The NY Times Book Review ponders Charles Ferguson's "No End In Sight", based on his 2007 documentary of the same name (thoughts on the film in this old post).
There are really two debates going on about the Iraq war, but only one of them is being heard at the present time. Was the decision to invade a mistake from the beginning? For the most part, Democrats say yes and Republicans say no. The other debate centers on the invasion’s aftermath. Is the current debacle the result not of the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein but of the inept policies that followed? Since this question suggests that success in Iraq was always a possibility, it is generally being ignored both by Democrats, who don’t want to muddy their antiwar position, and by Republicans, unwilling to face up to the Bush administration’s serial failings.
Charles Ferguson’s 2007 documentary, “No End in Sight,” was unusual because it focused on this second question.
Of course there is a third question, which they get to in the conclusion of the review:
Ferguson’s final, and most timely, section moves beyond his film, and takes as its title the question everyone is left asking: “Where Do We Go From Here?”
Ferguson doesn’t have an answer, but he supplies the kind of essential information his readers will need to come up with one. For example, most of his interviewees, American and Iraqi alike, are satisfied that the surge has worked to reduce violence in the short term, but are skeptical about the long term. The underlying structural divisions threatening to tear Iraq apart are still in place, and in some instances may have gotten worse. The Iraqi office manager for The Washington Post explains that the insurgents have lowered their level of fighting but are simply waiting for the Americans to leave. Ferguson’s Kurdish bodyguard tells him the United States has actually weakened the central government by working with local Sunni militias that feel no allegiance beyond their particular tribes and neighborhoods. “They don’t care about the government. And the government, they don’t have any power over what’s going on.” Another informant says Washington has been “promoting warlordism.” Ferguson reports the “stunningly unanimous opinion” among his interviewees “that the surge is producing no lasting military or security benefit whatsoever.”
And if the Americans withdraw? Most of the people Ferguson talked to believe the result would be full-scale civil war; one analyst speaks of three or four civil wars at once. Even some of those who favor withdrawal accept the likelihood of a blood bath. “You would see the Sunnis of Baghdad certainly getting finished off quick,” says one. Another, an American specialist on democracy and development obviously wearied by Iraq, says the mere threat of withdrawal might bring the rival factions together, but if not, “they can have their civil war.”
It’s not that simple, however. A bloody civil war, several experts observe, probably would not be limited to Iraq. Neighboring countries would almost inevitably be drawn in, and the entire region could be engulfed in chaos. Iran would support the Shiites, while Saudi Arabia, Jordan and possibly Egypt would back the Sunnis. Turkey, meanwhile, might become more deeply enmeshed in Iraq’s Kurdish areas. Juan Cole, a historian at the University of Michigan, was an influential opponent of the war who now opposes a pullout. He’s not the only one. Cole points out that a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia could endanger the world’s oil supplies. “Iraq is not like Vietnam, where the U.S. could withdraw precipitately and altogether and let the chips fall where they may. ... The U.S. has destabilized the cockpit of the world economy. The plane is now spiraling down.”
Yet those urging a continued American presence are short on solutions for the long term. Partition claims few adherents, not only because most Iraqis oppose it — Iraq’s United Nations ambassador for part of 2007 says, “Nobody in Iraq is fighting to partition the country” — but also because Iraq’s neighbors worry how partition would be received by their own restless minorities. A regional conference including Iran and Syria has its supporters, though none who are convinced it would accomplish very much. Muddling through with an ineffectual government that wins the confidence of no one is the best that some of the interviewees can come up with, but without a coherent plan for creating a viable central authority, this is a policy that truly has “no end in sight.” John McCain’s comment that the United States could be in Iraq for 100 years is mudling (sic) through’s reductio ad absurdum.
Many Iraqis favor a military coup. An Iraqi journalist says, “Going back to the dictatorship definitely would help,” and this view, Ferguson writes, “is surprisingly popular among educated, secular Iraqis.” It’s easy to understand why. Since 1920, when it was created, the Iraqi Army has been a national, nonsectarian institution with a broad degree of popular support. Armies in the region have often played a stabilizing and modernizing role, as the next-door example of Turkey demonstrates. The real question is whether the army could be reconstituted in anything like its traditional form.
Abetting a coup against an elected government is no one’s idea of a happy ending. According to one Iraqi sympathetic to the coup suggestion, it would constitute a second American invasion, only from the inside. But as the former United Nations ambassador explains to Ferguson, “If you are a military officer looking at this political class unable to make basic decisions ... the temptation must be great to think you can’t do it any worse.”
A week ago I would have said that a hidden benefit of the surge was that the Iraqi police and military have had an additional year to train in relative peace. With the non-success of the Iraqi-led effort against the Shi'ite militia in Basra, I am less sure how valuable that additional year actually was.
"With the non-success of the Iraqi-led effort against the Shi'ite militia in Basra, I am less sure how valuable that additional year actually was."
