Drive in Basra by Iraqi Army Makes Gains
BASRA, Iraq — Three hundred miles south of Baghdad, the oil-saturated city of Basra has been transformed by its own surge, now seven weeks old.
In a rare success, forces loyal to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki have largely quieted the city, to the initial surprise and growing delight of many inhabitants who only a month ago shuddered under deadly clashes between Iraqi troops and Shiite militias.
What makes this news even worse for those who are inclined to celebrate our failure in Iraq is the fact that the effort was largely an Iraqi affair:
In addition to the 4,000 British troops in Basra, he said, the Americans sent 800 people, including surveillance experts and around 200 transition team “advisers” embedded with Iraqi troops.
An American military spokesman in Baghdad confirmed that one American had been killed and eight wounded in the Basra operation but said the United States had not had “conventional ground forces in direct support of combat operations.”
Iraqi commanders acknowledge that the American and British support helped them wrest control of Mahdi Army strongholds like Hayyaniyah — a slum that is Basra’s equivalent of Sadr City — and other poor districts that are fertile recruiting grounds for militias.
But a majority of the military presence on the streets is Iraqi.
A similar push is now happening in Sadr City. Time will tell if this operation was as successful as the one in Basra, but fear not. While it is underway, you can read all about how badly it is going (courtesy of the New York Times).
29 comments:
Interesting post.
I certainly agree with you that the NYT frequently distorts the news. In fact, I just started a new blog to that effect.
However, when I look at the NYT's reporting of the Basra battle, I have yet to see anything that tells me that the NYT's reporting was not factual. For example, here they stated that the Government offensive had failed "for the third straight day" to dislodge the Mahdi Army.
Now, it would have been more neutral to lead with a statement that the battle was continuing and the result was still in doubt. The NYT got around to the first part of that -- but not the second -- which is further evidence of bias.
Now, as the link in your post shows, the NYT editorialized that the assault had failed. And this is a justified beef with the NYT.
I would dearly love to slam the NYT for this one, if I'm convinced I have the goods. But I'm not there yet.
It's funny how the cheerleaders constantly trying to convince people that Iraq is going well will demonize the New York Times for nearly anything that doesn't fit with that agenda, but the second they report something that isn't categorically negative they jump all over it like it's made of gold.
As I pointed out immediately after it happened, the Iraqi Army's initial, standalone effort to Basra was a disaster. The facts are clear on that. Maliki's attempt to go it alone fell on its ass, so he called on his bigger brothers to bail him out - first, the Iranians, who used their influence over Sadr to quiet Basra, then, to the British and Americans who had to use their own troops to seize the city even after the fighting died down, while the Iraqi Army strolled in behind them. They couldn't have done it without both Iranian and coalition help, but Washington wants it to look that way, and too many here are eager to swallow whole their bullshit.
That a news headline reports the obvious without explaining the underlying reasons for it - which are there for anyone to find - excites only those looking to be told what they want to hear, regardless of whether or not it's actually true.
From an earlier NYT article the pro-war crowd fawned over:
By Saturday evening, Basra was calm, but only after air and artillery strikes by American and British forces cleared the way for Iraqi troops to move into the Hayaniya district and other remaining Mahdi Army militia strongholds and begin house-to house searches, Iraqi officials said. Iraqi troops were meeting little resistance, said Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, the spokesman for the Iraqi Interior Ministry in Baghdad.
Yawn @ hawkish propaganda.
Wartime analysis by news reporting has historically been weak. This demonstrates to me that news reporting does not (At least in the past) understand many of the fundamentals of warfare.
The "Fog of war" allows you to see what you want to see more easily.
...here's Sunday's classic, from TIME, actually titled, 'Al-Sadr Wins Another Round'.
TIME
Your hyperlinking skills are about as good as your spelling, dj.
As for the article itself, while the author's opinion is quite obviously seeping through and he clearly exaggerates, most of what he asserts is factually correct. Maliki's original demand was that the Mahdi army disband entirely, and after being humiliated in the first Basra disaster, he had to go to the Iranians and then the coalition for help just to get a ceasefire agreement.
So, while al-Sadr does have to worry about Iran siding with Maliki in the future, Iran likes to play all sides, and Maliki went from an aggressive posture to a much more defensive one. The only people I see cheering him on as the victor here are the ones who've repeatedly shown that they don't understand the political situation there.
...sorry wp, but William's right, so I'll not be responding to you anymore. It's pretty much a a silly exercise, sort of like debating truthers.
We'll see.
Bias is evident in what a news outlet choses to publish.
NY Times was late in announcing the Iraqi victory against Al-Sadr because of this fact.
While it was true that some Iraqi units faced difficulty in Basrah, most other Iraqi units performed well. They managed to defeat the Mahdi Army in Hillah, Kut, Karbala, Najaf, Diwaniyah, Nasiriyah, and Amarah in a matter of days.
Last I knew Basrah was mostly quiet and about 70% fully under control of the government -plus- the Mahdi Army in Sadr City was helpless in its inept efforts to stop the barrier being erected to protect the Green Zone from indirect fire (it was also about 70% finished a week ago).
Its hard to get much more updates because once progress on the ground becomes so apparent the news stories begin to dry up. Progress is not news.
"Bias is evident in what a news outlet choses to publish."
Translation: any news outlet that doesn't pander to the pro-war right by telling them what they want to hear has a left-leaning bias.
"While it was true that some Iraqi units faced difficulty in Basrah, most other Iraqi units performed well."
Yes, the ones who didn't desert en masse or call in the British for supplies, managed to, well, not do a whole lot.
"They managed to defeat the Mahdi Army in Hillah, Kut, Karbala, Najaf, Diwaniyah, Nasiriyah, and Amarah in a matter of days."
"They" primarily being the Badr corps, which is just an extension of SCIRI and has needed coalition support for years;
"Last I knew Basrah was mostly quiet and about 70% fully under control of the government -plus- the Mahdi Army in Sadr City was helpless in its inept efforts to stop the barrier being erected to protect the Green Zone from indirect fire (it was also about 70% finished a week ago)."
A) Basra quieted down after the Iranians agreed to cut off support for the Mahdi army, what's happened since then is largely irrelevant;
B) Exact same deal with Sadr city. Iraqi police were handing their guns over to Sadr's officials until Maliki had to to go to the Iranians and settle for a ceasefire agreement with al-Sadr, just like he did in Basra.
When you have something other than long-spent talking points, come back.
The Badr Brigade did not establish its own illegal courts, it did not fight its own government, it did not kill Shia clerics, it did not attack Shia mosques, it did not blackmail people, it did not burn government buildings, it did not lob rockets at civilians, it did not kidnap innocent people from their own home or place of work, it did not force unpopular Sharia Law on a secular people… NO, THIS WAS WHAT THE MAHDI ARMY DID.
Yet, Al-Sadr in his foolishness has given his enemies everything. The Sadrists gave up their ministries and the government was thrilled.
The Badr Brigade disbanded its military wing and its members joined the security forces, where they now call the shots. They consolidated their power while the Sadrists lost theirs. Now the SIIC controls the Sadrist strongholds in Basrah and have 1/3 of Sadr City!!! (By the way, you are behind the times. The SIIC hasn’t been called the SCIRI for years.)
For a long time apologists for Al-Sadr swore that he was in Iraq. Now we know that it was a lie. He suffers in a pitiful exile in Iran. You probably believe that he fled there so his militia could disarm the Iraqi Army without his interference, sort of an extreme method of delegating authority… Ha!!!!!!! He has been there practically long enough to apply for Iranian citizenship. I hope he is enjoying his accommodations.
Good riddance…
"The Badr Brigade did not establish its own illegal courts, it did not fight its own government, it did not kill Shia clerics, it did not attack Shia mosques, it did not blackmail people, it did not burn government buildings, it did not lob rockets at civilians, it did not kidnap innocent people from their own home or place of work, it did not force unpopular Sharia Law on a secular people… NO, THIS WAS WHAT THE MAHDI ARMY DID."
Hmm, gee, spoken like a true mouthpiece for the Badr Corps. Probably because it came from one:
"It did not establish its own courts, it did not blackmail people, it did not burn the state buildings, it did not lob rockets at civilians ... it did not kidnap anybody form his house or place of work," the statement said, listing offenses that have widely been blamed on the Mahdi Army.
So, you just googled Badr Brigade and decided to copy and paste their rhetoric. Guess you weren't planning on getting caught.
Of course, it's just propaganda; the Badr organization and SCIRI have been implicated in blackmail, assassinations and the like since before the invasion began, and have been implicated in the rather mysterious deaths of Sadris and various Sunni clerics since the invasion started;
"Yet, Al-Sadr in his foolishness has given his enemies everything. The Sadrists gave up their ministries and the government was thrilled."
