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 ...
"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 :-)