Fierce battle underway in Basra

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Iraq does indeed have a sovereign government that lives in the Green zone and is defended by the USA. And quite a little quaint debating society it is. It might as well be located on the moon for all the relevance it has. At least Karzia has it better in Afghanistan, he gets to be the de facto mayor of Kabul. And he does not have 225,000 Turks camped out on his border. And where ever Karzia goes in Afghanistan, if he has enough body guards, they will let him fly the Afghan Flag. But not Malki in the Kurdish regions of Iraq.

Sure sounds to me like Iraqi nationhood is busting out all over. And its only Al-Sadr fault that its not.

Can GWB&co. pick em or what? All he had to do is lie his way into Iraq and we were going to be greeted with flowers and candy. The rest of it was going to be a piece of cake.
30 to 50 billion tops and the Iraqis were going to pay us.

That's the talking points of the anti-war crowd.

Not too long ago I posted some of the bills the Iraqi Parliament has passed recently. The silence surrounding that post was deafening.

 

[Lemon law]

Of course Germany and Japan were different. One country began with a G and the other with a J---but TLC says---Comparing the occupation of Japan and Germany is apples and oranges. Other than both being countries involved in WW2 there's no comparison. Iraq is different too. Being different really doesn't say much.

Hate to tell you TLC, people are people are people the world over.

And TLC has it dead wrong. The occupations of Germany and Japan were very similar. We went in with a massive amounts of troops and supplies. And hit the ground running to feed the people and rebuild the economy. And inside of five years in both cases, we were close to ready to hand it off to the civilian authorities transformed from enemies to allies.

Not in Iraq. There is a difference, Truman was competent and had an idea of what it took, GWB&co. was not competent and did not even have a clue. And now five years in, much of Iraqi infrastructure is not even up to pre gulf war one levels.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Of course Germany and Japan were different. One country began with a G and the other with a J---but TLC says---Comparing the occupation of Japan and Germany is apples and oranges. Other than both being countries involved in WW2 there's no comparison. Iraq is different too. Being different really doesn't say much.

Hate to tell you TLC, people are people are people the world over.

And TLC has it dead wrong. The occupations of Germany and Japan were very similar. We went in with a massive amounts of troops and supplies. And hit the ground running to feed the people and rebuild the economy. And inside of five years in both cases, we were close to ready to hand it off to the civilian authorities transformed from enemies to allies.

Not in Iraq. There is a difference, Truman was competent and had an idea of what it took, GWB&co. was not competent and did not even have a clue. And now five years in, much of Iraqi infrastructure is not even up to pre gulf war one levels.

You should read your history. Not only about Germany and Japan, but Iraq as well.

In case you didn't pay attention, we handed off civilian control of Iraq to the Iraqis a while back, much sooner than we did with either Germany or Japan. Besides that, it took both Germany and Japan about 7 years to really get their feet under them. It's looking to be about the same timeline in Iraq too.

But we do agree on one thing - People are people. That's precisely why Germany, Japan, Iraq; doesn't matter.

 

[Lemon law]

TLC we can agree about the seven years with Japan and Germany as I said close to ready.

With Iraq the seven year clock might start to start when GWB leaves office if someone competent is elected.

And in a previous post you said---Not too long ago I posted some of the bills the Iraqi Parliament has passed recently. The silence surrounding that post was deafening.

And it never occurred to you the silence was deafening because the bills meant nothing. You mean to tell me they have an oil sharing agreement? That too is years overdue and not even close as I write this. And an oil sharing agreement might start that seven year clock. Better infrastructure might start that clock. Some employment and an economy might start that clock. But in the bizzario world of GWB&co, five years of the Katrina treatment is all the Iraqis should expect. Explain to me what GWB has learned from his mistakes. GWB has more compassion for Scotter Libby and stem cells than he has for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that have died.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
TLC we can agree about the seven years with Japan and Germany as I said close to ready.

