Fierce battle underway in Basra

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 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.

There seems to be little comment on the Sunnis as well. The Sunnis have long viewed Maliki as nothing more than a tool of certain radical Shi'ite elements in Iraq and that he encouraged the Shi'ite persecution of the Sunnis. His continuing refusal to go after the Mahdi Army was proof of that to them. Now he has demonstrated otherwise.

There are quite a few other pov's that haven't been looked at or considered in here as well. One is that just because Sadr is Shi'ite it doesn't mean he has any sort of unanimous Shi'ite support. He doesn't by any means. Most of his support comes from the poor and uneducated. In fact, a lot of Shi'ites don't like him because of his cozy relationship with Iran and the previous election showed how widespread his support was. So the idea that Sadr might be elected to a high office that amounts to anything besides the head of a very small minority party in Iraq is basically a fairy tale.

 

[Lemon law]

If TLC were an Iraqi and had a vote, there is little doubt how he would vote given this statement---There are quite a few other pov's that haven't been looked at or considered in here as well. One is that just because Sadr is Shi'ite it doesn't mean he has any sort of unanimous Shi'ite support. He doesn't by any means. Most of his support comes from the poor and uneducated. In fact, a lot of Shi'ites don't like him because of his cozy relationship with Iran and the previous election showed how widespread his support was. So the idea that Sadr might be elected to a high office that amounts to anything besides the head of a very small minority party in Iraq is basically a fairy tale.

Its hard to per say TLC is wrong but I remain unconvinced he is right either. But as they say, the game is a foot, and unknown future events are likely to be what influences the upcoming October Iraqi elections. And in terms of elections,
if Al-Sadr loses electoral support, where will that support go? It can not help Malki unless that support goes to those that support him?

My only take is that only time will tell.

 

[Drift3r]

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.

LoL - I love how you twist things around. The goal was not to dislodge Maliki from Basra. It was to dislodge Sadr from Basra and it failed miserably for Maliki. Sadr and his force are still in Basra and in the out lying cities which includes Baghdad. Maliki looks like blundering stooge and this does not bode well for him if he is seeking Shiite approval.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080331/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

From the AP itself posted on Yahoo News. Though I pretty much think a ideologue like yourself would no doubt try to discredit any facts that do not reaffirm your word view.

A day after al-Sadr's call, Iraqi officials sought to present his decision as a victory for the government, despite the failure of U.S.-backed Iraqi forces to dislodge Mahdi fighters from Basra strongholds.

Oh and the cease fire was brokered by Iranian officials.

U.S. and Iraqi officials insisted the operation was directed at criminals and rogue militiamen ? some allegedly linked to Iran ? but not against the Sadrist movement, which controls 30 of the 275 seats in the national parliament.

But well-informed Iraqi political officials said the Iranians played a key role in hammering out the peace deal, boosting the Islamic Republic's influence among the majority Shiite community. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information.

According to one Shiite official, the deal was struck after hours of negotiations in the Iranian holy city of Qom involving key figures in Iraq's major Shiite parties and representatives of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

"By all reports, Iran's role is not good," said Michael O'Hanlon, foreign policy expert at the Brookings Institution. "They're arming all groups. ...They want influence with everyone."

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Dari
Kudos to the Iraqi Army for fighting their own war. But this is a bad sign for short-term stability. Hopefully America doesn't get sucked in the South considering it's an Iranian stronghold and the British will be fleeing later this year.

http://www.time.com/time/world...725296,00.html?cnn=yes

Maliki's Moment of Truth in Basra

The massive operation by the Iraqi army in Basra could be a defining battle against Shi'ite militias. Reports from the southern city ? the hub of Iraq's oil industry and gateway to its main ports ? say fierce fighting has broken out between government forces and militias. Eyewitnesses have told TIME of several smoke plumes rising out of the city's northern districts, and the sound of explosions and gunfire. Iraqi TV channels have shown images of helicopters flying over the city, and troops sweeping through some streets. At least 22 people were killed, and 58 wounded, in the fighting.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki arrived in Basra on Monday, accompanied by his ministers for defense and the interior, to personally supervise the operation. For Maliki, this is a crucial show of force. For much of the past three years, the Iraqi government has had little influence over Basra. As British troops have steadily withdrawn from the city, it has fallen into the control of three major Shi'ite militias ? Moqtada al'Sadr's Mahdi Army, the Iran-backed Badr Brigades and a local group associated with the Fadila Party. The three have recently fought turf battles over large swaths of the city, claiming hundreds of lives.

Although there are over 4,000 British troops at a base outside Basra, they have done little to curb the violence. "We have a capacity to provide air and other specialist support if needed, but at this time British involvement is minimal," a British Ministry of Defense spokesman said, declining to be identified in accordance with department policy. Many Iraqis blame Basra's descent into chaos on flawed British strategy. They contend that in their haste to draw down forces, the British did little to train and bolster the local police force. Instead, many militia fighters were recruited into the police, making the force a part of Basra's problems rather than a solution.

Maliki's government has repeatedly sworn to bring the militias to heel, but this is the first major offensive it has mounted in Basra. Early reports suggest the military drive is targeting the Mahdi Army, which controls much of northern Basra. But Iraqi officials have said Tuesday the operation will continue until all militias have surrendered.

