Anyone who is cheering on what is happening in Iraq probably also roots for crashes at NASCAR races and train derailments.
Admittedly, the situation is so confused and bloggers and the MSM are spinning the news to such dizzying lengths that getting a semi-clear picture of what is actually transpiring in Basra, in Kut, even in Baghdad has become a guessing game.
We know that after some initial success, the Iraqi army is bogged down in a battle for Basra that has degenerated into running gun battles with Mehdi militiamen who appear to be equally or better armed than the US supplied government troops.
There is word that American air power is being employed to help the Iraqi army:
The air strikes are the clearest sign yet that the coalition forces have been drawn into the fighting in Basra. Up until Thursday night, the American and British air forces insisted that the Iraqis had taken the lead, though they acknowledged surveillance support for the Iraqi Army.The assault on militia forces in Basra has been presented by President Bush and others as an important test for the American-trained Iraqi forces, to show that they can carry out a major ground operation against insurgents largely on their own.
But the air strikes suggest that the Iraqi military has been unable to successfully rout the militias, despite repeated assurances by American and Iraqi officials that their fighting capabilities have vastly improved.
A failure by the Iraqi forces to secure the port city of Basra would be a serious embarrassment for the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki and for the Iraqi Army, as well as for American forces who are eager to demonstrate that the Iraqi units they have trained can fight effectively.
The airstrikes were against a “Mahdi stronghold” and a mortar position, according to the Times who quoted American military sources.
Bombing in residential areas nearly always results in collateral damage to surrounding buildings. This almost certainly isn’t making residents of Basra very happy to see us.
But the tell here is the fact that we bombed a “mortar team” for the Iraqi army.
Now I hate to get into areas where my expertise is limited but don’t Americans learn how to take a fortified position in basic training? Isn’t that like “Soldiering 101?” Correct me if I’m wrong but why, after three years of training can’t Iraqi troops manage this feat on their own?
I would take that as a sign that the Iraqi army, while not throwing down their arms and fleeing in terror, are not up to the challenge of operating independently yet. And this begs the question of why Prime Minister Maliki gave the go-ahead for this operation?
Daniel Davies asks some questions that I haven’t seen anywhere else:
John is right to be suspicious of this kind of “this looks like such a stupid idea that he must have some private information that explains it all” argument, and there was always the possibility that in fact, it just looked crazy because it was crazy – either a reckless desperation gamble, a wholly unrealistic assessment of the situation or a calculated attempt to precipitate enough of a crisis to force the USA to commit more resources. With the Maliki forces seemingly having made no progess toward their objective in Basra, and with rioting and curfews in Baghdad and actual armed battles in Kut, it looks like Maliki’s gamble is going badly wrong. Napoleon’s maxim is relevant here; “if you set out to take Vienna, take Vienna!” – having picked the fight, Maliki absolutely had to win it, and failure here is likely to mean political failure too.It’s hard to see a good way out of this. John’s prediction record here is substantially better than mine, and he thinks that we settle back down to a lower-energy state of affairs, with some kind of renegotiated ceasefire, but I’m now less optimistic than that. It seems to me that Moqtada al-Sadr’s control over the movement bearing his name is weakening; the man himself is in Qom, Iran, studying Islamic scripture and trying to stay out of trouble[2]. Meanwhile, the Mehdi Army[3] has clearly been getting more and more restless over the six months of ceasefire and still seems to me to be potentially quite fissiparous. The really interesting question to which I don’t know the answer is; to what extent do the uprisings across Shia Iraq reflect different branches of the Mehdi Army supporting one another, and to what extent are they local flare-ups which were precipitated by the attack on Basra but not coordinated responses to it?
First, I think going after the Mahdi was the next logical step for the government to take if they were ever going to have a “monopoly on violence” in the country. Basra and most of the surrounding towns and villages were lawless outposts ruled by gangs, rogue militias, and party warlords who vied for control in a low intensity conflict that the Brits couldn’t handle because of their sensitivity to suffering too many casualties. It would be a huge boost to the government’s credibility with Sunnis and many Shias if they could reduce the power of the Mahdi in Basra while gaining control of the region.
Second, Maliki is no doubt looking to the provincial elections in the fall and feared al-Sadr’s influence and especially his ability to rig elections in the south to give the Mahdi a favorable outcome. Pure power politics has its uses when everyone has a gun.
Third, I have little doubt that the Americans have been urging this course of action on Maliki for a long time. Not only will emasculating the Mahdi help the security situation in Iraq, but a demonstration of armed prowess by the Iraqi army would be good for the American electorate and especially GOP Congressmen who are getting antsy about funding the war with so little in the way of proof that the Iraqi military is coming along and will be able to handle security well enough that we can start to draw down our forces significantly.
