Victory!

Cole also notes that the Sunni fighters that are part of the "Sunni Awakening Council" militias were not similarly honored.

In any case, basically turning the government security forces into another militia is hardly evidence of progress or reconciliation.

What would confirmation in the British or American press add?

This isn't even a lack of progress, it's a big step backwards for any hope of there being a legitimate government in Iraq.

When WWII British field marshal Montgomery visited China in the 1960s he was seated at a state dinner next to a rehabilitated Koumintang general. Monty expressed surprise that the man had lost a critical battle while commanding a million men.
'How did you possibly lose?' Monty asked.
'They went over to the other side,' the general said.

We shall see a similar defection as the Badr militias melt into the more zealous Sadr militias.

In other words, there's no there there when it comes to the long-discussed fighting disabilities of the Iraqis. They do just fine when they're properly motivated, i.e., when it comes to kicking out the US and its puppets. Odd thing, that.

in the wake of the firing of thousands of officers and troops who had refused to obey orders to fire on the Mahdi Army militiamen in Baghdad and the southern provinces. They were accused of mutiny...

That's one way to weed out the non-committed. Force them to make a choice.

So many Americans, particularly conservatives but some liberals too, just can't see things through the eyes of the average Iraqi citizen.

Patrick Cockburn, who has spent five years living in post-war Iraq says it best in a recent interview:

“I [Patrick Cockburn] have been doing a lot of interviews today with ordinary Iraqis, and they all bring it up, the question of the American occupation. The latest opinion polls show that seven out of ten Iraqis want foreign forces to leave Iraq, and most want them to leave now. [emphasis mine] One of the problems of the Iraqi government sitting in the Green Zone [is that] being associated with the occupation taints them and reduces their authority. Lots of people you talk to here, particularly Sunni, don't just say "the government," they say "the traitor government." In some ways this is extremely simple and obvious. There are very few countries in the world that welcome being occupied. And it's sort of strange that this very obvious fact—which has probably been a critical fact for why the U.S. is in such trouble here—has never really penetrated Washington.

Kev gets some link luv from Joe Klein in a post slamming Fred Kagan...

Shades of Afghanistan. What did they offer them, 700 Iraqi Dinars and a goat?

"That's one way to weed out the non-committed. Force them to make a choice."

ROFL.... Only someone as deluded as you could turn an overwhelming negative into a positive. Nice going in completely avoiding saying anything substantive about the topic.

ROFL.... Only someone as deluded as you could turn an overwhelming negative into a positive. Nice going in completely avoiding saying anything substantive about the topic.
Posted by: PaulB

I already have you to sound the trumpets of defeat and retreat.

Did you not think JAM infiltrated the Iraqi Army? Well, however many did before, there's a hell of a lot fewer now. That is A Good Thing.

That's one way to weed out the non-committed. Force them to make a choice.

I suppose. But in this instance it was a stupid strategy and stupider tactic and it blew up in their faces and significantly weakened Maliki and strengthened Sadr, and now Sadr's bloc is likely to waltz to victory in the upcoming provincial elections.

Rather a false economy, don't you reckon?

Rather a false economy, don't you reckon?
Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State

I'm suggesting that's why he did it. I do know for a fact that it caught our guys off guard. Shiite = Confederacy of Dunces.

Doooh,

I'm NOT suggesting that's why he did it.

What did they offer them, 700 Iraqi Dinars and a goat?

I don't even want to know what they did with the goat.

We are seeing the END of the Iraqi insurgency--when cornered, they were forced to sue for peace. When attacked, they drew the Iraqi forces towards them, hugged the belt, failed to expand the battlespace, and were slaughtered.

Estimates of 700 to a 1,000 Mahdi Army troopers killed seem low; with that kind of combined firepower, many more were caught in the houses and exterminated like rats when the Iraqi troops went into the city. I have watched footage of the counter-sniper actions of a few Iraqi units. When sniped at, they called for reinforcement and stood their ground, albeit from a deeper position that allowed them to break contact with the enemy and interdict the sniper fire with counterbattery indirect fire missions. This is the war the Air Cavalry should have fought in Vietnam--close support for attacking units, maximum penetration of the perimeter and the battlespace, and then tighten the noose so that the kill zone shrinks as quickly as possible.

They cannot sustain these losses for much longer; they are on their last legs and cannot make a concerted stand for more than a few hours right now. We must put more troops into Iraq and carry the fight to them! To the ambitious and the daring go the spoils--all others can expect defeat and retreat.

Shorter Norman Bates:

"[Fingers in ears]Lalalalalala...I can't hear you!"

