Dear Zeyad,
I was going to post a comment along these same lines, but I see that you did it first!
@ Zeyad.
You are confirmed as the most politically savvy Iraqi blogger.
And it is incredible the way this poor American public (see the warmongers posting at Iraqi blogs) is kept in a cloud of grotesque disinformation: the poor gullible beings believe that the Iranian interests are represented by Muqtada and his movement, not (like it is actually the case) by their rivals and now enemies, the SIIC/Badr and the several Da'wa parties !
What is happening (the defence of the US-Iranian condominium over Iraq by the US military and the Bush Admin) confirms that the fears of my friend Bruno about an American attack against Iran are misplaced ...
Poor Iraq !
Poor Iraqis !
This report, on the other hand, is so surreal. It looks like there is no limit to the gullibility of the invasionists. This Roggio guy has it completely backwards. I mean, seriously, if those Americans believe Iran is backing Muqtada then why do they think Maliki and Hakim gave Ahmedinajad a king's welcome in Iraq a couple of weeks ago?
Sadr's Mahdi Army has been formed by Iran's Qods Force along the lines of Lebanese Hezbollah. Imad Mugniyah, the senior Hezbollah military commander who was killed in Syria in February, was among those behind the formation and training of the Mahdi Army.
What about the Badr Brigade that forms the background of the "Iraqi security forces"? Who do you think formed them and trained them? Where does Hakim (Badr's leader) go for vacations? No one denies that Iran has certainly used some elements of the Mahdi army to its advantage (mainly to attack US and British troops in the south), but they have much more interest in wiping out Sadr in order to form the friendly Shi'i Hakim statelet in the south (which Sadr vehemently opposes). The US has the same goal as Iran, from the way it looks.
From Cole's blog:
Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that members of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI, formerly SCIRI, led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim); the Da'wa Party led by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki; and the Badr Corps paramilitary of ISCI have fled their HQs in Basra and Kut, because of the threat that they will be stormed by Mahdi Army militiamen [seeking revenge for the current offensive], In fact, some such buildings already have been attacked.
1. Cheney meets with al Maliki.
2. Resolution for provincial elections finally moves through the council.
3. The al Maliki / shia' coalition moves against the Sadrists with US support.
Am I crazy or is this move against Sadr all about ensuring that ISCI and Da'wa win those elections and consolidate power?
A very good comment from NIW's blog:
Anonymous said...
Hi again NIW, Glad to hear that you're well. I was a bit worried hearing about the mortar attacks which are becoming more frequent. Make sure you take good care, it's no joke as I am sure you know that.
As for the latest show down between the Army and Mahdi Army, I think it's a sign that Maliki has decided to take the side of Al Hakeem having realized that Al Hakeem is the safer bet. This is a war to clear the decks for the planned and anticipated "Southern Province" in Iraq. Moti has been strongly against it cause it's simply against his interests at the moment. Al Hakeem on the other hand has been planning and preaching for the Southern Province for quite some time with the help and support of Iran and I'm sure he's quite happy to see things moving to the next phase especially when somebody else is doing the dirty work for him (The Iraqi National Army!). This would be another serious step towards dividing Iraq and believe me, Iraqis, the real Iraqis, the ordinary Iraqis will be the last to benefit from and the first to pay for it. This is the best case scenario for Iran and on the other hand the US is scrambling to get out so they don't give a rat's a$$ about Iraqis. I can't see any good coming from this. It's a power struggle and the government has taken Badr Brigade's side. If Hakeem gets what he wants, then prepare for a carbon copy of Iran to be established in Iraq and that would be a tragic loss for me at least.
I would also like to let out some steam here and please do remember I’m also an Iraq who happens to be living abroad. Now back to the point, we Iraqis always tend to blame the US and Coalition forces for anything that goes wrong in our country and we always seem to fail to recognize that we as Iraqis are partially to blame for it as well. Otherwise, you would not see a government and a parliament who literally could not care less about the interests of their home country or the people who elected them! I sometimes ask myself, how comes that we have such a bunch of traitors controlling the country? it can't be a coincidence? Can it? I know that most Iraqis are good human beings who just want to live their lives in peace but it was Iraqis who elected this bunch and gave them the power that they have, right? and the elected government have done absolutely nothing to make people's lives better. You know why? Because they can? and because they know that the same tricks that was pulled off last time will work next time and I'm sure you'll find that the majority of the parliament and government will stay after the next elections (they may just shuffle the chairs, like Saddam's days! Well, we have an example already Solagh the butcher).
Bottom line is, if the average Joe Iraqis keep on voting for one political party or the other just because God (or one of his so called Caliphs on earth in any packaging they come with!) said so, then good luck for them! Most of the political parties in Iraq are playing on the religion/sect chord because Iraqis are ignorant and naïve to believe in them. Unfortunately, seeing what’s going on now in Iraq, I don’t think things have changed and comes the next election, the same tricks will be played and the Iraqis will vote the same way they did last time and we can kiss Iraq goodbye for a long time.
Finally, please remember that the interest of Iraq and the US will not necessarily coincide. In fact, they rarely do. They are working to make sure that their interests are served in Iraq and the region and, I have to say, since 2003 they have had more misses than hits considering the fact that they presented Iraq on a gold plate to Iran and they are trying to run away now but that won’t change the fact that we Iraqis should stand up for ourselves.
I’m sure that many Iraqis will not be in agreement with what I just said but that is what I believe and if you disagree, that’s fine, we can talk about it but may not now as I have to go.
right now the US is helping Iran split up Iraq - but that will change - the overall goal, I believe, is to have the Arabs fighting the Iranians in a massive war.... then, the US will back the Arabs, just like they are now backing and arming the Sunni Arabs in Iraq.
It is a big game of "let's you and him fight". The overall goal is to make everyone else so weak that the US can control the area and the oil.
The US has a long history of arming, training and funding our future enemies..... like bin Laden and Saddam. The political elites over here just love their wars - it's like a sporting event to them, that they and their children never have to suffer from.
It is all very sick.
More info on what is happening daily in Iraq at Iraq Today blog:
http://warnewstoday.blogspot.com
pictures:
http://facesofgrief.blogspot.com
An Italian ate my hamster!
Imagine how confusing this must be for the next war president elect John McCain.
His advisors are going to require weeks to try and explain to him who these rival Shi'ite factions are and which one might, in the end, feel less inclined to kill Americans. Or could it possibly be that they share an equal hatred of the occupier.
And then, surely, if Iran's best interests are being served, that couldn't be in the best interests of America as well, could it?
Just after he had figured out why the Sunnis hated Americans, now he's going to have to wade through all this other civil strife. Not an invasionist's dream, Iraq, is it? Nor an easy press conference for the next mentally impaired president who wants to carry on with the good fight?
Iraq is much the same as Afghanistan in the sense that foreign occupations are never truely embraced to any large extent! Foot patrols will remain lethal and a constant for Americans for years to come as will Iraqi civilian deaths.
