⁂Asterism - astral thinking...
I'm shocked! Shocked! That you would post this with the news coming out of Iraq today. 
I posted on this subject myself yesterday based on actual events currently happening in Iraq. (Obviously this was just a choice on my part. As your post shows, there are other ways to do it.)
Let's see:
1) Maliki sends the Iraqi Army composed of Shi'a and Sunni units against JAM in Basra.
2) After a quick thrashing, Mookie declares an unconditional cessation of JAM resistance.
3) Maliki calls for the Iraqi Army to continue operations in Basra, taking control of the oil assets.
4) Ignoring Sadr, JAM continues fighting in Sadr City.
5) The plurally sectarian Iraqi Army and the US military starts mowing down JAM in Sadr City.
6) Every major Iraqi party lines up against the Mahdi Army, threatening to banish Sadr's party.
7) Sadr offers to disband JAM if "that's what the Shi'a people want". heh heh heh
8 ) After years of sneering at Sistani, Sadr crawls on his belly to him.
But Sadr won? Really? Don't you think the Iraq bloggers and the Western reporters who declared Sadr's triumph have a coop-ful of egg on their faces? It appears to me that Nibras Kazimi is the only Iraqi blogger whose analyses are unscathed by Operation Knights Charge.
All this reminds of the Baghdadis who believed Saddam's reports that the US Army had been crushed south of Baghdad and were stunned to see it casually driving through their streets.
CMAR, Don't you find it just a little disconcerting that not one Iraqi blogger who blogs from inside Iraq (or even from near Iraq) actually agrees with your take on this whole farce? I mean read Last of Iraqis blog for a simple example.
As for Sadr crawing to Sistani - have you actually heard Sistani reply? No? That is because he cannot tell Sadr to disband the militia and Sadr knows that.
You really do not get this whole war on militias thing. Here is an article that puts it in simple terms that even an Amercian can understand 
http://exile.ru/articles/detail....97&
IBLOCK_ID=35
Don't you find it just a little disconcerting that not one Iraqi blogger who blogs from inside Iraq (or even from near Iraq)
Yes, but not in the way you meant it. Nabil (in Jordan) posted just the other day saying that he was cheering Maliki on "but it was all thrown away by the trick of the fatso leader Muqtada Al-Sadr". Where is he getting that??? The NYTimes and the BBC (not Bushie publications) have been reporting on the continuing fighting in Basrah, the arresting of police who left their posts, and Maliki's repeated affirmation that he will settle for nothing less than the disbanding of JAM.
So what is Nabil reading that is making him think "Maliki welcomes Muqtada's innocense with open arms and over that he hugs him by stopping the military actions against Al-Mahdi militias"?? It's ludicrous.
I love Iraqi bloggers, obviously, but 5 years of reading them has led me to realize the limitations of man-on-the-street observations. They an ability to look at Iraqi through a long tube. Interesting, but often weak on context. If a lot of them believe something to be factually true (not opinion) but the experts find it to be not so, the bloggers should be doubted.
NIW was despondent after Sadr unilaterally declared a cease-fire, but I don't know what she thinks now that is self-evident that it ain't so because (she says) she's not allowed to blog on operations anymore. Who else besides Eye Raki is blogging from inside Iraq?
Secular Iraqi bloggers have been painting JAM as central to everything wrong with Iraqi since early 2005. So much so that I (yes, even I) was often inclined to remind them that JAM was providing security from jihadis and Sunni insurgents. Now the Iraqi government is clearly unified against JAM (hallelujah), and (you are right) a LOT of bloggers are wetting their pants. A few bloggers like BlogIraqi actually see a nefarious plot in the destruction of JAM. He's practically become a JAM booster, as though JAM is pointing the way forward for a unified Iraq.
Is this Mookiephobia (an irrational belief in Sadr's invulnerability) or is it Maliki Delusion Syndrome (if something happens where Maliki does something good, it must be a trick)?
Your link is bad. I can't find even reach the domain. Can you provide another one?
The link is fairly dodgy. But it should be working today. I think the fact that America is not drawing down troop numbers for the forseeable future speaks volumes to the "success" of Malaki's little war.
I dont think you should put your opinion above Iraqi bloggers on this matter. Iraqis understand very well what it means to put down a militia. Saddam demonstrated a textbook version of how to do this when he destroyed the Shia uprising after Gulf War I. Anything short of a complete victory will just mean JAM comes back. They are not a standing army.
Oh, Gary Brecher's piece. Yeah, I read that.
I'm not putting my *opinion* above those of Iraqi bloggers (in this case). This is an issue of fact, not opinion. I'll use Nabil again as an extreme example. Consider how his claim that "Maliki welcomes Muqtada's innocense with open arms and over that he hugs him by stopping the military actions against Al-Mahdi militias" diverges from objective fact. Obviously, he is getting his information from somewhere in Jordan, but where? That is the really interesting question.
I agree that letting JAM get away without being officially disbanded and outlawed would be tantamount to a victory for them. But the fighting is not over, so no one can be said to have yet been victorious or defeated in that way. And JAM can never claim victory as long as the Iraqi government keeps up the fight against them.
Let me offer a different commentary on Maliki's strategy: Austin Bay (which came out about the same time as Brecher's piece)
Here are the conclusive sentences:
"The Iraqi way often appears to be indecisive, until you learn to look at its counter-insurgency methods in the frame of achieving political success, instead of the frame of American presidential elections.
In southern Iraq and east Baghdad, Sadr once again lost street face. Despite the predictable media umbrage, this translates into political deterioration.
Think of the Iraqi anti-Sadr method as a form of suffocation, a political war waged with the blessing of Ayatollah Sistani that requires daily economic and political action, persistent police efforts and occasional military thrusts."
Also, I recommend his follow up to the article two days ago.
Incidentally, most of the grumpy bloggers regarding this issue are no longer even suggesting that Maliki is letting Sadr off the hook. They are accusing Maliki of wanting to be a dictator or wanting to divide the country or God knows what else. Don't you think that bloggers denouncing the government's actions who --for the last 2 years-- have cited JAM legitimacy and influence as proof of the government's corruption and sectarianism should be forced to defensively explain WHY they do not approve of this crack-down now and what Maliki should do instead? Or how this action --which seems the most unified of any action the GoI has taken thus far-- is "dictatorial"?
"I love Iraqi bloggers, obviously, but 5 years of reading them has led me to realize the limitations of man-on-the-street observations."
CMAR is right. These bloggers deliver the truth and nothing but the truth, but not the whole truth. If there are any signs of hope in Iraq, I doubt any of these bloggers are qualified to view it.
This is quite understandable, as far as I'm concerned. Signs of hope are tenuous and distant, and I've read enough accounts of daily brutalities to know Iraqis won't see them through the glare of an explosion or a muzzle flash (if hope is there, which I don't know).
It's like looking for extrasolar planets, hidden in the glare of the stars they orbit, if they are there, and that I do not know. You need scientific methods, facts and figures and methods to theorize. Marcy and Butler are probably better suited to evaluate the situation in Iraq than anyone.
That doesn't mean I trust my opinion over that of Iraqis. I don't trust anyone's opinion, including my own. Although I do find it surprising, that for all of the mistrust Iraqis hurl at various internal and external groups or entities, I have yet to see evidence that most have developed an individual mistrust, a personal mistrust. And without that, what good is mistrust of any kind? Why can't anybody just say "I don't know", for Christ sakes? Is the situation really that simple to unravel?
..."Here is an article that puts it in simple terms that even an Amercian can understand".
What an American statement--do you live in Texas?
Commenting by HaloScan
