I was just talking to someone and was told that today Maliki had to run for his life today, escorted to "safety" by the U.S. troops?

Thanks to someone in another thread (?) for posting a link to "Judicial Bamboozlement" in the March Harper's. I only wish everyone on the Supreme Court would read it--not that they would care.

KD: "But things are not going well for Maliki at the moment, and a loss in Basra would make it crystal clear just how shaky his position is, how weak and factional the Iraqi army is, and how little commitment there is on any side to genuine political reconciliation."

I think you meant to say: But things are not going well for Bush at the moment, and a loss in Basra would make it crystal clear just how shaky his position is, how weak and fictional the surge is, and how little commitment there is on any side to letting Bush leave office pretending he's not the WPE.

The answer is very clear, as clear as the Southern California sky.

We must not resist the urge to surge in Basra.

Send in more troops.

from swimming freestyle:
"Iraq is a sovereign state, or so we claim. Why would U.S. forces assist the sovereign Iraqi government and Iraqi Army in their attempts to squash internal, anti-government insurgents?

We don't have a horse in this race. Wouldn't it be in our national interest to allow Iraq to settle it's own internal power struggles."

http://swimmingfreestyle.typepad.com

Sadr has played a brilliant game within a game, here.

First, he suckered Maliki, by creating a false impression of weakness -- that his movement was splintering and that he had insufficient control of some of his principle supporters.

And, then when Maliki took the bait, he responded with considerable military force at Basra, and just as considerable moral and organizational force back in the capital.

Sadr has demonstrated in a kind of proof of concept that he has leverage over the two key elements for taking state control of Iraq: control of the capital and control of the oil port.

Obviously, he cannot exercise that option, while the Americans are in place, and if he operates true to form, he will let Maliki retreat and things will calm down a bit.

But, Sadr has signalled to the Sunni militias that he has what they need, and that, together, they might take control of a nationalist state in short order. That's Sadr's ambition: to be at the head of Iraq, supported by an nationalist alliance of Shiite and Sunni.

If he succeeds in forming an alliance with some parts of the Sunni New Old Iraqi Army, he will have more than sufficient force to overthrow Maliki's government and taking power. If he does so, the Sunnis will almost surely betray him and fight a civil war in the hope of exploiting Shiite organizational weakness and division.

I'll wait to see what Trashauler says.He forms ALL my views.Now watch this drive.

Hey, that Hirohito quote was a Billmon favorite, wasn't it? Not that there's any copyright on such usage of course, but he kind of made it his own. I'm o'erborne with nostalgia. Best damn lefty political blog on the net bar none. Hope he's doing well, whatever he's up to these days....

"Sadr has signalled to the Sunni militias that he has what they need, and that, together, they might take control of a nationalist state in short order."

This is worst case scenario from the Whitehouse's POV. They're hoping they let enough ethnic cleansing go on between Sunnis and Shia that an alliance is impossible.

From what I have read the corruption/battle in Basra [for oil] has political roots in Baghdad so sending more troops into Basra wouldn't, I think, solve the problem.

Its a quagmire.

Oooo, Idle American is on Teebee!!

...what happens if the Mahdi Army beats the government forces and wins the Battle of Basra?

The Mahdi Army doesn't need to beat the government to win--stalemate, or not obviously losing, would be more than sufficient. Sistani's calls for reconciliation won't get much traction until and if it becomes a stalemate, and Maliki recognizes there's no other way out.

Or Maliki goes over the edge in pursuit of victory and loses what little margin he has. And he's showing signs of going there, such as threatening prosecution of civil disobedience called for by al Sadr under anti-terrorism laws (which carry the death penalty).

At times like this it would be nice if the U.S. had a two-party system. It would be even nicer if the Bush policy had collapsed during a hotly-contested Presidential campaign, because in that case the candidates of the opposing party could loudly point out that the "defining moment", like the rest of Bush's Iraq policy, has been a disaster. But if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

...what happens if the Mahdi Army beats the government forces and wins the Battle of Basra?

That will not be allowed to happen. If Sadr had an Air Force, their might be a chance, but at a certain point, the Americans will loose hell from above. They will record it as a "win" and go on. But make no mistake. Strafing runs allow the side with the Air Force to chalk up what are, at best, Pyrrhic victories. They are an asymetrical response on the part of a side that is losing.

Bruce Wilder, I think you're essentially right but I also think the cheney administration plans to use this, whatever the outcome, to bolster our basing in Iraq. Even a complete collapse of the Maliki government won't halt that project. Actually it would accelerate it.

Where will the troops come from? Isn't South Korea the last place where we have more than 20,000 troops stationed? Guess there'll be a slight change of mission there.

