BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. forces, backing up Iraqi troops battling Shiite militants, bombed Basra on Saturday as about 40 Iraqi police commandos based in Baghdad deserted to join a militia.


A U.S. military intelligence analysis found that Iraqi security forces control less than a quarter of Basra, officials in both the United States and Iraq said.
"This is going to go on for a while," one U.S. military official told CNN.


Basra's police units are deeply infiltrated by members of the Mehdi Army.
At least 40 Iraqi national police in Baghdad have deserted and joined the Mehdi Army militia led by Muqtada al-Sadr (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Muqtada_al_Sadr), taking their U.S.-supplied weapons with them, according to an Iraqi Interior Ministry official.


The radical Shiite cleric rejected Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's call for the Mehdi Army to lay down its arms, a top al-Sadr aide told CNN on Saturday.
"Muqtada al-Sadr has told us not to surrender our arms except to a state that can throw out the [American] occupation," Salah al-Obaidi said.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/29/iraq.main/index.html

The Shia Militias still hold massive influence in Iraq, and Bush and McCain can talk about how great Iraq is going every day, but it still doesn't change the fact that it is actually getting worse.

It's our fault - well Basra, anyway.

The British were far too quick to pull out. Well, not quick, exactly on schedule, actually. But schedule's aren't good enough in a melting pot of chaos like Iraq. Basra was perhaps one of the best managed areas in post-war Iraq.

The British semi-retirement and re-deployment looked like retreat, and the entire edifice of British rule for 4 years came crashing down the instant we left, indeed while we were leaving for the airport.

4 years of little fighting - and now look at it. Looking worse than Baghdad by the day. Yep, this is a British failure.

It's our fault - well Basra, anyway.

The British were far too quick to pull out. Well, not quick, exactly on schedule, actually. But schedule's aren't good enough in a melting pot of chaos like Iraq. Basra was perhaps one of the best managed areas in post-war Iraq.

The British semi-retirement and re-deployment looked like retreat, and the entire edifice of British rule for 4 years came crashing down the instant we left, indeed while we were leaving for the airport.

4 years of little fighting - and now look at it. Looking worse than Baghdad by the day. Yep, this is a British failure.

This situation might have been inflamed by the British leaving, however the nonsense that the militias are cooperating and such that the government feeds us was just proven to be bullshit.

40 policemen took the US supplied weapons and turned against the police and joined with the militias. The Shia militias like Mahdi, hold a lot of influence in the country, and the sad fact is that we are told their power is dwindling when indeed it is not.

The main danger in this is that, if we were to open another front, for example against Iran. We would be facing mass betrayals like the one in this story, and even heavier fighting in Iraq. Just wish we had a leader that would tell us the truth once in awhile.

We've seen a lot of great progress lately and now seeing a lot of progress lost. My best friend is currently in the green zone of Bagdad and they are pulling him out to the airport tomorrow because the previously "safe" green zone is getting pounded by rocket fire. This was unheard of after the initial invasion until now. Its almost like things are getting worse despite the surge.

There going to commit genocide against each other the day we pull out after US elections.

Then we can let Turkey go and clean it up.

Ya know, I'd really like to make a poignant, insightfull and completely smartassed comment on this thread. but...
This dead horse I've been beating for the past 5 years is...quite frankly smelling quite rancid these days. that and everytime i take another wack at it i end up covered in some sort of unidentifiable Goo.
Think i'll just pray that we dont somehow Nuke Iran before I'm finished with making the sunday morning Pancakes tommorow instead.

Now where the hell did I put that Guitar?

This situation might have been inflamed by the British leaving, however the nonsense that the militias are cooperating and such that the government feeds us was just proven to be bullshit.Sadr (Shia) has always had to go if Iraq was going to be a success and the only people in Iraq that could remove him from power has been the Shia themselves. That's happening.

A year ago if this was attempted, it would have been thousands defecting, not 40.

And the British leaving 'early' has only changed who is having to help clean up Sadr's mess... not the cause of that mess.

Sadr (Shia) has always had to go if Iraq was going to be a success and the only people in Iraq that could remove him from power has been the Shia themselves. That's happening.

A year ago if this was attempted, it would have been thousands defecting, not 40.

And the British leaving 'early' has only changed who is having to help clean up Sadr's mess... not the cause of that mess.

hmm... Aren't much of the police fighting Sadr's men, Sunni? Or are they mixed. Cause having Shia members turn against them to join Sadr, does not show a positive step forward.

Sadr (Shia) has always had to go if Iraq was going to be a success and the only people in Iraq that could remove him from power has been the Shia themselves. That's happening.



Dude!!! put the Cat down! Cheesing will not solve your problems in life!
Beside's, you never really get a good look her naked boobage anyway's.

4 years of little fighting - and now look at it. Looking worse than Baghdad by the day. Yep, this is a British failure.If only you had stayed there forever. :(

There going to commit genocide against each other the day we pull out after US elections.

Then we can let Turkey go and clean it up.

Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran will be the three that will be most in play. Syria and Jordan will be sideline cheer-leading squads.

As of today...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080330/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

In other violence, 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.

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.



So glad it's getting better.

Oh I wonder why..

Since the fighting began on Tuesday 358 Mahdi Army fighters were killed, 531 were wounded, 343 were captured, and 30 surrendered. The US and Iraqi security forces have killed 125 Mahdi Army fighters in Baghdad alone, while Iraqi security forces have killed 140 Mahdi fighters in Basra. That sunnabitch knows he's got the short straw.

Anyone watch "Meet the Press" today?

CIA head dude, Micheal Hayden said that Maliki did this without any consultation or forewarning by the US or Coalition.

Nobody really knows why.


As far as getting the short end of straw... I don't think so.
Iraqi forces had to call in US support and personal.

The message is loud and clear. Iraqi Security forces cannot stand on their own. Even now. This was a test for both forces.

As I've said from the start there is only one way to wage war.

Fock this hearts and minds shit.

Go hard and continue going full tilt till it's over. They would be in a rebuilding stage already instead of this continuing slogging through a daily mess.

We lost the will to wage war properly after WW2 and that's hurt us.

There was no will to wage that kind of war because there was no reason.

Remember.. this was the war of "Go Shopping, don't worry about this, itll be over in 6 weeks"

There has been a backlash recently by the young sunni's and Shiites in that they are just plain sick and tired of the violence. They seem to be losing their will to fight and have also been openly defiant of the mullahs calls to sacrifice for allah.

That is a fact.

I think, looking at the bigger picture of an independent Iraqi government, that it was a bold move to go ahead and plan and execute this assault on the Sadr affiliated militia. It is unfortunate that the American troops needed to be called in for support, but that does not lessen the fact that the Iraqi leadership wanted to send the message that there will be no independent governments within the larger state; that this will not be a repeat of what has developed in Afghanistan, but will be one united country.

What is important now is that they do as Fandros says, and go full steam to complete the mission, and establish security without any independent Mullahs having private armies at their command.

That may do more to make the Iraqi army and police forces a credible force than any training we can give at this point; working toward a unified country in support of a unified government, elected by the people, will create more cohesion than all the other bullshit that their leaders and our leaders have been making speeches about for the last several years.

To make it work, they need to be putting some of their capital into repairing and maintaining the infrastructure as well, though. People will be much more supportive of a centralized government if it is providing clean water and electricity 24/7, along with security.

Who's sick of fighting Byl?

Not the people in the Mahdi Army.

The wolves never get tired of fighting, it is their nature. The prey get tired of it, and they stop running.

Who's sick of fighting Byl?

Not the people in the Mahdi Army.

The wolves never get tired of fighting, it is their nature. The prey get tired of it, and they stop running.

Umm, you are reading Rover's post about "sick of fighting".

bleh

yea

soz

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/30/iraq.main/index.html


http://marknicodemo.mu.nu/archives/Darth_Sadr.jpg
They should have wiped him (al-Sadr's) off the face of the planet a few years ago, hope they keep taking it to him. The guy is a slow bleed on the country, fires up his boys, lets them get spanked, kill a ton of other people...then say hey lets stop the violence, and let my friends out of jail while your at it because you killed so many other ones.

CIA head dude, Micheal Hayden said that Maliki did this without any consultation or forewarning by the US or Coalition.Good, they're standing up on their own. Yes it's true they still need our help still, but as I said earlier, there would have been no way a year ago this could have been done with even a mediocre contribution from the Iraqis.

Nobody really knows why.He can do it and with the coming elections (both here and over there coming) he must do it now.

And I've been saying this for 4 years now, Sadr has had a bullet with his name on it.

Not today he doesnt.

Maliki started this, with saying it was a "final" Battle. He lost his nerve someway in there, and once the US started bringing its forces to bear, Sadr and Maliki entered into a cease fire.
But why would Maliki enter into a cease fire? Why starting this thing, would he then settle for Status Quo?

Victory? Im not buying it. More probably a massive bribe to Sadr, a way for Maliki to save face, and a sigh of relief from the Administration who cannot afford a full scale Shia civil war to erupt and have any hope of avoiding a total meltdown before Bush leaves office.

Here is a good analysis.

On Sunday Nouri al-Maliki admitted defeat in his attempt to crack down on Moqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army in Basra. Maliki had begun the week demanding that Mahdi forces surrender within 72 hours, calling this "a decisive and final battle." Yet as the disastrous campaign backfired in Basra, Baghdad and elsewhere Maliki pathetically extended the rejected deadline until April 8th. As Patrick Cockburn (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/british-and-us-forces-drawn-into-battle-for-basra-802626.html) noted, "Maliki's confident prediction that he would crush the Mehdi Army is turning out to be a dangerous gamble that is fast eroding his authority."

Today Maliki appears to have accepted a humiliating 'compromise' offered by Sadr (h/t Cernig (http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/2008/03/breaking-sadr-plays-good-guy-card.html)). The Iraqi government will leave the Mahdi militia alone, which in turn will cease patrolling the streets under arms. It's a return to the status quo ante, except that Sadr has demonstrated his power conclusively - and Maliki his weakness.

So far western news media have refrained from pointing out how thoroughly Maliki has been humiliated. But the idea that Sadr has given way under pressure is scarcely credible after the Mahdi Army's string of successes this week. The near disintegration of the Iraqi army sent to Basra has been the best possible endorsement of Sadr's political stature, whereas each day brings further disasters for the Iraqi government.

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

One of al-Maliki's top security officials was killed in a mortar attack against the palace that houses the military operations center, officials said.

The terms offered by Sadr indicate that he is playing the stronger hand. He is offering Maliki a face-saving retreat while staking out the moral high ground.

Moqtada Sadr's statement said: "Because of the religious responsibility, and to stop Iraqi blood being shed, and to maintain the unity of Iraq and to put an end to this sedition that the occupiers and their followers want to spread among the Iraqi people, we call for an end to armed appearances in Basra and all other provinces.

"Anyone carrying a weapon and targeting government institutions will not be one of us."

The cleric also demanded that the government apply the general amnesty law, release detainees and stop what he called illegal raids.

The latter are the same demands Sadr was making before Tuesday's attack in Basra, so in effect he's standing his ground while offering an armistice and a cooling off of tensions. The Mahdi Army will not give up their weapons, as Maliki had demanded.

Furthermore, Sadr's offer included other terms as well, which the western media have not reported. Arab sources indicate that Sadr's nine-point proposal demands the withdrawal of Iraqi and US forces from Basra and, even more embarrassingly, the retreat of Maliki and his Defense and Interior ministers from Basra back to Baghdad within 48 hours. With the acceptance of his 'compromise', Sadr solidifies his power base in Basra.

This Iraqi press release (http://www.kuna.net.kw/NewsAgenciesPublicSite/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=1895507&Language=en) shows the extent to which Maliki has lost face:

Spokesman for the Iraqi government Ali Al-Dabbag, in a press release, said the government welcomed this call which would serve to avoid bloodshed, adding that this reflected Al-Sadr's keenness for maintaining the safety of civilians.

Maliki may have difficulty in holding onto power now. He's shown the incompetence not only of the best military forces under his direct control, but also of the Prime Minister personally. For at least five millenia it's been a truism in Mesopotamia that leaders, if they want to endure, must always avoid implicating themselves in military defeat. By taking charge of operations in Basra, Maliki showed how woefully out of touch he is with Iraqi political wisdom. Of course, at this stage it should surprise nobody that Maliki is incapable of governing. That was almost fated from the moment his name was floated as a compromise candidate in 2006. For Maliki, a former exile under Saddam Hussein, had no political base in Iraq. The Bush administration's misjudgment in backing yet another returned exile as leader in that badly fractured country has had the predictable consequence that the Iraqi government cannot function. It's fair to say at this date that there is no government in Iraq, just the mirage of one.

