Posted on 08/13/2004 7:43:57 AM PDT by Forgiven_Sinner
American marines backed up by Iraqi troops seem to have launched a promised final assault on the Shia militiamen holed up in Najaf. The operation risks triggering an angry reaction across Iraq and beyond—but pulling back now might be just as risky
THOUSANDS of American marines and Iraqi troops, backed by aircraft and tanks, launched an intense attack on Shia militiamen in the holy city of Najaf on Thursday August 12th—a day after the marines' commander in the city, Colonel Anthony Haslam, had said his men were going to “finish this fight that the Muqtada militia started”. Last week, the militiamen, led by Muqtada al-Sadr, a radical Shia Muslim cleric, abandoned a fragile truce that had held since June and launched a fresh wave of attacks. By the middle of the day on Thursday, the American-led forces were reported to have taken the city centre and were aiming to pin down the militiamen in their redoubt in the Imam Ali Mosque—the holiest place in the city, revered by Shia Muslims worldwide as the burial place of Ali, the son-in-law and cousin of the Prophet Muhammad.
US Central Command reports on the military operation in Najaf, and other operations in Iraq. The UN's Iraq section posts news on the country. See also the US-Iraq Embassy and the US State Department.
To try to avoid further inflaming Shias and other Muslims, in Iraq and beyond, the American military and Iraqi government have been stressing that any attempt to capture the shrine itself, to root out the last of the militants, would be led by Iraqi troops. Mr Sadr, believed to be holed up in the shrine with a large number of his men, has pledged to battle on “to the last drop of my blood” and urged them to fight on even after it has been shed. Iraq’s interim prime minister, Iyad Allawi, visited Najaf at the weekend to demand that Mr Sadr’s gunmen withdraw from its holy sites. Backing America’s tough line, Mr Allawi insisted there would be “no negotiation” with the gunmen—and to underline this, his government re-introduced the death penalty to quell Iraq’s insurgencies and other violent lawlessness.
American commanders say they have killed hundreds of the militiamen in the past week; Mr Sadr’s spokesmen claim their casualty count is much lower. What is clear is that the American-led attack carries huge risks. The outrage among Shias might be uncontrollable if, say, an American shell were to hit the mosque. Already, the battle in Najaf has triggered renewed uprisings in a number of Iraqi cities with big Shia populations. In Kut, more than 70 people are reported to have been killed in fighting on Thursday between gunmen loyal to Mr Sadr and Iraqi police backed by American warplanes. Around 25 people were reportedly killed in clashes in Baghdad on Thursday and around 10 militiamen were killed overnight in fighting with British troops in Amara.
The repercussions of the besieging of the Najaf shrine may be felt in many other parts of the country (which has lots of frustrated, unemployed young men, ready to take up arms) and beyond Iraq’s borders too: on Wednesday, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, denounced the American military operation in Najaf as “one of the darkest crimes of humanity” and said that Muslims across the world would respond to it.
Though Mr Sadr's men are no match for the American marines in terms of training and weaponry, they make up for it in fanatical determination. So the risks to America and to Mr Allawi of a bloodbath in Najaf are enormous. Already, the fighting seems to be causing strains in the Iraqi government itself: on Wednesday, the deputy president, Ibrahim Jaafari (a leader of Iraq’s main Shia political party) demanded that American troops withdraw from Najaf and leave Iraqi forces to quell the violence.
However, if American commanders and Mr Allawi are bluffing when they say they are determined finally to crush Mr Sadr’s rebels, this would be just as dangerous, since Mr Sadr seems determined to call their bluff, come what may. If the risks of triggering a wider conflagration force America to pull back from the brink, the Shia militiamen and all the other insurgent groups across Iraq would claim a resounding victory.
If there were any such retreat, there may be an attempt to disguise it by replacing American troops with Iraqi soldiers and police. But Iraq’s re-formed security forces are lacking in training, firepower and morale. Many have proved reluctant to open fire on fellow Iraqis. Some have even switched sides. Thus the result might then be that Najaf is abandoned to the gunmen—as happened in Fallujah, a Sunni insurgent city.