"Shorter Norman Bates:"

Normy's a parody troll, which is why his posts, like this one, are so wildly over the top.

"I already have you to sound the trumpets of defeat and retreat."

ROFL.... Do tell me whom we would be "defeat[ed]" by and whom we would be "retreat[ing]" from, won't you? I can hardly wait. In the meantime, there's this thing called "reality". You might want to look into it someday.

"Did you not think JAM infiltrated the Iraqi Army?"

Moron, the Iraqi Army is supposed to contain members from all tribes, ethnicities, and yes, militias, from all over Iraq. The Iraqi Army was no more (and no less) "infiltrated" by the JAM than it has been "infiltrated" by any other militia force, including the BADR Corps.

"Well, however many did before, there's a hell of a lot fewer now. That is A Good Thing."

Not even remotely. It's a Stupid Thing, similar in strategy and likely results to the purging of the Baathists from the Iraqi government, just as it was a Stupid Thing to turn the Iraqi Army into an adjunct of the BADR Corps, just as it was a Stupid Thing to precipitate the confrontation that led to this debacle in the first place.

"Shiite = Confederacy of Dunces."

My goodness, but what a revealing comment.

Actually, the Badr Brigade is the backbone of the Iraqi forces. And both the BB and JAM are essentially the remnants of the muscle that backed up the Hakim and Sadr theocriminal enterprises in a past when Ayatollahs ran the show.

Norman Rogers:We must put more troops into Iraq and carry the fight to them!

Totally! We need to start recruiting for the biggest, baddest brigades ever in the history of the US of A--the Dubya and Vader Brigades. Most inspirationally, they will be led respectively by their namesakes--George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. The men will accept their commands on Jan. 21, 2009, happily seizing the chance (Lord Jim-like) to make up for dodging the draft during the equally noble sixties conflict in Vietnam. These fierce masters of military strategy will use their signature tools of torture and delegation to unqualified cronies to eradicate the Sadrists and carry al Maliki to victory on a rising tide of blood. No doubt Abu, Brownie and Harriet Miers will each have a platoon, and cover themselves with glory in the streets of Baghdad.

I can hardly wait for the movie.

Norman, is that you there? Our side just won in Basra? Is that what you are saying? That is a mind boggling assertion. What is going to happen is quite simple. Come Jan 20, 2009 we will start the withdrawal from Iraq. We will draw down completely. We will not have achieved any of our stated goals. In short, we will have lost. If we are lucky we won't have to abandon our embassy, but that is not certain.

"To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November."

"Actually, the Badr Brigade is the backbone of the Iraqi forces."

Well, they and the Kurdish Peshmerga. And what makes this an even more Stupid Thing is that the Badr forces are more closely allied with Iran than is Sadr so that, once again, Iran's hand in Iraq is strengthened.

You know what tis means? Must be time for another Presidential landing on an aircraft carrier. Mission Accomplished*!!!

*fer real this time, I promise.

Seems like we're looking at the serious Shiite shakeout. Maliki imagines he's helping himself by forcing it. But even Badr Brigade people have lots of friends and relatives over on the Sadr side- trying to cleanly separate people in a civil war is notoriously doomed to failure.

We may have some harder clashes between the purged&Badrized ISF and the (now become larger) JAM initially, which helps Maliki. But a high tension armistice in which Badr people grab up all they can of American money and weaponry, find the limits thereof, then look around at the obscenity that is Maliki & Co.... Somehow I don't think Sadr has to worry about them getting terribly motivated to fight or die for Maliki.

No doubt a Basra II is coming, but whatever its result, the clock is ticking on Maliki.

Now Iraq is like Vietnam. America, or any other colonialist, cannot train indigenous people to fight wars against popular nationalist independence insurgents.

The best case scenario for the Basrans is only one side of their city will be destroyed by American air strikes.

I found the following article by Big Lizards to be helpful.
http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2008/04/who_won_the_b_o.html

Based on this, Maliki won big.

Actually, I found that article to be pretty badly wrong, particularly when he claims that the following points are not in dispute:

"It was Sadr who called for the truce, made the Mahdi Militia's surrender conditional, then surrendered anyway even when the conditions were not met by the Iraqi government;"

Complete bullshit. This is very much in dispute, particularly when it appears that the truce was called by members of Maliki's government, who went to Iran to arrange for the cease fire and truce.

"The Iraqi Army now controls the territory formerly controlled by the Mahdi Militia;"

And again, complete bullshit. They aren't in control of Basra and they aren't in control of the Sadr areas of Baghdad or other cities.

"The army has continued operational tempo, while the militia is in hiding, its leader afraid to show his face in public (in Iraq, at least);"

And again, complete bullshit. The army is standing down, as is Sadr's militia, because the battle is over.

