Author
|
Topic: Surge and Countersurge (Read 688 times) |
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
  
|
 |
Surge and Countersurge
« on: 2008-03-23 14:47:16 » |
 |
[Blunderov] It is my impression that the resistance has adapted to the invading US forces so called surge strategy. This is true in Afghanistan too and it is widely suspected that the Taliban will themselves "surge" in the coming Spring season.
The tide seems to be turning.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080323/wl_mideast_afp/iraqunrest
51 killed in Iraq bloodshed by Salam Faraj
2 hours, 12 minutes ago
BAGHDAD (AFP) - A wave of attacks across Iraq on Sunday killed 51 people, while insurgents fired a barrage of mortars at Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone, sending US embassy staff scurrying into bunkers.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080323/wl_mideast_afp/iraqunrestbaghdad
11 killed in Baghdad attacks Sun Mar 23, 7:26 AM ET
BAGHDAD (AFP) - At least 11 people were killed on Sunday in two separate attacks in Baghdad, including six when armed men opened fire on a crowd in a local market, security and medical officials told AFP.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080323/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
42 die in series of attacks across Iraq By RYAN LENZ, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 1 minute ago
BAGHDAD - A suicide car bomber penetrated tight security to strike an Iraqi military base on Sunday in the deadliest of a series of attacks that killed at least 42 people across Iraq. In Baghdad, the U.S.-protected Green Zone came under heavy fire by rockets or mortar rounds.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080323/us_nm/iraq_dc
Barrages hit Green Zone, gunmen kill seven By Paul Tait
15 minutes ago
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Baghdad's fortified "Green Zone" came under repeated rocket or mortar attack on Sunday, and police said up to eight people had been killed by rockets falling short outside the government and diplomatic compound.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080323/wl_afp/britainusiraqmilitary
US wants Britain to lead 'surge' in southern Iraq: report Sun Mar 23, 1:06 AM ET
LONDON (AFP) - The US plans to urge Britain to launch a "surge" in Basra to combat increasing violence in the southern Iraqi region, the Sunday Mirror newspaper reported.
Britain, which has around 4,100 troops in Iraq, transferred control to Iraqi forces in December last year but it could now be asked to step up its role again amid top-level concern about the situation, the paper said.
[Bl] The failing global economy would seem to preclude a counter countersurge.
Time to resign.
|
|
|
|
|
Fritz
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.83
Rate Fritz
|
|
Re:Surge and Countersurge
« Reply #1 on: 2008-03-23 21:04:15 » |
|
[blunderov]Time to resign.
[Fritz] Just watched this again ("The Fog of War") and in addition to your concerns, I add: that we as a human society seem to have no long term memory of the past; what we got right and what we messed up.
It looks to me just like in times gone by, this is going to end badly; especially for the us, the 'Hunger Proletariat' and the 'Innocent Bystanders' around the world.
.... time to eat cake.
Fritz
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317910/trivia
The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara (2003)
The "Eleven Lessons" listed in the film are as follows:
1. Empathize with your enemy.
2. Rationality will not save us.
3. There's something beyond one's self.
4. Maximize efficiency.
5. Proportionality should be a guideline in war.
6. Get the data.
7. Belief and seeing are both often wrong.
8. Be prepared to reexamine your reasoning.
9. In order to do good, you may have to engage in evil.
10. Never say never.
11. You can't change human nature.
Robert McNamara: What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? We are the strongest nation in the world today. I do not believe we should ever apply that economic, political, or military power unilaterally. If we had followed that rule in Vietnam, we wouldn't have been there! None of our allies supported us; not Japan, not Germany, not Britain or France. If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning.
Robert McNamara: I think the human race needs to think about killing. How much evil must we do in order to do good.
Robert McNamara: But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?
|
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:Surge and Countersurge
« Reply #2 on: 2008-03-25 13:11:43 » |
|
[Blunderov] The temperature in Iraq, not to mention Afghanistan and Pakistan,seems to be going up rapidly. The Boy General will doubtless select this particularly inauspicious moment for attacking Iran. Why would he stop screwing up now?
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/80514/
U.S. Wants British 'Surge' into Southern Iraq
Middle East Online. Posted March 25, 2008.
Basra is the scene of intense fighting. Tools
LONDON - The U.S. plans to urge Britain to launch a "surge" in Basra to combat increasing insurgency in the southern Iraqi region, the Sunday Mirror newspaper reported.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080325/wl_mideast_afp/iraqunrestbasra
Iraq's Sadr threatens civil revolt after deadly clashes by Karim Jamil
1 hour, 4 minutes ago
BASRA, Iraq (AFP) - Iraq's radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on Tuesday threatened a countrywide campaign of civil revolt as security forces battled his militiamen in the southern city of Basra.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080325/wl_mideast_afp/iraqunrestbaghdad
Baghdad Green Zone hit by rockets Tue Mar 25, 9:54 AM ET
BAGHDAD (AFP) - Insurgents on Tuesday slammed at least four rockets into the heavily-fortified Baghdad Green Zone, the seat of the Iraqi government and the US embassy, Iraqi and US officials said.
At least four Katyusha rockets struck the Green Zone, an Iraqi security official said.
The latest assault comes just two days after insurgents fired four waves of rockets and mortars into the area, which once served as Saddam Hussein's presidential compound, injuring six people and damaging buildings.
[Bl.] The Lenin's Tomb essay has many hyperlinks for those who crave more detail. And comments. Much crunchy goodness in abundance actually.
