it's not whether or not he's winning, it's that he's still fighting. when you're selling the snake oil that "violence is down", it has to actually mean that people are not fighting anymore.

I'm sure Subby can link us to one single article from a reputable source that said Sadr was ever "winning." I can wait.

mmmmmmmm.....




media tripe.

So snark me for the double-post

Current # of Iraqi's still living in Iraq = 27 million

Amount of your tax dollars spent on the Iraq ware = 3 trillion

3 trillion divided by 27 million = roughly 37 thousand us dollars for each Man Woman and Child that are still in Iraq.

Couldn't we have just paid off the whole country instead of paying off al Sadr?

O yeah, except then the military industrial complex would be out of a lot of corporate welfare.

Uh, he agreed to stand down on his terms. Usually, when someone's beaten, they don't say "OK, we'll go back to where things were a week ago, and we also want you to release prisoners taken from our ranks."

Victory for the Maliki government would have been destroying, or disarming and disbanding, the militias they were fighting. They achieved neither, and look to be accepting a cease fire on Sadr's terms.

And from all accounts, the Iraqi 14th Division didn't show a resounding level of competence - a couple of dozen of them even deserted during the fighting; and this is supposed to be the Iraqi government's best unit.

I love the way these war cheerleaders just swallow everything the US and Iraqi military tell them.

I don' think there was any other question that his ragtag militia would prevail over the Iraqi Army, the British Army & US Green Berets and airstrikes.

But it is clear who's got the most political power in the country. (Hint: It ain't al-Maliki.)

No he's not. He's throwing "Sadrist" splinter groups under the bus. They're not his people any more, anyway. This is a purge conveniently carried out by his "enemies."

All the rest is theatre.

FTFA: Based on responsibility towards Iraq and to stem Iraqi bloodshed and to preserve the country's unity and integrity as a prelude to its independence, I call on the people to be up to their responsibility and awareness in order to maintain Iraq's stability

Sadr knows he has more legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraqi people than Malarkey the puppet, particularily with the Shia's in the south. He plays a waiting game here. Tries to keep most of his pieces on the board as he awaits the inevitable end game to come.

Power doesn't always come from the end of a gun.

He's still fighting, but he's "conducting an offensive movement in retrograde," I believe is the correct terminology here.

There goes that 'winning' talk again. Like someone's going to win a cupie doll..

So I checked BBC and CNN and neither of them mention Sadr calling for the ceasefire fire because of casualties. CNN says the ceasefire was on his terms. The BBC says the Iraqi army claims to have killed 120 enemy fighters in Basra. How do 140 Mehdi factor into that?

Oh wait. I see. The article is from a website called the "Long War Journal". I thought it was real news.

karendotcom: Amount of your tax dollars spent on the Iraq ware = 3 trillion

Sorry, you're a bit off. I've ran numbers through my hyper-twisting-inflato-meter, and the Iraq War has cost the US 9 trillion.

Let me guess...there's going to be some kind of major cease fire or "end of hostilities" or something right around the end of October. Worked for Reagan, may work for McCain.

Sadr, please.

falconne: So I checked BBC and CNN and neither of them mention Sadr calling for the ceasefire fire because of casualties. CNN says the ceasefire was on his terms. The BBC says the Iraqi army claims to have killed 120 enemy fighters in Basra. How do 140 Mehdi factor into that?

Oh wait. I see. The article is from a website called the "Long War Journal". I thought it was real news.

But then... you think that BBC and CNN are "real news."

canyoneer
No he's not. He's throwing "Sadrist" splinter groups under the bus. They're not his people any more, anyway. This is a purge conveniently carried out by his "enemies."

I like this explanation. I hereby declare it to be Correct.

Hmmm... well, apparently, I screwed the HTML pooch. The linky was supposed to pop a story on Iran's foreign ministry calling for an end of fighting because it would only protract the US presence there.

Try it again.

As canyoneer has been saying all week, a lot of what's going on here is al-Sadr's "Night of the Long Knives"--the various Shi'i warlords are jockeying for power and for a yummy piece of the petro-pie. What's relevant about this whole thing has been how the US/British completely misunderstood the depth and width of the fissures within the Shii-- they've just barely got their heads around the Sunni/Shi'i thing and now they've got this blowing up in their faces.