Yeah, Sadr's suing for peace, giving the government the moral authority to put down opposition with lethal force sure is a bad sign. Of something.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 30, 2008 at 10:12 AM
It seems you may have been mislead.....again.
As usual, the place to turn for new on Iraq is not the MSM.
Posted by: lonetown | March 30, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Iran "would " be drawn in,Iran has been in from the outset,its agents there before the invasion.Sadr is Irans tool and the Mahdi Army is taking casualties. Quite an attrition rate.
Posted by: PeterUK | March 30, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Tom-
With the non-success of the Iraqi-led effort against the Shi'ite militia in Basra, I am less sure how valuable that additional year actually was.
I'm not so sure how well the Madhi Army.
And wasn't this Ferguson's wet kiss to Powell et al? Seems that another film, blaming everyone except Powell, The State Department, and the large swath of Tranzis in the federal bureaucracy for the "failure of reconstruction", seems to stray a bit wide of the mark. It was State and the UN that included the closed list multi-party system that stoked the sectarian tensions in the first place and its also on the top of the list to be changed.
Posted by: RichatUF | March 30, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Late to the party again...and my first sentence should read...
I'm not so sure how well the Madhi Army is doing.
Posted by: RichatUF | March 30, 2008 at 10:32 AM
The Captain's Journal has a decent series on Basra going with multiple links. One of them is to The Small Wars Journal which also has multiple links.
I still think that Mucky should wake up dead but I don't believe that Maliki has the backbone to make it happen. Everyone is running around screaming "will no one rid me of this irksome cleric" but there just aren't any knights taking the hint.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 30, 2008 at 10:38 AM
I still think that Mucky should wake up dead but I don't believe that Maliki has the backbone to make it happen.
More, perhaps, to the point, is that at last report Mookie was hiding under a bed in Tehran.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | March 30, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Speaking of asses, why is McClatchy carp so pervasive these days? This from yesterday:
McClatchy: Truth to Power!
Posted by: hit and run | March 30, 2008 at 11:00 AM
The other day I cited Michael Ledeen's article in PM on this--Iran shot craps and is losing.
Last night I went to aparty to celebrate Gabe Ledeen's return from his second tour of duty in Iraq--He talked about the brave Iraqis in Haditha who stuck out their necks to fight for freedom after the first batch of Iraqi police and their families were slaughtered in Haditha when we pulled our troops out to fight in Fallujah--
We cannot do this to them again..
Also there was Jim Warner (McCain's Hanoi prison mate and himself a brilliant patriot and like Gabe, a Marine) See:< a href=http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=5527240C-58DA-4426-BEF7-2B01FB782979>Wanrer
I believe he and the Swifties and POWs of the Vietnamese are forming a 527 to respond to the calumnous lies that McCain had cooperated with the enemy..
Posted by: clarice | March 30, 2008 at 11:08 AM
The other day I cited Michael Ledeen's article in PM on this--Iran shot craps and is losing.
Last night I went to aparty to celebrate Gabe Ledeen's return from his second tour of duty in Iraq--He talked about the brave Iraqis in Haditha who stuck out their necks to fight for freedom after the first batch of Iraqi police and their families were slaughtered in Haditha when we pulled our troops out to fight in Fallujah--
We cannot do this to them again..
Also there was Jim Warner (McCain's Hanoi prison mate and himself a brilliant patriot and like Gabe, a Marine) See:< a href=http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=5527240C-58DA-4426-BEF7-2B01FB782979>Wanrer
I believe he and the Swifties and POWs of the Vietnamese are forming a 527 to respond to the calumnous lies that McCain had cooperated with the enemy..
Posted by: clarice | March 30, 2008 at 11:09 AM
"By contrast, Sadr seemed to be riding high. Making his first public appearance since May"
I haven't seen his interview but I thought it was in a room and no one really knew where he was. Did he make a "public appearance" somewhere?
Posted by: royf | March 30, 2008 at 11:10 AM
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=5527240C-58DA-4426-BEF7-2B01FB782979>Warner
Posted by: clarice | March 30, 2008 at 11:11 AM
With the non-success of the Iraqi-led effort against the Shi'ite militia in Basra, I am less sure how valuable that additional year actually was.
Obviously they didn't need the whole year. i.e. progress is occurring at a better than expected (expected by whom?) pace.
Posted by: M. Simon | March 30, 2008 at 11:14 AM
I think Sadr is caving again. This is Iran vs Iraq. Again.
====================================
Posted by: kim | March 30, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Also a little Saudi. Saudi Arabia's oil land is mostly inhabited by Shia.
=====================
Posted by: kim | March 30, 2008 at 11:18 AM
The diplomatic initiative and the harsh rebuff further eroded expectations for a successful outcome to the offensive, which Maliki is personally directing from the presidential palace in the southern port city.
It seems to me that this portends an even more successful out come. The destruction of the Mahdi. Remember Khartoum.
