Iraqi and US Forces Keep Up Pressure on Sadr’s Militia
April 17th, 2008 at 09:07am Mark Noonan
From Bill Roggio:
Iraqi and Coalition forces are pressing the fight against the Mahdi Army in northeastern Baghdad and the southern port city of Basrah. Iraqi troops have cleared two Mahdi Army strongholds in Basrah and reportedly have surrounded three others as they prepare to press the operation. In Baghdad, the Iraqi Army and US forces continue to clash with the Mahdi Army while forces have moved into southwestern Sadr City and set up a “demonstration area” to distribute aid and provide local security.
The battle for Sadr City
The Iraqi government signaled that it was willing to take on the Mahdi Army inside its Baghdad stronghold of Sadr City and the outlying neighborhoods since Muqtada al Sadr ordered his militia to cease fighting six days after the Basrah operation began in March. Last weekend, Ali al Dabbagh, the spokesman for the government of Iraq, said Iraqi and US forces would “continue [operations] until we secure Sadr City.” Multinational Forces Iraq said it was backing the Iraqi government and military in its efforts.
The operation involves more than military operations, as the Iraqi government seeks to wrest control of the Mahdi Army’s grip on public services inside Sadr City. “The aim now is to launch an ambitious plan of 30-day, 60-day, and 90-day public works and services-improvement projects designed to convince the local population that the Iraqi government -– and not Sadr’s Mahdi Army militia –- is best able to improve the quality of life in an impoverished expanse of pot-holed streets, open sewers, and joblessness,” the Christian Science Monitor reported. “US and Iraqi military are now set up and living among the Sadr City residents in the ‘demonstration’ area of the southern third of the sector.”
The MSM is still reporting the Battle of Basra as an Iraqi defeat - I wonder how long they’ll keep that up? Probably until November, I guess.
Entry Filed under: War on Terror
30 Comments
1. sam | April 17th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Mark,
When Al-Sadr finally does disband his militia, IF he ever does, then you can claim victory. don’t claim it when he has more inlfuence and power than the prime minister and the occupation troops could ever have!
STOP spreading lies and propaganda to suit your own views. tell the story like it is.
2. kimberly4victory | April 17th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Wow, Sam the defeatist!
God bless the Iraqi and US Troops! Keep up the good work!
3. neocon | April 17th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
“STOP spreading lies and propaganda to suit your own views. tell the story like it is” - Sam
Yeah Mark, quit reporting items that conflict with conventional MSM reporting.
And unless and until the Mahdi Army is disbanded, then and only then will liberals like Sam consider it a victory. Which of course conflicts greatly with Clintons masterful military victory in Kosovo.
Aren’t liberals a hoot.
4. sam | April 17th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Neocon,
I am not a liberal, I am not a democrat, or republican……they are the same animal with two heads anyway.
Back to iraq, this is the 6th year of the occupation, and you can’t even secure Basra, or parts of the capital!!! how can you sit there and say that Iraq is going to be a success or is already a success when you havent accomplished simple security in two cities.
Its easy for you to cheer the war from your comfortable couch, but for people who are being killed over there, both iraqis and your mercenary army, its hell.
5. Bigfoot | April 17th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Back to iraq, this is the 6th year of the occupation, and you can’t even secure Basra, or parts of the capital!!!
How long have US forces been in or around Basra? A week or two, maybe? Remember, Basra was under British occupation. How about a little patience before declaring US operations in Basra a failure? And while you’re at it, how about directing some of that invective against the terrorists, who have for over five years routinely and contemptuously violated the rules of war? (By dressing like civilians, hiding behind civilians, deliberately blowing up civilians, etc.)
And unless and until the Mahdi Army is disbanded, then and only then will liberals like Sam consider it a victory.
We can only hope. If and when the Mahdi Army is disbanded, the libs will probably find some other objective that hasn’t been met, and tell us not to talk about victory until that goal is achieved. Getting a lib (or whatever Sam is) to acknowledge any progress we’ve have made is like pulling teeth.
6. neocon | April 17th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Sam,
There really isn’t anymore violence in Basra than there is in Los Angeles. I and I couldn’t care less if you subscribe to a party. Your posts are that of an ignorant liberal.
7. sam | April 17th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Deleted - mindless insults.