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2008/03/battle-of-basra.html
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
The Battle of Basra posted by lenin
The BBC and The Guardian report gun battles in the streets of Basra. There is a template for reporting on this is already fairly well developed: the 'Iraqi forces' are cracking down on intra-sectarian warfare, trying to bring peace to the streets of Iraq's southernmost region, the Basra Governate. This warfare is between three players - the Al-Fadhila party (an offshoot of Sadrism), the Mahdi Army, and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC). The latter, of course, currently occupies the Interior Ministry on behalf of the invading armies, so the implication that the 'Iraqi forces' are taking a neutral role in this struggle is palpably absurd. It is also the main party to the coalition government with the Dawa Party, which also hopes to co-dominate the southern regions. Reporters know perfectly well that this is not a neutral crackdown on some sectarian rivalry that is simply getting out of hand, and perhaps by the time you read this that pretense will have been given up.
So what is this apparently 'regional' struggle about? A few things, I think. Sadr's movement has recently broken its ceasefire and launched a series of attacks against the occupying forces, including - so it is believed - rocket attacks into the Green Zone. (General Petraeus is saying that Iran is behind these attacks, but then he would). They have been organising cross-sectarian meetings demanding the end of the occupation. The occupiers will probably be encouraging its most avid collaborators to crack down on this tendency, especially given that the Mahdi ceasefire has been one of the most important bases for the recently declared success. If the 'Iraqi forces' can't do the job, look out for a redeployment of British troops, over 4,000 of whom are currently bunkered down in Basra airport. Secondly, in the past few days Sadrists have accused the Dawa Party and its government allies of waging a war of liquidation against the Sadrist movement in the central and southern regions, in anticipation of the implementation of the federalism laws written by the US and pushed through in 2006, and the upcoming provincial elections which the Sadrists could very well win. The SIIC has recently made a bid to consolidate its control of the Basra Governate by getting a motion of no confidence passed against Mohammed al-Waili, the governor of the province and a prominent Al-Fadhila member, which explains why the latter are fighting their corner. Thirdly, the Sadrists are threatening a no-confidence vote in Maliki's government and a campaign of civil disobedience against the occupation forces. Maliki doesn't have to put up with a vote of no-confidence so long as the confidence of the occupiers, and the occupiers don't put up with anything so long as they still rule.
Finally, and most importantly, the new provincial powers will help overcome long-running obstacles to a new oil law [pdf draft], just as Chevron are getting in on the act (any access to new oil fields "would require passage of the long-stalled oil law"). Essentially, the oil benchmark they seek would allow two thirds of Iraq's oil fields to be owned by US corporations. It would place executive decision-making power in a body, the Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council, which could include foreign oil companies. Iraqis overwhelmingly oppose these plans, and the Council of Representatives has consistently obstructed them on the grounds that they are too extreme. The US has used every manner of bribery and threat to try and get the law passed [pdf]. They need it to be passed now, and for Production Sharing Agreements to be developed across the board in order for the US to have long-term leverage over the oil. Even if the US permitted the oil to be developed and sold by non-US firms, their access would be dependent on the political authority of the US, and its ability to wield effective violence. The trouble is, even the occupiers' Iraqi allies can't be trusted with strong central power, as they demonstrated by inviting Ahmadinejad. Breaking up the power structure along sectarian lines while maintaing a nominal central government with weak legitimacy, depending on US troops for its self-defence and encased in a Xanadu-like unreality next to a mammoth US embassy is the best remedy for that. Now there is a Provincial Powers Law in preparation, which will define the relationship between the central government and the provinces. It has to be supported by the Council of Representatives and backed by the Presidency Committee (led by US ally Jalal Talabani) and so far it has not been. As Missing Links points out, these powers are the subject of extensive horse trading and are seen by the US authorities as a key means of gaining acquiescence among key allies for the oil law.
Now, here's the trouble. If the anti-federalist forces win the elections, succeed in generating a national civil disobedience campaign against the occupation, and form alliances to break down the sectarian partition including its geographical expressions - those walls that have cut through Baghdad regions against the will of the local populations - then the US will be facing a crisis just at the time when a domestic election could decisively shape the future direction of the war. The regional-sectarian war is thus a struggle over how the most important property forms in the 'New Iraq' will be elaborated and under whose political control. Bear in mind that oil has historically been the number one source of revenue in Iraq, reaching 90% of total revenues at one point, and will the basis upon which necessary imports are purchased and the regeneration and development of Iraq after two especially miserable decades is carried out.
Sadr is calling for 'civil revolt'. Although his forces have been opportunistic at times, brutal at others, the Sadrist movement is perhaps the only major Shi'ite political formation capable of overcoming the sectarian drift of Iraqi politics. Sadr has been one of the few Shi'ite leaders to try and make alliances with Sunni resistance groups and one of the few to oppose the sectarian partition of Iraq. But now the US wants British troops to launch a 'surge' across the south to destroy its enemies. Since Sadr can mobilise a serious revolt, and since the Iraqi army and police are probably not well placed to crush it, even with the Badr corps auxiliaries and the Special Police Commandos working away, British troops might well end up doing as the US is asking. However, bear in mind also that these 'Awakening Councils' are threatening to fall apart - they are threatening a 'strike' if the US doesn't pay up its debts, and the whole thing has always been based on money and convenience. That being the case, the US might not really need a major conflagration might now.
Labels: basra, iraq, iraqi resistance, kurds, oil, sadr
|
|
|
|
|
Fritz
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.83
Rate Fritz
|
|
Re:Surge and Countersurge
« Reply #3 on: 2008-03-25 13:52:52 » |
|
Quote:| [Blunderov] The temperature in Iraq, not to mention Afghanistan and Pakistan,seems to be going up rapidly. The Boy General will doubtless select this particularly inauspicious moment for attacking Iran. Why would he stop screwing up now? |
[Fritz] This news item makes more sense now, having gotten rid of the dissenting Admiral the road to armagedon so cleared.
How long till WWIII is the really scary question ?
