Well for a week now I have been reading how the assault on the JAM in Basra was a failure . But as so often happens in war ;the first 3 reports were inaccurate . Turns out that his army got it's butts kicked and he as the losing party called for cease-fire. While his thugs slithered into the civilian population the Iraqi Army continued it's block by block clean up operation.

While this was happening the Iraqi Parliament in bipartisan action that encompassed leaders of all major factions Shia Sunni and Kurd were drafting a Bill and proclaiming they would support banning parties that maintain militias from running for office.

Al-Sadr has said that he would disbanned if the clerics instructed him to do so .
Iraq's Sadr to disband Mehdi Army if clerics order - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080407/ts_nm/iraq_dc_29)

Major clerics like al-Sistani have been clear about their position .
Al Jazeera English - News - Sistani 'Wants Militias Disarmed' (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/14DF9BEC-1D86-4081-95DA-8F453E4577CB.htm)

Going into tomorrows hearings on Capitol Hill I wonder how the Congressional Democrats will spin this news ?

Well for a week now I have been reading how the assault on the JAM in Basra was a failure . But as so often happens in war ;the first 3 reports were inaccurate . Turns out that his army got it's butts kicked and he as the losing party called for cease-fire. While his thugs slithered into the civilian population the Iraqi Army continued it's block by block clean up operation.

Al-Sadr is playing his cards well. He retains his force and makes Maliki look bad. He comes across as the hero for his people. All the killings that happen are always the other guys fault. It was a major embarrassment the other day when the police/army forces turned their weapons over to the Mahdi folks instead of fighting them. -- Ace

If they don't manage to dodge it altogether (seeing as how Mimi is already expecting Petraeus to lie), I'm sure they'll have the spin in place. In fact they just sent Bush a letter demanding change (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/democrats_to_bush_change_on_ir.html) on Iraq prior to the hearings, adopting the three monkeys pose you warned about.


“We are deeply concerned that you and the congressional Republican leadership are intent on staying the current course throughout your Administration and then handing the Iraq war off to future presidents,” reads the letter signed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other top Democrats.

“Indeed, some in your party have indicated we should be prepared to stay in Iraq for fifty or even one hundred years. That would only compound the damage done to our national security by years of flawed Iraq policies.”

As an alternative, the letter-writers outline a four-point strategy that would involve seeking political reconciliation among Iraqis, restoring the Army and Marine Corps to the highest state of readiness, redirecting resources to Afghanistan and Pakistan and promoting stability in the broader region through diplomacy.

“We believe there is still time for you to recognize that a change in strategy is necessary to repair the grave damage done to our nation’s security,” they write. “We are committed to bringing about the necessary changes of course … and hope you will work with us. Implementing elements of this plan will be the focus of our legislative efforts.”

Why is it they never wonder how much damage is done by insulting our troops; calling them liars (Evita, Schumer), incompetent (Schumer and every other Dem that said the war is lost or can't be won), stupid (Kerry, "stuck in Iraq"), poor, dumb screw ups with no other options (Rangel (http://hotair.com/archives/2006/11/26/video-rangel-says-men-join-the-army-only-if-they-cant-have-a-decent-career/)), murderers, (Murtha, supported by Obama (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/06/obama-backs-murthas-cold-blooded.html)), or Nazis (Durbin)?

Ace yes some of the Iraqi forces did not perform well but it was a huge improvement over their performace of a year ago ;or dare I say; during OIF .

Al-Sadr does not look strong . The facts are that the border is sealed from his weapon supply and he cannot reinforce. The only thing he salvages from this move is some possible political viability .But even that is shrinking as the Shia population is beginning to realize he is a stooge of the Iranians and all he will do is continue to bring them misery.

When the Brits surrendered the city his milita had the chance to prove they were capable of responsible leadership. They failed in that task and they failed as a military entity. All they can do is act like a very large gangster organization .

Maliki's move to consolidate all military power under the elected government is a necessary step to the national formation. It is the equivalent of the Israeli take down of the Irgun militia on the Altalena during their infancy . It is the equivalent of Wahingotn leading the troops against the Whiskey Rebellion or the Mass. State milita taking down the Shay's Rebellion.

Steve shining the light of truth is the only defense against their irreponsible demogogery . General Petraeus will endure their insults and will not be diverted or provoked into straying from reporting the facts.

