The Long Terms Results of Basra
April 24th, 2008 at 09:08am Mark Noonan
Always best to avoid shallow MSM reporting about Iraq - they’ve written it off as a failure for a long time now, and so will not take anything which contradicts their defeatist narrative…but the truth about Basra has been there for the asking, and Austin Bay points out the ramifications:
…understanding Knights Charge is an integrated political-military operation. Maliki made it clear that this multidimensional operation was planned and executed by the Iraqis themselves and that the United States was not consulted. For this, his insta-critics chastised him. But Maliki knows his enemies, particularly Mahdi Army chieftain Moqtada al-Sadr.
Sadr would tout U.S. “prior approval” as proof Maliki is “a puppet.” Instead, a democratically elected prime minister who happens to be a Shia ordered his nation’s troops to strike a Shia gangster. The Iraqi government took the initiative — now it stands to reap several impressive political benefits.
Even attempting Knights Charge signals increasing Iraqi confidence in their own capacities. Confidence does not ensure competence — cockiness can get you killed — but experienced military trainers and teachers know achieving trainee or student competence requires building confidence.
Knights Charge, however, was much more than a confidence-building measure; it may be the most decisive example of a country-building measure we have seen since Saddam fell in April 2003.
Knights Charge involved 15,000 soldiers deployed in six Iraqi Army combat brigades and one police brigade, or roughly two divisions of troops. I have helped plan division-sized mobile operations. Basra and Baghdad are complex urban terrain; moreover, they are politically complex, which amplifies risks. Planning the movement of seven brigades is itself a sophisticated task; executing the plan requires a sophistication that only comes from experience.
Knights Charge put boots and wheels and tracks on roads and into combat. Units coordinated supporting fires and maneuvered in close combat. Sometimes they failed. They needed U.S. and British artillery and air support — but note they called for it. Here’s the battle’s bottom line: The various Shia gangs performed much worse. On April 20, The New York Times ran a story that said the Iraqi Army had taken the last Mahdi Army-controlled neighborhood in Basra.
This was, after all, the first major Iraqi military effort in the post-Saddam era - after much training and expenditure of effort, the Iraqi government has a military instrument ready to hand…but no matter how well you train, you’re never 100% ready for your first battle test, and that some units and individual soldiers in the Iraqi army flunked is absolutely no indictment of the overall Iraqi military, the Iraqi government or the American effort in Iraq. American troops some times ran away during the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, you know? Raw armies have a habit of such breakdowns…the key, as Bay points out, is how well the Iraqis learn the lessons - indicators are that they have; by cashiering 1,300 or so troops and police, the Iraqi government isn’t hiding the fact of defects but is, instead, putting it right out in front, and shaming those troops who failed to do their duty. In an honor-bound society like Iraq’s, the humiliation of public shaming will not be something that other Iraqi soldiers want to experience - but, also, a lot of Iraqi forces performed well, and those troops who did so will now provide a leaven of experienced, victory-flushed and proud soldiers who can serve as an example to the waverers.
Basra was a victory, and while the left will deny it until they are blue in the face, the facts are the facts - and it was Sadr’s headquarters which was taken, not Maliki’s. And while the Iraqis had our assitence, they did the hard work on their own - showing that there are, for certain, Iraqi troops who are completely loyal to the central government, and willing to give battle in defense of Iraq’s fragile, young democracy. The Iraqis have risen to the challenge and done those things we most required they do - to cut out o them now would be the most shameful betrayal imaginable…in some ways, even worse than our abandonment of South Vietnam.
The seal the deal just requires some time and pressure - and not too much more time, and not too much more pressure…but the exact amount of time and the exact amount of pressure is unknown, and the enemy must always believe that we will stay as long as it takes…and therein lies the danger in a Democratic victory…a win by the Democrats in November will be a signal to the terrorists that it is ony a matter of time before we’re gone…a win by McCain will demonstrate that their cause is hopeless, and that will hasten an end to the Iraq campaign all the faster.
Choose wisely in November, fellow Americans - a lot is at stake. Indeed, our very national honor rides on November’s result.
Entry Filed under: War on Terror
20 Comments
1. police » Blog Archi&hellip | April 24th, 2008 at 9:14 am
[...] an average patriot wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt…understanding Knights Charge is an integrated political-military operation. Maliki made it clear that this multidimensional operation was planned and executed by the Iraqis themselves and that the United States was not consulted. … [...]
2. OhioOrrin | April 24th, 2008 at 9:23 am
wonder if there’s any direct triangulation bet the mahdi & hezbollah (?) or is the IRG bet them?
