It's like herding cats over there now.

Color me skeptical. But I'm passing it along for gossip value anyway.

Wow, great to know you're a gossip, and that you're keeping on top of spreading this, as opposed to more credible information. /sarcasm

Hey guys, let's spread around some pro-Republican gossip!! Thanks, Kevin!! /sarcasm

This is a blog, and Kevin stated clearly that he did not take this report as fully true. A mature blog reader will not go overboard in the interpretation, no?

Makes sense in that Maliki didnt want to give the Cercopes of Los Pinos an excuse to stay.

I don't believe it. Cheney met with Maliki, and then this happened. There was no risk that the US military would be "a little too good" at eliminating the Sadrists; they tried before. The British would have had no stomach for such an offensive.

Now, I wouldn't be surprised if Cheney cut Petraeus out of the planning, especially if Petraeus gave him any reason to think that he'd oppose the idea; excessive secrecy is typical for Cheney.

So? I hear it's all progress, whatever happens. You should move on to more important subjects like whether either Obama or Clinton is competent to throw out the first pitch on opening day.

It doesn't quite make sense on first reading, except that a U.S. military operation aginst the Sadrists that failed would make Maliki's position even more untenable than it is, by creating an ongoing revolt against the occupation by Shiites. It's not likely the revolt would end, as in 2004, because U.S. forces would be overstreched. Attack Basra, Baghdad flares up, and beyond.

Also, the Maliki government gave in to the United States on provincial elections, which the United States needed to satisfy their "concerned citizen" Sunnis and to show progress at home. Mailki would have been in a position to demand a quid pro quo--that he be allowed to attack the Sadrists in his own way. Who knows, maybe Maliki, Cheney, and Petraeus all believed they could defeat a "weakened" Mahdi Army.

I think the more important news here has to do with U.S. plans to attack Basra. Not drawing down the surge this summer--why not, when the military chiefs say the military is dangerously overstetched? They are needed to attack Basra and hold down the rest of the country this summer.

It shows they must have believed their propaganda that the Sadrists were weakened when they didn't break their ceass-fire after the U.S. and Iraqis rounded up 2,000 Sadrists. A months' long operation? The United States must have believed it would be slow but successful, that their counterinsurgency strategy would work.

The surge has always been a political strategy to extend Bush's war. See, John McCain could say, we're winning--or if, as is more likely, the attack sets off more violence, we're needed to stay because of the violence.

At the time, I thought it was blazingly obvious that the attack was related to Cheney's visit. This account could be true, I suppose, but I think it's just as likely Cheney asked Maliki to do it to preempt Petraeus, as Joe Buck says. It would fit Cheney's style - warlike, aggressive, and disastrously stupid.

Fly on the wall tells me the Cheney visits Maliki right before the Basra operation, gives Maliki the go-ahead to destroy Sadr militia (why? Sadr wants the US out and was favored to win in upcoming election). US supports operation with Air and artillery. Mission Not Accomplished. US (that would be Cheney) blames Maliki.

Conclusion #1. Don't believe a word from the US government.

Conclusion #2. House of cards in Iraq run by a ship of fools.

Any attempt to reason through these events is most likely a fool's errand. All we really know for sure is that the entire situation reeks of the same incompetence we've always seen with efforts of the Cheney Administration.

[Cut & Paste agitprop deleted]

I don't know whether this is plausible or not, but, if true, it would explain one thing at least. When the reports said Maliki expected the operation to take only 48 hours my immediate reaction was that he was insane. I have never been to Iraq and only have a casual newspaper and blog reader's knowledge of it, but it was obvious to me that defeating the Mahdi Army would be a formidable military operation. How could Maliki have so grossly miscalculated?

The answer being offered here is that he did not miscalculate; he deliberately blew it. But if he thinks deliberately blowing it will stop a US operation, my guess is that will be the real miscalculation.

Maliki was probably afraid we'd do for Basra what we did for Fallujah. Iraq doesn't need to see its main port city turned into a ghost town.

I don't know whether this is plausible or not, but, if true, it would explain one thing at least. When the reports said Maliki expected the operation to take only 48 hours my immediate reaction was that he was insane. I have never been to Iraq and only have a casual newspaper and blog reader's knowledge of it, but it was obvious to me that defeating the Mahdi Army would be a formidable military operation. How could Maliki have so grossly miscalculated?

The answer being offered here is that he did not miscalculate; he deliberately blew it. But if he thinks deliberately blowing it will stop a US operation, my guess is that will be the real miscalculation.

