Three month truce in Iraq????

[techs]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071125/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Four members of an Iranian-backed Shiite cell confessed to bombing a public market in central Baghdad, a U.S. spokesman said Saturday. He also blamed Shiites for recent attacks on U.S. bases, raising fears that a three-month truce by the most feared Shiite militia may be at an end.

Baghdad was generally calm Saturday, with no major incidents reported by police. But the recent uptick in attacks raised questions whether anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, head of the Mahdi Army militia, would call off the six-month truce he ordered last August.

U.S. officials have said the truce was generally holding and partly responsible for a 55 percent decline in attacks nationwide since June



So it WASN'T the surge that lowered the violence, but a truce ordered by Sadr?
Which tends to cover the time the US surged troops and ends about the time it has been said in Congress by the Generals that the surge would have to end?
So basically Sadr was just out-strategeried Bush?

 

[nullzero]

Figures our government twist and distorts the reality on the ground in Iraq. The surge was not as sucessful as most would have hoped. I wonder what the conditions were for the truce... We just gave Sadr plenty of time to expand and rebuild damaged parts of his organization. Can we expect another violent surge from Al Sadar and his people?

 

[Jaskalas]

Notice everything starts to center around Iran. 300,000 Iraqis signed a petition denouncing Iran for its part in the war in Iraq. Now Iranian backed groups are slaughtering Iraqis. Iran this, Iran that, maybe we will act against the kingpin or maybe we?ll sign Iraq over to them.

 

[ProfJohn]

With the drop in violence I think we will be much better prepared if one group tries to get violent again.

Plus after all this calm I think the people may react negatively if one group tries to restart the war.

Let's just keep out fingers crossed for everyone's sack that the current trends continue.

 

[Lemon law]

Certainly a good post techs.

But to a certain extent, its like some spy vs. spy double triple agent who is fooling who? I have long felt the varieous Iraqi insurgencies are more comparable to mid evil feudalism than anything else. With many local strongmen sucked into the power vacuum following the fall of Saddam. As many many individuals formed up their local militias and set up their own private fiefdoms. And by mid-2004, these insurgencies became the de facto government in the Iraqi streets. At the same time, most insurgent fiefdoms are small and act as somewhat free agents with little unity with other groups. But the exception is somewhat Al-Sadr who is the best known large insurgent Shia leader in Iraq.

And I somewhat wonder how long Al-Sadr can keep riding the tiger, because in any feudal society, smaller groups get gobbled up by larger groups. And how long Al-Sadr can keep his coalition together may largely shape the future of Iraq. But I would assume the next phase may be various turf wars with US troops as the hated referee.

 

[palehorse]

According to this "US Spokesman," is it a supposed "three month truce," or a "six month truce"? Or both? Or a one week truce followed by a week of sordid relations followed by another week of hand-holding? When does the cake arrive? Who has my carkeys?!

/confused

hint: check and recheck your facts folks.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: techs
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071125/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Four members of an Iranian-backed Shiite cell confessed to bombing a public market in central Baghdad, a U.S. spokesman said Saturday. He also blamed Shiites for recent attacks on U.S. bases, raising fears that a three-month truce by the most feared Shiite militia may be at an end.

Baghdad was generally calm Saturday, with no major incidents reported by police. But the recent uptick in attacks raised questions whether anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, head of the Mahdi Army militia, would call off the six-month truce he ordered last August.

U.S. officials have said the truce was generally holding and partly responsible for a 55 percent decline in attacks nationwide since June



So it WASN'T the surge that lowered the violence, but a truce ordered by Sadr?
Which tends to cover the time the US surged troops and ends about the time it has been said in Congress by the Generals that the surge would have to end?
So basically Sadr was just out-strategeried Bush?

So basically you know nothing about the situation and will grasp at anything that counteracts any news that makes it look like the US is doing anything good in Iraq?

I am in a Surge Brigade, and we reached country and took over our sector in February. A little outside that timeframe. And it isn't even like this is the first "truce" that Al-Sadr has called either.