But it is hard to see how this can end up a net positive for Maliki unless he destroys the Mahdi Army. That’s becaue any negotiated end to the fighting with the Mahdi still in Basra will be spun as a victory by al-Sadr – just as he spun his defeat in Najaf as a victory over the Americans.
This is from a Mahdi militiaman who was on the Basra police force and who took off his uniform to join his comrades in this fight against the Iraqi army:
“We know the outcome of the fighting in advance because we already defeated the British in the streets of Basra and forced them to withdraw to their base,” Abu Iman told The Times.“If we go back a bit, everyone remembers the fight with the US in Najaf and the damage and defeat we inflicted on them. Do you think the Iraqi Army is better than those armies? We are right and the Government is wrong. [Nouri al] Maliki [the Iraqi Prime Minister] is driving his Government into the ground.”
According to the Times Online, several hundred of these policemen (out of 10,000) switched sides – not unexpected given the level of infiltration by the militias in the police force but worrying nonetheless.
With fighting breaking out in several other southern cities, Maliki may have bitten off more than the Iraqi army can chew. And that doesn’t include the fighting in Baghdad where the Iraqis aren’t even attempting to enter Sadr City, leaving that job to the US military:
U.S. forces in armored vehicles battled Mahdi Army fighters Thursday in Sadr City, the vast Shiite stronghold in eastern Baghdad, as an offensive to quell party-backed militias entered its third day. Iraqi army and police units appeared to be largely holding to the outskirts of the area as American troops took the lead in the fighting.Four U.S. Stryker armored vehicles were seen in Sadr City by a Washington Post correspondent, one of them engaging Mahdi Army militiamen with heavy fire. The din of American weapons, along with the Mahdi Army’s AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades, was heard through much of the day. U.S. helicopters and drones buzzed overhead.
The clashes suggested that American forces were being drawn more deeply into a broad offensive that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, launched in the southern city of Basra on Tuesday, saying death squads, criminal gangs and rogue militias were the targets. The Mahdi Army of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, a Shiite rival of Maliki, appeared to have taken the brunt of the attacks; fighting spread to many southern cities and parts of Baghdad.
We’ve used our airpower in Sadr City as well – a move that saved American lives I’m sure but I am equally certain that bombing a residential area also made a poor impression on the people who live there. And for the fourth day in a row, the Green Zone is getting hit hard:
Baghdad was on virtual lockdown Friday as a tough new curfew ordered everyone off the streets of the Iraqi capital and five other cities until 5 p.m. Sunday.That restriction didn’t stop someone from firing rockets and mortar rounds into the capital’s heavily fortified International Zone, commonly known as the Green Zone. One slammed into the office of one of Iraq’s vice presidents, Tareq al-Hashemi, killing two guards.
An American government worker also was killed in rocket and mortar attacks Thursday in the International Zone.
U.S. warplanes pounded Baghdad’s Sadr City neighborhood Friday, killing six people and wounding 10.
Who is doing the shooting? Please don’t ask the American State Department:
U.S. State Department official Richard Schmierer said the rocket attacks appeared to be coming from fighters affiliated with al-Sadr who were “trying to make a statement” about the government offensive in Basra. He blamed the violence on “marginal extremist elements” who have associated themselves with the Sadrist movement.
When one of those “statements” kills an American and another crashes into the office of the 3rd ranking political figure in Iraq while the entire 2 million residents of Sadr City are being terrorized by thousands of Mehdi Army militiamen who have ordered shops and schools closed, you have to think that the resistance goes a little beyond “marginal extremist elements.”
It seems to me that the Iraqi government is already starting to weigh the domestic unrest caused by this move against any gains that might be made in Basra. If so, expect a cease fire by the end of the weekend and a humiliating pullback by Iraqi troops leaving the field to the Mehdi Army.
2:00 pm
Rick—- interesting analysis, and I have a bit of entrail reading/analysis on potential Maliki motives at the Newshoggers if you are interested.
As far as the question about US airstrikes on Sadrist mortar teams there is one good reason for it—- depth of emplacement—- the mortar team could be several hundred meters behind the front line of contact and moving several hundred meters through a heavily defended dense urban environment when the attacking force is composed of light infantry with minimal support (which is what the Iraqi Army division in Basra is composed of) has the potential of taking several days/weeks with high casualties to the attackers, the defenders and the civilians in the area. So that would be a good reason to use an air attack.