Which would be why al-Maliki needed to launch a military offensive against him, which was really just designed to remove his supporters from Parliament where they've been stopping him from carrying through on his agenda (also, your assertion that the Sadrists have given up control of their ministries is bullshit, unsurprisingly);
"The Badr Brigade disbanded its military wing and its members joined the security forces, where they now call the shots. They consolidated their power while the Sadrists lost theirs. Now the SIIC controls the Sadrist strongholds in Basrah and have 1/3 of Sadr City!!! (By the way, you are behind the times. The SIIC hasn’t been called the SCIRI for years.)"
A) Yes, actually, they have - the name change, which was merely an attempt to church up the title by taking the R out, occurred only last May, not "years" ago, I call them SCIRI as a force of habit;
B) Pointing out that the Badr corps was absorbed into the ISF is irrelevant, since they are still there to suit the party's agenda, and were the extent of their power what you suggest there'd be no reason for them to launch a risky and disastrous offensive against the Mahdi Army;
C) The loss of face against the Mahdi Army in Basra and Sadr city is obvious to most Iraqis, even if it's not obvious to you.
"For a long time apologists for Al-Sadr swore that he was in Iraq. Now we know that it was a lie. He suffers in a pitiful exile in Iran. You probably believe that he fled there so his militia could disarm the Iraqi Army without his interference, sort of an extreme method of delegating authority… Ha!!!!!!! He has been there practically long enough to apply for Iranian citizenship. I hope he is enjoying his accommodations."
Perhaps he's staying where Dawa and SCIRI were staying in the 80's and 90's. I'm sure they'll get another good look at it when they send more representatives there to iron out another ceasefire agreement with the oh-so beaten down al-Sadr using Iran (who is really calling the shots) as a mediator, eh?
I didnt think that the Badr statement was complete enough. They left out plenty of crimes that the Mahdi Army committed. Now that you remind me I still left out one more crime... the Mahdi Army wiped out a whole village, the village of Qawliya was leveled to the ground because the Mahdi Army hates gypsies. Thanks.
Lets look at the Badr statement and then mine…
“It (The Badr Brigade) did not establish its own courts, it did not blackmail people, it did not burn the state buildings, it did not lob rockets at civilians ... it did not kidnap anybody form his house or place of work.”
Mine is much better…
“The Badr Brigade did not establish its own illegal courts, it did not fight its own government, it did not kill Shia clerics, it did not attack Shia mosques, it did not blackmail people, it did not burn government buildings, it did not lob rockets at civilians, it did not kidnap innocent people from their own home or place of work, it did not force unpopular Sharia Law on a secular people… NO, THIS WAS WHAT THE MAHDI ARMY DID.”
I’d much rather side with our allies than be a propagandist for our Neanderthal Sadrist enemies like you are. It’s almost sad that you are grasping at straws. The Badr Brigades was just defending itself from Sadrist aggression. As soon as the Baathists were removed from power the Sadrists began killing Shia clerics and attacking Shiite mosques. They even surrounded Al-Sistani’s home and threatened him too. So under Saddam’s government Al-Sadr was a docile and cooperative, but under a democratically elected government he became a murdering monster. That speaks volumes to how bad of a traitor he is to the Iraqi people.
The difference is that the SIIC was smart and cooperated with the government and the Iraqi Shia religious establishment while Al-Sadr had delusions of grandeur. Now he is in exile in Iran.
You are correct that Al-Maliki (who by the way is not a member of the SIIC!!!) needed to this operation to carry out his agenda. This is because his agenda is the democratically elected government of Iraq, of which the Sadrists are a part. But just like Hezbollah the Sadrists tried to become a government within a government.
It appears that you object to factual information by saying that my “assertion that the Sadrists have given up control of their ministries” is false. Yet Al-Sadr ordered all of his cabinet ministers, including the Health Ministry, to quit the Iraqi government last year.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/16/military.iraq
(I love how the article states, “Mr Sadr did not appear at last week’s rally, and his current location is unknown. US officials have said he is in Iran, but the cleric’s officials insist he remains in Iraq.” They couldn't keep this lie going forever, just like their current batch of lies.)
The article that you linked is two months old. Since then the Iraqi government has wiped out the remaining Sadrist influence left over in the healthcare system.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/COL628523.htm
“…soldiers also raided the Mohammed-Bakr Hakim hospital, arresting 35 workers, including orderlies and cleaners, and forced its closure, said hospital head Dr. Yassin al-Rikabi.”
As the article that you linked stated, “Militia members frequently used ambulances to ferry around weapons instead of patients”. Not anymore.
So the Mahdi Army lost thousands of dead and captured, lost most of their territory and services and their leader is exiled. Al-Sadr rolled the dice and lost almost everything.
"Lets look at the Badr statement and then mine…
Mine is much better…"
Wrong answer. You copied and pasted Badr propaganda, thinking I wouldn't catch on to it, and sprinkled in a bit of your own sensationalism for good measure, effectively plagiarizing because you didn't want to do any real thinking for yourself.
Only a fool would plagiarize in the first place, and only a moron would make excuses after getting caught doing so.
"I’d much rather side with our allies than be a propagandist for our Neanderthal Sadrist enemies like you are""
Yes, the one actually looking for evidence is the propagandist, not the one trying to pawn off Badr statements as his own.
"It’s almost sad that you are grasping at straws."
Projection.
"The Badr Brigades was just defending itself from Sadrist aggression. As soon as the Baathists were removed from power the Sadrists began killing Shia clerics and attacking Shiite mosques."
Sources?
"They even surrounded Al-Sistani’s home and threatened him too."
Provide a source.
"So under Saddam’s government Al-Sadr was a docile and cooperative, but under a democratically elected government he became a murdering monster. That speaks volumes to how bad of a traitor he is to the Iraqi people."
A) Sadr had no Mahdi army prior to the invasion, he was just a minor cleric who was from a line of more important clerics mostly killed by Saddam. His support base grew to its current size after the invasion;
B) The reason Sadr's movement gained so much momentum is because of the CPA's failures in the early months of the war, including Bremer's dimwitted decision to shut down his newspaper;
C) Al-Sadr's initial opposition was to the CPA and the US-appointed Governing Council, and when his supporters agreed to participate in the December 2005 elections they performed very well because of Sadr's popularity with disgruntled Shia;
D) If he was such a traitorous monster and the Badr Corps were not, then he wouldn't have so much support from the Iraqis;
"The difference is that the SIIC was smart and cooperated with the government and the Iraqi Shia religious establishment while Al-Sadr had delusions of grandeur. Now he is in exile in Iran."
What delusions of grandeur? Gaining seats in parliament and preventing Maliki from getting legislation through? Sounds like he did.
"You are correct that Al-Maliki (who by the way is not a member of the SIIC!!!)"
Which I already knew - he wants to eliminate the thread posed by al-Sadr nonetheless;
"needed to this operation to carry out his agenda. This is because his agenda is the democratically elected government of Iraq, of which the Sadrists are a part. But just like Hezbollah the Sadrists tried to become a government within a government."
Umm, no, the Sadrists pose a threat to his hegemony over parliament and the rest of the government, which is why he wants them totally destroyed rather than risk them defeating the other Shia blocs in the provincial elections.
"It appears that you object to factual information by saying that my “assertion that the Sadrists have given up control of their ministries” is false. Yet Al-Sadr ordered all of his cabinet ministers, including the Health Ministry, to quit the Iraqi government last year."
The Sadrists have withdrawn multiple times to make life difficult for the central government, and so this was not "giving up control" of his ministries to Maliki but rather simply not cooperating with him;
"…soldiers also raided the Mohammed-Bakr Hakim hospital, arresting 35 workers, including orderlies and cleaners, and forced its closure, said hospital head Dr. Yassin al-Rikabi.”
As the article that you linked stated, “Militia members frequently used ambulances to ferry around weapons instead of patients”. Not anymore."
Laughable.
A) A minute ago, you claimed that Sadr no longer controlled the Health Ministry because his MPs and cabinet members withdrew from the government in 2007, yet when I present an article from March showing that that is not the case, you claim that it is merely out of date - which is it?
B) The article only states that the Iraqi army closed a hospital and detained people there (including the Iraqi police), when there have been raids and arrests as part of a "crackdown" against the health ministry since last year, including the arrests of the Deputy Minister and chief of Security (note that the article also states how ministers come and go all the time). Since that didn't reverse the situation then there is no reason to believe it will change now;
C) There is no way that the government can simply close down all of the hospitals, since they treat an enormous number of civilians, a large part of the reason why Sadr has so many supporters among them
D) The original claim that got you into this mess was that the Sadrists "handed over" control of their ministries, which continues to be utter bullshit. Even you seem to have acknowledged that.
Keep digging that hole, freedomnow - maybe you'll strike oil. Just kidding - you're only going to get stuck down there.
"So the Mahdi Army lost thousands of dead and captured, lost most of their territory and services and their leader is exiled. Al-Sadr rolled the dice and lost almost everything."