 

[maluckey]

Attacks in the North haven't let up at all. So much for the "Cease Fire". This cease fire is ONLY for the Jaysh ACTUALLY working for Al-Sadr. Not the splinter groups pledging loyalty or afffiliating themselves with the movement. Al-Sadr lost control of his minions and needed time to regroup and regain control.

Repeat after me....There IS no "cease fire" except for JAM members actually working for Al-Sadr.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
According to this "US Spokesman," is it a supposed "three month truce," or a "six month truce"? Or both? Or a one week truce followed by a week of sordid relations followed by another week of hand-holding? When does the cake arrive? Who has my carkeys?!

/confused

hint: check and recheck your facts folks.

When I first read it I was confused too. If you re-read it, you see there was a proclaimed 6 month truce, of which 3 months has passed.
Hope that explains it.

 

[KingTech]

War is not over yet in Iraq and I think the war will never end just because you can win a war but can never win the hearts of the people.Americans will face such attacks if they continue the operation in Iraq.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

It's been mentioned before in here that Sadr called a truce. What hasn't been mentioned much is that his Mahdi army fractured when the truce was called and that it's those splinter groups - consisting of a few thousand men, who consider Sadr a traitor, and who are allegedly supported by Iran - that are carrying on with the violence.

btw, notice that the article says that the truce is partly responsible for the downturn in violence. The Surge, along with working with the tribes against AQI, is responsible for the rest. Now that AQI has virtually been routed attention can be turned to the rogue elements of the Mahdi Army that are wreaking havoc. Also keep in mind that there will always be an Islamist element in Iraq that will cause violence. That element is present in a large number of Islamic nations. It goes with the territory. That doesn't imply that Iraq cannot be stable anymore than gangs and thugs klling people in the US implies that our own country is unstable. It's just something that will have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
According to this "US Spokesman," is it a supposed "three month truce," or a "six month truce"? Or both? Or a one week truce followed by a week of sordid relations followed by another week of hand-holding? When does the cake arrive? Who has my carkeys?!

/confused

hint: check and recheck your facts folks.

The palehorse74 delusion is that there are any facts to check. Insurgencies drive themselves with small local leaders making spur of the moment decisions. Aggregate insurgent activity matters at any given time, actual official US government facts and temporary truces are mainly irrelevant.

Historically its been the Shia insurgencies that have time on their side while they wait for what amounts to their majority of the population to rule. And its been the Sunni insurgencies that have been the most active as they really have nothing to look forward to in a new democratic Iraq that they used to formerly dominate.

Meanwhile the Kurdish insurgencies have also been quiet as they work on their own regional independence they have been taking advantage of since 1991 and Gulf War1.

So its somewhat of a do the math folks, if a 20% of the population Sunni insurgency can basically tie up the 150,000 US troops we have mostly had in Iraq, imagine what can happen if all the insurgencies, basically a group five times larger, all get angry and active at the same time. These insurgents groups are at least as well armed as before, and their current lack of inactivity can change at any time. And if the activity index suddenly boils into full grown snit, emotions and not facts will rule the day.

Especially in Iraq, which is somewhat a nation that never should have become a nation given the lack of common interests glue it takes to make a viable and stable nation. So now the US is captive to mistakes other countries made long before any of us were born.

 

[datalink7]

Lemon Law,

Your "Feudal Lords" picture isn't a bad assessment. A lot of the insurgent is tied to local leadership who work together with other groups but really mostly are concerned with their own turf or territory.

However, you aren't correct in your last statement of a "20% of the population Sunni insurgency" tieing up US troops. My Brigade hasn't been fighting a Sunni insurgency. The whole 9 months we have been here, 90% of the time we have been fighting a Shia insurgency. And yes they have a large population, and a lot of resources. However, we still have fought them to the reconciliation table.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: datalink7
Lemon Law,

Your "Feudal Lords" picture isn't a bad assessment. A lot of the insurgent is tied to local leadership who work together with other groups but really mostly are concerned with their own turf or territory.

However, you aren't correct in your last statement of a "20% of the population Sunni insurgency" tieing up US troops. My Brigade hasn't been fighting a Sunni insurgency. The whole 9 months we have been here, 90% of the time we have been fighting a Shia insurgency. And yes they have a large population, and a lot of resources. However, we still have fought them to the reconciliation table.

