Moktada al-Sadr, Emperor of Iraq

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm disturbed by what has gone down in Iraq the past week.
The Iraqi Prime Minister tried to crack down on the militias in Basra, sounds encouraging, those bastards are siphoning off more than half the country's oil exports down in that port city.

But the shits is that it seems the government has lost the battle. The government demanded that the militias turn-in their weapons within 48 hours. There were scenes of groups of 50 or so GOVERNMENT troops and police turning THEIR weapons over to the militia!! (A symbolic gesture of support.)

A truce has been brokered, looks like the fighting will wind-down in a stalement and overall embarassment for the government.

God almighty, we are in a hellacious mess over there. We were stuck helping the government in this latest battle, no choice but to help. But getting stuck in the middle of a power struggle between Shitte factions is a dubious mission.

Well, the reason I am popping-off here is I am concerned that if the U.S. were to withdraw troops, Sadr is strong enough to seize power. What a lovely result of 6 years of blood and treasure! God, we're so fucked.

[Joemailman]

Bush knows he can't fix this mess. The whole point of the surge was to prevent all-out Civil War from breaking out during this term. In another 9 months this will be someone else's problem, not his. Someday, we as a country may have to face up to the fact that maybe the Iraqis need a Civil War to iron out their differences, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it. That would be tragic for sure. But we made a monumental error in invading Iraq, and sometimes monumental errors lead to tragic results.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I see things getting better and we have to continue to sit on it. Hopefully with decreasing troop commitment.

The next president is damned if she does, damned if she doesn't.

[Joemailman]

One of the defining debates this fall will be whether Americans are going to vote for a candidate (McCain), who raises the possibility of a more or less permanent occupation of Iraq.

The danger in leaving Iraq is that it will turn into a huge proxy war, with Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia all trying to influence the results. The great challenge of the next President will be to try to convince these countries to refrain from actions that destabilize Iraq. The current administration is utterly incapable of doing that, which is why we are stuck there for the time being.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Ya, but will a real debate occur?

What do you suppose Obama really thinks about Iraq? I have no idea. Does he dare say?

I can guess about Clinton: she intends to keep a heavy troop commitment because of her pragmatic/conservative streak. But that is just a guess. I don't know that we can trust what Clinton or Obama are saying now because the voters want to hear easy answers.

Either democrat are likely to be better in Iraq than McCain. As you point out, diplomacy is the key, and new US faces & attitude will help.

Honestly, I wonder if there will be a huge difference in what any president can do. I think we are stuck with a slow drawdown as a policy. That's why I can consider voting for McCain next fall.

[Joemailman]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080330/iraq/



BAGHDAD — In a possible turning point in the recent upsurge in violence, Muqtada al-Sadr ordered his Shiite militiamen off the streets Sunday but called on the government to stop its raids against his followers.

The government welcomed the move, which followed intense negotiations by Shiite officials, including two lawmakers who reportedly traveled to Iran to ask religious authorities there to intervene.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose offensive that began Tuesday in the oil-rich southern city in Basra sparked the crisis, called al-Sadr's statement "a step in the right direction."

But fighting continued in the Basra area after the announcement. Seven people also were killed when a mortar struck a residential district in Baghdad's Karradah district, and witnesses reported clashes in the Shula area in a northern section of the capital.

A U.S. airstrike killed 25 suspected militants after American ground forces came under heavy fire during a combat patrol in predominantly Shiite eastern Baghdad, where the fiercest clashes in the capital have occurred.

The nine-point statement by the anti-American cleric, which was broadcast through Shiite mosques in Baghdad and across the south, called for an end to the "armed presence" in Basra and other cities and urged followers "to cooperate with the government to achieve security."

Al-Sadr, however, also demanded that the Iraqi government stop "illegal and haphazard raids" and release security detainees who haven't been charged, two issues cited by his movement as reasons for fighting the government.