Posted by: M. Simon | March 30, 2008 at 11:28 AM
The strategy would appear to be to force the Mahdi Army to fight in the open rather than allowing them to pursue the usual terror tactics.
"More, perhaps, to the point, is that at last report Mookie was hiding under a bed in Tehran." With a dead camel and a live boy.
Posted by: PeterUK | March 30, 2008 at 11:30 AM
I'm watching This Week. Is there a more annoying politician than John Kerry? He really is revolting. I'm a bit surprised that BHO would have Kerry make the national security case for a BHO presidency to a national audience. And another note-in the discussion on the mortgage crisis-this is balance-3 former Clinton Administration officials, Krugman, and George Will. I have it on mute.
H&R-
Seems that McClatchy has found Jamil Hussein.
Posted by: RichatUF | March 30, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Far those claiming that Sadr has "lost":
Did Sadr lay down his weapons or face death in 72 hours as proclaimed by Maliki?
Is Maliki in control of Basra?
Sadr will control the government within 7 months.
Posted by: Thinxus | March 30, 2008 at 11:45 AM
McClatchy = Ft Worth Star Telegram = unreadable prog crap at a 85% confidence rate.
Your results may differ if you get a different paper of theirs.
Posted by: GMax | March 30, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Did Sadr lay down his weapons or face death in 72 hours as proclaimed by Maliki?
Well that seems to be quite the instructive comment. Too bad its not on point with what Maliki said.
I dont have the inclination to even go pull it out, as I am quite confident that you are not subject to reasoned discussion.
Drive by progging.
Posted by: GMax | March 30, 2008 at 11:51 AM
"NAJAF, Iraq, March 30 (Reuters) - Followers of Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr will not hand over their weapons as part of a move to end a week of fighting in Iraq, a top Sadr aide said.
The aide, Hazem al-Araji, also said that Sadr's followers had received a guarantee from the government that it would end "random arrests" of Sadr followers.
"The weapons of the resistance will not be delivered to the Iraqi government," he told journalists at Sadr's office in the holy city of Najaf after distributing a statement from Sadr calling on followers to stop fighting.
Sadr's statement also called for the government to halt arrests of his followers and implement an amnesty law to free prisoners."
Maliki is in full compliance,per Reuters.
Can someone cite a right wing NEWS source claiming differently?
Posted by: thinxus | March 30, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Actually,Maliki was demanding the weapons be turned in, Gmax, not just laid down.
So how many weapons did Maliki get?
Posted by: thinxus | March 30, 2008 at 11:56 AM
"Did Sadr lay down his weapons or face death in 72 hours as proclaimed by Maliki?"
Sadr doesn't do weapons,his line is more eyeshadow and posing,except when he is hiding in Iran.
Posted by: PeterUK | March 30, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Is there such a thing? Right wing news source?
Posted by: Sue | March 30, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Sadr is a little too pro-Iranian for his health.
============================
Posted by: kim | March 30, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Furthermore, Sadr was the one who had a ceasefire in place before the whole thing started. He's angling to control the government, and doing pretty damn well.
Who said: "There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq,"
Sadr agrees.
Posted by: thinxus | March 30, 2008 at 12:01 PM
If in Iran, he can't direct tactically; if in Iraq, he's a target, now.
========================
Posted by: kim | March 30, 2008 at 12:02 PM
He was shamed into his ceasefire by Sistani.
I find it very interesting that Juan Cole now opposes immediate pull-out. He does have some sense for the Shia-Sunni conflict. Saudi Arabia is a bigger player than they are letting on. I think they helped with the Anbar Awakening.
================
Posted by: kim | March 30, 2008 at 12:03 PM
clarice-
Thanks for pointing out the Ledeen article.
Thinxus-
Sadr will control the government within 7 months.
From where, his apartment in Tehran? 8-12 weeks of offensive operations throughout Iraq aimed at Sadr and the Madhi Army will devastate them and Iran's project. It will be ugly at times and casualties will mount but the operation will be a success and it will grease the skids for the reform package votes (just in time for the US elections). Maybe the next refain of failure is that it isn't that the politics have been failures, it will be that the Iraqi's used too heavy a hand and should be more deliberative and nuanced.
Posted by: RichatUF | March 30, 2008 at 12:04 PM
We obviously have a Sadr groupie amongst us.Well if they are into chubby little Mullahs.
Posted by: PeterUK | March 30, 2008 at 12:07 PM
"8-12 weeks of offensive operations throughout Iraq aimed at Sadr."
What fantasy planet do you live on?
Maliki and his government just agreed to stop attacking Sadr's people and release all the Mahdi army prisoners they have.
How the hell is Sadr worse off than he was a week ago?
Posted by: thinxus | March 30, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Thinxus,
"Sadr will control the government within 7 months."
Funny thing, guys like you have been continually announcing Sadr's imminent control of the Iraqi government since at least 2004.