Though Muqtada al-Sadr's men are no match for the American marines in terms of training and weaponry, they make up for it in fanatical determination. So the risks of a bloodbath in Najaf are enormous
Ayatollah Khamenei’s remarks are a sign of increasing strain in relations between Iraq and the Shia theocratic government of Iran, even though some members of the new Iraqi government have strong links with Iran and several of the most senior figures, including Mr Allawi himself, are themselves Shias. Some of Mr Allawi’s officials have accused Iran of arming and encouraging the insurgents: last week Hazem Shalaan, the Iraqi defence minister, called Iran the “first enemy” of Iraq; this week he claimed that Iran was sending weapons to Mr Sadr’s militia. On Thursday he said Iraqi government forces had captured around 1,200 people in Najaf, “many of them non-Iraqis” who do not speak Arabic.
Mr Allawi, who will have to put himself before Iraq’s voters in elections scheduled for January, wants to convince Iraqis that he is the strongman the country needs. But his tough talk of recent days, and his restoration of capital punishment, suggest that he fears he is losing his grip on the country. He had hoped to avoid a confrontation with Mr Sadr: just before the fighting re-erupted, the prime minister’s envoys were trying to persuade the troublesome cleric to attend a conference, due to be held this weekend, to choose an interim parliament—holding out the prospect that, if he abandoned his rebellion, he would be able to share power.
Another potential solution to the conflict, as proposed last month by Saudi Arabia, was to supplement or replace the American-led coalition troops with a “Muslim army”, whose presence might be more palatable to the insurgents and might thus persuade them to call off their rebellion. But, fearful of being targeted in the same way as other foreigners in Iraq, those countries in a position to send troops, such as Pakistan, have so far proved reluctant to offer them.
As the fighting intensified on Thursday, it looked like American and Iraqi forces were determined to keep their promise to finish the fight with Mr Sadr's gunmen. But it is not clear what would happen if the operation leads to a protracted siege of the mosque. If the rebels can be crushed swiftly and without triggering a violent backlash across the rest of the country, then a positive outcome is still imaginable. But the stakes are very high indeed.
I note that this is one of the few mainstream articles I have seen that focus on the enmity between Iraq and Iran and for that reason I posted it. This will be a significant factor in the future.
Old news. The fight has been suspended, just after the Marines promised to “fight to the finish”, just like in Fallujah.
Patterns tend to repeat. I expect a big political compromise is in the near future, allowing Sadr to convincingly claim victory.
From The Economist Global Agenda ^
At least these guys are honest in their agenda!
Patterns tend to repeat. I expect a big political compromise is in the near future, allowing Sadr to convincingly claim victory.
I see that the armchair keyboard commandos are back out in force, pontificating on events happening 8,000 miles away as if they are in the middle of Najaf.
Yeah and the problem with that is Cheney should be careful how hwe talks about Kerry conducting a "sensitive war".
It seems backing off everytime you have this nut job by the balls all of a sudden the Bush version turns sensitive while our boys are backing their balls off.
So we have risks when the illegal Sadrite militia submits themselves to wholesale slaughter?
Stupid reporter. The only possible justification for this sentence is the "Vaunted Arab Street" argument which has been disproven every time.
You think the decision to suspend fighting against Sadr was made by military commanders in Najaf?
I don't care if I'm a million miles away, appeasement still wouldn't work.
We are appeasing Sadr. Anybody can see that, no matter their location.
We should never question any action by policymakers. We should be good little robots and assume every decision is the correct one, because we know we never made any policy mistakes in Korea, Vietnam and Gulf War I.
Just like Texas, right, boy?
Nuts. This lib reporter can't get past his Boston Brahmin world-view.
Well let's see, the reports come from the french AFP and the anti-Bush Economist.
Haven't trusted those sources, but you go ahead and trust the media to report fairly.