"The militia suffered a loss of at least 18% of its total southern force with another 30% wounded;"

Mostly bullshit, since nobody has reliable numbers on the dead and wounded in the recent conflict, much less reliable numbers on the size of the Mahdi army.

"The most that critics of the war can say is that Sadr 'won' by virtue of not being killed (wherever he is) and because his Mahdi Militia was not utterly annihilated and have not utterly repudiated him."

And again, complete bullshit. Maliki got none of his goals and had to retreat from Basra. Sadr is still in control in the districts that he formerly controlled and the Iraqi Army had to be bailed out by the British and by the U.S. This was a draw, and a draw is a defeat for Maliki.

Paul B,

Do you have any links to support your arguments?

It seems like it should be pretty easy to identify who is in control of Basra now. Dafydd quotes the International Herald Tribune and Bill Roggio. You quote nobody. Whom should I believe?

Other false statements from that article you liked:

"In the case of Operation Knights' Charge, all sides agree that it was Muqtada Sadr who called for a truce"

No, that is not even remotely in agreement and several reports indicate that it was members of Maliki's own party that went to Iran, calling for a truce. Interesting how he fails to note that.

"At the beginning of the Battle of Basra, all sources agree that the Mahdi Militia was virtually in control of the city of Basra"

No. The militias, plural, were in charge of Basra, not the Mahdi Army, singular. If this idiot cannot get even this basic fact right, why should we take the rest of his tripe seriously?

"the militia -- again, all sides agree -- has pulled its fighters from the streets and no longer asserts control of the city"

No. The puppet leaders installed by the militias are still in power and still reporting to the militias. That the militias are standing by the cease fire and are not blocking the Iraqi Army from engaging in meaningless exercises says nothing about who is really in charge, particularly when the Iraqi Army is moving on.

"because they are official, so probably err on the side of caution"

Considering that previous "official" tallies of both the Iraqi government and the U.S. military have been shown to be wildly inaccurate, his statement that these "err on the side of caution" is ludicrous. Similarly, the estimates of the size of the Mahdi Army are nothing but fantasy.

Moreover, this idiot unquestionably believes the propaganda of the Iraqi Army without once questioning whether what they are reporting is true. He also fails to note that Maliki's own stated goals were not met.

What's hilarious about this moron is that he put this in bold: "Not a single one of these points is even in dispute," a ludicrously inaccurate statement.

"Do you have any links to support your arguments?"

Yes, is it worth my trouble to get them?

Let's start with his claim that al-Sadr sued for peace, a claim that he insists is not in dispute. From McClatchy:

Iraqi lawmakers traveled to the Iranian holy city of Qom over the weekend to win the support of the commander of Iran's Qods brigades in persuading Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr to order his followers to stop military operations, members of the Iraqi parliament said.

...

The backdrop to Sadr's dramatic statement was a secret trip Friday by Iraqi lawmakers to Qom, Iran's holy city and headquarters for the Iranian clergy who run the country.

There the Iraqi lawmakers held talks with Brig. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Qods (Jerusalem) brigades of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps and signed an agreement with Sadr, which formed the basis of his statement Sunday, members of parliament said.

As to who controlled Basra prior to the current fighting, there are several links worth noting, starting with a New York Times article from 2005, referencing three rival militias that heavily influence matters in Basra [Note: I'm not providing a link because Kevin's comment software doesn't like too many links. It's available via Google.]:

One British officer said there were signs of increasing cooperation in Basra between factions from Fadila , and the Mahdi Army. Another powerful militia is the Iranian-backed Badr Organization, an arm of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which effectively ran Basra before Fadila took over and which nearly won a majority on the provincial council this year. The Badr group has fought violent battles with the Mahdi Army, and has also heavily infiltrated the police.

In May of 2007, the Guardian newspaper had this to say:

"Most of the police force is divided between Fadhila which controls the TSU [the tactical support unit, its best-trained unit] and Moqtada which controls the regular police," the general said.

"Fadhila also control the oil terminals, so they control the oil protection force and part of the navy. Moqtada controls the ports and customs, so they control the customs, police and its intelligence. Commandos are under the control of Badr Brigade."

Dafydd's claim on this was pretty damn stupid, since one of the major stories of this conflict was that Maliki was singling out the Sadr militia and ignoring the other militias in Basra. See, for example, this post:

The battles raging in southern Iraq's Basra are more than a central Iraqi government trying to assert control over the militia of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Instead, it's more complicated, more like a mini civil war between competing Shiite groups vying for power.