Yawn. Al-Sadr didn't roll the dice - Maliki did, by starting this mess, and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. Maliki's goal was to force the Mahdi army to dissolve altogether. That has not happened, and what gains he has made came only after he went to the Iranians and got them to force al-Sadr to accept terms of ceasefire, not surrender, and then to the Americans who gave him the military support to do what his own troops couldn't do independently.
How many of Sadr's people have died or how many hospitals the Iraqi Army closes matters only to misguided clowns like you who think the answer to Iraq's problems is to bomb the shit out of everything. The coalition could have done that long ago, but the problem is that al-Sadr is the head of an ostensibly nationalist movement supported by many Iraqis.
From an Iraqi perspective, it is obvious that Maliki tried being tough with al-Sadr and ended up getting in way over his head. Which could easily give al-Sadr yet more support.
Of course, that's all too complicated for you - you're not interested in what the Iraqis actually think - just in big explosions and context-free headlines that you can feed to your readers with your own clueless commentary no matter how far it runs afoul of the facts.
The attacks of the Sadrists started even before the CPA was created. Al-Khoei was killed on April 10, 2003 and the CPA was created on April 21st. So you cant blame the CPA for the aggression of Al-Sadr. This was when he first began to roll his dice in a bid to seize power through violence.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/59338
“In April 2003, just after the fall of the regime, club-wielding members of the Sadr Group besieged Ayatollah Sistani’s house, demanding that he leave the country and that he recognise Moqtada Sadr as a marja.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3033306.stm
You don’t even deny that Al-Sadr was docile under Saddam. But as soon as Saddam was gone he began attacking vulnerable Shia clerics… his own people!!! The guy is scum, why defend him?
It’s good that you mention the shutting down of Al-Sadr’s newspaper. Why was his newspaper shut down? For falsely claiming that the Al Qaeda suicide attacks against Shia mosques were really American missile strikes. That’s another Sadrist lie. How many more justifications for their violence will you give before you admit that the Sadrists are a blighted source of violence and thuggery?
I claimed that the Sadrists gave up their cabinet ministries. Do you deny that they did? I never denied that there were still Sadrists left in the healthcare system, which was what your link stated. The recent operations cleaned out the Sadrists from positions of influence all over Iraq. That is why Al-Sadr BEGGED for a truce. You take things out of context as a general rule. How many Sadrist cabinet ministers are there as of this time? And how many were there before they quit as I truthfully related?
"The attacks of the Sadrists started even before the CPA was created. Al-Khoei was killed on April 10, 2003 and"
Your claim was that "As soon as the Baathists were removed from power the Sadrists began killing Shia clerics and attacking Shiite mosques", as though it was some kind of campaign, yet when the organization's founder was killed four months later in a bombing they pointed the finger of blame at the Sunnis and not al-Sadr. Furthermore, you've not demonstrated how this posed an existential threat to SCIRI, who are more dominant than al-Sadr in Najaf and Karbala;
"the CPA was created on April 21st."
Which does not contradict my claim, since the Mahdi Army did not even formally exist at that time;
"So you cant blame the CPA for the aggression of Al-Sadr."
No, but I can blame them for playing into his hands and giving him the support he was looking for all along;
"This was when he first began to roll his dice in a bid to seize power through violence."
This is just childish backpedaling to cover up your own foolishness - your comment clearly referred to the latest round of violence;
"http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3033306.stm"
Interesting, but there's not much to comment on, as the article gives no details beyond what you quoted, but what is clear is that even if Sadr did order this and it was not fanatical followers acting independently, he did not succeed in coercing Sistani and in fact has made numerous gestures to him over the years (including offers to dissolve the militia if instructed, knowing that Sistani will give no such order). Essentially, he is largely beyond Sistani's control, but Sistani is far too powerful a religious figure for a minor cleric like al-Sadr to replace altogether;
"You don’t even deny that Al-Sadr was docile under Saddam."
Because that is a pointless observation to make, akin to saying that Hitler was docile during WWI;
"But as soon as Saddam was gone he began attacking vulnerable Shia clerics… his own people!!!"
You point that out as though it were his greatest crime, when in fact the mass killings of Sunni civilians following the Golden Mosque bombing in 2006 is the biggest crime Sadr and the Mahdi Army have ever committed - yet you curiously omit that. Why?
Perhaps it's because the Badr Organization, after it infiltrated the ISF, long before the Samarra mosque bombing, was doing the exact same thing:
But U.S. military advisors in Iraq say the term is apt, and the Interior Ministry's inspector general concurs that extrajudicial killings are being carried out by ministry forces.
his month, U.S. forces raided a secret Interior Ministry detention facility in southern Baghdad operated by police intelligence officials linked to the Badr Brigade, a Shiite militia that has long-standing ties to Iran and to Iraq's leading Shiite political party. Inmates compiled a handwritten list of 18 detainees at the bunker who were allegedly tortured to death while in custody. The list was authenticated by a U.S. official and given to Justice Ministry authorities for investigation. It was later provided to The Times.
---------------------------
The Badr Brigade, the military wing of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq — a member of the leading Shiite political bloc with 30 seats in parliament — was responsible for most of the Shiite death squad killings last year, the official said.
That changed in February, when Sunni Arab insurgents bombed the Shiite shrine of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, and Al Mahdi army, a militia loyal to radical anti-Western Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr, moved to the front of a rising sectarian bloodbath.
---------------------------------
The commandos are part of the Iraqi security forces that the Bush administration says will gradually replace American troops in this war. But the commandos are being blamed for a wave of kidnappings and executions around Baghdad since the spring.
One such group, the Volcano Brigade, is operating as a death squad — under the influence or control of Iraq's most potent Shiite factional militia, the Iranian-backed Badr Organization, said several Iraqi government officials and western Baghdad residents.
In the past six months, Badr has heavily infiltrated the Interior Ministry under which the commandos operate, the sources said. Badr also was accused of running the secret Interior Ministry prison raided Sunday by U.S. troops.
It goes on:
Sadr's Mahdi Army militia perpetrated many of the attacks, and Hakim's Badr Organization committed torture and other atrocities, U.S. and Iraqi officials say.
Add to that SCIRI's history of killing off officials even before the war started and their implications in the killing of Sunni Clerics and homosexuals, all of which is contrary to your copied and pasted Badr puppetry claiming that none of that ever happened, and it becomes obvious that you are the propagandist here, attempting to run rhetorical interference for clowns like SCIRI/SIIC/Badr Organization and the hamfisted coalition policies that support them.
"It’s good that you mention the shutting down of Al-Sadr’s newspaper. Why was his newspaper shut down? For falsely claiming that the Al Qaeda suicide attacks against Shia mosques were really American missile strikes. That’s another Sadrist lie"
Which is irrelevant, since the issue is not what Sadr said, but Bremer's ill-conceived plan for dealing with him;
How many more justifications for their violence will you give before you admit that the Sadrists are a blighted source of violence and thuggery?"
Except that I never claimed he wasn't, you're merely claiming that the Badr Org is not like the shit-for-brains apologist you are;
"I claimed that the Sadrists gave up their cabinet ministries. Do you deny that they did? I never denied that there were still Sadrists left in the healthcare system, which was what your link stated. The recent operations cleaned out the Sadrists from positions of influence all over Iraq. That is why Al-Sadr BEGGED for a truce"
Except that al-Sadr did NOT beg for a truce, and if he had, he would have been forced to dissolve the Mahdi army. It was Maliki who adopted the tough guy posture and then had to settle for a ceasefire. Also, I already picked apart your supposed "evidence" that al-Sadr has been totally removed from government - it suggests nothing of the sort, you merely wish that it did;
"You take things out of context as a general rule."
PKB
"How many Sadrist cabinet ministers are there as of this time? And how many were there before they quit as I truthfully related?"
Except that the context was your initial, crippled claim that al-Sadr "handed over" his ministries, which you on the one hand claim is because he withdrew his people from government in 2007, but then, when shown that he still had de facto control of the health ministry in March of this year, contradict by saying that it was only after Maliki started this latest debacle that al-Sadr was forced out of government.
Then when I explain why the evidence you presented in support of that case only shows trends that started early last year and doesn't demonstrate that the government can sustain a permanent, Sadr-free health ministry, you merely repeat your initial claim as though saying it will make it true. So, the real problem here isn't me taking things out of context, it's you not knowing what the fuck you're talking about and being too disingenuous to acknowledge it.
Let's see, freedomnow: so far, I've caught you plagiarizing Badr propaganda in lieu of a real argument, making claims that contradict one another because you're too dense to back away from either, and then accusing me of being an apologist for Muqtada al-Sadr and the Mahdi Army when it is you who are spreading lies about SCIRI/SIIC and the Badr Organization's supposedly noble record when closer examination reveals that they have nothing of the sort.
Get used to that awful feeling in the pit of your stomach, child, because it's only going to get worse.