With Iraq the seven year clock might start to start when GWB leaves office if someone competent is elected.

And in a previous post you said---Not too long ago I posted some of the bills the Iraqi Parliament has passed recently. The silence surrounding that post was deafening.

And it never occurred to you the silence was deafening because the bills meant nothing. You mean to tell me they have an oil sharing agreement? That too is years overdue and not even close as I write this. And an oil sharing agreement might start that seven year clock. Better infrastructure might start that clock. Some employment and an economy might start that clock. But in the bizzario world of GWB&co, five years of the Katrina treatment is all the Iraqis should expect. Explain to me what GWB has learned from his mistakes. GWB has more compassion for Scotter Libby and stem cells than he has for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that have died.

So the bills meant nothing. When nothing is done it means something, but when something gets done it means nothing or at least doesn't matter. Yes, that logic is clear. It's a logic of convenience.

The oil sharing will eventually mean nothing either because as soon as that hurdle has been bounded the anti-war crowd will erect another goal post, completely ignoring that oil wealth sharing was ever an issue, and focus on something else. btw, in case you weren't aware the Iraqi Constiution already spells out the basics of oil sharing. Additionally, the budget recently passed by the Iraqi Parliament will in effect distribute oil wealth to the provinces. But all that means nothing I suppose.

On to the militias, which were supposedly a big sticking point to success and true government in Iraq, at least accoding to the anti-war crew. Now the Iraqi .gov is actually doing something about these militias the very same people claiming previously that something needed to be done are agahst that this is happening.

That sort of behaviour is basically the anti-war crowd's behaviour in a nutshell. No matter which way things go they will always complain that it doesn't matter, it is never enough, or it's an ominous sign. Then they go off on a GWB rant because, well, they hate GWB with a passion and that hate simply must color everything and anything to do with Iraq and they can't seem to separate the two. Heaven forbid they admit there's ever any progress in Iraq because that could be construed as having their nose firmly planted in GWB's behind, or at the very least shed a small amount of favorable light on Bush and that's a big no-no. Never show any such weakness. Always deny, deny, deny. At least until it can no longer be denied. At that point don't admit progress either, just claim it doesn't matter.

 

[Lemon law]

Suddenly all the Iraqi bungling is all the anti war crowd's fault. Only the mind of TLC can give that kind of excuse.

And RESULTS ON THE GROUND has nothing to do with it.

And because only one metric, gross violence per unit time has improved in Iraq, when the anti war crowd points out that it may be only temporary, its moving the goal posts.

 

[Robor]

The Threat of a Re-Surge in Iraq

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: techs
Mission Accomplished?

Removing Saddam and ensuring the chemicals were not there? Yes.

Now let us stop playing politics with our coin and blood and either kill our opponents in Iraq or leave it to be fought over by them.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: techs
Mission Accomplished?

Removing Saddam and ensuring the chemicals were not there? Yes.

Now let us stop playing politics with our coin and blood and either kill our opponents in Iraq or leave it to be fought over by them.

:laugh:. Do you like be lied to? I don't.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: techs
Mission Accomplished?

Removing Saddam and ensuring the chemicals were not there? Yes.

Now let us stop playing politics with our coin and blood and either kill our opponents in Iraq or leave it to be fought over by them.

:laugh:. Do you like be lied to? I don't.

I said I like to be lied to?

Of course not.

 

[piasabird]

Unleash the dogs of War!

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Suddenly all the Iraqi bungling is all the anti war crowd's fault. Only the mind of TLC can give that kind of excuse.

And RESULTS ON THE GROUND has nothing to do with it.

And because only one metric, gross violence per unit time has improved in Iraq, when the anti war crowd points out that it may be only temporary, its moving the goal posts.

Actually I didn't claim all the bungling was the anti-war crowd's fault, but I guess the mind of LL feels it necessary to erect that sort of straw man because he's got nothing else.