Enough of the muslim double standard. If it's OK for al-Sadr to militarize and pick a fight from a mosque, then it's to be expected that our Marines will destroy the mosque. They broke the umpteenth cease-fire and re-started the fight, we'll finish it this time. And when it's over, let's sort out how many Iranians are among the "insurgents". For real Iraquis, it's fish or cut bait time. You don't like al-Sadr anyway, we're doing you a favor, so lets get real.
Check my blog for latest:
http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com
we are not going to storm the shrine, but beseige it.
BS. The US is treating Iraq as it's own nation. We are guests only.
Dream on.
Stalemate; politics; status quo.
Everybody seems to be going back to square one to wait for El Sadyr to regroup and start the whole fracas all over again at his leisure, like we have... what; 3 times previously?
It's a wonder that anyone in the MidEast takes the US at all seriously any more... assuming that any still do.
And I'm not at all comfortable with training and equipping Shia NG and IP people who according to this article are just as likely as not to turn our "gifts" against us at the first opportunity.
I would like to see Iraqis armed with weapons designed for oddball ammo that they can only get from US, and with "planned obsolecence" so that they become inoperable within a year or so, (sort of like M-16s) to reduce the oriental tendancy of biting the hand that feeds it - with US funded dentures.
So currently, according to FOX, we are in a "standoff" while the Various factions of Shia "negotiate" (so much for "No negotiations!).
Will anyone be surprised if sometime during this time-out for "negotiation" the fat homocidal cleric will give us the slip, a-la' Osamma BinLadden from Tora-Bora?
Not I.
Maybe the two of them will be cave-mates for a while.
All of this "sensitive warfare" is hardly going to impress the terrorists, as VP CHENEY so aptly pointed out, any more than it will make France, Germany, Russia, all of the Shiites or the DNC think any better of us.
But it could cost BUSH the election, and it could drag us into another no-win vietNam fiasco, IMHO.
Hey, G-baby will believe any source that bashes the President. Just like anyone who disagrees with G-baby is insane.
No thats BS...Either get the job done or get the hell out..I support our efforts,I don't support the pussy footing around.
Tell Mrs sullivan her son is dead from some raghead that we allowed ourselves to play patty cake with.
Indeed!
Yesterday we surrounded the Mahdi Army IT WAS SUCCESSFUL, not any KIA coalition troops, only minor casualties, cleared out and surrounded the Mahdi Army ... Now we call on them to lay down their arms:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2004/n08122004_2004081209.html
IT WAS NEVER THE INTENTIION TO STORM THE SHRINE:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2004/n08122004_2004081202.html
So, things are going as we would expect.
The Iraqi Government is calling on them to negotiate peacefully, lay down arms, and to leave Najaf.
al-Sadr is making unreasonable demands.
While a compromise that let's al-sadr slip away is possible, we are targetting his militia.
What people seem to fail to understand is that *WHERE SADR IS RIGHT NOW IS 100X MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHO HE IS* ...
it is the symbolic place of martyrdom of Imam Ali.
And Sadr and shiites have a belief about the Imams that would make Sadr's 'martyrdom' a powerful symbol.
Sadr is writing a script ... And we need to write another one. In our script, sadr is not killed, but scurries away to obscurity while his militia is dissolved ...
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10434405%255E2703,00.html
I have said that this is a test for the Iraqi Govt. Not for us, we are doing everything correctly given the circumstances. A test for the Iraqis.
http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com
PS. Iraq the Model says it is quiet in Baghdad ...
Dittos on that. We have halted the offensive after surrounding al-sadr.
Iraq the Model reports that alSadr came to the Govt:
"The interior minister also said that Muqtada is not wounded and that he (Muqtada) had contacted the government contrary to what one of Sadr deputies said about Muqtada being injured due to bombing by the coalition."
al-Sadr's demands are not acceptable, but it's a start. we have him surrounded.
http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com
...they make up for it in fanatical determination.This explains why they've gotten their asses shot off and fled en masse to the mosque.