Some cordial advice: stay away from betting in Vegas or Atlantic City--given your track record, you'll either lose your house or end up filling a hole in the weeds.
Posted by: MarkJ | March 30, 2008 at 12:10 PM
A Sadr groupie?
I'm not the only one:
Washington Post-BAGHDAD, Dec. 6, 2007: "In striking contrast to the U.S. military's previous wariness -- if not hostility -- toward the young firebrand cleric, Petraeus praised Sadr personally for "working to rid his movement of criminal elements" and making a "pledge of honor" to uphold the cease-fire announced in August. He said the United States is in indirect dialogue with "senior members" of Sadr's organization to maintain the cease-fire.
"The Sadr trend stands for service to the people," and the goal is for Sadr and his followers to become "constructive partners in the way ahead," Petraeus said in an interview with defense reporters traveling with Gates.
Posted by: thinxus | March 30, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Maliki and his government just agreed to stop attacking Sadr's people and release all the Mahdi army prisoners they have.
Really? What I heard was Malaki welcomed Sadr's nine point negotiation to cease fire but the government had not made any decisions yet.
Posted by: Sue | March 30, 2008 at 12:12 PM
MarkJ-
General Petraeus sees the handwriting on the wall. It's now clear that Sadr is stronger than Maliki and his pro-Iranian people.
This is a good thing. Google further Petraeus comments on Sadr. Post what you find, I dare you.
Posted by: thinxus | March 30, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Thinxus, how is Sadr better off than a week ago? You amuse.
=====================================
Posted by: kim | March 30, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Sue-that's why I'm asking for a NEWS source. I'm sure you read that on some blog that's badly misreading the situation.
Posted by: thinxus | March 30, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Just answer the question Kim. If you prefer, tell me how it's better off, and I'll work out the converse myself.
Posted by: thinxus | March 30, 2008 at 12:16 PM
I meant tell me how he's WORSE off, and I'll work out the converse.
Posted by: thinxus | March 30, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Good God, Thinxus, do you think December's statement from Petraeus, when Sadr was a good boy, will persuade us today? Go read a little more Juan Cole; he may actually get it.
Off to wash my mouth.
================
Posted by: kim | March 30, 2008 at 12:17 PM
"How the hell is Sadr worse off than he was a week ago?"
There are more of them dead than there were a week ago
Posted by: PeterUK | March 30, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Gotta love the Berkeley Barb vets over at McClatchey News Service. They have about as much credibility as Ledeen.
Sadr's holed up in Tehran again, while having just asked his troops to accept a ceasefire. Meantime, al-Sistani isn't saving his cookies. And why should the Old Man? Sadr is a stooge of the Rival School in Qum. Sistani heads the Najaf School, so it's in his interest to see a young upstart like Sadr taken down a peg by Maliki.
So it appears that Baghdad's writ will finally run in Basra, and Tehran's attempt to control Iraq's port city will fail.
Maliki has won this round, and good on him. More importantly, al-Sistani has reinforced his authority in Iraq.
Posted by: section9 | March 30, 2008 at 12:18 PM
"He [Petraeus] said the United States is in indirect dialogue with "senior members" of Sadr's organization to maintain the cease-fire."
Seriously, what do you people think this was all about?
Posted by: thinxus | March 30, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Thinxus, Sadr's failed. Again. He's provoked violence in a society sick of it. And he's revealed himself, yet again, as an Iranian agent.
======================================
Posted by: kim | March 30, 2008 at 12:18 PM
thinxus-
Really? Hunda's are meant to be broken-Maliki understands this. Obviously you don't.
I'm sure Baghdad Bob can go interview Sadr hiding underneath his bed at his Tehran apartment for a statement about the glorious success of the Mahdi Army and the hundreds of martyrs created over the last few days.
Posted by: RichatUF | March 30, 2008 at 12:19 PM
But the leftoids don't believe a word Petraeus says,remember? Our Lady of Tuzla nailed that one.
Posted by: PeterUK | March 30, 2008 at 12:20 PM
s9, Sistani is the Master of the Mosque, and Chalabi, the Master of the Bazaar. And the Saudi King is no fool, but Ahmadi-Nehjad is.
=======================
Posted by: kim | March 30, 2008 at 12:21 PM
peterUK-now you're going to cite bodycounts? See petraeus re: military solution above.
Section9:
"while having just asked his troops to accept a ceasefire"
ACCEPT-Sadr already had a ceasefire in place,which was praised by Petraeus, also above.
Posted by: thinxus | March 30, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Thinxus, you are funny. I don't answer questions; I ask them. I never know as much as others.
========================================
Posted by: kim | March 30, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Kim-you appear to know more than most here. Bye all.
Posted by: thinxus | March 30, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Sue-that's why I'm asking for a NEWS source. I'm sure you read that on some blog that's badly misreading the situation.
No. You asked for a right wing news source. I don't know which one you consider right wing. But I'll take a stab at guessing.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23866765/>You did have this news network in mind, didn't you?
