| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Iraq | |
| So Who Really Won Iraqi Offensive Against Shiite Militias? | |
| 2008-04-03 | |
| Last Saturday, I questioned whether Shiite militias were copying the strategy and tactics of Hezbollah in its defensive standoff in Lebanon in 2006 against the Israelis. Unlike other commentators who forecast victory based on body counts, I was pessimistic about the eventual outcome: "But the Shiite militia leaders have already achieved one strategic goal: they showed Pentagon planners and American voters that the Iraqi army is nowhere ready to secure Iraq, much as Hezbollah exposed the weaknesses in Israeli armed forces. We can also expect that unless the American military completely wipes out the Shiite militia (an unlikely outcome given the tactics of the militia), the Shiites will take another page from Hezbollah leaders and claim victory, thus raising the morale of their followers and their reputation on "the Arab street." And that would mean another strategic victory for their Iranian backers." Based on reports from the area since then, including this morning, I'll conclude that the short-term gains that U.S. forces made are bound to give way to a long-term strategic victory in Iraq for Moqtada al Sadr, the broader Shiite community, and Iran, unless the U.S. redeploys significant numbers of our troops to Shiite strongholds throughout Iraq. Contradictory signals abound in asymmetric conflicts like the Iraqi offensive. An Iranian general who is a designated terrorist played some significant role in the ceasefire, thus vaildating my prognosis. Sadr's backers in Baghdad are claiming victory today, even as U.S. troops patrol their streets. The British are now freezing plans to withdraw more troops from that city, signaling a lack of confidence that the Iraqis will secure the area anytime this year. But an admission from a U.S. Army general in Iraq is telling: "Army Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner said he welcomes the Iraqi government’s commitment to target criminals in Iraq’s second-largest city but he concedes there are challenges. He said most of the Iraqi troops “performed their mission” but some “were not up to the task” and the Iraqi government is investigating what happened. The government was surprised by ferocious resistance from followers of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to the offensive. The Iraqi campaign in Basra also faced desertions and mutiny in government ranks before a cease-fire order by al-Sadr on Sunday." In other words, Bush pulled al-Maliki's can out of the fire this time. And that is not what either planned or thought would happen. Unless we move our troops into harm's way and keep them there, it won't be the last time. EDIT: I don't want to leave the impression that troops, alone, would do the job. The U.S. would also have to ramp up outreach programs ("peacebuilding") to Shiite leaders, as we've done in Sunni areas in the past year.
| |
| Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC |
| #11 See simil on REDDIT > CHICAGO TRIBUNE - BASRA BATTLE CASTS DOUBTS ON US STRATEGY. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-04-03 23:11 |
| #10 Beavis I never get the yellow thingie. 1. Copy the URL link into your clipboard 2. Open the comment window and type a snarkie heading. 3. Highlight the heading 4. Click on the link tab 5. Paste the URL from your clipboard into the popup window that appears 6. Save the URL window 7. Submit the Query Semper Fi |
| Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2008-04-03 17:49 |
| #9 Beavis, First click the Link-Tab right underneath the comment box. the first time you click the Link-Tab a yellow script bar drops down just above the comment box. Now Click the Script-Bar. Now you click the Link-Tab again and viola paste the link into the script box that appears magically in the left hand corner and then press OK. :) |
| Posted by: RD 2008-04-03 15:42 |
| #8 Basra men lining up to join Iraqi Army |
| Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2008-04-03 14:46 |
| #7 http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Iraq/ss/events/ts/082701iraqplane/im:/080401/ids_photos_wl/r553295461.jpg Dammit I can't figure out how to imbed here. |
| Posted by: Beavis 2008-04-03 13:23 |
| #6 Basra men wanting to join the IA |
| Posted by: Beavis 2008-04-03 13:23 |
| #5 The press is like everybody else, GB - they hand around with their friends. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2008-04-03 12:24 |
| #4 Isn't it funny the press concentrates on the Shiite Holes in Basra and ignores the fact that the Iraqi government has taken over the ports south of Basra? |
| Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2008-04-03 11:53 |
| #3 We need to start disassembling tater's army - starting with the leadership. And as to the conclusions? I wholly disagree. His reasoning is specious, and ignores the ground facts that the Iraqi Army engaged and defeated the JAM every place they went, and the IA is in place, patrolling, building out outposts, and is in control of Basra. One other question: what "short term gains" were there for JAM agains the US forces? THAT is the key point he gets dead f'ing wrong. And without that point his whole house of cards falls apart. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-04-03 09:16 |
| #2 HOTAIR > WSJ - THE SECOND[NEXT] IRAN-IRAQ WAR. Article denotes that IRANIAN QODS/QUDS FORCE COMMANDER [read - IRAN], NOT SADR HIMSELF, IS ACTUALLY IN CONTROL OF SADR's OWN MILITIA ORG; + AP> A NUCLEAR IRAN MEANS A NUCLEAR SAUDI ARABIA. Also, COUNTERTERRORISM BLOG > US INTEL EXPERTS belie the GROWING THREAT OF NUCLEAR TERRORISM IN AMERICA, espec via AQ. IMO, Osama etc. cannot wait up to a "Quarter-Century" [25 yarns] to attack and formally nuke the USA. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-04-03 02:31 |
| #1 Bullshit! Maliki's men control the field while the Tater Tots are off the street and back in their hide-outs. It was more than a cease-fire, which would imply a stand-down in place. Sadr's men retreated, abandoned the fight, the IA did not and they are in control. Btw, oil shipments from Basra have almost doubled since Sadr's defeat. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2008-04-03 00:18 |
