Battle for Basra

[Zkribbler]

(1) Because the point of the attach was to get rid of Sadr's forces. They are still there and still a power to be reckoned with.
(2) Because the truce calls for the wholesale release of all of Sadr's men who have not been convicted of crimes.

[Wezil]

B/c it is Sadr giving the orders not the Iraqi government.

[Patroklos]

(1) Because the point of the attach was to get rid of Sadr's forces. They are still there and still a power to be reckoned with.

Please quote Maliki or the Iraqi government on that. What they said the goal was from the beginning was to restore civil order to Basra. All this targeting Sadr crap is "analysis."

(2) Because the truce calls for the wholesale release of all of Sadr's men who have not been convicted of crimes.

Was that agreed to?

B/c it is Sadr giving the orders not the Iraqi government.

In reality, Sadr is giving into the orignal Iraqi demands, minus the arms handover.

What is being glossed over there is that the militias, and not Sadr's as he has limited pull in Basra, did lose ground and were continuing to up to the current truce (I saw 30% of Basra captured in the articles yesterday). I am happy to let Sadr capitulate vice track his followers door to door.

Have you read Sadr's actual speech. It sounds very much like he is of the mind futher violence is counterproductive to all. Which is what I was hoping his original ceasefire was a signal of, which now seems to be confirmed.

The fact is that if Sadr and company thought they could defead the government forces, then he wouldn't be maintaining the peace right now as it doesn't serve any of his interests.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Patroklos
In reality, Sadr is giving into the orignal Iraqi demands, minus the arms handover.

Exactly. They are still a constituted fighting force that will fight again. In fact I'd make you an avatar bet on the issue.

What is being glossed over there is that the militias, and not Sadr's as he has limited pull in Basra, did lose ground and were continuing to up to the current truce (I saw 30% of Basra captured in the articles yesterday). I am happy to let Sadr capitulate vice track his followers door to door.

He'll get the "30%" back after the government moves its precious few troops elsewhere. As was already mentioned - the government held 100% of the place a few short months ago. By my math that puts Sadr up 70%.

There is a flip side to the coin you are talking about btw. What was the condition of the government forces? Perhaps they needed the cease fire?

Have you read Sadr's actual speech. It sounds very much like he is of the mind futher violence is counterproductive to all. Which is what I was hoping his original ceasefire was a signal of, which now seems to be confirmed.

He's an Iraqi. I believe none of what he says for public consumption. Bagdad Bob comes to mind.

The fact is that if Sadr and company thought they could defead the government forces, then he wouldn't be maintaining the peace right now as it doesn't serve any of his interests.

It isn't in his interest to "defeat" the government at this point. So long as US troops remain to prop up the government Sadr (and others) will bide their time.

Quite frankly you remaining Iraqi war hawks would be hilarious if the results of your position weren't so damn tragic.

[Patroklos]

Exactly. They are still a constituted fighting force that will fight again. In fact I'd make you an avatar bet on the issue. ]

Who said otherwise? The only people who seem to think this was to be the end of armed insurgency in Iraq is a select few internet posters. Despite some grand but ultimately non qualifying words like "decisive," the Iraqi goverment was very specific about what its objective was. It wasn't the annihilation of any militia, but the wrestling of control of Basra from them.

He'll get the "30%" back after the government moves its precious few troops elsewhere. As was already mentioned - the government held 100% of the place a few short months ago. By my math that puts Sadr up 70%

Sadr doesn't control the militia forces in Barsa for the most part. Another hole in the "targeting Sadr" crap, as taking on the Basra militias actually meant weakening Sadr's main Shia rivals such as the Badr Brigades.

There is a flip side to the coin you are talking about btw. What was the condition of the government forces? Perhaps they needed the cease fire?

I am glad you mentioned that, as it is another thing that has been glossed over. The fact that the Iraqi government planned and executed a divison level offensive with little to no American ground support is very important. That means organizing and moving 20-30K soldiers (I have heard 1 divison thrown out there as well as three brigades. I am not sure of how Iraq organizes forces but for scale an American division is usually around 25-30K men), handling the logistics, command and control, communications, etc. It is a great achievment for the Iraqi Army to be able to mobilize like that, and do so with a degree (though limited, I admit) battlefield success.

He's an Iraqi. I believe none of what he says for public consumption. Bagdad Bob comes to mind.

In this case his words match observed reality. Again, if the militias were about to defeat a division level Iraqi Army force why stop? What negative is there in Sadr pursuing an astounding battlefield victory? Or even letting the army pacify Basra on there own, therby taking out Sadr's main Shia rivals in the elections?

It isn't in his interest to "defeat" the government at this point. So long as US troops remain to prop up the government Sadr (and others) will bide their time.

Utterly false. Anything Sadr does to the detriment of the Maliki government will just lead to greater electoral success in the future. There is no motivation for avoiding this fight, a fight the government picked, other than avoiding battlefield defeat which won't help him in future elections.

Quite frankly you remaining Iraqi war hawks would be hilarious if the results of your position weren't so damn tragic.

1.) Nothing I have said here qualifies me as a war hawk. But what are you refering to, my happiness in this ending without further bloodshed maybe....