Posted by: Sue | March 30, 2008 at 12:26 PM
"I'm sure Baghdad Bob can go interview Sadr hiding underneath his bed at his Tehran apartment"
Sorry he is somewhat indisposed and his turban is being laundered.
Posted by: PeterUK | March 30, 2008 at 12:27 PM
"peterUK-now you're going to cite bodycounts?"
Each to his own,you have a crush on the fat boy with eyeshadow.
Posted by: PeterUK | March 30, 2008 at 12:30 PM
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080330/D8VNQR301.html>Maybe this is the right wing news you had in mind
Posted by: Sue | March 30, 2008 at 12:31 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343231,00.html>I think I figured it out
Only CNN left out the words uttered after positive and responsive. It surely wasn't CNN he is referring to as right wing news.
Posted by: Sue | March 30, 2008 at 12:35 PM
"We cannot do this to them again.."
Clarice;
That is the essence of the bi-polar tragedy
which is Iraq. The good news is that we have a base from which to fly missions in Iran.
No need for flyover permission from neighboring allies.
But wasn't that the real mission?
Posted by: Semanticleo | March 30, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Well,that's this months Tet offensive down the tubes.thinxus is no Walter Cronkite though.
Posted by: PeterUK | March 30, 2008 at 12:40 PM
section9-
Gotta love the Berkeley Barb vets over at McClatchey News Service. They have about as much credibility as Ledeen.
Please. The MSM have been water carriers for whatever creatures bubble up with a pro-terrorist message in Iraq (with the ususal effect) since the begining. If the US government had more people like Ledeen in the intelligence and foreign policy bureaucracies we would be much more successful and much less surprised.
Posted by: RichatUF | March 30, 2008 at 12:41 PM
thinxus is no Walter Cronkite though.
Obviously I wasted my time. He didn't even stick around long enough for me to answer his question, which he seemed so inclined to get.
Posted by: Sue | March 30, 2008 at 12:45 PM
semantic--strategic placement was a byproduct or added benefit, certainly not the reason for our action IMO.
Posted by: clarice | March 30, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Semi, Saudi Arabia is awfully glad we don't have to base there.
===================================
Posted by: kim | March 30, 2008 at 12:46 PM
The Sauds need street cred almost as badly as Obama does.
==================================
Posted by: kim | March 30, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Sorry about that Sue; the blood rose hot.
==========================
Posted by: kim | March 30, 2008 at 12:48 PM
C, energy is the new land, which was the old energy.
===============================
Posted by: kim | March 30, 2008 at 12:49 PM
I was going to send him to an acutal http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/03/fighting_in_baghdad.php>source but information isn't what he was after.
Posted by: Sue | March 30, 2008 at 01:02 PM
"No need for flyover permission from neighboring allies"
Sea launched cruise missiles need overflight permission?
Posted by: PeterUK | March 30, 2008 at 01:02 PM
thinxus
"ACCEPT-Sadr already had a ceasefire in place,which was praised by Petraeus, also above."
Do you know anything about the middle east and muslims? You certainly don't appear to. Do you know what a Hudna is? or how about Taqiyya? Do you know what that is. I doubt it you probably get your information from sources which are as ignorant as you are.
I've been following this on a couple of different Iraqi blogs and they think this is a power struggle between two different sects of Shias. They say its been going on for ages, but perhaps you know something they don't know. LOL!
At any rate it looks like Sadr has lost hundreds of his useful idiots and still faces the governments orders of disarming. So sorry if your left wing media sources misrepresented that point to you.
Besides it really is no sweat to Sadr and most Iraqis think he is still in Iran or with his hezbolla buddy Nesrallah. He's certainly in no position to take over Iraq, although I'm sure he would love to do so. Since he's really just a common criminal using his religion as a shield.
Posted by: royf | March 30, 2008 at 01:12 PM
royf,
Apparently "thinxus" translates into seagull somewhere. He left his droppings and disappeared.
Posted by: Sue | March 30, 2008 at 01:20 PM
Not a nice thing to say, but the US should be willing to accept 800 KIA per year indefinitely until either we win or they do. I'm not sure the it has the will or the spine to do so, especially when a significant slice of the electorate is hoping fervently for defeat.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 30, 2008 at 01:27 PM
*"that"* it has the will...
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 30, 2008 at 01:27 PM
Don't you just hate it when these idiots come into the bar,drop their pants and moon,the run away when they get their arses kicked.
Dar surrenders
Posted by: PeterUK | March 30, 2008 at 01:29 PM
PUK,
You found the right wing NEWS, in capital letters for added emphasis.
Posted by: Sue | March 30, 2008 at 01:33 PM
Well Peter as I'm sure your well aware, They learned it from mohammad himself. What is amazing is that the moonbats still don't get it...
