Fierce battle underway in Basra

[Dari]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tab
First of all, I NEVER said their government was not elected democratically.

Not the best example however it's the best I've come up using google.

What you said was quoted already, but I'll quote it again:

"Democratically elected government? I believe that's not a 100% true..."

So please explain how they can have a Democratically elected government, yet that's somehow not 100% true.

I think he was implying that the government was democratically elected but that it was not a true democracy.

Yep. What kind of democracy is occupied by a foreign army that goes around killing its citizens and there is little to nothing the government can do? I guess TLC would consider the Palestinian territory a true democracy as well.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tab
First of all, I NEVER said their government was not elected democratically.

Not the best example however it's the best I've come up using google.

What you said was quoted already, but I'll quote it again:

"Democratically elected government? I believe that's not a 100% true..."

So please explain how they can have a Democratically elected government, yet that's somehow not 100% true.

I think he was implying that the government was democratically elected but that it was not a true democracy.

Then it'd be a non sequitur because I said nothing about Iraq being a true democracy.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tab
First of all, I NEVER said their government was not elected democratically.

Not the best example however it's the best I've come up using google.

What you said was quoted already, but I'll quote it again:

"Democratically elected government? I believe that's not a 100% true..."

So please explain how they can have a Democratically elected government, yet that's somehow not 100% true.

In the 1880s, Southern states began devising statute that created more barriers to voting by black and poor whites. From 1890 to 1908, starting with Mississippi, Southern states created new constitutions with provisions that effectively disfranchised most African Americans and many poor whites. They created a variety of barriers, including requirements for poll taxes, literacy and understanding tests, that achieved power through selective application against blacks.

Wiki

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

...

I don't recall democracy allowing for religious leaders to control a militia of thousands. If Sadr wants to participate in the political process he's welcome to do that without his own personal army.

militia != army

There are hundreds of militia groups in the states, hell there's probably one in your own county.

So how many towns and counties are controlled here in the States by Pat Buchanon's personal militia?

None.

 

[Lemon law]

Al Sadr, by accident of inheritance rather than raw personal clout, has become perhaps the largest single insurgent leader in Iraq. Al Sadr thus is just one of thousands of other insurgent leaders in what should be more accurately described as the Iraqi insurgencies.

We expect and assume a large organization like the US military will have a working system of command and control. And orders will descend from the top down as the entire organization responds as a single unit.

The fallacy and somewhat the test here will be if Al Sadr has any real command and control. But on the plus side he has basically ordered his people to stand down so any large increase in violence will not be blamed on him. But has stopped well short of ordering his fighters to surrender their arms. Now the ball is on the Malki side of the net, will Malki also stand down or will he keep forcing the fight? And what we have at this moment is a fragile cease fire.

What we have had in the history of the US occupation of Iraq was desperate groups of Sunni insurgents, groups that have no central command and control, being enough to basically keep 150,000 US troops very busy.

And never in the history of the US occupation of Iraq have we had the three times larger Shia insurgencies openly opposing the Iraqi government or the US. To blanket assume that Al Sadr is motivated solely by the loss of a less than a thousand fighters may be a dangerous myth. Compared to the vast numbers loosely associated with the Mahdi army, those are a drop in the bucket. And in all probability, a live Al Sadr is far less dangerous than a dead one.

Leaving a sort of best case scenario what we had many weeks ago, a mini surge myth that had resulted in a drop in overall violence, with the ever present danger that it will not last because no political progress has occurred. In short, an accident waiting to happen. And its too early to tell if we have dodged a bullet again.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tab
First of all, I NEVER said their government was not elected democratically.

Not the best example however it's the best I've come up using google.

What you said was quoted already, but I'll quote it again:

"Democratically elected government? I believe that's not a 100% true..."

So please explain how they can have a Democratically elected government, yet that's somehow not 100% true.