Orwell: The greater at stake and won the stronger a new government will be.

Whether that's good depends on your definition of government. In any case, I'm sure Stalin and Mao would agree with your sentiment.

.
.
.
.
.
.
The next president needs to offer Bush the post of US Ambassador to Iraq with a residence outside the Green Zone.

Seriously; it's way past the time to call his bluff.
.
.
.
.
.

This just proves the surge is makin' progress and the insurgency is in its last throes.

Altoid: Even a complete collapse of the Maliki government won't halt that project. Actually it would accelerate it.

How would that accelerate it?

"...what happens if the Mahdi Army beats the government forces and wins the Battle of Basra?"

"That will not be allowed to happen. If Sadr had an Air Force, their might be a chance, but at a certain point, the Americans will loose hell from above."

Exactly.

...what happens if the Mahdi Army beats the government forces and wins the Battle of Basra?

Maybe, just maybe, people will start referring to this as a civil war.

The Brits have been helping. Just doesn't involve leaving the airport, that's all.
Frankly, given that this thing is strategic nonsense, they're wise to stay put.
They also thought the recent glorious campaign and lightning victory against Hezbollah was bullshit from the start.

A quagmire is like quicksand.

Its easy to get into.

Its hard to get out of.

The more you fight it the faster you sink.

Ignore the crackpot telling you to stay.

just once, i'd like idiots like orwell to acknowledge that US participation in the second world war - and the US civil war itself - were both shorter than our current involvement in iraq.

this, of course, would presume that idiots like orwell care about reality.

I thought liberals liked gambling?

Not with our troops lives, you jerk. It's the conservative and neocon chickenshithawks who like that game.

I thought liberals liked gambling? -Orwell

Thats was Reed, Abramoff and Scanlon.

Give me $5 billion, the 4,000 Britich forces and I could win the war in Basra without the help of the yanks.

Simple, flood the Basra area with consumer goods, and I mean great consumer goods. The best tea, rice, wheat, water, soda, boom boxes; what neat thing you can scrounge up, get it in there. Bring some gasoline too if you have it.

Then, do the usual, have another round of elections and continue the stalemate. Isn't that politics?

What happens?
SurgeII or bomb the city to rubble.

Isn't the important question, why are US troops fighting to support an Iranian backed government?

Just a thought.

It seems to me the U.S. and our Saudi friends would like to see the Sunnis regain power. No?

Maybe someone somewhere is salivating over the Shiite killing and weakening each other.

Meanwhile the Sunni awakening council sits back and waits.

Isn't the important question, why are US troops fighting to support an Iranian backed government?

Because there's an election here in the fall, and it's important to keep Iraq off the table as an issue for as long as possible.

As long as US troops are fighting, it really doesn't signify whom they're fighting or whom they're fighting for.

Support the troops.
Rally round the flag.
Politics stops at the water's edge.
Not while American lives are in jeopardy as we speak.
Lather
Rinse
Repeat.

But things are not going well for Maliki at the moment, and a loss in Basra would make it crystal clear just how shaky his position is, how weak and factional the Iraqi security forces are, and how little commitment there is on any side to genuine political reconciliation.

doesn't that make this a "defining moment"? Not "the" defining moment, to be sure, but "a defining moment"?

Anyway, with American and British air support now engaged, isn't the Maliki government likely to win? We'll know more next week. See you then.

What would be worst than the Mahdi winning in the Basra battle ?? IMO The worst would be if the 30,000 Malaki troops in Basra defected in mass to AL Sadr's side. That would end all hopes of getting any oil concessions ever. Al Sadr will immediately switch to euros as in Iran and we'll be paying 5 buck for gas or maybe go back and pacify them again with more shock and awe--lol
Does anyone else share this opinion, could it happen this week ??

MatthewRmarler: Anyway, with American and British air support now engaged, isn't the Maliki government likely to win?

Doubtful. (1) Air support is not decisive in urban combat, and is often counterproductive. (2) For Maliki to win the Mehdi army needs to be rendered impotent; for the Mehdi army to win it needs only to survive. (3) Basra may be the most important point of friction today, but is by no means the only one.

I used to want the Americans to get the fuck out of my country. But now that Matt gave me a boom box . . . what was I talking about?

Matt: Give me $5 billion... Bring some gasoline too if you have it.

Might want to increase that a bit. The US spends almost $1 billion per week importing fuel into Iraq.

I understand that late today the Kagan families were marshalling forces.

In my view, helped along by the Council on Foreign Relations, the problem in Basra is the one that tempted the US to invade and has now turned Shiite against Shiite: oil. This fight isn't solely about political power but about who controls the oil. Here's the CFR back in June of '06:

Why is Basra significant?