Fritz
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/11/mideast/pent.php
<http://www.iht.com/>
Top U.S. commander in Middle East is retiring early
By Thom Shanker and David Stout
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
WASHINGTON: Admiral William Fallon, the top American commander
in the Middle East, whose views on Iran and other issues have seemed to
put him at odds with the Bush administration, is retiring early, the
Pentagon said Tuesday afternoon.
The retirement of Fallon, 63, who only a year ago became the
first navy man to be named the commander of the U.S. Central Command,
was announced by his civilian boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who
said that he had accepted the admiral's request to retire "with
reluctance and regret."
President George W. Bush said Fallon had served his country with
"honor, determination and commitment" and deserved "considerable credit"
for the progress in Afghanistan and Iraq.
But despite the warm words from Bush and Gates, there was no
question that the admiral's premature departure stemmed from a public
appearance of policy differences with the administration, and with
General David Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq.
Gates acknowledged as much when he said that Fallon, in asking
permission Tuesday morning to retire, had expressed concerns that the
controversy over his views was becoming "a distraction." But the
secretary labeled as "ridiculous" any speculation that the admiral's
retirement portended a more bellicose U.S. approach toward Iran.
Fallon, who was traveling in Iraq, issued a statement through
his U.S. headquarters in Tampa, Florida, according to a report by The
Associated Press.
"Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views
and the president's policy objectives have become a distraction at a
critical time and hamper efforts in the Centcom region," Fallon said,
referring to the Central Command.
"And although I don't believe there have ever been any
differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command
area of responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it
difficult for me to effectively serve America's interests there," he
added.
Fallon had rankled senior officials of the Bush administration
with outspoken comments on such issues as dealing with Iran and setting
the pace of troop reductions from Iraq - even though his comments were
well within the range of views expressed by Gates.
Officials said the last straw, however, came in an article in
Esquire magazine by Thomas P.M. Barnett, a respected military analyst,
that profiled Fallon under the headline, "The Man Between War and
Peace." The article highlighted comments Fallon made to the Arab
television station Al Jazeera last fall in which he said that a
"constant drumbeat of conflict" from Washington that was directed at
Iran and Iraq was "not helpful and not useful."
"I expect that there will be no war," he said, "and that is what
we ought to be working for. We ought to try to do our utmost to create
different conditions."
Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, was asked at a news
briefing Monday to comment on the controversy. Morrell said Gates and
the admiral maintained a good working relationship, but that like all
military commanders Fallon served at the pleasure of the president.
Gates said Tuesday that Lieutenant General Martin Dempsey would
take Fallon's place until a permanent replacement was nominated and
confirmed by the Senate.
The Esquire article quoted Fallon as urging a "combination of
strength and willingness to engage." Readers of the article who are
among the admiral's boosters said they did not believe on reading that
piece that Fallon himself had made comments that could be viewed as
insubordinate to the president. But the cast of the lengthy piece put
the admiral at odds with the White House.
"If, in the dying light of the Bush administration, we go to war
with Iran, it'll all come down to one man," the article begins. "If we
do not go to war with Iran, it'll come down to the same man."
Both Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, have maintained an unwavering public line that disagreements
with Iran should be resolved diplomatically and that any military option
remained only the last resort.
"I think that the secretary has made clear and I think Admiral
Fallon has made clear that the first priority of this administration is
to deal with our problems with Iran in a diplomatic fashion," Morrell
said Monday. "That is our first hope. That is our first effort. However,
we have all made clear, time and time again, that nothing, no avenue is
off the table."
When Fallon was nominated in January of 2007 to be commander of
American military forces across a region where they are engaged in two
ground wars, it struck many analysts as odd. When he was confirmed for
the post, he replaced General John Abizaid as the top officer of Central
Command.
At the time, a range of senior Pentagon civilians and military
officers said Gates had recommended that Fallon move from his post as
commander of American forces in the Pacific to bring a new strategic
view - as well as maritime experience - to the Middle East.
The admiral began service through a commission from the navy's
Reserve Officer Training Program, as opposed to the more prestigious
Naval Academy. He later graduated from the Naval War College and the
National War College, and earned a master's degree in international
studies from Old Dominion University in Virginia.
Although known for being tough on his subordinates, Fallon also
developed a reputation for nuanced diplomatic negotiations with friendly
nations and some with whom the United States has more prickly ties.
Earlier in his career, when he was the U.S. military commander in the
Pacific, he annoyed conservatives by taking what they considered an
overly conciliatory stance toward China.
|
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:Surge and Countersurge
« Reply #4 on: 2008-03-25 18:48:50 » |
|
[Blunderov] Mango meets turbine. If the Sadrists are not restrained, or do not decide to back off, there is going to be big trouble. BIG trouble. Allies heading for the hills. Economy failing. Massive public discontent at home. A broken military machine.
Never mind endgame - this could be a mating attack.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0326/p01s13-woiq.html
Across Iraq, battles erupt with Mahdi Army
Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army fought US, Iraqi forces in Baghdad and Basra on Tuesday.
By Sam Dagher | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
from the March 26, 2008 edition
Page 1 of 3
Baghdad - The Mahdi Army's seven-month-long cease-fire appears to have come undone.
Rockets fired from the capital's Shiite district of Sadr City slammed into the Green Zone Tuesday, the second time in three days, and firefights erupted around Baghdad pitting government and US forces against the militia allied to the influential Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
At the same time, the oil-export city of Basra became a battleground Tuesday as Iraqi forces, backed by US air power, launched a major crackdown on the Mahdi Army elements. British and US forces were guarding the border with Iran to intercept incoming weapons or fighters, according to a senior security official in Basra.
The US blames the latest attacks on rogue Mahdi Army elements tied to Iran, but analysts say the spike in fighting with Shiite militants potentially opens a second front in the war when the American military is still doing battle with the Sunni extremists of Al Qaeda in Iraq.