In the 1880s, Southern states began devising statute that created more barriers to voting by black and poor whites. From 1890 to 1908, starting with Mississippi, Southern states created new constitutions with provisions that effectively disfranchised most African Americans and many poor whites. They created a variety of barriers, including requirements for poll taxes, literacy and understanding tests, that achieved power through selective application against blacks.

Wiki

That's great. How does that apply to Iraq?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

...

I don't recall democracy allowing for religious leaders to control a militia of thousands. If Sadr wants to participate in the political process he's welcome to do that without his own personal army.

militia != army

There are hundreds of militia groups in the states, hell there's probably one in your own county.

So how many towns and counties are controlled here in the States by Pat Buchanon's personal militia?

None.

Exactly.

 

[event8horizon]

just let sadr be the prez. they need a strongman like sadam. hell, hezbollah will probably take lebanon and i bet hamas will eventually take the west bank.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

...

I don't recall democracy allowing for religious leaders to control a militia of thousands. If Sadr wants to participate in the political process he's welcome to do that without his own personal army.

militia != army

There are hundreds of militia groups in the states, hell there's probably one in your own county.

So how many towns and counties are controlled here in the States by Pat Buchanon's personal militia?

lol!

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
just let sadr be the prez. they need a strongman like sadam. hell, hezbollah will probably take lebanon and i bet hamas will eventually take the west bank.

well the guy could obvious run for mayor or governor and have one hell of a power blanket. which is what he should do..

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
just let sadr be the prez. they need a strongman like sadam. hell, hezbollah will probably take lebanon and i bet hamas will eventually take the west bank.

Ah, you have unwitting put your finger on the Al Sadr dilemma. Maybe in a Christian country like the USA, Al Sadr would have all the aces in the deck.

But we are talking about Iraq and an Islamic country. And Al Sadr lacks one crucial ace in a country the reveres and requires age in its major clerics. And only time will correct that deficiency, meanwhile Al Sadr must wait to be no longer too young.

Even though Al-Sistani is a Shia in a country deeply divided by a Shia Sunni rift, Sistani still had immense credibility with the Sunnis also. And Saddam was in a sense democratic, he killed any cleric, be they Sunni or Shia, who could even threaten to rival him in power on a preemptive basis. And Al Sadr experienced having his entire family exterminated for just that reason.

 

[GrGr]

ANALYSIS-Iraqi crackdown backfires, strengthens Sadrists
31 Mar 2008 14:49:04 GMT
Reuters
By Ross Colvin

BAGHDAD, March 31 (Reuters) - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's crackdown on militias in the southern oil port of Basra appears to have backfired, exposing the weakness of his army and strengthening his political foes ahead of elections.

U.S. President George W. Bush has praised the crackdown, calling it a "defining moment" for Iraq, but it has unleashed a wave of destabilising violence in southern Iraq and in Baghdad that risks undoing the security improvements of the past year.

It has also exposed a deep rift within Iraq's Shi'ite majority -- between the political parties in Maliki's government and followers of populist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

Analysts say Iraqis may be about to witness a new phase in the cycle of violence that has gripped the country since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 -- intra-Shi'ite bloodletting that could tear Iraq apart and more deeply embroil U.S. forces.

Sadr on Sunday pulled back from all-out confrontation against Iraqi security forces and their U.S. backers, ordering his Mehdi Army militia to stop fighting. While Basra was reported to be calm on Monday, mortar attacks shook Baghdad.

"It will be a short honeymoon, especially with election time coming up," said Mustafa Alani, an analyst at the Dubai-based Gulf Research Centre.

Provincial elections are due to take place by October, with the Sadrists, who boycotted the last polls in 2005, vying for control of the mainly Shi'ite, oil-producing south with a powerful rival, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council.

"The stand-off is not over yet, it's only a truce ... provincial elections will trigger the battle again," predicted Hazem al-Nuaimi, a political analyst based in Baghdad.

ARMY UNPREPARED

Maliki flew to Basra last Tuesday to personally oversee a military operation he said was aimed at "cleaning up" the lawless city, which is controlled by criminal gangs and militias allied to various Shi'ite political parties.