8. Marty13 | April 17th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
neo sez, “There really isn’t anymore violence in Basra than there is in Los Angeles.”
To which I must ask the obvious, if this is true, then why haven’t we replaced our overstressed ground forces with the LAPD? Hell, if East LA is more peaceful then Basra……what’s Bill Bratten doing that Patreaus ain’t, maybe you could enlighten us NEO?
9. bongoman | April 17th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Remember, al-Maliki and the Badr brigades have more connection to Iran than Sadr.
10. Rich | April 17th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
“Remember, al-Maliki and the Badr brigades have more connection to Iran than Sadr.”
Here we go again. The libs here painted the battle of Basra as a huge defeat and loss of face. Now that they have been proven wrong, now they are painting Al Maliki’s victory as a victory for Iran. Jeez Bongoman, if I didn’t know better, you stand to make political points no matter who wins. Are you a Yankees fan and Red Sox fan?
11. Christian Wright | April 17th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Deleted - links to grossly anti-American website.
12. neocon | April 17th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Christian,
Thank you for that endorsement of the Mahdi Army. I expect nothing less from you.
Marty,
We wouldn’t replace the ISF with the LAPD because there both about as effective. I guess you didn’t follow that, but I did enjoy your “overwhelmed” inference when just the last couple of days that “overwhelmed” ISF have been methodically and systematically doing house to house searches cleaning up the remnant militia.
Have you two been enjoying the implosion of the DNC as much as I have been?
13. Kahn | April 18th, 2008 at 1:36 am
sam, aren’t you that Muslim student going to college here while hating us and our system? Just trying to remember from your previous posts. Where are you from again?
By the way, why come to school in the west? Don’t Muslim countries have advanced or higher education? Can you get a degree in abuse of women and murder? Hard to make a living at it I guess.
14. JD | April 18th, 2008 at 7:24 am
The failure of government forces to capture Basra last month despite superiority in numbers and firepower was an embarrassment to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who ordered the offensive.
It also raises serious questions about the army’s discipline and morale.
15. Rich | April 18th, 2008 at 10:54 am
I can see JD during WWII. The failure of the Allies to capture Europe during D-Day has been a complete embarrassment.
But seriosuly, you expected the Iraqi forces to clear a town of fighters in a week when Britain was unable to do it in five years? Are you smoking crack JD?
The fact of the matter is that although there have been setbacks, the operation moves forward, Sadr is losing men, resources, and political allies. He has become isolated and cut off and there are serious thoughts the Mahdi army will disband. How you can still call this a victory for Sadr is beyond comprehension. Why not change tactics like Bongoman and now claim that Maliki’s victory is really helping Iran? At least that would turn your arguement to the theoretical where you could blow smoke. Where you stand now you look like a political hack rooting for the enemy? Does it make you feel good to root for the other side? Shmuck.
16. JD | April 18th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Rich,
Speaking as an individual US citizen who happens to be a Marine and veteran of two OIF deployments, I am rooting for the US side. In my judgment based on practical experience the US side has no business being in Iraq. I am rooting for US to get out of Iraq most expediently. Semper Fi
17. Diana Powe | April 18th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Hmm, looks like some op-ed piece by a liberal blogger:
Let me see. No, it’s retired U.S. Army colonel Joseph J. Collins, PhD, writing for the Institute for National Strategic Studies which is part of the National Defense University. Oops.
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Occasional_Papers/OP5.pdf
18. Rich | April 18th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
JD- Being a marine then would you not realize the difficulty in trying to root out entrenched enemies in street to street combat? Would you expect this type of engagement to be done in a week and without any casualties and or setbacks?
Speaking from your own experience, could the U.S. be expected to dislodge the Mahdi militia from Basra in such a short time? Why was Britain not able to do it and the fledgling Iraqi forces are tasked with doing it in such lightning quick fashion? If the U.S. and Britain could not do it so quickly, why the unrealistic expectations for the Iraqis as well as the double standard.
Yes some Iraqi forces have fled and some even switched sides, but on the whole it has been a positive action for Iraqi security.
Diana- as you are not able to continue to crow about Sadr’s victory as his forces are being ground down by attrition, I see you are talking off the topic of the thread. Cherry picking the analysis of one ex- military Colonel does not a case make. I do note some interesting things from the excerpt.