"The cease-fire is over; we have been told to fight the Americans," said one Mahdi Army militiaman, who was reached by telephone in Sadr City. This same man, when interviewed in January, had stated that he was abiding by the cease-fire and that he was keeping busy running his cellular phone store.
Sadr City residents say they saw fighting Tuesday between Mahdi militiamen and US and Iraqi forces in several parts of the district. One eyewitness, in the adjacent neighborhood of Baghdad Jadida, who wished to remain anonymous, said he saw a heavy militia presence on the streets, with two fighters planting roadside bombs on a main thoroughfare.
Lt. Col. Steve Stover of the Baghdad-based 4th Infantry Division said that in the span of 12 hours Tuesday 16 rockets were fired at the Green Zone and nine rockets and 18 mortar rounds fell on US bases and combat outposts on the east side of Baghdad. A mortar round hit a US patrol in the northern Adhamiyah district, killing one US soldier. A roadside bomb set a US Humvee on fire in Sadr City but all soldiers inside survived. He said clashes broke out between American forces and militiamen when they attacked several government checkpoints in the district and that some of these posts are now manned by both US and Iraqi forces.
Almost exactly four years ago, American forces and Mr. Sadr's loyalists clashed on the streets of Baghdad's Sadr City and the holy city of Najaf shortly after the US shuttered his newspaper for allegedly inciting violence. That round of fighting lasted several months and at one point the Americans were aiming to arrest Sadr, a cleric whose religious credentials come from his father who was widely influential and loved.
The fighting burnished Sadr's standing among fellow Shiites wary of the US occupation. Over the years, the US has repeatedly accused elements within the Sadrist movement of having ties with Iran and even Lebanon's Hizbullah.
After rockets hit the Green Zone Sunday, US commander in Iraq Gen. David Petraeus said the weapons had been provided by Iran.
On Tuesday, Rear Adm. Greg Smith, spokesman for US-led multinational forces in Iraq, blamed the elite Quds units of Iran's Revolutionary Guards for supplying the 22 107-mm and 122-mm rockets that hit the heavily fortified area of Baghdad that is home to the US Embassy.
"We believe the violence is being instigated by members of special groups that are beholden to the Iranian Quds Force and not Sadr.... Although we are concerned, we know that very few Iraqis want a return to the violence they experienced before the surge," he says.
Admiral Smith says US and Iraqi forces were facing two distinct enemies in Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and the Iranian-trained and supplied special groups. But he adds, "AQI is still Iraq's No. 1 enemy."
There is growing concern, however, that Iran could respond to such US accusations. "This is pretty serious, and if the Iranians do not back down rapidly this will escalate," says Martin Navias, an analyst at Britain's Centre for Defence Studies at King's College in London. "The US has a number of problems with Iran, mainly the nuclear program and its behavior in Iraq. There are many people in the Bush administration who want to hit Iran."
While Iraqi troops fought with Shiite militants in Basra Tuesday, a contingent of Coalition troops, including British and US forces, mobilized at Basra's border with Iran to prevent militiamen from escaping or smuggling in ammunition and weapons, according to a senior security source in the city who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of his remarks.
The US military refused to comment on this, citing "security reasons" during ongoing operations, while another spokesman, Col. Bill Buckner, said the Basra operation was Iraqi-led and that the US was providing "limited assistance" mainly in "intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and ... support aircraft."
The US military has regularly accused Iran of smuggling weapons into Iraq over this border, particularly armor-piercing bombs known as explosively formed penetrators (EFP) that have been blamed for the deaths of many US soldiers in Iraq.
"This is a major operation aimed at outlaws and removing all heavy weapons and explosives from the hands of militias inside the city. It has now escalated into fighting between the Iraqi Army and the Mahdi Army because they are resisting," the security official said by phone from Basra, a few hours after the start of the offensive dubbed "The Knights' Assault."
The Basra-based official said that fighting is now centered in Mahdi Army strongholds in the neighborhoods of Tamimiyah, Hayaniyah, and Five Miles, and that there was also fighting in the neighboring provinces of Nasiriyah and Maysan.
A curfew has also been imposed in Nasiriyah and other southern cities, such as Samawa and Kut, the scene of clashes involving the Mahdi Army over the past two weeks.
One Basra resident reached by phone said he was holed up at his office at the local branch of the ministry of trade, and described the sound of explosions and gunfire as "terrifying."
Two Iraqi Army battalions and five battalions of the National Police's quick-reaction force were dispatched to Basra, where an entire Army division is already stationed.
"The lawlessness is going on under religious or political cover along with oil, weapons, and drug smuggling. These outlaws found support from inside government institutions either willingly or by coercion ... turning Basra into a place where no citizen can feel secure for his life and property," said Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in a statement read on state television, which reported that Mr. Maliki along with the ministers of defense and interior were all in Basra to oversee the operation.
The reaction from Sadr's camp was swift. At a press conference in the holy city of Najaf, three of the cleric's top lieutenants condemned the government offensive and accused Maliki, a Shiite, of carrying out a US agenda. They also threatened a nationwide campaign of protests and civil disobedience if US and Iraqi forces continued to fight the Mahdi Army.
Smith, the military spokesman, said the US would not stop this campaign if it remained peaceful.
One of the movement's leaders, Liwa Smaisim, described as "preposterous" US claims that it was only targeting splinter elements of the Mahdi Army.
Hazem al-Aaraji, another leader usually based in Baghdad, said the current fighting was a continuation of a campaign by the movement's Shiite rivals in the Iraqi government to finish it off a drive it began last fall in southern Iraq.
Sadr's influence was felt throughout Baghdad Tuesday, highlighting the risk that the fight in Basra may spread to the capital, home to a large segment of his supporters. On Tuesday, witnesses reported that gun battles broke out in the capital's Sadr City district between the militia and rivals from the Badr Organization, which is part of Maliki's ruling Shiite coalition.
