U.S.,Iraqi Forces Raid Radical Shiite Stronghold (sparks big battle)

AP ^ | Wednesday, October 25, 2006 | AP

[Btrp113Cav]

BAGHDAD, Iraq — U.S. and Iraqi forces on Wednesday raided Sadr City, the stronghold of the feared Shiite militia led by radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, but Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki disavowed the operation, saying he had not been consulted and insisting "that it will not be repeated."

[MindBender26]

> "It will not be repeated."

Kill them all and it won't have to be.

[TomasUSMC]

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki

---

He is a shiite, just like his predecessor. Controlled by Iran. He was a member of the DAWA, an organization that our State Department accused of bombing our embassy.

We will not achieve victory until Iran and Syrian support for terror is taken out of the picture. President Bush has not done anything about those to terrorist sanctuaries, why? How many years with no action against those two countries that are complicit in killing our troops?

[sageb1]

"They like strong leadership."

Unfortunately, it is looking more and more like Maliki is a Sadr puppet.

[Cicero]

I think it's a balancing act. The Shiite terrorists have links with Iran and Syria. But al Qaeda is basically Wahabi style Sunni terrorists. It's hard to say which is worse, the Wahabi or the Shia fanatics. Then there's the Muslim Brotherhood out of Egypt, with their ties to Communism and world connections to the Left.

We certainly need to control the worst of the Shia troublemakers, but we don't want to put the Sunni fundamentalists in the saddle either. It seems to me that these materials are almost impossible to work with, no matter how you slice it. We got behind Saddam in the first place because he seemed like the best way to control these nutjob factions. Ha.

[Mr. Mojo]

At the beginning, I believed Bush's theory that all people crave freedom.

I wonder if he still does.

[Captain Kirk]

I wonder if he still does.

It is never safe to put the words politicians and belief together.

[Allegra]

Did you listen to the President's speech this morning? Al-Maliki has only been on office five months, what do you expect really?

I expect him to STOP STANDING IN THE WAY of our troops and the Iraqi forces going after the Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigade. He's cried "foul!" twice now when we've ventured into Sadr City which is where the current troubles are originating.

I expect him t STOP making public appearances with Muqtada al Sadr like he did in Najaf last week, calling for the U.S. to release a high-ranking Sadr terrorist.

I expect him to STOP appeasing that trash from Iran. Iran has NO BUSINESS in Iraq.

I expect him to work with us in stablizing Iraq, not agaisnt us AND THE IRAQI CITIZENS.

[Mr. Mojo]

Yeah, I forgot the "or ever did" part.

[sageb1]

Great rant, Allegra! You are right on.

[jmc1969]

Maliki is such a coward.

There is nothing people like from a politician worse then a coward like Maliki.

Jaafari certainly was alot like Maliki, the big difference was that Jaafari was respectful to the US. He was playing both the US and Sadr to help him, but in doing so he did not attack the United States.

Maliki has attacked and attacked the US for one thing after the other, the man takes our support for granted and thinks he can piss on us while he uses our money to make Iraq safe for pro-Iranian militants. I actually consider Maliki worse then Jaafari. Maliki was Sadr's first choice after Jaafari was replaced for good reason.

[angkor]

I was pretty good pals with a retired Army O-4 while contracting in Iraq, and being that he was free of the chain of command he called it pretty much the way he saw it.

Let's just say his approach exceeded the merely severe, and he assured me that's what his still-active buddies thought as well (he was a West Point grad). They just didn't talk about it openly. Some of them are in Iraq right now.

As usual it's the pols who stand in the way of a quick and definitive solution to Iraq.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Actually, ever since 9-12, we have been very concerned about being perceived as being "at war with Islam", for obvious reasons. As an unfortunate consequence, some of these whack-jobs like Sadr have been given immunity from 50 caliber attitude adjustment.

[jmc1969]

Who is the real leader of Iraq?

[sageb1]

Bingo.

[Frank_2001]

Heck, you might even find some Democrats in there!;)

[RedCell]

Might? ;-)

[quantfive]

"If that's his attitude, we should get out ASAP. You can NOT build a stable country, much less a democracy, while allowing sectarian militias to roam the streets and taking the law into their own hands. YOU CANNOT ALLOW IT."

al-Malaki is in a very difficult position and needs to make some real decisions. Either eliminate the militia's or let the whole thing go into civil war. He needs to decide that al-Sadr must be dead or tried for his war crimes against the Iraqi government and people. A big concern is his anti-Israeli stance and he seems very anti-semetic to me. If he really wants to show a mature position as a real leader, he should denounce terrorist action against any and all countries INCLUDING Israel such as Tony Blair did.

[excludethis]

Maliki has nerve to say this: "I affirm that this government represents the will of the people and no one has the right to impose a timetable on it"

I suspect todays raid was to "impose" upon this moron that his timetable will include immediately shutting down the militia. If he chooses not to, the USA just showed it will.

[lugsoul]

You think making it winnable would be the only consequence of taking out Sadr?

I think a consideration of unintended consequences would be in order.

The key to the question of "what happens if we take out Sadr?" is how Sistani would react.

[metesky]

If he expects to last he better stop kissing Sadr's ugly butt.