is correct. This is about the Iraqi gov’t security abilities, and their ability to stand on their own.
Additionally, al Maliki is in Basra, personally overseeing the battle. Since he’s been a Sadr puppet in the past, this is a seriously good sign for his intents to hold the country together… even against his own past supporters.
The media should be rejoicing that the Iraqis are going it alone for the first time. But noooooo….. And the headline educated electorate is going to buy – hook, line and sinker – that this is about the Surge status. Unbelievable.
Since "If it bleeds it leads" controls the press, they have been pretty silent. They have turned a little paper cut into a hemorrage.
Sadr’s crew can just keep on keeping on. The more they fight, the more we take out. Please come on out of your little hidey holes.
Wow! This from Pat Dollard:
“Earlier reports have indicated that the battle that has broken out with the Mahdi Army for the last two days was an operation that Al Sadr was tacitly okay with, and was sitting on the sidelines. The reports that I’m getting from a variety of high-placed military and other sources in Bahdad and elsewhere are indicating otherwise. A decision was made a long time ago that Al Sadr would not be allowed to run a shadow government in Iraq, and the problem was further complicated by the fact that it became increasingly unclear as to which Shiite factions were true followers of Al Sadr and follwing his ceasefire, and which were really just extensions of Irans’ Revolutionary Guard. Completely frustrated with trying to wade through this very byzantine and very violent mess, Maliki and Petraeus mutually decided to launch an offensive against ALL meaningful Shiite gangs ( so-callled militias ) in Iraq and neutralize them once and for all. The great hope is that the big fat cowardly Al Sadr will sneak back in from Iran, and the cooalition forces will kill him. He does not know it, very few do, but the coalition has a price on Al Sadr’s head. They feel he must be relegted to the garbage dump of history, and the great battle has now begun. Developing”
Ah – so, this new fighting threatens the "success" of the surge? So, the MSM has now decided that the surge has been successful? Outstanding!
It’s this kind of stuff that will be the shape of Basra for quite some time now as disparate men use disparate measures:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/27/iraq/main3971693.shtmlThe Basra ports and pipelines are "guarded" by the Iraqi Army.
Missy,
Sadr fled to his Iranian masters last year when I was in Iraq. The Coalition and the Iraqi People made a big to do about "where in the world is Al Sadr" to the Iraqis who supported Sadr. He is own actions and words plus the marginalization by Iraqis in general made him appear to be an ineffectual leader at best or a pathetic loser at worse.
Weak leaders and losers fall fast in the warrior cultures of jihadists. Now Sadr will not die a martyr, but a loser and few will cry at his funeral so long as he died a pathetic loser in Iraqi eyes.
That’s really horrible news, Doug. That’ll definately be an event that will effect the economy in Iraq given all of the strains that will restrict trade as a result. The thing is, it raises questions for me.
The insurgents who are launching attacks in Iraq disagree with the direction Iraq is heading in, politically that is. Well, suppose that they were to have their way in the Iraqi government. How would they distribute oil revenues to the country? Would they give more the areas that are controlled by the people who share their sect of Islam or would they divide it fairly and share it with all of Iraq?
For some reason, I think the insurgents would be more likely to do the first one, which is give it to the places that contain more of the people who share their ideologies. Either way, the United States has a moral obligation to stay and make sure such people don’t take control of the government.Â
ChrisG,
Most of my fellow posting pals often wondered why he wasn’t taken out in the beginning because of the Iranian connections. He seemed to be nothing but an opportunistic gang leader that was allowed to cause trouble and cost lives. Sheesh, I’m talking about him in the past tense already.
This Sadr comment was included in Roggio’s write up, ought to help in that strong/weak horse thing:
"So far I did not succeed either to liberate Iraq or make it an Islamic society — whether because of my own inability or the inability of society, only God knows," Sadr wrote to his followers. "The continued presence of the occupiers, on the one hand, and the disobedience of many on the other, pushed me to isolate myself in protest. I gave society a big proportion of my life. Even my body became weaker, I got more sicknesses."
Missy,
Sadr was in a position of strength early on and killing him may have made him a "martyr". While many in the military think we should have taken him out before he gained his initial power, the post invasion "lawfar" seemed to prevent us from doing so.
Since he could not be taken out before reaching the pinnical of his power, that power had to be removed, block by block, until all that remained was a hollow shell. It is a deadly game of move-countermove played out often in the region.
First, the chief Shia cleric in Iraq belittled Sadr and marginalized him. Sadr then tried to integrate himself into Iraqi Parliment. Once integrated, he tried for a political coup and lost, marginalizing him further. He tried to regain his following but lost many to both the more aggressive elements and those who were done with fighting ( the "disobedience" he refers to).
Now Sadr’s once so-called unstoppable might is reduced to the pathetic statement you cited above.
In the end, he is a failure at every level and even his Iranian leash holders will probably abbandon him. Hopefully before fleeing Iraq, the Iranian "elite" forces will either shoot him themselves or give the Iraqis and "tip" to his location. Both outcomes have precidence and are not all that bad.
Christine in comment #6:
Every negative "setback" is always held up as if this is the "turning point" from success, and another benchmark to defeat; and another guarantor that we will ultimately fail.
When the final history is written on Basra, this latest turn of violence will look like just a comma.
Precisely.
Ryan,
By insurgents, I’m not sure whom you mean, Shia or Sunni, or both.
There are Shia in Parliament that don’t like the direction Maliki is going, and, of course, there are Sunni’s that don’t like it either.
I’m assuming you mean both. If so, there’s a rub: Sunni’s want a ‘reasonable’ portion of the revenues, while some Shia don’t want to give them to have their requested percentage (in a nutshell).
——–
Today’s Forbes:
"Heavy fighting has erupted in a bastion of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s militia in Basra as military operations against gunmen in the southern oil city entered a third day. Historically, two-thirds of Iraq’s oil output came from southern fields and flowed through Basra. In February, 1.54 mln bpd of oil shipments came from Basra, according to the oil ministry. ‘Thus far, exports from Basra have not been materially affected, but concerns regarding those exports are high and rising,’ said Dennis Gartman, editor of The Gartman Letter — a daily trading note."
———-
Concern should be high. Sadr doesn’t want to cripple the Iraqi economy, but he’s capable of it. The above pipeline bombing was probably a warning to Maliki to back off.
Actually, this has absolutely nothing to do with the surge. Basra has been the responsibility of British forces pretty much since the beginning of the war, They’ve treated it like a peace-keeping mission rather than a counterinsurgency, and they’ve drawn their troops down to the point that they can only field a few hundred men. The Shiite gangs are basically stepping into a power vacuum.
What the Basra incident shows us is what would happen if the US withdraws its troops prematurely, as the British did. Short version, we’d get something like Mogadishu in Iraq, more or less controlled by the Iranians.