That's why I was scratching my head - this is a Shiite-led government with Shiite servicemen, taking the fight to Shiite thugs. And the downside is?

asserting the monopoly of force any country must have for stability

The Maliki government is finally showing that they really are a government.

Shorter Confederate Yankee: decreased violence proved that the surge is working. Increased violence proves that the surge is working. Everything that happens in Iraq is great.

What we have here, of course, is simply more civil war: since the Maliki government is not considered legitimate by the Iraqis, and Sadr has way more legitimacy among Iraqis than Maliki does, we simply have one faction of thugs battling another faction of thugs.

Except that Sadr's cease-fire caused violence to fall after the surge failed (the surge killed more Iraqis; by calling a cease-fire, Sadr made up for Petraeus's failure), so the end of the cease-fire means more bad news for Iraqis, just like the surge which killed more Iraqis, wrecked their infrastructure and walled them off from each other. And CY celebrates this inter-Shia civil war (in addition to the Sunni-Shia civil war) because...

That's why I was scratching my head - this is a Shiite-led government with Shiite servicemen, taking the fight to Shiite thugs. And the downside is?

The uptick in violence, maybe? Maliki is trying to crush the al-Sadr militias in Bagdad now that the cease-fire has expired. Of course, the Surge was designed to impose a forced end to violence in order to engage a diplomatic solution. The militia cease-fire by al-Sadr also designed to facilitate brokering a peace deal.

But no peace deal emerged. The Surge quelled the violence just long enough to accomplish no political progress. i.e. The Surge failed.

Now you have Maliki storming Basra to break the back of the rogue militias because he couldn't broker a non-violent solution. And you've got Sadr, no longer restrained by his cease-fire, ready to retaliate. That civil war we tried to quash last year is going to break out again like a full blown case of really bad herpes, because it was never really resolved. We just put a lid on it for a while.

McClatchy was able to read between the lines and see the shit storm coming before it hit. In a month or two, we're going to see all out war on the streets of Bagdad and Basra - and I wouldn't be surprised if it spread from there. And you're going to be right back here claiming McClatchy news service wished the violence into being by reporting the activities of the various groups.

You can scream about "fifth columnists" and "terrorist sympathizers" all you want. In the end, this clusterfuck is on the heads of the neo-cons and war cheerleaders in the House and Senate that involked it.

Just in time for the '08 elections. You can draw conspiracy theories from there.

Replace "Sadr" with "Iran" and you're slightly on to something. But in essence, it's no longer a civil war, now is it?

http://threatswatch.org/rapidrecon/2008/03/iran-not-alsadr-leading-shia-a/

Your theory would work, Zifnab, if the cease-fire had expired. It hadn't. The Iraqi government was conducting raids on the Mahdi Army before this news report came out. It was those raids that largely caused Sadr to "expire" the cease-fire.

Keep rooting for the tyrants, man. That's always been a winning position, right?

"Prime Minister of Iraq is all but publicly daring Muqtada al-Sadr and his Iranian allies..."

Errmmm... isn't this the same Prime Minister who was so budy-buddy with the president of Iran only a few weeks ago?

...The president of Iran who was able to announce his arrival in advance, land at the airport and make his way through Baghdad on the public road. A feat which no US politico has been able to achieve. They have to sneak in and out with no advance publicity, like thieves in the night.

A strange state of affairs.

So does this mean we can finally kill "Firebrand Cleric" Muqtada Al Sadr already? Please?

Does it bother anyone else that in our endless 24 hours new cycle circus of talking heads and pundits you NEVER..or I never, see..any Iraqis talking, Iraqi-American or otherwise. Does that bother anyone else? Am I wrong in raising the issue?

Bill Roggio is reporting on Operation Knights' Assault from Iraq. His dispatch is up at The Long War Journal.

He has a different perspective from the one offered by McClatchy, or by the L.A. Times (see LWJ's comments).

