| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Iraq | |
| U.S. Intel Sparks Iraqi Shift on Militia | |
| 2007-01-22 | |
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's turnaround on the Mahdi Army was puzzling because as late as Oct. 31, he had intervened to end a U.S. blockade of Sadr City, the northeast Shiite enclave in Baghdad that is headquarters to the militia. It is held responsible for much of the sectarian bloodshed that has turned the capital into a battle zone over the past year. Sometime between then and Nov. 30, when the prime minister met President Bush, al-Maliki was convinced of the truth of American intelligence reports which contended, among other things, that his protection of al-Sadr's militia was isolating him in the Arab world and among moderates at home, the two government officials said. ``Al-Maliki realized he couldn't keep defending the Mahdi Army because of the information and evidence that the armed group was taking part in the killings, displacing people and violating the state's sovereignty,'' said one official. Both he and a second government official who confirmed the account refused to be identified by name because the information was confidential. Both officials are intimately aware of the prime minister's thinking. ``The Americans don't act on rumors but on accurate intelligence. There are many intelligence agencies acting on the ground, and they know what's going on,'' said the second official, confirming the Americans had given al-Maliki overwhelming evidence about the Mahdi Army's deep involvement in the sectarian slaughter. | |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #10 After all the cries about "Bush lied!!!!!!" I find the above statement fascinating. Me too, TW! Of course it cuts to one of my favorite truisms: "Liberals make decisions based upon emotion. Conservatives make decisions based upon facts." Of course, these days, a lot of Donks don't even wanna make a decision. Just kick the can down the road and hope that the alligator will eat us last. |
| Posted by: BA 2007-01-22 16:08 |
| #9 Why they keep reporting about US Interl and never about US AMD? |
| Posted by: JFM 2007-01-22 16:04 |
| #8 ``The Americans don't act on rumors but on accurate intelligence. " After all the cries about "Bush lied!!!!!!" I find the above statement fascinating. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-01-22 05:51 |
| #7 As with everything else, it comes down to the fear of the various gangsters and thugs - who will remain on the scene whatever the Americans do - trumping all else Hear, hear. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2007-01-22 05:11 |
| #6 Sorry. Stray line left in there after a self-edit. Also, my point about Casey's incessant dangling of troop reductions since at least March 2005 was that it was a disastrously wrong message to be sending the US electorate. The public needed/needs to be told how difficult and long the effort in Iraq will be, not mollified with implausible teasers about reduced footprints. Perhaps the administration misunderestimated the hollowness and mediocrity of the political class, which has imploded in a frightening and pathetic fashion, but they should have known the public needed education and attention regardless. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2007-01-22 02:57 |
| #5 Dunno, Shieldwolf. When I first heard folks in the palace talking about the need to scare the Iraqis into stepping up I was sympathetic, having had my own incredibly frustrating and fruitless experience with trying to help stand up an Iraqi operation. But I've since decided that the predominant, and quite logical, Iraqi response to this American tactic has been to adjust in ways inimical to our enterprise. As with everything else, it comes down to the fear of the various gangsters and thugs - who will remain on the scene whatever the Americans do - trumping all else. Since we've long telegraphed that we didn't have the stomach to establish order, er, that is, I mean, we had a fancier strategy that would allow us to conduct warfare without war (not kill people or break stuff), many Iraqis have discounted our pull-out body English (or Dem antics that support that display). In many cases (esp. Sunni), they've done the smart thing when confronted with a possibly unreliable US - hedged their bets, thus scuttling our entire politically-based strategy. captured and the will of their supporters crushed. While I initially thought it might have some impact on our Iraqis, I always thought that Casey's (and others') talk about reducing the US footprint sometime just around the corner was a perfectly disastrous complement to the administration's AWOL performance on domestic political leadership in support of the war. I think I saw that Casey just trotted out this line, AGAIN. WTF? I believe Clemenceau said war was a series of catastrophes capped by victory. But I doubt he had in mind that almost all the catastrophes would be self-inflicted .... |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2007-01-22 02:49 |
| #4 Also, President Bush has one big ace in the hole that he played against Maliki : the Democrats' call for cut-and-run. Maliki is basically in the position of giving the US military what it wants, or getting abandoned like the South Vietnamese. If he does not do what President Bush asks, Maliki is taking his chances on the Dems, especially if they can get the Presidency in 2008. If on the other hand, Maliki plays along with President Bush, Tater and the Sunnis get a good stomping in the next year or so. That increases the likelihood that the situation will have normalized by the '08 election, and reduces the possibility of a Dem cut-and-run. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2007-01-22 01:01 |
| #3 This is more along the lines of 'consider yourself informed', with all the implications that portends. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2007-01-22 00:54 |
| #2 Maliki is just bending to the pressure. He's far from breaking. Just normal Muz subterfuge. |
| Posted by: SpecOp35 2007-01-22 00:36 |
| #1 Are we really to believe that maliki is the only person in the entire friggin world that didn't know what Tater was up too? |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2007-01-22 00:10 |