Largely because of oil, experts say. "Shiite militias are fighting over that crown in the jewel," says Peter Khalil, a Middle East analyst at the Eurasia Group. "The militias are involved in lots of smuggling, corruption, rackets, and extortion." Basra, until recently one of Iraq's safest cities, is important to the central government in Baghdad not only because the city's oil fields provide around 90 percent of Iraq's budgetary revenue but also because it is Iraq's major outlet to the Persian Gulf. "It is the lifeline to the Iraqi government," Khalil says. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki promised to crack down with "an iron fist" and imposed a state of emergency not only to quell the violence in Basra and rein in its militias but to reassert Baghdad's authority over a region itching for greater autonomy.

The Challenge in Iraq's Other Cities: Basra"

"Does Sistani intervene?"

No way. If he sides with Sadr (a potential rival), he alienates much of his own support. If he sides with the Americans, he alienates ALL of his support. His interest lies in doing a good mop-up after it's all over. Of course, it may last too long and he may be dead by then. But what choice does he have? If he picks the wrong side, he'll be dead anyway. If he picks the right side, he'll just be marginalized (and be dead for all intents and purposes). He'll stay far, far away from this conflict. Our best option was to be altruistic enough about this war to gain Sistani's support. But that option is long gone.

The US got drawn into the fighting on Friday.

Yeah, I bet they did too, cause there goes the Hydrocarbon (about to be signed, my ass) Framework law. The big neo-con pipedream to nowhere.

Maliki does have a choice here. He could ask the US to leave. And that makes me wonder how important democracy really is in Iraqi, I mean, when that happens, cause I really see Maliki having much of a choice here, it's either Bush or Iraq, is it a puppet government or not? SO far, Bush and Cheney have burned through the WMD, democracy is next on the block because it won't matter what Maliki says, we ain't leaving that oil, and this war was NEVER about democracy. That just leaves the terrorist thing, and this means Sadr will soon be far more wanted than bin Laden ever was. However, where there is one Sadr, there's a million more just like em.

If Maliki loses, what changes? We've been pretending for years that everything is OK in Basra. Wasn't that the PR line behind why the Brits left (retreated) for the airport. So why wouldn't we continue to pay the bribes and pretend.

I'm still guessing that we will find a few bodies in full-dress Iranian Revolutionary Guards uniforms. Then watch the fur fly...

I'm still guessing that we will find a few bodies in full-dress Iranian Revolutionary Guards uniforms. Then watch the fur fly...

Then we demand independently confirmed DNA analysis for ethnicity, and assume they are executed prisoners until independent proof is verified.

fostert -- Whether Sistani engages is an open question, but the rest of your assertions way off base. Sistani and Sadr are not rivals in any meaningful sense. Sistani is a respected cleric; Sadr is not.

Sistani has consistently taken the middle ground and the high road (relatively speaking). If Sistani throws his weight, it will unlikely be in the cause of any "side". That's very different than "intervening" or supporting one side against another. And too bad we don't have more of that kind of people engaged.

orwell: How many times during the Civil War did Grant's forces wonder if they could win?

Not often. Grant had twice as many troups as Lee. He knew he just had to keep the losses in each battle approximately equal, and eventually Lee would be forced to surrender. Which is exactly what happeed.

But you knew that, Orwell. The fact that you are forced to use such a flawed argument indicates you realize what a bad situation we are in.

By the way, before the Iraq War was launched, what did you predict would happen after we defeated Saddam?

Don't know how accurate this 5 day old report (sourced Tuesday) is but something is happening on the Iran border with a US military buildup. Russian propaganda? Prime Minister Maliki is getting his head handed to him for attacking Sadr's Brigades in Basra this week to weaken them before Iraq's October's elections and the US has had to step in to save face and fighting is fierce. McCain is so wrong in saying we are winning in Iraq. Maybe opening a new front will hide this huge failure just ten days before General Petraeus goes before Congress to give the Iraq progress report?

India News
By Ria Novosti. Moscow, Russia, 10:32 PM IST

Moscow, March 27 (RIA Novosti) Russian military intelligence services are reporting a flurry of activity by US Armed Forces near Iran's borders, a high-ranking security source said Tuesday.

'The latest military intelligence data point to heightened US military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran,' the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched.

He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran 'that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost.'

He also said the US Naval presence in the Persian Gulf has for the first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said last week that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future.

A new US carrier battle group has been dispatched to the Gulf.

The USS John C. Stennis, with a crew of 3,200 and around 80 fixed-wing aircraft, including F/A-18 Hornet and Super hornet fighter-bombers, eight support ships and four nuclear submarines are heading for the Gulf, where a similar group led by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been deployed since Dec 2006. The US is also sending Patriot anti-missile systems to the region.