Maliki's government and the Iraqi Army desperately need a big military success. Most of the credit for the reduction in violence across Iraq over the past year has gone to the U.S. military's "surge" strategy, and to the Sunni tribes that switched sides to fight al-Qaeda. The Iraqi security forces have appeared, at best, mere spectators; at worst, they are seen as sectarian militias in uniform. A spectacular win in Basra would help give the army and police some much-needed credibility among ordinary Iraqis.

Failure to impose Baghdad's writ on Basra would have major economic repercussions ? already, the oil pipelines are frequently bombed and large quantities of crude smuggled out. But there's more at stake: While he directs the fighting in Basra, Maliki must also prepare himself for a political backlash in Baghdad. Two of the militias have close ties to the government: Sadr controls a large block of the members of parliament, and the Badr Brigades are the military arm of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, the largest Shi'ite party. If both political blocks withdraw their support for Maliki, that would doom his government.

The Iraqi capital, meanwhile, is bracing for a fallout from the fighting in Basra. Large parts of western Baghdad have been shut down by a strike called by Sadrists. Anticipating violence from the Mahdi Army, the Iraqi Army has increased patrolling in the city and reinforced police checkpoints.

You honestly think this has anything to do with the allies and the allied troops? This shit got a shitload worse when the UK left, should we have? Well, the area was safe, i know many men who shook their heads when they got the order.

At this point this battle does not even concern the Allies, let them duke it out, Basra hasn't been a protected region for some time now. (which is another stupid administrative move that no soldier on the ground and no officer from the ground up to the administrators ever agreed on, i know this for sure).

Let the civilians and their hired guns fend for them selves, i'll be damned if we are ever going to spend more tax money on their profits.

Because, see, that is what this fight is about, Basra is oil country.

Let them duke it out and then we fuck up who ever wins is the latest plan, well, if they won't sell very cheap like the last crew did.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Dari
Kudos to the Iraqi Army for fighting their own war. But this is a bad sign for short-term stability. Hopefully America doesn't get sucked in the South considering it's an Iranian stronghold and the British will be fleeing later this year.

http://www.time.com/time/world...725296,00.html?cnn=yes

Maliki's Moment of Truth in Basra

The massive operation by the Iraqi army in Basra could be a defining battle against Shi'ite militias. Reports from the southern city ? the hub of Iraq's oil industry and gateway to its main ports ? say fierce fighting has broken out between government forces and militias. Eyewitnesses have told TIME of several smoke plumes rising out of the city's northern districts, and the sound of explosions and gunfire. Iraqi TV channels have shown images of helicopters flying over the city, and troops sweeping through some streets. At least 22 people were killed, and 58 wounded, in the fighting.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki arrived in Basra on Monday, accompanied by his ministers for defense and the interior, to personally supervise the operation. For Maliki, this is a crucial show of force. For much of the past three years, the Iraqi government has had little influence over Basra. As British troops have steadily withdrawn from the city, it has fallen into the control of three major Shi'ite militias ? Moqtada al'Sadr's Mahdi Army, the Iran-backed Badr Brigades and a local group associated with the Fadila Party. The three have recently fought turf battles over large swaths of the city, claiming hundreds of lives.

Although there are over 4,000 British troops at a base outside Basra, they have done little to curb the violence. "We have a capacity to provide air and other specialist support if needed, but at this time British involvement is minimal," a British Ministry of Defense spokesman said, declining to be identified in accordance with department policy. Many Iraqis blame Basra's descent into chaos on flawed British strategy. They contend that in their haste to draw down forces, the British did little to train and bolster the local police force. Instead, many militia fighters were recruited into the police, making the force a part of Basra's problems rather than a solution.

Maliki's government has repeatedly sworn to bring the militias to heel, but this is the first major offensive it has mounted in Basra. Early reports suggest the military drive is targeting the Mahdi Army, which controls much of northern Basra. But Iraqi officials have said Tuesday the operation will continue until all militias have surrendered.

Maliki's government and the Iraqi Army desperately need a big military success. Most of the credit for the reduction in violence across Iraq over the past year has gone to the U.S. military's "surge" strategy, and to the Sunni tribes that switched sides to fight al-Qaeda. The Iraqi security forces have appeared, at best, mere spectators; at worst, they are seen as sectarian militias in uniform. A spectacular win in Basra would help give the army and police some much-needed credibility among ordinary Iraqis.

Failure to impose Baghdad's writ on Basra would have major economic repercussions ? already, the oil pipelines are frequently bombed and large quantities of crude smuggled out. But there's more at stake: While he directs the fighting in Basra, Maliki must also prepare himself for a political backlash in Baghdad. Two of the militias have close ties to the government: Sadr controls a large block of the members of parliament, and the Badr Brigades are the military arm of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, the largest Shi'ite party. If both political blocks withdraw their support for Maliki, that would doom his government.

The Iraqi capital, meanwhile, is bracing for a fallout from the fighting in Basra. Large parts of western Baghdad have been shut down by a strike called by Sadrists. Anticipating violence from the Mahdi Army, the Iraqi Army has increased patrolling in the city and reinforced police checkpoints.