“Iraqi civilian deaths—mostly at the hands of other Iraqis—may number as high as 82,000.”
First off note the most at the hands of Iraqis. Second off I’m not sure how he could know this given that many of the high casualty headline grabbing bombs have been planted by foreing al qaeda operatives. Also, his number of 82,000 is much lower than many liberal estimates. Do feel this number is accurate or do you disagree with him?
I also must quibble with this quote-
“Globally, U.S. standing among friends and allies has fallen.” Why it seems like France, Italy, Germany, Australia and Canada don’t seem to have a problem with us. neither do the eatern European countries. Which allies is he talking about?
“were designed to enhance U.S. national security, but they have become, at least temporarily, an incubator for terrorism”
So how many terrorist attacks have happened in the U.S. since the Iraq war started? Our national security seems okay to me. As for being an incubator of terrorism, those who will carry out suicide bombings etc will always find something to be pissed about. Take the 9-11 hijackers for instance. Terrorism was not created during the Iraq war. Still it is interesting that Zawahiri said yesterday Iraq is the main battefield for Al-qaeda against the U.S. This is of course after libs say that iraq has nothing to do with terrorism.
19. Diana Powe | April 18th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Rich,
As I said early on when Mark was claiming the “success” of al-Maliki’s gambit in Basra (not the “crow[ing] about Sadr’s victory” that you try to attribute to me), the point of his effort is to try to boost his performance in the local elections currently hoped-for in October. It is the performance in those elections which will illuminate the performance of the government relative to al-Sadr’s movement in gaining the trust (however well or poorly deserved) of the ordinary Iraqis (unlike you or me) who have to live day-to-day with the realities of their situation.
Nice job of dissing a retired (”ex-” in your lexicon) Army colonel of 28 years experience who teaches at the National Defense University. You’re right. I “cherry picked” the first sentences of his paper. Plainly, your analysis is more well-grounded in real experience and judgment. What was I thinking?
I note with interest that you trot out the tired “no terrorist attacks since 9/11″ meme which proves…nothing. Why? Because no one can prove a negative. We do know, courtesy of our own government, that the number of “terrorist incidents” worldwide has increased dramatically since 9/11 and I suspect that the victims of those incidents wouldn’t be terribly impressed with our “safety”.
20. Tractatus | April 18th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Let me see. No, it’s retired U.S. Army colonel Joseph J. Collins, PhD, writing for the Institute for National Strategic Studies which is part of the National Defense University. Oops.
Yes, Diana, but can’t you see how much he hates America? Sure, he dedicated his life to serving America, but that quote shows that he did so out of hatred; otherwise, he wouldn’t say such things.
Also, it’s all Clinton’s fault. Somehow.
21. Joe | April 18th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Rich: So how many terrorist attacks have happened in the U.S. since the Iraq war started? Our national security seems okay to me.
That is such a ridiculous statement.
22. Rich | April 18th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
“Compounding all of these problems, our efforts there were designed to enhance U.S. national security”
Ok Diana, once again where is the cause and effect. He says our national security has been damaged by Iraq. Prove our national security has gotten worse because of the Iraq war. What are the symptoms? With a claim like that, one needs some examples at least. Do we have more attacks in the U.S., more terrorists sneaking in, more wmd material reaching our shores? Throw me a bone here.
Also, you cynically wrote, “the point of his effort is to try to boost his performance in the local elections currently hoped-for in October”
Not so fast. Do people usually attack their political allies before elections? I thoght our goal was to get a stronger Iraqi governemnt that went across sectarian lines?
http://www.heritage.org/research/MiddleEast/wm1887.cfm
“Prime Minister Maliki has strengthened his nationalist credentials. By taking personal political risks to counter militias from his own Shia sect, Maliki has shed at least some of his former reputation as a sectarian figure. Critics had questioned his willingness to strike at Shia militants. In fact, the U.S. Congress had included the initiation of stronger Iraqi government actions against Shia militias as one of the congressional benchmarks for measuring progress in Iraq.
“Congress should now welcome the fact that there has been considerable progress in this area. Many Iraqi Sunni leaders have applauded the government offensive in Basra, and this demonstrated willingness to challenge Iran-backed militants could lead to greater Sunni political support for the government in the future.