Keep rooting for the tyrants, man. That's always been a winning position, right?

Horray for shooting the messenger. Only in a FOX News world does the simple act of reporting a story make you a proponent of one side or the other.

Errmmm... isn't this the same Prime Minister who was so budy-buddy with the president of Iran only a few weeks ago?

...The president of Iran who was able to announce his arrival in advance, land at the airport and make his way through Baghdad on the public road.

Shhh. Mentioning this just proves how much you support Ahmadinejad and it emboldens our enemies. If you love the dictator so much, why don't you run off to Iran and marry him?

Its good to see the vast improvements in the capability of the Iraqi military and the fact that they, under the direction of Iraqs democratic government are now capable of maintaining internal security. Iraqs future is looking a lot more secure, I think Irans window of opportunity to establish a Hizbulla puppet state has passed.

Although Bushes surge has been a tremendous success I think that the pre surge strategy of building up the ISF would have worked as well, just on a slowe time scale.

"a tremendous success " wow a "tremendous" success?

Al-Sadr has publicly admitted defeat in Iraq.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120596796160950147.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

Timely quote, Grey Fox. Only a week old and it predates the recent outbreak of violence. We can only conclude from this WSJ article that violence in Sadr City isn't really happening - or at least doesn't matter.

Thank goodness. I was really worried for a moment when I read

The usual teeming traffic in Sadr City, Baghdad's Shiite enclave, vanished Wednesday. Buses stopped running and shops closed. Only the intrepid motorist or occasional scurrying resident ventured out on streets patrolled by Moqtada al-Sadr's militiamen and marked by burning tires and roadblocks.

As always, time will tell. I am encouraged that one of our friends above actually makes an actual claim, that Basra and Baghdad will be in flames in two months time. We shall see. But the trends are in the Bush/McCain direction, the direction of increased liberty and improved conditions in Iraq. Naysayers, neigh on but we shall see you in November and if you manage to elect either of the two non-entities that threaten instant surrender in Iraq we shall see the impact of that as well.

[["a tremendous success " wow a "tremendous" success?]]

Well yeah, given the huge fall in violence and the shredding of al-Qaida. It going to bite the lib-dems who voted against it in the ass come election time.

I might also add that casualties rates in and of themselves don't indicate much. At the beginning of the Surge casualty rates went up simply because troops were in danger's way more often. As they continued active operations, casualty rates fell as al Qaeda and co. grew less capable of inflicting damage - lower casualties were a sign of progress. Now, as the Iraqis move in to deal with this problem, their casualties will go up again and the usual suspects will proclaim that this is a sign of regression. In fact, all it will mean is that there is fighting - whether it is a sign of progress or not depends on who is winning.

As an analogy, Allied casuaties skyrocketed between the beginning and the end of June 1944, but that did not indicate that the Allies were losing WWII - quite the opposite, in fact.

Although the war against AQI is not yet over, the final outcome is clear. The last battle in the fight to bring law and order to Iraq was always going to be against the anti-democracy Shiite Militias.

Notwithstanding the "never say win" bleating from the clueless and unpatriotic left it's good to see that Maliki now has enough confidence in the inevitablility of the forces of democracy defeating the forces of chaos that he has decided to give the green light for Iraq forces to initiate the final battle.

It is most welcome that this comes well in advance of the seminal elections in November 2008 when America will choose whether to contine as the leader of the free world or a nation that leaves the writing of history to others less well equipped but more determined.

All of this portends great despair, sorrow and anxiety for The Party Of Defeat. It's hardly surprising that their messengers here are in clueless denial.

They expected to win (lose ) a battle with a few thousand fanatical insurgents against 25 million people backed by the most moral and lethal armed forces in history. To their everlasting discredit they bet on a nag.

The Mahdi Army is ripe for the picking. It didn't exist 5 years ago, it won't exist 5 years from now and it will have accomplished nothing in it's existence. It's a good thing.