You honestly think this has anything to do with the allies and the allied troops? This shit got a shitload worse when the UK left, should we have? Well, the area was safe, i know many men who shook their heads when they got the order.

At this point this battle does not even concern the Allies, let them duke it out, Basra hasn't been a protected region for some time now. (which is another stupid administrative move that no soldier on the ground and no officer from the ground up to the administrators ever agreed on, i know this for sure).

Let the civilians and their hired guns fend for them selves, i'll be damned if we are ever going to spend more tax money on their profits.

Because, see, that is what this fight is about, Basra is oil country.

Let them duke it out and then we fuck up who ever wins is the latest plan, well, if they won't sell very cheap like the last crew did.

Obviously it is about the oil. Just refreshing to see it admitted straight up.

 

[maddogchen]

Hahah "defining moment" the moment historians will point to the inevitable fall of the Iraqi government. Bush is such an idiot.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

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.

LoL - I love how you twist things around. The goal was not to dislodge Maliki from Basra. It was to dislodge Sadr from Basra and it failed miserably for Maliki. Sadr and his force are still in Basra and in the out lying cities which includes Baghdad. Maliki looks like blundering stooge and this does not bode well for him if he is seeking Shiite approval.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080331/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

From the AP itself posted on Yahoo News. Though I pretty much thing a ideologue like yourself would no doubt try to discredit any facts that do not reaffirm your word view.

A day after al-Sadr's call, Iraqi officials sought to present his decision as a victory for the government, despite the failure of U.S.-backed Iraqi forces to dislodge Mahdi fighters from Basra strongholds.

Oh and the cease fire was brokered by Iranian officials.

U.S. and Iraqi officials insisted the operation was directed at criminals and rogue militiamen ? some allegedly linked to Iran ? but not against the Sadrist movement, which controls 30 of the 275 seats in the national parliament.

But well-informed Iraqi political officials said the Iranians played a key role in hammering out the peace deal, boosting the Islamic Republic's influence among the majority Shiite community. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information.

According to one Shiite official, the deal was struck after hours of negotiations in the Iranian holy city of Qom involving key figures in Iraq's major Shiite parties and representatives of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

"By all reports, Iran's role is not good," said Michael O'Hanlon, foreign policy expert at the Brookings Institution. "They're arming all groups. ...They want influence with everyone."

Great. 'According to well-placed but un-named officials...' Another spin moment. Despite Sadr's militia being humiliated and Sadr having to back down, somehow this is a loss for Maliki.

Reminds me of the spin after the Israeli/Lebanon conflict. Somehow, getting their ass kicked was a victory for Hezbollah too.

:roll:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Great. 'According to well-placed but un-named officials...' Another spin moment. Despite Sadr's militia being humiliated and Sadr having to back down, somehow this is a loss for Maliki.

Reminds me of the spin after the Israeli/Lebanon conflict. Somehow, getting their ass kicked was a victory for Hezbollah too.

:roll:

Uhmmmm... you realize most people (the Bush administration included) say Hezbollah won that war right?

 

[Lemon law]

It seems to me that TLC is putting himself in the position of cheerleader with---Great. 'According to well-placed but un-named officials...' Another spin moment. Despite Sadr's militia being humiliated and Sadr having to back down, somehow this is a loss for Maliki.

Reminds me of the spin after the Israeli/Lebanon conflict. Somehow, getting their ass kicked was a victory for Hezbollah too.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cheerleading is all well and fine. And it seems clear to me that you want a given outcome that I hope you get. But its also clear that you are spinning events in a rather extreme manner. And no matter how many times you repeat the same spin, it will not impact what ends up happening in any way.

I personally think this latest series of events is just one gambit in a far longer struggle. My take is that Al Sadr has emerged as the more reasonable of the two and that Malaki has been weakened. In the longer term, its now probable that Maliki is likely to be replaced as the Iraqi head cheese. But in the intermediate term other events may change that assessment as the dice keep being rolled.

But for the short term, both Maliki and Al Sadr remain standing. As does the various shia insurgencies and militias. And as you point out, so do the various sunni insurgencies and militias. Nor should we forget the Kurds.

The point is that Iraq came dangerously close to a major open conflict that could have resulted in a civil war. And stopped short of that brink but still teeters close to that abyss. With luck, Iraq will return to the same basic low level anarchy that it was before and a state of no progress.

If you want to call that glorious victory go ahead, pardon me if I do not share your gusto.

And meanwhile back in Israel, the conflict is celebrating its 60'th birthday, and after Israel glorious victory, hezbollah also remains standing, and that glorious victory seems to have advanced Israel no closer to victory than it was 60 years ago.

 

[Tab]

Lemon Law, do you have a blog I could subscribe to? Great posts!

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Great. 'According to well-placed but un-named officials...' Another spin moment. Despite Sadr's militia being humiliated and Sadr having to back down, somehow this is a loss for Maliki.

Reminds me of the spin after the Israeli/Lebanon conflict. Somehow, getting their ass kicked was a victory for Hezbollah too.

:roll:

Uhmmmm... you realize most people (the Bush administration included) say Hezbollah won that war right?