The helpful American bombing in Basra, trying to rid the city of criminal Sadrist elements has killed dozens of civilians in the last few days alone!
John the Ba'athist:
You are correct! It's just too confusing to attempt to sort out all these Muslim vermin.
There is an old American rule of thumb that could be useful here: Kill them all and let God sort them out.
Alternatively, we could throw them into pits full of boiling excrement and see which ones float. We used a test like that quite effectively a while back. (I believe that most Canadians failed the test.)
The analogy to Vietnamization is interesting, and in many regards parallel to whats going on now in Iraq. Both the much ballyhooed, but disappearing Iraqi army insurgent sweep of Mosul and now the sweep of Basra recall the incursions into Cambodia and Laos by the ARVN (with U.S.assistance) that were largely conceived of as PR campaigns. Designed as demonstration models to showcase Nixons program of turning over the war to the Vietnamese, for the purposes of showing the progress of ARVN military development (and competence) politically, that was suppose to intimidate the VC and NVA. It also allowed Nixon to to claim steps were being taken to wind down the war as so promised in the last election. And he began to withdraw large numbers of troops, both out of combat rolls and out of country.
The problem was that both ARVN operations into Cam&Laos turned out to be minor disasters, that if they demonstrated anything, it was the means and manner of the incompetence of the ARVN. Not the least of which turned out to be the enormous gulf in commitment and motivation compared to especially the NVA.
And what I suspect is also (motivation & commitment) the great failing of the current Army fielded by the Maliki government. Because unlike SVietnam, the Maliki government has virtually no political currency within the population. And therefore, the army. Even compared to Thieu, Maliki is on very thin ice, with many armed men within his military who are if not unmotivated, are alternately motivated, against his rule. Every time he announces one of these showcase operations to (please the occupier) he demonstrates the
exact geography of his weakness.
Yes. The US is fighting Iran's war. Of course the Bush admin is frothing at the mouth for Iran to make a provocative move... As Iraq falls apart and the US sinks deeper into the sand and into debt the world waits.
News:
"A US airstrike has killed five Iraqi civilians including a judge in the northern town of Tikrit."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4452862a12.html
Latest massacre by America?
http://www.aswataliraq.info/look...e=2&
NrSection=1
So sad:
"The U.S. military says two American soldiers have been killed by small-arms fire in separate attacks in Baghdad."
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2...-
Casualties.php
Soldier Suicides: veterans are killing themselves in record numbers
http://articles.citypages.com/20...ing-themselves/
OH NO, THE ANTI-INVASION PEOPLE WERE RIGHT AFTER ALL:
"This week the United States suffered its 4,000th military death in Iraq. That number will surely increase, as violence is now exploding across the country. Iraqi forces are clashing with the powerful Shiite militia of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. As if to offer denial in the face of disaster -- and commit the U.S. to losing many more soldiers and Marines -- the Bush administration has begun negotiations with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for years, even decades, after President George W. Bush leaves office."
http://www.washingtonindependent...ring-
permanence
Speculation about US - Iran deal on Iraq:
http://www.roadstoiraq.com/2008/...isit-to-israel/
In other important Iraq news, it appears that Maliki's ISF are being less than successful against the Madhi Army:
Maliki ordered out of Basra by Sadr:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...26/
wiraq326.xml
"Maliki’s government busy trying to save face by issuing a dead line for Mahdi fighters, but the reality is another way around it is Al-Sadr asks AL-Maliki to leave the city, Maliki was saved by the American helicopters when the fighters surrounded his resident in Basra, Al-Qabas reported"
http://www.roadstoiraq.com/2008/...basra-campaign/
So much for the great "ISF". Methinks plan B will be put into operation now - ceaseless airstrikes by US and UK aircraft:
"An assault by [30] thousands of Iraqi soldiers and police officers to regain control of the southern port city of Basra stalled Wednesday as Shiite militiamen in the Mahdi Army fought daylong hit-and-run battles and refused to withdraw from the neighborhoods that form their base of power there."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/2...all&
oref=slogin
Sadr City: "Shiite militiamen are everywhere. Police and Iraqi army checkpoints are nowhere in sight. U.S. soldiers are keeping their distance.[...] "We are now better organized, have better weapons, command centers, and easy access to logistical and financial support," added the commander, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the media."
http://www.boston.com/news/world...s_in_sadr_city/
and
http://media.www.dailyillini.com...q-
3286208.shtml
Divide, divide, divide and rule:
"The gun battles between soldiers and militiamen, who are all Shia Muslims, show that Iraq's majority Shia community – which replaced Saddam Hussein's Sunni regime – is splitting apart for the first time."
http://www.independent.co.uk/new...hia-
801214.html
Zeyad, if you read this, thank you very much for this latest and interesting post by yourself.
Yay, new thread. The last one was getting a bit tangled!
Will PeteS be nicer to me in this one?
What if I promise not to sneer?
Think I'll hold off for a while on speculating on this latest development in Iraq - still trying to figure out who, if anyone, are the good guys here.
Meanwhile, just for fun, here's another amusing bit from my favorite travel blog - American kid in NZ working in fruit-picking gangs to finance his travels. Seems a pretty casual sort of dude.
http://www.travelblog.org/Oceani...log-
259892.html
"I have a couple thoughts on being an American in a foreign country. I think New Zealand may be a little different than other countries because they are SO laid back..." Then he goes on about foreigners simplistic ideas about religion, guns etc in the US, and ends up: "After these topics are covered, the conversation usually rotates back to politics and Iraq. It is amazing how much more aware of the world around them these people are than Americans. I swear, Kiwis know more about American politics than Americans do, and that is pretty depressing. Also, if you think Bush is unpopular in America, it isn't even close to over here. NOT EVEN CLOSE. Every person I have met, from every country in the world, hates him. They yell at me about how stupid he is, and I say "hey, preaching to the choir here", which is a religious reference they don't usually get. It is literally unbelievable how much they despise him. And the ones that understand also hate McCain. It is refreshing, however, to realize that these people don't judge you just because you are an American. They understand, I think, that Americans aren't their government, and I will respect the entire country of New Zealand for that. Also, as an American, because of the scrutiny our government is so severe, you feel a certain pressure to represent the US well. I am usually overly nice to everyone and always polite to show how nice of people Americans are. It's weird, and I don't know if I explained it well."
I think you have.
Wonder how RhusLancia would make out?
Raed on Alternet: 5 things you need to know about the latest violence in Iraq:
"It's a relatively straightforward story: Iraq is ablaze today as a result of an attempt to impose Colombian-style democracy on the unstable country: Maliki's goal, shared by the like-minded allies among the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish communities that dominate his administration, and with at least tacit U.S. approval, is to kill off the opposition and then hold a vote.
To better understand the nature of this latest round of conflict, here are five things one needs to know about what's taking place across Iraq."
http://www.alternet.org/waronira...q/80580/?
page=1
[johninnz] "What if I promise not to sneer?"
No more sneery assholery? Surely PeteS deserves at least a minimum dose for the "coffin" joke we were subjected to? 