This is the take of Anthony Cordesman, the insightful national security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Cordesman urges those trying to understand the current turmoil in Basra and elsewhere to avoid oversimplifying the current fighting into a good guys versus bad guys dynamic. In the analysis below, Cordesman refers to the Jaish al Mahdi, or JAM, also known as the Mahdi Army, which is al-Sadr's group and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq led by Shiite cleric Abul Azziz al-Hakim

...

Basra was essentially divided up among Shi'ite party mafias, each of which had its own form of extortion and corruption. They sometimes fought and feuded, but had a crude modus vivendi at the expense of the rest of the nation.

Regarding my claim that the Iraqi Army was over its head and needed support from both the U.S. and the British, just scroll down a bit to Kevin's recent post on this. Quoting the New York Times:

The defense secretary, Desmond Browne, also used his statement in the House of Commons to acknowledge that British military involvement in last week’s fighting in Basra was more extensive than previously disclosed.

At one point, he said, British tanks, armored vehicles, artillery and ground troops were deployed to help extract Iraqi government troops from a firefight with Shiite militiamen in the city.

Mr. Browne said British involvement in that battle was in addition to other actions in support of Iraqi forces.

He said those actions included aerial surveillance of the city; low-level missions by combat aircraft aimed at reinforcing Iraqi troops by establishing a menacing aerial presence over combat zones; the use of helicopters that carried food and ammunition to the Iraqis; and medical care for wounded Iraqi troops at British combat hospitals outside the city.

Mr. Browne said the use of British ground troops in the fighting was ordered “in extremis,” suggesting that the deployment of forces from the British base at Basra was a last-ditch measure to save Iraqi troops.

As for U.S. involvement, it's been so widely reported that the U.S. military had to bail out government troops in Baghdad and issued air strikes in Basra, that I'm not going to bother to provide links. Just Google "airstrike Basra". Does this sound like the actions of a victorious army? Funny how Daffyd doesn't mention these inconvenient facts.

As to who controls Basra now and who "won" there, the opinion of most people is that it was a draw, which is a defeat for Maliki, who originally vowed to fight "until the end", conducting a "final and decisive battle," and who insisted that all of the various militias in Basra give up their weapons. Maliki is no longer in Basra, I believe, and nobody has come forward to give up their weapons.

The militias may or may not have been weakened, but only a fool thinks this was in any way a "final and decisive battle." In his inability to deliver what he promised and in the inability of the Iraqi Army to defeat the Sadr militia without British and U.S. assistance, Maliki has lost, just as has been widely reported.

The International Herald Tribune article that Dafydd cites is far more nuanced than his cite would lead you to believe. If you read a little further, you see this:

Underscoring those fears, clashes broke out hours later after Iraqi troops raided Basra's Maakal area, another Mahdi Army stronghold, according to local police who could not immediately provide further details.

A Mahdi Army spokesman in Basra, known as Abu Liqa al-Basri, said Wednesday that the militiamen were keeping a low profile on al-Sadr's orders. He accused Iraqi security forces of creating a "crisis of trust" by mounting "provocative raids" and arresting al-Sadr supporters.

"If the Iraqi army continues in its provocative raids, the consequences will be bad," he said.

That the military indulged in a meaningless exercise in Basra is undeniable, but that does not mean that they are in control of the city or that the militias have been seriously weakened. The militias control the civilian government and police force which, as far as I know, are still intact.

Let's give Fox News the last word on this, shall we?

Officials with Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia in Basra said they tolerated the government move in compliance with a cease-fire order by the radical Shiite cleric under an Iranian-brokered deal to end the fighting.

But they warned they would fight back if security forces resumed large-scale raids and arrests without warrants.

...

But the gunmen refused to surrender their weapons and several Basra neighborhoods appeared to remain under militia control [Emphasis added] — developments that left the radical Shiite cleric in a position of power and al-Maliki politically battered.

Good enough for you, Everett? Even if you don't accept my interpretation of the events in Iraq, it's easy to see that Dafydd's statement that "Not a single one of these points is even in dispute" is ludicrously false.

Paul B,

When negotiationg the truce, Sadr made a number of outrageous and imperious demands, such as releasing his troops from jail. Did he win any of these? No. How does the winner of a battle walk away with no concessions? The fact that a few Iraqi politicians traveled to Iran tells me nothing.

Much more important, however, is who controls the ground at the end of the war. Bill Roggio is on the ground there, and if you read his piece, you’ll find that he leaves little doubt that the Iraqi army is in control. Your characterization of IA operations as “meaningless exercises” has no foundation.

And finally, I note that we agree on something – it’s always a great idea to give
Fox the last word!