The offices of one of the branches of Malikis Dawa Party was torched in Sadr City, according to the US military.
On Monday evening, pickup trucks filled with chanting Mahdi militiamen, within sight of Iraqi forces, were forcing shopkeepers in many parts of Baghdad's west side to close in protest of US and Iraq Army raids.
On Tuesday, all shops in the Mahdi Army stronghold neighborhoods Bayiaa, Iskan, Shuala, and Washash were shuttered. Leaflets saying "No, no to America" were plastered on each storefront. Anti-American banners hung right next to Iraqi government checkpoints.
Several people interviewed in the Amel neighborhood said they were forced by militiamen to return home when they tried to go to work this morning. "This is anarchy," says Ali al-Yasseri.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4288
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Surge and Countersurge
« Reply #5 on: 2008-03-26 01:37:57 » |
|
I see this as a deliberate strategic decision by the US.
Even if I had not been following a lot of other sources, the passive tense in the article is a dead give away, "appears to have come undone" indeed. The upswell of violence culminating in the attacks at the weekend were invited, not happenstance.
The US triggered this latest debacle by performing indiscriminate round-ups of Mahdi related people and repeated incursions into their strongholds at the same time as delaying payments of danegeld to the Baathist mercenaries and all the while while continuing to arm both sides. As the reaction was 100% predictable, and has occurred over the protests of the in-field forces, this can only have been intended to break the precarious balance of terrors the military had established.
Given the costs involved, there are only two possible reasons for doing this that I can see (although I would welcome other suggestions).- To resurge the violence in order to put pressure on the increasingly resistant puppet government to sign the allegedly not-a-treaty keeping the US military in Iraq forever that the Bush government needs to put in place before Congress tells the executive that it is a treaty and requires ratification.
- To claim that the surge has been destroyed by the Iranian backed Sadrists to provide justification for an attack on Iran based on the preexisting congressional mandate.
My strong feeling is that the latter is more likely, particularly given the economic warfare the US is waging against Iran. I'll post a separate article on that if I have the time.
Either way, I think that mango chutney is on the recipe.
Kindest Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:Surge and Countersurge
« Reply #6 on: 2008-03-26 02:50:35 » |
|
Quote from: Hermit on 2008-03-26 01:37:57
<snip>
I To claim that the surge has been destroyed by the Iranian backed Sadrists to provide justification for an attack on Iran based on the preexisting congressional mandate.My strong feeling is that the latter is more likely, particularly given the economic warfare the US is waging against Iran. |
</snip>
[Blunderov] Washington has been markedly intensifying the rhetoric (and sanctions) against Iran lately. I had thought that it was always going to remain just rhetoric but perhaps this is not so. Bush is, after all, clinically insane and so is Cheney. I was wondering if the Sadrist surge was in order to emphasise to the Fascist invaders that if they attack Iran they do so at the peril of losing control in Iraq altogether? That they dare not take their eye off the ball again as in Afghanistan? But I take you point about provocation. Perhaps a bit of both these things is happening at the same time?
Looks like mango chutney either way - as you remarked.
Kindest Regards.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4288
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Surge and Countersurge
« Reply #7 on: 2008-03-26 03:12:29 » |
|
Iran is playing a very cautious game indeed. I don't see them losing control of it. If there is an attack by the USA it is going to be seen, quite validly I think, as further unwarranted and illegal aggression by the US.
As for claims that Iran is arming or supplying the resistance in Iraq (not very persuasively termed insurgents by most of the Western media), one must remember that while the US is by far the largest supplier of weapons into the area today, Iran has historically supplied much of that region, including the Kurds and Sunni resistance to Saddam Hussein. Only, after the US dumped Hussein and before they made themselves into targets, they used to approve of resistance to the Iraq government. All this has of course changed, but the arms are still there.
The biggest problem with this story is that the government that America engineered for Iraq is effectively owned by Iran. The question that nobody is asking, never mind attempting to answer, is why on earth Iran would want to mess with the status quo. As far as I can see, there is no better outcome that Iran could possibly invent for themselves that the USA has not already given them on a plate. In fact, were the US to leave Iraq immediately, Iran would undoubtedly leap into the gap to prop up the existing government. In otherwords, the puppets would remain the same, only the people pulling their strings would change. And Iraq would remain a sad remnant of the once proud, secular, advanced industrialized country it was.
Kindest Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:Surge and Countersurge
« Reply #8 on: 2008-03-26 13:27:28 » |
|
[Blunderov] The right moves become harder to find ... nemesis gathers.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080326/wl_time/thethreatofaresurgeiniraq
The Threat of a Re-Surge in Iraq By DARRIN MORTENSON
26th March 2008
1 hour, 58 minutes ago
Could Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's attempts to re-establish control over Basra backfire? There is a growing possibility that it could become a wider intra-Shi'ite war, drawing in the forces loyal to radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, whose ceasefire has been key to the success of the U.S. "surge"? If so, the consequences for American military strategy in Iraq in an all-important political year will be grave.
Maliki's government targeted Basra because it could. Unlike many other southern cities where fighting has escalated in recent weeks, Maliki has built an independent power base among the security forces there. But Tuesday's sweep of Basra could turn sour in other southern cities where the central government's power is weak. Indeed, many Shi'ites are seeing this not just as an example of the Shi'ite Maliki taking on other Shi'ites (including Sadrists) but of America backing the Prime Minister up in a de facto Shi'a civil war. Iraqi government forces have attacked Shi'ite militias and gangs in at least seven major southern Iraq cities in the past two weeks. And America has been there to support Maliki's troops every time.