[johninnz] "Wonder how RhusLancia would make out?"
Very well, I suspect. He'd tell the blokes with the bulldog-in-the-helmet tattoos straight off what he thought of them and how he, as the self-appointed Yank Enforcer-in-Chief, would straighten them out.
Yeah, that'll larn 'em.
Maliki's offensive hits a snag:
"Khaldoon Faisal, a 35-year-old taxi driver in Basra's Jamhoriyah area, said the Mahdi Army was putting up fierce resistance with grenades, bombs, mortar shelling and sniper fire.
"My neighborhood now is under the control of the Mahdi Army," Faisal said. He said Iraqi armored vehicles were in the main street but that "they cannot go deep into the neighborhood."
Police Lt. Col. Ali Sabri said the Mahdi army was surrounding a police training center in northern Basra but that "fierce fighting is taking place and police are defending the site."
Essam Abbas, a 31-year-old barber in western Basra, said "the Mahdi Army controls an Iraqi army base in the area because Iraqi troops fled the scene, leaving their vehicles and weapons."
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2...Iraq.php?
page=1
Ah, the return of Bruno Spamalot.
Wonderful.
And some people wonder why this comments page sucks?
*
@ Jeffrey -- New York, 03.27.08 - 12:19 pm.
Caro topaccio di fogna mentecatto,
the thing that most sucks (& stinks) in here is you (plus your associates).
Oh cowardly imbecile, some drivel on Bruno ( ) but no comment whatsoever on Zeyad's post, and on what is happening in Basra and most of Iraq ?
Fuck off, ye worthless King Troll and King Rat !
@ All.
Look, good people !
I wrote above, referring to our four-handed fwiends, the Ahmehwican warmongers: "the poor gullible beings believe that the Iranian interests are represented by Muqtada and his movement, not (like it is actually the case) by their rivals and now enemies, the SIIC/Badr and the several Da'wa parties".
Now, somebody could have thought: 'This eeeevil Eye-talian, bein' anti-Ahmehwican !'.
But instead, just after I had written it, look what happened at '24 Steps':
"David,
The Mahdi Army and Al-Sadr are very much connected to Iran.
Here is an overview of what is currently happening and some good background information.
Lynnette In Minnesota, 11:45 AM".
Truly, in the waters of Minnesota, some essential salts must be missing ...
!!!
Zeyad, should JAM and al-Sadr be left alone in Baghdad and the south?
_
Marcus, Jarn, any other non-rabid 'antiwar' folks: if we were not in Iraq, do you think the 'antiwar' movement would be more active against Afghanistan? Oftentimes they say they oppose US policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, but Iraq is clearly the focus. If Iraq went away, would they go away too, or would they just go elsewhere?
_
An Italian, Bruno, John the Ba'athist, Um Ayad, etc.: what do you think of this guy:
http://www.spiegel.de/
internatio...,543768,00.html
??
_
Too much Bullshit here,
no one has mentioned the Alliance between Chalabi and Muqtada al Sadr.
I love the smell of burning Shiites in the morning.
Hi sellout Layla! Do you think said Alliance is Chalabi's way to muscle into the gov't? How can there be an alliance, though, if Chalabi is an Iranian stooge and al-Sadr is not?
_
Italiano,
The funny part for me is that Zeyad's is the only comments page you're allowed on. So you're right at home in this brackish backwater. Your foul-mouthed idiocy complements Bruno's Spamalots just fine. Now if Layla the Psychoba'ath becomes a regular then the asylum will be full.
Bruno, Italiano, and Layla the Psychoba'ath all in bed together.
*shudder*
*
Zeyad,
Nice to see some new (er...sober) keystrokes from you.
I am beginning to think that there is no one in Iraq who is not underhandedly working with the Iranians. *sigh*
Seriously, though, I don't know how this will end. But I think you know that the area around Basra has had problems for quite some time and that there are elements in the Mahdi Army that are engaged in criminal activity in other areas of Iraq. You've talked about it enough. Would you prefer their hold to be cemented? I know you don't like Dawa and ISCI, but what realistic choice does Iraq have? They are part of the government.
I'll have to come back to read the rest of the comments section, but I did read one:
An Italian,
*sniff* Well, it's about time. I was feeling forgotten, forsaken and forlorn. You hadn't copied a comment of mine in sooo long.
If it brings you joy to assume that our guys on the ground don't know anything about what is going on, fine. But they might really have some idea of where munitions are coming from and going to, as they are intimately involved in the receiving end of those weapons.
Btw, have you read Abbas's post on the Kurds and the link he supplied?
There was a comment in that last link, Zeyad, that I thought rather good. I will paste it here:
Important to keep in mind that the dynamic described in the article is not unusual for a democratic government anywhere in the world. The actions of government officials are always, in some measure politically motivated. Even keeping security, a state function, can be "easier" to accomlish when your enemies are also political opponents. Just as in America, the official actions of government don't always mean they are the actions of the "good guys". Nevertheless, the sovereign must exercise a monopoly on the use of force. That's even true under a dictator. Here, even though certain factions have greater influence than others over the operations of the Iraqui government, there is at least a sharing of power to an extent unknown under Saddam's dictatorship. This is the essence of democracy. It is good to critique the shortcomings, but we should be careful about writing them off because they don't exhibit qualities (selfless, apolitical devotion to the rule of law) that we are ourselves don't fully possess.
Posted by: James Swiderski | March 26, 2008 12:29 PM
RhusLancia
"Marcus, Jarn, any other non-rabid 'antiwar' folks: if we were not in Iraq, do you think the 'antiwar' movement would be more active against Afghanistan?"
At least I'm "non-rabid", good to know.
A bit of topic, your question, with this new development in Iraq but I'll pick it up anyway.
I don't know for sure. Probably some would focus on opposing the US invasion of Afghanistan more if they were not preoccupied with opposing the war in Iraq.
Myself, I never had a problem with the invasion of Afghanistan.
The US was attacked on 9/11 by AQ who were supported and given a santuary by the Taliban. The Taliban were, as I recall it, given an opportunity to hand over OBL et.al. and escape war that way. If this "choise" was for real I don't know, but they didn't take the chance. The Taliban themselves were not in my good-book anyway (neither was Saddam, in case someone feel an urge to point out his shortcomings as a leader), so I never mourned their fall.
The ousting of the Taliban had a solid international backing. Hell, even "pacifist" Sweden has troops there now, under Nato command. The first time in over 200 years that we send troops anywhere unless under UN flag. And it's not even controversial. Of course it's mostly a token representation in a not yet really dangerous part of the country and with only one casualty so far as far as I know.
Iraq was a different story completely. The US was never attacked by Iraq or from any group operating from within Iraq or with affiliations to Iraq. There was a solid opposision from the majority governments in the world and from the majority of citizens in many of the countries that did go along with it. There was no just cause. It should never have happened.
Marcus: "A bit of topic, your question"
Dude. Since when is Zeyad's comment section strictly on-topic? I think this is the first one in a long time in which many comments are on topic.