Harith al-Edhari, the director of al-Sadr's office in Basra, said the government was not holding up its part of the deal.

"So far we are adhering to the orders of our commander to hide weapons and refrain from holding arms in public, but the field officers of the Iraqi army are not abiding by the prime minister's instructions not to raid houses of al-Sadr's followers and the Mahdi Army," he said.

Cheers

In case it wasn't clear, my Fox quote was from the same piece you quoted.

"When negotiationg the truce, Sadr made a number of outrageous and imperious demands"

When Maliki launched this offensive, he made an equal number of outrageous and imperious demands. How many of these did he get? Free clue: it's less than one.

"such as releasing his troops from jail. Did he win any of these? No."

Um, yes, actually he did. The cease-fire required that the militia fighters keep their weapons and that the government cease "random arrests" of Sadr followers, both of which appear to have been granted.

"How does the winner of a battle walk away with no concessions?"

Everett, neither of these men walked away a "winner," which is why I explicitly said that this battle was a draw, just as most other experts have said. A draw is a defeat for Maliki, since he launched the offensive and got none of his original goals.

Moreover, Maliki explicitly stated that there would be no negotiation, no cease-fire. The very fact that there was a negotiation and a cease-fire is another defeat for Maliki. As noted by Time magazine:

[Sadr] can now play the victim card, arguing that Maliki and the Americans had attacked him and his loyalists, even while allowing the militias of his Shi'ite rivals to prosper — as well as the U.S.-paid Sunni militias that are now being integrated into the Iraqi police and army. He can reasonably argue that he is the one true Iraqi patriot, the Iraqi leader the Americans fear most. How else to explain the attack on his Mahdi Army while he was observing a unilateral cease-fire? Furthermore, like Hizballah in Lebanon after the Israeli invasion in 2006, the Mahdi Army can claim a victory by simply surviving an assault by an Iraqi government backed by the Americans.

"The fact that a few Iraqi politicians traveled to Iran tells me nothing."

Then you didn't bother to read the article, which explicitly stated that those Iraqi politicians, members of Maliki's own government, went to Iran to negotiate a truce with Sadr. This was a direct contradiction of one of Daffy's main points -- a point he insisted was "undisputed".

"Much more important, however, is who controls the ground at the end of the war. Bill Roggio is on the ground there, and if you read his piece, you’ll find that he leaves little doubt that the Iraqi army is in control."

I read Bill Roggio's piece. Since he is the only one reporting this and since what he is reporting is ambiguous, I don't regard his reporting as decisive. For example, he reports that "Iraqi security forces continue to conduct operations" and cites Fox News as his source, but that very article simply states that government forces "drove through the main streets". That the militias are laying low and (mostly) honoring the cease-fire is undeniable. That they have given up meaningful control of Basra is something that cannot be established from the Fox News story or from Roggio's reporting.

Note, too, that Roggio is quoting the very same article we both cite above, an article which specifically states that "the gunmen refused to surrender their weapons and several Basra neighborhoods appeared to remain under military control." That is definitely not a sign of victory for the Maliki government. It's a sign of a draw, which is precisely what I noted above.

"Your characterization of IA operations as 'meaningless exercises' has no foundation."

Um, yes, actually it does. A meaningful exercise would be one where members of Sadr's militia are arrested, where caches of weapons are retrieved, where control of militia strongholds is regained -- exercises that work toward Maliki's initial stated goals. A meaningless exercise is one in which a few Iraqi Army vehicles drive through the main streets and in which a few random houses are searched, yielding nothing and no one.

"Does this sound like the voice of a winner to you?"

Actually, it sounds like neither a winner nor a loser. This is just the same sort of posturing that Maliki is doing. Why on earth should I be expected to reach a conclusion from that? It's meaningless.

Now if you can show me that this same spokesman is issuing these same statements for a couple of months and that these statements are, therefore, completely empty rhetoric and a sign of powerlessness, then you can reach a conclusion about a "winner". Today, though, you cannot, particularly since the Mahdi Army has made it abundantly clear that its threats are not meaningless.

Actually, it sounds like neither a winner nor a loser.
Posted by: PaulB

From the mouths of babes...

Well spoken for a change.

More on that so-called "loser's" statement, from Yahoo News:

BAGHDAD - Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has ordered a nationwide freeze on raids against suspected Shiite militiamen.

The announcement comes one day after Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr hinted at retaliation if the arrests of his followers did not stop. Al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia fought government troops in Basra and Baghdad last week.

It looks like Maliki didn't get the message that he "won" or that Sadr's spokesman wasn't talking with "the voice of a winner".