At least the surge is working http://www.slate.com/id/2187564/ war stories: Military analysis. Warlord vs. Warlord What are they fighting about in Basra? By Fred Kaplan Posted Thursday, March 27, 2008, at 6:40 PM ET The wars in Iraq (the plural is no typo) are about to expand and possibly explode, so it might be useful to have some notion of what we're in for. Here is President George W. Bush, speaking this morning in Dayton, Ohio, and revealing once again that he has no notion: [A]s we speak, Iraqi security forces are waging a tough battle against militia fighters and criminals in Basra—many of whom have received arms and training and funding from Iran. … This offensive builds on the security gains of the surge and demonstrates to the Iraqi people that their government is committed to protecting them. … [T]he enemy will try to fill the TV screens with violence. But the ultimate result will be this: Terrorists and extremists in Iraq will know they have no place in a free and democratic society. The reality, alas, is less stark. The fighting in Basra, which has spread to parts of Baghdad, is not a clash between good and evil or between a legitimate government and an outlaw insurgency. Rather, as Anthony Cordesman, military analyst for the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, writes, it is "a power struggle" between rival "Shiite party mafias" for control of the oil-rich south and other Shiite sections of the country. Mahdi fighters take cover during clashes in Basra Both sides in this struggle are essentially militias. Both sides have ties to Iran. And as for protecting "the Iraqi people," the side backed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki (and by U.S. air power) has, ironically, less support—at least in many Shiite areas, including Basra—than the side that he (and we) are attacking. In other words, as with most things about Iraq, it's a more complex case than Bush makes it out to be. The two Shiite parties—the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and Muqtada Sadr's Mahdi army—have been bitter rivals since the early days of post-Saddam Iraq. And Maliki, from the beginning of his rule, has had delicate relations with both. Sadr, who may be Iraq's most popular Shiite militant and who controls several seats in parliament, gave Maliki the crucial backing he needed to become prime minister. However, largely under U.S. pressure, Maliki has since backed away from Sadr, who has always fiercely opposed the occupation and whose militiamen have killed many American soldiers (until last year, when he declared a cease-fire). Maliki has since struck a close alliance with ISCI, which has its own militia, the Badr Organization, and whose members also hold much sway within Iraq's official security forces (though more with the police than with the national army). This alliance has the blessing of U.S. officials, even though ISCI—which was originally called the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq—has much deeper ties with Iran than Sadr does. (ISCI's leaders went into exile in Iran during the decades of Saddam's reign, while Sadr and his family stayed in Iraq—one reason for his popular support. As Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations has noted, SICRI was created by Iran, and the Badr brigades were trained and supplied by Iran's Revolutionary Guard.) Sadr's Mahdi army and ISCI's Badr Organization came to blows last August in the holy city of Karbala. This fighting—and his growing inability to control criminal elements within the Mahdi army—spurred Sadr to order a six-month moratorium on violence, which he renewed last month, against the wishes of some of his followers. (This moratorium is a major reason for the decline in casualties in Iraq, perhaps as significant as the U.S. troop surge and the Sunni Awakening.) The fighting this week in Basra may be a prelude to the moratorium's collapse and, with it, the resumption of wide-scale sectarian violence—Shiite vs. Sunni and Shiite vs. Shiite. Many Shiites believe—not unreasonably—that Maliki ordered the offensive in Basra now in order to destroy Sadr's base of support and thus keep his party from beating ISCI in the upcoming provincial elections. Late last month, Iraq's three-man presidential council vetoed a bill calling for provincial elections, in large part because ISCI's leaders feared that Sadr's party would win in Basra. The Bush administration, which has (correctly) regarded provincial elections as key to Iraqi reconciliation, pressured Maliki to reverse his stance and let the bill go through. He did—at which point (was this just a coincidence?) planning began for the offensive that's raging now. Maliki's official reason for the offensive, simply to bring order, has some plausibility, because Basra—Iraq's second-largest city, a major port, and a huge supplier of oil—is teetering on the edge of anarchy. At the start of the occupation, British forces were put in charge of Basra, but they viewed their operation as passive peacekeeping, not counterinsurgency, so militias moved in and gradually took the place over. By the time the British withdrew to the outskirts, the city was already taken over by fractious warlords. The current fighting in Basra is a struggle for power and resources between those warlords. It's hard to say which faction is more alluring or less likely to fall under Iranian sway. Neither seems the sort of ally in freedom and democracy that our president conjures in his daydreams. (The lively blogger who calls himself Abu Muqawama speculates that Bush officials have embraced ISCI because, unlike Sadr, its leaders speak English.) It's not a case of good vs. evil. It's just another crevice in the widening earthquake called Iraq.