This is where reconciliation comes from. the Sunnis have to be looking warmly upon this offensive.

This is classic.

A few months ago, you were blasting the EM ESS EM for reporting that Basra was becoming dominated by Shia militias in the wake of the British withdrawal from the city, and now you're blasting the EM ESS EM for not realizing what a wonderful thing it is for the Iraqi government to resort to open warfare against the Shia militias which began dominating Basra in the wake of the British withdrawal from the city.

And speaking of "allies of Iran" did you notice the way Ahmadinejad was feted by the al Maliki government for 3 days on his state visit?

Too funny.

/sarc on
Zifnab, your amazing ability to clarify the subject is, as always, baffling. Perhaps you should stick to attempting to remember which spell you need to cast.
/sarc off

megapotamus is correct. Why not let this play out for a couple months and see what turns out instead of panning it in real time?

zifnab, I'll bet you were one of those who complained when news broke that coffin builders in Iraq were losing business because of the surge. Find the bright side in everything, do you?

It's a f*cking WAR, moron! Are you too busy wanting to lose it to see ANYTHING good in the way of progress? Al Qaeda's on the run (you know, the same guys who hit us 9/11 and declared Iraq their last battlefield) and now it's the militia's turn to bite the bullet. That's a BAD thing? BTW the Iraqi gov't was elected by millions of citizens who risked their lives to vote. Remember the purple ink? Don't piss on their heads. Unlike you, they showed uncommon bravery, all things considered.

Oh, yeah, before you start with the "then why don't YOU go fight in Bush's illegal War, chickenhawk" I'm a six-year veteran too, so GFY.

A few months ago, you were blasting the EM ESS EM for reporting that Basra was becoming dominated by Shia militias in the wake of the British withdrawal from the city...

Cite please, Alex. You'll notice the search box on the main page. I'm sure that typing "Basra" into it will return the post(s) of which you speak.

[[A few months ago, you were blasting the EM ESS EM for reporting that Basra was becoming dominated by Shia militias in the wake of the British withdrawal from the city,...}}

Really? I think that supporters of the new democratic Iraq were infact blasting Gordon Brown for pulling out the Brits too soon and pointing out how the defeatocrats plans to run in Iraq would be a very bad idea in terms of destabilizing Iraq.

[[And speaking of "allies of Iran" did you notice the way Ahmadinejad was feted by the al Maliki government for 3 days on his state visit?]]

Thats an "EM ESS EM" myth. He was treated cordially as is the international diplomatic norm. I was interested to see anti Ahmadinejad demonstrations by the people of Iraq.

Boy, you can always tell when the lefties are worried... they start spinning furiously on blogs everywhere.

Good job, as usual, Bob, in getting the lefties to demonstrate how much good news from Iraq upsets them.

Pablo,

You can find the links here including a link to a ConYank comment on my blog: "The fact of the matter is though they closed the last of their bases within the city limits, the British Army still maintains bases and outposts around the city and in the coutryside (including at the airport) and they regularly patrol within Basra" which, of course, is as fatuous as the contention that Maliki's actions are some kind of a rejection of Iran's influence. His Dawa party and the SCIRI which are the major factions in his government are just as, if not more, closely aligned to Iran than Sadr.

It's a f*cking WAR, moron! Are you too busy wanting to lose it to see ANYTHING good in the way of progress? Al Qaeda's on the run (you know, the same guys who hit us 9/11 and declared Iraq their last battlefield) and now it's the militia's turn to bite the bullet. That's a BAD thing? BTW the Iraqi gov't was elected by millions of citizens who risked their lives to vote. Remember the purple ink? Don't piss on their heads. Unlike you, they showed uncommon bravery, all things considered.

Listen, you can wave your pom-poms all you want, but this war has played out like an Orwellian Nightmare since it first began. We've been "winning" for 5 straight years. We have proven far superior at killing insurgents than they have at killing US Servicemen. And yet the insurgency rolls on unimpeded.