The inter-tribal rivalries of the Sunni 'Awakening' gangs are gonna be the next fracture when they see how the Shi'i militias were able to make hay out of this.

Someone ought to clue in al-Maliki about what happened to this guy:

I_Approve_Of_This_Message: Let me guess...there's going to be some kind of major cease fire or "end of hostilities" or something right around the end of October. Worked for Reagan, may work for McCain.

LOL- Anyone thinking the religious/ethnic/cultural fighting in Iraq will end in their lifetime is kidding themselves. Look for it to bw worse in November.

We have NO MORE TROOPS TO SEND. Just maintaining PRE-SURGE troop levels on 15 month rotations is stretching the Military to it's limits. (including the reserves and national guard troops)

Combine that with the limp noodle that is the Iraqi government and there's not much progress to be had. Nothing is looking good over there right now.

ScubaDude1960: falconne: So I checked BBC and CNN and neither of them mention Sadr calling for the ceasefire fire because of casualties. CNN says the ceasefire was on his terms. The BBC says the Iraqi army claims to have killed 120 enemy fighters in Basra. How do 140 Mehdi factor into that?

Oh wait. I see. The article is from a website called the "Long War Journal". I thought it was real news.

But then... you think that BBC and CNN are "real news."

Care to elaborate? Are you suggesting that the BBC invents news reports, or is biased in its reporting in order to support some ulterior agenda?

ScubaDude1960: But then... you think that BBC and CNN are "real news."

That's like saying: "You think a spade's a spade"

never thought he was winning. Just thought he had the capacity to cause some incredible amounts of chaos and misery.
Still do.

canyoneer: No he's not. He's throwing "Sadrist" splinter groups under the bus. They're not his people any more, anyway. This is a purge conveniently carried out by his "enemies."

All the rest is theatre.

Factual reasoning? From this guy? My head just exploded.

Or...he just got another cash payment from the pentagon!

/pause the killing for awhile

SilentStrider: never thought he was winning. Just thought he had the capacity to cause some incredible amounts of chaos and misery.
Still do.

No. No. No. You're got it all wrong, it's OUT TROOPS on BOTH SIDES of the fighting. All the trouble in Iraq is caused ONLY by US Soldiers!

The Numbers
Care to elaborate? Are you suggesting that the BBC invents news reports, or is biased in its reporting in order to support some ulterior agenda?

BBC is news. When the BBC shiats, then a dog eats it, vomits, eats the vomited shiat, and then vomits again, that's CNN.

karendotcom: 3 trillion divided by 27 million = roughly 37 thousand us dollars for each Man Woman and Child that are still in Iraq.

Roughly 110k actually.

You know all that media tripe about how Sadr is winning fighting Iraqi National Forces in Basra and other southern Iraqi cities? Actually, he just called for a ceasefire because he's getting his ass kicked and nobody really knows why

FTFY, subby. Try to remember next time that war isn't SEC football.

NewportBarGuy: :Factual reasoning? From canyoneer? My head just exploded.

Actually, I think that canyoneer has been factually on-point all week about this-- it's just that his interpretation about what it means and his sanctimoniously emo neo-conservative personal attacks against people who disagree with his that has made everything he says so repellent.



apeiron242: No. No. No. You're got it all wrong, it's OUT TROOPS on BOTH SIDES of the fighting. All the trouble in Iraq is caused ONLY by US Soldiers!

Out troops are responsible? I thought that DADT curbed the number of out troops in the field.

The Numbers said:

Are you suggesting that the BBC invents news reports, or is biased in its reporting in order to support some ulterior agenda?

Check out the BBC archives to see all of their coverage of Venezuela.

When a news organization qoutes someone who they identify as an "Independant Venezuelan Political Analyst"... while failing to mention that that person was (a) a signing member of a coup to overthrow the lected leader, and (b) a candidate who later ran in elections against the guy that he tried to overthrow, you either figure that the reporter and his editors have no farking clue about who is who in Venezuela, or they have an agenda.

I know, this may seem like an amazing revelation, but the news organization funded by the taxes collected by the British Crown, just might possibly have a political agenda that shapes their reporting.

Tabatha Static: Actually, I think that canyoneer has been factually on-point all week about this-- it's just that his interpretation about what it means and his sanctimoniously emo neo-conservative personal attacks against people who disagree with his that has made everything he says so repellent.