The operation was lauded by U.S. and British officials as evidence of the growing strength of the Iraqi army, but by the weekend it had largely stalled, with Iraqi troops having failed to dislodge the gunmen from their strongholds.

Embarrassingly, Iraq's defence minister had to admit that despite much preparation, his forces were not ready for such fierce resistance. U.S. and British forces have intervened, launching air and artillery strikes to support Iraqi troops.

The fighting provoked a furious backlash by Mehdi Army fighters in other towns and cities in the oil-producing south. Hundreds have been killed in violence that Iraqi security forces have struggled to contain without U.S. military help.

"What has happened has weakened the government and shown the weakness of the state. Now the capability of the state to control Iraq is open to question," said Izzat al-Shahbander, a moderate Shi'ite politician from the Iraqi National List party.

Gareth Stansfield, a professor of Middle East politics at the University of Exeter in England, said Maliki had staked his political credibility on the show of force in Basra and lost.

"Maliki's credibility is shot at this point. He really thought his security forces could really do this. But he's failed," he said.

SADR LOOKS STRONGER

While Maliki has sought to portray the operation as an effort to reassert his government's control over Basra and crack down only on "criminals", not political parties, many analysts believe it is politically motivated.

The Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, the biggest Shi'ite party in government and an ally of Maliki's Dawa party, is battling for control of Basra in an often violent turf war that pits it against Sadrists and the smaller Fadhila party, which controls the local oil industry.

Sadrists accuse Maliki and the Supreme Council of trying to crush them ahead of the October provincial elections in which they are expected to make big gains at the expense of the Council, which controls many local authorities in the south.

"This is him (Maliki) basically preparing for an election. They need to disarm Sadr. The strongest militia in the city will control the vote," said Alani.

But Sadr aides say the Mehdi Army will not give up their weapons, raising the prospect of another confrontation, as the Iraqi military says it will press on with the Basra operation.

Sadr, ironically, may emerge stronger from the affair.

"Clearly Sadr has gained a victory. This was not a fight he picked and his forces looked strong. He has consolidated his position," said Stansfield.

The cleric, who is widely believed to be in Iran furthering his religious studies, now looks like the victim of political manoeuvring by Shi'ite parties in government.

"The Sadrists may have been strengthened in many people's minds. Many have seen the onslaught as unfair," said Reidar Visser, an expert on southern Iraq who edits the Web site www.historiae.org.

Iraqis will now be watching to see what happens next, but after enduring a bitter Sunni Arab insurgency and then a wave of sectarian violence between Shi'ites and Sunnis, they have become accustomed to expecting the worst.

"It's true there are no clashes, gunmen or explosions," said Jabbar Sabhan, a civil servant in Basra, "but the situation is still dangerous. I don't trust the words of politicians."

(Reporting by Randy Fabi, Waleed Ibrahim and Ahmed Rasheed; Editing by Samia Nakhoul)

So Malaki's credibility is shot. Sadr is far more popular than Malaki. And incoming 'elections'. If Sadr wins convincingly will the US accept him in the name of democracy?

 

[Lemon law]

I certainly can't fail to see that the Ross Colvin filed news report does not seem to subscribe to the thesis that a victory was won because Al Sadr blinked. And in fact seems to say that Al Sadr is the big winner and Makaki is the big loser.

And I now have to wonder if anyone really knows or can articulate what amounts to a Greek Tragedy where no one is really a master of their fate or anything but shoved along by random events.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Somehow this weakened Maliki and strengthened Sadr, even though Maliki is still in Basra and Sadr had to back down with his tail between his legs because his militia was getting smoked like a cheap cigar.

That's rich. Coming from al-Reuters though, it's no surprise.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

...

I don't recall democracy allowing for religious leaders to control a militia of thousands. If Sadr wants to participate in the political process he's welcome to do that without his own personal army.

militia != army

There are hundreds of militia groups in the states, hell there's probably one in your own county.

So how many towns and counties are controlled here in the States by Pat Buchanon's personal militia?