No kidding its a "WAR!!1!" Evil, dirty, hippie liberals were telling you how a war would get a great many people killed without providing any new security or peace to the homeland.

We invaded to rid the country of Saddam and Al-Qaeda cropped up. We crushed Al-Qaeda and the Sunnis revolted. We surged over the Sunnis and now the Shiite militias are feuding. How many more times are we going to "win" - how many more missions do we accomplish - before we get to bring our troops home?

Go back to the old '90s diatribes against the Kosovo War. Listen to Dick Army and Dick Cheney and Tom DeLay and Newt Gingrich and Texas Governor George W. Bush lambast Clinton for entering into a war with no exit strategy. Hear them bemoan the handful of US servicemen lost in Bosnia and Croatia. Read how they repeatedly tried to cut funding because the Clinton "military adventure" was costing us too much blood and treasure.

Now come back to Iraq and explain how its been such a success.

Al Qaeda's on the run (you know, the same guys who hit us 9/11 and declared Iraq their last battlefield) and now it's the militia's turn to bite the bullet.

Right, the same al Qaeda which had no significant presence in Iraq prior to 2003, unless you believe a pile of crap straight from Dick Cheney's chamberpot.

And al Qaeda never declared Iraq their "last battlefield," speaking of product from Cheney's chamberpot. Bush claims it calls it the "central front" but even he has never been so crazed to claim it is a "last battlefield."

AQ's leadership remains safely in Pakistan along the Afghanistan border, and it has conducted its operations in Iraq with jihadists it has easily recruited by claiming our operations in Iraq constitute a part of a larger offensive against all of Isalm.

Thats an "EM ESS EM" myth. He was treated cordially as is the international diplomatic norm.

That's weird, because I don't remember Bush hanging around Baghdad for three days of festivities, or walking around holding hands with Maliki.

You don't read much, do you, Alex? Please be so kind as to point out where CY said that the MSM was wrongfully reporting shia militia influence in Basra. What you linked? That ain't it.

And yet the insurgency rolls on unimpeded.

Then why aren't they advancing? Why can't they maintain the areas under their control? Why does even Sadr admit failure?

There's nothing Orwellian about it. It's fairly standard counterinsurgency, the bedrock principle of which is that if they can't maintain popular support, they can't continue.

You don't read much, do you, Alex? Please be so kind as to point out where CY said that the MSM was wrongfully reporting shia militia influence in Basra.

My bad -- I assumed you were clever enough to click on the hyperlink at the top of the linked post which would magick-ally transport your cathode-ray tube device to another page which discussed CY's denial that Shia Militias were taking over Basra after the British withdrawal (In fact, he claimed the British didn't leave).

The report he claimed was EMESSEM distortion:

In the southern city of Basra, there are already signs of religious extremism being used to rein in women. Police say gangs enforcing their idea of Islamic law have killed 15 women in the last month. “There are gangs roaming through the streets . . . pursuing women and carrying out threats and killing because of what the women wear or because they are using makeup,” the Basra police commander, Maj. Gen. Abdul Jaleel Khalaf, said this month.

I should have done a better job explaining how blogs and the internets work.

I should have done a better job explaining how blogs and the internets work.

No, Alex, you should have done a better job of reading, and a better job of laying down the snark.

My bad -- I assumed you were clever enough to click on the hyperlink at the top of the linked post which would magick-ally transport your cathode-ray tube device to another page

I dunno about you, but I'm looking at an LCD screen.

which discussed CY's denial that Shia Militias were taking over Basra after the British withdrawal

No, he said, via Mike Yon who was there, that Basra was not in chaos. At no point did he say that there were no militias. Probably because they were everywhere.

(In fact, he claimed the British didn't leave).

Is that what he said, or have you screwed that up too? Let's have a look:

"The fact of the matter is though they closed the last of their bases within the city limits, the British Army still maintains bases and outposts around the city and in the coutryside (including at the airport) and they regularly patrol within Basra"

Is that statement true or false?