...Tabatha and Canyoneer sittin' in a tree...

Mr. Xhin: I wonder how many defections went over to Sadr from the so-called "Iraqi Army"? I heard entire units switched sides in the middle of battle, as if they had planned to all along.


رجال شرطة يسلمون أمس أسلحتهم إلى رجل دين من أنصار الصدر في مدينة الصدر. (ا ف ب)

[trans: something like "Yesterday police officers in Sadr City hand weapons to cleric followers of Al-Sadr" or something]

kmmontandon: Uh, he agreed to stand down on his terms. Usually, when someone's beaten, they don't say "OK, we'll go back to where things were a week ago, and we also want you to release prisoners taken from our ranks."

Victory for the Maliki government would have been destroying, or disarming and disbanding, the militias they were fighting. They achieved neither, and look to be accepting a cease fire on Sadr's terms.

And from all accounts, the Iraqi 14th Division didn't show a resounding level of competence - a couple of dozen of them even deserted during the fighting; and this is supposed to be the Iraqi government's best unit.

Basically true.

A first hand account of what really happened from a US soldier (new window)

Alphax: There goes that 'winning' talk again. Like someone's going to win a cupie doll..

kewpie

Close. It's not "hand," it's "surrender." And they're not surrendering arms, they're surrendering themselves.

Literal translation: Policemen surrender yesterday, they surrendered themselves to men-of-religion among the helpers of al-sadr in Sadr City.

I don't think these are traitors--rather, they're prisoners.

General Zang:

So let me get this straight - because of the way the BBC is funded, it will have an agenda of bias in its reporting? And how does that work, exactly? Does the government threaten to withhold money unless the BBC reports in a way it approves of?

Also, please provide a link to the report you refer to, or at the very least the name of the person involved. I'm guessing it was someone who worked for RCTV, but it would be nice if you would clarify the matter.

Well, whatever your point of view might be, you can expect that a lot of thugs and small-time messiahs and their hangers on will be hunted down and killed over the next couple months. U.S. Special Forces and Iraqi government heavies will be busy for a while, although most of it will happen in the shadows.

The powers that be in Iraq can no longer afford to have freelancing hoods and Iranian agents provacateur meddling with the petroleum stream in Southern Iraq. As I've been saying for months, the oil situation is resloving itself, and the wet work necessary to move the process along is now underway. Look for big deals to be announced this summer.

Another right winger swallowing the propaganda.

As someone who grew up watching the nightly news and the Vietnam report (I had two brothers in country late 60's/early 70's) I learned to long ago not rely on casualty figures provided by the government. I remember all too well the reporting from Vietnam, where we repeatedly won every battle and skirmish, yet somehow managed to lose the war. I remember the attrition rates where we were killing the enemy at a rate of about 30 to 1 and how they couldn't just keep taking a beating like that and continue as a viable fighting force.

I also learned that regardless of how one-sided and inaccurate our own government was in portraying events on the ground, the South Vietnamese government was 20 times less reliable.

You'll excuse me if I don't buy into this idea that the Iraqi Army inflicted such damage upon their enemy while seemingly suffering virtually no casualties themselves. Just seeing the number of burned out Iraqi tanks sitting in Basra is enough to convince me that the casualty reports (for either side) are likely just some numbers pulled out of someone's butt to convince the gullible. I seriously doubt that Al Sadr brigades lost nearly 700-900 fighters in this last round, while the Iraqi Army seems to have suffered so few losses. (Especially when considering that the conflict had very limited US and British involvement.)

Just like Vietnam, it will probably be a decade or so before we really get the truth about the casualty figures being bandied out about today.

Al Sadr works best by blending into the populace fold. That's the essence of urban warfare, instead of controlling whole territories like a giant bullseye. The moment the US was able to run air strikes is the moment Al Sadr knew his men were overexposed.

canyoneer: Well, whatever your point of view might be, you can expect that a lot of thugs and small-time messiahs and their hangers on will be hunted down and killed over the next couple months. U.S. Special Forces and Iraqi government heavies will be busy for a while, although most of it will happen in the shadows.

That's great. Sadly, the ME isn't going to run out of thugs, messiahs & martyrs for the foreseeable future.