Update

An al-sadr spokesman says that the clerics told him NOT to disarm according to CNN

The CNN Wire: Latest updates on top stories Blog Archive - Spokesman: Al-Sadr told not to disband Mehdi Army « - Blogs from CNN.com (http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/07/spokesman-al-sadr-told-not-to-disband-mehdi-army/)

Which clerics is my question ;the ones in Najaf or the ones in Qom Iran ? Or possibly he found out what Sistani would say so he decided to not consult with him at all.

Let's see, since al-Sistani has already given his blessing on disarming the militias according to the second article you posted and Mookie is in Qom, my guess is he was listening to the clerics in Iran.

Yup and Mookie is still hiding away in Iran ;receiving additional marching orders;while his support on the home front crumbles... and he cancelled his million man march scheduled for today to protest the occupation. (lack of interest ?)

Hello:

Meanwhile, our guys are getting killed... So, you don't think this is a civil war?? Nahhh. You're still looking for WMD's.

excon

Hello:

Meanwhile, our guys are getting killed... So, you don't think this is a civil war?? Nahhh. You're still looking for WMD's.

The Jerusalem Post reported this yesterday (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1207486215610&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull):


An upcoming joint US-Israel report on the September 6 IAF strike on a Syrian facility will claim that former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein transferred weapons of mass destruction to the country, Channel 2 stated Monday.

I'm anxious to learn more.

Civil war... semanitics... actually I look at the JAM as similar to Hezbollah ;on the payroll of Tehran.There is nothing nationalistic about their side at all . We are supporting the elected government of Iraq from the quasi take over from a hostile neighbor ;just like we should be supporting Lebanon from the same threat. .

He has since apologized, but did you catch Obama fan Jay Rockefeller's incredibly outrageous smear of McCain?


"McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit.

"What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground? He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues."

The guy puts his life on the line for his country, spends years as a POW and he's "insensitive to many human issues (http://sundaygazettemail.com/News/200804070734)." More evidence of the left's utter disdain for those who protect them and defend their right to be complete idiots.

I could have another couple of theads dealing with Sen. Jay Rockeffeler. He has in my opinion never served in the best interest of the country. He took a neat little field trip to Syria before OIF to tell Assad and other thugs that the decision to invade already had been made ; all before President Bush even made a public speech about Iraq ;to the U.N. or anyone else. He was also almost certainly the leaker of the classified and top secret CIA satellite program to the NY Slimes. In 2004

Steve , Laser-guided munitions were not used in Vietnam;at least not before McCain was captured (1st used in 1973)
VA-145 Swordsmen: Squadron Chronology (http://www.swordsmen.org/chrono.htm)

Besides;their use has reduced non-combatant casualties. Also McCain was shot down from 4500 ft because they wanted more precise targeting . Had he dropped his bombs from 35,000 ft he probably would not have been hit.

And indeed McCain has experienced the effects of the munitions having been on the USS Forrestal when the munitions from a burning jet detonated and blew him 20-30 feet away while he was trying to rescue the pilot of the jet. He was also on the ground in "Hanoi Hilton" during the Linebacker campaign.

I could have another couple of theads dealing with Sen. Jay Rockeffeler. He has in my opinion never served in the best interest of the country. He took a neat little field trip to Syria before OIF to tell Assad and other thugs that the decision to invade already had been made ; all before President Bush even made a public speech about Iraq ;to the U.N. or anyone else. He was also almost certainly the leaker of the classified and top secret CIA satellite program to the NY Slimes. in 2004
This sounds like just another Democrat lie; they will say anything and sacrifice everything to maintain and further their world-view of more and larger government. I just don't understand how an otherwise reasonable guy like excon has fallen into that.

Tom, no one ever accused Rockefeller or newspaper reporters of being smart did they? Speaking of slamming McCain, Howard the Deaniac is doing so again in the latest DNC email.


John McCain is so wrong on Iraq, he can't even get the basic facts about the situation on the ground correct.

Today, as he was questioning Gen. David Petraeus, he again confused the difference between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

At least five times as a candidate John McCain has stated that Iran (a Shiite nation) is supporting Al-Qaeda (a Sunni group) in Iraq. This is not some minor mistake, but a significant gaffe. He clearly does not understand the sensitive political dynamics in that region of the world.

What's worse is that he's done it at important times when you'd expect him to be at his best -- he did it today in the Senate while questioning the commander of American forces in Iraq, and he did it on a recent trip to the Middle East...

We just can't afford someone who just doesn't understand Iraq -- it's too dangerous.

He is right in that last line. Apparently Dean has never read the 9/11 Commission report.