2.) I am sorry if reality doesn't support you politics. Thems the breaks

[Zkribbler]

I hope Patty is right, and I am wrong.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Patroklos
...
1.) Nothing I have said here qualifies me as a war hawk. But what are you refering to, my happiness in this ending without further bloodshed maybe....

2.) I am sorry if reality doesn't support you politics. Thems the breaks

I'll skip the first part (omitted). I'm not into a pointless debate on the Iraq issue.

As to -

1) "Here"? This thread? Okay Patroklos, you're not an Iraqi war hawk. I used to know a guy that would say "Everybody that believes that, please stand on your head..." You are a war hawk in general. I don't think I've seen the thread where you concede a mission carried out by the US military can fail.

2) Unfortunately it is the lunatics that still think they are "winning" this conflict that are out of touch with reality. My position has nothing to do with my politics.

edit - Nope, I checked. The Rhinoceros Party does not have an official position on Iraq.

[Ramo]

Sadr doesn't control the militia forces in Barsa for the most part. Another hole in the "targeting Sadr" crap, as taking on the Basra militias actually meant weakening Sadr's main Shia rivals such as the Badr Brigades.

You really think that Maliki tried to take on the Badr Corps in Basra (and as an aside - no, they're not the dominant militia in Basra - Fadhila is the biggest game in town)?








Sadr won this thing. He generally held his ground, and he forced Maliki's own party members and coalition partners to break down and negotiate a separate peace resulting in a status quo antebellum (which was a period of consolidation and reigning in elements outside of his control - that's why he wanted a cease-fire) with a few important caveats that would drastically help Sadr. Notably, getting thousands of his fighters out of gov't detention and getting the raids to cease.

[Patroklos]

You really think that Maliki tried to take on the Badr Corps in Basra (and as an aside - no, they're not the dominant militia in Basra - Fadhila is the biggest game in town)?

No, I said he took on every militia in Basra SUCH AS the Badr Corps. Which is exactly what how events played out.

Sadr won this thing. He generally held his ground, and he forced Maliki's own party members and coalition partners to break down and negotiate a separate peace resulting in a status quo antebellum (which was a period of consolidation and reigning in elements outside of his control - that's why he wanted a cease-fire) with a few important caveats that would drastically help Sadr. Notably, getting thousands of his fighters out of gov't detention and getting the raids to cease.

Again, this delusion that this was some sort of attack on Sadr persists, despite being backed up by absolutlely nothing

So please explain why this all out attack on Sadr was focused on the most notible Shia population that Sadr doesn't control? Yeah, thats what I thought.

[Ramo]

No, I said he took on every militia in Basra SUCH AS the Badr Corps. Which is exactly what how events played out.

Then put up. Show me a credible source saying that government forces tried to take on the Badr Corps.

I can show you articles showing otherwise. For instance, the LA Times:

The offensive in Basra so far has targeted only Sadrist neighborhoods and has avoided going after the Al Fadila al Islamiya party of Basra Gov. Mohammed Waeli or the Badr Organization, both of which have elements that have contributed to the problems in the port city.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fg-shiites30mar30,1,1596179.story?page=2

As for your "challenge," it's quite simple. First of all, taking out the Mahdi Army gets you a huge chunk of Basra (even if they are not dominant, they are one of the three important organizations in the city), which is an extremely lucrative region due to oil revenues. Success would mean denying the Sadrists funding to build an alternative to the Iraqi state two skips and a hop from the Green Zone, as well as asserting the authority of the central state. Secondly, one of the two other organizations in Basra happens to be tied to the hip with Maliki, and their political wing is the dominant party in his own government. They would've directly benefited from this operation. Why, exactly, do you believe that ISCI held up the provincial elections legislation until right before this operation?

Edit: Cleaned up my post..

[Ramo]

Again, this delusion that this was some sort of attack on Sadr persists, despite being backed up by absolutlely nothing

If by nothing, you mean all serious reporting on the matter...

[Dinner]

Sadr, Badr, and Hakim run the three largest shia militias but Sadr's is by far the largest and is centered mainly in Basra, Al Kut, Karballah, and Sadr City (the "new city" of Baghdad built in the 1950's). Targeting Basra would mean mainly targeting Sadr.

[Ramo]

Hakim (head of ISCI) = Badr (military wing of ISCI)

[East Street Trader]

Perhaps there is some comfort to be had.

OK the national army is not effective enough nor cohesive enough to impose peace on Basra. OK the armed militia in Basra (or some of them) are demonstratively still willing to take up arms against their fellow Iraqis and owe their first loyalty to their local leadership not to the national government.

But that is what Iraq has been for a long time. A loose association of tribes. United only when under the domination of a strong man.

The good things are that the various armed groups are co-existing much more peacefully than they were. The violence died down quickly with surprisingly little sign of fragmentation. And the US/UK are one more step down the road to realising that there is no way to turn Iraq into something which it is not.

So the possibility that the USA and the UK can quietly go home and let the Iraqis get on with it (without a complete bloodbath ensuing) grows.

The present US administration has far too much political capital invested to do that. But it is soon to be replaced.

Annexation of Iraq by Iran - which looks more and more credible as an outcome to the whole thing - will be truly ironic.

[Ramo]

Strictly speaking, the violence has died down largely because demographically mixed areas, particularly Baghdad, have been successfully ethnically cleansed...