3. Plantation Owner | April 24th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Last I checked, Al Sadr’s cowardly ass was still hiding in Iran!
Last I checked, there are still car jackings in this country, especially in liberal havens.
Last I checked, there is still gun violence in liberal havens that have banned guns.
Still posting while working at your slip & fall practice eh, sammie?
4. Hoover | April 24th, 2008 at 9:44 am
“Also, i did my undergrad at Georgia Tech, and my law degree from Emory. I graduated last year and im working for Baker Botts in Houston tx.”
Hahahaha…what a liar. I called a colleague who made some calls and ran a search for me sam. It seems there are no attorneys in Baker Botts’ Houston office who went to undergrad at Georgia Tech and have a law degree from Emory. There are a few who went to law school at Emory but none graduated in 2007. POS Loser……hahahahaha! Gotcha!
5. Plantation Owner | April 24th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Well, sammie, since the rocket attack you refer to happened 2 weeks ago, it is comparable to random crime that happens here in the US, in fact more so here.
Your rocket attacks are too few and far between to discount the efforts in Iraq as failures.
But keep tokin’ and dreamin’.
6. Hoover | April 24th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Don’t flatter yourself… A quick phone call was all…I’m curious and it’s part of my job. If we have a possible jihadist in country the proper authorities will have to be notified. The end…..
7. Dennis | April 24th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Deleted - repeats known lies about Iraq casualties.
8. Rich | April 24th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
“violence in afghanistan is going to hit a record high this year……”
Hey Jackass, just because we are killing more militants does not mean it has been a deadlier year. Much like the MSM writes headlines that say twenty killed in afghanistan, and then the article goes on to note twenty militants. You see it in every Afghan headline. Nothing new there.
9. Rich | April 24th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Dennis. Looks like you have a new buddy in Sam. How do you feel that a terrorist sympathizer and you have similar talking points?
10. js | April 24th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
you really have to weight the region and other influences for the results blamed on the usa in iraq…the koran and haddith both condemn infidel armies on territory that was waqf by allah to islam…the inheritance of the muslim is the entire world, and allah has chosen islam as his exterminator and his negotiator…as has been demonstrated by the sword from the very foundation of the koran and through the examples within the haddith…
the refugee’s exist not because of the Americans who destroyed the tyrant, but because of rush to fill a void through the will of the koran…most of the dead in the last 6 years have been at the hands of religios zealots, following the false religion of death….
11. Zach | April 24th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
“Its true, conservatives in this country don’t care about the human costs of this war, they don’t care that millions of Iraqi’s are refugees, or dead.”
-Sam/Iranian National/GTgraduate.
Please provide overwhelming evidence to support your blanket statement about conservatives..
I’ll wait…..
12. js | April 24th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
ya we know your type sammm…..you cut and run…you cant handle opposition so you just cry alligator tears, right? sure seems like you have your fill of makin up stories too…if you think control like chinese control, you know, your home boyz style, is what freedom and liberty are all about…then phoey on your idealogy and you can say that twice son…but the truth is that its the cowards that kill women and children with car bombs that inflict most of the damage on the innocent civilians in most of iraq….thats like your style, eh? hide so you dont have to face the truth…stab good folks in the back so you can get ahead…lie no matter what the costs…we got your number sam…you da foo at the mud hole….
13. Zach | April 24th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Mark Noonan hardly speaks for all conservatives sir.
Dont answer my question with a question…
Also:
“But, I rejoice at the day when America, and its people must pay for their sins and transgressions on other countries.”
Are you not a Legal U.S citizen? Aren’t you a part of the “people of America”?
I would also argue to you that our constistution was to some extent founded on christian priciples..But that isn’t the topic of this thread..We can save that for an open thread..
“Also, Rich, the point is that its been 5 years and you still can’t control a country. there are still militants running around causing havoc and fighting NATO and American forces and fighting the so called afghan army. ”
IMO, It would’ve been unrealistic to even believe that all militants would’ve been swept away in as little as 5 years. This country is 200 plus years old and there still many gangs that roam certain cities that creat havoc for the local populace and fight agaisnt the local law enforcement.
You may not agree with comparison, but I believe I draw a legitimate arguement.
14. Percy Beezer | April 24th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
That’s sad; threatening a country that couldn’t even defeat Iraq! Talk about bullying the weakest kid in the playground, more like the taking lunch money from a Special Ed kid.
15. Percy Beezer | April 24th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Is there no one that thinks Iran has balls? Just a sad little country of sad little men who beat women.
