While I don't put Sadr in the same catagory of tactician as Nasrallah in Lebanon, he can mobilize a very large number of people. This latest attempt at establishing permanent bases in Iraq has, like every thing else, blown up in Shrub's face.
Friday the 13th dropped a turd in McSame's punchbowl. $5 gas soon, the surge not working, too many people not working, Iowa under water- working up to a wild summer.
Maybe it's time for a repost of some of Steve's more trenchant thoughts on al-Sadr and what he can do?
On a side-note - Coalition casualties in Afghanistan have exceeded those in Iraq, for May.
Sigh.
Yes, four Marines dead in Afghanistan yesterday.
And what might happen to al-Sadr's new operation should Iraq ask us to leave and the Bushite Junta refuses? You can't tell me that al-Sadr or his advisers haven't been talking to Hizbollah about their tactics in defeating Israel.
the main thing to remember is the al-Sadr is not bound by any conventional thinking when it comes to tactics, or timing. his biggest strength is that he can put the word out, and all across iraq there will be thousands of armed and locally focused fighters in the street.
one of the reasons he did the melt off in basra was that for a period of four days he fought a mechanised, armored attack to a standstill which proved his point as far as the ownership of the ground and the leadership of the people. there was no need to sit still and be slaughtered by american air and artillery. the implication is that he can give the word, and by tomorrow night basra is his again.
in bagdhad he did the exact same thing to the americans. in a street fight in the slums of bagdhad he fought the americans to a standstill for four days. then, point made, they disappeared. he proved that the only way for the americans to dislodge his forces would be to obliterate the city like we did with hue. he knows well that this is an unacceptable tactic for us to take. probably this will work the same. three days of hell, then poof! disappear.
it's classic guerilla tactics from che's book. or francis marion's, or sertorius for that matter.
Minstrel Hussein, I just hope al-Sadr hasn't been studying Arminius in his spare time. We most definitely do not need another Teutoberg Forest.
Wanderer, Arminius is exactly what I think of; time and time again, when considering how overstretched US forces are all around the world. That or Sicilian vespers.
i keep wondering if there is a single american flag officer over there that has read anabasis.
xenophon got entangled with the people and politics of that exact same region and the greek mercs ended up having to bop their way home. *yes, one of my favorite bad movies "the wanderers" was based loosely on anabasis.*
i wouldn't expect them to read greek or some educated shit like that. hell, i'd even give them extra points if they read ford's the 10,000.
reading fiction is better than making shit up and calling it news.
Minstrel, I confess I had overlooked the possible March of the 10,000 fighting withdrawal. The Marines' retreat from the Chosin Reservoir (my memory's probably got that wrong) and the Czech Legion's retreat from Russia in 1918-1919 parallel that epic march.
or cortez in la noche triste.
the thing that is scariest about the place our troops are is that there is no safe escape route. from bagdhad the choices are 1. run to basra overland, one semi decent road and several hundred miles.
2. fort up, which is what we are essentially doing. forts are great fucking targets (ask anybody in the green zone).
3. run north to the kurdish region and beg the turks for safe passage out.
4. see how nice the russians feel like being today.
don't forget that even in the retreat gets to basra the iranians can close that shit off with conventional artillery.
for your weekend enjoyment (but especially for jen when she tries to figure what to do with all those fresh tomatoes)
Salsa Bandera
a norteño traditional condiment
Minstrel, one additional route (not good, either): The western highway through Anbar to Jordan.
I was glad to see Maliki up the ante about a parliamentary vote to demand that bush pull the troops out.
It's like he's sitting at the poker table with 3 aces up, and he smiles across at bush and says:
"Take a look at THIS, asshole!"
And flashes the corner of the case ace at goatboy. :o)
Whatever else Maliki is, he's not a fool. If the Iraqi parliament comes up with a majority vote to tell us to get the fuck out, it will be a HAMMER on bush, the GOP, and on McCain. And having Malika waving that potential vote around, as we head into the meat of the campaign, is NOT something that bush and the republicans want to deal with.
And it would be a blessing to Obama, since it would mean that he won't have nearly as much pressure on him to salvage something from the shitmire.
It would also be the best possible ending for bush's vanity war, or at least, our part in it.