Yes. I'm aware that many stupid people believe that Hezbollah won.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Great. 'According to well-placed but un-named officials...' Another spin moment. Despite Sadr's militia being humiliated and Sadr having to back down, somehow this is a loss for Maliki.

Reminds me of the spin after the Israeli/Lebanon conflict. Somehow, getting their ass kicked was a victory for Hezbollah too.

:roll:

Uhmmmm... you realize most people (the Bush administration included) say Hezbollah won that war right?

Yes. I'm aware that many stupid people believe that Hezbollah won.

Yeah, like those stupid people in Israel

 

[Lemon law]

As Eskimospy and TLC argue back and forth regarding a Hezbollah win or a loss, it never seems to occur to them that neither side won or lost. And senseless war and conflict and killing will go on and on and on and on---------------and on.

Sounds like we all lose then.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
As Eskimospy and TLC argue back and forth regarding a Hezbollah win or a loss, it never seems to occur to them that neither side won or lost. And senseless war and conflict and killing will go on and on and on and on---------------and on.

Sounds like we all lose then.

I was pointing out that his analogy was wrong and so it was foolish to apply it to the situation in Iraq.

As for your very sensitive and very deep anti war post, spare me. I never said the conflict was a good thing, that both Hezbollah and Israel weren't wrong in what they did, or that this sort of fighting was in any way productive. Then again having said all that, maybe the comparison between Al-Sadr and Hezbollah is more apt then I thought. (depending on how things turn out of course)

I will admit that because I mentioned to TLC that he was wrong about something there's a pretty good chance he will attempt to spiral this thread into another dance of stupidity and pedantry.

 

[seemingly random]

I think some folks in this discussion are debating. In other words, the debate is more important than the contents. They will pick mercilessly at inane stuff and frustrate others to death. They will do this unemotionally and not lose any sleep over causing others frustration. Asking them to be reasonable will just earn their scorn.

 

[Lemon law]

On balance, I do owe Eskimospy an apology for using his statements as somewhat of an argument platform. As eskimo spy points out---I was pointing out that his analogy (tlc's) was wrong and so it was foolish to apply it to the situation in Iraq.

As for your very sensitive and very deep anti war post, spare me. I never said the conflict was a good thing, that both Hezbollah and Israel weren't wrong in what they did, or that this sort of fighting was in any way productive.

And seemingly random is also right in pointing out---I think some folks in this discussion are debating. In other words, the debate is more important than the contents. They will pick mercilessly at inane stuff and frustrate others to death.

And I have to admit that partially applies to me. I try to see my role as a debunker of myths and stupidities. I am trying as best I can to see Iraq honestly and in the state it is in now. And what motivates the various sides. And until we see the situation in a brutally honest manner, there is little hope we can get from where we are now to a better place where we can all call it a "win" without making that brutally honest and unbiased assessment.

Many posts back some one referred to the Joe Biden three state solution for Iraq. My thesis is that a three state solution is unworkable, but we have a situation in which anarchy has resulted in Iraq being de facto already partitioned into thousand of fiefdoms of varying size.

And my take on the entire incident is as follows. Because when you have rival adjacent fiefdoms, the natural progression is that one group will try to take over the other. And the already well entrenched Mahdi army faction was squabbling over who got the lions share of the Iraqi oil being looted in Basra with another well entrenched Shia group(s) backed by other Shia factions. And Malaki came in with the Iraqi army to try to establish "law and order", and in doing so over reached himself because he does not have the power needed and Iraqi army troops do not particularly enjoy killing fellow Iraqis. Rather than allow Basra to be destroyed meaning there will be no oil money to loot, both rival Shia groups called a cease fire without disarming, pretty soon Malki will go back to the green zone with his Shia political support weakened, the whole stunt just resulted in a lot of people being killed, and nothing has fundamentally changed.

In a sense, TLC is right, Iraq can't have a real central government without disarming the insurgencies and establishing central government control, but thats going to take the 500,000 troops Shinseki told us that we needed before day one.
And now that the insurgencies are well dug in, its going to take way way more than the 500,000 troops we do not have.

Since the simple brute force power strategy lacks the enough power, we are going to have to try something smarter to make up for that handicap. Maybe, gasp diplomacy.

 

[Arkaign]

Lemon Law, stop talking sense! You're only going to confuse TLC more

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Lemon law
As Eskimospy and TLC argue back and forth regarding a Hezbollah win or a loss, it never seems to occur to them that neither side won or lost. And senseless war and conflict and killing will go on and on and on and on---------------and on.

Sounds like we all lose then.

I was pointing out that his analogy was wrong and so it was foolish to apply it to the situation in Iraq.

As for your very sensitive and very deep anti war post, spare me. I never said the conflict was a good thing, that both Hezbollah and Israel weren't wrong in what they did, or that this sort of fighting was in any way productive. Then again having said all that, maybe the comparison between Al-Sadr and Hezbollah is more apt then I thought. (depending on how things turn out of course)

I will admit that because I mentioned to TLC that he was wrong about something there's a pretty good chance he will attempt to spiral this thread into another dance of stupidity and pedantry.