None.

Exactly.

Sadr is allowed to have a militia; assuming he follows the laws set by his government.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Somehow this weakened Maliki and strengthened Sadr, even though Maliki is still in Basra and Sadr had to back down with his tail between his legs because his militia was getting smoked like a cheap cigar.

That's rich. Coming from al-Reuters though, it's no surprise.

Somehow the primary of 1976 weakened Ronald Reagan and strengthened Gerald Ford, even though Ford was still the nominee and Reagan had to back down with his tail between his legs because Mississippi jumped ship on him. Suuuuure it did.

Politics is a lot lot lot more then who wins or loses a battle. I don't think any of us have a truly good understanding of Iraqi internal politics, but it is certainly very possible for Sadr to have lost this battle but won the political fight. It happens all the time. Maliki outraged a good chunk of the country by attacking the Sadrists, and then looked weak when he had to come to the bargaining table with them. With his support weakened on both sides, people are saying he now needs Al-Sadr to prop him up, and he certainly needs Al-Sadr more then the other needs him right now if this is the case. I guess we'll find out.

EDIT: I mixed up Ford and Reagan because I'm an idiot.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tab
First of all, I NEVER said their government was not elected democratically.

Not the best example however it's the best I've come up using google.

What you said was quoted already, but I'll quote it again:

"Democratically elected government? I believe that's not a 100% true..."

So please explain how they can have a Democratically elected government, yet that's somehow not 100% true.

In the 1880s, Southern states began devising statute that created more barriers to voting by black and poor whites. From 1890 to 1908, starting with Mississippi, Southern states created new constitutions with provisions that effectively disfranchised most African Americans and many poor whites. They created a variety of barriers, including requirements for poll taxes, literacy and understanding tests, that achieved power through selective application against blacks.

Wiki

That's great. How does that apply to Iraq?

There are various accounts of voter intimidation, Sunnis without available transportation to goto the polls, media censorship and a largely illiterate population.

I wish I could find the article I read a few years ago that had more information on this but you'll have to take my word for it.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Somehow this weakened Maliki and strengthened Sadr, even though Maliki is still in Basra and Sadr had to back down with his tail between his legs because his militia was getting smoked like a cheap cigar.

That's rich. Coming from al-Reuters though, it's no surprise.

Somehow the primary of 1976 weakened Gerald Ford and strengthened Ronald Reagan, even though Ford was still the nominee and Reagan had to back down with his tail between his legs because Mississippi jumped ship on him. Suuuuure it did.

Politics is a lot lot lot more then who wins or loses a battle. I don't think any of us have a truly good understanding of Iraqi internal politics, but it is certainly very possible for Sadr to have lost this battle but won the political fight. It happens all the time. Maliki outraged a good chunk of the country by attacking the Sadrists, and then looked weak when he had to come to the bargaining table with them. With his support weakened on both sides, people are saying he now needs Al-Sadr to prop him up, and he certainly needs Al-Sadr more then the other needs him right now if this is the case. I guess we'll find out.

Yup. Malaki revealed himself as a Quisling trying to crush a direct political rival with the help of the occupying forces. He wasn't popular before and it makes sense that he is even less so now.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: GrGr
And incoming 'elections'. If Sadr wins convincingly will the US accept him in the name of democracy?

If Al Sadr wins the upcoming elections we may be on our way out before year end.

You may recall an earlier post where I linked a couple of articles:

1. The Iraqi legislature has passed a law requiring their approval on any request to the UN to extend "coalition" activities there.

2. The current UN approval is up sometime later this year and they wil not extend it unless requested by the Iraqi government.

If Al Sadr's side wins enough seats to take control they won't need to fight us, they can simply tell us to leave and we'll have to withdrawal.

We won't really have any choice.

Edit: Fixed Spelling error and wanted to point out that after securing the nomination Obama is headed to Iraq to campaign for Al Sadr

Fern

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: GrGr
And incoming 'elections'. If Sadr wins convincingly will the US accept him in the name of democracy?