A bad reason is if the mortar team is up near the front, the attacking force is not motivated/able/willing to attack a defended target. We don’t have enough information to know what is what.
2:26 pm
But remember: if our soldiers are dying, Bush says that is progress. If Iraqi soldiers are dying, Bush says that is progress. If AQI soldiers are dying, Bush says that is progress. Pretty clear, no?
Anybody seen osama been forgotten, lately? Guess not.
4:46 pm
Fred Said,
Cute and oh-so-snarky, but, using your own criteria, the Battle of the Bulge (December 1944 – January 1945) would have to be judged an Allied failure since we took nearly 100,000 casualties in the Ardennes.
Funniest thing, despite lots of Allied troops “dying,” the Bulge did turn out to be a major disaster….for Hitler, who shot himself a few months later. If that ain’t “progress,” I don’t know is.
Has anybody reminded you lately that you’re a historically ignorant, self-absorbed, tactically-challenged twit? If not, pray allow me to have the singular honor of doing so.
5:01 pm
In my day after 8 weeks of basic training and another 8 weeks of advanced individual training the Army felt I was ready to take on the Soviets. My guess is that, (like ARVN troops) the Iraqis don’t feel they have a cause worth dying for.
6:03 pm
Rick,
When air power is available why risk soldiers lives to take out a fortified site.
6:07 pm
At least Iraq has freedom of speech unlike Europe where the war has been lost.
6:52 pm
I’m curious to know to what extent the “Maliki running to the frontlines to personally lead the Ultimate Push Against Evil” was discussed with the US before he did it. If there were no discussions, then it seems IMO as if he decided to take this opportunity to score maximum “tough guy” political points, with the assumption that if the fighting goes bad the US will have to bail him out (the Iraqi Army getting their arses handed to them by Sadr, painting Maliki as impotent and Sadr as an anti-occupation hero, is a non-option). Frankly, this seems more likely than he discussed it with the US first . . . why on earth would we back such a dangerous stunt? Does Maliki have any tactical training? Given Sadr’s past resilience, and the strength of his troops, a push against him/them would seem to dictate total commitment by as many troops an assets as possible. He cannot be allowed to “win” this fight, and a battle that leaves him still ensconsed in his power base will be a definite win for him.
8:38 pm
US Airstrike Kills at Least 4 in Baghdad…
A U.S. helicopter fired a Hellfire missile during fighting in a Shiite militia stronghold of Baghdad…
8:54 pm
Rick, Bill Roggio has a round up of what is happening and is a much better source than the moonbat MSM. The ISF and coallition forces are taking out the Mehdi by the hundreds. He debuncks the ToL story all together.
8:55 pm
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/03/fighting_in_baghdad.php
10:30 pm
We’re 48 hours into a complex urban clearing operation and already the Defeat and Disaster crowd back home is crowing up a storm.
Could things go badly? Certainly.
But consider the limited facts we know:
An example of this nonsense is when some of the news stories here have given prominent attention to “shortages of food” in the first 24 hours of the fight. Iraq is not Darfur. Cutting off food supplies for 24 hours is unlikely to result in widespread suffering but it sure makes a good line to blame the Iraqi government. And of course the obvious answer is that supplies will be restored when the militia stops killing the suppliers. It was the militia that forced the stores to close.
Again, I’m not saying things are great, I’m saying I don’t know. And you don’t either. So why assume that things are coming apart at the seams based on sketchy, incomplete, and contradictory reports? It’s a serious mistake to believe your own propaganda. But no better to fall for somebody elses either.
12:30 am
McDonalds serves instant food, if you want an omelett you will have to break some eggs. I hope the cowardly democrats are willing to die as instantly as they are to surrender to a bunch of murdering thugs. I can’t believe I belonged to that cowardly group for 40 years. The only thing Dimmy Carter ever did right was wake me up to the danger of being cowards.
2:38 am
If we completely support the govt in Iraq, then they should by now have their own air support. Didn’t we have death squads in El Salvador in helicopters? Cannot we buttress our ally against the war on terror in a similar fashion?
Are there no Iraqis enrolled in the School of the Americas? http://www.ciponline.org/facts/soa.htm
If we want Maliki to succeed, then give him the tools. Otherwise, are there no contractors willing to step up? Surely we can have the oil revenue pay for it.
2:58 am
MarkJ
I don’t know why you invoke WWII. Perhaps Hitler pulled the plug because of the Eastern Front. After all two-thirds of their war machine was sundered in Russia.