Where'd that analysis come from? Link?

There's a discussion going on in a different forum I'd like to link it to.

Sadr (Shia) has always had to go if Iraq was going to be a success and the only people in Iraq that could remove him from power has been the Shia themselves. That's happening.

A year ago if this was attempted, it would have been thousands defecting, not 40.

And the British leaving 'early' has only changed who is having to help clean up Sadr's mess... not the cause of that mess.


Well, he didn't go, and he most likely won't go. He is now going to be viewed as the peacemaker verse the warmonger. He just scored a PR coup, he won the hearts and minds while we bombed the hearts and minds, and as anyone with any modicum of experience knows it is a "He who holds the hearts and minds always has the upper hand in an insurgency".

Money talks and bullshit, well it just gets all shot up. It's time to make a deal, just like Don Rickles said in Kelly's Heroes when there was a large tank in front of the bank.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/30/iraq.main/index.html

They should have wiped him (al-Sadr's) off the face of the planet a few years ago, hope they keep taking it to him. The guy is a slow bleed on the country, fires up his boys, lets them get spanked, kill a ton of other people...then say hey lets stop the violence, and let my friends out of jail while your at it because you killed so many other ones.

I dunno, it seems like he one of the few with a fraction of the right idea...


Following fourteen weeks of hiding, on 25 May 2007 Al-Sadr reemerged. Driving in a long motorcade from Najaf to Kufa, Al-Sadr proceeded to deliver a sermon to an estimated 6000 followers in the main mosque. Reiterating his usual condemnation of the United States presence in Iraq, Al-Sadr's speech also contained calls for unity between Sunni and Shi'a.

Many saw the speech as an effort to rein in his militia, which has broken into several factions since his departure. Several of these factions have been accused of violence against Sunnis.

Muqtada al-Sadr vowed to go ahead with a planned march to the devastated Askariya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Askariya) shrine in central Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq) but insisted the goal was not to confront Sunnis who live along the way.

Instead, al-Sadr said the march was aimed at bringing Shiites and Sunnis closer together and breaking down the barriers imposed by the Americans and Sunni religious extremists.

I also don't understand what makes this man so evil to you guys. He originally began resisting the American Occupation, and he resists the new government, but he isn't targeting civilians. I don't think he is the "good guy" per say, but I don't buy it that he is some evil guy that needs to be killed.

I see him as someone that needs to be brought to your side, and he seems sane enough to see what is best for his people and to make a decision accordingly.

Lessons learned:

We can't leave Iraq because if we do there may be civil war...Iraqis fighting Iraqis.

The Iraqi army is showing signs of progress because they were repulsed by Sadr's militia.

Someone's been saying that there's a bullet with Sadr's name on it for 4 years, so he's practically a dead man.

Oh don't forget. Everything that ever happens in Iraq is a "Sign of Progress"

Saddams corpse could reanimate it self and allow Osama Bin Laden to sodomize him on Al-Maliki's desk while he poured Cristal over them, and the Neo Cons would applaud it as a "sign of the tolerance and openess the new Free Iraq enjoys."

'Fock this hearts and minds shit.

Go hard and continue going full tilt till it's over. They would be in a rebuilding stage already instead of this continuing slogging through a daily mess.'

- Honestly, that is the most retarded thing I've heard on these forums in ages.

Because this fighting a war with both hands tied behind your back by desk sitting idiots back at home has been doing so well?

Honestly Halo your response has to be the most retarded thing I've ever seen. (neener,neener ;P )

The only way the insurgents even have the upper hand is because we have decided to fight their battle. You can never hope to do well when you let the opponent pick the time/place/manner of battle.

Bush and Co (include Tony Blair in this) for some reason decided they wanted to give the insurgents a decent chance to muck us up. The US has been fighting this type of war since the end of WW2 and it's never gone well for us.

War should be the absolute last option, and when that fails you need to go so hard and so brutal that both sides fear having to ever go to war again.

'Honestly Halo your response has to be the most retarded thing I've ever seen. (neener,neener ;P )'

- Touche!

'War should be the absolute last option, and when that fails you need to go so hard and so brutal that both sides fear having to ever go to war again.'

- Yes, but war wasn't the 'absolute last option', it was pretty much the first option. The only, ONLY way this could ever go right is to leave, and then go back in, in 10 years.
Instead, we've gone in against the international community and as such have had very little support (that's right, tens or hundreds of "good will" soldiers from $50bn economy countries is not an "alliance of the willing"), made some colossal mistakes, ie disbanding the army and failing to secure borders, and insist on announcing operations at an end and looking to prop up an independent democratic party and attempting to get it to fight our battles for us.

The only option now is to leave and allow posterity to judge our generation as the murderers of Iraq - through out own stupidity.

/nods

Of course I happen to think the "blockade" of Iraq was failing as an option(what with various countries/companies ignoring it).

Because this fighting a war with both hands tied behind your back by desk sitting idiots back at home has been doing so well?

Honestly Halo your response has to be the most retarded thing I've ever seen. (neener,neener ;P )

The only way the insurgents even have the upper hand is because we have decided to fight their battle. You can never hope to do well when you let the opponent pick the time/place/manner of battle.

Bush and Co (include Tony Blair in this) for some reason decided they wanted to give the insurgents a decent chance to muck us up. The US has been fighting this type of war since the end of WW2 and it's never gone well for us.

War should be the absolute last option, and when that fails you need to go so hard and so brutal that both sides fear having to ever go to war again.


This war is an insurgency, that means that we are not fighting a regular military force, we are fighting the indiginious population. We are on their turf, they come out when they want to not when we want them to. We use a battalion of infantry with armor, artillery and air support, they use a guy in a car loaded with 500 lbs of "dud" artillery shells.

We have no choice but to fight their battles due to our tactic of fighting them using a conventional force.

They know when we're coming because we have these large vehicles and infantry so over packed with all kinds of techno crap and we never know when their coming because they are the ones who look like everyone else, the ones who sell their goods from the shops on "main street", the ones who wear the police uniforms, the ones who wear the uniforms of their countries military, the ones who work on our bases. They see us 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. We only see them when they strike and then we mostly just see what they've done.

The way to fight an insurgency is to win the hearts and minds of the general population, that is a no brainer. Any 5th grade history student can tell you that. History is loaded with failed military efforts against insurgencies.

War in itself is brutal, and it is that brutality that will often cause a population to rise up against the agressors, this is why you will see things like a person who stands in front of a tank as they try to enter Tianamen Square, or a young Palestinian throwing rocks at an Israeli tank as it fires on the gathered crowd. People that feel oppressed or invaded have always stood up and fought back, even if they had no weapons that matched the more technologically sophisticated force.

In this type of war, we are not fighting an "army" we are fighting a desire, and it is something we will never "win", because it's unwinnable and designed as much by us to go on forever and will only end when we leave.

Interesting


Iran helped prod al-Sadr cease-fire

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iran was integral in persuading Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to halt attacks by his militia on Iraqi security forces, an Iraqi lawmaker said Monday.

Haidar al-Abadi, who is with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's Dawa Party, said Iraqi Shiite lawmakers traveled Friday to Iran to meet with al-Sadr. They returned Sunday, the day al-Sadr told his Mehdi Army fighters to stand down.


News of Iran's involvement in the cease-fire talks came as an al-Maliki spokesman said operations targeting "outlaws" in the Shiite stronghold of Basra would end when the mission's goals were achieved. Earlier, al-Maliki spokesman Sami al-Askari said the operation would be over by week's end, but he later recanted on the timetable.


The lawmakers who traveled to Iran to broker the cease-fire were from five Shiite parties, including the Sadrist movement. Al-Abadi would not say where in Iran the meeting was held.



http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/31/iraq.main/index.html

Interesting!

Kinda hard to manage your proxies if they're all dead.

Imagine what could be accomplished by actually talking to Iran...

The cynic in me wonders if Iran didn't help create the recent conflict between Sadr and the Iraq govt just so they could sweep in and save the day...

Jedd beat me to the post on the Iranian front, but here's another article (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/32055.html) about Iranian brokerage of the cease fire, which includes several other details:
There the Iraqi lawmakers held talks with Brig. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Qods (Jerusalem) brigades of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps and signed an agreement with Sadr, which formed the basis of his statement Sunday, members of parliament said.
...
"I will not be surprised if the whole thing collapses," [an anonymous Iraqi official] said.
...
Sadr issued a nine-point statement Sunday saying he would renounce anyone who carried arms against the government and government forces. The statement also asked the government to halt all raids against the Mahdi army, end detentions of militia members who had not been charged and implement the general amnesty law.

To preserve the "unity" of Iraq Sadr called for an end to "all armed manifestations in Basra and in all provinces."
...
In another blow to Maliki, his security advisor, Saleem Qassim al Taee, known as Abu Laith Al-Kadhimi, was killed in the fighting in Basra. The Dawa party member had lived in exile under Saddam's regime for 20 years.

Kinda hard to manage your proxies if they're all dead.


Well at least someone has read their American history and learned some lessons.

Maybe we should hook the Iraqi Army up with this outfit (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/world/asia/27ammo.html?_r=2&ex=1364270400&en=c04d358a662752c5&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin), which has been supplying Afghanistan's army and police.
But to arm the Afghan forces that it hopes will lead this fight, the American military has relied since early last year on a fledgling company led by a 22-year-old man whose vice president was a licensed masseur.

With the award last January of a federal contract worth as much as nearly $300 million, the company, AEY Inc., which operates out of an unmarked office in Miami Beach, became the main supplier of munitions to Afghanistan’s army and police forces.

Since then, the company has provided ammunition that is more than 40 years old and in decomposing packaging, according to an examination of the munitions by The New York Times and interviews with American and Afghan officials. Much of the ammunition comes from the aging stockpiles of the old Communist bloc, including stockpiles that the State Department and NATO have determined to be unreliable and obsolete, and have spent millions of dollars to have destroyed.
Just when you think you've seen the most ludicrous display of incompetence in the prosecution of our wars, something new appears to boggle the mind.

LOL...it gets more ridiculious as the years go by.

makes me wish I had sent in proposals for wartime contracts.

"Maybe we should hook the Iraqi Army up with this outfit (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/world/asia/27ammo.html?_r=2&ex=1364270400&en=c04d358a662752c5&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin), which has been supplying Afghanistan's army and police."

That's what can happen when you go with the lowest bidder (particularly when it involves government purchasing). Maybe this is the result of the complaints regarding no-bid contracts....

"Maybe we should hook the Iraqi Army up with this outfit (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/world/asia/27ammo.html?_r=2&ex=1364270400&en=c04d358a662752c5&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin), which has been supplying Afghanistan's army and police."

That's what can happen when you go with the lowest bidder (particularly when it involves government purchasing). Maybe this is the result of the complaints regarding no-bid contracts....


No you idiot, it's what happens when you have people in elected and appointed offices that dismantle those agencies and create an environment where oversight is considered as a negative effect on your friends profits.

DoD goes with lowest bidder with almost little oversight to quality it seems. It's been like that for decades and is only now becoming more visable due to high demands during the war(s).

It has absolutely nothing to do with the current administration as the bidding is handled by lifers in nonelected positions.

Rover you can easily attribute alot of the ills upon Bush and co and have a valid arguement. However this doesn't fall under Bush's immediate oversight and as such isn't the evil Bush and co's domain. It's Washington business as usual I'm afraid ;(

"Lifers in nonelected positions" isn't exactly true. Under Bush we've had the biggest purge of career military officers and administration people since Stalin in the 1930s.

Hyperbole much?

When we talk about exaggerations, what we're really talking about is understatements. Numbers are almost distracting.

"Lifers in nonelected positions" isn't exactly true. Under Bush we've had the biggest purge of career military officers and administration people since Stalin in the 1930s.


Thanks, I was going to say that...sans Stalin. However this is absolutely correct, it is common knowledge that those who actually followed the regulations were quickly blacklisted under Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld.

There has not been this level of discontent within the ranks of the Pentagon even during the Vietnam war.

"Lifers in nonelected positions" isn't exactly true. Under Bush we've had the biggest purge of career military officers and administration people since Stalin in the 1930s.
Where do you get this data from? I'm not disagreeing or even implying that it's incorrect (I think it's likely a true statement), I'd just like to have something to point to when I succumb to the weakness of feeling the desire to try to win an internet argument on other forums.

Errr damn Civvies not understanding....

Bidding is managed by life long Civ's in a red tape position. Not elected just continuing the status quo.

Errr damn Civvies not understanding....

Bidding is managed by life long Civ's in a red tape position. Not elected just continuing the status quo.
Who are you referring to as "civvies"?

Who are you referring to as "civvies"?