The Sadrists have complained that the government has released few of their followers under a new amnesty law, which they complain has favored Sunnis who have recently joined with the Americans to fight al-Qaida.

The cleric's decision offered a way out of a widening Shiite conflict at a time when government forces appeared to be making little headway against the well-armed militias in Basra.

Al-Sadr's order stopped short of calling on his fighters to disarm. And the government insisted it would still target "outlaws."

Iraqi authorities in Baghdad said a citywide curfew would be lifted Monday morning, although a vehicle ban remained on three strongholds of al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia in the capital.

Before al-Sadr's statement, dozens of Shiite gunmen Sunday stormed a government TV facility in central Basra, forcing Iraqi troops guarding the building to flee and setting armored vehicles on fire.

One of al-Maliki's top security officials also was killed in a mortar attack in Basra, officials said. The prime minister's Dawa party issued a statement of condolences identifying the slain official as Salim Qassim, known by his nickname Abu Laith al-Kadhimi.

In an effort to curb the growing violence, two senior Shiite lawmakers close to al-Maliki _ Hadi al-Amri and Ali al-Adeeb _ traveled to Iran and asked authorities there to stop the flow of weapons to al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, according to two officials.

The lawmakers _ both of whom have close ties to Iran _ also asked the Iranians to pressure al-Sadr to come up with a face-saving initiative, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

The U.S. has accused Iran of supplying weapons, money and training to all major Shiite factions in Iraq. Those include the Mahdi Army as well as groups closely allied with the Americans. Tehran denies the charges.

Scattered firing could be heard in central Baghdad hours after al-Sadr's statement was released, and rockets or mortars were fired toward the Green Zone, where U.S. diplomats were holed up in the embassy at Saddam Hussein's former palace and ordered to stay under hard cover as the sprawling area has come under frequent fire this week.

At least seven Iraqis were killed and 21 wounded when two rounds apparently fell short, striking houses in the commercial district of Karradah, police said.

Suspected Mahdi Army gunmen also attacked an Iraqi checkpoint in eastern Baghdad, killing six troops, police said. The attack came hours after al-Sadr's statement was issued by his office in the holy city of Najaf.

The strength of the resistance to the week-old offensive has taken the U.S.-backed government by surprise, forcing it to bring in reinforcements as the number of Iraqi security forces involved in the effort topped 30,000.

The prime minister, himself a Shiite, has called the fight "a decisive and final battle," although he acknowledged later that he may have miscalculated by failing to foresee the strong backlash the offensive would provoke.

An estimated 400 people have been killed as fighting spread to Baghdad neighborhoods and other southern cities.

Several clashes have involved U.S. forces and the U.S. military launched airstrikes in Basra and American special forces were on the ground helping the Iraqi ground troops. The military said 16 enemy fighters were killed when an AC-130 gunship strafed heavily armed militants attacking Iraqi troops during clashes on Saturday.

The Shiite violence threatened to jeopardize recent security gains due to an influx of American troops, a Sunni revolt against al-Qaida in Iraq and al-Sadr's cease-fire that was announced in August.

Attacks bearing the hallmark of al-Qaida militants also continued in northern Iraq.

A suicide car bomber killed five U.S.-backed Sunni fighters and wounded eight other people near the oil hub of Beiji, 155 miles north of Baghdad.

Gunmen also killed five policemen in Duluiyah, a Sunni-dominated area 45 miles north of Baghdad.

Also Sunday, a U.S. soldier and a Marine were killed in separate roadside bombings in Baghdad and in Anbar province west of the capital, the military reported. That raises to 4,010 the number of American service members killed since the war started in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

The U.S. military said separately that American and Iraqi troops unearthed 14 badly decomposed bodies in a mass grave on Saturday in Muqdadiyah, northeast of Baghdad. It was the second such find since Thursday, when 37 bodies were found.

___

Associated Press writers Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Hamid Ahmed contributed to this report.


