Al Sadr's Stonghold of Basra Stripped From Him

[Acumen]

Ground breaking news just in yesterday!  The Iraqi Security Forces and the British Forces marched into Basra yesterday, the stronghold of Al Sadr, and seized its control from the Mahdi Army.  Al Sadr's militia fled without much haste leaving behind hundreds of rockets and mortars for confiscation.  Basra is no under the control of the Iraqi government, and Al Sadr is losing valuable ground.

This news was posted on Bnet yesterday by yours truly, and this is what some posters had to say about it.

Honestly, Acumen, I haven't the foggiest notion what you're trying to sell here, or who you're trying to sell it to.

Anybody who watches even nothing more than our corporate-owned and government-approved news, or reads a newspaper once a week or so knows that the situation in Basra played out exactly the opposite of how you describe it. It was Maliki's forces that were humiliated and deserted their positions, not Sadr's (see http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/wo...hp&oref=slogin).

You're not dealing with a bunch of ignoramuses here. The BNet political posters are not a bunch of bumpkins, hayseeds, and rubes at a county fair who will line up to buy your snake oil.

This raises the question of what you're doing and why you're doing it. I seriously doubt that you're getting paid enough to run such a vigorous and extensive a disinformation campaign. It takes a lot of time and energy to generate as large a blanket of smoke as the one with which you've been covering this site.

You know, the "military analysts" we see on CNN and MSNBC are getting paid handsomely, mostly by war profiteering companies and in some cases by the Pentagon itself, as the NY Times revealed yesterday, to serve as mouthpieces for the administration's sales campaign for endless war. What's your motivation?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That was awfully courteous of him, wasn't it?  Instead of verifying my report by checking the NY Times and other news media, be attacked my by basically calling me liar.

Here is another poster's comments:

I DISPROVED this baseless assertion several days ago.

Did you think that I--or anyone else with two neurons had already FORGOTTEN what really happened in BASRA?

And how it was completely f**ked up by Maliki's "army"?

Wow, so eloquently put.  See what happens when you give liberals good news about the progress in Iraq?  How can anyone read these comments and not think they want us to lose the war?

[Thorolf]

It's not surprising at all that the first (and usually only) tactic chosen by that particular crowd is personal attack, rather than even the slightest effort to alleviate at least SOME of their ignorance...

Is it any wonder that they are letting what should have been a cakewalk Presidential election slip away?

[Faithfulee]

It is not as much a Liberal Bias, but an Islamic Bias.

For some reason that I cannot fathom, Bnet will not accept the reality of Islamic Terrorism. 

I was impressed with Condi Rice today callingAl Sadr a coward because he sits (or cowers) in Iran and calls his people in Baghdad to Jihad against the government.  He aslo calls for every Mosque to be a arsenal for for killing of other Muslims.

What a screwed up religion.  And Beliefnet defends it.  How gross.

Thanks for the topic,  I'll check it out myself.

[Acumen]

It's not surprising at all that the first (and usually only) tactic chosen by that particular crowd is personal attack, rather than even the slightest effort to alleviate at least SOME of their ignorance...

Is it any wonder that they are letting what should have been a cakewalk Presidential election slip away?

In all fairness, the guy who posted to me (in the blue font) apologized for his ad hominem attack, and later admitted he was wrong and I correctly characterized what happened in Basra.  Honestly, it knocked my socks off -- I was really impressed.

However, the lady who posted (in the red font) refused to apologize or admit her mistake, but instead chose to find other things to criticize instead of admitting the Basra incident was a good thing.  And trust me, I pressed her on the issue of an apology almost to the point of harassment, and she still wouldn't admit she was wrong.  I guess some people aren't interested in a fair exchange of ideas, but rather in demagoguery. 

[Faithfulee]

The libs on Bnet are imbued with ignorance and refuse to reconsider their positions in light of the success of thesurge and ensuing actions in Iraq.