He could have said "skivvies", ya know! :D

I don't buy the lowest bidder argument. It's hard to have lowest bids when billions of dollars in contracts have been going out no-bid.

Back on topic, it's ridiculous to think that we can "win" a guerrilla war by increasing traditional muscle. All we're doing is increasing collateral damage*, while drastically ramping up the blowback we're going to face in years to come.

* You know, all those men, women, and children whose only crime against anyone was being born in the wrong place at the wrong time. Boy, we sure showed them!

Where do you get this data from? I'm not disagreeing or even implying that it's incorrect (I think it's likely a true statement), I'd just like to have something to point to when I succumb to the weakness of feeling the desire to try to win an internet argument on other forums.

Sources I had bookmarked with hard numbers seem to have expired, I'll keep looking, but there have been a series of what can only be described as political purges that began in earnest in 2001 under Rumsfeld and have continued to this day on various different impetuses. (Gates got rid of a ton of Rumsfeld's people too, whether or not his replacements were better is up in the air).

And no, it's not just O-ranks, it's the civil servants who worked in the system too. They often can't be outright dismissed but it's fairly easy to inform people that they should start looking for employment elsewhere. What's more, everyone in those sorts of bureaucracies knows where policies come from and tries to toe the party line because they know where the raises, promotions, and juicy contacts come from. Anyone who's ever worked for a large company has seen that in action.

Not just that.. but right after the invasion part of OIF, almost the entirety of senior military staff retired... including Tommy Franks. Most of them saw the writing on the wall and couldn't tolerate Rumsfeld and his hair brained schemes.

How Moqtada al-Sadr Won in Basra

The Iraqi military's offensive in Basra was supposed to demonstrate the power of the central government in Baghdad. Instead it has proven the continuing relevance of anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. Sadr's militia, the Mahdi Army, stood its ground in several days of heavy fighting with Iraqi soldiers backed up by American and British air power.

But perhaps more important than the manner in which the militia fought is the manner in which it stopped fighting. On Sunday Sadr issued a call for members of the Mahdi Army to stop appearing in the streets with their weapons and to cease attacks on government installations. Within a day, the fighting had mostly ceased.

It was an ominous answer to a question posed for months by U.S. military observes: Is Sadr still the leader of a unified movement and military force? The answer appears to be yes.

In the view of many American troops and officers, the Mahdi Army had splintered irretrievably into a collection of independent operators and criminal gangs. Now, however, the conclusion of the conflict in Basra shows that when Sadr speaks, the militia listens.continued

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1726763,00.html?cnn=yes

Whether it was low bid or not isn't even an issue. The fact is that they bid out the contract without a clue as to how it'd be executed.

I am close to betting that it will come out that this contract was awarded more due to nepotism than cost.

Derail off since it's apparent you guys didn't even bother reading the article.

This past week has been quite a challenge with the highest level of insurgent attacks in Baghdad, ever. Not just "since I've been here" ever, but "since the war began" ever. Obviously, with GEN Petraeus' testimony coming up soon, I would really hate it if people used the insurgent attacks to undermine the incredible value added by the surge, or the vital importance of remaining here until the Government of Iraq is viable.

The unclassified, open-source, bottom line is this: The insurgent attacks did not happen "in spite of" the surge. Insurgents attacked in Basrah where foreign military influence is fanning the flames of discontent over the lack of essential services. People in Basrah are upset because they don't have access to clean water, sewage, trash removal, or fuel for cooking and transportation. They know who to blame, but they don't know who to turn to to fix the problems. They lashed out, Maliki's government moved to squelch it, and the Coalition stayed largely on the sidelines. OK, we provided targets. And maybe we helped a little, if you count helicopter gunships and Predator UAVs. But essentially, this was an internal Iraqi affair.

I wish you could have heard General Petraeus' steady response as the situation unfolded: very deliberate, yet calming. It was quite dramatic here, and a lesser leader might have over-reacted. I anticipate that some members of our own society will use this spate of violence to claim the surge failed and call for our immediate withdrawal. That would be a terrible decision based on a tragic misreading of what just happened.

The General can expect to be grilled by Congress and the press over this, but the violence reflects on Iraqi politics and ineffective provincial government, not on the surge or the value of our continued presence here.

From watching the news, you know Maliki moved to Basrah in a show of force. He made lots of blustery statements about what he was going to do to the Jayesh al Mahdi (JAM). The Baghdad arm of JAM, headquartered in Sadr City, responded with a little fireworks of their own in Maliki's absence. In hindsight, Mr Maliki may have overplayed a bit, and some feel he lost credibility in the process.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, General Petraeus quietly and deftly encouraged the central government of Iraq to:

(a) concentrate not on JAM, but on the criminal element within JAM. "Anyone on the street with a weapon is a criminal." This effectively divided the JAM members. Next,

(b) focus on the humanitarian element of the operation. Pushing much-needed food and water to trapped inhabitants encouraged even more JAM members to stay home and take care of family members. Finally,

(c) show that fighting is not going to solve the needs of Iraq.

By addressing the essential services issues and bringing central government people to the provincial sessions to address concerns, people see their government taking an active role in solving the problem.

The effect was that Moqtada al Sadr got to make a point, Maliki demonstrated his resolve, the Iraqi Army and Police showed themselves to be capable and professional, and there's a sense of a better day coming in Basrah. Without the strong response of the central Government, the militia-led uprising could have very easily led to further lawlessness, mayhem, and devastation. The Coalition trained and helped equip and arm the Iraqi Army. The surge allowed us to clear and hold areas long enough to bring violence levels down, so the government could start focusing on essential services. If anything, the surge came too late because people have been without services for far too long.

There is a huge problem with transparency in the Government of Iraq (GoI). Money is coming in from the sale of oil, and budgets are being drafted to pay bills and provide services. But the ministries are doing a poor job of spending their allocated money on priorities. They are doing an even worse job accounting for the money. General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are putting as much pressure as humanly possible on the GoI to perform, but there is much corruption and little accountability.

I don't know how long before the GoI will transform into a model government able to care for its citizenry. However, if the Coalition left suddenly at this point in time, the many tribal and sectarian militias, like JAM, would seize control from the GoI. Soldiers would return home to fight for their homes and families. The country would slip into civil war along sectarian lines over distribution of oil revenues. The Sunnis would seek partnerships with Saudi Arabia and the Shia with Iran, and you can see where that would be heading. These recent insurgent attacks cannot be allowed to undermine the incredible value added by the surge. Likewise, the vital importance of remaining here until the Government of Iraq is viable cannot be overstated.

Not sure which article you're referring to, since the fellatio you cite doesn't appear in the first or more recent articles, and appears to be from an email (http://instapundit.com/archives2/017288.php) allegedly from a colonel in Iraq (quick googling didn't turn it up anywhere else).

Anyway, I found this (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/world/europe/02basra.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin) interesting.
The defense secretary, Desmond Browne, also used his statement in the House of Commons to acknowledge that British military involvement in last week’s fighting in Basra was more extensive than previously disclosed.

At one point, he said, British tanks, armored vehicles, artillery and ground troops were deployed to help extract Iraqi government troops from a firefight with Shiite militiamen in the city.
...
Mr. Browne said the use of British ground troops in the fighting was ordered “in extremis,” suggesting that the deployment of forces from the British base at Basra was a last-ditch measure to save Iraqi troops.
...
At one point, he referred to the “fragility” of Iraqi troops under fire, and the importance of having British troops nearby to intervene.
Kinda wish whoever was training (http://www.star-telegram.com/279/story/552387.html) these guys back when they were developing steadily and making great progress toward standing up all those years ago had done a better job of it.

Indeed, due to the current crisis in Basra, it doesn't look like we're going anywhere for a while.

Another good article


Iranian who helped stop Iraqi violence is linked to terrorism

By Warren P. Strobel and Leila Fadel, McClatchy Newspapers Mon Mar 31, 4:40 PM ET


WASHINGTON — The Iranian general who helped broker an end to nearly a week of fighting between Iraqi government forces and Shiite Muslim militiamen in southern Iraq is an unlikely peacemaker.

http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=xHfv60WTVvryhq_SR9Wr9wIX2EaDrUfzrqsABMjp&T=1evfjbnfa%2fX%3d1207152299%2fE%3d2022202689%2fR% 3dnews%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3dH%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3 d4190636522%2fH%3dY2FjaGVoaW50PSJuZXdzIiBjb250ZW50 PSJXQVNISU5HVE9OO2Jyb2tlcjtnb3Zlcm5tZW50O0lyYXE7U2 VjdXJpdHk7dGVycm9yaXNtO3RlY2hub2xvZ3k7V2FzaGluZ3Rv bjtidXNpbmVzcztNaWRkbGUgRWFzdDtBZnJpY2E7V2hpdGU7SG 91c2U7bWlsaXRhcnk7bWFuO2l0O0l0O3JlZnVybF93d3dfaXJh bmRlZmVuY2VfbmV0IiByZWZ1cmw9InJlZnVybF93d3dfaXJhbm RlZmVuY2VfbmV0IiB0b3BpY3M9InJlZnVybF93d3dfaXJhbmRl ZmVuY2VfbmV0Ig--%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3dEF519345&U=127v65i8j%2fN%3dplnFF9j8el8-%2fC%3d-1%2fD%3dRMP%2fB%3d-1 http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=xHfv60WTVvryhq_SR9Wr9wIX2EaDrUfzrqsABMjp&T=1ev39lpg1%2fX%3d1207152299%2fE%3d2022202689%2fR% 3dnews%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3dH%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3 d4284544557%2fH%3dY2FjaGVoaW50PSJuZXdzIiBjb250ZW50 PSJXQVNISU5HVE9OO2Jyb2tlcjtnb3Zlcm5tZW50O0lyYXE7U2 VjdXJpdHk7dGVycm9yaXNtO3RlY2hub2xvZ3k7V2FzaGluZ3Rv bjtidXNpbmVzcztNaWRkbGUgRWFzdDtBZnJpY2E7V2hpdGU7SG 91c2U7bWlsaXRhcnk7bWFuO2l0O0l0O3JlZnVybF93d3dfaXJh bmRlZmVuY2VfbmV0IiByZWZ1cmw9InJlZnVybF93d3dfaXJhbm RlZmVuY2VfbmV0IiB0b3BpY3M9InJlZnVybF93d3dfaXJhbmRl ZmVuY2VfbmV0Ig--%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3dEF519345&U=12868doon%2fN%3dp1nFF9j8el8-%2fC%3d-1%2fD%3dSIPR%2fB%3d-1http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=xHfv60WTVvryhq_SR9Wr9wIX2EaDrUfzrqsABMjp&T=1evsh36ms%2fX%3d1207152299%2fE%3d2022202689%2fR% 3dnews%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3dH%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3 d4166376918%2fH%3dY2FjaGVoaW50PSJuZXdzIiBjb250ZW50 PSJXQVNISU5HVE9OO2Jyb2tlcjtnb3Zlcm5tZW50O0lyYXE7U2 VjdXJpdHk7dGVycm9yaXNtO3RlY2hub2xvZ3k7V2FzaGluZ3Rv bjtidXNpbmVzcztNaWRkbGUgRWFzdDtBZnJpY2E7V2hpdGU7SG 91c2U7bWlsaXRhcnk7bWFuO2l0O0l0O3JlZnVybF93d3dfaXJh bmRlZmVuY2VfbmV0IiByZWZ1cmw9InJlZnVybF93d3dfaXJhbm RlZmVuY2VfbmV0IiB0b3BpY3M9InJlZnVybF93d3dfaXJhbmRl ZmVuY2VfbmV0Ig--%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3dEF519345&U=13bpgnmu3%2fN%3dolnFF9j8el8-%2fC%3d619213.12513767.12865462.1442997%2fD%3dLREC %2fB%3d4919452
Brig. Gen. Qassem Suleimani , who helped U.S.-backed Iraqi leaders negotiate a deal with radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr to stop the fighting in Iraq's largely Shiite south, is named on U.S. Treasury Department and U.N. Security Council watch lists for alleged involvement in terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear and missile technology.


His role as peacemaker, which McClatchy first reported Sunday, underscores Iran's entrenched political power and its alliances in Iraq , according to analysts.


"The Iranians are into a lot of things, and have a lot of influence," said Judith Yaphe , a former CIA analyst who's now at the National Defense University in Washington .


Suleimani, about whom little is known publicly, commands the elite Quds ( Jerusalem ) force of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps . U.S. officials allege that the force is responsible for sending sophisticated roadside bombs, known as explosively formed projectiles, and other weaponry that Iran's Shiite allies in Iraq sometimes have used to kill U.S. troops.