Anyway, thanks for your answer. I was just curious because there has not been such a massive influx of foreign jihadis into Afghanistan, nor have there been as many 'antiwar' activities specifically against it. The Speigel article reminded me that there's been some however, and there are indications that, if it weren't for Iraq being a softer target as far as justifications & international support/condemnation, Afghanistan would get more of what Iraq's getting now.
This helps me understand the rabidly 'antiwar' position* that believes that since the start of the Iraq war was unjustified, it must be lost for justice to be served (at any cost to Iraqis, and who-really-cares how it ends up, or when).
* that is, not pointing the finger at you per se, but you know who
Marcus: "The ousting of the Taliban had a solid international backing."
By the way, how many other countries who are currently engaged on our side in Afghanistan were attacked by the Taliban or AQ, prior to the invasion?
_
RhusLancia
"This helps me understand the rabidly 'antiwar' position* that believes that since the start of the Iraq war was unjustified, it must be lost for justice to be served (at any cost to Iraqis, and who-really-cares how it ends up, or when)."
Not necessarily. To me those are separate issues.
#1 Was it justified and a good move?
#2 How is this fuck-up best un-fucked?
As for #1 you know my view. That's easy.
#2 is way more difficult to answer but my feeling since a long time back has been that the US should set a schedule for complete withdrawal, say over a year or so. I'm sure it won't be all pretty and nice but I think the alternative is even worse.
As far as justice being served I think it was a criminal undertaking from the get go and there are people who should be tried and held accountable, you know - the usual suspects. I am not naive enough to think that that'll ever happen though.
I'm off for the evening.
Marcus: "I'm sure it won't be all pretty and nice but I think the alternative is even worse."
If you were rabidly 'antiwar', you might consider the alternative of a US/new Iraqi victory the worst possible outcome. A premature withdrawal which you could trumpet as a US defeat would be the best. You would be unconcerned of what happens in the wake of a premature US withdrawal (it being more 'the US's fault' anyway). I don't know if Bruno really buys the fairy tale of a relatively quick and painless Iraqi-only solution that he often tries to sell. I don't think he does, he just keeps his eye on the ball.
_
Muqtada al Sadr is an iranian stooge. there are red clericks and black clerics and sadr portrays himself as a red cleric.
Maliki has been set up by Ahmadinejad for sure.
jeffrey the rat,
fuck off back to your hole...
"I am beginning to think that there is no one in Iraq who is not underhandedly working with the Iranians. *sigh*"
Awww. Pore Lynette is puzzled.
Actually so am I. (First time we ever agreed on anything.)
Wish someone could answer a simple question - is Iran really arming the Sadrists, or is they isn't? And if so, why, since they are meant to be Maliki's buddies? Just stirring the pot?
No, Lynette and I also agreed on liking Nelson DeMille novels, once.
I bet she used to love Tom Clancy, too. So did I, Jack Ryan, what a guy, my kinda Preznit.
Specially 'Executive Orders,' 1996. Remember in that one Saddam gets killed by an Iranian agent who has infiltrated his bodyguard, the Iraqi government promptly melts down (bit unclear on how that happens) and Iran sorta moves in and forms the United Islamic Republic. Then a joint Iraqi/Iranian army invades KSA.
(Don't worry, the USA steps in and saves the oil, I mean the freedom-loving Saudis.)
Thing is, far as I can recall, there's no mention of Shiites or Sunnis in the entire book, all the Middle-Easterners are just uniformly swarthy.
I guess Shiites and Sunnis hadn't been invented yet. And that was only ten years ago!
I wonder whether Jack Ryan (or Tom Clancy) could have handled this present mix of all-purpose terrorists, Sunni insurgents and Wake-ups, Sadrists, Badrists, Sickies, Iranians, Anand's mighty IA, and all.
I don't think you could get a best-seller out of that lot. Too far-fetched.
sellout Layla: "Muqtada al Sadr is an iranian stooge.
[...]
Maliki has been set up by Ahmadinejad for sure."
Isn't Maliki an Iranian stooge? Does this mean the Iranian romance is over? With whom- Maliki or al Sadr?
Are you starting to warm to Maliki, Layla? Do you hope he kicks Muqtada's bottom back to Qom Qommunity Qollege?
_
Layla, dont misunderstand because I think you are one bitch with rabies but still I will enjoy very much watching you rip apart these fucking animals that spread their shit here limb by limb.
But when you are finished you need to shut the fuck up and crawl back to your hole.
@ Saad
FYI...
(xiii) Reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq and eliminating militia control of local security.
Though precise measurements of sectarian violence vary, trends data supplied over time by MNF-I demonstrate a decrease in sectarian violence, particularly in Baghdad, since the beginning of Operation Fardh al-Qanun. Militia activity initially decreased but staged a resurgence in mid-May before falling again in June to the lowest level in a year. Similar trends have been observed throughout Iraq; however, it is too early to determine how sustainable they will prove to be.
[...]
Militia presence is still strong and reaches into the security services of a number of ministries. Despite some progress, militias are still a dominant force in parts of Baghdad, Basrah, and many provinces in Iraq ‑‑ and will likely remain so until the security situation begins to stabilize over time. (See pages 14-15, above.)
Assessment: The Government of Iraq ‑‑ with substantial Coalition assistance ‑‑ has made satisfactory progress toward reducing sectarian violence but has shown unsatisfactory progress towards eliminating militia control of local security. Furthermore, though sectarian violence has been reduced, it is not yet reduced to a level the Coalition judges acceptable. The effect of unsatisfactory progress toward eliminating militia control of local security has been negative in terms of perceptions of the authority and fairness of the Government of Iraq. ..."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/r...7/
20070712.html
_
johninz, It's not confusing at all. Iran has a very warm relationship with the Iraqi government (ISCI, Da'wa, PUK, and KDP), as you could tell from the way Ahmedinajad was welcomed in Baghad, and it's in Iran's best interest to have a friendly, stable, FEDERAL Shi'ite Southern superprovince. Iran's on-and-off romance with Muqtada al-Sadr and some elements of the Mahdi Army, on the other hand, is merely because certain Sadrists (so-called rogue elements, to use US terminology) are the only Shi'ite groups who are willing to strike against US and British interests in the south, unlike Iran's traditional allies in Iraq. Iran also had a vested interest in cleansing Baghdad and the south from Sunnis, and the Mahdi Army readily assumed that duty. In other words, Iran's limited relationship with Sadr is entirely tactical, whereas their relationship with ISCI, Da'wa, and KDP (in the form of Iraq's current government) is the strategic one.