Posted by: royf | March 30, 2008 at 01:36 PM
I question the timing: Sadr orders followers to end fighting
By Bill RoggioMarch 30, 2008 11:27 AM
And 59 minutes later we get this:
Bye all.
Posted by: thinxus | March 30, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Trolls are so spineless.
Posted by: Jane | March 30, 2008 at 01:45 PM
Sue,
Note the utterly irresponsible carbon emission
by the Bahdi with the machine gun.Sadr needs to reduce his carbon footprint.
Posted by: PeterUK | March 30, 2008 at 01:52 PM
Here is a source we can trust. Al Jazeera.
UPDATED ON: SUNDAY, MARCH 30, 2008 19:27 MECCA TIME, 16:27 GMT - [it is currently 17:55z]
Sadr orders fighters to stand down
What are the terms?
Al-Sadr's nine-point plan, agreed with the Iraqi government, was issued by his headquarters in the city of Najaf and broadcast through loudspeakers on Shia mosques.
James Bays, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Baghdad, said: "The main elements are that Muqtada al-Sadr's fighters should leave the streets ... in return, apparently, they will not be pursued, the Iraqi government will not arrest any of them unless they have arrest warrants for them.
"The big question now is whether the Mahdi army fighters will obey this command because there are all sorts of factions and splinter groups in existence."
Basra operation
Despite the order Iraqi troops will continue military operations against "criminals" in Basra, al-Dabbagh later told the Reuters news agency.
"The operation in Basra will continue and will not stop until it achieves its goals. It is not targeting the Sadrists but criminals," he said.
It is not targeting the Sadrists but criminals
How can you tell the difference? I suppose the criminals are the guys with weapons.
thinxus is a better class of liar than we usually get around here. For that - credit where credit is due.
Posted by: M. Simon | March 30, 2008 at 02:00 PM
If the US government had more people like Ledeen in the intelligence and foreign policy bureaucracies
..
We'd have been telling people that Ayatollah Khameinei was on his deathbed for months, only to look like a gullible idiot.
Folks, Tom is one-person war against anything, any liberal, anywhere, asserts as true. When he calls the Basra operation a non-success, he's stating the wildly obvious. Maliki's talk suggested an operation along the lines of the IDF in Jenin, 2004: instead there was a skirmish. And a wildly unpopular one among the Iraqi audience it was aimed as, as reviewing Iraqi parliament statements will show you in about five minutes.
What you're not seeing here is any re-establishment of Badr Brigade thugs - whoops, the 14'th division - into any physical presence in Basra. That was the goal. It didn't happen. Maliki was humiliated. Sadr didn't press the point because an aggressive follow-up would have put him in serious conflict with US forces and bailed Maliki out.
Instead, Sadr will win the provincial elections in November and continue to chip away at Maliki's power base until US troops go home. It's a winning hand.
Posted by: glasnost | March 30, 2008 at 02:54 PM
It's a testament to the low actual information content of blogospheric reporting that you conservative wackjobs could lose track of the basic metrics of your own triumphed operation.
There are only two possible templates: "Thugs and terrorists conduct outrages: blame the media" and "look at these helicopters shooting at stuff and that means we won!!!!" Anything more complex than that is relentlessly stuffed into one of those boxes.
Posted by: glasnost | March 30, 2008 at 03:01 PM
Iran "would " be drawn in,Iran has been in from the outset,its agents there before the invasion.Sadr is Irans tool and the Mahdi Army is taking casualties.
Sadr has been in Iran for the past several months going to ayatollah school. Or so he says.
This latest round of grumbling isn't specifically his doing. He gets his marching orders from the Qods Force in Iran. Whatever upheaval there is in Iraq is directly related to the will of Sadr's masters in Iran.
Maliki may have overplayed his hand, but what else could he do? Sadr had returned with Iranian backing and instructions so it was only a matter of time.
My suggestion, based on Sadr's dwindling support among John and Jane Q. Shiite, is to assist Maliki in crushing this puke once and for on the grounds of his ties to Iran. Then IO the hell out of the evidence we have that supports that case.
Bottom line is that people are starting to see the shit stirrers for what they are. Sadr does not have the respect that his old man carried, and Maliki can never be accused of carrying out sectarian reprisals. So getting rid of Sadr now, while a little messy, will eventually lead to things quieting down (and eliminate Iran's number one troublemaker).
That's the case we (Maliki with our aid) need to make for decisive action.
Posted by: Soylent Red | March 30, 2008 at 03:14 PM
Nice to have Glasnost invent some "metrics" for me. If Sadr's aim is to lie low until the US goes home, he'll at the very least have to outlast President McCain, and I'm not sure I like his chances. All Lee had to do was hang on until Sherman went home. Lee had a winning hand...
Meantime, it is not at all hard to discern for whom folks like Tninxus and Glasnost wish success. Wonderful to have folks like that around when things are dicey; I've been seeing their kind all my life.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 30, 2008 at 03:25 PM
BTW...Roggio has covered this situation in great detail, and he seems to have a pretty good handle on the facts on the ground.