Suleimani's name appears on a U.S. Treasury Department list of individuals and organizations with whom Americans are barred from doing business.
He's also mentioned in a March 2007 U.N. Security Council resolution aimed at halting Iran's uranium enrichment program. His name appears in an annex of Iranian individuals whose financial assets U.N. members are required to freeze.


Iraqi lawmakers said that Suleimani had participated in weekend meetings in the Iranian holy city of Qom that resulted in Sadr ordering his followers to draw back after nearly a week of clashes with government troops.
While Iran flexed its political and diplomatic muscles, the United States at times appeared to be a bystander in the crisis. The United States has more than 140,000 troops in Iraq , but little presence or influence in the south and the port city of Basra.


" Iran showed that they could mediate this cease-fire while the U.S. has shown very little influence," said Joost Hiltermann , the deputy program director for the Middle East and North Africa at the private International Crisis Group . " The United States is eager to accuse Iran of playing a damaging role in Iraq , but the bottom line is that Iran and the United States have a lot of things in common."


State Department officials in Baghdad and Washington said they had no independent information about the meetings in Iran .
"We have no comment on any specific part Iran might have played in this instance, but our position in general on Iran's unhelpful role in supporting violent groups in Iraq has been very clear," U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo said in an e-mail.


A White House spokeswoman declined to comment, referring questions to the State Department and the U.S. military.
Suleimani is the Iranian official who deals with Iraqi affairs. Iraqi lawmakers said that he was the man they needed to go to when it came to dealing with Sadr's Mahdi Army militia and Iranian funding of Shiite militias.


" Qassem al Suleimani is the person in charge of the Iraqi issue," said an Iraqi official who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the subject. "He's in charge of supporting the militias and training them. . . . The Iranians have a huge influence on the Mahdi Army, they're harboring Muqtada . . . they are like a tool in their hands."


While the State Department cautiously welcomed Sadr's call to his followers Sunday to avoid armed clashes, it was far from clear that the outcome of the crisis furthered U.S. goals in Iraq .


Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki launched an offensive a week ago to curb the power of Shiite militias and gangs in Basra, many of whom are allied with Shiite parties that are his political opponents.


But the offensive, which President Bush hailed Friday as "a defining moment in the history of a free Iraq ," appeared to fall far short of its goals.
"There's no way the government can muster the strength now to take on the militias," said Wayne White , a former top Iraq analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research . "We're going to have to learn to live with them."


There were reports that some forces loyal to Maliki refused to fight Sadr's Mahdi Army or, in a few cases, switched sides.
However, a State Department official said that Iraqi government forces "performed OK. . . . They get a `gentleman's C' for their performance." He requested anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak on the record.


Several analysts expressed surprise that Iran would permit a semi-public role for the Quds force, given its past denials of meddling in Iraq .
It was "rather cheeky on the part of the Iranians," White said. "They essentially made clear that the Quds force has a role in Iraq ."



http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080331/wl_mcclatchy/2895724;_ylt=AofqulU0E9WtqHvQJ1_Hwx2s0NUE

A bit more (http://www.azzaman.com/english/index.asp?fname=news\2008-03-31\kurd.htm) on why the Iraqi Army fared so poorly in Basra, from a regional source.Interior Minister Jawad Boulani has ordered the dismissal of thousands of police members and officers who allegedly refused orders to take part in the fight against the militiamen of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

The decision covers most of the police force in the predominantly Shiite neighborhoods of Baghdad and also several cities in the southern Iraq including Basra where most of the recent fighting took place.
...
Thousands of police officers were reported to have refused fighting the militiamen and at least two army regiments joined them with their weapons in Baghdad.

More troops were said to have sided with the militiamen in Basra.As the article notes, those fired may end up taking employment with the Mahdi Army. Maliki better have Suleimani's pager number on speed dial.

Maliki is dead politicaly. this "battle" showed all to well who is the real person in control of Iraq.
If you want to see Iraq blow up to a point were our troops will have no other choice than to take cover and cross thier fingers go ahead and put a bullet in Al-Sadr's head.

Nobody is going to put a bullet in Sadrs head.

Period.

His father was killed by Saddam. Now the next government, or the US is going to do the same? Thankfully we aren't that fucking stupid. He is an idiot, and less dangerous alive and taking bribes then dead and as a martyr.

Thankfully we aren't that fucking stupid.Heh, you place your faith in the strangest notions sometimes. ;) But the rest of your point at least makes sense.

Sadr will live an abbreviated lifespan, bullet in the head or otherwise.

Sadr will live an abbreviated lifespan, bullet in the head or otherwise.


I'm sure he's not eating heart healthy.

I suspect he's got other health issues as well...

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g125/bagelblogger/2007/Muqtada-al-Sadr250.jpg

... but I suspect it's his day job that's going to be his demise.

LOL...one of the things that can be attributed to some types of heart disease is poor dental hygene.

I suspect he's got other health issues as well...

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g125/bagelblogger/2007/Muqtada-al-Sadr250.jpg

... but I suspect it's his day job that's going to be his demise.

Too bad killing him will be the end of the US being in Iraq... The majority of Iraq is Shiite. He is a Shiite Cleric who came back from exile after Sadaam killed his father and he had to leave.

It won't happen, and you should actually be hoping it doesn't if you care about the men and women over there.

I am not going to kid you, I care more about our American soldiers than anyone else over there...if that Cleric is causing any of them to die...then I support having him whacked.

I would like them all home.

If bad teeth were a sign of imminent death, the English would be extinct.

Replace "bad teeth" with "obesity" and "English" with "Yanks.

Ditto.

Oh nos, good news.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080406/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_boosting_al_maliki_3;_ylt=At0wUfmrS9uAMK11jad zf4ZX6GMA

BAGHDAD - Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's crackdown on Shiite militants has won the backing of Sunni Arab and Kurdish parties that fear both the powerful sectarian militias and the effects of failure on Iraq's fragile government.

The emergence of a common cause could help bridge Iraq's political rifts.

The head of the Kurdish self-ruled region, Massoud Barzani, has offered Kurdish troops to help fight anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia.

More significantly, Sunni Arab Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi signed off on a statement by President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, and the Shiite vice president, Adil Abdul-Mahdi, expressing support for the crackdown in the oil-rich southern city of Basra.

Al-Hashemi is one of al-Maliki's most bitter critics and the two have been locked in an acrimonious public quarrel for a year. Al-Hashemi has accused the prime minister of sectarian favoritism and al-Maliki has complained that the Sunni vice president is blocking key legislation.

On Thursday, however, al-Maliki paid al-Hashemi a rare visit. A statement by al-Hashemi's office said the vice president told al-Maliki that "we can bite the bullet and put aside our political differences."

"The main aim at this critical juncture is to ensure that our political choices are made in Iraq's interest," al-Hashemi said.

Shiite militias were responsible for the deaths of thousands of Sunni Arabs in the sectarian bloodletting of 2006 and 2007. The Mahdi Army is blamed for much of the killing.

A top leadership council made up of Talabani, al-Maliki and leaders of major political blocs called Saturday on Iraqi parties to disband their militias or risk being barred from contesting elections and participating in political life.

The council also affirmed its support for al-Maliki's campaign against militias and "outlaws."

"I think the government is now enjoying the support of most political groups because it has adopted a correct approach to the militia problem," said Hussein al-Falluji, a lawmaker from parliament's largest Sunni Arab bloc, the three-party Iraqi Accordance Front. Al-Hashemi heads one of the three, the Iraqi Islamic Party.

The Accordance Front pulled out of al-Maliki's Cabinet in August to protest his policies. The newfound support over militias could help al-Maliki persuade the five Sunni ministers who quit their posts to return.

If he succeeds, that would constitute a big step toward national reconciliation, something the U.S. has long demanded.

Still, the Sunnis are looking for concessions from al-Maliki, whom they accuse of monopolizing power.

"The mission ahead is clear," al-Hashemi's office said in an April 2 statement. "There must be a national program that obliges everyone to reconsider, show flexibility, accept the others and ... work in the spirit of one team."

Whether that happens depends largely on how the government deals with the issue of Shiite militias.

The Basra crackdown, ostensibly waged against "outlaws" and "criminal gangs," bogged down in the face of fierce resistance and discontent in the ranks of government forces. Major combat eased after al-Sadr asked his militia to stop fighting last Sunday.

But al-Maliki continued his tough rhetoric, threatening to take his crackdown to the Mahdi Army's strongholds in Baghdad. Al-Sadr hinted at retaliation, and the prime minister backed down, freezing raids and arrests targeting the young cleric's supporters.

Barzani, the Kurdish leader, has been at sharp odds with al-Maliki's government over what he sees as its lackluster reaction to Turkish military moves against Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq. The Kurds are also angry over the national government's opposition to Kurdish deals with foreign oil companies.

But the Kurds, for years Washington's most reliable allies in Iraq, also see the Sadrists' anti-U.S. fervor as a threat to the country's political process and its stability.

Al-Sadr is openly opposed to a federal system, arguing that carving up the country into self-rule regions similar to that in Kurdistan would lead to Iraq's breakup. Another source of tension with the Kurds is the Sadrists' vehement opposition to Kurdish claims to the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, which they want to annex to their region over the opposition of its Arab and Turkomen residents.

"I think the events in Basra will help bridge the gap between the central government and Kurdistan authorities," said Fouad Massoum, a senior Kurdish lawmaker.

Al-Maliki has sought to cast himself as a national leader who is above the country's sectarian divide, saying that he was going after "outlaws" and "criminal gangs" regardless of their sect, ethnicity or party links.

But other motives may have played a role in the crackdown.

Provincial elections are scheduled to be held before Oct. 1 and Shiite parties are gearing up for a tough contest in the Shiite heartland of southern Iraq, where oil-rich Basra and the wealthy religious centers of Najaf and Karbala are prizes.

A successful crackdown in Basra would have boosted the election chances of al-Maliki's Dawa party and his Shiite allies in the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, whose Badr Brigade militia is the Mahdi Army's sworn enemy.

The Supreme Council hopes to win the fall vote so it can form a self-ruled region similar to the Kurdish one in the north — something the Sadrists oppose. Key council figures also want the crackdown to continue — even at the risk of a new round of fighting.

"He must impose the law on everyone, and he (al-Maliki) told us this is his intention," said Jalal Eddin al-Sagheer, a hardline cleric associated with the Supreme Council, a close ally of Iraq's Kurds. "We reject any deals or negotiations."

Yea.

We get it.... ITS ALL GOOD NEWS! Its the land of Sunshine and Butterflies. Nothing bad ever happens in this magical kingdom of Iraq.
Let me know the first time your analysis about ANYTHING that happens in Iraq turns out to be more than wishful thinking. Maybe then your judgment will have built up a little credibility. Until then maybe it would be best if your posts include a 2x2 ad with a bald guy selling "secrets" on how to exercise using the power of the bible. Just for, you know, consistency's sake.

You know how they are keeping peace over there? Massive amounts of bribery.
I work with a girl whose brother is over there right now. His job is basically to deliver satchels of money to various tribal chieftains. They actually have to just stuff thousands of dollars into backpacks and go because there are no working banks in Iraq.

You want good news.. Watch for a C17 filled with Euros, because I hear the Sheiks aren't taking the Dollar anymore.

We get it.... ITS ALL GOOD NEWS! Its the land of Sunshine and Butterflies. Nothing bad ever happens in this magical kingdom of Iraq.What's it called when you're debating someone who pretty much lies and exaggerates your position in order to make himself feel better about his?

Let me know the first time your analysis about ANYTHING that happens in Iraq turns out to be more than wishful thinking.Actually, I'd like to see something you've blabbered on about being right. In this thread alone you came away from your latest Meet the Press episode dumbstruck on why Maliki went after Sadr. I enlightened you on that and actually, I was the first anywhere I've read or listened to that mentioned the upcoming elections being a driving force in his actions.

I eagerly anticipate seeing Krugam, Meet the Press, Kos etc regurgitated by you.

Here's a good editorial on General Petraeus's upcoming testimony.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120752308688293493.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries

Written from both sides of the aisle (by the Democratic Senator from LL's state I beleive).

This quote is particularly appropriate to LL's response:

"It is unfortunate that so many opponents of the surge still refuse to acknowledge the gains we have achieved in Iraq. When Gen. Petraeus testifies this week, however, the American people will have a clear choice as we weigh the future of our fight there: between the general who is leading us to victory, and the critics who spent the past year predicting defeat."

Akipt, he (and so many other Democrats) are too invested in having America fail to admit any successes. You could point out the sky is blue, and he would only claim it to be falling.

Here's a good editorial on General Petraeus's upcoming testimony.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120752308688293493.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries

Written from both sides of the aisle (by the Democratic Senator from LL's state I beleive).