Sadr is writing a script ... And we need to write another one. In our script, sadr is not killed, but scurries away to obscurity while his militia is dissolved.I think we need to keep all of them right where they are, until they give up due to starvation. Instead of picking them off, get some rubber bullets to make sure they stay alive if they try shooting. Humiliate the murderous thugs, and call attention to the fact that they ain't what they say they are.
After killing 4-500 of his "militia" Sadr wants to back down. Fine. The Iraqis must make the call, And I don't think they will put panties on their heads. They laughed at us for that feat.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2004/n08122004_2004081202.html
Coalition military is not doing what they said they wouldnt do from the get-go, ie, damage the shrine.
You shouldn't raise strawmen, nor advocate foolish approaches that the military all along believes is counterproductive. Killing members of the indisciplined militia by destroying the shiite equivalent of the Vatican is called a PYRRIC VICTORY.
Indeed the iraqi govt itself has said that no US forces would enter the shrine. that is firm.
so what are the choices? wait it out, or have *Iraqi* forces make the assault.
The army said it would go after Mahdi army in Najaf. It did, and now 80% of najaf is free of Mahdi army. It said it would take on the cemetary and it did ... now the Mahdi army is reduced to a smaller area near the shrine, surrounded. It's a combination of American and ING that did it.
al-Sadr is playing all the tricks - he's lying about being wounded.
"We should be good little robots and assume every decision is the correct one," ... Well, first the decisions really are in the hands of Iraqi leaders. we are not going to do anything without their support, nor are we going to work with ING and IP in ways that make the situation worse.
This is not a military threat but a psychological one.
"because we know we never made any policy mistakes in Korea, Vietnam and Gulf War I."
In the past year, the military has been accused of making hundreds of 'mistakes' that either never happened or werent really mistakes. Being hypercritical to point of distraction based on faulty info and assuming the worst is no way to win a war.
Maybe the Iraqi govt will meet with full success here by getting the Madhi Amry out without much more bloodshed.
Maybe they will give al-Sadr every chance and then finally storm the shrine after exhausting alternatives. And maybe they will make a dishonorable compromise to defuse the situation. but none of those has hasnt happened, and presuming the worst based on the current situation (seige) is wrong.
I never said destroy the shrine, but that doesn't mean taking the pressure off, which is exactly what we're doing.
We've had several chances to kill Sadr, outside of any Mosque or shrine, and now it's coming back to haunt us, in a big way.
I can guarantee you one thing: Sadr has more followers now than he did several months ago.
I hope that they fight to the finish, cause they eat their spinach...... ahhggh-gha-gha-gha-gha!!!
Advice to the Muzzies..... just lay down and die... if you run, you'll only die tired.
Sadr's "militia" consists of the real criminals Saddam released from his prisons before we invaded. Low-lifes, lower than the gang-bangers in East L.A.
good plan ... I've thought of something similar.
Someone suggested a heavier than air gas.
if you recall the Russian 'rescue' of terrorists in Moscow, they used some sleeping gas that knocked people out ... alas, they killed both terrorists and hostages with an overdose of it, but ... things to injure/kill the people but leave the building intact would work well.
“He who fights and runs away, lives to fight ANOTHER day!”
Two words: Tora-Bora and Falujah.
If the government of Iraq does not have the political will to eliminate Al Sader, but instead once again allows him and his band of merry men to escape, retreat, receive immunity, or in anyway get away because President Bush wants to fight a P.C. engagement and will not allow the Marines to do what needs to be done in order to deal with this petty thug once and for all (i.e. KILL HIM and his army) then we have lost, this war is over and the troops should come home. We should not be fighting for a people unwilling to fight for themselves, or do what is necessary in order to protect their very existence.
If the Iraqis’ do not possess the political will to crush this threat to their very survival as a nation, then what is happening in Najaf will be repeated over and over again until the Islamic fascists take down the government and replace it with an Islamic fascist state.
This is a watershed event, it is make or break time for President Bush and Iraq!