16. InDaVa | April 24th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
“That’s sad; threatening a country that couldn’t even defeat Iraq! Talk about bullying the weakest kid in the playground, more like the taking lunch money from a Special Ed kid.”
So true. Iran couldn’t defeat Iraq in 8 years. Their military is weak and would get crushed in any real engagement. All talk…just like sam.
17. FmrMarine | April 24th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
pb
>>>>That’s sad; threatening a country that couldn’t even defeat Iraq! Talk about bullying the weakest kid in the playground, more like the taking lunch money from a Special Ed kid.<<<
The SAD thing YOU do not realize is the weakest kid in the playground just found his fathers .45 auto and has brought it to school.
Different game now!
18. Dennis | April 24th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
A story by James Glanz and Alissa J. Rubin in the April 21 New York Times reveals that in the battle for Basra the United States and Iran are on the same side. Yet the Bush administration is doing nothing to gain leverage from this convergence…
Several analysts [have] noted that the rival Shiite militia backing Maliki—known as the Badr Organization, whose men fought alongside the Iraqi army—had ties to Iran as well.
It is now clear that the Badr Organization’s ties to Iran are not merely as close as Sadr’s; they are much closer. In fact, as the Times reports, Iran’s ambassador to Iraq, Hassan Kazemi Qumi, expressed full support for Maliki’s offensive in Basra and denounced Sadr’s fighters as “outlaws.”
It is reasonable to ask what the hell is going on here. President Bush assisted Maliki’s offensive as a campaign against Iranian-backed extremists. Now it turns out the Iranians are backing Maliki.
In this sense, Maliki is joined at the hip to the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a political party that used to be known as the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. The Badr Organization is this party’s militia…
The leaders of SCIRI, now ISCI, are tied to Iran in two ways. First, during Saddam Hussein’s reign, they spent many years exiled in Iran. Second, and more to the point, their political agenda dovetails with Iran’s. ISCI advocates the creation of a semiautonomous super-region incorporating all nine provinces of oil-rich southern Iraq…
Muqtada Sadr, on the other hand, rejects the idea of a super-region. He has grander ambitions to control all of Iraq from a central government…
What may well have prompted last month’s offensive is that Sadr’s militia, the Mahdi Army, is gaining strength in Basra. As a result, it is widely believed that Sadr’s party might win there in this fall’s provincial elections—a development that would deal a crushing blow to ISCI, weaken Maliki’s standing in Iraq’s second-largest city, and, perhaps, put an end to the dream of a southern super-region.
Hence the desire to crush Sadr’s gangs in Basra, and thus the base of his political support there, before it’s too late.
Maliki managed to pull Bush into the conflict because Sadr vociferously opposes any continued U.S. military presence in Iraq, and—until last year, when he declared a cease-fire—his militiamen have devoted a lot of effort to killing American soldiers. By contrast, ISCI’s fighters have not posed a direct threat.
Since the start of the offensive in Basra, Sadr’s Mahdi Army has resumed shooting at American soldiers in the Sadr City neighborhood of Baghdad—and, interestingly, in that fight, the Iranians are supporting Sadr.
In other words, we find ourselves lassoed into an armed intra-Shiite power struggle on two fronts—and the Iranians are positioned to benefit from one or both contests, no matter whether the side we’re backing wins or loses.
Are they really good at this game, or are we simply out of our element?
One thing is for sure: It is time to start talking with the Iranians. First, they control too many of the pieces for us not to engage them diplomatically. Second, it turns out that we do have some common interests (for instance, crushing Sadr in Basra). Might it be possible to leverage those interests to induce cooperation, or extract concessions, in other realms where we have differences? Third, Maliki clearly has no qualms about talking with the Iranians when it suits his purposes. Why should we?
Fred Kaplan, http://www.slate.com/id/2189372/
19. Kahn | April 25th, 2008 at 1:16 am
Dennis, well OK. But Sadr got his fat ass kicked. Thats why he called a cease fire - so WE would cease firing.
20. Rich | April 25th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080425/wl_nm/iraq_dc
Iraq’s Sadr tells fighters to observe truce
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr pulled back from confrontation with the government on Friday, asking his followers to continue to observe a shaky ceasefire and not to battle government troops
Sadr, whose call for calm was read out in a major mosque in Baghdad, said his recent threat of “open war” was directed only at U.S. forces, not the Iraqi government.
His comments could ease some of the tension that has been boiling in Iraq since Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki cracked down on Sadr’s Mehdi Army militia a month ago and threatened to ban his mass movement from provincial elections in October.