The Government is staking a position that is very positive.  They challange al Sadre's Army and are out to kill all the military opponents in Srre City.  I wish Maliki well an if we Americans woulr support his actions, the war in Iraq would turn in favor of peace and justice.

Sadly, the libs and dims in the US are more interested in bashing Bush than promoting a US Victory in Iraq.

I am still applauding Condi Rice for calling al Sadre a coward

[WorldWarrior]

Al Sadr "lost" his stronghold?


Does this mean there are no longer two million people living in Sadr City in the heart of Baghdad and making mortar attacks on the Green Zone anymore?

[Faithfulee]

Al Sadre, from his sanctuary in Iran is still trying to foment violence in Sadre City.

I hope you agree that the Iraq Military and police are successful in taming the violence??

Are you??

[WorldWarrior]

"I hope you agree that the Iraq Military and police are successful in taming the violence??"



With full scale war being waged between US Forces and the Madhi Army in Sadr City?

That's not the interpretation most people would give--"successful in taming the violence."


Why do you choose to interpret full scale war as "successful taming of violence"?




"Are you??"

Am I what?

[SUPERMAN]

Why do you choose to interpret full scale war as "successful taming of violence"?

Do you think it's fair to call it a "full scale war?"

[Faithfulee]

"I hope you agree that the Iraq Military and police are successful in taming the violence??"



With full scale war being waged between US Forces and the Madhi Army in Sadr City?

That's not the interpretation most people would give--"successful in taming the violence."


Why do you choose to interpret full scale war as "successful taming of violence"?

"Are you??"

Am I what?

Are you in agreement that there is a lessening of violence in Sadr City?

There is a full scale war going on it is called the Jihad against Western Civilization.

Places like Sadr City are small but important parts of this Jihad and the evidence is that the Iraq government is making good strides in quelling the violence and protecting the Iraq democracy from Muslims who want to wage war bring down the government so that Islam will rule, not democray, and that Shaira law will replace civil law.  Every place we turn back the violence is another victoy for Western Civilization.

[WorldWarrior]

FFLee--


Do you feel that the two million people who live in Sadr City are "small" and insignificant?

That's a lot of people who can fight in the Madhi Army and launch mortar attacks against the US troops and personnel in the Green Zone as they have been doing--and killing US soliders there.



Superman--that wasn't my characterization--the US army as well as Iraqi police and soliders are involved in heavy fighting in Sadr city.

Just because you don't see it on your tv news doesn't mean it's not happening--nu?

[WorldWarrior]

From today's news


Al-Sadr may restart full-scale fight against US in Iraq

BAGHDAD - Muqtada al-Sadr is considering setting aside his political ambitions and restarting a full-scale fight against U.S.-led forces — a worrisome shift that may reflect Iranian influence on the young cleric and could open the way for a shadow state protected by his powerful Mahdi Army.


 
A possible breakaway path — described to The Associated Press by Shiite lawmakers and politicians — would represent the ultimate backlash to the Iraqi government's pressure on al-Sadr to renounce and disband his Shiite militia.

By snubbing the give-and-take of politics, al-Sadr would have a freer hand to carve out a kind of parallel state with its own militia and social services along the lines of Hezbollah in Lebanon, a Shiite group founded with Iran's help in the 1980s.

It also would carry potentially disastrous security implications as the Pentagon trims its troops strength and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki finally shows progress on national reconciliation.

Last week, the main Sunni political bloc announced provisional plans to rejoin the Shiite-led coalition nine months after quitting the government. The Sunnis are pleased with the squeeze on al-Sadr's movement as well as an amnesty law that could free many detainees.

"Muqtada has shown a great deal of patience not calling for an all-out war yet with so much pressure on him,"  said Mohan Abedin, director of research at London's Center for the Study of Terrorism and an expert on Shiite affairs. "The Mahdi Army is by far the most powerful Iraqi faction. It can cause damage on a massive scale if it goes to war."