If he fails to deal with this now, then in all likely hood President Bush is going to lose the election because we cannot win IF we are forced to fight a P.C. war. It is impossible because history has consistently shown that people and nations that fight “sensitive” P.C. wars ALWAYS lose them.
This mosque is not a “holy place” it is a fortress, stocked with weapons and filled with thugs and killers who are bent on killing Americans and destroying the Iraqi government and enslaving the people under Islamic masters and Islamic law. The only way to deal with the situation is to go in and kill or capture them all, not negotiate! The bad guys have us over a P.C. barrel, they KNOW that we are not willing to go in and get them so they have a safe haven and sanctuary and unless we have some way of killing them without touching their “sacred” “holy place” (sarcasm off) then they wait us out, restock, re-supply their “holy place” of death and fight on until they win.
The more time that goes buy in this stalemate the stronger they become because of outside pressure from our supposed “allies” = “Don’t hurt those poor mean-nasty Islamic terrorists, it is against “international law” and the so-called “Arab street,” you know, those “wonderful” Islamic multitudes who want to destroy our civilization, convert us to Islam, enslave us or saw off our heads. Flaujah is the ultimate example; if we let them off the hook, they will only become stronger and stronger until they win.
I believe with all my heart that what is happening right now in Iraq is a watershed, make or break event and what President Bush does there will determine the outcome of the election. If he does not act, decisively, no matter what the polls, our so-called “allies” and political pundents say, then the masses will fall under the sway of Kerrys’ more sensitive, “get us out of Iraq now” policy and he will win the election.
I am not being a pessimist but a realist. Americans want us to fight this thing to win it. If, the president, because of political correctness is not willing to do what needs to be done, i.e. KILL THEM, then he will lose and it is time to pick up our marbles, come home, fortify our own little “island America” and wait for the Islamic hordes to inevitably attack us from within and from without (something they are actively preparing to do). The mosques here in the USA are, like the mosque in Najaf also serving as fortresses and safe-havens where Islamic terrorists and insurgents are filling their people with hatred and training with impunity. If Kerry is elected, our government will not enter these “holy places” because it is “insensitive” to do so.
It is now up to President Bush and the decision he makes regarding Al Sader and the insurgents. This decision will determine the outcome of the war in Iraq and the election at home and all of the Republican conventions, political slogans, balloons in the world will not matter, only the flickering TV images of Al Saddar defiantly thumbing his nose at America, killing our men and continuing to overthrow the government in Iraq will!
I, and millions of others are praying that the President will do what is right, not what is “politically correct” or convenient.
al-Sadr and Mahdi Army are surrounded in Najaf.
Yesterday we defeated them in Kut.
It's simply contrary to facts that we are "taking the pressure off".
And al-Sadr is less popular now than ever. Read the Iraqi blogs.
http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com
“He who fights and runs away, lives to fight ANOTHER day!"
Two words: Tora-Bora and Falujah.
If the government of Iraq does not have the political will to eliminate Al Sader, but instead once again allows him and his band of merry men to escape, retreat, receive immunity, or in anyway get away because President Bush wants to fight a P.C. engagement and will not allow the Marines to do what needs to be done in order to deal with this petty thug once and for all (i.e. KILL HIM and his army) then we have lost, this war is over and the troops should come home. We should not be fighting for a people unwilling to fight for themselves, or do what is necessary in order to protect their very existence.
If the Iraqis’ do not possess the political will to crush this threat to their very survival as a nation, then what is happening in Najaf will be repeated over and over again until the Islamic fascists take down the government and replace it with an Islamic fascist state.
This is a watershed event, it is make or break time for President Bush and Iraq!
If he fails to deal with this now, then in all likely hood President Bush is going to lose the election because we cannot win IF we are forced to fight a P.C. war. It is impossible because history has consistently shown that people and nations that fight “sensitive” P.C. wars ALWAYS lose them.