[[That's weird, because I don't remember Bush hanging around Baghdad for three days of festivities, or walking around holding hands with Maliki.]]

Err, he did. Better luck next time!

Also there were not large demonstrations against Bush which there were for Ahmadinajad.

[[Right, the same al Qaeda which had no significant presence in Iraq prior to 2003, unless you believe a pile of crap straight from Dick Cheney's chamberpot.]]

The recent analysis of captured intel found in Iraq indicateds numerous significant ties between Saddams dictatorship and al-Qaida (weird right because all the libs clain Saddam was secular and would thus have Noooo ties to bin laden). AQ have poured into Iraq post liberation because they decided to make Iraq the central front in the war on terror (cant have a democracy in the heart of the Caliphate you know). Fortunatly they are on the verge of a historic defeat.

"And speaking of "allies of Iran" did you notice the way Ahmadinejad was feted by the al Maliki government for 3 days on his state visit?"

Too funny.

What's funny is that all of a sudden,talking to
Ahmadinejad is a bad idea to the liberals.

Better tell Obama and the liberals that support
him because they are telling anybody who will listen that they have a smarter way to handle international relations by doing the exact thing
that Alex and his sheep are condemning Maliki for
doing.

I mean come on dumba$$, a major liberal college in NY City just laid out the red carpet for the man who has declared he supports the destruction
of Israel,helping arm Al-qaeda and militias through their Quds forces,and trying to go nuclear
to back up their terrorist goals.

It's like watching you libs denounce McCain for his "100 years" remark and Obama's own military advisor has said the same thing,except he didn't want democracy in Iraq,he wanted a puppet government to the US.

Mcpeak:

Is Iraq the last country we confront in the Middle East?

"Who wants to volunteer to get cross-ways with us? We’ll be there a century, hopefully. If it works right."

"I’ll tell you one thing we should not hope for (is) a democratic Iraq. When I hear the president talking about democracy, the last thing we should want is an election in Iraq. We’re not very popular. So I don’t think we’ll see any open elections in Iraq for a long time."

"Hopefully over time they can be brought along like Japan and Germany — Japan and Germany were relatively easy, I think, and South Korea."

http://www.poor-attitude.org/mt/archives/000074.html

liberals are so caught up in their defeatism,they
don't even know where they stand anymore.

Also there were not large demonstrations against Bush which there were for Ahmadinajad.

That's because Bush flew in unannounced for security reasons and left the same day before the Iraqi public realized he was there.

Are you really this dense???

Right, the same al Qaeda which had no significant presence in Iraq prior to 2003, unless you believe a pile of crap straight from Dick Cheney's chamberpot.

Hey, Alex... did this State Department news release come from Cheney's chamberpot?

Read the third paragraph up from the bottom.

And be sure you notice the date.

Would you like your crow baked, or fried?

"But no peace deal emerged. The Surge quelled the violence just long enough to accomplish no political progress. i.e. The Surge failed"

Silly:

The Surge accomplised, at a mimimum, a couple of things: gave more time for the Iraqi police and military to increase its training and manpower and, gave the Iraqi government more time in power.

I just deleted a bunch of comments.

Folks, argue the issues. Argue the facts. I'm tired of the personal insults.

Then why aren't they advancing? Why can't they maintain the areas under their control? Why does even Sadr admit failure?

Civil War much? As has been previously stated, the US military has never lost an open conflict with Iraqi insurgents. We saw the same game of cat and mouse in Vietnam and we were there for over a decade. America doesn't "lose" wars, but they do score a great many Pyhrric victories.

Sadr acknowledges that he's never going to drive the US from Iraq unless it wants to leave. But such an acknowledgment is rather meaningless as everyone already knows this. But, at a certain point that $12B/month tab is going to come due. I really don't want to see the US go bankrupt just to prove that we've got the biggest balls in the Middle East.