Al-Sadr's next move is still uncertain, but he clearly holds important cards.

The Mahdi Army is estimated to have about 60,000 fighters — with at least 5,000 thought to be highly trained commandos  — and is emboldened by its strong resistance to an Iraqi-led crackdown launched last month in the southern city of Basra and elsewhere.

Al-Sadr's movement also holds sway over the densely populated Shiite parts of Baghdad and across the Shiite south by controlling vital needs such as fuel and running social services such as clinics.

A cease-fire declared last summer by al-Sadr has been credited with helping bring a steep drop violence.

But al-Sadr — who has been in the Iranian seminary city of Qom for the past year — is seriously considering tearing up the truce and disassociating himself from his political bloc in parliament, according to loyalists and Shiite politicians interviewed by the AP over the past two weeks."



Does this sound like a severely weakened force in Iraq politics and war to you?

[Acumen]

Superman--that wasn't my characterization--the US army as well as Iraqi police and soliders are involved in heavy fighting in Sadr city.  Just because you don't see it on your tv news doesn't mean it's not happening--nu?

The original statement you addressed was "I hope you agree that the Iraq Military and police are successful in taming the violence??."

And I think the answer to this question is yes.  In the past year, the violence has tapered down for a number of reasons.  First, the Sunnis have turned on Al Qaeda and pushed them northward to the fringes of the Iraqi border.  Second, we have employed the "sons of Iraq" to patrol their neighborhoods quelling inter-tribal violence.  Third, the tribes of the Iraqi people are starting to work better together.  Fourth, the US soldiers and Iraqi Security forces have gained the trust of the people by living and working with them in their neighborhoods, which has yielded tons of new intelligence information about insurgents -- more than they can gleefully process.  Fifth, the Iraqi Security forces are getting larger, stronger, and more technologically advanced.  If I'm not mistaken, they have gained over 100,000 more soldiers in the past year alone.  And sixth, Al Kahim and his sizable militia has teamed up with the US and the Iraqi Security forces to put the squeeze on Al Sadre, which resulted in the very significant possession of Basra, a former stronghold of Al Sadre. 

So not only is the violence decreased, but the enemy is retreating and getting weaker, but Iraq is getting better at controlling its problems.   

[Acumen]

From today's news


Al-Sadr may restart full-scale fight against US in Iraq

BAGHDAD - Muqtada al-Sadr is considering setting aside his political ambitions and restarting a full-scale fight against U.S.-led forces — a worrisome shift that may reflect Iranian influence on the young cleric and could open the way for a shadow state protected by his powerful Mahdi Army.


 
A possible breakaway path — described to The Associated Press by Shiite lawmakers and politicians — would represent the ultimate backlash to the Iraqi government's pressure on al-Sadr to renounce and disband his Shiite militia.

By snubbing the give-and-take of politics, al-Sadr would have a freer hand to carve out a kind of parallel state with its own militia and social services along the lines of Hezbollah in Lebanon, a Shiite group founded with Iran's help in the 1980s.

It also would carry potentially disastrous security implications as the Pentagon trims its troops strength and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki finally shows progress on national reconciliation.

Last week, the main Sunni political bloc announced provisional plans to rejoin the Shiite-led coalition nine months after quitting the government. The Sunnis are pleased with the squeeze on al-Sadr's movement as well as an amnesty law that could free many detainees.

"Muqtada has shown a great deal of patience not calling for an all-out war yet with so much pressure on him,"  said Mohan Abedin, director of research at London's Center for the Study of Terrorism and an expert on Shiite affairs. "The Mahdi Army is by far the most powerful Iraqi faction. It can cause damage on a massive scale if it goes to war."

Al-Sadr's next move is still uncertain, but he clearly holds important cards.

The Mahdi Army is estimated to have about 60,000 fighters — with at least 5,000 thought to be highly trained commandos  — and is emboldened by its strong resistance to an Iraqi-led crackdown launched last month in the southern city of Basra and elsewhere.