This mosque is not a “holy place” it is a fortress, stocked with weapons and filled with thugs and killers who are bent on killing Americans and destroying the Iraqi government and enslaving the people under Islamic masters and Islamic law. The only way to deal with the situation is to go in and kill or capture them all, not negotiate! The bad guys have us over a P.C. barrel, they KNOW that we are not willing to go in and get them so they have a safe haven and sanctuary and unless we have some way of killing them without touching their “sacred” “holy place” (sarcasm off) then they wait us out, restock, re-supply their “holy place” of death and fight on until they win.
The more time that goes buy in this stalemate the stronger they become because of outside pressure from our supposed “allies” = “Don’t hurt those poor mean-nasty Islamic terrorists, it is against “international law” and the so-called “Arab street,” you know, those “wonderful” Islamic multitudes who want to destroy our civilization, convert us to Islam, enslave us or saw off our heads. Flaujah is the ultimate example; if we let them off the hook, they will only become stronger and stronger until they win.
I believe with all my heart that what is happening right now in Iraq is a watershed, make or break event and what President Bush does there will determine the outcome of the election. If he does not act, decisively, no matter what the polls, our so-called “allies” and political pundents say, then the masses will fall under the sway of Kerrys’ more sensitive, “get us out of Iraq now” policy and he will win the election.
I am not being a pessimist but a realist. Americans want us to fight this thing to win it. If, the president, because of political correctness is not willing to do what needs to be done, i.e. KILL THEM, then he will lose and it is time to pick up our marbles, come home, fortify our own little “island America” and wait for the Islamic hordes to inevitably attack us from within and from without (something they are actively preparing to do). The mosques here in the USA are, like the mosque in Najaf also serving as fortresses and safe-havens where Islamic terrorists and insurgents are filling their people with hatred and training with impunity. If Kerry is elected, our government will not enter these “holy places” because it is “insensitive” to do so.
It is now up to President Bush and the decision he makes regarding Al Sader and the insurgents. This decision will determine the outcome of the war in Iraq and the election at home and all of the Republican conventions, political slogans, balloons in the world will not matter, only the flickering TV images of Al Saddar defiantly thumbing his nose at America, killing our men and continuing to overthrow the government in Iraq will!
I, and millions of others are praying that the President will do what is right, not what is “politically correct” or convenient.
Before he was an unknown, now everyone knows who he is.
Thousands protested for him, and police in Sadr city (Formerly Saddam city) have turned against the Iraqi gov't and joined forces with him.
I never said he had "widespread" support. I said he had more than before. And the longer we wait, the more he will have.
After many of your past posts, pretending to be a Marine general, expert in video games, out of control egotism and now you little blog, I can’t take you seriously. Even now, you’re arguing with something I didn’t say or imply.
I don’t want to discuss this with you. I think I told you before not to post to me.
I believe with all my heart that what is happening right now in Iraq is a watershed, "
I agree ... but this is a fight the IRAQIS THEMSELVES must win. It is NOT a test of BUSH but a test of the IRAQI GOVERNMENT.
The coalition military and Bush administration has done EVERYTHING RIGHT HERE THAT THEY CAN.
They have trained the Iraqi forces.
They have given the Iraqi interim government authority to make decisions.
they have come in when needed to clean out the militants.
They have held back, ie from the shrine, when the Iraqi government said that coalition military would not go there.
The Bush Administration deserves HIGH COMMENDATION for what they've done on this.
It is thoroughly incorrect to say that the government of Iraq is lacking will because of something the Americans are telling them. The challenge for Iraqi government is to keep the 'center' together while there are so many factions secretly wanting some challenge to the central authorities.
This is a test of the brand new Iraqi Government's will to fight challenges to its authority.
I would urge more patience and less hyperventilation on this matter. think of a child riding a bicycle for the first time. ... now think of the child riding it through a minefield.
Now, look at us, yelling and shouting - 'go left' 'no, go right' - from the sidelines.
See the article 'a test for Iraqis' :
http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com
I recall an interview with some US military guy in charge who called al-Sadr to his office and told him to tone down his newspaper.
Of course al-Sadr agreed....and the rest is history.