Do I here helicopters warming on the roof of the embassy? Surely not.

According to this article the Stennis was just upgraded and won't be going on any missions until 2009.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/356905_stennis29.html

Maybe it's the Gin and Tonics but maybe we should just put Muqtada in charge. He's one of the few people powerful enough to NOT be an Iranian puppet.

C'mon, Kevin, you know the drill.

If Maliki wins, it shows that that the insurgents are weak and we have to stay to help the Iraqi government.

If Maliki loses, it shows that the insurgents are "desperate" and we have to stay to help the Iraqi government.

Only US firepower can deter the eventual popular rule of Iraq's Shiites. Many cities could be destroyed before Iraqis succumb to our dominance or al Sadr could be allowed to rule and the US withdraws. It is America's choice. Our rulers would rather destroy al Sadr and arm his enemies to represent our interests. There is no end in sight for the hell the US has wrought in Iraq as long as the US refuses to recognize the inevitable popular will of the Iraqi people.

Billmon...I'm o'erborne with nostalgia...
-Dr. BB

Well, if we're going to wax nostalgic, I can't begin to tell you how I miss Steve Gilliard's commentary on Iraq and its continuous and continuing military and political snafus.

If I remember correctly we may hear again from Billmon someday.
Steve, alas, is gone beyond any wishful recall.

BushCo must be following the twisted advice of Ahmad Chalabi again.

Ahmad Chalabi, an Iraqi exile who spent years in Iran, has aligned himself with Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki's Iranian-back group, which after such a successful (murderous) de-Baathification program is now conducting a de-Sadrist, de-Mahdi Army pogrom.

I wonder if Ahmad Chalabi still has designs on being Iraq's supreme rule, ala Saddam Hussein? And is the Bush administration trying to fulfill the promise they made to Chalabi before the start of hostilities in Iraq in March 2003, that he would replace Hussein, especially after Chalabi helped "sell" the Iraq War by providing so much "valuable," but false, intel about supposed Iraqi WMD stockpiles and al Qaeda ties before the war?

In other words, whenever I read that BushCo is helping al-Maliki's Iran-backed faction in the Iraqi government, I realize that the primary benefactors of BushCo's help is Ahmad Chalabi and Iran, which makes one wonder if U.S. military commanders understand just how warped and twisted BushCo policies really are in the "new" Iraq?

Ultimately we cannot decide what Iraq will be. All we can decide is how long we will stay and how much money we will feed to the parasites who are making obscene profits at America's expense.

PS whoever is the next prez, if that prez decides to get out & shut down this huge mistake, had better be ready to make actions to save this country from disaster, economically. We cant get over being a military state instantly, but anything less than a sharp reduction will end up being nothing. This person will have to resort to fireside chats to motivate the people. Gee, I wonder which candidate could do that.

Actually, Kevin, I think the answer to your questions is that Bush will order the nuclear obliteration of Iran. Here is the evidence: The Saudis are preparing for “sudden nuclear hazards�. Click here for details. The one rational voice, Admiral Fallon, is out of the picture. Can the nuking of Iran be far away?

Ann Kormblutt of the Washington Post (Compost)
thinks it is perectly ok to repeat annon, statements about Clinton especially ones that hold her up to ridicule

I wonder how Ms Kornblutt will feel when people start repeating all the annon things written about her on bathroom walls make in into the mainstream

I read that she is a moron who has all her columns written by the Obama campaign and she wipes up the thrill on Chris Matthews leg

m wrote:

PS whoever is the next prez, if that prez decides to get out & shut down this huge mistake, had better be ready to make actions to save this country from disaster, economically. We cant get over being a military state instantly, but anything less than a sharp reduction will end up being nothing. This person will have to resort to fireside chats to motivate the people. Gee, I wonder which candidate could do that.

What makes you think the war is propping up our economy? Seems to me there's any arguement to be made that it's actually hurting our economy, because of the foregone opportunities we could have spent the tax money / loans on.

This economy is a lot different situation that a real war economy like during WWII, when our forces- all branches- were constantly fighting big engagements, loosing vehicles and using enormous amounts of gasoline, and the U.S. consequently had to produce great amounts of vehicles and secure large supplies of resources. The only thing we have today really is degradation of vehicles- we're talking mostly about replacing vehicle parts degraded due to the usual wear and tear of use, not losing whole vehicles to Nazi bombers or tanks or what have you. There's no massive mass of troops and massive number of dead that require production of uniforms and other individual equipment. There's just no comparison between a real war economy and today.

If we have to, we'll turn the whole country into another Fallujah. We'll create an empty wasteland and turn it into a giant military base and gas station. Stupid liberals.