In response, Sadr loyalists have already taken to the streets in Baghdad, where U.S. troops will have to deal with the backlash. U.S. officials have so far shied away from blaming Sadr for the recent rise of violence (including an Easter attack on the Green Zone), mostly because Sadr's ceasefire has been key to the success of the surge. (General David Petraeus has pointed the finger at Iran instead.) But as clashes increase, they may not be able to dance around it for much longer.
The violence is escalating as Patraeus, the architect of the nine-month military "surge" involving some 30,000 extra troops in Iraq, prepares for a scheduled Apr. 8 and 9 report to congress on his progress in Iraq. They also come as he and Defense Secretary Robert Gates waffle over whether to withdraw five combat brigades by July, reducing troop levels down from about 158,000 to 140,000 - the pre-surge peak. If the fighting spreads to other southern cities and attacks by Shi'ite militias increase, intra-Shiite violence may be the wrench that jams the whole works of a meaningful reduction of troops.
While the focus this weekend on attacks on Baghdad has now turned towards Basra, violence has surged for weeks throughout the Shi'ite south, where Americans have suffered fresh losses in old haunts in the cities of Nasiriyah, Hilla and Diwaniyah. Meanwhile, the Shi'ite infighting in Basra has forced British forces to stall the planned withdrawal of some 1,500 troops. Some 4,000 British troops have been hunkered down at the Basra airport after turning the city over to Iraqi forces last year. So far they have not been drawn from their base into this week's fighting there.
If the U.S. decides to actively go after the Shi'ite forces in the south, it would mean reopening a southern front where American forces once fought some of the Iraq war's fiercest battles against Sadr but now have only a shadow presence. That would involve draining the concentration of surge troops around Baghdad and the Sunni triangle. It might even require more troop extensions or additional deployments to hold ground and maintain modest gains. Moving against the Shi'ite strongholds could then open opportunities for the Sunni fighters of al-Qaeda to strike Iraqi and U.S. targets in the Sunni triangle as the American heat turns south.
This week's violence in Baghdad and Basra followed several days of bloodshed in the Shi'ite city of Kut, some 100 miles southeast of the capital, where Sadr loyalists clashed with police forces largely controlled by their Shi'ite rivals, the Badr Corps militants of the Supreme Islamic Council of Iraq, and with government troops affiliated with Maliki's Da'awa party.
"This was expected. It was just a matter of timing," said Vali Nasr, Tufts University scholar and author of the bestselling book, The Shi'a Revival: How Conflicts within Islam Will Shape the Future. "The ceasefire and the surge allowed everyone to regroup and rearm. There is still the Shi'a-Sunni conflict. There is still the Sadr-Badr conflict. The surge and the ceasefire merely kept them apart, but there has never been a real political settlement," he said. "No, the big battle for Iraq hasn't been fought yet. The future of Iraq has not been determined." Nasr said the question now remains just how deep U.S. forces will get sucked into a Shi'ite civil war.
Sadr's ceasefire did allow U.S. forces to concentrate on hunting al-Qaeda in Baghdad, Mosul and Diyala without having an open front in the south. But it also allowed the cleric to rearm, clean his own house and retake the reins of his splintering movement. However, Sadr's devoted rank and file seem to be itching for a fight now as the Iraqi government and their American backers take sides with rival factions and continue to crack down on Sadr's Jaish al Mahdi, or JAM. "Sadr has had an interest in making sure everyone knows he's still around," Nasr said. "He's not going to go down without a fight."
The conveniently quiet arrangement between Sadr and the U.S. is now being challenged from within and from without. "There are all kinds of groups who would be interested in dragging [Sadr] into positions and into conflicts that he doesn't want to be in," said Anthony Cordesman, a top Iraq analyst for the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. Cordesman warns against jumping to conclusions that the south is rising up. He says it's more likely that the recent violence is a sign that the many Shi'ite factions that have broken from Sadr's movement are seeking to prove their mettle, and that al-Qaeda cells are seeking new ways to strike as they are forced out of more and more areas by U.S. and Iraqi forces.
Cordesman echoes Army Lt. Gen Ray Odierno, who, after leading U.S. forces in Iraq for the past 15 months, recently reported that Sadr seemed to be softening and his movement becoming more of a faith-based political movement than a militia waiting to kill Americans or take power by force. That said, Odierno expressed concern over the growing Shi'ite rivalries. "I worry about intra-Shi'a violence a bit," he said upon returning to the Pentagon earlier this month. "That could, you know, spiral out of control." View this article on Time.com
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:Surge and Countersurge
« Reply #9 on: 2008-03-27 08:19:57 » |
|
[Blunderov] This disconnect between the American MSM and the reality of Iraq is, I suppose, entirely consistent that war's origins in a deliberate fiction. The appended essay concludes cogently with a warning of the dangers of believing one's own propaganda. More than this though it seems possible to argue that believing one's own propaganda is a classic symptom of a decadent society.
"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within". ~ Will Durrant
http://www.alternet.org/audits/80580/
Five Things You Need to Know to Understand the Latest Violence in Iraq
By Joshua Holland and Raed Jarrar, AlterNet. Posted March 27, 2008.
The traditional media is incapable of reporting what's going on in Southern Iraq. Tools
Heavy fighting has spread across Shia-dominated enclaves in Iraq over the past two days. The U.S.-backed regime of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has ordered 50,000 Iraqi troops to "crack down" -- with coalition air support -- on Shiite militias in the oil-rich and strategically important city of Basra, U.S. forces have surrounded Baghdad's Sadr City and fighting has been reported in the southern cities of Kut, Diwaniya, Karbala and Hilla. Basra's main bridge and an oil pipeline connecting it to Amara were destroyed Wednesday. Six cities are under curfew, and acts of civil disobedience have shut down dozens of neighborhoods across the country. Civilian casualties have reportedly overwhelmed poorly equipped medical centers in Baghdad and Basra.