6:14 am
I am just a dumb blonde lady but I think its way past time to bring the majority of our troops home. I am not saying bring em all home and leave Iraq in civil war but just leave some advisors and a few outposts. The Iraq police and military have had five years to stand up, and have not, and it really does not look like they will stand up.
Please, I also do not want to hear it was all about the OIL cuz we ain’t seen any and continue to pay out the whazoo for gas. Your logic on saying it was all about the OIL holds no weight.
7:41 am
After days the Madi army still controls around 75% of Basra and is launching daring and successful raids on the Iraqi forces, US and UK troops have had to come in to save the Iraqi army and desertions are growing, meanwhile the conflict has spread to half a dozen other cities, and others are calling for a negotiated peace agreement
Maliki is doomed
8:27 am
It’s not at all clear to me whether the Mehdi army is a well-coordinated insurgency vs a well-coordinated Iranian front group.
But they’re clearly not just a bunch of loose Mafia-style wel armed criminals lording it over their small domains.
I’ve heard that the Iraqi Shiites are not pro-Iranian. However, this smells a great deal like an Iranian front group to me, flexing its power. I’ve got no proof either, however.
1:02 pm
[...] with total disregard for Iraqi lives. al Sadr finally realized it this morning. Rick Moran at the Right Wing Nut House questions Maliki’s judgement. McQ at Q&O dissects the events leading up to the Basra [...]
2:21 pm
Well Rick, once again to prove your Anti-War roots, you jumped on seemingly “negative” news about the War, and just as in the past, you have been consistantly proven wrong.
Rick, you, like too many other Bloggers, Fall in Love with your Own Analysis, then you Blog your way into an corner, and the only way out, is to continually Blog away on a subject, while you are constantly sinking under the weight of your previously stated “analysis”.
This is called: Arriving at the Conclusion first, in your case, you’ve decided you’re aainst the War, and then finding the “evidence” to support your flawed, pre-judged “conclusions”.
Rick, you’re the BEST WRITER on the Internet/in the Blogosphere, bar none!
You’re a smart guy too, no doubt.
And I think your heart, and probably your head, are in the “right” place.
But your common sense and your ability to effectively and accurately judge from an unbiased position what is happening in Iraq, what it is all about, and why it is VITALLY important that we not only stay there, but for once and for all, end that conflict in a decisive manner, has slipped from your grasp.
In fact, your recent posts on the War have sounded more at hmme over at DU or Moveon.org or the Daily Kos-omac.
But since I know you are not a “Lefty”, I can only assume you’ve sniffed the rarified airs of Pat Buchannon, Ron Paul and the John Birch Society.
Stop it now Rick, you’re smarter and better than that!
4:51 am
Dale, I think its a stretch to call Rick a lefty and he is not the only one with those thoughts.
I was a big time war suppporter but like I said earlier I think its time to bring the majority of our guys home and then take it up later with Iran if they continue to meddle in Iraq.
5:53 pm
Rick:
There are many reasons you put troops into a fight and one of them is to test them. Malicki has army and security troops in the south that are untested. The Surge and it’s respective operations have concentrated in the West (Anbar province), the East (Diyala and associated provinces), in the North (toward Nineveh) and the associated regions around Baghdad. Drive out Al Qaeda was the primary emphasis.
But the troops in the South, unless thay have been rotated in and out of the Surge operations, have not been tested. During the VN War, how many US Guard or Reserve Units were called up? Very few. And those that did suffered enormous drop-outs through retirement and resignation from within the unit’s membership. The result was that in future conflicts, DOD resolved to ensure the Reserves took on their share of the burden. In more than one sense so as not to build an essentially hollow force. Malicki has to test the troops with these kinds of efforts to determine when and if they can stand up on their own. And you can run exercise after exercise and you will never determine you real capability until it is for real.
The second point I would like to make is don’t be too quick to call this a lose for Malicki. Bill Roggio has some good points in his writeup. Some points I would like to make are as follows:
1. The Mahdi Army took some major hits during the operation. You don’t lose 200 fighters a day and call that a win. As badly as the Iraqi Army may be, it definitely appears to be head and shoulders above the Sadrists.
2. Even though Malicki representatives went to Iran to broker a stand down of the Mahdi Army, the Iranians would never have agreed to support such a move unless the Sadr folks were taking a beating. You don’t agree to a truce when you are winning.
3. Sadr has called for his troops to stand down, but the Iraqi Army continues its operations. That’s a pretty strange defeat if you ask me.
4. And lastly, once again Sadr has shown he is “in the rear with the gear”. Every time he does this, more and more of his troops can’t help but ask themselves the Braveheart question, “Why am I fighting for him?”
I’m just saying . . .