I never claimed that the former-Badr Brigade is completely innocent. They probably killed Sunnis in the aftermath of the Golden Dome bombing. If you can find any Iraqi group with no blood on their hands then that would be a miracle.
However, the SIIC are saints compared to the Sadrists. They don’t rely on money gained through kidnapping and extortion. They don’t fight against the government. They don’t attack the mosques of their fellow Shia or clerics who don’t raise their arms against them.
Al-Khoei was a not a member of the SIIC nor did the Shrine in Najaf belong to them either. Al-Khoei and Al-Sistani were peaceful clerics and the SIIC left them alone.
I despise how Muslims cannot separate religion and state, but this is a fact of life in the Middle East. I have heard unsubstantiated claims of how the SIIC has attacked homosexuals. If this is true I despise such acts. However, the Palestinian Authority has committed such acts and they are considered to be secular by Muslim standards. The fact is that the Sadrist have imposed classic Sharia Law regulations against the public playing of music, western art, etc… while the SIIC has not. The SIIC is an Islamist party, but it is much more pragmatic and realistic than the Sadrists. When Basra was freed from their Sadrist domination the citizens were thrilled to get rid of Sharia Law.
Furthermore, the Sadrists advocate a strong central government that would implement such measures across all of Iraq. This would be tremendously unpopular with the Sunnis and Kurds (although Al-Sadr would never be able to implement such measures there, but his attempts would be disastrous).
You bring up another important point when you say that you are not sure whether or not Al-Sadr ordered the assault on Al-Sistani’s home. There is a question of how much control Al-Sadr has over his own base. It is suspicious that it is so convenient for him not to have any accountability, but no one really knows the truth. What we do know is that he inspires hatred in his followers through his media operations and the preaching of his clerics. While Hitler was a private during WWII, Al-Sadr was the recognized heir of his father, Iraq’s most prominent and respected Shia cleric. Al-Sadr has inherited the large support base of his father. He has sought to overcome his lack of clerical training with the brute use of force. This man and his movement is a danger to Iraq.
It is good that you choose to distance yourself a little bit from the Sadrists. Now that events have proved you wrong perhaps you could see that it’s foolish to continue to be such an apologist for Al-Sadr. You said;
“Except that al-Sadr did NOT beg for a truce, and if he had, he would have been forced to dissolve the Mahdi army. It was Maliki who adopted the tough guy posture and then had to settle for a ceasefire.
From CNN:
“Some 10,000 Iraqi troops fanned out in Baghdad's Sadr City on Tuesday, taking positions on main roads, rooftops and near hospitals in an attempt to establish government control in the Shiite militia enclave for the first time since Saddam Hussein's ouster.
The troops set up checkpoints on main roads, took positions on rooftops and near hospitals and began Humvee patrols. A tank was stationed about 20 yards from the main Sadr Movement office, with a checkpoint about 100 yards away.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080520/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
Al-Maliki had to settle for a lot more than a ceasefire. He got victory and Al-Sadr remains in exile.
Poet, you say that you feel like a target. Such feelings stem from the nastiness of your comments and your twisting of other people’s words. Despite this I think you are a smart person and I hope that you can see just how bad the Sadrists are. Perhaps you feel that this war is unjust and I can respect that. I hope that you can see that the Sadrists’ war is even more unjust. Please join me in celebrating their defeat and the brighter prospects for a strong and democratic Iraq that it has created.
"I never claimed that the former-Badr Brigade is completely innocent. They probably killed Sunnis in the aftermath of the Golden Dome bombing. If you can find any Iraqi group with no blood on their hands then that would be a miracle.
However, the SIIC are saints compared to the Sadrists. They don’t rely on money gained through kidnapping and extortion. They don’t fight against the government. They don’t attack the mosques of their fellow Shia or clerics who don’t raise their arms against them."
Nice try, backpedaler, but here are your words (well, not YOUR words, but what you posted:
"The Badr Brigade did not establish its own illegal courts, it did not fight its own government, it did not kill Shia clerics, it did not attack Shia mosques, it did not blackmail people, it did not burn government buildings, it did not lob rockets at civilians, it did not kidnap innocent people from their own home or place of work, it did not force unpopular Sharia Law on a secular people…"
So, from the articles I linked to alone, about half of that is obviously bullshit, since the Badr Brigade HAS killed clerics, Shia or otherwise, HAS taken innocent people from their homes and tortured and killed them, and quite possibly even singled people out based on their sexual preference.
You didn't say they were "completely innocent", but you copied and pasted their propaganda claiming that they've never done things that they have done. So, your plagiarized assertions were incorrect, though you unsurprisingly refuse to admit the error;
"I despise how Muslims cannot separate religion and state, but this is a fact of life in the Middle East."
That's because you don't understand the history of the region;
"However, the Palestinian Authority has committed such acts and they are considered to be secular by Muslim standards."
Irrelevant;
"The fact is that the Sadrist have imposed classic Sharia Law regulations against the public playing of music, western art, etc… while the SIIC has not. The SIIC is an Islamist party, but it is much more pragmatic and realistic than the Sadrists. When Basra was freed from their Sadrist domination the citizens were thrilled to get rid of Sharia Law."
Why you think any of this is news to me is puzzling; al-Sadr's movement is a radical one aimed at removing coalition forces altogether and has always had powerful religious undertones - it jives with poor and disgruntled Iraqis, whereas Da'wa and SIIC are supported by Iran, the coalition and more affluent Iraqis;
"You bring up another important point when you say that you are not sure whether or not Al-Sadr ordered the assault on Al-Sistani’s home. There is a question of how much control Al-Sadr has over his own base. It is suspicious that it is so convenient for him not to have any accountability, but no one really knows the truth. What we do know is that he inspires hatred in his followers through his media operations and the preaching of his clerics."
More useless soapboxing. It's been known for a long time that al-Sadr has been struggling to keep centralized control of his movement, which is part of the reason he agreed to the ceasefire last year;
"While Hitler was a private during WWII, Al-Sadr was the recognized heir of his father, Iraq’s most prominent and respected Shia cleric. Al-Sadr has inherited the large support base of his father."
Utter nonsense:
A) Al-Sadr wouldn't have been able to get where he is today without his father's name, largely because it gives him a default measure of respect from other Shia, but to imply that he "inherited" his father's following is absurd, especially when considering that it wasn't until after the invasion that he got it;
B) Other parties, like al-Fadhila, have absorbed much of Mohammed al-Sadr's following; they follow Ayatollah Ya'qubi and not Muqtada;
C) Al-Sadr's following exists because of his appeal to the poor and discontent, an image he acquired because of the CPA's many fumblings and his control of the Iraqi Health Ministry;
"It is good that you choose to distance yourself a little bit from the Sadrists. Now that events have proved you wrong perhaps you could see that it’s foolish to continue to be such an apologist for Al-Sadr. You said;"
I have never been an apologist for al-Sadr or the JAM. Rather, it is merely that you are a mouthpiece and an apologist for the Badr Organization. If events have proven me wrong, clearly, you haven't been following them.
"Al-Maliki had to settle for a lot more than a ceasefire. He got victory and Al-Sadr remains in exile."
Yawn, child - your article presents nothing new, and you continue to be mired in your simplistic John Wayne mentality and thus miss the point:
Using the Iranians and the Americans as a means to attack al-Sadr is not going to have the effect that Maliki wanted it to. Muqtada draws his power from Iran and the Iraqi commoners.
"Poet, you say that you feel like a target. Such feelings stem from the nastiness of your comments and your twisting of other people’s words."
No, it comes from your false accusations against me based on your own lack of understanding.
"Despite this I think you are a smart person and I hope that you can see just how bad the Sadrists are. Perhaps you feel that this war is unjust and I can respect that. I hope that you can see that the Sadrists’ war is even more unjust. Please join me in celebrating their defeat and the brighter prospects for a strong and democratic Iraq that it has created."
Double yawn. This has nothing to do with which party I support (I don't support any of them BTW), it has to do with you posting propaganda about Maliki's "glorious victory" over the JAM when:
A) It was designed to consolidate his own power in the government and give him the ability to push forth his agenda, which does not hold to the Iraqi peoples' best interests (checked Maliki's approval ratings lately?)
B) He had to go to the Iranians and Americans to do it, making him look like a supplicant;
C) Military victory does not equate to political victory. I'd think you'd have figured it out by now, but clearly, you haven't.
I care about two things: The security and the safety of the Iraqi people and their ability to manage their own affairs. That does not include them being subjects to Iranian or Coalition puppets. I do not support al-Sadr either, but the fact that he has so much support from Iraqis should tell you how good of a job the central government you're such a cheerleader for is doing.
This latest round of violence, which Maliki instigated, has led only to further meaningless bloodshed. I predict that it will only further complicate things politically, even if you keep posting casualty reports all day long. Come back in October and we'll see who was right.