In late 1991 or 1992, discussions in Sudan between al Qaeda and Iranian operatives led to an informal agreement to cooperate in providing support—even if only training—for actions carried out primarily against Israel and the United States. Not long afterward, senior al Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives. In the fall of 1993, another such delegation went to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon for further training in explosives as well as in intelligence and security. Bin Ladin reportedly showed particular interest in learning how to use truck bombs such as the one that had killed 241 U.S. Marines in Lebanon in 1983.The relationship between al Qaeda and Iran demonstrated that Sunni-Shia divisions did not necessarily pose an insurmountable barrier to cooperation in terrorist operations. As will be described in chapter 7, al Qaeda contacts with Iran continued in ensuing years...

Intelligence indicates the persistence of contacts between Iranian security officials and senior al Qaeda figures after Bin Ladin’s return to Afghanistan. Khallad has said that Iran made a concerted effort to strengthen relations with al Qaeda after the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, but was rebuffed because Bin Ladin did not want to alienate his supporters in Saudi Arabia.Khallad and other detainees have described the willingness of Iranian officials to facilitate the travel of al Qaeda members through Iran, on their way to and from Afghanistan. For example, Iranian border inspectors would be told not to place telltale stamps in the passports of these travelers. Such arrangements were particularly beneficial to Saudi members of al Qaeda. Our knowledge of the international travels of the al Qaeda operatives selected for the 9/11 operation remains fragmentary. But we now have evidence suggesting that 8 to 10 of the 14 Saudi “muscle” operatives traveled into or out of Iran between October 2000 and February 2001.

What makes these ignorant Democrats think they no longer cooperate, election year?

McCain Was Right, Iran Works with Al Qaeda (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/03/mccain_was_right_iran_works_wi.asp)

They continue to get away with that distortion because the media controls the narrative ;like the spin that the Basra campaign has been a failure .Why ? Because a cease fire was called ? In the Muslim doctrine a hudna(freeze) is called when you are in a position of weakness.

I don't think the Democrats need to spin any news out of Iraq since they have seven and half years of George Bush on record. I won't get into a "he said this or he said that" because I think there's already enough commentaries and blogs that amount to nothing more than campaigning. Capital Hill turned out to be scripted campaign speeches by all the candidates. It's war folks, yet the loss of lives has turned into a campaign circus. Personally I want phased redeployment out of this huge strategic blunder. I do think Petraeus has done fairly well considering the mess he took over. But it's obvious Petraeus doesn't know how long this will drag on and that in and of itself is very telling. I think most level headed Americans don't want to be having the same conversations rehashing what is working and what's not working concerning the Iraqi war, four or eight more years down the road.

But it's obvious Petraeus doesn't know how long this will drag on and that in and of itself is very telling. I think most level headed Americans don't want to be having the same conversations rehashing what is working and what's not working concerning the Iraqi war, four or eight more years down the road.

I still fail to see where announcing a withdrawal ahead of time is in our best interest or how that will motivate the Iraqi gvt to achieve artificial " benchmarks" (most of which they have made substantial progress on).The reality is that until they can manage their own security then the loss of the US pressence will create a vacume that the Iranians will be more than happy to fill. You should be encouraged that General P. is talking about consolidation and assessing gains . There cannot be an end game until that step at least is evaluated. An early withdrawal will not help achieve the goals but it is a legitimate question to ask if the goals ultimately can be achieved . I think the General and the Iraqi government has demonstrated recently that they can be.

You are right about the political atmosphere . In a saner system these hearings would be closed door . The people of the US did not know how the end game of WWII was progressing just a few months before Hitler was brought down . I would love to see how Teddy Kennedy would've spun the Battle of the Bulge.

You are also right that part of the problem has been the bluster of the Bush adm. In the early days of the war. Mission accomplished and last throes rhetoric was not helpful .I'd say the cautious and plodding steps taken since then shows that they learned a lesson .

Hello again,

I don't know. I hear you talk about spin, and I have to laugh...

I've given your dufus in chief the benefit of the doubt in the past because EVERYBODY believed what HE believed, although he had resources to know otherwise. However, yesterday Petraus told us how we almost lost in 2006.

Bush, the liar in chief was telling us that we were making progress over there.