What you pointed out was that Israel chastised themselves for not crushing Hezbollah's skull after they had them cowering on the ground. It's the equivalent of claiming that the guy that got knocked out in a boxing match really won because he eventually got back up afterwards. I guess that's a victory of a sort, a victory of survival.

The problem with both Israel/Lebanon and what happened in Iraq are the assymetrical expectations. One side is expected to operate according to a certain decorum and with retraint and care while the other can be as brutal as they wish and nobody even blinks over it. One side uses military procedures while the other uses women, children, and civilians as a cover and a shield. Regardless, the side hiding amongst civilians gets the everliving stuff kicked out of them yet there are people who loudly proclaim that they somehow won because they weren't completely obliterated. Their skull wasn't crushed so that's proof of a victory.

Talk about spin. You should be proud of yourself because that's some of the most ridiculous spin I've seen. Change any lead into gold lately too? I'm wondering because your political alchemy is almost magical in its capabilities. No doubt that high rate of spin affects physical properties right down to the atomic level.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

What you pointed out was that Israel chastised themselves for not crushing Hezbollah's skull after they had them cowering on the ground. It's the equivalent of claiming that the guy that got knocked out in a boxing match really won because he eventually got back up afterwards. I guess that's a victory of a sort, a victory of survival.

The problem with both Israel/Lebanon and what happened in Iraq are the assymetrical expectations. One side is expected to operate according to a certain decorum and with retraint and care while the other can be as brutal as they wish and nobody even blinks over it. One side uses military procedures while the other uses women, children, and civilians as a cover and a shield. Regardless, the side hiding amongst civilians gets the everliving stuff kicked out of them yet there are people who loudly proclaim that they somehow won because they weren't completely obliterated. Their skull wasn't crushed so that's proof of a victory.

Talk about spin. You should be proud of yourself because that's some of the most ridiculous spin I've seen. Change any lead into gold lately too? I'm wondering because your political alchemy is almost magical in its capabilities. No doubt that high rate of spin affects physical properties right down to the atomic level.

Who cares why Israel didn't win? If they had the political/military will they probably could have. In the end though, they didn't and this prevented them from achieving any of the political or military objectives they put forth. In the end, Hezbollah kept the hostages, continued to fire rockets, and continued to pose a credible threat. Sure the bar was lower for their victory then for Israel's, but I don't see why that matters. War isn't fair.

Military and political victories aren't about who inflicts the most casualties, they are about who achieves their objectives. Israel failed miserably in doing this, Hezbollah did not. They did sustain significant damage, but Israel was either unwilling or unable to land a knockout blow and Israel took far far higher casualties then anyone thought was possible. Since the destruction of Hezbollah was their whole goal in the invasion, they failed. This isn't just my opinion, this is the opinion of most credible people on the subject both inside and outside of the middle east. It's okay to be wrong sometimes, please don't turn this into another one of those threads... you know what I mean.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
On balance, I do owe Eskimospy an apology for using his statements as somewhat of an argument platform. As eskimo spy points out---I was pointing out that his analogy (tlc's) was wrong and so it was foolish to apply it to the situation in Iraq.

As for your very sensitive and very deep anti war post, spare me. I never said the conflict was a good thing, that both Hezbollah and Israel weren't wrong in what they did, or that this sort of fighting was in any way productive.

And seemingly random is also right in pointing out---I think some folks in this discussion are debating. In other words, the debate is more important than the contents. They will pick mercilessly at inane stuff and frustrate others to death.

And I have to admit that partially applies to me. I try to see my role as a debunker of myths and stupidities. I am trying as best I can to see Iraq honestly and in the state it is in now. And what motivates the various sides. And until we see the situation in a brutally honest manner, there is little hope we can get from where we are now to a better place where we can all call it a "win" without making that brutally honest and unbiased assessment.

Many posts back some one referred to the Joe Biden three state solution for Iraq. My thesis is that a three state solution is unworkable, but we have a situation in which anarchy has resulted in Iraq being de facto already partitioned into thousand of fiefdoms of varying size.

And my take on the entire incident is as follows. Because when you have rival adjacent fiefdoms, the natural progression is that one group will try to take over the other. And the already well entrenched Mahdi army faction was squabbling over who got the lions share of the Iraqi oil being looted in Basra with another well entrenched Shia group(s) backed by other Shia factions. And Malaki came in with the Iraqi army to try to establish "law and order", and in doing so over reached himself because he does not have the power needed and Iraqi army troops do not particularly enjoy killing fellow Iraqis. Rather than allow Basra to be destroyed meaning there will be no oil money to loot, both rival Shia groups called a cease fire without disarming, pretty soon Malki will go back to the green zone with his Shia political support weakened, the whole stunt just resulted in a lot of people being killed, and nothing has fundamentally changed.

In a sense, TLC is right, Iraq can't have a real central government without disarming the insurgencies and establishing central government control, but thats going to take the 500,000 troops Shinseki told us that we needed before day one.
And now that the insurgencies are well dug in, its going to take way way more than the 500,000 troops we do not have.

Since the simple brute force power strategy lacks the enough power, we are going to have to try something smarter to make up for that handicap. Maybe, gasp diplomacy.