The error is in your own mind, just like all your other accusations. I said Shia clerics not Sunni clerics. In any case it is not clear if Al Qaeda killed those Sunni clerics or the SIIC or maybe even the Sadrists.
The violence created by the Golden Dome bombing was horrific, but all parties were involved in it. I said kidnapping not sectarian violence and I know of no instance in which the SIIC is known for kidnapping like the Sadrists are, let alone systematic kidnapping for profit which is the domain of the Sadrists. If you are going to call me a liar then you need to cite a verifiable link.
Most of the major Shiite factions have connections to Iran. That is irrelevant. The difference is that Al Maliki and the SIIC are willing to work with us and the Sadrists are not. The Sadrists were given the opportunity to join the government despite their treasonous attack against their fellow Shiites in Najaf. They could have pursued political means to achieve their goals but instead they continued to attack their own government despite many false declarations of ceasefires.
Perhaps Al-Sadr did not authorize the independent actions of his followers, but these attacks were still committed by his own people. Whether he can control them or not they became criminal thugs and were out of control. He showed no desire to rein them in. Worse of all, he had promised to disband his militia to enter the political process. He lied. His militia was unstable any case and Al Maliki should have done this a long time ago. However, I understand that they needed to give the Sadrists a chance to join the political process. Unfortunately, they are not ready to give up their militia, their love of violence and criminal activity like kidnapping and extortion (as well as their harsh version of Sharia Law).
If you are going to call me ignorant I would ask that you fact check more carefully. Al-Sadr inherited the clerical support system of his father. You shouldn’t twist reality to meet your prejudices. You admit that Al-Sadr has relied on his father’s name, but he inherited a substantial social service organization from his father, which he expanded through violence and intimidation because the Coalition and Iraqi governments were much more lenient than Saddam’s brutal regime. So you are missing an important piece of the puzzle…
“As basic government service provision broke down during the period of sanctions in the 1990s, radical Islamic groups stepped in to fill the void(Dodge, 2004). This was especially true for Shia, who were the first to lose services from the Sunni dominated government. One of these radical Islamic social service providers was organized by the father of Muqtada al Sadr, and inherited by Sadr after his father’s assassination.
http://econ.ucsd.edu/~elib/tc.pdf
You propagandize almost solely against Al-Maliki, the U.S. and the SIIC when the Sadrists are the biggest liars and biggest threats to Iraqi security. Your partisan bias affects your judgment, just as you falsely claim about me. Contrary to your claim that all Al Maliki did was get a ceasefire, he won this battle decisively and that is a good thing for Iraq. Everyone has their own ambitions, but look at Al-Sadr’s. LOOK!!! The man is a violent thug.
It is hard for you to respect other people’s opinions, but I invite you to try. My point of view is as valid as yours. Even if you disagree with someone you can always learn something from them. If everyone came to this blog and said “right on Engram” I would never comment here. It’s too boring. Thank you for the time that you are spending to debate this issue. It would be better if you respected me as an equal, but this is the Internet and that’s the way it goes.
"The error is in your own mind, just like all your other accusations. I said Shia clerics not Sunni clerics. In any case it is not clear if Al Qaeda killed those Sunni clerics or the SIIC or maybe even the Sadrists."
You're still backpedaling?
A) It does not matter whether the clerics they killed were Sunni or Shia, Shia was merely the focus of the propaganda you plagiarized;
B) Aside from the fact that you are a propagandist, very few things are "clear", including most of what you have cited;
"The violence created by the Golden Dome bombing was horrific, but all parties were involved in it. I said kidnapping not sectarian violence and I know of no instance in which the SIIC is known for kidnapping like the Sadrists are, let alone systematic kidnapping for profit which is the domain of the Sadrists. If you are going to call me a liar then you need to cite a verifiable link."
This is just handwaving bullshit, freedomnow. Read the god damn headline from the first article:
With loyalties to banned paramilitary groups, the fighters have kidnapped, tortured and slain Sunnis, officials and witnesses say.
You got caught in a lie. You aren't weaseling your way out of it, so cut the bullshit already and admit it.
"If you are going to call me ignorant I would ask that you fact check more carefully. Al-Sadr inherited the clerical support system of his father. You shouldn’t twist reality to meet your prejudices."
You know nothing about reality, you have only your own perpetually false assertions.
"Perhaps Al-Sadr did not authorize the independent actions of his followers, but these attacks were still committed by his own people. Whether he can control them or not they became criminal thugs and were out of control. He showed no desire to rein them in. Worse of all, he had promised to disband his militia to enter the political process. He lied. His militia was unstable any case and Al Maliki should have done this a long time ago."
Except, he wanted to wait until the ISF was strong enough to do it independently rather than relying on the coalition to do it for him. As it turned out, the ISF really wasn't ready at all, and he did have to rely on the coalition, in addition to Iran.
"However, I understand that they needed to give the Sadrists a chance to join the political process. Unfortunately, they are not ready to give up their militia, their love of violence and criminal activity like kidnapping and extortion (as well as their harsh version of Sharia Law)."
Which does not negate the fact that al-Sadr enjoys a fanatical following from masses of Iraqi poor, in spite of all these things, while the government and the other Shia parties do not, making it impossible for them to simply get rid of it altogether (as they are learning now and will continue to learn);
"You admit that Al-Sadr has relied on his father’s name, but he inherited a substantial social service organization from his father, which he expanded through violence and intimidation because the Coalition and Iraqi governments were much more lenient than Saddam’s brutal regime. So you are missing an important piece of the puzzle…
“As basic government service provision broke down during the period of sanctions in the 1990s, radical Islamic groups stepped in to fill the void(Dodge, 2004). This was especially true for Shia, who were the first to lose services from the Sunni dominated government. One of these radical Islamic social service providers was organized by the father of Muqtada al Sadr, and inherited by Sadr after his father’s assassination.
Which still fails to invalidate my claim, since even if his position of influence existed before 2003, it was only after the invasion that he was able to use it to expand his following. He has not simply expanded his influence through violence, as you so naively assert, but through using clients like the Health Ministry to boost his status with poor Iraqis who are tired of the occupation and of the unresponsive central government. His father did not have such a following, so claiming that he simply inherited his father's following is absurd. Were it that simple, you would not see other parties like al-Fadhila that are loyal to Muqtada's father but not to him.
The reality is that while al-Sadr does in fact need his father's name, what he needs even more is an army of dissatisfied Iraqi commoners willing to fly his banner for him. The removal of Saddam Hussein and the string of poor policy decisions that followed gave him that.
So go ahead, freedomnow - spend another three hours googling and trying to back up your crippled argument, then come back here and pretend that you know more about this than I do.
"You propagandize almost solely against Al-Maliki, the U.S. and the SIIC when the Sadrists are the biggest liars and biggest threats to Iraqi security."
Actually, that title goes to Iran, who is holding more cards than any of the other parties listed;
"Your partisan bias affects your judgment, just as you falsely claim about me. Contrary to your claim that all Al Maliki did was get a ceasefire, he won this battle decisively and that is a good thing for Iraq."
A "decisive" win would have been one gained without reliance on Iranian and Coalition support and resulting in the dissolution of al-Sadr's movement. That was Maliki's goal; anything that doesn't satisfy either of those conditions cannot be called a "decisive" win by anyone with an ability to honestly examine the facts instead of substituting it with their own wishful thinking, which is what you are doing.
"It is hard for you to respect other people’s opinions, but I invite you to try. My point of view is as valid as yours."
Maybe it will be when you can back it up with substance and not propaganda.
"Even if you disagree with someone you can always learn something from them. If everyone came to this blog and said “right on Engram” I would never comment here. It’s too boring. Thank you for the time that you are spending to debate this issue. It would be better if you respected me as an equal, but this is the Internet and that’s the way it goes."
Please; you've been taking shots at me all along, trying to paint me as anti-American in the other thread and then accusing me of being a propagandist for Muqtada al-Sadr in this one. The only reason you are so subtle about it is that you know I won't let you get away with it.
BTW, now that I look at the original Badr statement again, it doesn't mention Shia specifically at all. Which tells me that you modified their propaganda so that you could further downplay their atrocities against the Sunnis.
Unbelievable.
If you can find one instance in which I denied that the SIIC was involved in sectarian violence I will concede the point. I don’t need to backpedal because you are just misconstruing what I said.
You call me a propagandist, but what relevance does that have because you are an anti-Bush/Maliki/SIIC propagandist. You should argue issues instead of attacking me and acting hypocritically.
I will have to apologize for being technically wrong in my assertion that the SIIC was never implicated in the kidnapping of Sunnis in regards to sectarian violence. However, your assertion that I was lying is not correct. It was a mistake and next time I will make it clear that the SIIC have never been implicated in kidnapping of their fellow Shia like the Mahdi Army was. Thank you.
