Truce calms Iraq but weakens PM

[avatar4321]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080401/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

looks like there is a truth thats been made in Iraq. it may have come at the expense of the governments stability

[retiredman]

Truth or truce?

Or...are you doing your Sylvester the Cat imitation?:lol:

[Dilloduck]

Truth or truce?

Or...are you doing your Sylvester the Cat imitation?:lol:

Way to dig down deep and get to the heart of what he was saying. :laugh2:

[retiredman]

Way to dig down deep and get to the heart of what he was saying. :laugh2:

come on...this story can't come as a surprise to anyone. Sadr is the power broker in the shiite community and Maliki is an American stooge. We could surge another 20K troops into Iraq and if Sadr wanted to kick it up a notch, he could still cause the place to become unglued and the streets run with blood. Maliki had to go hat in hand to Iran to ask them to intercede for him.... Sadr's guys didn't turn in any weapons...they just went home to take a breather. They'll start up again as soon as Sadr feels he can further weaken Maliki...and he'll do that regardless of how long we stay there and regardless of how many troops we send there or dollars we spend there.

[Dilloduck]

come on...this story can't come as a surprise to anyone. Sadr is the power broker in the shiite community and Maliki is an American stooge. We could surge another 20K troops into Iraq and if Sadr wanted to kick it up a notch, he could still cause the place to become unglued and the streets run with blood. Maliki had to go hat in hand to Iran to ask them to intercede for him.... Sadr's guys didn't turn in any weapons...they just went home to take a breather. They'll start up again as soon as Sadr feels he can further weaken Maliki...and he'll do that regardless of how long we stay there and regardless of how many troops we send there or dollars we spend there.

There you go---that was a much better answer that making fun of a typo !:clap:

[Kathianne]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080401/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

looks like there is a truth thats been made in Iraq. it may have come at the expense of the governments stability

Geez, an ap headline carried on yahoo. There couldn't be spin here, huh?

http://www.deanesmay.com/2008/03/31/sadrs-triumphant-surrender/



Sadr’s Triumphant Surrender

by Dave Price

The media appear to be unanimous: by getting his butt kicked, surrendering control of Basra, and being mocked as an Iranian catspaw Sadr has… succeeded.


Many Iraqi politicians say that Mr. Maliki’s political capital has been severely depleted by the Basra campaign

Really? The same Iraqi politicians who were so opposed to Sadr they boycotted talks aimed at a peaceful resolution, calling it a “law and order” issue, thus preventing a quorum?


and that he is in the curious position of having to turn to Mr. Sadr, a longtime rival, for a way out.

Yes, how strange that he would talk to the enemy when negotiating that enemy’s surrender. Bizarre, yet. Perhaps even unique in the annals of war.

It’s hard to believe how reality-averse the analysis on this confrontation has been:


”Al-Sadr achieved what he wanted,” said Vali Nasr, an expert on Shiite politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. “He stood his ground, made his point and showed he has the real power in the south, not his rivals.”

He didn’t stand his ground, he ordered his men to hide indoors like whipped dogs. He showed he has the real power to… what, exactly? Lose hundreds of fighters in a few days, then surrender?

...

Just a bit more:

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/03/maliki_security_oper.php


...

McClatchy Newspapers indicated a member of the Maliki's Dawa party and the leader of the Badr Organization, the military wing of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, traveled to Qom, Iran to lobby Qods Forces officers to get Sadr to halt the fighting. The trip "had two aims, lawmakers said: to ask Sadr to stand down his militia and to ask Iranian officials to stop supplying weapons to Shiite militants in Iraq." The two men met with Brigadier General Qassem Suleimani, the commander of Iran’s Qods Force, the foreign special operations branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps.

The Mahdi Army has also taken high casualties since the fighting began on March 25. According to an unofficial tally of the open source reporting from the US and Iraqi media and Multinational Forces Iraq, 571 Mahdi Army fighters have been killed, 881 have been wounded, 490 have been captured, and 30 have surrendered over the course of seven days of fighting.

[Kathianne]

Speaking of The Long War blog, linked above, the Columbia Journalism Review has a 'review' of it here. (http://www.cjr.org/profile/blogging_the_long_war_1.php)

[Kathianne]

and a bit more on 'the political side', note the reference to Roggio:

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2008/03/more-on-sadr.html


...

As I wrote earlier, this is a struggle for supremacy between power centers in the Shi'ite community. Nance claims we are watching a game of "fight to the politics" and I agree. But I disagree with the assessment that the Iraqi Army has lost. Right now the Iraqi Army has peformed in an uneven manner, in some ways surpassing every expectation as demonstrated by its ability to carry out ops in places even the Brits didn't try for, but in other ways it failed to carry out its mission.

But as in the metaphor that a "gambit" has been played, we are only in the opening moves. We haven't gotten to the middle game between Maliki versus Sadr nor remotely close to the endgame. About all we can be sure of is that more yet to come. And although a "ceasefire" has been declared in the newspapers, in truth the ceasefire is bound to be temporary. The fact that a gambit has been played suggests there is going to be a winner and a loser. The question is whether it will be Maliki or Sadr. The Iraqi Army must, for political reasons, settle this affair on their own.

Maliki must know this, or have realized it, because Bill Roggio is reporting that while Sadr may have declared a ceasefire, the government has not.


While Sadr spokesman said the Iraqi government agreed to Sadr's terms for the cease-fire, Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki has said the security forces will continue operations in Basrah in the South. Meanwhile, the Mahdi Army took heavy casualties in Basrah, Nasiriyah, Babil, and Baghdad over the weekend, despite Sadr's call for the end of fighting.

The Iraqi military said it was moving in more forces into the South after admitting it was surprised by the level of resistance encountered in Basrah. "Fresh military reinforcements were sent to Basra to start clearing a number of Basra districts of wanted criminals and gunmen taking up arms," said Brigadier General Abdel Aziz al Ubaidi, the operations chief for the Ministry of Defense. "Preparations for fresh operations have been made to conduct raids and clearance operations in Basra ... [and] military operations would continue to restore security in Basra."

Roggio continues to emphasize that Sadr's forces have taken heavy casualties, and more to the point is low on ammunition. He surveys the action not only in Basra, but in Baghdad and Nasiriyah and notes that the fightint has died down. One characteristic of militia forces is that they are not configured for sustained combat. They fight with ready-use ammo and some caches. But if we assume that Maliki has decided to press on with the attack and that US forces will not involve themselves, the events of the next few days will depend on the strategic mobility and sustainment capability of the Iraqi Army. That is, whether they can bring up and deploy reinforcements at a far faster rate than the Madhi Army can respond. The next week will show whether Maliki has the will or capability to fight this to the finish or whether he will let Sadr dance away in order to recover.