Seems to me al-Sadr has been sending a message that he can create havoc any time he wants, and there will be more havoc if things don't change.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It's clear what McCain is going to do in Iraq, he's going to be conservative in drawing-down troops.

Clinton says she'll start withdrawing troops within 60 days of her inauguration. This vague and deceptive statement is equivalent to "Dem voters won't like hearing my real policy." Which leads me to believe that she too will withdraw troops based on conditions on the ground.

I have no idea what Obama will do. He says he wants the U.S. out within 18 months, except for a small force to guard the Embassy and act as a sort of SWAT team against Al-Qaida. Does he mean it? I doubt it, but I'm very concerned about some recent comments by an Obama operative:

Someday, we as a country may have to face up to the fact that maybe the Iraqis need a Civil War to iron out their differences, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it. That would be tragic for sure. But we made a monumental error in invading Iraq, and sometimes monumental errors lead to tragic results.

Holy Christ. This sounds like Obama won't be taking responsibility for what happens in Iraq. Blame it on Bush if the region erupts as we get out. Could Obama really mean what he said about 18-months-and-out?

[texaspackerbacker]

Harlan, you seem to have completely the wrong take on the events of the past few days--not unexpected, though, for an Obama liberal.

This was NOT an insurgent offensive. It was an Iraqi government offensive to defeat a long term thorn in its side. People, many of them leftists, in this country have been saying for a long time something should be done about the Shi'ite militias. Well, al Maliki is doing it. And by objective accounts, he is doing it successfully.

Muqtada al Sadr tried standing up to the American military in 2004, and he got slapped down hard, so much so that he has grudgingly agreed to a ceasefire and then a renewal of that ceasefire. That ceasefire appeared to be in jeopardy as Sadr's fighters were resisting government attempts to assert control. However, they were beginning to lose in large numbers--another beatdown like in '04, this time mainly at the hands of Iraqi government troops.

However, as of Sunday morning our time, al Sadr ordered is people off the streets and NOT to stand in the way of government efforts to beat down the Shi'ite militias. That's hardly the behavior of the "Emperor of Iraq".

It is becoming an increasingly moot point what Obama or Hillary would do in Iraq, as they are fading and will IMO fade a lot more. Unquestionably, though, either would pull the plug and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

McCain pretty obviously will do what it takes to get the job done. Will the new Iraqi leadership do its part to expedite that conclusion and allow the withdrawal of our troops sooner rather than later? Well, the events of this week are a defining moment in that, both in the words of Bush and al Maliki.

And based on the latest news, things are proceding nicely.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Harlan, you seem to have completely the wrong take on the events of the past few days--not unexpected, though, for an Obama liberal.

I guess you did not read my posts.

This was NOT an insurgent offensive. It was an Iraqi government offensive to defeat a long term thorn in its side.

??? Who are you arguing with? Nobody talked about an insurgent offensive.

And based on the latest news, things are proceding nicely.

You couldn't be more mistaken.

It was a poorly planned maneuver intended to make a show of force. They didn't expect much resistance. The government didn't inform the U.S. before hand.

In theory it was a good thing, cracking down on the militias. I saw it as good news when I first heard about it. But in reality it was a boondoggle.

Al-Maliki was greatly embarrassed, and some think his government will fall as a result.

Reports today indicate that the fighting ended primarily because of pressure from Iran. (Sadir is an Iraqi Nationalist, has not been so close to Iran, but he is currently directing his organization from Iran.)

[texaspackerbacker]

I DID read your posts, Harlan, although I did kind of lump your posts and Joe's in together. And yes, I know neither of you claimed this was an insurgent offensive. I was just pointing that out to illustrate that the events are NOT a sign of enemy strength, but a sign of the new government flexing its muscles in a way many--apparently even you--thought was long overdue. The fact that he did so seemingly without American permission only serves to belie liberal claims that the new government and Maliki in particular are mere pawns of America.