The Sadrists remain a lower class, rag-tag group, which explains their popularity among poorer Shi'ites, whereas ISCI and Da'wa are usually aligned with Najaf's clerical establishment (Sistani) and the Shi'ite merchant and upper class. They are currently in control of most of the south, including Anand's beloved "ISF", and they intend to keep it that way. That is why they vehemently opposed provincial elections (which have not been held since 2004), despite US pressure, up until Dick Cheney's recent visit. Cheney seems to have given ISCI and Da'wa the green light to move against the Sadrists (under the pretext of rooting out criminals and rogue elements so as not to disturb Sadr's announced ceasefire) to ensure that they keep control over the south, form a Shi'ite federal region, and eventually sign oil contracts with US oil companies. The last point is probably the only one where Iranian and US interests come in conflict, unlike the first two. That is also why it's laughable when the US claims Iran is behind the Sadrist trouble in the south. Iran's responsibility for the trouble in the south is precisely the same US responsibility, as they both back the same groups and share a common goal with minor differences. Iraqis and Arabs (including US allies) have been saying the whole time that the US adventure in Iraq over the last 5 years has only served to cement Iran's influence in Iraq and the region while the US has gained absolutely nothing, but for the US administration to admit that is too embarrassing for them and the American public. They are now hoping to salvage whatever oil deals they can from the Shi'ites and Kurds before abandoning ship.
The only problem is that this move threatens to backfire and fuck up all the recent security gains in Baghdad and elsewhere and to stoke the fires of the Sadr-Badr conflict. The Sadrists are not going to sit back and watch their enemies (ISCI, Da'wa) detain most of their leadership, with US backing. Indeed, Sadrists have the manpower to take control of most of the south, or at least to deny it to their enemies.
If you are still confused, I suggest you look up some of the recent Crisis Group reports on southern Iraq. One of them is linked on this blog three posts down.
Rhusshit, why the laughing? I mean that I am hoping to watch her rip you apart you filthy bastard. I hate Layla but in a war between you two I will throw my hat for her. Fuck you RhusLania and fuck the mothers of all the American whores that belong to the IBC.
Resident Analyst I agree with all that you have said but you are trying to explain this to the shit brain Americans who barely know what the different sectarian groupings are? Better luck teaching an elephant to fly.
The U.S. response – to continue attacking and arresting Sadrist militants, including some who are not militia members; arm a Shiite tribal counterforce in the south to roll back Sadrist territorial gains; and throw its lot in with Muqtada’s nemesis, ISCI – is understandable but shortsighted. The Sadrist movement, its present difficulties aside, remains a deeply entrenched, popular mass movement of young, poor and disenfranchised Shiites. It still controls key areas of the capital, as well as several southern cities; even now, its principal strongholds are virtually unassailable. Despite intensified U.S. military operations
and stepped up Iraqi involvement, it is fanciful to expect the Mahdi Army’s defeat. Instead, heightened pressure is likely to trigger both fierce Sadrist resistance in Baghdad and an escalating intra-Shiite civil war in the south.
Citing heightened coalition pressure in Baghdad, Sadrists repeatedly accuse ISCI and its Badr Corps of conspiring with the U.S. to suppress the Mahdi Army. They also see U.S. hypocrisy – backing one Shiite militia against another rather than fighting them all. A Sadrist teacher argued: “The occupying forces have adopted a double standard in their dealings with armed groups. We had understood the surge to target all armed groups, but it soon became apparent that was not the case. It is focused on the Sadrists only”.
Most disturbing to the Sadrists is ISCI’s virtual monopoly in – and, in their estimation, tyrannical rule over – the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala. According to them, the Badr
Corps is engaged in brutal and arbitrary conduct aimed principally at their sympathisers,68 while ISCI gives
preferential treatment to Iranian pilgrims and real estate investors.
For its part, Iran’s leadership appears reluctant to establish a genuine military and strategic relationship with the Sadrists. Notably, the U.S. does not claim that Tehran has provided the Mahdi Army with the modern weaponry it supplies to Hizbollah, a step that would radically shift the balance of power and nature of the battle. More generally, one cannot compare Iran’s relationship with Hizbollah, which relies on the Lebanese movement’s professionalism and strict discipline, to its ties with the far more disorganised and decentralised Sadrist movement. An ISCI sympathiser said, “the Iranians are well aware of the fact that the Sadrist current is unmanageable. Their cooperation
is purely tactical”. In Basra, where Iran has acquired considerable interests and influence, its support for the Sadrists has been limited, even prior to the suspension of Mahdi Army activities.
Iran’s strategy appears tailored to the reality of an undisciplined, disorganised, operationally flexible
militia. While it may not have opened regular channels of communication with the Mahdi Army per se, at a minimum
Tehran has done so with several units and individual leaders. As a result, Iran can maintain pressure on coalition forces and, in the event of a U.S .or Israeli attack, would be
able to rapidly flood Iraq with sophisticated weaponry that would significantly boost the militia’s lethal potential. In September 2007, a U.S. officer noted: There is growing evidence that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is frustrated with Badr’s operational inefficiency. Badr is good at killing Sunnis, but that’s it. It would never fight against
the U.S. and, if it did, it wouldn’t last a single round. The Revolutionary Guard may well have reached the conclusion that the Mahdi Army, due
to its grassroots support, is the better suited force to carry out retaliatory actions [against the U.S.]
on Iraqi soil in response to any [military strike] on Iranian territory.
resident analyst, do you have a problem with the ISF moving against JAM?
_
Saad: "I hate Layla but in a war between you two I will throw my hat for her."
I know, Saad! That was just funny. Go ahead and throw your hat for Layla the psychoba'ath.
resident analyst, do you have a problem with the ISF moving against JAM?
I have a problem with the US using Badr to use the "ISF" to eliminate their opponents. The "ISF" is not a national army acting in the interests of the state--if there even is such a thing as an Iraqi "state" at the moment. The "ISF" have participated in the ethnic cleansing of Sunnis and heterodox Shi'ite groups in the near past. Note also that many ISF elements are refusing to fight the Mahdi Army in Basra and the local police have abandoned their arms and stations to them. The local Iraqi press is reporting that, in Abu Al-Khasib, south of Basra, the Mahdi Army has taken over ISF tanks and armored vehicles and are patrolling the streets with them.
Anonymous, citing from somewhere: "Notably, the U.S. does not claim that Tehran has provided the Mahdi Army with the modern weaponry it supplies to Hizbollah, a step that would radically shift the balance of power and nature of the battle"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/
20080...dr_s_stronghold
Mahdi Army commanders have told the AP that the militia has recently taken delivery of new weapons supplied by backers in Iran. The arsenal, they said, included roadside bombs, anti-aircraft guns and Soviet-designed Grad rockets.
They also said an infusion of cash, also from Iran, helped the militia set up new command centers equipped with Internet-linked computers, fax machines and satellite mobile phones. They have also received global positioning system devices, they said. "
I expect an infusion of pro-JAM propaganda from our resident chaos-mongers. Killing, kidnapping, initidating, sectarian cleansing of the Sunnis? Bygones- they're upping the chaos & bloodshed in Iraq so they must be swell. Honeymoon's over, Sunni ex-'Resistance'. Da boys got a new horse to back.
_
resident analyst: "The "ISF" is not a national army acting in the interests of the state"
Isn't getting rid of JAM in the interest of the state?
_
ra: "the Mahdi Army has taken over ISF tanks and armored vehicles and are patrolling the streets with them."