Al-Sadr's movement also holds sway over the densely populated Shiite parts of Baghdad and across the Shiite south by controlling vital needs such as fuel and running social services such as clinics.

A cease-fire declared last summer by al-Sadr has been credited with helping bring a steep drop violence.

But al-Sadr — who has been in the Iranian seminary city of Qom for the past year — is seriously considering tearing up the truce and disassociating himself from his political bloc in parliament, according to loyalists and Shiite politicians interviewed by the AP over the past two weeks."



Does this sound like a severely weakened force in Iraq politics and war to you?

Well, this is all fairly old news.  After the Iraqi Security forces and the British troops pushed Al Sadre's militia out of Basra, without much resistance I might add, Al Sadre made all sorts of threats  to engage in a full-scale war "until liberation."  In other words, Al Sadre is hurting because he lost arguably his most significant stronghold on Saturday, in which his Militia high-tailed out of Basra leaving a sizable amount of rockets and mortar behind for confiscation.  His militia is on the run, and now he has less leverage than before to make credible threats against his enemies.

Even before we overtook Basra, Al Sadre wanted a cease-fire truce because he knows he cannot sustain continual attacks, and he needs a strong, large militia before the upcoming elections, if he is to have any part in the future government.  Either way you slice it, the situation is looking worse for Iran and Al Sadre and looking better for Iraq and the US.

[WorldWarrior]

The Sadr news story is from today.

[Acumen]

I understand, but it's recycled news since Sunday.  Al Sadre has been warning of an increased level of attacks ever since he lost possession of Basra.  He realizes he lost a major tactical stronghold, enemy forces are closing in on him, and the prospect of him sharing in any significant part of the future government of Iraq is becoming more of a distance imagining.

[WorldWarrior]

"He realizes he's lost a major stronghold."



How do you characterize the two million people in the heart of Baghdad--in Sadr City?


How do you characterize the 60,000 man Madhi Army?


How do you explain the fact that the surge "worked" only because Sadr called for a cease fire?

[WorldWarrior]

 
By REUTERS
Published: April 25, 2008


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.

"You are the best who committed and were patient with the decision to cease fire, and were the most obedient to your leader. I wish you would continue your patience and your belief," said Sadr's statement, read by a cleric during Friday prayers in Sadr's eastern Baghdad stronghold of Sadr City.

"When we threatened 'open war' we meant a war against the occupier, not a war against our Iraqi brothers," it added.

In fresh violence in and around Sadr City, the U.S. military said it had killed 10 fighters in helicopter missile strikes and ground battles in eastern Baghdad overnight.

Sources at two hospitals in Baghdad's Sadr City slum said they had received the bodies of 11 people killed in air strikes, all men. Another 74 people, including 9 women and 12 children, were wounded, the hospital sources said.

Sadr first imposed a ceasefire on the Mehdi Army last August. It has been widely credited with helping cut violence in Iraq.


Although Basra has since become quieter, fighting has continued in Sadr City.

A general uprising by the militia could unravel months of security gains in Iraq while U.S. soldiers are drawing down."

[Faithfulee]

The fact is that al Sadre is losing control of his followers and that Ira is far more peaceful as a result.

This is progress in the war against Islamic Terrorism, but it must be followed by more political and economic progress in the country.

AND  we ,must not forget that the ultimate goal of the Islamic Terrorists like al sadre and OBL is to destroy democracy and install Islamic law worldwide.  That war will continue for generations.

I still like Condi Rices statement calling alSAdre a coward,  directing violence from the security of a muslim sanctuary in Iran. 

[WorldWarrior]

"The fact is that al Sadre is losing control of his followers and that Ira is far more peaceful as a result."



The "fact is"--that you have no proof for any of your statements about Sadr and how powerful he is.


Whereas my posts contain proof of how Sadr is jerking the US around.

How much damage do you think 60,000 highly trained soldiers can do in Iraq?