This quote is particularly appropriate to LL's response:

"It is unfortunate that so many opponents of the surge still refuse to acknowledge the gains we have achieved in Iraq. When Gen. Petraeus testifies this week, however, the American people will have a clear choice as we weigh the future of our fight there: between the general who is leading us to victory, and the critics who spent the past year predicting defeat."

Akipt, he (and so many other Democrats) are too invested in having America fail to admit any successes. You could point out the sky is blue, and he would only claim it to be falling.

Yea, The surge is working... While 3 American soldiers died yesterday with 22 Injured against the Mehdi Army... Iraqi Soldiers can't even fight insurgents, and the suicide Bombings happen daily... No failure there!

And that's the sound of goalposts being moved. Thanks Jedd, as always, right on time.

And that's the sound of goalposts being moved. Thanks Jedd, as always, right on time.

The day Bush tells us what Victory is, is the day the Goalposts stop moving, and actually get pegged into the ground for use.

Free and open elections. Check.
Iraqis standing up. Check.
Political Reconciliation. First half of that check mark is about to get drawn...

Pelosi, NY Times, etc are already changing their language. It's gone from 'we've lost' to 'political reconciliation is required' after the surge was really working, and now it's 'victory isn't happening fast enough'.

You better get onboard with your mob of unruly goalposts movers, you're going to be left behind.

Akipt has me convinced.

I'm calling the travel agent today.

Spring break Cancun? Hell no!

Spring break IRAQ!

Pelosi, NY Times, etc are already changing their language. It's gone from 'we've lost' to 'political reconciliation is required' after the surge was really working, and now it's 'victory isn't happening fast enough'.



And if OBL is captured, it will be said that it was "staged" and he had captured him years before, but waited till the elections, so McCain will be
guaranteed a victory....

Or maybe since the War on Terror will be over, the country will elect Obama to "Usher in a New Era".....

Free and open elections. With the Majority of the population hating the new leader

Iraqis standing up. Check. Iraqi's refusing to fight against militias and defecting to Al Sadr

Pelosi, NY Times, etc are already changing their language. It's gone from 'we've lost' to 'political reconciliation is required' after the surge was really working, and now it's 'victory isn't happening fast enough'. And the republicans are holding on by a thread to the only possible positive they can find in Iraq, You better find something else before something big happens in Iraq which the surge will once again be proven to be nothing but a political game.

You better get onboard with your mob of unruly goalposts movers, you're going to be left behind. The goalposts cannot be moved any further, as they have been blown up by Insurgents.

Written from both sides of the aisle (by the Democratic Senator from LL's state I beleive).No, no Democrat there. The writers are speaking from the very same side of the aisle, as far as Iraq is concerned.
Free and open elections. Check.
Leading to a corrupt government incapable of doing much of anything.
Iraqis standing up. Check.
Against the occupation forces. At least that's what the effective Iraqis are doing.
Political Reconciliation. First half of that check mark is about to get drawn...Just another 5 or 10 or 100 years to go!

Can someone link me where it was said that the "surge" guaranteed no new American casualties? While I may have my own blatant disagreements with the entire Iraq debacle, it has gone from being silly to downright disgusting everytime someone raises the fact there are still casualties as "proof" the "surge" is not working. It is a war zone, we are an occupying force....there are going to be casualties whether we withdraw half of the troops there or put in another 500,000.

People running their mouths as being knowledgeable about war who never served in one, including both Bush and Cheney as well as some posters here, do not contribute much of value to debates of what is happening on the ground.

Again, it is a war zone, and people died and get injured in war zones.

Can someone link me where it was said that the "surge" guaranteed no new American casualties? While I may have my own blatant disagreements with the entire Iraq debacle, it has gone from being silly to downright disgusting everytime someone raises the fact there are still casualties as "proof" the "surge" is not working. It is a war zone, we are an occupying force....there are going to be casualties whether we withdraw half of the troops there or put in another 500,000.


I will take this as a response to my post since I was the one to bring up casualties.

You are right in everything you posted above, however you are misunderstanding the purpose of the casualties I posted.

The Republicans touted a decrease in suicide bombings and American casualties in Iraq directly after the Surge, using it as proof that the Surge has worked.

However the casualties and the bombings have returned and are taking on a new fiercer aspect. Let us put aside the casualties and instead judge the surge on its positive outcomes...

Wait, there have been almost 0. The Surge has not stabilized the Iraqi government. The Surge has not stopped the fighting between Militias and the Iraqi Army. The Surge has not led to "victory"

If anything the Surge has led to a decline in the situation in Iraq. Militias once under cease fire have begun fighting again. Either the money for bribes ran out, or the increased American troop presence has led them to believe that we will never leave.

Either way, we are now losing more soldiers, and achieving 0 notable results. In essence, the Surge has been a big talking point with very little effect.

People running their mouths as being knowledgeable about war who never served in one, including both Bush and Cheney as well as some posters here, do not contribute much of value to debates of what is happening on the ground.

Again, it is a war zone, and people died and get injured in war zones.

Tell that to John McCain who said the war in Iraq would be "Easy". Or to the Republicans who constantly touted the decline in US troops deaths as a direct result of the Surge, or to the Iraqi Government who cannot even maintain an Army without being backstabbed by their own soldiers who turn to the mehdi Army with American weapons that end up killing Iraqi and US troops.

Sometimes common sense trumps experience.

However the casualties and the bombings have returned and are taking on a new fiercer aspect.Define this new fiercer aspect.

The Surge has not stabilized the Iraqi government.Define stable.

The Surge has not stopped the fighting between Militias and the Iraqi Army.It wasn't meant to. That's a goalpost you just moved btw.

Either way, we are now losing more soldiersReally? I'd like to see some stats to back that up.

the Iraqi Government who cannot even maintain an Army without being backstabbed by their own soldiers who turn to the mehdi ArmyMaliki tasked between 30,000 and 40,000 Iraqi soldiers and policemen for his operation. Many traveled the length of Iraq to get there. Logistics-wise, a huge undertaking since they had no help from the coalition. Once engaged, a total of 1000-1500 Iraqis either quit or joined the otherside. About half of those were green troops who had never seen combat before. That's at most 4% of their fighting force in this operation saying fuck this, I liked my other job... with half of those having never seen combat before. Try to get any other functionally standing army in the world to attack its own countrymen with any fewer desertions.

That's called progress whether you like it or not. Get some perspective please.

Actually jedd, I was not replying to you.

I will say again though, those who have served in a war zone are more knowledgeable of what is going on there.

That might explain why you see so many fewer posts about the "surge" and it's accomplishments or failures by folks who have served, because we understand that we are not there seeing it, and heresay is bullshit when it comes to war. I could have ten relatives living there, and another fifteen serving in different parts of the country, and all of their combined reports to me would still equal bullshit, because they would all be from the perspective of the individual; let's wait and see what the General does, and recommends, as he is the one with the best take on what is happening.

We do have some fantastic journalists over there, showing both courage and integrity in much of the reporting. The people paying their salaries are the ones that determine what footage we get to view here at home, though.

Define this new fiercer aspect.

US State department employee is killed in the green zone... little different then 15 Iraqi's at a bus stop.

Define stable.

Stable would be when their military obeys commands, when they don't have to ban certain political party's, and when 75% of the country doesn't want their leaders head on a platter.

It wasn't meant to. That's a goalpost you just moved btw.

Perhaps if we had goals, we wouldn't need to guess where the goalposts are.

Really? I'd like to see some stats to back that up.

Since the Surge Started in February of 2007 up till Februrary of 2008
157 US Deaths

February 06' until the Surge started
140 Deaths

http://icasualties.org/oif/HNH.aspx

Maliki tasked between 30,000 and 40,000 Iraqi soldiers and policemen for his operation. Many traveled the length of Iraq to get there. Logistics-wise, a huge undertaking since they had no help from the coalition. Once engaged, a total of 1000-1500 Iraqis either quit or joined the otherside. About half of those were green troops who had never seen combat before. That's at most 4% of their fighting force in this operation saying fuck this, I liked my other job... with half of those having never seen combat before. Try to get any other functionally standing army in the world to attack its own countrymen with any fewer desertions.

Source please?

You still have not shown how the Surge has helped stabilize the Iraqi government. Even if your numbers are accurate, they have a 4% desertion/defection rate in this operation alone. The percentage of the overall army willing to defect or to desert is not yet known, but the numbers would most likely be staggering.

Oh and defecting from the Iraqi Army isn't just saying "Fuck it, I liked my old job better". It is turning against an Army, and also facing the United States in combat. Has our power diminished such that people find it easier to fight against us, then the Mehdi army?

That's called progress whether you like it or not. Get some perspective please.

Progress? Show me the progress rather then attempting to prove that I am wrong. All you do is try and prove why we are wrong that the Surge didn't work. Yet no one can show us how it HAS worked.

Maliki tasked between 30,000 and 40,000 Iraqi soldiers and policemen for his operation.

Many of which deserted at first chance, were fired, and now probably are with Sadr.

Many traveled the length of Iraq to get there. Logistics-wise, a huge undertaking since they had no help from the coalition.

Oh Great Wonder of Wonders... Iraqis were able to get on a truck all by themselves, without ANY help from US forces.. Holy Shit. That is fucking amazing. Before Saint Petraeus many Iraqis would spend days just hurling themselves at the side of automobiles not being able to figure out how to actually get in. Surely this new Miracle cannot be anything other than the greatest of bounty from the Surge. And then... THEN... to be able to find Iraqs second largest city... my god. It boggles the mind.

Once engaged, a total of 1000-1500 Iraqis either quit or joined the otherside.

And brought their weapons and information with them.

About half of those were green troops who had never seen combat before.

Except, you know.. for the last 5 fucking years.

That's at most 4% of their fighting force in this operation saying fuck this, I liked my other job...

Killing Americans...

with half of those having never seen combat before. Try to get any other functionally standing army in the world to attack its own countrymen with any fewer desertions.

How many of Sadrs Army quit, said, nah... its not worth it?

Now they are going to kick Sadr out? lol..
Wow.. what a condundrum. He is simply going to go to Iran and run an insurgency as the Government in Exile under Iranian protection.

Remember Vietnam? A NV running a war from behind borders we couldnt/wouldnt cross.

Sadr has Maliki and the US by the balls and even if he is too stupid to know it, his Iranian Advisors arent.

Keep in mind that there are, really, two reasons for the Surge. The first of course was the stated mission of providing stability so that the government could stabilize. Akipt asks what that stable means, but we could really ask the Bush cadre (maybe they'll define 'victory' and 'time to go home' for us as well).

The second purpose, getting no play, is to simply provide cover for Bush until he can leave office and pass his mess to the next administration. That way his legacy is secure. If Iraq somehow stabilizes in 10 or 20 or 100 years, it was Bush that did it. If not...then everyone after him failed.

Oh Great Wonder of Wonders... Iraqis were able to get on a truck all by themselves, without ANY help from US forces.. Holy Shit. That is fucking amazing. Before Saint Petraeus many Iraqis would spend days just hurling themselves at the side of automobiles not being able to figure out how to actually get in. Surely this new Miracle cannot be anything other than the greatest of bounty from the Surge. And then... THEN... to be able to find Iraqs second largest city... my god. It boggles the mind.Too bad they don't teach military logistics and combined combat services on Meet the Press, you might more fully appreciate what the Iraqis accomplished on their first real test literally under fire.

He is simply going to go to Iran and run an insurgency as the Government in Exile under Iranian protection.Isn't he doing this already from the safety of Iran?

Too bad they don't teach military logistics and combined combat services on Meet the Press, you might more fully appreciate what the Iraqis accomplished on their first real test literally under fire.

I am gonna email General Betrayus today and ask him to explain to me how the Iraqi's were able to manage getting on trucks or even driving with the use of road signs and possibly maps.

Isn't he doing this already from the safety of Iran?

He comes and goes, he does spend time in Iraq, and I believe he is in Iraq right now.

As far as the conoying of troops goes, it isn't as easy as just jumping in the back of the truck and going for a ride. Thats the soldiers job, and that particular aspect isn't overly challenging.

The challenging part is arranging for road worthy vehicles (which is not as easy as it sounds), coordinating food/water for troops riding in vehicles, repair vehicles for anything that breaks down en route, accurate road maps, communication equipment for if not each, then for every 5 vehicles involved in the convoy. Coordinate any necessary ground/air cover for the convoy.

Thats just a couple that I can recall my officers discussing during our deployment from Saudi to Kuwait. Each step, when looked at individually, is not that difficult, I completely agree, but when you bundle them all together, the potential cluster effing ability shoots up.

That type of logistics requires a relatively high level of command and control, elements that are not all that stable or reliable there. The fact that they were able to pull off the deployment suggests that the C cubed (how do you do notations in this?) (Command, Control, Communications) elements are slowly starting to develop. Thats a step forward in my book.