There are indications that the unilateral ceasefire declared last year by the nationalist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is collapsing. "The cease-fire is over; we have been told to fight the Americans," one militiaman loyal to al-Sadr told the Christian Science Monitor's Sam Dagher by telephone from Sadr City. Dagher added that the "same man, when interviewed in January, had stated that he was abiding by the cease-fire and that he was keeping busy running his cellular phone store."
A political track is also in play: Sadr has called on his followers to take to the streets to demand Maliki's resignation, and nationalist lawmakers in the Iraqi Parliament, led by al-Sadr's block, are trying to push a no-confidence vote challenging the prime minister's regime.
The conflict is one that the U.S. media appears incapable of describing in a coherent way. The prevailing narrative is that Basra has been ruled by mafialike militias -- which is true -- and that Iraqi government forces are now cracking down on the lawlessness in preparation for regional elections, which is not. As independent analyst Reider Visser noted:
On closer inspection, there are problems in these accounts. Perhaps most importantly, there is a discrepancy between the description of Basra as a city ruled by militias (in the plural) ... [and the] facts of the ongoing operations, which seem to target only one of these militia groups, the Mahdi Army loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr. Surely, if the aim was to make Basra a safer place, it would have been logical to do something to also stem the influence of the other militias loyal to the local competitors of the Sadrists, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq [SIIC], as well as the armed groups allied to the Fadila party (sic) (which have dominated the oil protection services for a long time). But so far, only Sadrists have complained about attacks by government forces.
The conflict doesn't conform to the analysis of the roots of Iraqi instability as briefed by U.S. officials in the heavily-fortified Green Zone. It also doesn't fit into the simplistic but popular narrative of a country wrought by sectarian violence, and its nature is obscured by the labels that the commercial media uncritically apply to the disparate centers of Iraqi resistance to the occupation.
The "crackdown" comes on the heels of the approval of a new "provincial law," which will ultimately determine whether Iraq remains a unified state with a strong central government or is divided into sectarian-based regional governates. The measure calls for provincial elections in October, and the winners of those elections will determine the future of the Iraqi state. Control of the country's oil wealth, and how its treasure will be developed, will also be significantly influenced by the outcome of the elections.
It's a relatively straightforward story: Iraq is ablaze today as a result of an attempt to impose Colombian-style democracy on the unstable country: Maliki's goal, shared by the like-minded allies among the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish communities that dominate his administration, and with at least tacit U.S. approval, is to kill off the opposition and then hold a vote.
To better understand the nature of this latest round of conflict, here are five things one needs to know about what's taking place across Iraq.
1. A visible manifestation of Iraq's central-but-under-teported political conflict (not "sectarian violence")
Iraq, which had experienced little or no sectarian-based violence prior to the U.S. invasion, has been plagued with sectarian militias fighting for the streets of Iraq's formerly heterogeneous neighborhoods, and "sectarian violence" has become Americans' primary explanation for the instability that has plagued the country.
But the sectarian-based street-fighting is a symptom of a larger political conflict, one that has been poorly analyzed in the mainstream press. The real source of conflict in Iraq -- and the reason political reconciliation has been so difficult -- is a fundamental disagreement over what the future of Iraq will look like. Loosely defined, it is a clash of Iraqi nationalists -- with Muqtada al-Sadr as their most influential voice -- who desire a unified Iraqi state and public-sector management of the country's vast oil reserves and who forcefully reject foreign influence on Iraq's political process, be it from the United States, Iran or other outside forces.
The nationalists now represent a majority in Iraq's parliament but are opposed by what might be called Iraqi separatists, who envision a "soft partition" of Iraq into at least four semiautonomous and sectarian-based regional entities, welcome the privatization of the Iraqi energy sector (and the rest of the Iraqi economy) and rely on foreign support to maintain their power.
We've written about this long-standing conflict extensively in the past, and now we're seeing it come to a head, as we believed it would at some point.
2. U.S. is propping up unpopular regime; Sadr has support because of his platform
One of the ironies of the reporting out of Iraq is the ubiquitous characterization of Muqtada al-Sadr as a "renegade," "radical" or "militant" cleric, despite the fact that he is the only leader of significance in the country who has ordered his followers to stand down. His ostensible militancy appears to arise primarily from his opposition to the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq.
He has certainly been willing to use violence in the past, but the "firebrand" label belies the fact that Sadr is arguably the most popular leader among a large section of the Iraqi population and that he has forcefully rejected sectarian conflict and sought to bring together representatives of Iraq's various ethnic and sectarian groups in an effort to create real national reconciliation -- a process that the highly sectarian Maliki regime has failed to accomplish.
It's vitally important to understand that Sadr's popularity and legitimacy is a result of his having a platform that's favored by an overwhelming majority of Iraqis.
Most Iraqis:
Favor a strong central government free of the influence of militias.
Oppose, by a 2-1 margin, the privatization of Iraq's energy sector -- a "benchmark towards progress according to the Bush administration.
Favor a U.S. withdrawal on a short timeline (PDF) (most believe the United States plans to build permanent bases -- both are issues about which the Sadrists have been vocal.
Oppose al Qaeda and the ideology of Osama Bin Laden and, to a lesser degree, Iranian influence on Iraq's internal affairs.
With the exception of their opposition to Al Qaeda, the five major separatist parties -- Sunni, Shia and Kurdish -- that make up Maliki's governing coalition are on the deeply unpopular side of these issues. A poll conducted last year found that 65 percent of Iraqis think the Iraqi government is doing a poor job, and Maliki himself has a Bush-like 66 percent disapproval rate.
As in Vietnam, the United States is backing an unpopular and decidedly undemocratic government in Iraq, and that simple fact explains much of the violent resistance that's going on in Iraq today.