The local press reported yesterday (which Bruno happily linked) that several US soldiers and 'hammers' were captured. Not true. If JAM does take over armored vehicles, how long will they last if the IA asks for some air support from our apaches?
_
Well, after three days of mortars being launched into the 'Green Zone', I'm not sure how convincing anyone's argument might be when describing the effectiveness of the 'Surge' and its ability to quell any remaining resistance to America's military takeover of Iraq. After how many years? Five? Seriously and not even their embassy staff are feeling protected??
How safe are Americans and ther lackeys in the 'Green Zone' you might ask?
"The State Department has instructed all personnel at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad not to leave reinforced structures due to incoming insurgent rocket fire that has killed two American government workers this week".
"Employees are required to wear helmets and other protective gear if they must venture outside....and they are strongly advised to sleep in blast-resistant locations instead of the less secure trailers that most occupy".
Ah yes, another successful military venture by the democratizers, winning the hearts and minds of an oppressed population where ever they go!
No more casual swims in the embassy pool for the time being!
Do you not read? I just said that Iran has a tactical alliance with Sadr, using it to strike against US and British presence in the south. This will continue as long as the US rattles the sabre against Iran. No one here is pro-Sadr (or pro-Badr, for that matter, except our gullible useful idiots). What is entirely suspect though is that the US uses "ISF" to strike against armed groups that attack the US. It has never used the "ISF" to attack armed groups that have threatened the interests of Iraqis (Badr Brigade, the Mahdi Army when it was cleansing entire towns and districts from Sunnis, Kurdish Peshmerga taking over Christian, Yezidi, Turkmen and Arab land in the north, PKK, etc.). A classic textbook example of American double standards at play here. What's equally amusing is that the current Iraqi "government" is doing exactly what it accused Saddam of doing when he moved against criminals and armed groups that were acting against the state under his rule.
The local press reported yesterday (which Bruno happily linked) that several US soldiers and 'hammers' were captured. Not true. If JAM does take over armored vehicles, how long will they last if the IA asks for some air support from our apaches?
Oh, trust me, they will last very long. Not even your entire arsenal of Apaches can dislodge the Mahdi Army from its urban strongholds, if the last five years of guerrilla warfare has proven anything. There is no way you are going to destroy a popular, guerrilla group such as the Mahdi Army with all the armies in the world. You tried it with the Sunni insurgents for years, and you only started to gain success with non-military methods (paying them off, offering them a piece of the cake). Not that the US will have any problem bombing the slums of Basra, as they have done in Sadr City in the past. You're just going to regret it when it gets out of hand later. You also seem to share Anand's romanticized vision of the "IA" and "ISF", so there is no use arguing with you.
"A classic textbook example of American double standards at play here. What's equally amusing is that the current Iraqi "government" is doing exactly what it accused Saddam of doing when he moved against criminals and armed groups that were acting against the state under his rule."
Well put RA. Will these people understand?
ra: "No one here is pro-Sadr "
Sadr can stay in Qom, probably will. Wouldn't you agree that JAM was/is a threat to Iraqis? Aren't they a threat to the Iraqi economy in the south?
ra: "It has never used the "ISF" to attack armed groups that have threatened the interests of Iraqis"
The ISF were never strong enough or loyal enough to do that until now. Do you think they could have moved against them? Haven't you, and others, just now linked & cited how JAM is capturing territory & equipment from them?
ra: "doing exactly what it accused Saddam of doing when he moved against criminals and armed groups "
Saddam was completely indisciminate. If the IA razes Basra then it will be a better comparison.
_
indisciminate = indiscriminate
_
Anonymous as everyone knows that the Mahdi Army has also received training from Hizballa. No one has been able to root Hizballa out of southern Lebanon and if the Americans would pull their own heads from their stinky, disgusting, rotten asses they would learn that they will be unable to make the same happen in Iraq. Nor am I a fan of Sadr but even less so for Hakim but if one stops listening to the American propaganda and see what is happening they will know that what these fools are trying to do is useless.
PM orders not to prosecute gunmen laying down arms in Basra
Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Wednesday, ordered not to prosecute gunmen who lay arms and surrender voluntarily to the security authorities in the southern Iraqi city of Basra, while the security operation Saulat al-Fursan (Charge of the Knights) continued in its third day there.
Did Saddam ever do that?
_
Saad: "Nor am I a fan of Sadr but even less so for Hakim but if one stops listening to the American propaganda and see what is happening they will know that what these fools are trying to do is useless."
So JAM can have Basra? Funny how you put JAM before Hakim (and Layla before me).
_
Sadr can stay in Qom, probably will.
Sadr is irrelevant. He has actually been calling for calm the last few days. The Mahdi Army is a highly disorganized, decentralized armed group. There is no central command that oversees their armed activities. They are hotheads and are responding to what they see as an indiscriminate, unprovoked assault on them by the US-backed government. They are prepared to burn the whole country and make it a nightmare for all if this assault continues.
Wouldn't you agree that JAM at JAM was/is a threat to Iraqis? Aren't they a threat to the Iraqi economy in the south?
A threat yes, but you can't compare Sadrist petty oil smuggling using small boats and minor criminal rackets to the organized plundering that Hakim and Co. have in mind once they completely eliminate their ragtag opponents. Have you ever heard about the activities of his son and successor Ammar Al-Hakim in Najaf and elsewhere? They are more of a threat to Badrist and US influence. That's the idea behind the timing of this whole operation.
The ISF were never strong enough or loyal enough to do that until now.
What made the "ISF" so loyal, all of a sudden? Loyal to whom? Has the composition of the "ISF" changed over the last few months? Not that I know of.
johnin(n)z,
Clancy used to be one of my favorite authors several books ago. He kind of lost me after ummm...I believe it was "Rainbow Six". Yup, just checked, that was the one. A totally cartoonish book. At the time, I think he was going through a divorce, so I kind of wrote it off to emotional upheaval. But he really has never recovered. His best is still "The Hunt for Red October", which was his first novel.
resident analyist,
...and eventually sign oil contracts with US oil companies.
Must you be so cynical? Last I heard it was Irish companies that were ahead of the pack. And I've heard that those sneaky Russians are muscling in.
As for the timing being connected to Cheney's visit, I've heard this thing was planned for some time now. That is, even before Cheney's visit was a plan.
Dang, out of time.
Night all.
@ Anonymous | 03.27.08 - 6:30 pm
Agree with your first statement. "Burn the whole country and make it a nightmare" - sounds familiar.
Anon: "They are more of a threat to Badrist and US influence."
Not since '04. Lately they were worse to the Sunnis, and to Basra. They were only a nuissance to the US, especially as they obeyed the 'cease-fire'.
Anon: "That's the idea behind the timing of this whole operation."
So you have a problem only with the timing?
Anon: "What made the "ISF" so loyal, all of a sudden? Loyal to whom?"
Not all of a sudden, they've been steadily improving over several years. The IA is much less sectarian these days, and their loyalty if much more to the state than it was.