I've already told you as well that there's been political progress too, which was the call of the teeth-gnashers previously. Then, when shown there's political progress they exclaim 'Oh, not THAT political progress, THIS political progress.'

It's goalpost moving, plain and simple.

 

[Lemon law]

Well, TLC arrogance can't be beat with---I've already told you as well that there's been political progress too

And since you told us there is political progress we should believe you when you seem totally self deluded????????? Clinging to every single little bright spot in a junkyard full of very ominous downsides.

And its only the antiwar crowd that moving the goal posts when GWB&co. is moving them all over the place in a war that was sold on hype, lies, and slogans. The rational evaluations standards for any occupation have not changed, only the excuses and slogans we are fed have.

TLC, you have a right to your opinion and wild irrational over exuberance, and I have a right to my opinion. But when it comes to OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS and OUR NATIONAL POLICY, I suspect you will be on the losing side of that argument.

Iraq is no longer about winning, its about cutting our losses. And getting out without causing an even bigger disaster.

Now who are we going to believe, GWB or our own lying eyes.

 

[Lemon law]

In related news Malki may have mousetrapped himself. Giving Iraqi insurgents three days to lay down their arms.

And if three days passes and they do not, then what?

Unless Malki can then enforce that demand without starting a bloodbath carnage that will fall mostly on civilians, it can only go to show how ineffective and irrelevant he is.

To date the US led occupation has not had to really deal with the three times larger Shia insurgency as they have largely been willing to wait, the much smaller Sunni insurgency was quite enough to keep 150,000 US troops busy, but irresponsible boasts at this time have a certain danger. Why would Malki paint himself into a corner of his own making may be the question that may soon be answered?

But fools rush in where angels fear to tread has been the recent history.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

If the times passes and the militias don't comply then the Iraqi military moves in. They've already been laying down the law to demonstrate that this isn't any sort of bluff.

Nor is this really about the US occupation. The Iraqi government/military is spearheading this, has the upper hand in manpower, and has the backing of the US military as well if needed. So Sadr is the one painted into a corner. His bluff is being called. He will either have to move to confrontation - in which case he'll get his ass handed to him and make himself a target in the process - or he has to back down and submit that he's not nearly as powerful and influential as he and some others would like to believe.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If the times passes and the militias don't comply then the Iraqi military moves in. They've already been laying down the law to demonstrate that this isn't any sort of bluff.

Nor is this really about the US occupation. The Iraqi government/military is spearheading this, has the upper hand in manpower, and has the backing of the US military as well if needed. So Sadr is the one painted into a corner. His bluff is being called. He will either have to move to confrontation - in which case he'll get his ass handed to him and make himself a target in the process - or he has to back down and submit that he's not nearly as powerful and influential as he and some others would like to believe.

Sadr has time and the backing to hold out. So far Sadr and the gang have taken over most of Basra along with several other cities. Baghdad and the Green zone have been experiencing daily rocket attacks. Now throw in the Sunni militias and Al Qiada running a muck and you got a powder keg ready to explode.

The "surge" only worked because Sunni and Shiite militias honored it but it now seems they only did so to resupply, recon and recruit. The Iraqi forces have been getting their butts handed to them so far it seems. The south in Iraq is largely absent of a US presence so this is not surprising as it has a huge majority of Shiites. So either there is a redeployment of US personnel to the South away from Baghdad and other key central and northern provinces thus leaving them open to attack to Sunni militias or the Iraqi forces are allowed to fold and the South is given up to Sadr and the gang.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...gPVJfU.X6JWBt1zeBvaA8F

 

[GrGr]

Heh.

US actions in Iraq are so typical of an imperial power aren't they. They support one Shiite group (their puppet Malaki) over another (Sadr) in a civil war, but they only give Malaki's troops light arms and second or third rate crap at that.