Hey, Alex... did this State Department news release come from Cheney's chamberpot?

Read the third paragraph up from the bottom.

And be sure you notice the date.

Um... the date is 1998. That's six years before this report, and eight years before this report. So you're basically running on ten year old guesswork from pre-invasion sources.

Then, of course, there is the March '08 Saddam and Terrorism: Emergin Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents report which continues to beat the "Saddam and Bin Laden, sitting in a tree" myth to death.

Did Saddam have contact with Al-Qaeda? Yes. Did he have a passionate dislike for the United States? Yes. Is there any evidence that he was using his money, technology, or connections to launch terrorist attacks against US citizens? No. Absolutely none.

The 9/11-Saddam link has been proven false at every turn over the last seven years, but you guys keep on trotting it out. I don't know how anyone is going to be voting Republican - much less embracing conservatism - in the near future if the foundation of right-wing foreign policy is based entirely on errors and lies.

Of all people, William Arkin of the Washington Post on the public radio show of Warren Olney, "To the Point, " broadcast on Weds. supports this Maliki led operation vs. Sadr because it will as he sees it extend the legitimate authority of the Iraqi government.

Oh, my, Zifnab is using Wikipedia as a primary source!

The point is not, by the way, what we know now, the point is what we knew at the time we decided to invade.

And the Clinton Administration said that Saddam and bin Laden were cooperating, and the Bush Administration had no reason to doubt that.

A duly elected democratic government subject to a constitution attempting to stamp out lawless thugs and impose order should get our support and not disdain. Hitler had his SA, Sadr his Mahdi Army. There is no need in a democratic system for private armies. Would Zifnab and his ilk support the Nazis because the Weimar government was "illegitimate"? Even a pacific country like Canada has had to stomp out rebellions with force. Give these guys a break.

It appears that BDS has destroyed what little reasoning skills may still exist on the Left.

Oh, my, Zifnab is using Wikipedia as a primary source!

The point is not, by the way, what we know now, the point is what we knew at the time we decided to invade.

And the Clinton Administration said that Saddam and bin Laden were cooperating, and the Bush Administration had no reason to doubt that.

If you want to get really, really, really technical, I used Google as a primary source. From there I got the wikipedia article that - in turn - has links to a great many other sources you need only follow the links to read. Links are your friend.

And, lest it bare repeating, two Presidential wrongs don't make a right. If Clinton couldn't find any proof of WMDs - but insisted they were there - and Bush couldn't find any proof of WMDs - but insisted they were there - then they're both liars and deserve a due tarring and feathering for their transgressions.

UN weapons inspectors scoured Iraq for years without success. Our disbelief in the evidence at hand cost us billions of dollars and thousands of lives. Simply waving off an error of this magnitude as "bipartisan" doesn't change the fact that the US screwed up royally. And of course its worth noting that Clinton wasn't stupid enough to mount a full scale land invasion, no matter what cherry-picked neo-con fantasies he did believe.

Civil War much?

I seem to remember that being Sunni vs. Shia, and that problem being intractable because Maliki would NEVER take up arms against Shiite thugs, only against Sunnis.

And now that he's doing just that, it's not a good idea anymore, it's a new civil war. Did you come up with that one yourself, Zifnab, or is there some better known genius out there spewing this twaddle?

Zifnab, might I suggest you buy stock in an eraser company? Your history revisionism is mind-boggling.

Let me remind you of what you seem to actively want to forget. In 2001, on a bright September Tuesday morning, people who belonged to Al Qaeda flew planes into three buildings.

Since that wasn't known in 1998, President Clinton didn't have as much reason to go after Al Qaeda, and its allies, as did President Bush. We went after the Taliban--a known Al Qaeda ally--in Afghanistan and then we went after another suspected ally in Saddam Hussein.

Like I said, it's about the data we had then,, not the data we have now.