If you want to see how f'ed up glasnost is on the subject, go back and look over the last two months or so of archives at the Long War Journal (written by people who are in fact, in Iraq). They are pretty instructive.
Posted by: Soylent Red | March 30, 2008 at 03:49 PM
The Iraqi army that carried the Assyrian massacre in '32, that was at the front of
the Golden Square coup attempts in '35 and
'41. That ws only suppressed by the RAF after the battle of Habbaniya. Who blundered into the first Arab Israeli war, and had their hat handed to the them; that Army. Which didn't rebel against the anti Shia Baathist campaign or the Ansar ones, till '91. That's the salvation of Iraq
Posted by: narciso | March 30, 2008 at 03:50 PM
glasnost-
Hum? Where to begin?
We'd have been telling people that Ayatollah Khameinei was on his deathbed for months, only to look like a gullible idiot.
Ayatollah Khameinei is an elderly man and I found 1 article on the subject at the end of 2006. Hardly the stuff of a "gullible idiot".
Folks, Tom is one-person war against anything, any liberal, anywhere, asserts as true. When he calls the Basra operation a non-success, he's stating the wildly obvious. Maliki's talk suggested an operation along the lines of the IDF in Jenin, 2004: instead there was a skirmish.
From the perspective of the Sadrist scribes-call me skeptical on anything written by the MSM on this subject for the next couple of days. Killing nearly 400 and wounding and capturing nearly another 800 throughout Iraq is hardly a failure from the Iraqi Army or Maliki's perspective. It definitely isn't a success for the Mahdi Army or the heard from (but unseen in Iraq) Sadr. But glastnost keep repeatintg the Sadrist-Dem talking points, one day you'll hit a winner.
Sadr didn't press the point because an aggressive follow-up would have put him in serious conflict with US forces and bailed Maliki out.
Or more to the point. The Iraqi's are tied of Iranian slaves terrorizing them and punched Sadr in the nose. Sadr seeing his loses of the last few days presses for another hunda to preserve what little leverage he has left. His good dhimmi scribes are giving him cover (as they have been doing from the start).
The progs are getting tedious today-they must be getting warmed up for Gaia's Holiness Algore's bull on the heretics tonight...
Posted by: RichatUF | March 30, 2008 at 03:58 PM
As Dubya said in Sept. of '01 about the GWOT in general, and as Rumsfeld said in '03 in particular, it's gonna be a long, hard slog. There are roughly as many Americans as there are Arab Muslims. Our fighters are infinitely better trained and equipped than theirs. Our side kills far more armed men than theirs does; their side kills far more civilians than ours. If we quit, not many more fighters will die on either side, but the civilians are looking at an unimaginable nightmare. If we don't quit, we win.
People who are losers by their very nature are ill-equipped to sustain such struggles. They flock in droves to the likes of the spectacularly unprepared Barack Obama, who has nary a single clue about the ramifications of his planned surrender in Iraq. All of them genuinely seem to think that if only we would bring the troops home, the war would end and we and the civilians and the troops would all be safe.
I think they will lose in November.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 30, 2008 at 04:08 PM
glasnost-
It's a testament to the low actual information content of blogospheric reporting that you conservative wackjobs could lose track of the basic metrics of your own triumphed operation...
This really annoys me. Operation Iraqi Freedom has been discussed extensively on this blog with many of the great commentors here bringing original ideas and real research. You are repeating the "Iraq is a failure, quagmire, disaster ... blah, blah, blah ... PANIC" narrative in vogue since Bush made his Sept 2002 speech to the UN. It is you with the "low actual information content" in your posts.
Posted by: RichatUF | March 30, 2008 at 04:14 PM
Mookie cried "Uncle." No doubt about that. His fighters were getting creamed:
Via Bill Roggio:
As a result:
Posted by: Sara | March 30, 2008 at 04:47 PM
According to Al Jazeera (above) the raids on "criminals" will not stop.
I don't think Mookie got the truce he wanted.
Posted by: M. Simon | March 30, 2008 at 05:25 PM
and 30 surrendered during the past 36 hours.
To me that is the key metric. Sadr call for the fighting to end when he started getting word his guys were starting to surrender rather than continuing the fight. If the numbers of surrendered had started growing much larger, his credibility would have been shot for good.
Posted by: Ranger | March 30, 2008 at 05:30 PM
According to Al Jazeera (above) the raids on "criminals" will not stop.
I don't think Mookie got the truce he wanted.
Posted by: M. Simon | March 30, 2008 at 05:25 PM
I think "Mookie" got exactly what he wanted. He gets to choose when and where to fight and who to attack. He'll clean out the militias in Basra, which is what this was all about in the first place, while Sadr sits on the sidelines and watches.