Why would you say the offensive is "poorly planned" and "likely to bring down Maliki's government" when the whole thing is going reasonably well? Al Sadr was AGAIN getting beat, so he reverted to his ceasefire--clearing the way for the government troops to handle the other renegade Shi'ite militias. That is a very good thing!

Where do you get your information that al Sadr is in Iran? There was a rumor about that 6 months or a year ago, but it wasn't substantiated then, and I haven't even heard it suggested recently.

The Iranian backed militias are exactly the ones that Maliki's troops are going after. If indeed, Iran orders them to stand down, that too is a very good thing, as it would basically indicate complete success for the good guys.

[Freak Out]

From what I've heard and read over the last few days Sadr was/is in Iran...Iraqi government officials stated they went to Iran to negotiate with him...and I would hesitate to say the government gave his forces a beat down...they held off the Iraqi government troops easily enough and still held out when the US was called in to help out with air power and backup troops. The national police were once again useless and basically sided with Sadr to save their skin. Maliki is just another Iraqi thug making a fortune off our tax dollars and Iraqi oil....no better than Sadr in those respects.

All this really was was a fight for power between two Shiites.

[Joemailman]

Harlan, you seem to have completely the wrong take on the events of the past few days--not unexpected, though, for an Obama liberal.

I guess you did not read my posts.

Tex saw right through your clever ruse. Welcome to the club!

[Harlan Huckleby]

Freak Out is right. This guy surveys today's reports, he's pretty honest:
http://www.juancole.com/

Perhaps there is something postive to salvaged. At least the government made an effort to deal with a problem.

The reason I started this thread is I am wondering if the Iraqi government is really any closer to controlling the country minus the U.S. troops.

Sadir's base of support is in Baghdad. He has expanded to the south, where he has growing political and military strength. Very worrying. He used to be anti-Iran, but it seems he is mending fences there.

And Sadir's militia is competing with the Badir militia (loosely allied with the government) for the privilege of heisting oil deliveries out of Basra. Warring mafia families.

I don't know what is going on.

[Freak Out]

I don't know what is going on.

Just like the rest of the world.

I now refer to "Operation Iraqi Freedom" as "Operation Majestic Goatfuck". It is becoming increasingly hard to find words to describe just how fucked up the entire operation has become. The sheer waste of resources and money let alone lives is just mind boggling. Of course it will continue for a long time.......

[Harlan Huckleby]

the beatings will continue until morale improves

[hoosier]

I don't know what is going on.

Just like the rest of the world.

I now refer to "Operation Iraqi Freedom" as "Operation Majestic Goatfuck". It is becoming increasingly hard to find words to describe just how fucked up the entire operation has become. The sheer waste of resources and money let alone lives is just mind boggling. Of course it will continue for a long time.......

that would be LOL funny if it weren't so sad

[Scott Campbell]

I'm disturbed..........

Agreed.

[oregonpackfan]

I don't know what is going on.

Just like the rest of the world.

I now refer to "Operation Iraqi Freedom" as "Operation Majestic Goatfuck". It is becoming increasingly hard to find words to describe just how fucked up the entire operation has become. The sheer waste of resources and money let alone lives is just mind boggling. Of course it will continue for a long time.......

Iraq = The Three Trillion Dollar War

[Deputy Nutz]

I don't know what is going on.

Just like the rest of the world.

I now refer to "Operation Iraqi Freedom" as "Operation Majestic Goatfuck". It is becoming increasingly hard to find words to describe just how fucked up the entire operation has become. The sheer waste of resources and money let alone lives is just mind boggling. Of course it will continue for a long time.......

Without the USA's presence in Iraq the balance of power will be totally shifted to Iran in the Middle East. Iran is going to run rough shot over Iraq with sending in their little milita men and what not to stir up problems and disrupt the already floundering government of Iraq.

So I think you got the goatfuck part correct.

[Harlan Huckleby]

sorry for interrupting the war, but thought you might want to take a break to see Paul McCartney's man boobs.