Petreus sidestepped a question from HRC about force buildup in the South. Let's say that they start a major offensive in the South in, Oh, say July, and it is planned to last for three or four months. Where does that take us? To the first Tuesday in November? Gosh, what a coincedence.

I'm not surprised Maliki wanted no part of the US electioneering.

1 hour, 10 minutes ago

WASHINGTON — The war in Iraq has become "a major debacle" and the outcome "is in doubt" despite improvements in security from the buildup in U.S. forces, according to a highly critical study published Thursday by the Pentagon's premier military educational institute.

The report released by the National Defense University raises fresh doubts about President Bush 's projections of a U.S. victory in Iraq just a week after Bush announced that he was suspending U.S. troop reductions.

The report carries considerable weight because it was written by Joseph Collins , a former senior Pentagon official, and was based in part on interviews with other former senior defense and intelligence officials who played roles in prewar preparations.

The report said that the United States has suffered serious political costs, with its standing in the world seriously diminished. Moreover, operations in Iraq have diverted "manpower, materiel and the attention of decision-makers" from "all other efforts in the war on terror" and severely strained the U.S. armed forces.

"Compounding all of these problems, our efforts there (in Iraq ) were designed to enhance U.S. national security, but they have become, at least temporarily, an incubator for terrorism and have emboldened Iran to expand its influence throughout the Middle East," the report continued.

Basra 'shambles', Kevin?

who's in control of most, if not all, of Basra now?

who's in full control of the port of um quasar, and the oil money that flows through it (which formerly fortified the sadrists)?

who has unified all the parties in Iraq for the very first time, and isolated the Sadrists politically?

who is continuing to physically weaken the mahdi army/iranian special groups, at the same time strengthening the loyalty of kurds and sunnis?

hint: it ain't the Brits cowering in Basra airport.

neill, please enlighten me.
I was thinking you were referring to Maliki and his supporters. But, as an "iranian special group", the Badr Brigades don't seem especially weakened.
So now I'm not sure - my own fault in part for not having a better sense of the parties on the ground.

the latest is the Badr leaders are ordering their followers to hide their heavy weapons, and some of the higher-ups are fleeing to Iran in anticipation of raids by the Iraqi army and the Americans.

http://www.roadstoiraq.com/2008/04/13/badr-brigade-militia-hides-their-arms-leaders-flee-to-iran/

this is all GOOD news, folks.

the iraqi government and army is finally "standing up", perhaps a little unsteadily, but of their OWN power. they are only going to get stronger, and now they have the political juice of a majority. once it's clear to everyone the central government has a monopoly of force, the fight's basically over.

it boggles the mind that the mainsteam media is largly missing, or wilfully ignoring, the story. it departs from their script.

talismangate:

Friday, April 18, 2008
Numbers, Accounts Get Disputed (Updated)

The Chief of Staff of the Iraqi Armed Services, Lt. Gen. Babekr Zebari (Kurd), disputed the numbers of “deserters� that was first announced by an Interior Ministry spokesman five days ago. Zebari, speaking to Radio Sawa yesterday (Arabic), alleged that only 144 soldiers had “fled from their duties� in the initial stages of the fighting—Operation Cavalry Charge is still in effect three weeks after its launch—adding that, in his opinion, this is a very low number that surprised the commanders who had anticipated larger numbers of desertions.

Furthermore, the spokesman for the Baghdad Security Plan (Operation Rule of Law) disputed Michael Gordon’s story for the New York Times about a company of Iraqi soldiers that had abandoned its forward positions in Sadr City. According to Gordon, some 80 freshly-arrived troops had replaced the company that had been fighting in that area for two weeks earlier, and after 48 hours of fighting, the Iraqi major newly in charge decided to pull his soldiers back. The NYTimes pegged the story as the collapse of the Iraqi Army. But in today’s edition, the same paper seems to play down the events reported by Gordon, claiming that the Iraqi Army quickly addressed the security gap without needing the aid of US soldiers. But the spokesman, Maj. Gen. Qassim Atta, dismissed Gordon’s story out of hand in an interview yesterday with Voices of Iraq (Arabic), claiming that by his reading only three soldiers fled from their duties during the fighting on Wednesday in Sadr City.

