Skip to comments.U.S.,Iraqi Forces Raid Radical Shiite Stronghold (sparks big battle)
Posted on 10/25/2006 6:19:19 AM PDT by 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
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.
Who is the real leader of Iraq?
Heck, you might even find some Democrats in there!;)
"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.
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.
If he expects to last he better stop kissing Sadr's ugly butt.
"The key to the question of "what happens if we take out Sadr?" is how Sistani would react."
There are an infinite number of possible unintended consequences to anything we do.
Whereas the condition called "winning" is finite and measurable.
THe PM? How many divisions does he have???
I emailed this almost two years ago to the WH. It will tell you that some of us have warned our government, well in advance, about the future. Most of it applies today.
Regards and keep safe.
If taking out Sadr brought Sistani off the sidelines and into the anti-American Shiite camp, it would not do anything to help achieve the "winning condition" you reference and would likely hinder it immeasurably. We presently have a large majority of the Shiites not actively seeking to undermine our efforts. Want to change that?
He'll throw a party! In a the last year or two, Sadr assassinated two of Sistani's top aides. See #63
"that it will not be repeated."
The key is to do it so well, it won't need to be repeated.
Wipe the bad guys out!
"We presently have a large majority of the Shiites not actively seeking to undermine our efforts. Want to change that?"
Gee, ummmm..... wasn't that the strategy from April - July 2003?
It sure has been paying off.
Good points all, but in order for this discussion to mean anything substantive, we must define what we mean when we use the term "winning".
It's apparent to me, that the Bush Administration has internal disagreement about what that term means. The President thinks it means one thing, Rumsfeld thinks it means something else, the State Department thinks it means something else (something disasterous, no doubt), and boots on the ground in Iraq think it means yet another thing. To further confuse the issue, the Iraqi PM has his own definition that seems to differ from those of the aforementioned parties.
Here's MY definition, and I happen to believe that it is the only serviceable definition where the interests of the United States and the Iraqi people are concerned: "Winning" in Iraq means "leaving Iraq with the elected government as the supreme wielder of political and military power in-country."
Anything less than that means there's atill some nutbar -- like al Sadr -- in iraq with the capability to amass men and arms sufficient to carve out a localized feifdom too strong for the elected government to oppose; that an unelected party can, with impunity, draw a mob to himself sufficient to intimidate the duly elected powers. As long as that condition exists, we have not achieved a "winning" outcome.
Keep crying "federalism!" while simultaneously ravaging Sadr city. Mookie will be forced to defend his base in Baghdad while also attempting to grab power in the south. He can't. Once he is spread out, whack him, get control of Baghdad again. Then stop talking about federalism.
From my armchair to your screen.
This putz has to go. He's a Muky stooge.
When has al-Maliki made tough decisions??????
Fewer than we do. ;-)
If Sistani wanted Sadr gone, he wouldn't even have to say it. A hint would do.
Iraq was ruled by tyrants and butchers for centuries. In 1958, they assassinated their King (Feisal The Second) and their Prime Minister, Nouri al Saeed, dragged their bodies in the streets of Baghdad then hung them from their ankles for thirty days on the Royal Palace rafters for the buzzards to feast on.
The Iraqi on Iraqi violence is one of the most vicious in all of the ME. That said, there is only one solution for us to be victorious: show them the real "ugly Americans" as we're called in many parts of the world. Make their dreams and the I-told-you-so come true!
Answer violence with 10 fold that violence, drop the NeoNouri al Maliki's government and impose marshal law, kill al Sadr and execute people in public squares immediately, release the most vicious Sunni general in captivity and appoint him commander of the Iraqi army and deposit $10 MM in his newly opened Swiss bank account with a FREE HAND to get the whole f***g country under control while we sit back and enjoy it.
We have to bomb Iran and Syria for different reasons. They got ample warnings that don't scare anybody anymore!!
Enough of the "hearts and minds" BS, a heart & mind need a bullet each!
Enough of the killing and maiming our young men and women by mullahs and butchers WITHOUT paying a very steep price.
And BTW, yeah, the "free press" shouldn't enter an exclusion zone, Iraq that is! If they do, well, that will be at their own risk.
That above may sound outlandish but, have you heard of the saying: When you are in Iraq, do as the Iraqis do??
respect nothing but sheer brutality, then, what I just outlined sounds like a plan.