This is the true nature of the Mahdi Army that cannot be said about the SIIC:
“The sectarian landscape has shifted, with Sunni extremists largely defeated in many Shiite neighborhoods, and the war has sunk into a criminality that is often blind to sect. That has led to killings and kidnappings of Shiites by the militia itself, as militia members look for new sources of income, and has turned some formerly peaceful Shiite neighborhoods upside down.
Among the people killed in the neighborhood of Topchi over the past two months was the owner of an electrical shop, a sweets seller, a rich man, three women, two local council members, and two children, aged 9 and 11.
It was a disparate group with one thing in common: All were Shiites killed by Shiites. Residents blamed the Mahdi army, which controls the neighborhood.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/11/america/mahdi.php
Your assertion that the ISF is not completely self-sufficient is true and that is why the Coalition cannot withdraw from Iraq at this time. Yet the bulk of combat was conducted by the ISF. This is a vast improvement over the Fallujah battles earlier in the war. With their recent victories the ISF is rapidly gaining confidence and increasing in numbers.
While Al-Sadr has a fanatical following among the poor and uneducated he is hugely unpopular with the affluent and educated Shia population. When Basra was freed, the true nature of his popularity was revealed when the population was thrilled to be rid of unpopular Sharia Law.
“In a rare success, forces loyal to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki have largely quieted the city, to the initial surprise and growing delight of many inhabitants who only a month ago shuddered under deadly clashes between Iraqi troops and Shiite militias.
… Government forces have now taken over Islamic militants’ headquarters and halted the death squads and “vice ‘enforcers’ ” who attacked women, Christians, musicians, alcohol sellers and anyone suspected of collaborating with Westerners.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/world/middleeast/12basra.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Is he really that popular or was it fear? This battle was about more than just Maliki’s personal ambition. The Sadrists were a serious cancer in Iraq. Now the government is firmly in control of almost all Sadrist strongholds and the attack on the Sadrists has encouraged the Sunni opposition to move closer to Maliki... The Sadrist defeat is beneficial to the country. Don’t you agree?
You say that I have been taking pot shots at you all along. How is that? There was one instance in which I responded when you used an ill mannered insult, “flag waving morons” to describe your alleged persecution for a lack of patriotism. You have an obsession with objecting to the display of our flag. Previous to that insult you raved…
“I'm not interested in your flagwaving bullshit.” Bla, bla, bla
I replied, “When someone makes a comment about "flag waving morons" and then objects to having their patriotism questioned, it reveals the utter stupidity of such fake 'poets'...
You sound like the type of person who would write a poem about how you like to burn flags and pee on them. You sure write like that.”
If you object to false patriotism it doesn’t make sense to attack people for waving the American flag. You build a case against yourself. Other than this one quote, you have nothing to base your false accusation on. The truth is that you just cant stand for anyone to disagree with you so you insult them and bully them.
"If you can find one instance in which I denied that the SIIC was involved in sectarian violence I will concede the point. I don’t need to backpedal because you are just misconstruing what I said."
You call me a propagandist, but what relevance does that have because you are an anti-Bush/Maliki/SIIC propagandist. You should argue issues instead of attacking me and acting hypocritically.
I will have to apologize for being technically wrong in my assertion that the SIIC was never implicated in the kidnapping of Sunnis in regards to sectarian violence. However, your assertion that I was lying is not correct. It was a mistake and next time I will make it clear that the SIIC have never been implicated in kidnapping of their fellow Shia like the Mahdi Army was. Thank you.
A) Considering that it was you who plagiarized Badr propaganda hoping that you wouldn't get caught and then tried to spin it afterwards, you're in no position to accuse me of being a propagandist;
B) The fact that you had to modify the propaganda to apply only to crimes against Shia implies that you were in fact aware of the BB's atrocities against the Sunnis, and that your claim about them not kidnapping civilians was, in fact, a lie;
C) Clearly, your overall goal was to sanitize the Badr Brigade rather than present an honest reflection of their record;
"This is the true nature of the Mahdi Army that cannot be said about the SIIC:"
Oh, but see, that's not what you said initially; you instead decided to waste my time by plagiarizing a Badr statement and then modifying it in an attempt to further conceal their history. You did not say "well, look, the Badr Brigade has done some pretty heinous shit in its time, but the Mahdi Army's methods and tactics are more harmful to Iraqi civilians." Only when called on your bullshit and backed into a corner will you make concessions and change your tune to something more sensible. You are quite clearly a propagandist, and your credibility on this issue is non-existent.
"Your assertion that the ISF is not completely self-sufficient is true and that is why the Coalition cannot withdraw from Iraq at this time. Yet the bulk of combat was conducted by the ISF. This is a vast improvement over the Fallujah battles earlier in the war. With their recent victories the ISF is rapidly gaining confidence and increasing in numbers."
I assume the "majority" of the combat was the failed attempt to take Basra without coalition aide; clearly, none of this could have happened without the Iran-brokered deal and coalition military assistance.
Also, in case you didn't notice, British officers who observed the first Basra debacle were reporting that an entire Iraqi Army brigade - and it stands to reason that Maliki would send those he thought he could rely on - deserted en masse and refused orders. That is not how a professional army operates.
"While Al-Sadr has a fanatical following among the poor and uneducated he is hugely unpopular with the affluent and educated Shia population."
More things that I already knew - my claim was that his popularity with the poor was too great to simply erase with military force;
"When Basra was freed, the true nature of his popularity was revealed when the population was thrilled to be rid of unpopular Sharia Law."
A) You need to learn how to hyperlink properly;
B) Basra, though only a shadow of its former self, is still a massive oil city, as your own article points out (why do you think it's such a point of contention?), so it's disingenuous to cite it as an example of some "phony" support for al-Sadr. From the article:
Iraqi commanders acknowledge that the American and British support helped them wrest control of Mahdi Army strongholds like Hayyaniyah — a slum that is Basra’s equivalent of Sadr City — and other poor districts that are fertile recruiting grounds for militias.
C) Funny how now you cite the NY Times, when before you implied that they had a left-leaning bias;
"Is he really that popular or was it fear? This battle was about more than just Maliki’s personal ambition. The Sadrists were a serious cancer in Iraq. Now the government is firmly in control of almost all Sadrist strongholds and the attack on the Sadrists has encouraged the Sunni opposition to move closer to Maliki... The Sadrist defeat is beneficial to the country. Don’t you agree?
That's a loaded question - I have already explained why I do not support Maliki, Da'wa, the SIIC or the Sadrists for that matter, and why military force is not the way to effectively with the Sadrist movement. You simply don't want to address it, just like you won't address my correct analysis of how and why Sadr's movement exists as it does;
"You say that I have been taking pot shots at you all along. How is that? There was one instance in which I responded when you used an ill mannered insult, “flag waving morons” to describe your alleged persecution for a lack of patriotism. You have an obsession with objecting to the display of our flag. Previous to that insult you raved…"
From one of your first responses to me:
"I’d much rather side with our allies than be a propagandist for our Neanderthal Sadrist enemies like you are. It’s almost sad that you are grasping at straws."
You accused me of being a propagandist, when it had already been shown that you were the one guilty of that.
Furthermore, my objection is not to display of the American flag, but it's use as both a weapon and a shield by liars and propagandists;
"If you object to false patriotism it doesn’t make sense to attack people for waving the American flag. You build a case against yourself. Other than this one quote, you have nothing to base your false accusation on. The truth is that you just cant stand for anyone to disagree with you so you insult them and bully them."
Yes, that must be it - it couldn't be that you're taking this just as seriously as you claim I am, only you're playing it safe and flying just under the radar with your nonsense so that you can play the victim.
You are just implying whatever your biased point of view desires. I have never, ever denied that the SIIC was involved in sectarian violence. Show me a quote or stop making things up.
When I corrected you about the SCIRI changing its name to SIIC you gave me a song and dance about how you already knew, but that using the old name was a force of habit. If someone said to you “yeah, I knew that already”… you would be screaming that it was the biggest scandal since Watergate. Grow up and start arguing the issues instead.
Anyways, I have proved my point a million times over… that the Sadrists are much worse than the Maliki/SIIC and we cannot work with the Sadrists, but we can work with Maliki/SIIC. You are just trying to distract from the truth.
It is also true that the Iraqi Army is clearly stronger than the Mahdi Army. They have Basra and Sadr City and the Mahdi Army doesn’t. There were 10s of thousands of Iraqi soldiers who fought well and you are fixated on 1,000 that didn’t (during the first 48 hours or so of the operation).
From the NY Times article:
“The principal factor for improvement that people in Basra cite is the deployment of 33,000 members of the Iraqi security forces after the March 24 start of operations, which allowed the government to blanket the city with checkpoints on every major intersection and highway.
Borrowing tactics from the troop increase in Baghdad, the Iraqi forces raided militia strongholds and arrested hundreds of suspects. They also seized weapons including mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and sophisticated roadside bombs that officials say were used by Iranian-backed groups responsible for much of the violence.”