Some excellent points, datalink7. A quick question, where in Iraq are you stationed and do you believe where you are is a typical picture of Iraq as a whole?

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: datalink7
Lemon Law,

Your "Feudal Lords" picture isn't a bad assessment. A lot of the insurgent is tied to local leadership who work together with other groups but really mostly are concerned with their own turf or territory.

However, you aren't correct in your last statement of a "20% of the population Sunni insurgency" tieing up US troops. My Brigade hasn't been fighting a Sunni insurgency. The whole 9 months we have been here, 90% of the time we have been fighting a Shia insurgency. And yes they have a large population, and a lot of resources. However, we still have fought them to the reconciliation table.

Some excellent points, datalink7. A quick question, where in Iraq are you stationed and do you believe where you are is a typical picture of Iraq as a whole?

I am stationed in West Rashid, Baghdad. And I'm not in some big FOB (forward operating base). My unit deployed to Iraq in February and by the first week in march we moved out and occupied our COP (Coalition Outpost). We were going to take over what we thought was an abandoned school building. However, two days before we were to move out we found out that school was in session (doh! ). So, scrambling, we had to settle on a huge parking lot (not kidding). We just pitched tents, dug a big hole to piss in, grabbed some steel barrels to sh!t in and burn it, and surrounded it with T-Barriers for a wall. Right in the middle of our Area of Operations. Things have improved since then in terms of ameneties but we are still out there in sector 100% of the time as opposed to in the middle of a big base.

Now, do I have a typical picture of Iraq as a whole? I would say Iraq is too fractured to really be able to take one picture and say it is representative of Iraq "as a whole." I do think I can paint a typical picture of what a Shia dominated city is like, as that is what Baghdad is. And even Sunni cities the insurgents probably use similar tactics. As for the countryside I know operations are different out there and the population is different. I don't have first hand knowledge of that. However I do work directly with someone who was a Platoon Leader out in the countryside around Baghdad before he got transfered to our Company two months ago, so I can always ask him questions about how it was out there.

But I guess to answer specifically, I can, I feel, paint an accurate picture of the cities of Iraq, particularly the Shia dominated. Less so for the other areas, though I imagine I have access to more knowledge than a lot of people do (for instances, working directly with a guy who could paint an accurate picture of those areas that I know less about).

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn


Let's just keep out fingers crossed for everyone's sack that the current trends continue.

Freudian?

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: ProfJohn


Let's just keep out fingers crossed for everyone's sack that the current trends continue.

Freudian?

Tore mine.

 

[senseamp]

No Shiite, Sherlock
For some reason I thought it was the Wahabbi Sunnis doing the market bombings, but I guess it cuts both ways now.

 

[Lemon law]

Thank you for your reply datalink7,

I will point out that Baghdad may not be typical of Iraq given the fact that Baghdad used to have a majority Sunni population and now has a majority Shia population mainly due to an active Shia insurgency that has forced the Sunni population to flee or segregate into the remaining segregated Sunni neighborhoods. Baghdad is also home base to Al-Sadr and they don't call a very large Shia slum area Sadr city for nothing. But that political base was inherited from the assassinated father of the now Al-Sadr who now is perhaps the largest insurgent leader in Iraq. And is also controlling a faction in the Iraqi civilian government.

But please keep asking those questions and keep feeding this forum your views and the views of the troops the American people universally support. Regardless if we are for the this war or not, we still support the troops!

 

[datalink7]

Lemon Law,

Thank you for your support. And I appreciate all different kinds of views on the issue of Iraq, or anything really. And your posts seem well thought out and not the empty rhetoric of others. I will continue to posts what I see from my point of view. I try to be respectful in my posts but sometimes I get frustrated, particularly with posts like the OP who has so colored his opinion by his hatred of Bush/the War/whatever. But if anyone has any questions please ask (here, or PM) and I'm happy to answer when I get the time. We finally got Internet at my little base so I get on every now and again when I get time. I'll answer anything as long as it doesn't violate Operational Security.