Just like the Sunni v Sunni action the US supports they are all designed to bleed and weaken Iraq even further. All the while catapulting the propaganda that thanks to the surge things are progressing in Iraq (since now it is Iraqis that are dying instead of US troops). Classic divide and conquer.

Over 200 Iraqis died yesterday. Let me guess. The new tune will be that the US needs to be in Iraq so it can limit the damage from the civil war the US started with the invasion... :roll:

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: GrGr
Heh.

US actions in Iraq are so typical of an imperial power aren't they. They support one Shiite group (their puppet Malaki) over another (Sadr) in a civil war, but they only give Malaki's troops light arms and second or third rate crap at that.

The Iraqi Army in my sector is rolling around in the same HMMWV's as we are. And they are using M16's and M4's. And they all have body armor. So I guess the US Army is using "second or third rate crap" since it is the same equipment?

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: GrGr
Heh.

US actions in Iraq are so typical of an imperial power aren't they. They support one Shiite group (their puppet Malaki) over another (Sadr) in a civil war, but they only give Malaki's troops light arms and second or third rate crap at that.

The Iraqi Army in my sector is rolling around in the same HMMWV's as we are. And they are using M16's and M4's. And they all have body armor. So I guess the US Army is using "second or third rate crap" since it is the same equipment?

Ok. I only remember Malaki whining that he wasn't getting any good stuff back in the day. He had huge rows with Petreus about it I read. Looks like he got it now then.

 

[Lemon law]

To really stop the insurgents is going to take basically the ultimate military nightmare of urban combat. And while body armor and light automatic weapons are assets, they are not that big of an asset in urban combat. Especially when the insurgents know every ambush point, back alley, and hiding place because its their home turf and those opposed are coming in cold.

During the battle of Stalingrad, the mean life expectancy of new troops were measured in mere hours. And last I heard, the violence has now spread to at least six other Iraqi cities plus Baghdad.

The knee jerk reaction seems to be to escalate with some sort of Shock and Awe campaign. When the test of leadership may lie in the person with the brains to de-escalate before a real bloodbath starts.

The last time we had a similar situation, it was Sistani who had the charisma to defuse the crisis. But Sistani seems to have lapsed into a disgusted silence in recent years. And its probable that Al-Sadr will even try.

The only possible bright spot I can see is that this crisis could create an opportunity for someone to arise and unite Iraq
by showing some wise leadership. It could be Malki but I doubt it.

 

[trenchfoot]

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.

sorry, but the latest news as of 3-28-08 is the iraqi's have asked for us military support to help them fight the insurgents in basra. us aircraft and us troops are now involved. hope this doesn't last long.

 

[Arkaign]

The confidence of Iraqi's in the Maliki government, already tenuous, is now crumbling. Get ready for 5 more years of bloodshed, waste, and hopelessness.

 

[conehead433]

Just think how bad things would be if the surge wasn't working. The government says it's working and you know they can't lie.

 

[Lemon law]

Oddly enough, the Iraqi army, at least in the recent past, was the single entity that had the most national Iraqi trust.
Even Saddam kept it integrated enough so Shias could serve with Sunnis.

On the other hand, the Iraqi police were basically Saddam's secret police and were hated and feared.

We can all only hope these recent events do not turn into a bloodbath. Its far too early to make any real predictions.
If the basic man on the street rallies around the Iraqi army there is some hope that it may signal a start towards breaking the power of the insurgencies. Only time will tell if anything positive will come of it. Its far easier to go negative and see the worst case scenarios, but if nothing else, it does put the Iraqi future into stark perspective.

Many posters on anand tech P&N have long warned the lull in Iraqi violence somewhat wrongly attributed to the surge might not last, but now that the prediction might be about to become the new reality, there is little to take pleasure in. No matter what position anyone takes, a big up tick in Iraqi violence is a lose lose lose for everyone.

 

[Baked]

This is what happens when you give countries w/ religious nut jobs and militia human rights and freedom.