If Al Sadr wins the upcoming elections we may be on our way out before year end.

You may recall an earlier post where I linked a couple of articles:

1. The Iraqi legislature has passed a law requiring their approval on any request to the UN to extend "coalition" activities there.

2. The current UN approval is up sometime later this year and they wil not extend it unless requested by the Iraqi government.

If Al Sadr's side wins enough seats to take control they won't need to fight us, they can simply tell us to leave and we'll have to withdrawl.

We won't really have any choice.

Fern

In that case I expect a whole lot more pounding of Sadr between now and the election.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

...

I don't recall democracy allowing for religious leaders to control a militia of thousands. If Sadr wants to participate in the political process he's welcome to do that without his own personal army.

militia != army

There are hundreds of militia groups in the states, hell there's probably one in your own county.

So how many towns and counties are controlled here in the States by Pat Buchanon's personal militia?

None.

Exactly.

Sadr is allowed to have a militia; assuming he follows the laws set by his government.

What says that Sadr is allowed to have his own militia?

 

[Lemon law]

As various posters argue on who got smoked between Al Sadr and Maliki, there seems to be little comment about the other dog in the fight, namely the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, that other Shia political party, and how that is likely to effect their future Iraqi support in the upcoming October elections.

But one question has been answered rather definitively, and there is little remaining doubt that Al Sadr retains effective command and control of the Mahdi army. And even in Sadr city, the Mahdi army fighters have vanished from the streets.

Somewhat visibly demonstrating for all to see, that if Maliki wants to feel froggie still, this time the fault will lie 100% with Maliki.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tab
First of all, I NEVER said their government was not elected democratically.

Not the best example however it's the best I've come up using google.

What you said was quoted already, but I'll quote it again:

"Democratically elected government? I believe that's not a 100% true..."

So please explain how they can have a Democratically elected government, yet that's somehow not 100% true.

In the 1880s, Southern states began devising statute that created more barriers to voting by black and poor whites. From 1890 to 1908, starting with Mississippi, Southern states created new constitutions with provisions that effectively disfranchised most African Americans and many poor whites. They created a variety of barriers, including requirements for poll taxes, literacy and understanding tests, that achieved power through selective application against blacks.

Wiki

That's great. How does that apply to Iraq?

There are various accounts of voter intimidation, Sunnis without available transportation to goto the polls, media censorship and a largely illiterate population.

I wish I could find the article I read a few years ago that had more information on this but you'll have to take my word for it.

You can find complaints in any election, including our own. Unless you can show some widespread instances of it happening though that had any significant impact on the vote it's pretty much meaningless and amounts to little more than FUD.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: GrGr
And incoming 'elections'. If Sadr wins convincingly will the US accept him in the name of democracy?

If Al Sadr wins the upcoming elections we may be on our way out before year end.

You may recall an earlier post where I linked a couple of articles:

1. The Iraqi legislature has passed a law requiring their approval on any request to the UN to extend "coalition" activities there.

2. The current UN approval is up sometime later this year and they wil not extend it unless requested by the Iraqi government.

If Al Sadr's side wins enough seats to take control they won't need to fight us, they can simply tell us to leave and we'll have to withdrawl.

We won't really have any choice.

Fern

Very interesting post. I must lol on the withdrawl though, what's that? A Texan backing down?

"Ya'll haf ta scuze me .. ah've got tuh withdrawl now!"

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

...

I don't recall democracy allowing for religious leaders to control a militia of thousands. If Sadr wants to participate in the political process he's welcome to do that without his own personal army.

militia != army

There are hundreds of militia groups in the states, hell there's probably one in your own county.

So how many towns and counties are controlled here in the States by Pat Buchanon's personal militia?

None.

Exactly.

Sadr is allowed to have a militia; assuming he follows the laws set by his government.

What says that Sadr is allowed to have his own militia?

I am simply explaining that militias may exist in a democracy and they can work together. Not allowing militias is somewhat undemocratic in my opinion.