3. "Iraqi forces" are, in fact, "Iranian- (and U.S.-) backed Shiite militias"
Every headline this week has featured some variation of the storyline of "Iraqi security forces" battling "Shiite militias." But the reality is that it is a battle between Shite militias -- separatists and nationalists -- with one militia garbed in Iraqi army uniforms and supported by U.S. airpower, and the other in civilian clothes.
It has always been the great irony of the occupation of Iraq that "our" man in Baghdad is also Tehran's. Maliki heads the Dawa Party, which has long enjoyed close ties to Iran, and relies on support from SIIC, a staunchly pro-Iranian party, and its powerful Badr militia. The "government crackdown" is an escalation of a long-simmering conflict in the south between the Badr Brigade, the Sadrists and members of the Fadhila Party, which favors greater autonomy for Basra but rejects SIIC's vision of a larger Shiite-dominated regional entity in Southern Iraq.
4. Colombia-style democracy
Basra has been engulfed in a simmering conflict since before the British pulled their troops back to a remote base near the airport and turned over the city to Iraqi authorities. But the timing of this crackdown is not coincidental; Iraqi separatists -- Dawa, SIIC and others -- are expected to do poorly in the regional elections, while the Sadrists are widely anticipated to make significant gains. It is widely perceived by those loyal to Sadr that this is an attempt to wipe out the movement he leads prior to the elections and minimize the influence that Iraqi nationalists are poised to gain.
The United States, for its part, continues to take sides in this conflict -- in addition to providing airpower, U.S. forces are enforcing the curfew in Sadr City -- rather than playing the role of neutral mediator. That's because the interests of the Bush administration and its allies are aligned with Maliki and his coalition. That they are not aligned with the interests of most Iraqis is never mentioned in the Western press, but is a key reason why Bush's definition of "victory" -- the emergence of a legitimate and Democratic state that supports U.S. policy in the region -- has always been an impossible pipedream.
5. Chip off the old block: Maliki's attempt to criminalize dissent
It's unclear whether Sadr has lifted the cease-fire entirely, or simply freed his fighters to defend themselves. He continues to call for peaceful resistance.
Whatever the case may be, it's not entirely accurate to say that he "chose" this conflict. The reality is that while his army was holding the cease-fire, attacks on and detentions of Sadrists have continued unabated. Sadr renewed the cease-fire last month, but he did so over the urging of his top aides, who argued that their movement was threatened with annihilation. He later authorized his followers to carry weapons "for self-defense" to head off a mutiny within his ranks.
Ahmed al-Massoudi, a Sadrist member of Parliament, last week "accused the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, his Dawa Party and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) of planning a military campaign to liquidate the Sadrists."
The lawmaker told Voices of Iraq that Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim's "SIIC and the Dawa Party have held meetings with officers of the militias merged recently into security agencies to launch a military campaign outwardly to impose order and law, but the real objective is to liquidate the Sadrist bloc." "Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is directly supervising this scheme with officers from the Dawa Party and the SIIC," he added. Despite his close ties with Tehran and deep involvement in Shiite militia activity, Hakim has been invited to the White House, where he was feted by Bush himself.
Sadr called for nationwide civil disobedience that would have allowed his followers to flex some political muscle in a nonviolent way. His orders, according to Iraqi reports were to distribute olive branches and copies of the Koran to soldiers at checkpoints.
The Maliki regime responded by saying that individuals joining the nationwide strike would be punished and that those organizing it are in violation of the Iraqi Counter-Terrorism Act issued in 2005. A spokesman for the prime minister promised to punish any government employees who failed to show up for work.
This is consistent with a long-term trend: the U.S.-backed government's obstruction of Iraqi efforts to foster political reconciliation among diverse groups of Iraq nationalists. (Read more about this here.)
Propaganda and the surge
The Maliki regime has set an ultimatum demanding that the militias -- the nationalist militias -- lay down their arms within the next two days or face "more serious consequences." Al-Sadr has also issued an ultimatum: The government must cease its attacks on his followers, or his followers will escalate. It is an extremely dangerous situation, especially given the fact that the main U.S. resupply routes stretch from Baghdad through the Shia-dominated southern provinces.
But the precariousness of the situation appears to be of little concern to the military command, which issued a statement saying that the violence was a result of the success of the U.S. troop "surge" (Bush called the "crackdown" a "bold decision'' that shows the country's security forces are capable of combating terrorists). It's yet another example of the administration putting U.S. geostrategic (and economic) interests ahead of Iraqi reconciliation and democratic governance.
The much-touted troop "surge" had little to do with the drop in violence in recent months -- it didn't even correlate with the lull chronologically and was certainly a minor causal factor at best. A number of factors led to the reduced violence, but Sadr's cease-fire had the greatest impact. Nonetheless, the Maliki regime, backed by the United States, continued a campaign of harassment and intimidation against Sadr's followers, denied them space to peacefully resist the occupation and forced his hand.
Given the degree to which the coalition has continued to stir a hornets' nest, we may be seeing a perfect illustration of the dangers of believing one's own propaganda play out as Iraq is once again set aflame.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4288
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Surge and Countersurge
« Reply #10 on: 2008-03-27 14:47:13 » |
|
An excellent article. To which should be added that the follies of referring to the opposition to occupation as insurgents; of confusing protestors with terrorists; of projecting a situation involving 150 tribes (30 significant), 3 major sects and dozens of political outlooks, commingled only by the desire to eject the brutal imperial boot from their collective neck, with a simplistic model of "us", supported by the good guys, with "them" inflamed by some external enemy, perhaps because the USA's belief in itself as "the good guys" means that it cannot accept responsibility for the hatred it has sewn; is quite sufficient to explain the cognitive dissonance reflected by the US government and its amen chorus in the fourth estate.
Kindest Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
|
Logged