So the bulk of ground forces were ISF, who stifled Mahdi Army operations, and the ceasefire by Iran amounted to a capitulation by the Iranians.
I cite the NY Times because they are links that you would accept. Otherwise I would link the WSJ, Fox News or something like that. Even the NY Times cannot deny the truth that the Sadrists suffered a serious defeat.
If military force is not the way to effectively deal with the Sadrist movement, then why did it work? The problem was that the Iraqi government should have done it sooner in order to protect their people from Sadrist violence. (And no I am not implying that only military force would work as you often stereotype me; military force must always be used in coordination with diplomacy and humanitarian aid. Military force by itself cannot work except by ruthless Communists or Islamists under some conditions.) However, political solutions by themselves don’t work against ruthless thugs like the Sadrists who started their violence without a pretext as soon as the Baathist regime was toppled. Saddam didn’t use diplomacy to keep Sadr in check.
Since you relish every opportunity to claim a Sadrist or Iranian victory and every opportunity to claim a Maliki or American defeat… it’s a fact that you advocate biased propaganda. Denying it only makes it more obvious that your bias affects your judgment.
The bottom line is that I would prefer someone like Abe Lincoln to rule Iraq, but there is no one better than Maliki or the SIIC. If you have a better alternative I’d like to hear it.
And once again, my point was that it was not wise to obsessively and crudely slam people for waving the American flag (what you call hiding behind the flag) when saying that they are accusing you of not being patriotic. It is inflammatory, hypocritical and it’s just not a smart move.
It is your style to bully people and the problem for you is that you push away or disgust people who might have been receptive to your arguments if you weren’t so nasty.
"You are just implying whatever your biased point of view desires. I have never, ever denied that the SIIC was involved in sectarian violence. Show me a quote or stop making things up."
I already did that, child, as anyone bothering to read your handwaving denial can see. You are just spinning, as usual.
"When I corrected you about the SCIRI changing its name to SIIC you gave me a song and dance about how you already knew, but that using the old name was a force of habit. If someone said to you “yeah, I knew that already”… you would be screaming that it was the biggest scandal since Watergate. Grow up and start arguing the issues instead.
Except that it is a force of habit, since that was their name up until last May (not "years ago"), and most of the events we've discussed occurred before then - either way, it does not compare to your attempt to sanitize their record with plagiarized propaganda;
"Anyways, I have proved my point a million times over… that the Sadrists are much worse than the Maliki/SIIC and we cannot work with the Sadrists, but we can work with Maliki/SIIC. You are just trying to distract from the truth."
Um, no, I've been trying to get you to fuss up to your own fuckup, which you refused to do until I had backed you into a corner. Had you been honest from the start, it wouldn't be a problem, but your attempt to bullshit your way out of it has only made you look like a discredited propagandist;
"It is also true that the Iraqi Army is clearly stronger than the Mahdi Army. They have Basra and Sadr City and the Mahdi Army doesn’t. There were 10s of thousands of Iraqi soldiers who fought well and you are fixated on 1,000 that didn’t (during the first 48 hours or so of the operation)."
What a steaming truckload of bullshit.
A) If they fought so well, why did they have to rely on American and Iranian help?
B) I am "fixated" on the fact that an entire Iraqi brigade deserted because that is not how a professional army operates - it is what a militia in uniforms does. If 1,000 American or British troops deserted, it'd be international news, yet when the ISF does it, you simply make excuses and act like it didn't happen.
Clearly, you are nothing more than a mouthpiece for Maliki/SIIC or whoever you've thrown your lot in with for the moment.
"So the bulk of ground forces were ISF, who stifled Mahdi Army operations, and the ceasefire by Iran amounted to a capitulation by the Iranians."
Now you are just making this shit up.
A) It doesn't matter if the ISF were more numerous than coalition troops, since they're obviously far less effective;
B) In case you don't remember, Maliki tried to do this all on his own, as he wanted to appear self-sufficient. He would not have needed the coalition to provide military aid or the Iranians to broker a ceasefire if he could do it alone - hence, only after his stand-alone attack on Basra failed to take the city did he do that;
C) The Iranians did not "ceasefire", as they were not the ones fighting - they brokered a deal in which they used their influence over al-Sadr to quiet his militia and give Maliki his faux victory over the JAM; calling that capitulation is merely your own wishful thinking. It's rather obvious that Maliki having to go to them in the first place and broker a deal far less fruitful than his initial goal is the real capitulation here;
"I cite the NY Times because they are links that you would accept. Otherwise I would link the WSJ, Fox News or something like that. Even the NY Times cannot deny the truth that the Sadrists suffered a serious defeat."
Translation: you cite sources as it suits your agenda to do so.
"f military force is not the way to effectively deal with the Sadrist movement, then why did it work?"
It didn't - that's just your own childish conclusion drawn from your ill-informed bang-bang-shoot-em'up mentality;
"The problem was that the Iraqi government should have done it sooner in order to protect their people from Sadrist violence. (And no I am not implying that only military force would work as you often stereotype me; military force must always be used in coordination with diplomacy and humanitarian aid. Military force by itself cannot work except by ruthless Communists or Islamists under some conditions.) However, political solutions by themselves don’t work against ruthless thugs like the Sadrists who started their violence without a pretext as soon as the Baathist regime was toppled. Saddam didn’t use diplomacy to keep Sadr in check."
A) What Saddam did isn't relevant now, because al-Sadr's present following did not exist then. Of course, I already explained to you why, but you act as though I did not as you have everything else that you can't spin;
B) Political solutions are the only way to deal with with a movement like al-Sadr's. It's not merely a question of him or the JAM (which has still not been dissolved), it's the millions of rabid followers he has among poor Iraqis - to suggest that trying to strong-arm his way into all of his strongholds will somehow gain al-Maliki their allegiance is preposterous;
"Since you relish every opportunity to claim a Sadrist or Iranian victory and every opportunity to claim a Maliki or American defeat… it’s a fact that you advocate biased propaganda. Denying it only makes it more obvious that your bias affects your judgment."
Sorry, but the number of mistakes you've made thus far put you in no position to accuse me of any such thing. I, unlike you, do not support any of the parties involved, and so I cannot be a propagandist for them - nor does correcting you on wave after wave of your childish bullshit make me one;
"And once again, my point was that it was not wise to obsessively and crudely slam people for waving the American flag (what you call hiding behind the flag) when saying that they are accusing you of not being patriotic. It is inflammatory, hypocritical and it’s just not a smart move."
As unwise as calling other people propagandists after getting caught red-handed yourself? Or not quite?
"It is your style to bully people and the problem for you is that you push away or disgust people who might have been receptive to your arguments if you weren’t so nasty."
Except that I am not here to change your mind, nor are you here to change mine. You are here because my tone rubbed you the wrong way, and now that you've been called on one lie and fallacy after another and are obviously in over your head, you still can't stand the prospect of not getting the last word against somebody like me.
You are not here to make me change my mind, you are here to abuse people to make up for your low self-esteem and intolerance of other points of view.
Anyways, since you are acting like you solved the Jack the Ripper murders or found your missing right sock I sent a couple of emails to the SIIC and Badr Organization citing my use of their public press release. I offered to delete the comment if they object. Let them decide if this is plagiary or not. You are just being silly. One minute you call me a Badrist mouthpiece, the next you say that I am violating Badrist intellectual property. They wont have any objection to my usage of their public press release that was issued by some representative who went unnamed in the AP article. As far as copyrights are concerned this is “Fair Use”, which takes care of Associated Press.
…According to your definition we could say that the British couldn’t have fought very well during WWII because they needed American and Soviet help.
You also said the following:
“If 1,000 American or British troops deserted, it'd be international news, yet when the ISF does it, you simply make excuses and act like it didn't happen.”
The problem is that all you want to do is talk about these 1,300 Iraqi Security forces (that includes police who were infiltrated by the Sadrists) who performed poorly and were promptly dismissed, but not about the other 30,000+ Iraqi troops who did most of the ground fighting and now possess most of the Sadrist strongholds.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/13/mideast/iraq.php
If you look at the big picture instead of distracting from the point, the Iraqi security forces still performed well in most of the rest of the country and they also quickly took the port in Basra which was a very important source of revenue for the Mahdi Army (another “faux” victory). But Basra was only one front of the operation, Iraq is a lot bigger than that. During the early stages of the operation the ISF independently defeated the Mahdi Army in Hillah, Kut, Karbala, Najaf, Diwaniyah, Nasiriyah, and Amarah. So 30,000 effective troops in an Iraqi-led operation cannot be dismissed lightly.
Now back in 2004 (although U.S. troops kicked the Mahdi Army out of Karbala) they weren’t able to take Sadr City. However with the ISF in the lead they took the Sadrist stronghold. That shouldn’t be ignored either.
I never said that the Iranians ceasefired, they capitulated and sold out their militia proxies. Remember when the Iraqi delegation went to Iran last month to complain about Iranian support for militias? Those efforts paid off.