. I could have ten relatives living there, and another fifteen serving in different parts of the country, and all of their combined reports to me would still equal bullshit, because they would all be from the perspective of the individual; let's wait and see what the General does, and recommends, as he is the one with the best take on what is happening.

If you discredit something because its based off of individual perspective, you are literally discrediting the whole of human experience, yours included.

Not to get all philosophical or anything. :rolleyes:

No, don't you guys get it? These soldiers just hopped into a few VW microbusses like they did back in '69 to get to Woodstock. It can't be any more difficult than that, because that's how certain people see the situation.:rolleyes:

Were there any officers that turned tail? Because they would be the only ones that would have any logistical information, and even then, only the field commanders would have any real information. The average soldier has no idea what's going on, generally, untill just before the action starts. Heck, most low level officers don't really know what's going down much before that.

Some people on the board should learn about military logistics and training before they open thier mouths.....

If you discredit something because its based off of individual perspective, you are literally discrediting the whole of human experience, yours included.

Not to get all philosophical or anything. :rolleyes:

Yeah, that might make a good point talking about something trivial like witnesses at an auto accident. Not when talking about a war that is spread across an entire country, with individuals in different areas experienceing completely different daily events.

The second purpose, getting no play, is to simply provide cover for Bush until he can leave office and pass his mess to the next administration. That way his legacy is secure. If Iraq somehow stabilizes in 10 or 20 or 100 years, it was Bush that did it. If not...then everyone after him failed.


Bingo!

If 25 different and unique reports all point to the same thing, we call that corroboration, and that is the basis of building our understanding of history from the first written records and remains of flint tools to the auto accident that happened yesterday.

If 25 different and unique reports all point to the same thing, we call that corroboration, and that is the basis of building our understanding of history from the first written records and remains of flint tools to the auto accident that happened yesterday.

And I will leave it to the General in charge who has both the training and experience to filter and collate those reports to come to a conclusion, rather than some talking heads who have neither, but are strictly working to push an agenda.

Too bad they don't teach military logistics and combined combat services on Meet the Press, you might more fully appreciate what the Iraqis accomplished on their first real test literally under fire. I agree, the Mahdi Army really showed their stuff!
And I will leave it to the General in charge who has both the training and experience to filter and collate those reports to come to a conclusion, rather than some talking heads who have neither, but are strictly working to push an agenda.You're awfully quick to decide that the general in charge lacks an agenda. Just sayin'. =)

And I will leave it to the General in charge who has both the training and experience to filter and collate those reports to come to a conclusion, rather than some talking heads who have neither, but are strictly working to push an agenda.
You presume that the General in charge doesnt have someone higher than him dictating what he can and cannot say, and how he should present what he reports.

He is likely a good man and a great soldier, but when you enter the realm of politics, you may not have a choice in the matter when your direct (or higher) superiors give you an order. We've seen it in the recent past when General's have said one thing about Iraq while in uniform, then said totally the opposite after they retire.

The average soldier has no idea what's going on, generally, untill just before the action starts

I am not familiar with your statement concerning average soldiers, as in the Marine Corp we would not tolerate "average". :)

Considering that all marines must have a head that will fit in a jar I doubt you know what average means! :p

Yeah, I couldn't pass that requirement, hence I became an Army Aviator...:p

And I will leave it to the General in charge who has both the training and experience to filter and collate those reports to come to a conclusion, rather than some talking heads who have neither, but are strictly working to push an agenda.

And when the general(s) in charge are repeatedly replaced until they come to the conclusion a talking head with an agenda wants, then what?

And the NY Times makes it on the scene.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/11/world/middleeast/11sadrcity.html?ei=5124&en=ddc1dbaec2c4545f&ex=1365652800&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&pagewanted=print

Fight for Sadr City a Proving Ground for Iraq Military
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
BAGHDAD — The Iraqi soldiers pushed their way up a main thoroughfare in Sadr City over the past week, but the militias that still prowl the Shiite enclave were sniping at them from the alleyways.

So a platoon of American troops drove up a bomb-cratered road in their Stryker vehicles on Thursday to give the Iraqis some pointers on how to hold the line.

After the ramps of the Strykers were lowered, Second Lt. Adam Bowen sought out his Iraqi counterpart at the battered storefront in the Thawra district that served as an Iraqi strongpoint.

“Are you going to stay?” the Iraqi lieutenant asked hopefully.

Lieutenant Bowen told them his platoon was not. Surveying the terrain, he recommended that the Iraqi soldiers set up a firing position overlooking a sniper-infested alley. After an hour, the Americans headed back to the abandoned house that served as the company command post, and the gunfire in the streets picked up again.

The struggle for control of Sadr City is more than a test of wills with renegade Shiite militias. It has also become a testing ground for the Iraqi military, which has been thrust into the lead.

Iraqi soldiers, suffering from a shortage of experienced noncommissioned officers, have often been firing wildly, expending vast quantities of ammunition to try to silence militias that are equipped with AK-47’s, mortars and rockets. But pulling back from their positions earlier, they now appear to be holding their ground — albeit with considerable American support.

Iraqi politics has played a role in shaping the military strategy. Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has decreed that American ground forces should not push into the heart of Sadr City, according to a senior American officer. American commanders also want to limit the United States’ profile in an area that has long been a bastion of support for Moktada al-Sadr, the anti-American cleric.

But American commanders also see this as an opportunity to shift more responsibility to the Iraqi troops — in this case Iraq’s 11th Army Division, one of the newest divisions in the Iraqi military.

Whether they like it or not, Iraqi troops are hundreds of yards ahead of the farthest American position and in the thick of the fight.

“The I.A. needs to start doing it on their own,” Lieutenant Bowen, the 23-year-old commander of Third Platoon, Bravo Company, told a reporter who accompanied him on the mission, referring to the Iraqi Army.

...
Sergeant Lewis said the performance of the Iraqi troops had improved noticeably during the Sadr City fight, but added that they also had a long way to go.

“They have their experienced guys,” he said. “But there are more new guys than experienced guys. The experienced guys are the ones in the higher ranks, the officers and senior enlisted guys. Down at the lower levels, like squad leader, platoon leader or team leader, there are not very many experienced guys to lead them in the right direction. That is where the problem lies right there.”

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraqi tanks, with U.S. air support, are "attacking Sadr City," the office of Muqtada al-Sadr said Friday, just hours after the Shiite cleric called for calm in the wake of the assassination of one of his top aides in the southern city of Najaf.
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/WORLD/meast/04/11/iraq.main/art.nuri.afp.gi.jpgIraqi Sadrists march Friday in the Najaf funeral procession of Sayyed Riyadh al-Nuri, top aide to Muqtada al-Sadr.

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif

Eyewitnesses and media in the heavily Shiite Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, home to the cleric's power base in the capital, reported heavy fighting between U.S.-backed Iraqi troops and al-Sadr's Mehdi Army militia.

The witnesses said U.S. aircraft had been bombarding the area for hours, and media reported rockets slamming into houses and many casualties.
Witnesses and al-Sadr's office said mosques were making loudspeaker announcements about Mehdi Army attacks on U.S. military armored vehicles.

The U.S. military said only that it is "looking into these reports."
Earlier, al-Sadr issued remarks about the killing of Sayyed Riyadh al-Nuri, who was shot outside his house in Najaf's Adala neighborhood after returning from Friday prayers.

"The hands of the occupiers and their collaborators have treacherously reached our beloved martyr Sayyed Riyadh al-Nuri," al-Sadr wrote in a statement on the Web.

Al-Sadr made an oath before God and the Iraqi people that he will not forget al-Nuri's "precious blood" and that the "occupiers will not be pleased in our land as long as I live," he wrote.

Al-Nuri is one of 17 people killed over 24 hours in airstrikes, fighting and attacks in areas wracked in recent weeks by fighting among Shiites.

The assassination prompted an immediate vehicle ban in the Shiite holy city of Najaf (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Najaf), anger among mourners and an intensification of fighting in Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Nouri_al_Maliki) issued a statement deploring the killing and ordering an investigation.

Al-Sadr issued remarks about the killing in a statement on a Web site. Spokesman Sheikh Salah al-Obeidi emphasized that the cleric is not accusing anyone in particular of the killing but believes that the killers "are the ones who are following the occupiers' steps and don't want stability for the country."

But al-Obeidi called the killing an "act of provocation" after the "siege of Sadr City."
He was referring to the battles since Sunday involving members of al-Sadr's Mehdi Army militia and Iraqi security forces dominated by a rival Shiite political movement, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.

That fighting started with an offensive in Basra and spread to other Shiite regions, including Sadr City and the Babil provincial capital of Hilla.
The al-Nuri assassination prompted officials to expand the daily curfew in Hilla. Police said a ban on all outside movement that usually begins at 11 p.m. and ends at 8 a.m. will instead start at 8:30 p.m.


Violence continued Friday in several places in Iraq (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Iraq).
Suicide bombings killed at least four people -- three of them police -- and wounded 15, officials said.

The first bombing was in Ramadi, the provincial capital of the predominantly Sunni Anbar province west of Baghdad, an Interior Ministry official said. At least three national police officers were killed and five wounded, the official said.

The second attack took place at a checkpoint about 20 km (12 miles) north of Baiji, according to police, who said the bomber and one other person were killed and 10 were wounded.

The casualties were members of a local Awakening Council who were manning the checkpoint, police said. The suicide bomber was driving a pickup carrying sheep.

Awakening Councils, or Sons of Iraq, are made up of Sunnis who have turned on al Qaeda in Iraq.

Also, at least three people were killed and five wounded in a mortar attack on Baghdad's Palestine Hotel, an Interior Ministry official said.

The Palestine Hotel -- across the Tigris River from the International Zone, the heavily guarded seat of U.S. power in Baghdad -- is in the path of many of the rockets and mortars aimed at the zone.

The U.S. military has blamed Iranian-backed Shiite militants for recent mortar and rocket attacks in Baghdad and International Zone, also known as the Green Zone.

Unmanned aerial vehicles targeted and killed six suspected insurgents in Basra on Friday and six "heavily armed criminals" in northeastern Baghdad on Thursday night, the U.S. military said. http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/tabs/video.gif Watch the Baghdad drone attack » (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/04/11/iraq.main/index.html?eref=rss_world#cnnSTCVideo)
The U.S. military was asked about the use of the term "criminal" in its news releases to describe people who have been targeted in military operations but may not have been charged with a crime.

"Criminals are called such because they either ... are in the process or have committed a crime against the Iraqi people, Iraqi security forces or the U.S. military," said Lt. Col. Steve Stover, a spokesman for the U.S. military in Baghdad.

The U.S. and Iraqi militaries have consistently said they have not been targeting specific groups in their recent battles in Shiite areas.

Iraqi and U.S. government officials say they differentiate between Mehdi Army members obeying al-Sadr's seven-month cease-fire pledge and "gangs," "criminals" or "outlaws" who aren't obeying al-Sadr's orders.
Stover said the only group being targeted is al Qaeda in Iraq.

The intra-Shiite fighting in Iraq that has killed hundreds of people in the past two weeks has involved two main movements: members of the Mehdi Army militia loyal to al-Sadr (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Muqtada_al_Sadr), and Iraqi security forces dominated by the chief political rival of the Sadrists, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.

Many of those security forces had been integrated into police and army units from the council's Badr Brigade militia.

On Thursday, a high-level Sadrist delegation held talks with Tariq al-Hashimi, a Sunni who is one of Iraq's two vice presidents, his office said in a statement.

The delegation, headed by senior al-Sadr aide Sayyed Hazim al-Araji, told al-Hashimi that the Sadrists don't plan to be "an extension of any other country," a reference to Iran. The delegation said it doesn't object to the disarming of militias as long as it includes all militias.

Al-Hashimi told the delegation the Sadrists need to "act in a better way and allow the government and its forces to confiscate illegal weapons and detain suspects without any obstacles." He emphasized that the Sadrists "should be limited to peaceful political activity."




At the same time, al-Hashimi said, security forces should conduct themselves professionally and respect human rights.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/04/11/iraq.main/index.html?eref=rss_world

Uh oh...

The ceasefire is about to be called off and all hell is going to break loose.

"occupiers will not be pleased in our land as long as I live," he wrote.Jinx!

Sanchek, Can we get Embedding enabled pleeb?

Anyway..

Funny SNL video.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/13/snl-notices-petraeus-mock_n_96401.html

Sanchek, Can we get Embedding enabled pleeb?
http://ayonae.ro/youtube-embeds-t10401.html

ahh very cool. Youtube only? Or will the code work from any source?