Well if you were such a great "debunker of myths and stupidities" you wouldn't get so throughly owned by Datalink7 when he corrects your own (and others in here) myths and stupidities concerning Iraq. Not to mention that thread on Columbia when people who actually live there corrected your little left-leaning, socialist pontifications with actual facts.

You and quite a few others in here have this penchant for rooting for the underdog. That's particularly true when the underdog is battling the US, direcly or by proxy. You guys seem to be in love with the idea of David downing Goliath (i.e. - GW Bush) and often spin mightily to make it seem that it either has happened or will happen. David doesn't always get lucky slinging that stone in every similar situation though. Usually, Goliath will win.

Your latest myth is assuming that in order to establish complete central government control that the Iraq government has to completely wipe out every militia member. That's simply not true. All the Iraqi gov has to do is exactly what they did in Basra - demonstrate that the militias are no match for government troops. They weren't. It wasn't Maliki that called this "truce." Sadr had to back down because his men were getting obliterated. Despite this "fierce resistance" that the MSM crows about he was losing 70+ men a day. Many more were injured, or captured. Sadr knew the numbers game and knew he couldn't sustain those losses, so he retreated. While the spinmeisters in the West may view that retreat as a victory I seriously doubt the majority of Iraqis see it that way. All they see is that Sadr is not nearly as powerful as he claimed to be. His boasts have shown to be idle ones. His bite doesn't match his bark.

Not only that, but now we have what may be some actual proof of Iran's involvement and backing of Sadr. Not a single MSM outlet or journalist has bothered to assess typical Iraqi reaction to that Iranian involvement. Hmmm. I wonder why?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

What you pointed out was that Israel chastised themselves for not crushing Hezbollah's skull after they had them cowering on the ground. It's the equivalent of claiming that the guy that got knocked out in a boxing match really won because he eventually got back up afterwards. I guess that's a victory of a sort, a victory of survival.

The problem with both Israel/Lebanon and what happened in Iraq are the assymetrical expectations. One side is expected to operate according to a certain decorum and with retraint and care while the other can be as brutal as they wish and nobody even blinks over it. One side uses military procedures while the other uses women, children, and civilians as a cover and a shield. Regardless, the side hiding amongst civilians gets the everliving stuff kicked out of them yet there are people who loudly proclaim that they somehow won because they weren't completely obliterated. Their skull wasn't crushed so that's proof of a victory.

Talk about spin. You should be proud of yourself because that's some of the most ridiculous spin I've seen. Change any lead into gold lately too? I'm wondering because your political alchemy is almost magical in its capabilities. No doubt that high rate of spin affects physical properties right down to the atomic level.

Who cares why Israel didn't win? If they had the political/military will they probably could have. In the end though, they didn't and this prevented them from achieving any of the political or military objectives they put forth. In the end, Hezbollah kept the hostages, continued to fire rockets, and continued to pose a credible threat. Sure the bar was lower for their victory then for Israel's, but I don't see why that matters. War isn't fair.

Military and political victories aren't about who inflicts the most casualties, they are about who achieves their objectives. Israel failed miserably in doing this, Hezbollah did not. They did sustain significant damage, but Israel was either unwilling or unable to land a knockout blow and Israel took far far higher casualties then anyone thought was possible. Since the destruction of Hezbollah was their whole goal in the invasion, they failed. This isn't just my opinion, this is the opinion of most credible people on the subject both inside and outside of the middle east. It's okay to be wrong sometimes, please don't turn this into another one of those threads... you know what I mean.

Yeah, I know what you mean. You mean disagreeing with you because if eskimospy says it, it absolutely must be true and don't dare be contrarian because eskimospy is the decider.

:roll:

Who cares why Israel didn't win? Maybe those people who are tired of seeing one side take sole possession of the goal posts constantly and run amuck with them care? War is not always about absolutely crushing the opposition in order to proclaim victory. Often it's about a projection of power and a display of strength. The Persian Gulf War is a clear example of that. Saddam was still left intact too. He still had power and his military afterwards. We pulled our punch and didn't bother landing that knock-out blow (imo, a poor decision that bit us in the ass). Was there any doubt whatsoever that he lost though?

Clearly Israel was stronger than Hezbollah. Clearly the Iraqi government is stronger than Sadr. Hezbollah and Sadr both got their face bloodied, big time. Instead of all the bravado and posturing about who is stronger, people now know for a fact. Perception is no longer left to the imagination. Talk about goals all you want but the fact is that Maliki is still in Basra and will remove the militias from power there one way or another. He has already asserted his authority. Sadr has backed down and now must withdraw or face getting routed again. Go ahead and try to spin that as a victory for Sadr if you're so inclined. I will continue to scoff at the notion...you know what I mean?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Yeah, I know what you mean. You mean disagreeing with you because if eskimospy says it, it absolutely must be true and don't dare be contrarian because eskimospy is the decider.

:roll:

Who cares why Israel didn't win? Maybe those people who are tired of seeing one side take sole possession of the goal posts constantly and run amuck with them care? War is not always about absolutely crushing the opposition in order to proclaim victory. Often it's about a projection of power and a display of strength. The Persian Gulf War is a clear example of that. Saddam was still left intact too. He still had power and his military afterwards. We pulled our punch and didn't bother landing that knock-out blow (imo, a poor decision that bit us in the ass). Was there any doubt whatsoever that he lost though?