_
Rhus (the never served little bitch): ....Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Wednesday, ordered not to prosecute gunmen who lay arms and surrender voluntarily to the security authorities in the southern Iraqi city of Basra...
"Did Saddam ever do that"?
He didn't have to. But if he ever did, the outcome would most likely have been the same! No one in their right mind would lay down their arms for the Puppet, the ISF, the Americans or Saddam.
John the Ba'athist: "He didn't have to."
What do you mean? Are you disagreeing with resident analyst that Saddam acted against armed groups who moved against him?
_
Me: "If JAM does take over armored vehicles, how long will they last if the IA asks for some air support from our apaches?"
Anonymous: "Oh, trust me, they will last very long."
I meant the armored vehicles themselves, not JAM as a guerilla movement you guys are starting to fall in love with. Armored vehicles are very easy to shoot from Apaches. And, once they are identified as being JAM, there can be little question that it is appropriate to destroy them.
_
Rhus(TNSLB): "The IA is much less sectarian these days, and their loyalty if much more to the state than it was".
This is maniacal at best! It's almost as though you were starting to believe your own rhetoric?
The IA's shelf life is totally dependant upon the continued prescence of your 160,000, along with the best air support technology and money will allow!
Please believe that!
There is no autonomy or self sustainment for you puppet leader or your paid mercenaries, following, yet another, realization of a failed enterprise and retreat!
John the Ba'athist: "The IA's shelf life is totally dependant upon the continued prescence of your 160,000, along with the best air support technology and money will allow!"
Of course they need our support for now. What does that have to do with the fact that they are much less sectarian than they were, and more loyal to the state?
Hey ra and Anonymouses: are you Iraq? If so, do you support attacks against the ISF? Saad, do you?
_
Enough already!
Just kill them.
Kill them all.
Kill them now.
RhusLancia, please don't bore us to death with your Anand style ridiculous questions.
@ RhusLancia
(re: Rat Jeffrey, 03.27.08 - 1:48 pm).
[King Rat] "Italiano, The funny part for me is that Zeyad's is the only comments page you're allowed on".
Now, Rhussie dear, as you know I was NOT banned by a single Iraqi blogger.
Your Glorious Chief, Rat Schuster, is instead banned INDEED from dozens of Iraqi blogs.
And, since this comical liar is your Chief, everybody is better able to realise how trustworthy are you, Rhus, my dear simian "bitch" !
@ Lynnette in Minnesota, 03.27.08 - 2:16 pm.
[Lynnette] "If it brings you joy to assume that our guys on the ground don't know anything about what is going on, fine. But they might really have some idea of where munitions are coming from and going to, as they are intimately involved in the receiving end of those weapons".
Dear Beastie in Minnesota, both you and your "guys on the ground" (that collection of idiotic animals) would be much wiser if you were to learn from our anonymous Resident Analyst, instead of believing that lame (and vain) Bushist propaganda on the Sadrists as the real allies of Iran ...
BTW, thank you for telling me about the Kid's last post.
STFU IDIOT, my questions could be answered quite easily in far fewer words than it takes you to point out how boring you think they are. Why evade them? Shouldn't they be proud of their opinions, and willing to share them with us in clear, unambiguous terms?
_
News:
225 Iraqis, 1 US Soldier, 3 US Contractors Killed; 538 Iraqis Wounded
http://www.antiwar.com/updates/?
...articleid=12591
Vampire:
Bush: 'Normalcy Is Returning to Iraq'
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homep...tory/
31825.html
"U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces failed for a third consecutive day to oust Shiite militias from the southern city of Basra on Thursday, even as President Bush hailed the operation as a sign of the growing strength of Iraq's federal government."
http://www.chron.com/disp/story....ld/
5654832.html
"Violence also broke out in Kut, Hilla, Amara, Kirkuk, Baqouba and other cities. The fighting in Basra with the Mahdi Army, the armed wing of the political movement led by the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, set off violent clashes in cities throughout the country and major demonstrations in Sadr City, the huge Baghdad slum that is al-Sadr's base of power, and other Shiite neighborhoods in the capital. [...] "They made this crisis because the Sadr movement, they feel, will be an obstacle in the upcoming elections. They feel they won't succeed in the elections," said Abu Ali, a Mahdi Army member in Sadr City. Ali said violence would soar if al-Maliki did not halt the operation and meet al-Sadr's demands for negotiations. "We will be more determined. Enough humiliation," he said. "
http://www.twincities.com/nation...?
nclick_check=1
"Heavy clashes erupted in Naseriya city, one of the biggest cities in the southern Iraqi province of Thi-Qaar, Iraqi eyewitnesses said on Thursday."
http://www.kuna.net.kw/NewsAgenc...896&
Language=en
"U.S. forces in armored vehicles battled Mahdi Army fighters Thursday in Sadr City, the vast Shiite stronghold in eastern Baghdad" [...] He also said Iraqi forces were calling on U.S. and British forces for help. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he said he was not authorized to speak with reporters. "I think the government can't win this battle without interference of Americans or British," he said. "I think the aid or assistance is on the way." In his view, the Iraqi military needed air coverage and help with logistics and intelligence.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...8032700781.html
Al-Maliki, in office since May 2006, is almost certain to pay a heavy political price if he fails against Shiite militias in battles that began in the southern city of Basra and then flared in Baghdad and other cities. [...] "Iraqi security officials said two special police units dispatched to Basra from Baghdad have been beset by dissent. An army battalion also suffered a number of desertions "We did not expect the fight to be this intense," said an officer from one of the two commando units. He recounted how he and his men were pinned down Tuesday by mortars and sniper fire outside the Basra neighborhood of Tamimiyah, one of several densely populated Mahdi Army strongholds in the city."
http://www.chron.com/disp/story....ld/
5655132.html
Good analysis from WSWS:
"A great deal is at stake for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has moved to Basra to take personal charge of the operation. He has been under pressure to act against the Sadrists, not only from Washington, but from the two Shiite factions on which he rests—his own Da’wa party and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI). The latter in particular has been engaged in a protracted power struggle with the Sadrists across southern Iraq in preparation for provincial elections due in October. ISCI regards the Sadrist movement as a barrier to its ambition to establish an autonomous Shiite region in southern Iraq similar to the Kurdish region in the north. The Sadrist movement, with its large base of support in Baghdad, supports a strong central government and is opposed to ISCI’s plans. Basra, which is Iraq’s second largest city, a major port and adjacent to the country’s southern oil fields, is at the centre of this rivalry."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/200.../iraq-
m28.shtml
Good analysis from Raimondo:
"The Mystery of American Foreign Policy - Why are we propping up the pro-Iranian Maliki faction in Iraq?"
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?
a...articleid=12596
Resident Analyst -
Your appraisal of the situation seems comprehensive and concise. It dovetails with the analysis that several other informed Iraqis have provided me. Thanks also for the very clear way that you explained the relationship of Sadr and ISCI (SCIRI) with Iran in strategic and tactical terms.