Good example of how a more "sensitive" approach leads to more deaths.
These critical clowns carrying water for Kerry have no clue wrt military needs tactical or strategic and are utterly ignorant of the political nature of this fight now.
Their answer to everything is the same "Kill, bomb, MOAB 'em, Nuke it." If they were not encouraging the Enemy (the anti=Bush mob) they would be a hilarious example of belligerant and determined ignorance in action. No matter that this has been one of the most incredible military campaigns in history, no matter that our President has our enemies on the run worldwide we hear the same bilge spewed forth from their mouths at every turn. Every Pissant is Napoleon and every city Stalingrad.
And they are clueless when it comes to the fact that the Pissant's forces are being slaughtered wholesale with few losses by our allies and that he is being reduced to a laughingstock and a figure of hatred throughout Iraq or that the only concern of the Iraqis is that the MOSQUE not be destroyed. Cheers would be raised throughout the country should this Pissant be killed but that wouldn't matter either. Our clueless water carriers would then just say "Well it should have been done in June" or " Why didn't we use bullets soaked in pig urine" or some other stupid thing.
Do not fall for the ruse that THEY are on OUR side.
The only "watershed event" is the one occurring in the pants of the pissers and moaners who have no clue and are too foolish to leave the fighting to the experts. They apparently NEVER have dry pants.
I will give you the same response that WOSG gives to your ignorant undermining of our efforts. Are you going to whine to me to not respond to you? "Mommie he is talking to me."
So the Sadyr "Insurgents" get to run into the neighborhood "Time out" sacred and untouchable Mosque every time things are not going thier way, only to Re-fight the same battles at their convenience over again and again until they eventualy get lucky and win?
Am I the only one in here who is starting to see a pattern of the same tactics employed by the DEMs in the Florida Vote re-counts after the 2000 elections?
"We'll just keep counting these ballots until they come out in our favor!"
Wasn't it "Busgsy" DALEY, GORE's Campaign Manager, who said something like that?
And hasn't that tactic worked well for them in places like Chicago in the past?
Why not Iraq?
Did Bugsy D. and MuchTadda AlSadyr go to terrorist school together, or what?
Yes, the Bush admin deserves high praise, but that does not win wars.
This IS THE TEST for their government and our administration/ President Bush needs to make it perfectly/crystal clear to them, without reservations; if they do not allow us to do what it takes to win, WE ARE OUT OF THERE, NO MORE MONEY FOR REBUILDING, NO MORE TROOPS because our citizens will not shed the blood of their sons and daughters or any longer spend their hard earned treasure for people who refuse to defend themselves against the very people who are killing them and want to overthrow their government and kill our soldiers. The American people have had it.
Unfortunately for your misunderstand the "more deaths" are the ones we WANT to occur. Thousands of the Pissant's criminal gangs will not be bothering anyone anymore anywhere. And YOU have a problem with THAT? Laughable.
Just as laughable is your assumption that Iran would not find some other Pissant to do its bidding. Geez.
Step away from the keyboard and get a personality and a friend. Life’s too short to spend it in bitterness picking fights behind firewalls.
"Before he was an unknown, now everyone knows who he is. "
NOT TRUE. al-Sadr is the son of a very famous and revered Mullah. He has been known for years in Iraq. He's also known by Iraqis to be rather ignorant and juvenile. His following is among the ignorant and juvenile of Iraq... Think of him as Michael Moore - if Michael Moore happened to be the son of JFK.
"Thousands protested for him, and police in Sadr city (Formerly Saddam city) have turned against the Iraqi gov't and joined forces with him."
sigh ... you read some media reports and you hpyerventilate.Look, the hard left can gin up a protest that calls Bush a terrorist - in washington DC. so what? al-sadr is a fanatic and he has his following. In a democracy, he would be like a nader.
What the media reports *dont* say is that *millions* are on the other side, not wanting al-Sadr ruining Najaf and not wanting his 'militia' intimidating people and causing trouble. the govt announced that of the captured militants, hundreds were criminals that saddam had let go, and many dozens were from *Iran*. al-sadr has been exposed as a stooge for Iran who is hiring *criminals* for his "army".