“The Basra campaign may also increase the chances of greater international support from Sunni Arab states by dispelling their suspicion that the Maliki government is too close to Iran.”
Tract-
“Yes, Diana, but can’t you see how much he hates America? Sure, he dedicated his life to serving America, but that quote shows that he did so out of hatred; otherwise, he wouldn’t say such things.
Also, it’s all Clinton’s fault. Somehow.”
Please point out where I stated the Colonel hates America or that Clinton is to blame.
How many attacks on U.S soil Joe? How many around the world. Why are attacks happening in many other places besides the U.S.? Maybe because our security is good relative to theirs? don’t terrorist hit soft targets? Or are all you libs saying we haven’t been attacked because it would be too easy? If we are the most hated nation in the eyes of these radicals and our security is so bad because of the Iraq war, wouldn’t at least one terrorist do something?
23. Diana Powe | April 18th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Rich,
Bone (courtesy of the General Accountability Office) delivered (emphasis added):
Yes, it was certainly a piece of brilliant decision-making to pull most of our resources in Afghanistan to go off on a snipe (excuse me, WMD) hunt in Iraq.
24. Rich | April 18th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
“Since 2002, the United States relied principally on the Pakistan military to address U.S. national security goals. ” in Pakistan.
What does this have to do with Iraq hurting our security? If we are outsourcing the fight against Al qaeda (in Pakistan yet you’re talking about Afghanistan) than why does it matter that we have troops in Iraq?
We have not invaded Pakistan. Are you saying that if we were not in Iraq we would have more troops to invade Pakistan? Is this what you are implying?
If these extra troops weren’t used for an invasion, what would they be doing to al-qaeda in Pakistan, as they would be based in Afghanistan.
What is your idea about these safe havens in Pakistan? Do you want to carpet bomb these areas? Special forces, precision bombs? How do you want to deal with the overthrow of the government in Pakistan? Hell I don’t know what should be done with Pakistan, I wish I did. But unless your willing to show what those extra troops from Iraq would be doing inside Pakistan’s territory, you’re just blowing smoke.
Also waiting for a response on why we haven’t been attacked if we are so hated and our security is so damaged.
25. Christian Wright | April 18th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Deleted - off topic.
26. Christian Wright | April 18th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Deleted - off topic.
27. js | April 18th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
so instead of forcing the issue to resolve the war and achieve a peace agreement, they left the situation languish for 8 years, during the entire clinton administration, to allow the tyrants in iraq to figure out that the us was nothing more than a paper tiger anymore and defying the terms of the cease fire agreement they had agreed to was proof that america didnt have the balls to finish what had to be done after saddam invade kuwait
this doesnt go to mention the attrocities that were executed on the several hundred thousand iraqi victims during the last decade of saddams power, nor the hundreds of millions of dollars that he trived upon by violating UN sanctions that should have gone to the iraqi people instead of the coffers of corruption in diplomacy with nations sucking up to tyrany for oil
28. js | April 18th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
i guess i should have included the sales of infant formula on the black market thrived while iraqs infants died of dysentary because they didnt get the nourishment they needed….so saddam could blame the deaths of 1/2 of a million children on the US and UN sanctions….so it is truely a shame that there was a war to start with…and a bigger shame that we didnt finish it, wrap up our boys in arms, and get them out of there instead of stoppinng at the iraqi border to appease the allies of tyrany and keep the armies of the infidels off traditional islamic soil……
29. jeff | April 20th, 2008 at 8:12 am
over a 1000 a year in LA.
that is 3 a day.
murdered by gangs of people who came to USA.
but have we not pulled the LAPD out then?
because the Police, FBI, Army, Navy, Marines, etc..
hunt down crimes all over the world and remove it.
so good people of earth can live in peace.
who in any god’s name, would be against that.
stop being brainwashed children.
support human rights.
support freedom.
really when do any of you talk real issues.
instead of playing “cut you down one up game”
have a beautiful day
30. Eric G. | April 22nd, 2008 at 8:25 pm
So much for Pelosi’s declaration of the “disaster” in Basra!!! Funny, not a word today in the media about Sadr’s thugs getting routed in Basra and pinched in Sadr City. Kurds, Sunnis, Shia fighting together??? Maliki leading?? Amazing. But, not newsworthy.