This post:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=46129#386888
... is one of the best bits of analysis I've read lately. Thanks.
I second Brunos praise for that post, very informative.
One thing that strikes me is that if JAM is the main target and preventing the Sadrists from winning elections and taking over the south in the fall is the reason - then what does that say about the elections?
Basically that the party with the strongest militia on the ground will be victorious, right?
Just like in any healthy democracy...
Marcus, do you think JAM should be confronted, or left as it is?
_
I wanna protest!
Here I was, reading the Blog like a good boy, and RhusLancia suddenly starts rabbiting on about JAM, like we all know what he's on about. Say what? Not a name to me.
Tried Google - just stuff about fruit. Tried Google News - nuffin. Finally found it with JAM IRAQ in Google News. It's just a fancy new name for the Mehdi Army. Has RhusLancia caught Anand's initialese problem?
"...JAM as a guerilla movement you guys are starting to fall in love with..."
Hell, some of us don't like jam on our quagmires. We want peanut butter on our SNAFUs. Honey on our clust**fucks.
Anyway, early days, but so far the IA and the MNF seem to be having some trouble getting the JAM back in the jar.
Best of luck, Rhus. Here, try some honey.
Sorry, johninnz. I was trying to be specific in differentiating between al-Sadr and the Sadrist political movement, and the Jaish al Mahdi (JAM) which is their head-drilling, death squad running crime syndicate wing.
_
As opposed to the ISF's and IP's "head-drilling, death squad running crime syndicate wings," I presume. They're the good guys, right?
Nummy honey?
johninnz: "As opposed to the ISF's and IP's "head-drilling, death squad running crime syndicate wings," I presume."
They used to have serious problems, yes. They are getting much better now. But the IA (Iraqi Army) has made the most progress and by many accounts is becoming well respected.
_
RhusLancia
"Marcus, do you think JAM should be confronted, or left as it is?"
I am not sure they needed to be confronted head on while they seemed to be sticking to their cease fire. What is the point of praising them for the cease fire and its contribution to lessening the violence and then use their stand down to attack them? Why now?
Furthermore it seems generally agreed upon that the Sadrists would win an election in the south if present terms are left as they are. If the "ISF" plan to counter that by taking out JAM there must be more to it. JAM themselves are not numerous enough to affect the outcome of a popular vote. It therefor looks like the plan is to: 1. take out JAM in order to 2. be able to prevent the Sadrists from winning. I.e, the Sadrists are not going to be allowed to win by popular vote, which they could do.
Have you asked yourself: "why now".
Instead of just going with the impulse in your spine that supports every shot fired and every bomb dropped, as long as the US of A officially backs it, without question?
Come on, Marcus. As the long American Army convoys wind their way back through the desert to Kuwait, RhusLancia will still be telling us how well it all went in Iraq, and how brilliantly the retreat is being conducted.
"We used to have serious problems, yes. We are getting much better now."
Marcus, haven't we seen many articles lately detailing the security situation in Basra? How the militias control it and run amok? How bad it is for women? The crime & smuggling? etc? Why now? Why not now? Diyala, Mosul, Basra... is it possible, is it conceivable for you, that they are going to where they are needed in an effort to stabilize the country?
_
Also, note that al-Sadr & the Sadrists are not under attack (yet) specifically. The militia is.
_
RhusLancia
I do not believe that "they [ISF] are going to where they are needed in an effort to stabilize the country", no. I believe they are trying to eliminate JAM to be able to prevent the Sadrists from an otherwise predicted win in many provincial elections.
Why else leave them alone when they are running amok in Baghdad and suddenly target them while they are observing a truce?
It's not like I am a fan of Moktada, he seems like an idiot to me. It's more that I don't see why the DAWA/SIIC/Fadhila partys/militias should get a cart blanche to squeeze the Sadrists (or anyone else) out of the political process by using force. I question wether they are any better than the Sadrists when it comes to representing Iraqis.
Marcus, see my comment @ 4:41 am.
You don't think Basra needed sorting out?
_
Layla writes truthfully, Muqtada and Chalabi have been close allies since before the fall of Saddam.
They remain allies. I am not sure who is closer to Khamenei between the two, but both are Khamenei's friends.
JAM has not been attacked by the IA outside al Basrah province, as best as I can tell based on public source information.
In Basrah, the PM has given all violent militias 72 hours to peacefully disperse. I hope they will. From today's blogger brief, many of the militants being targeted aren't associated with Muqtada.
The US colonel giving the brief said he wasn't very familiar with what the IA was doing, since MNF-I (and MNC-I) weren't involved in the operations. PM Maliki and the BaOC were running the operation on their own. {The Southern four provinces are “PIC” Provincial Iraqi Control, like Kurdistan is.}
In fact the US colonel said he was watching BBC to try to find out what was happening.
It is hard to determine anything definitive ATT. We need time to assess what is really happening in Basrah.
http://www.defenselink.mil/
dodcm..._transcript.pdf
Bruno, read and weep. Especially about the Taji National Depot. It has 37 different shops for constructing and repairing various pieces of equipment, including wheeled armored vehicles. This equipment is being used to “SMASH” your precious resistance. Oh, and lest I mention, how many shops does the Afrikaner army have?
Further note that 13 out of the 16 forming IA divisions will be able to manage all their transportation, supply, maintenance and other logistics needs on their own by the end of 2008. {Bruno is crying copious tears.}
The IA moved two army brigades to Al Basrah without any MNF-I help. Translation, they did it on their own. I wonder if your Afrikaner army can do that. No need to answer. All of us are smart enough to figure that out on our own.
The IA 1-14 (old IA 3-
in Basrah is a level C1 brigade. “C1.” Only 1/10th of the Soviet divisions in the 1980s were C1. Are any Africaaner army divisions C1 today? Ha Ha Ha. The IA 1-14 is in the process of being upgraded to tracked mechanized one company at a time.
The IA 3-9 T55 Tank bde in Basrah is a C2 near C1 brigade. And its BSB is also C2 near C1.
The IA 3-14 was created a few weeks ago. It is completely untested and very green. Let us see how they perform. (they are also probably going to be upgraded to tracked mechanized.)
It is true that the trashy IA 2-14 (former 5-10, former SIB) is a walking disaster in Basrah. It needs to be taken offline and be completely rebuilt from the ground up.
Bruno use to link to articles about IA 2-14 in 2006 and 2007 infinitum with smile from ear to ear. He still is. Well shame on you Bruno. Can’t you find any Iraqi brigade to criticize that is not a former SIB or 5th IAD?
So far the IA has not been ordered to take out the JAM in Basrah. I hope that all the Basrah militias comply with Maliki’s 72 hour ultimatum. If not, then any rogue JAM who decide that their loyalty is to Khamenei instead of the the noble Sayed Muqtada, may peace be upon him, and Muqtada’s word of honor; will be dismembered right before Bruno’s eyes by IA 1-14 and IA 3-9 (they won’t be able to go into the narrow streets with their tanks and wheeled APCs.)
I just hope that 2 Iraqi army brigades