The powers that be in Iraq can no longer afford to have freelancing hoods and Iranian agents provacateur meddling with the petroleum stream in Southern Iraq. As I've been saying for months, the oil situation is resloving itself, and the wet work necessary to move the process along is now underway. Look for big deals to be announced this summer.

And the next summer & the summers after that?

BTW, I'm still not buying the Iran crap.

\\two quagmires are enough

lawboy87: [snip]
Just like Vietnam, it will probably be a decade or so before we really get the truth about the casualty figures being bandied out about today.

So true. Of course someone with better research than mine will no doubt attack me, but as I recall the Vietnam period, it seems that at its peak, we were killing daily more NVA/VC than had ever lived in the entire country to date in its history. And also no Americans were dying. It was nothing short of a miracle.

Then of course, we were winning the war right up to the day they tried to evacuate Saigon from the US Embassy rooftop via Huey. That didn't work out too well either.

lawboy87: As someone who grew up watching the nightly news and the Vietnam report (I had two brothers in country late 60's/early 70's) I learned to long ago not rely on casualty figures provided by the government. I remember all too well the reporting from Vietnam, where we repeatedly won every battle and skirmish, yet somehow managed to lose the war. I remember the attrition rates where we were killing the enemy at a rate of about 30 to 1 and how they couldn't just keep taking a beating like that and continue as a viable fighting force.

I think there is a quote from a German general (Albert Speer IIRC) about how in spite of Nazi propaganda, he knew Germany was losing the war because their glories victories kept happening closer and closer to Berlin.

Every side uses propaganda in war, but sometimes reality has a nasty way of piercing the illusion.

canyoneer: The powers that be in Iraq can no longer afford to have freelancing hoods and Iranian agents provacateur meddling with the petroleum stream in Southern Iraq. As I've been saying for months, the oil situation is resloving itself, and the wet work necessary to move the process along is now underway. Look for big deals to be announced this summer.

See. You go from a good post that is factually accurate about Sadr using this as an opportunity to consolidate power and liquidate those not completely loyal to him, and you follow that up with some LSD trip.

How can you see something so obvious, yet fail to accurately interpret it for what it is? Sadr and his crew do not care about oil wealth right now. They will sacrifice an entire generation to get the power they have craved for decades.

Yes, there will be plenty of wetwork going on, but it will only serve to give more power to Sadr and his merrymen. From all I can tell, that's not something you want.

And you were doing so well. *sigh*

Mahdi Army fighters drive away with captured Iraqi armored police vehicle

Belac: Close. It's not "hand," it's "surrender." And they're not surrendering arms, they're surrendering themselves.

Literal translation: Policemen surrender yesterday, they surrendered themselves to men-of-religion among the helpers of al-sadr in Sadr City.

D'oh! I had no idea that was "surrender" so I cheated by looking at the picture and called it "hand over weapons". Color me busted.

lawboy87; Gyrfalcon:

Interesting that the linked blog is called "Long War Journal," ain't it?

What's also interesting about Tabatha's picture is that that happened in Sadr City. Which is far from Basra, unless there's another Sadr City there too.

The fighting may not be only in the South.

cameroncrazy1984: I'm sure Subby can link us to one single article from a reputable source that said Sadr was ever "winning." I can wait.

I read a lot of regional media reports of militia members cutting off supply routes, flanking their tanks, and generally operating with the sort of low-intensity guerrilla attacks that make modern generals piss in their pants.

Basically they were utterly outgunned, but managed to halt the offensive, and end the engagement on their own terms.

Hardly a win for an offensive push that was supposed to drive these guys out of the region and restore total government control. Sadr has shown that he's both diplomatic and powerful with this move.

canyoneer: Well, whatever your point of view might be, you can expect that a lot of thugs and small-time messiahs and their hangers on will be hunted down and killed over the next couple months. U.S. Special Forces and Iraqi government heavies will be busy for a while, although most of it will happen in the shadows.

The powers that be in Iraq can no longer afford to have freelancing hoods and Iranian agents provacateur meddling with the petroleum stream in Southern Iraq. As I've been saying for months, the oil situation is resloving itself, and the wet work necessary to move the process along is now underway. Look for big deals to be announced this summer.

You need some kind of kitschy sign off to complete the self mockery. Try:

That's all you need to know. =canyoneer=