One of the contingencies involved in the Bush Aministrations decision to commit more troops to Iraq was that Iranian Prime Minister Maliki must lay down the gauntlet on the Mahdi army. I'm not too sure if this is what we were hoping for or not:
BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraq's prime minister has told Mahdi Army militiamen they must surrender their arms or face an all-out assault by U.S.-backed Iraqi forces, senior Iraqi officials said Wednesday, revealing a pledge Washington wanted to hear as American and Iraqi troops prepared a fresh operation to end the bloody sectarian war gripping Baghdad.
The blunt message was particularly significant given that Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi leader, previously had blocked several U.S. attempts to crack down on the military wing of radical anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, now one of the most powerful players in Iraq.
"Prime Minister al-Maliki has told everyone that there will be no escape from attack. The government has told the Sadrists (the political movement that supports the Mahdi Army), if we want to build a state we have no other choice but to attack armed groups," a senior Shiite legislator and close al-Maliki adviser said.
While the militia has been noticeably less active since the Dec. 30 hanging of Saddam Hussein, there was no assurance the threatened offensive would intimidate the fighters who have only grown stronger in numbers, arms and sophistication since they battled U.S. forces to a standstill in the Shiite holy city of Najaf and in Baghdad's Sadr City in 2004.
I have to wonder at the way Maliki chose to word this warning. Because it is a translation, we don't really know quite what he said, but it seems to me there is a bit of bullshit going on here.
Is this an "American onslaught"? Or, is it an onslaught of "American-backed" Iraqi troops?
Either way, it seems to me the message is, "This is America's idea, not mine."
What do you guys think?
Also, note that last paragraph. Let us be honest, the Mahdi army did not fight American troops to a standstill. We fucking backed down because they were holed up in a Mosque, and we're too politically correct to hit them in their place of "worship."
That was one of the biggest mistakes of the war.
3 comments:
If they're smart they take on the Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades FIRST ..and we station 2 or 3 armored humvees out front of Az Al Hakim's house, as well as wreak pure havoc from Ramadi to the Syrian border in Al Anbar.
Take away their strengths FIRST. If we're lucky the black hats will resist with everything they have hoping we and Maliki will cave, being more afraid of the mullahs in Teheran, than Reid and Pelosi and their purse string control, and a politicized and weakened Bush. And we'll find out if we have the political will immediately.
We must be SEEN to be destroying the terrorist and the death squads.
When people pick up the papers in Iraq their first reaction HAS to be 'holy shit' and 'thank god'.
I am doubtful, but because this admin has NOT proven itself able to make their will appear at the other end of policy...they have not been competent enough
Pastorius, you bring up an extremely interesting issue, though I think your writing is a little off in that you should be slightly more tentative in making conclusions in the absence of evidence. However, you did prompt me to consider exactly why we have no evidence. We have no evidence on this issue, because there is no reason to trust any media translation of what Maliki said. The media's translation would have two objectives: making George W look bad and making the Arabs look good, though it's not clear which objective would take priority without knowing the time of day and the reporter's micro-biases in what passes for debate on the left.
We really need to encourage more reasonable people to learn Arabic. I may check out a book out of the library to learn at least a few basic words--which is probably all one needs to catch the mainstream media lying in its translation of Arabic statements.
Demosthenes,
I used the phrase "it seems to me" because I have not come to a positive conclusion. It just SEEMS to me that this is likely the case with what Maliki has said.
I think we know from evidence that he is extremely reluctant to take on al-Sadr.
Anyway, thanks for the props.
Post a Comment