There's another tag for Google video as well. I figure between the two, there's not much you can't post. More details near the bottom of this page: http://ayonae.ro/misc.php?do=bbcode

That was Frakking Hilarious!!

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/1300-iraqi-troops-police-dismissed/20080413105909990002
At the same time, Iraq's Cabinet ratcheted up the pressure on anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr by approving draft legislation barring political parties with militias from participating in upcoming provincial elections.

Al-Sadr, who heads the country's biggest militia, the Mahdi Army, has been under intense pressure from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, also a Shiite, to disband the Mahdi Army or face political isolation.

Al-Sadr's followers are eager to take part in the local elections because they believe they can take power away from rival Shiite parties in the vast, oil-rich Shiite heartland of southern Iraq.

And in a new move to stem the flow of money to armed groups, the government ordered a crackdown on militiamen controlling state-run and private gas stations, refineries and oil distribution centers.

It is believed that gas stations and distribution centers, especially in eastern Baghdad and some southern provinces, are covertly controlled by Shiite militiamen dominated by the Mahdi Army.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/04/iraqi_government_we.php
Iraqi government: "We will continue until we secure Sadr City"

I'm still waiting for Sadr's promised million-man (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L03403824.htm) march on Baghdad - I think a thousand showed up.

Winning hearts and minds one journalist at a time.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080414/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

A kidnapped British journalist was rescued by Iraqi troops on Monday after two months in captivity in the southern city of Basra, the Iraqi military said.

Richard Butler, who worked for CBS News, was found with a sack over his head and his hands tied inside a house in Basra, Lt. Gen. Mohan al-Fireji said. He said Butler was in good condition.

Butler was found during an Iraqi military sweep in the Jibiliya area, a Shiite militia stronghold in Basra, 340 miles southeast of Baghdad.

Defense ministry spokesman Mohammed al-Askari said that an army patrol conducting a search came under fire from the house where Butler was being held. One of the gunmen was wounded in an exchange of fire and another captured while two men managed to escape, he said.

Butler was later shown on Iraqi state television laughing and greeting his rescuers.

"Thank you and I'm looking forward to seeing my family and my friends at CBS and thank you again," Butler told al-Askari.

He described the soldiers' performance as "brilliant."At least one journalist thinks the Iraqis are doing a good job.

Winning hearts and minds one journalist at a time.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080414/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

At least one journalist thinks the Iraqis are doing a good job.

Not to take anything away from the Brave Iraqi's that carried out that operation... But if someone rescued me from that same situation, I would call them brilliant as well. Gratitude and overwhelming happiness and relief is no expert opinion on a military force's strength or skill.

However, good job to the Iraqi's and glad that man was able to come home to his family safely.

Now to take care of the millions of Iraqi's who don't get so lucky :(

Teehee

http://images.politico.com/global/080409_edtoon4-10_600.jpg

Winning hearts and minds one journalist at a time.

Plans are in the works as we speak to have 200 million Americans kidnapped then heroically released by Iraqi police.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jau8cyaqusv7BMEs2SCe0aFbTabA

Basra residents welcome Iraq army crackdown
1 day ago

BASRA, Iraq (AFP) — Three weeks after Iraqi troops swarmed into the southern city of Basra to take on armed militiamen who had overrun the streets, many residents say they feel safer and that their lives have improved.

The fierce fighting which marked the first week of Operation Sawlat al-Fursan (Charge of the Knights) has given way to slower, more focused house-by-house searches by Iraqi troops, which led on Monday to the freeing of an abducted British journalist.

Residents say the streets have been cleared of gunmen, markets have reopened, basic services have been resumed and a measure of normality has returned to the oil-rich city.

The port of Umm Qasr is in the hands of the Iraqi forces who wrested control of the facility from Shiite militiamen, and according to the British military it is operational once again.

However, the city is flooded with troops, innumerable checkpoints constantly snarl the traffic, residents are scared to go out at night despite the curfew being relaxed, and the sound of sporadic gunfire can still be heard.

An AFP correspondent said three northwestern neighbourhoods once under the firm control of the Mahdi Army militia of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr -- Al-Hayaniyah, Khamsamile and Garma -- are now encircled by Iraqi troops who are carrying out door-to-door searches.

Two other neighbourhoods once dominated by the Mahdi Army, Al-Qiblah in the southwest and Al-Taymiyyah in the centre, have been cleared of weaponry and many people have been arrested, military officials say.

Residents expressed relief at the improved security.

"I am very happy about the situation right now. The deployment of the Iraqi army has made gunmen and gangsters disappear from the streets," said court employee Mahdi Fallah, 42.

"The gangs were controlling the ports and smuggling oil. Now the ports are back in government hands. Everything in Basra is better than before."

Taxi driver Samir Hashim, 35, said he now felt safer driving through the city's streets and was willing to put up with the traffic jams caused by the many security checkpoints.

"We feel secure. Assassinations have ended, organised crime is finished and armed groups are no longer on the streets," said Hashim.

"I think Basra will be the best city in Iraq," he added optimistically. "We are finally beginning to feel there is law in Basra."

"We feel comfortable and safe and secure," said civil servant Alah Mustapha.

"The situation in Basra is stable. The Iraqi army controls the city and there are no longer armed groups on the streets."

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jau8cyaqusv7BMEs2SCe0aFbTabA

Awesome... I am happy for the Iraqi's living in Basra.

"The gangs were controlling the ports and smuggling oil. Now the ports are back in government
hands.

I am enlightened.

Yeah I'm sure you walked to work today.

Oh jesus...

US builds Baghdad's wall of segregation
Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:11:01
http://www.presstv.com/photo/20080418/ebrahimi-mahbod20080418122049031.jpg The wall in the Sadr City area of Baghdad
US forces have begun the construction of a concrete wall that will partition Sadr City and isolate it from other parts of Baghdad.

The construction, which began Tuesday night, is intended to turn the southern quarter of Sadr City near the international Green Zone into a "protected" enclave.

The US army claims that the move is aimed at establishing security such a way that the Iraqi government can undertake reconstruction efforts.

"You can't really repair anything that is broken until you establish security," said Lt. Col. Dan Barnett, commander of the First Squadron, Second Stryker Cavalry Regiment.

"A wall that isolates those who would continue to attack the Iraqi Army and coalition forces can create security conditions that they can go in and rebuild," he added.

Contractors building the barrier were protected by M-1 tanks, Stryker vehicles and Apache attack helicopters.

Despite the US claims that the military attempts to turn the southern portion of Sadr City into a protected enclave so that reconstruction can proceed, there has been no indication that the Iraqi government is planning any reconstruction work in recent days.

Critics of the US plan say dividing Iraq based on ethnic and religious lines will further fuel sectarian unrest in the country and isolate neighborhoods.

Sadr City has been a target of US military attacks and the populated slum area have frequently been pounded by US aircraft or artillery. Many civilians have been killed as a result of the attacks.

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=52090&sectionid=351020201

That's surreal.

Yeah I'm sure you walked to work today.

It goes to motivation

Maliki promised to share oil revenues with the Sunnis every year since 2004. We have threatened, begged, cajoled.
He laughed at us.

Now they are expected to have 80 Billion a year coming in pretty soon from oil. Thats their motivation.

Fallujah can go to hell, Ramadhi can go to hell, Sadr City can disintergate in chaos and be walled off like Polish Ghetto, and Al Maliki cant be bothered.

But fuck with his oil? Oh Shit... How dare Sadr steal what he and his cronies are embezzling off of.


But seriously? A wall? They are going to wall off Sadr City? These have been so very successful in the past, because if there is nothing a poor, uneducated, armed to the teeth, disenfranchised people respond better to than being corked into a champagne bottle and shaken up. What can possibly go wrong?

Al-Sadr may restart full-scale fight against US in Iraq

By HAMZA HENDAWI and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writers 1 hour, 32 minutes ago


BAGHDAD - Muqtada al-Sadr is considering setting aside his political ambitions and restarting a full-scale fight against U.S.-led forces — a worrisome shift that may reflect Iranian influence on the young cleric and could open the way for a shadow state protected by his powerful Mahdi Army.

A possible breakaway path — described to The Associated Press by Shiite lawmakers and politicians — would represent the ultimate backlash to the Iraqi government's pressure on al-Sadr to renounce and disband his Shiite militia.

By snubbing the give-and-take of politics, al-Sadr would have a freer hand to carve out a kind of parallel state with its own militia and social services along the lines of Hezbollah in Lebanon, a Shiite group founded with Iran's help in the 1980s.

It also would carry potentially disastrous security implications as the Pentagon trims its troops strength and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki finally shows progress on national reconciliation.

Last week, the main Sunni political bloc announced provisional plans to rejoin the Shiite-led coalition nine months after quitting the government. The Sunnis are pleased with the squeeze on al-Sadr's movement as well as an amnesty law that could free many detainees.

"Muqtada has shown a great deal of patience not calling for an all-out war yet with so much pressure on him," said Mohan Abedin, director of research at London's Center for the Study of Terrorism and an expert on Shiite affairs. "The Mahdi Army is by far the most powerful Iraqi faction. It can cause damage on a massive scale if it goes to war."

Al-Sadr's next move is still uncertain, but he clearly holds important cards.
The Mahdi Army is estimated to have about 60,000 fighters — with at least 5,000 thought to be highly trained commandos — and is emboldened by its strong resistance to an Iraqi-led crackdown launched last month in the southern city of Basra and elsewhere.

Al-Sadr's movement also holds sway over the densely populated Shiite parts of Baghdad and across the Shiite south by controlling vital needs such as fuel and running social services such as clinics.

A cease-fire declared last summer by al-Sadr has been credited with helping bring a steep drop violence.

But al-Sadr — who has been in the Iranian seminary city of Qom for the past year — is seriously considering tearing up the truce and disassociating himself from his political bloc in parliament, according to loyalists and Shiite politicians interviewed by the AP over the past two weeks.

Then al-Sadr would be free to unleash Mahdi attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces, the political insiders said.

They include members of the 30-seat Sadrist faction in parliament and members of rival Shiite parties, including two who saw al-Sadr recently in Iran. All requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

"The emphasis is now on weapons and fighting, not politics," said one of the lawmakers in the Sadrist bloc. "(Al-Sadr) now only communicates with the Mahdi Army commanders."

Any Mahdi Army offensive could have serious repercussions. Mahdi fighters engaged in fierce battles with U.S. forces in 2004 and then were blamed for waves of roadside bombings that were once the chief killer of American troops.

Mahdi militiamen also fought Iraqi security forces to a virtual standstill last month in Basra before an Iranian-supervised truce.

It's unknown how much al-Sadr's Iranian hosts are shaping his views.
Al-Sadr, who is in his mid-30s, is studying in Qom under the supervision of Ayatollah Kazim al-Haeri, a reclusive Iraqi cleric close to Iranian hard-liners.

Washington accuses Iran of aiding Shiite militias in Iraq, including so-called "special groups" with murky ties to the Mahdi mainstream. Iran denies the allegations.

But Iran has obvious and well known connections to the main Shiite political groups in al-Maliki's government. During the recent battles in Basra, Iran supported al-Maliki's crackdown on so-called "criminals" but did not make a clear statement on the spillover confrontation with the Mahdi Army.

Backing a Mahdi Army uprising would allow Tehran to effectively play both sides in a Shiite showdown.

A flurry of recent statements by al-Sadr has emphasized his first public role: as a firebrand militia leader after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.
In a statement posted Saturday on his Web site, al-Sadr gave a "final warning" to the government to halt its crackdown or face an "open war until liberation."

Senior Mahdi Army commanders, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss strategy with media, said they have taken delivery of new Iranian weapons, including sophisticated roadside bombs, Grad rockets and shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles.
The militia's top field commanders, they said, were senior members of the special groups.

One commander, who identified himself by his nickname Abu Dhara al-Sadri, said scores of militia fighters were prepared to carry out suicide bombings against U.S. forces. Suicide bombings are the signature attacks of Sunni militants in Iraq's conflict, but the tactic was introduced against Americans in Lebanon by Shiite militants in the 1980s.

Sadrist lawmakers and aides have sent compromise-seeking proposals to al-Sadr in Qom. The ideas seek to appease al-Maliki enough to forestall his threat: barring al-Sadr's followers from running in this fall's key provincial elections unless al-Sadr disbands the Mahdi Army.

But the proposals have gone unanswered, said al-Sadr's aides.
One offer, they said, would allow for creation of a new political party with no formal links to the Mahdi Army. Another would permit candidates sympathetic to the Sadrists — but with no direct links — to run as independents in the fall election.

One of the authors of the proposals, moderate cleric Riyadh al-Nouri, was gunned down April 11 in Najaf, the spiritual center for Shiites in Iraq. The reason for the slaying was not clear.