Clearly Israel was stronger than Hezbollah. Clearly the Iraqi government is stronger than Sadr. Hezbollah and Sadr both got their face bloodied, big time. Instead of all the bravado and posturing about who is stronger, people now know for a fact. Perception is no longer left to the imagination. Talk about goals all you want but the fact is that Maliki is still in Basra and will remove the militias from power there one way or another. He has already asserted his authority. Sadr has backed down and now must withdraw or face getting routed again. Go ahead and try to spin that as a victory for Sadr if you're so inclined. I will continue to scoff at the notion...you know what I mean?

Nice, the forums ate my first reply. I'll give you the abridged version.

Military operations are usually measured by if each of the combatants achieved their goals or not. Israel's stated goals in the 2006 war were the return of their hostages, and the elimination of Hezbollah's ability to threaten Israel. It failed at both of these goals. Hezbollah's goals were to retain the hostages and their ability to threaten Israel. They succeeded at both of these goals. In addition, their prestige internally and internationally is MUCH higher then before, because they destroyed the aura of invincibility that the IDF used to have. This is why although they almost certainly sustained significantly heavier casualties then the IDF, they won the war and Israel lost. Israel itself admits as much, and so I find it very strange that you are defending a position that even the country itself does not take.

In the gulf war our goal was not the destruction of Saddam's regime, it was to expel him from Kuwait. We succeeded in this. Saddam's goal was to retain Kuwait. He failed in this. This is why we won and he lost.

In Basra Maliki's goals were to retake the city and eliminate a threat to his government. He succeeded in his first goal, but it is uncertain if he succeeded in his second. The Sadrists goals were to retain Basra and increase their influence inside of Iraq. They failed in the first, but it is uncertain if they will succeed in the second. Maliki has badly eroded his base of support by first attacking the Sadrists, thus pissing them off, and then negotiating with them, thus pissing off the other parties in government. This may lead to a situation where his government falls. If his government is so threatened he may ironically find himself forced to turn to Al-Sadr for support to retain his position, thus substantially increasing Sadr's influence in the Iraqi government, which was his goal all along I'm sure. We will have to wait and see if Maliki's government collapses over this or not, at the moment it's too hard to tell. This is why it's not clear cut as to who you can say won and who you can say lost yet.

You can talk about military victories all you want, but the old quote that 'war is politics by other means' is exactly what applies here. To say that this is some sort of unequivocal victory when the news reports coming out are saying Maliki's government may collapse over the effort is dishonest. Get it?

EDIT: Hey I went over to the NYT website and found this article. It pretty much says exactly what I am saying. Shocking. Here you go

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Yeah, I know what you mean. You mean disagreeing with you because if eskimospy says it, it absolutely must be true and don't dare be contrarian because eskimospy is the decider.

:roll:

Who cares why Israel didn't win? Maybe those people who are tired of seeing one side take sole possession of the goal posts constantly and run amuck with them care? War is not always about absolutely crushing the opposition in order to proclaim victory. Often it's about a projection of power and a display of strength. The Persian Gulf War is a clear example of that. Saddam was still left intact too. He still had power and his military afterwards. We pulled our punch and didn't bother landing that knock-out blow (imo, a poor decision that bit us in the ass). Was there any doubt whatsoever that he lost though?

Clearly Israel was stronger than Hezbollah. Clearly the Iraqi government is stronger than Sadr. Hezbollah and Sadr both got their face bloodied, big time. Instead of all the bravado and posturing about who is stronger, people now know for a fact. Perception is no longer left to the imagination. Talk about goals all you want but the fact is that Maliki is still in Basra and will remove the militias from power there one way or another. He has already asserted his authority. Sadr has backed down and now must withdraw or face getting routed again. Go ahead and try to spin that as a victory for Sadr if you're so inclined. I will continue to scoff at the notion...you know what I mean?

Nice, the forums ate my first reply. I'll give you the abridged version.

Military operations are usually measured by if each of the combatants achieved their goals or not. Israel's stated goals in the 2006 war were the return of their hostages, and the elimination of Hezbollah's ability to threaten Israel. It failed at both of these goals. Hezbollah's goals were to retain the hostages and their ability to threaten Israel. They succeeded at both of these goals. In addition, their prestige internally and internationally is MUCH higher then before, because they destroyed the aura of invincibility that the IDF used to have. This is why although they almost certainly sustained significantly heavier casualties then the IDF, they won the war and Israel lost. Israel itself admits as much, and so I find it very strange that you are defending a position that even the country itself does not take.

In the gulf war our goal was not the destruction of Saddam's regime, it was to expel him from Kuwait. We succeeded in this. Saddam's goal was to retain Kuwait. He failed in this. This is why we won and he lost.