I think herein lies the quandary: there’s a divergence between those who see these problems as fixable, which they are, and between those using them as evidence that the sky is falling. Surely, there are many things that need to be fixed in Iraq, but one should take heart that there are those working very hard to fix them and they are succeeding. But then there are others who’re holding their breaths for any trip-ups so that they can scream that things are hopeless. Within this latter category one can place all the recent reporting from Basra.

But isn’t it odd that instead of focusing on the fact that the Iraqi Army is stepping-up to the plate and taking the initiative, which would mean that the Unites States can pull its forces out quicker, the Democrats—who’ve made troop withdrawal their sacred raison d’être—have failed to seize upon the positive while inexplicably playing-up the negative, to the detriment of their own policy recommendations. I think they are doing that because there’s an election to win in November and the Republican candidate has staked his run on conditions in Iraq. So if things improve there and troops can come home, then that’s bad for the Democrats because it authenticates the Bush administration’s contention that the fight in Iraq can be won, and is being won.

But hey, things in Basra went south from what we’ve been told, so that’s why the Iraqi Army is evicting the Sadrists from their office today (Arabic). Maliki has signed an order that all government buildings in Basra currently occupied by political parties or squatters must revert back to the state within 48 hours. The Sadrists now occupy a former Iraqi Olympics Committee complex in the heart of Basra and have been told that they must vacate the premises immediately. It seems that other political parties such as the Supreme Council and the Da’awa Party have also been told to vacate the government buildings they now occupy.

Doesn’t this story conflict with the false narrative of the ‘fiasco’ that was Operation Cavalry Charge, as peddled by western journalists and ‘analysts’?

Weren't we told that the Sadrists had won, and that the Iraqi Army had collapsed? So how come Iraqi soldiers are throwing the Sadrists out on their asses?

What's funnier is that these western reports are re-hashed and further mutilated in their Arabic translations, ending-up in openly-hostile newspapers like Azzaman, but these damaged goods are then recycled and cited by the fake 'experts' in the west, the ones that can barely speak Arabic, as first-hand accounts that filter back to lend added legitimacy to the existing false narrative! So the English-to-Arabic-to-English Chinese telephone that stands in for an analytical look at Basra only manages to further distort the facts.

I should also note that it’s been three weeks since Basra began to dominate the headlines, yet neither the New York Times or the Washington Post have sent a serious reporter down there. Why report the facts on the ground when you can make them up, eh?

UPDATE: this story from the Associated Press, the first to be written from Basra itself, contradicts itself through and through: How can things have improved so much if Operation Cavalry Charge had been a failure?

posted by Nibras Kazimi نبراس الكاظمي at 9:19 AM

shhhhhhh.

be vewy, vewy quiet about this.....

Mohammed Abdul-Amir, a government employee, dared to hire a singer and a band for his wedding four days ago.

"I am happy to have a real wedding party," he said. "A few weeks ago, doing such a thing would have meant death."

AP staff in Basra contributed to this story, but their names were withheld for security reasons.

this is all GOOD news, folks. the iraqi government and army is finally "standing up", perhaps a little unsteadily, but of their OWN power.

Uh, no, you zippy fucking nitwit.

Al-Hakim and Maliki represent federalism and strong Iranian ties. They represent just as much of a happy theocracy as JAM - just that they're much more willing to bend over for the Iranians than Al Sadr, who envisions a strong, nationalistic Iraq with Sunni participation.

You are engaging in boosterism and cheerleading a side in a sectarian war that you haven't the first clue about. The Mahdi are laying low in Basra just as they did in Baghdad when the surge was announced.

Did you know they are now the leading humanitarian organization in Iraq, feeding and housing and giving medical care to the poor when the corrupt government won't?

Of course you didn't, you buffoon.

ah-ha. you know you've hit a nerve or two when they revert to their refuge of last resort: name-calling.

trex: "Al-Hakim and Maliki represent federalism and strong Iranian ties. They represent just as much of a happy theocracy as JAM - just that they're much more willing to bend over for the Iranians than Al Sadr, who envisions a strong, nationalistic Iraq with Sunni participation."

Was Maliki 'bending over' for the Iranians when he was killing THEIR guys in Basra?

If Al Sadr is so concerned with Sunni participation, and Maliki apparently isn't, then why after Maliki's attacks on the Sadrists are the Sunni blocs unified with Maliki -- for the very first time?

Please explain this huge realignment.

As for laying low in Basra, it seems pretty clear to me that Maliki has announced that there is a new sheriff in town. He is booting groups of ANY sect out of the city's corridors of perceived power.