The following is from a blog from yesterday: source [rquoter] "Iraqi Forces vs. The Extremists" When Joe Lieberman corrected McCain's "senior moment" in Jordan, he had McCain say that the Iranians were training "extremists," not "alkaydah" (sic). The two of them and Graham had just come from Iraq, so I guess Joe had gotten the word there that the baddies (Jeish al-mahdi) were going to be referred to as "extremists." McCain just couldn't keep it straight. Hmmm. The enemy is who? Say it again... It is clear that US policy is to back Maliki/Dawa/ISCI/Badr Corps (Iraqi Forces) against Moqtada al-Sadr and his "army" of "shirtless ones." Fine. Why not? I guess the US has no choice but to back someone. I suppose that the powers that be will shift the Main Supply Route (MSR) to the west (Nasiriyah) if the Basra area becomes too obstructed. My problem with the present course of events is the ruthlessness of the propaganda campaign being successfully waged by the Bush Administration. The president has succeeded in "framing" the discussion in such a way that Maliki and his assembly of Badr Corps militias are represented as being the equivalent of George Washington suppressing the Whiskey Rebellion. The noble Maliki is portrayed as motivated by a selfless desire for "national" unity. The MSM has re-transmitted that idea without serious question. In fact he is merely acting on behalf of an emerging alignment of pro-Iranian forces in Iraq that have successfully pulled the wool over American eyes. You may have noticed that no Kurdish units of the "Iraqi Forces" have been brought down from the north for this "fandango." You may also have noticed that our Concerned Local Citizens/Sons of Iraq (read Sunni tribal Arab auxiliaries) are not involved. Show me some engaged units in this that are not Shia. They don't seem to fight so well, these "Iraqi Forces " at Basra. We have spent a lot of time and money on these people. They are not making much progress at Basra. I used to know Montagnard Special Commando Unit troops who fought better than this, but, then, they were well led by some wonderful Special Forces sergeants and junior officers. That brings up the inevitability of heavy US involvement in this suppression of the "Whiskey Rebellion." It's just a matter of time. McCain must fear that terribly. pl [/rquoter] and [rquoter] More on Basra, South Iraq and Iran from the Daily Mail: [rquoter] "..the damage has not only been to Britain's military reputation. It has also led to the most profound split between Britain and America since relations froze during the Suez crisis 50 years ago. Shamefully for Britain, the White House is now considering sending its own forces to sort the mess that the British have left behind. Last week, one White House official acidly remarked: "American blood is going to have to buy off the British failure in Basra." Already at the Basra air base, I can reveal, the British subsidiary of U.S. construction giant KBR is building four huge dining facilities - known to the American army as DFACs. These are capable of feeding 4,000 men and suggest that the U.S. Army is contemplating a massive deployment to southern Iraq - including a major presence inside Basra itself. " [/rquoter] In the context of British withdrawal from south Iraq, I wrote a while back that the US would inevitably have to fill the vacuum so created with its own forces. That time is fast approaching. KBR is not building these facilities for the Iraqis. It sounds like a reinforced brigade combat team will go in there plus USAF on the base. [/rquoter]
I find it incredibly ironic -- and quite hilarious -- that we're now fighting on behalf of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. Oh the folly of this administration...
There were plenty of us here on the board that were laughed at an scorned when we suggested at the beginning of the war that US troops would not be able to be a neutral bystander in a possible civil war. Another reason we said this was a stupid.
I didn't see the name Al-Qaeda in any of those articles. It's time to leave Iraq to the Iraqis. They can fight it out themselves. Bring our troops home.
Why leave? The bad guys are killing bad guys. In the end, they weaken themselves, while the good guys remain on top.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Osama. It's all interconnected now. If it wasn't before, it is now. Stay the course. Regional stability is at stake.
Well, if you're family isn't worth it, mine is. Anyway, it was a rhetorical question, but if you want to quantify it: if family = nation and nation = 303,738,804 members then that's $39.51 per family member for each month http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html
Assuming American people are safe if our government spends 12 bil per month... I'm sure it's a price we'd all pay. Of course, all indications are that's not the case. Terrorists are not less likely to harm us because of the Iraq quagmire. And they're not more likely to harm us if we withdraw our troops. So what are we spending our manpower and money for now?
Do you think the population of "bad guys" is static, and once they are done killing each other we will be safe and comfortable?
These factions fighting it out in Iraq aren't our bad guys. They're each others bad guys. Al-Qaeda is our bad guy. I don't know about you but I don't want the Marines and Air Force fighting and dying for the Islamic Supreme Council of anything.
well, that was a short civil war. Gettysburg lasted longer. [rquoter]Iraqi Government Welcomes Al-Sadr's Orders to Pull Fighters From Streets Sunday , March 30, 2008 FC1 ADVERTISEMENT BAGHDAD, Iraq — The Iraqi government has welcomed an order by Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to pull his fighters off the streets. Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told FOX News that the decision is "positive and responsive." Al-Dabbagh said the move would "help the government confront those who are violating the law" and that it would help to "isolate those who are trying to destroy the government effort". He said Iraqi security operations in Basra would not end until the "criminal elements" operating there are removed. Also praising al-Sadr's orders was Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who said it was "a step in the right direction." Al-Sadr ordered those loyal to him and his Mahdi Army Sunday off the streets in Basra and cities across Iraq, saying that whoever carries arms against Iraqi forces is not one of his followers. Al-Sadr also called on the government to stop what he calls haphazard raids and release security detainees who haven't been charged. Sunday's offer was contained in a nine-point statement issued by his headquarters in Najaf. Al-Sadr is demanding that the government issue a general amnesty and release all detainees. The statement said he also "disavows" anyone who carries weapons and targets government institutions, charities and political party offices. Clashes between the government and al-Sadr's supporters came to a head after hundreds of arrests by U.S. and Iraqi forces of al-Sadr supporters that U.S. commanders say are members of Iran-linked cells attacking American soldiers.[/rquoter]
Gettysburg lasted for over a week? Once again, you are mistaken. But yes you are correct - Tehran's man won the day, and all is right with the world once again, now that the Badr militia is in control! Bringing Badrmilitia-ocracy to iraq is one of the noblest achievements ever!
You are mistaken. The Battle of Gettysburg: July 1-3, 1863. You are doubly mistaken if you think this latest development is the end of hostilities in Iraq. Well, at least you're not surprised, right?