>>That's the depth of thinking that got us where we are today.
If Sistani wanted Sadr gone, he wouldn't even have to say it. A hint would do.<<
Depth of thinking? Have you ever thought that Sistani's stature will not allow him to stoop to al Sadr's level? He's trying to stop Shiite on shiite civil war.
Kind of shallow, eh?
Stoop to his level? By ceasing to protect him? As rough equivalency goes, that's a washed out gravel road.
My solution would be to blow Mookie and his boys to smithereens and THEN tell them to pick up the pieces. I am beginning tot hink that a better solution would be to build up the officer corps and then turn the country over to them.
Don't mix up names; Sistani is NOT protecting Sadr, Maliki is.
I guess it wasn't Sistani that got Sadr off the hook on the murder charges the gov't wanted to pursue against him two years ago. I guess the hundreds of reports saying that Sadr's escape from those charges came about pursuant to a deal with Sistani weren't true, either. Damned media. I shouldn't believe anything they say about either Sistani or Sadr - I should just rely on what they tell me themselves.
I guess you read all that but failed to read that Sadr did kill Sistani's people and top aides. This was in the same media that you diligently read.
Sistani is not an Iranian puppet, Sadr is. As a matter of fact Sistani is well respected as an Iraqi and has a following in southwestern Iran.
You gotta brush up on your ME history :-)
Sadr didn't kill anyone. It is claimed that his followers killed al-Khoei. Al-Khoei's family doesn't hold Sadr responsible.
Sistani has never made a public comment condemning Sadr's violence. If he did, it would carry a lot of weight.
It is Sistani's stature that is the best indication of a lack of a desire to get rid of Sadr. If he wanted to do so, it wouldn't be hard for him to make it happen. All he would have to do would be to tell those who want to do it that there wouldn't be any repercussions from his quarter.
Iraqi Army Captures Death Squad Commander, Kidnapping Suspects
American Forces Press Service
BAGHDAD, Oct. 25, 2006 Special Iraqi army forces, aided by coalition advisors, captured a death squad leader and three people believed to have been involved in the kidnapping of a U.S. soldier in separate raids in the Iraqi capital's Sadr City neighborhood, military officials reported.
Officials said Iraqi and coalition forces had credible intelligence on the location of an insurgent leader personally involved in and directing widespread death squad activity for numerous murder cells in eastern Baghdad. The ground assault force also planned to act on credible intelligence indicating that criminals involved in the kidnapping of a U.S. soldier were located in a Sadr City mosque.
Iraqi forces quickly secured the insurgent's home in Sadr City and detained 10 suspected death squad members. The assault force suppressed enemy small-arms fire, and a supporting coalition aircraft neutralized enemy rocket-propelled grenade fire. Ten enemy fighters were killed and two were wounded, officials said.
The ground assault force left the site of the first raid and moved through Sadr City to the mosque where the kidnapping suspects were believed to be located. Iraqi forces secured the mosque, entered it, and detained three suspects for further questioning.
No Iraqi or coalition forces were reported injured. Hostile conditions prevented an assessment of civilian casualties, officials said.
(From a Multinational Corps Iraq news release.)
Sadr is a powerful force behind Maliki, who has struggled to balance the competing demands of the Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds in his unity coalition since taking office six months ago.
The U.S. military said Iraqi special forces backed by U.S. air strikes conducted the raid "to capture a top illegal armed group commander directing widespread death squad activity."
It was unclear whether the commander had been captured or killed in the assault, which the Interior Ministry said had killed four people and wounded 20. Residents said the dead included two Mehdi Army militiamen
Much of the anger in Sadr City over Wednesday's raid was directed at the prime minister.
"Where is Maliki? Where is his freedom?," said one man lying on a stretcher in the hospital.
Thousands of men chanting "No to America" choked the streets in a mourning cortege that accompanied four vehicles bearing the coffins of the dead to burial in the Shi'ite holy city of Najaf, south of the capital.
Maliki and Sadr both are shiites and we are infidels in their eyesight.
We had that opportunity and for some unbeknown reason to us peon infidels that fat vat of islamic lard's heart is still thumping. Go figure!
I'll see your two rounds and raise you a round; make it a double-tap for each heart.