Then you say that “political solutions are the only way to deal with a movement like al-Sadr's”… but Iraqi troops have not set up shop next to the Sadrist headquarters in Basra and Sadr City solely due to political solutions. And there was no way in hell that the Sunni Accordance Front would reconciliate with the Iraqi government unless Maliki fought the Mahdi Army seriously.
The Sadrists history clearly shows an incorrigible and criminal organization bent on using violence to promote its agenda… even against its own people. The combination of political and military solutions is far superior to the failed fiasco that the Iraqi government discovered when pursuing only political solutions. Even when giving political legitimacy to the Sadrists after their brutal attempt to take over Najaf from their fellow Shia, the Sadrists couldn’t give up violence.
Lets see what happens next. The Sadrists are cutoff from much of their funding. The ISF used to find that Sadrist territory was off-limits (in a similar manner that Hezbollah territory is off limits to the Lebanese government) but now fully controls almost all Sadrist strongholds. The Sunnis are happy with the amnesty law/lessening of sectarian violence/the government’s decisive action against the Sadrists. Al Qaeda only has Mosul left. …But Sadr won a ceasefire from his exile in Iran.
Cheers
"You are not here to make me change my mind, you are here to abuse people to make up for your low self-esteem and intolerance of other points of view."
No, I'm here to correct propagandists like you from polluting the internet with their bullshit.
"Anyways, since you are acting like you solved the Jack the Ripper murders or found your missing right sock I sent a couple of emails to the SIIC and Badr Organization citing my use of their public press release. I offered to delete the comment if they object. Let them decide if this is plagiary or not. You are just being silly. One minute you call me a Badrist mouthpiece, the next you say that I am violating Badrist intellectual property. They wont have any objection to my usage of their public press release that was issued by some representative who went unnamed in the AP article. As far as copyrights are concerned this is “Fair Use”, which takes care of Associated Press."
What a laughably dishonest and pointless attempt at spin. I am not interested in the legality of you trying to use Badr propaganda as your own, only the fact that your credibility evaporates as a result.
"…According to your definition we could say that the British couldn’t have fought very well during WWII because they needed American and Soviet help."
Nonsense. Considering that the British and the Soviets were in the war before we were, and it was started by the Germans, the differences between the two scenarios render a comparison between them laughable.
Had we started WWII with the objective of utterly destroying Germany for our own gain, and intended to do it entirely on our own but then had to go through the Soviets to broker a ceasefire with them and then call on the British to finish the job, then a comparison might be valid. As it stands, it's just childish rubbish.
"The problem is that all you want to do is talk about these 1,300 Iraqi Security forces (that includes police who were infiltrated by the Sadrists) who performed poorly and were promptly dismissed, but not about the other 30,000+ Iraqi troops who did most of the ground fighting and now possess most of the Sadrist strongholds."
A) You undermine your own earlier (and now abandoned like so many others) argument about the Sadrists being removed from government by claiming that they are still in the ISF (and that Maliki would use them in Basra);
B) Focusing on the fact that the supposedly professional forces you're such a cheerleader for are clearly lacking the sort of discipline that any truly professional army has is hardly unfair;
"If you look at the big picture instead of distracting from the point, the Iraqi security forces still performed well in most of the rest of the country and they also quickly took the port in Basra which was a very important source of revenue for the Mahdi Army (another “faux” victory). But Basra was only one front of the operation, Iraq is a lot bigger than that. During the early stages of the operation the ISF independently defeated the Mahdi Army in Hillah, Kut, Karbala, Najaf, Diwaniyah, Nasiriyah, and Amarah. So 30,000 effective troops in an Iraqi-led operation cannot be dismissed lightly."
That is the exact same list you cited before. Guess what? I found where you got that:
While the focus of the reporting centered on Basrah, the Iraqi security forces also combated the Mahdi Army in the Shia cities between Basrah and Baghdad. The Iraqi Army was able to secure Hillah, Kut, Karbala, Najaf, Diwaniyah, Nasiriyah, and Amarah in a matter of days after the fighting started. By March 29, the fighting in these cities largely stopped.
I also, unsurprisingly, found much of your parroted rhetoric in Roggio's typical handwaving reporting. Which just further reinforces my suspicion that you really know nothing about these topics, but instead just spend hours copying and pasting talking points off of pro-war blogs. Maybe you should go strike the band up there instead of wasting my time with nonsense.
"Now back in 2004 (although U.S. troops kicked the Mahdi Army out of Karbala) they weren’t able to take Sadr City. However with the ISF in the lead they took the Sadrist stronghold. That shouldn’t be ignored either."
Karbala is Hakim's territory, not al-Sadr's, so saying that he's been removed from there (or Najaf for that matter) isn't saying much.
Oh, and the idea that the ISF can forcibly take Sadr City but the US couldn't have had it really wanted to is laughable beyond belief.
"I never said that the Iranians ceasefired, they capitulated and sold out their militia proxies. Remember when the Iraqi delegation went to Iran last month to complain about Iranian support for militias? Those efforts paid off."
That is just your own wishful thinking, like everything else. Maliki is in no position to dictate terms to Iran. Quite the opposite is true, in fact, but if you have any real evidence to support your claim, then by all means, present it.
Of course, there's really no need; your argument isn't even consistent with itself. If Maliki were in a position to dictate terms, he wouldn't be allowing them to fund the JAM to begin with, and he wouldn't have settled for a ceasefire instead of the terms he originally set out for. So, your logic falls on its ass, once again.
"Then you say that “political solutions are the only way to deal with a movement like al-Sadr's”… but Iraqi troops have not set up shop next to the Sadrist headquarters in Basra and Sadr City solely due to political solutions. And there was no way in hell that the Sunni Accordance Front would reconciliate with the Iraqi government unless Maliki fought the Mahdi Army seriously."
A) The ISF is in Sadr City because Maliki (and Washington) believes this is the way to deal with Sadr, not because it will actually work;
B) Reconciliation can't possibly occur until Sadr's presence in government is gone. So, unless Maliki somehow manages to destroy al-Sadr's following, how can he do that without making his government totally illegitimate in the process? Do you know?
"The Sadrists history clearly shows an incorrigible and criminal organization bent on using violence to promote its agenda… even against its own people. The combination of political and military solutions is far superior to the failed fiasco that the Iraqi government discovered when pursuing only political solutions. Even when giving political legitimacy to the Sadrists after their brutal attempt to take over Najaf from their fellow Shia, the Sadrists couldn’t give up violence."
I am not interested in defending al-Sadr or the JAM's history nor in making it the focus of discussion. If your only purpose is to tell me what I already know about them and spew propaganda about the Badr Organization, you should take your show somewhere else.
"Lets see what happens next. The Sadrists are cutoff from much of their funding. The ISF used to find that Sadrist territory was off-limits (in a similar manner that Hezbollah territory is off limits to the Lebanese government) but now fully controls almost all Sadrist strongholds. The Sunnis are happy with the amnesty law/lessening of sectarian violence/the government’s decisive action against the Sadrists. Al Qaeda only has Mosul left. …But Sadr won a ceasefire from his exile in Iran."
All of that comes back to Maliki attempting to consolidate his power in the government and whether or not Iran will allow that. I see no reason to believe that they'll give up their ability to keep Iraq chaotic and non-threatening to them; al-Sadr is vital to them in that respect. I imagine that they are expecting the court of opinion and hindsight to present al-Sadr as some kind of survivor and strengthen his image with the Iraqi poor even further - that would be a huge problem for Maliki.
Wait and see, indeed. I am more than ready to do that.
The Sadrists have been an unnecessary force of instability in Iraq. Just like police need to fight organized crime, the Iraqi government has to fight back against the Sadrists.
If Sadrists don’t commit violence then they should be left alone. If they do commit violence they should be killed or arrested. The same goes for former-Baathists, Kurds, Badrists, Turkmen or whoever.
Reconciliation is important, but you cant reconcile with an enemy who believes that it is more profitable to use violence.
The Iraqi government recently passed legislation to reconcile with low-level Baathists and have been giving (or are about to give) amnesty to many Sunni insurgents that they have in custody. The Sadrists objected to these measures. Ironically they already had their own chance for reconciliation after their attacks against their fellow Shia in Karbala and Najaf when the Sadrists were admitted into the government.
Their hypocrisy notwithstanding, they clearly overextended their hand and have suffered a serious defeat.
Professor, sorry for the belated followup question, but I wanted to find a relevant post for the question, since it is one about which you have a pretty well reasoned opinion.
What do you think of the following post at The Long War Journal?
I mostly agree that he was mostly operating within the constraints of retaliating against the Sunni (al Qaeda) aggression against Shias. I think JAM is Hezbollah in Iraq and a major stick for Iranian influence. Lebanon is not doing well with that right now...
Have you changed your opinion about al Sadr? Or evolved it?
Post a Comment