Posted by: Ranger | March 30, 2008 at 05:33 PM
"Instead, Sadr will win the provincial elections in November and continue to chip away at Maliki's power base until US troops go home. It's a winning hand."
How is being Iran's bitch a winning hand? It is likely the only thing keeping Sadr alive is the Americans,there is no love lost between Iraq and Iran.
Posted by: PeterUK | March 30, 2008 at 05:34 PM
I believe "Mookie" is Sadr, Ranger.
Posted by: clarice | March 30, 2008 at 05:36 PM
I believe "Mookie" is Sadr, Ranger.
Posted by: clarice | March 30, 2008 at 05:36 PM
Ah, my bad. In that case, I meant to say that Maliki got the cease fire he wanted. I thought "Mookie" was refering to Maliki.
Posted by: Ranger | March 30, 2008 at 05:45 PM
Well even in a well trained and disciplined fighting force there is a tipping point in casualties where the forces losses are so great that the effectiveness is greatly compromised. I remember hearing some ex military talking heads give this figure to be around 15-20%. If Sadr has the ragtag no discipline group of thugs I suspect, 2% may not be the tipping point, but it may well be a lot less than the point which is given for disciplined and well trained force.
He accepted the ceasefire on the govt terms, with carve outs for criminals ( probably all of them ) so it cant be that he thought it was going well.
Posted by: GMax | March 30, 2008 at 05:56 PM
Sadr has to periodically "rise up" in order to maintain his credibility with the militant Iraqis with whom Iran is doing business. And to keep Iran from replacing him with someone more interested in doing their bidding.
It's a simple formula: Sadr picks a fight, gets his ass kicked for a couple of days, declares a "ceasefire", then appeals to Iran for more guns and money, and repeats the cycle. Maliki simply chose to break the chain this time.
I would add that is no coincidence that the rat line going to Baghdad, through Basra, from Ahwaz, Iran is being targeted. It's the main logistics route for the IIRG Qods Force to supply Sadr for the next go around.
Shut that down and you take away Sadr's juice. And if you take away Sadr's juice, you force him to make a deal with the Maliki government to maintain any credibility with his peeps (and his life), or he gets to figure out how to avoid both the Iranian and Coalition bullets with his name on them.
Posted by: Soylent Red | March 30, 2008 at 06:01 PM
400 Sadrists dead in a day: 'skirmish'.
800 Americans dead in a year: 'hopeless quagmire debacle catastrophe costliest military failure in history'.
And the IDF action in Jenin was a skirmish.
Glasnost, thinxus - you'll convince no one. Neither of you have remotely near the intellect necessary to overcome the fact that truth is not on your side.
Posted by: bgates | March 30, 2008 at 06:06 PM
Maliki didn't get everything he announced he was looking to get--not only is he releasing prisoners (no big deal), but Sadr's people are keeping their weapons. However, my sense is that Sadr and his guys feel they have been badly bloodied, and are slightly worse off than when this began. A long, hard slog, as the saying goes.
Those who are inclined to despair can always be counted on to despair; those who wish us ill can always be counted on to give matters a defeatist spin. But the numbers are bad for Sadr.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 30, 2008 at 06:08 PM
(d)OT:
I did find it interesting that one of Sadr's spokesholes declared that there would be no "surrendering of weapons" as part of the ceasefire deal, and that the government had "addressed" their nine-point demands.
Sounds like propaganda to me, and I'll bet it really does to those who saw all the bullet riddled Sadrists laying in the streets.
Once again: the information war goes right along when the shooting stops.
Posted by: Soylent Red | March 30, 2008 at 06:15 PM
The likelihood is that the 400 casualties were Sadr's best,the ones at the sharp end.Many of the 40/60 thousand will be a rag tag and bobtail crew,ill discipline and untrained.
The main point is,if the Mahdi Army was going to cut it,this was the time,it didn't.
There was no great media outcry,not a ripple on the political process and all the progosphere could manage was a couple of limp trolls going through the motions.
They just don't make Tet offensives like they used to.
Posted by: PeterUK | March 30, 2008 at 06:37 PM
ranger,
As I understand it he wanted an absolute truce. Instead what he got was defeat in detail. It will take longer - that is for sure but, it is not the move of a winner. He has to accept his enemies terms.
You are totally correct IMO that his loss rate couldn't be sustained but the truce - which as I understand it has not been agreed to, the news reports are still fragmentary - is only a slow down of the operational rate not a cessation.
Of course this may have been a move to boost Barack "the war is lost" Obama. For that to help he had to keep the fighting up for at least two weeks.
The fact that he couldn't do that with 40,000 soldiers shows that he is weaker than estimated or that he can't even manage the will of the Viet Cong/N. Vietnamese. They were willing to destroy an army (their own) for a political victory. The fact that these mopes don't have the nerve for that underscores that they have some very serious morale problems (as you point out).
Politics (communism) is a stronger motivator than religion (Islam).
Posted by: M. Simon | March 30, 2008 at 07:09 PM