Also, many protests and complaints about our fighting have almost nothing to do with liking al-sadr and more to do with displeasure with violence and a desire not to see Americans attacking Iraqis. Even though al-Sadr is responsible for the violence, Americans bombing buildings and killing people is not popular in Iraq. So of course everytime we open a can of whoop-ass, al jazeera runs the video, stirs the pot, and a certain segment in Iraq starts wringing hands about it. that doesnt make al-sadr popular,
but it does make us unpopular.
"I never said he had "widespread" support. I said he had more than before."
Okay on the first. We agree he's a marginal figure.
On the latter I disagree if you compare al-Sadr today versus April timeframe ... in april and may, al-Sadr caused us trouble for 6 weeks! And many cities 'fell' temporarily to his militia before we cleaned it up... this time, al-Sadr and his goons were marginalized to portions of only a few cities. Indeed, this round has gone FAR FAR BETTER than the spring round did. It indicates that Iraqi police are stronger and Mahdi army is weaker. A good trend!
al-sadr's only real popularity, if any, is in sadr city. NAJAF HATES HIM. So why is he in Najaf? Because the shiite shrine gives him the 'protection' of it as a holy place.
Again, note that his 'fellow' Mullahs dont like him at all, have called on him to leave Najaf, but also dont want Najaf turned into cinders (like some on this thread would like).
Again, if you think of the shrine as the Vatican, what would the Pope say if a renegade bishop was holed up in there? Would he say 'go ahead, flatten the place' Of course not.
"And the longer we wait, the more he will have."
Actually, in april and may, al-Sadr *lost* support while we waited for him to outwear his welcome in places like Najaf.
The ceasefire in may helped contain al-sadr but not extinguish him. It would be better now if we didnt give him another chance, but the fact remains:
- al-sadr is weaker now than he was in April
- al-sadr is less popular now than he was in April
It may be that our pause will help alot of the emotional backlash against collateral damage will subside, and Iraqis will rationally conclude that they need al-Sadr to be removed permanently from the scene.
As I said, this is a test for Iraqis.
Iraqi PM, defense minister and interior minister
wtf?!?! LOL. Are you projecting? attacking a strawman? confusing me with someone else?
I've never pretended to be anything I'm not, never discuss video games, and I don't recall you previously being rude to me nor telling me to not post to you.
take a chill pill, dude.
Picking fights with those who undermine our efforts against our enemies is among my favorite things in life. Exposing egregious ignorance parading itself as knowledge can hardly be topped and generally makes my all the friends I have time for.
Watching dumbasses stink up this great forum with their rotting bilge calls me to my duty.
Sorry dude. I see from my email that I had you confused with Barlowmaker. You’re right, I should have double checked before snapping at you. I just acted like an ass. I apologize.
"If al-Sadr had been arrested first time he issued his inflamitory newspaper (months ago) then all of this would have been prevented."
But we are not arresting people for saying inflammatory things. We are trying to teach Iraqis about freedom of the press ... and they do have it now, with 200 papers in Baghdad, talk radio, internet and satellite TV access. OTOH, there are lines crossed and we have arrested occasionally the most pro-saddam clerics. But frankly that is counterproductive.
So yes, when the military guy tells a cleric to 'tone it down', and the cleric agrees, the right thing is to let him go not lock his ass in jail.
al-Sadr isnt a challenge because he says stupid things. if that were the case, we should have Michael Moore in prison right now - we dont and we shouldnt because free speech is for even the stupid and the offensive.
al-sadr is a challenge because he created his own army and incited them to violence. that militia should be defeated.
Also, al-sadr has a warrant for the murder of the cleric Khoei, who al-Sadr killed in april 2003. It would be good to serve that warrant sometime.
We hope the sequel has a different ending.
So, you liked how we (coalition military + ING) kicked Mahdi army's butt out of Kut, then? see ...
http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.