What's worrying Malliko is that 30 members of the new government are part of the AlSadr group. He's trying to disarm them with kindness .. and it never works.
I'm sure he's not happy about out taking the lead - but if he won't we will - BECAUSE WE CAN!
And .. Malliki should figure out very quickly .. he needs to cooperate with us - even if he is a sovereign country - because he's not going to hold onto his country if he doesn't get control of things.
When our men start dying the way they have this month - it's time for some heavy duty adjustments.
I'm glad to see this finally happen. We should have taken this group out from the beginning because they have been nothing but a thorn in our side from day one.
>>At the beginning, I believed Bush's theory that all people crave freedom.
I think what people really "crave", if that's the right word for it, is to be a little closer to the top of the pyramid than they happen to be at the present moment.
The function of government, per the Declaration of Independence, was to ensure that individual rights are not trampled upon as others attempt to attain or maintain a higher position on the pyramid.
Tribal Fascism VS a society in which the stated purpose of government is "to preserve these rights" - That's the game.
At least that's what it's supposed to be, IMHO.
>>No good options...
Nothing is preventing them from improving their options.
The Kurds are talking about opening a ski resort...
>>but we will just need to kill those that get out of line until it dies over.
Maybe we don't need to kill them.
Iraqis need jobs.
We should be building prisons. Lots of them - ala Supermax in Florence Colorado.
A six-pack of Budweiser and HDTV after a day on the construction site - It keeps Santa Ana under control.
Is anything really preventing a schizophrenic from improving their own options? Sometimes they do break out of their box, but sometimes, they are locked there for reasons nobody really understands.
I wonder if the boys in Lord of the Flies were muslim, would they have accomplished anything, or killed each other immediately?
Just heard an interesting comment on talk radio this morning.
Bush's overall strategy against the war on terror is false. It should be the war against islam, which is not just a religion but a poltical way of governance of all aspects of life. The only moderate muslims are those that are westernized and have chosen not to follow the hardcore portions of the koran. Can there be a moderate nazisim? Oh, nazism was outlawed in Germany. But have a islamic book that preaches death to infidels, but don't outright follow all the tenets, then everything is cool,....and just call your efforts "The War on Terror." As the commentator stated, terror is a tactic, not an enemy. Islamic teachings and political demands are the enemy and very few people want to recognize it. Bush doesn't.
Iraqis beat themselves with chains in the street of the Sadr City district of Baghdad during a demonstration yesterday to show support for the Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and against the U.S. military''s presence in Iraq.
Maliki is loving this privately, keeping the neanderthals placated publically.
Well, here is how we defeat the Sadrites:
Invade Sadr City.
Leave boxes of chains lying around.
Repeat as needed.
Don't try to be funny or sarcastic, it doesn't become you. If you are capable of a serious conversation and willing to learn something; I'm all ears. Assuming that you are, here goes it :Sadr didn't kill anyone. It is claimed that his followers killed al-Khoei.
I didn't say that Sadr personally pulled the trigger, wise up, "leaders" never do! Al Zarqawi was a bloody exception.Sistani has never made a public comment condemning Sadr's violence. If he did, it would carry a lot of weight.
Very true. He couldn't without starting a Shiia on Shiia civil war which he's trying desperately to avoid/stop.It is Sistani's stature that is the best indication of a lack of a desire to get rid of Sadr.
Now you're talking! That's another reason that supports my previous point, don't you agree?If he wanted to do so, it wouldn't be hard for him to make it happen. All he would have to do would be to tell those who want to do it that there wouldn't be any repercussions from his quarter.
Again, very true. Go back to my answer about civil war. Particularly in the ME, appearances are supreme. You may viciously try to eliminate your enemies but, on the surface, everything is calm, civilized, and cordial. Praise your enemies in public and definitely, no verbal assaults. I'm sure this also applies in many parts of the world.
This article by Ralph Peters was published today:
U.S. and Iraqi forces on Wednesday raided Sadr City, the stronghold of the feared Shiite militia...
Here's some of the best "meat and potatoes" of the piece:
If we can't leave a democracy behind, we should at least leave the corpses of our enemies.
The holier-than-thou response to this proposal is predictable: "We can't kill our way out of this situation!" Well, boo-hoo. Friendly persuasion and billions of dollars haven't done the job. Give therapeutic violence a chance.