In Basra Maliki's goals were to retake the city and eliminate a threat to his government. He succeeded in his first goal, but it is uncertain if he succeeded in his second. The Sadrists goals were to retain Basra and increase their influence inside of Iraq. They failed in the first, but it is uncertain if they will succeed in the second. Maliki has badly eroded his base of support by first attacking the Sadrists, thus pissing them off, and then negotiating with them, thus pissing off the other parties in government. This may lead to a situation where his government falls. If his government is so threatened he may ironically find himself forced to turn to Al-Sadr for support to retain his position, thus substantially increasing Sadr's influence in the Iraqi government, which was his goal all along I'm sure. We will have to wait and see if Maliki's government collapses over this or not, at the moment it's too hard to tell. This is why it's not clear cut as to who you can say won and who you can say lost yet.

You can talk about military victories all you want, but the old quote that 'war is politics by other means' is exactly what applies here. To say that this is some sort of unequivocal victory when the news reports coming out are saying Maliki's government may collapse over the effort is dishonest. Get it?

EDIT: Hey I went over to the NYT website and found this article. It pretty much says exactly what I am saying. Shocking. Here you go

War is generally measured by whatever measuring sticks people feel is convenient for their purpose. For example, you stated Israel's goals, ignoring that it Hezbollah that initiated the conflict as a means to gain leverage for a prisoner swap. That swap never happened. Hezbollah's goals were never realized.

See, one can just make their own measuring stick depending on how one wants to view a situation; or omit relevant facts from that same situation.

Nor do I see where the NY Times article says "exactly" what you're saying. Maliki vowed to stay in Basra until security was restored. He's doing that. I don't recall him stating he was trying to "eliminate a threat to his government" either. Nor has Maliki admitted to negotiating with Sadr. He certainly hasn't complied with any of the demands set forth by Sadr thus far.

btw, the thing I find ironic about this whole Basra deal is that back when the occupation first began the Brits in Basra were lauded for their kinder, gentler approach in Basra and that their methods should be a model for the Americans to follow. Now it's clear they were merely apathetic and basically fucked up their entire occupation operation from the get go. Amazing how time eventually unveils the truth of a matter.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

War is generally measured by whatever measuring sticks people feel is convenient for their purpose. For example, you stated Israel's goals, ignoring that it Hezbollah that initiated the conflict as a means to gain leverage for a prisoner swap. That swap never happened. Hezbollah's goals were never realized.

See, one can just make their own measuring stick depending on how one wants to view a situation; or omit relevant facts from that same situation.

Nor do I see where the NY Times article says "exactly" what you're saying. Maliki vowed to stay in Basra until security was restored. He's doing that. I don't recall him stating he was trying to "eliminate a threat to his government" either. Nor has Maliki admitted to negotiating with Sadr. He certainly hasn't complied with any of the demands set forth by Sadr thus far.

btw, the thing I find ironic about this whole Basra deal is that back when the occupation first began the Brits in Basra were lauded for their kinder, gentler approach in Basra and that their methods should be a model for the Americans to follow. Now it's clear they were merely apathetic and basically fucked up their entire occupation operation from the get go. Amazing how time eventually unveils the truth of a matter.

Now you're trying to argue semantics in order to keep from admitting you're wrong. This is what always happens in these threads, and I'm not going to participate in it with you. It is a commonly accepted fact that Israel's incursion into Lebanon was a failure. This is the position of both governments involved in the conflict as well as our own. This is indisputable, but if you want to use other metrics and selective goals in order to define yourself out a victory for Israel that the country itself doesn't even claim, go right ahead.

The NYT article concludes almost exactly what I concluded. It is that while Maliki certainly controls Basra, he has eroded much of his support. Having a rebel militia controlling the largest port city in your country is a direct threat to your government. To say otherwise is stupid. If it did not threaten the stability of the government and the country, they wouldn't have done it. Instead of achieving a purely military victory in Basra, he accepted a negotiated settlement according to people in his own government. The exact facts of this, and its implications are currently unclear, but certainly credible sources attest to it. This is why the outcome is not an unequivocal victory for Maliki, as the real implications of this action remain to be seen.

Please do not try to descend into some sort of argument on semantics or definitions. It's not necessary. Your argument that Maliki has scored some sort of decisive victory cannot reasonably be stated with the currently available information. You know this.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

LOL. Semantics?

The best you can generally do in here is continually insist the other person is wrong and that you are somehow the sole bearer of ultimate truth, and how DARE anyone disagree with your so thoroughly knowledgeable and informed proclamations.

Drop the BS, kid. Simply stomping your foot and essentially proclaiming "I'm right, you're wrong!" doesn't hold any water and seems kind of pre-teen in its execution.

Nor did I claim that Maliki has scored any sort of decisive victory. Those are words you're trying to put in my mouth so as to creat a straw man, another common tactic of yours in here. My claim was that Sadr "blinked" and that his face was bloodied in this conflict, which is completely true. Since this hasn't played out entirely yet it's a bit premature to proclaim any "decisive" victory, though I would say that Maliki easily has the upper hand at this point. Yet not jumping on the Sadr train and not claiming that it was 'Maliki who has lost' (in your best Nelson "Ha ha" voice) somehow is viewed the very same as saying that Maliki scored a "decisive" victory. You really should stop running my words through your own spin cyle and subsequently regurgitating them as something completely different.