No way to know if Maliki is just jawboning, since it's unlikely that his "government" can survive outside the green zone, but his goosing bush in the ass with it, is just the thing to do, by me. :o)
Since my wife is over there right now, might I just say:
FUCK! FUCK! FUCKITY-FUCK!
Thanks. That's all
If the Iraqi's ask us to leave, it will only be further evidence that we need to stay - at least in mccain's wounded mind. besides, there's so much remf shit cluttering up the various FOBs, with associated support people, that the "drop everything and RUN!!" plan will never be an option - unless we REALLY screw the pooch.
Tanbark:
No way to know if Maliki is just jawboning, since it's unlikely that his "government" can survive outside the green zone...
If Maliki's lips are moving, he's jawboning.
Now the awkward thing is, sometimes even a corrupt puppet jawbones the truth. Is this one of those times? Impossible to say.
But I'd rather hear something from Sadr or Sistani than that worthless sack of verbiage Maliki. Oh, right: we've already heard from Sadr. Hmmm.
I think he's jawboning, too, Stickler.
But it's EFFECTIVE jawboning, with bush and the GOP shitting green nickels, when he wags his finger at them and says:
"Simple majority vote in parliament is all it will take."
If it passes...hell, WHEN it passes, the Brits will be on the road to Kuwait a lot sooner than "next year". :o)
But the Kurds still have THEIR long-standing offer of good basing opportunities, on the table.
Of course, if we don't have the boots on the ground in Baghdad, the Green Zone instantly becomes the world's largest and most expensive pisstube training range.
Well what would you do if your country was invaded and the enemy wanted to build 58 bases in your homeland?
Minstrel, of course many of the flag officers have read Xenophon.
Since Maliki and his crew would not survive a week without the US propping him up, his staged little outburst is obviously just a bit of Kabuki theatre to help Maliki build up his anti-American street cred in Iraq. The goal is to give him enough political capital to make the final deal in early October (a more propitious timing for the current Administration considering the US political calendar). And sure, Maliki will claim to be a hero when he negotiates the US down to 37 bases instead of the 50+ the US is currently pretending to demand. Of course we would ask for the world and allow Maliki to appear to be a hero to the less cynical masses when brings us to the terms we were really after in the first place.
And Iran is fine with this because if the US ever did leave, Tehran would have to either send in their own troops to prop up Maliki or let the Sunnis recapture Shia Iraq. Since it is a hell of a lot cheaper from the Iranian point of view to let the US continue to provide the life support for Maliki, they will have no problems with this eventual deal.
Ever since the 2006 election, Bush has had but one political aim vis-à-vis Iraq; to avoid becoming the first President with an “L” (for loser) next to his name for a major war (one could argue LBJ surely deserved one). And it looks like he will succeed, if only because he has given just enough of a story line for the corporate media to hook into. A year or two after Obama is in power the revisionism will begin and everyone will be told how successful and popular the Bush Administration was.
And this eventual deal will also give important political cover to Obama to keep the troops in Iraq since this is what any Democrat would do seeing as how they have supported this war to the hilt from the get go.-- even if occasionally they spread a little anti-war ear candy to confuse the less cynical masses. People will be so happy to have Obama in power that they will look the other way when he actually never does withdraw anything mroe than a token number of troops. And after two years it will be “his” war to lose, which surely he and his supporters will try to avoid. W
Which means to war will continue and Obama will be a one-termer
Kevin, don't count on no withdrawal. Our troops are on their fifth tour with no end in site. When asked for a sixth, and nobody going in to replace them, the desertions could start in masse. We have no more money either. Obama will withdraw the troops-there's nothing in it for him to keep them there, and the Democrats will support him in the withdrawal. Any regional presence can be done through the bases we already have in Kuwait and the ships patrolling the Strait of Hormuz.
That's not what Fareed Zakaria said today with all his gravitas and his table full of knowledgeable notables.
They said the surge is working !!!!1! and that Obama had better change his plan because since the surge is working!!!1!! the US can't pull out. Of course, if al-Sadr follows through on his military initiative then we certainly can't pull out. D'oh! My head hurts.
The Bush administration seems intent on getting their only real ally in Iraq killed.
Maliki as Kerensky is once again apropos.
"...after two years it will be his war to lose."
It will be Obama's war to lose a LOT sooner than two years.
Commenting by HaloScan