Lawmakers and politicians told the AP that al-Sadr's more belligerent tone is motivated, in part, by his wish to secure a place for himself in history as a nationalist leader and anger over the recent arrests of hundreds of supporters despite his unilateral cease-fire.

At talks this month in Qom between al-Sadr and former Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the young cleric vowed never to disband the Mahdi Army while U.S. and other foreign forces remain in Iraq, according to Shiite political figures familiar with the meetings.

Al-Jaafari has said he was mediating an accommodation between al-Sadr and al-Maliki's government.

Salah al-Obeidi, al-Sadr's chief spokesman in Iraq, acknowledged that al-Sadr and the Iranians were at present bound by close ties and common goals.

However, he was quick to add that while al-Sadr and the Iranians shared common interests — namely fighting the Americans in Iraq — the cleric was nobody's puppet.

Vali Nasr, an expert on Shiite politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, said the Iranians may want al-Sadr to stay in Qom to keep him in check for the moment.

"Muqtada is forcing everyone's hand right now when they (the Iranians) may not be wanting their hand forced," said Nasr.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080424/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_sadr_s_path;_ylt=ArJM2aCQmWEiEKnSPCXvAgys0NUE

BAGHDAD - Muqtada al-Sadr is considering setting aside his political ambitions and restarting a full-scale fight against U.S.-led forces — a worrisome shift that may reflect Iranian influence on the young cleric and could open the way for a shadow state protected by his powerful Mahdi Army.Last I read (and yeah, I know this shit changes daily), Iran had basically given up on Sadr, deciding that they already had enough puppets in the government.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3671819.ece

One month on and Iraq’s leader can justifiably claim to have scored a stunning victory, probably the first of its kind by the post-Saddam Iraqi army. The most notorious areas of Basra are now under government control, the Mahdi Army of Moqtadr al-Sadr has been roundly defeated and the long suffering people of Basra are celebrating freedoms they did not enjoy during the four years of British military rule in the city.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3671819.ece

lol.. what a news story.

The Mahdi army hasn't been fighting! They were facing groups of people who were defying the call to halt firing. Sadr hasn't made the call to fight yet.

Mark my words, when Sadr gives the word... you will know it.

Al-Sadr's next move is still uncertain, but he clearly holds important cards.
The Mahdi Army is estimated to have about 60,000 fighters — with at least 5,000 thought to be highly trained commandos — and is emboldened by its strong resistance to an Iraqi-led crackdown launched last month in the southern city of Basra and elsewhere.

I can guarantee you that Iraqi forces are not facing the above!

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr threatened "open war," against the American "occupiers" and not the Iraqi government, according to a letter read by a top aide during Friday prayers.
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/WORLD/meast/04/25/iraq.main/art.iraq.alsadr.afp.gi.jpgSupporters of Muqtada al-Sadr hold up his photo before noon prayers in Baghdad's Sadr City on Friday.

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif

"When we threatened to declare an open war until the liberation, we meant war against the occupier," al-Sadr said in his letter. "There is no war between us and our Iraqi brothers -- no matter what their nationality, race or sect. The blood of Iraqis are forbidden on you."

He encouraged not only his Mehdi Army militia to fight U.S. troops, but also every Iraqi, including the nation's security forces which are in league with U.S. troops.

"I direct my speech to all government security forces and others, and all the religious and political forces, if this open war is between us and the occupier, you should not interfere in the favor of the occupier," the letter said. "We want to liberate you and your lands from the occupiers, so our government would be a full sovereign government."

On Saturday, al-Sadr issued what he called a "last warning" and told his followers in Sadr City to fight the "occupier" there.

Despite the threat, al-Sadr has a freeze on Mehdi Army military activities, said Saleh al-Ageili, a spokesman for Sadr's parliamentary bloc. Al-Sadr said earlier this month that if he called off the freeze, he would issue a separate statement, al-Ageili said.

Al-Sadr praised members of his Mehdi Army for obeying the freeze in his letter Friday.

"The enemy is waiting for the chance to attack you," al-Sadr (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Muqtada_al_Sadr) said. "Damn the occupier and his work, which raised the hand of violence and death against your children, women, elders and your scholars."

He continued, "And you -- still patient -- you showed the clear, white face of al-Sadr and his family, and you have been the people of peace, the people of Islam."

Al-Sadr said he would not accept the long-term agreement which the U.S. and Iraqi governments are crafting to replace the current U.N. mandate for multi-national forces in Iraq. The U.N. mandate expires in December.

"There should be no long-term security agreement between the government and occupier, no matter how hard they fight us and no matter how much of our blood is spilled," he said. "We will not accept to divide Iraq and to steal its wealth."

Al-Sadr's supporters have accused Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government of not holding up its end of the cease-fire agreement, which includes freeing non-convicted prisoners from the Sadrist movement and halting what they call "illegal" raids on the cleric's followers.

Al-Sadr's message came after at least 11 people were killed and 36 others were wounded in overnight battles in northern Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood, an Iraqi Interior Ministry official said.

U.S.-backed Iraqi forces and fighters loyal to al-Sadr have been fighting for several weeks in the sprawling Shiite slum.

The U.S. military launched overnight airstrikes on Sadr City, the official said.
Violence in Sadr City reduced somewhat after al-Sadr called on his supporters to halt attacks on March 30, but it's still heavy, the U.S. military said.

The U.S. military also said a U.S. soldier was killed by a roadside bomb south of Baghdad Thursday. The death brings to 4,051 the number of U.S. military personnel killed in the Iraq (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Iraq) war since it began in March 2003.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/04/25/iraq.main/index.html

I think Sadr could deal with AQ in Iraq, if we leave... Can we go home now?

I think Sadr could deal with AQ in Iraq, if we leave... Can we go home now?AQ and Sadr are bacteria of the same cesspool. And if that's a serious question by you, you haven't been paying attention.

And it'll be interesting to watch Sadr dial long distance from Iran into his own revolution.

AQ and Sadr are bacteria of the same cesspool. And if that's a serious question by you, you haven't been paying attention.

And it'll be interesting to watch Sadr dial long distance from Iran into his own revolution.

They are actually completely different animals... Sadr's group are Iraqis who fight to liberate Iraq from the US...

AQ's goal is to destroy America.

Completely different.

You should be happy that Al Sadr is in Iran, cause if he was in Iraq and got killed... Lets just say it wouldn't be pretty for our guys over there.

Sadr's group are Iraqis who fight to liberate Iraq from the US...Is there a terrorist's propaganda spiel you won't swallow happily?

Is there a terrorist's propaganda spiel you won't swallow happily?

Why don't you show me actions from the Mahdi Army that are anything other then the attempts at throwing the US out.

The Mahdi army has done nothing near as crazy as Al Queda. They have negotiated, agreed upon ceasefires, and spend no resources in attempts to kill other Iraqi's.

Al Queda, doesn't give a fuck who dies as long as they kill Americans. they will kill other muslims to prove their points, and the charter of their group is basically to destroy the US and kill all the infidels.

Sorry it is so hard for you to accept. Doesn't take a terrorist propaganda spiel to know the truth, it takes actually paying attention to the news, without trying to clump all the evil dirty muslims up together in one package of destruction. The real question here is... Is there a neo con, racist, ignorance handbook that is being passed around your city? or did you develop the skills on your own?

Why don't you show me actions from the Mahdi Army that are anything other then the attempts at throwing the US out.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3671861.ece

Young women are daring to wear jeans, soldiers listen to pop music on their mobile phones and bands are performing at wedding parties again.

All across Iraq’s second city life is improving, a month after Iraqi troops began a surprise crackdown on the black-clad gangs who were allowed to flourish under the British military. The gunmen’s reign had enforced a strict set of religious codes.
...
Local people are daring to hope that the dark days of death squads and kidnap are over, displaying the sort of optimism that was last seen when British forces arrived in 2003 with the false promise of a better life free from Saddam Hussein. Yeah, death and rape squads - that's an idol group for ya Jedd.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3671861.ece

Yeah, death and rape squads - that's an idol group for ya Jedd.

The sad thing is that you refer to an article that is inaccurate. The Mahdi army has not been defeated or pushed back. We have never heard of death squads, or "Rape" squads.


The article is refering to gangs... similar to 18th st, or the Bloods and crypts... Not members of a Shia Muslim Militia.

These are not wahabi Sunni's. Shia Muslim militias which answer to a cleric, do not go around in rape squads. They would be executed by Sadr himself.

Your article is either so rife with inaccuracies, or you have failed to realize that these "gangs" are not part of our discussion.

Are you a Baghdad Bob? Sadr's militia just had their asses thoroughly trounced in Basra, Najaf, and several other places... Are you denying this?

Are you a Baghdad Bob? Sadr's militia just had their asses thoroughly trounced in Basra, Najaf, and several other places... Are you denying this?

Sadr's militia hasn't been fighting... they have been local gangs loyal to his militia. Sadr has over 60,000 fighters, with 5,000 of them being special forces.

Why do you think he keeps threatening war, and why he kept putting out messages before telling his people to remain in cease fire. The people fighting are not his organized militia.

Yes, I am denying your assertion that Sadr's militia is being trounced. They haven't even begun to fight...

Sadr's militia hasn't been fighting... they have been local gangs loyal to his militia. Sadr has over 60,000 fighters, with 5,000 of them being special forces.

Well, thousands of articles... this is a start:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/world/middleeast/14iraq.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

The clashes in Basra pitted the country’s two most powerful Shiite forces against each other: the Mahdi Army and the government security forces...

Well, thousands of articles... this is a start:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/world/middleeast/14iraq.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Once again you do not pay attention... That article is about the first offensive by the Iraqi's, in which Maliki was made to look powerless. Sadr then declared an end to combat thanks to Iran. Do you remember?

Since that time Sadr's forces have NOT began fighting the Iraqi forces again.

Oh that's convienent.

Oh that's convienent.


If you read the last article i posted, I think you will find why.

If he has his forces fighting Iraqi's then it makes his guys look like the bad guys... He has pleaded with the Iraqi Soldiers to not fight their own countrymen, and is trying to position himself to have his forces mainly fight Americans.

The Mahdi army is providing health services, schooling, and other such benefits now, trying to position itself as more then just an army. They are trying to be the Hezbollah of Iraq basically.

The Mahdi army is providing health services, schooling, and other such benefits now, trying to position itself as more then just an army. They are trying to be the Hezbollah of Iraq basically.Are you for real?

He isnt praising them.

He is stating reality. This is what EVERY rebel army or faction does that has ever had any success. This is what Mao did, This is what Ho Chi Minh did, this is what Che and Castro did, This is what Khomeni did, what Hamas does and how Al Queda is able to produce a never ending supply of suicide bombers.

When governments arent meeting the basic needs of people, these groups step in. Like a virus.

Are you for real?

It is a fact... I am not saying they are the nicest people in the world... I am simply stating something that is taking place. Hezbollah does the same... They build and run hospitals, provide food, water, and security.

Al Sadr is also doing the same thing right now.

Of course all your information is invalid akipt. Your links show nothing but propaganda. His Links show.....................

Of course all your information is invalid akipt. Your links show nothing but propaganda. His Links show.....................

Even his links do not support his argument.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/361C19D2-2910-45E8-BD3D-8660E6E14465.htm

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=08&year=2007&base_name=post_4695

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/29/AR2007082900586.html

These are just a few articles that touch on the services I was speaking about.

He isnt praising them.Has he said one negative thing about them? Looks to me like nothing but cheering to me.

Has he said one negative thing about them? Looks to me like nothing but cheering to me.

Hey smart guy... Cheering would go like this...

"Hell yea, Al Sadr kicked your ass!"

"Al Sadr fuckin rocks!"

"Fuckin right man, the Mahdi Army kicks ass"

---

Sorry you don't like facts, but your opinion of them, doesn't make them praise for Al Sadr or his army.

His army, as you put earlier the occupation forces control the area will be wiped the hell out or put behind a wall until thye say Uncle Sam.

Meanwhile he can stay in Iran while his people suffer or say the magic word

His army, as you put earlier the occupation forces control the area will be wiped the hell out or put behind a wall until thye say Uncle Sam.

Meanwhile he can stay in Iran while his people suffer or say the magic word

Can you post a link to support your claim?

See how it is?

Cause as of now I see the occupiers (us), As a country with soldiers halfway around the world in 2 countries making little to no headway, with a failing economy and a slumping dollar. You should worry about us, and not so much Al Sadr.

Cause as of now I see the occupiers (us), As a country with soldiers halfway around the world in 2 countries making little to no headway, with a failing economy and a slumping dollar. You should worry about us, and not so much Al Sadr.Sounds like a Sadr press release.

Sounds like a Sadr press release.

Truth hurts?