Now, I know you're going to say that Bush was just "supporting" the troops... And, I'm going to say, here smoke some of this... It's certainly a lot better than what you're smoking.

excon

Sorry ;that is not what he said prior to adopting the surge strategy

U.S. Not Winning War in Iraq, Bush Says for 1st Time - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/19/AR2006121900880_pf.html)

Neither did incoming Sec Def Robert Gates in testimony

Think Progress » Blog Archive » VIDEO: Gates Says U.S. Is Not Winning Iraq War (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/05/gates-iraq-not-winning/)

I still fail to see where announcing a withdrawal ahead of time is in our best interest or how that will motivate the Iraqi gvt to acheive artificial " benchmarks" (most of which they have made substantial progress on).The reality is that until they can manage their own security then the loss of the US pressence will create a vacume that the Iranians will be more than happy to fill. You should be encouraged that General P. is talking about consolidation and assessing gains . There cannot be an end game until that step at least is evaluated. An early withdrawal will not help acheive the goals but it is a legitimate question to ask if the goals ultimately can be acheived . I think the General and the Iraqi government has demonstrated recently that they can be.


They can't identify a "benchmark" because that would force our government's hand to define purpose. I agree there will be a vacuum left, but why should that matter to the Bush admin that had the majority of Republican support, some Democrats, including one Democratic presidential nominee in "Hillary Clinton", when they initiated this war of tactical blunders? Besides we either are winning this war and the Iraqi's are ready to take over their own government and security, or we can keep talking about this for the next decade and put the Iraqis on our welfare tab until who knows when. I support phased redeployment.


You are right about the political atmosphere . In a saner system these hearings would be closed door . The people of the US did not know how the end game of WWII was progressing just a few months before Hitler was brought down . I would love to see how Teddy Kennedy would've spun the Battle of the Bulge.

You are also right that part of the problem has been the bluster of the Bush adm. in the early days of the war. Mission accomplished and last throes rhetoric was not helpful .I'd say the cautious and plodding steps taken since then shows that they learned a lesson .

Our government has been known to treat it's citizens like mushrooms: kept in the dark and fed manure. My concern is that some people look at the war from a distance, used for personal campaign satisfaction. Hitler was on an offensive for world domination. Saddam though, couldn't even overcome Iran, a known enemy. Although I'm sure like most power hungry dictators, he had the personality drive to rule more and more. But Saddam even had contention within his own country with so many factions that the dictator murdered his own people. After U.S. focus was shifted from Afghanistan, a Dubya maneuver, statues toppled in Baghdad and eventually later we found Saddam Hussein. Saddam was then brought to trail, tried and met his due punishment, which deservedly was death. Bin Laden, however, is still free and is probably thinking about opening a Blockbuster Video store. He seems to be doing real well in the international video production market.

Update :

Senior cleric Grand Ayatollah Sistani has told Mookie al-Sadr that the law is the only authority in the land and that he should surrender his weapons to the government .

Ayatollah Sistani on the Mahdi Army: “the law is the only authority in the country� - The Long War Journal (http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/04/ayatollah_sistani_on.php)

Thanks tom. After your update I did a Google news search and the media is silent on Sistani's position... even though he stated it last month and is consistent with the second article you originally posted from January of 2007.


In parallel with the operation, al-Maliki and ISCI sent a delegation to meet with Muqtada al-Sadr in Iran. Hadi al-Amiri, leader of ISCI's Badr Organization, and Ali al-Adib, a Dawa leader, were tasked with convincing al-Sadr to call off his militia. They arrived in Iran on the same day that Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the key Shiite cleric in Najaf, announced after a meeting with al-Sadr representatives that he would not interfere, and that "arms should be in the hands of the government only." Recognizing that this presented a no-win situation for him, al-Sadr announced late on March 30 that Mahdi Army members should "put aside their arms," (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2737) and that anyone carrying arms thereafter was not a member. This gave al-Maliki license to target those still bearing arms, subsequently forcing the "special groups" to cease their activities or risk exposure.

Mookie was blowing smoke, he already knew Sistani wanted the militias disbanded and had given the government his blessing to the operation in Basra. He had already told his members to "put aside their arms," and that anyone carrying arms thereafter was not a member." He knew it was time for that hudna you mentioned.

Amir Taheri thinks Maliki's offensive in Basra was to preempt a Tet style offensive ,sponsored by the Mahdi-hatter and using his trojan horse stooge Mookie, while General P was testifying. IRAN'S BUSTED IRAQ BID - New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/04102008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/irans_busted_iraq_bid_105852.htm?page=0)




Tehran's decision to make the gamble was based on three assumptions:

* Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki wouldn't have the courage to defend Basra at the risk of burning his bridges with the Islamic Republic in Iran.
* The international force would be in no position to intervene in the Basra battle. The British, who controlled Basra until last December, had no desire to return, especially if this meant getting involved in fighting. The Americans, meanwhile, never had enough troops to finish off al-Qaeda-in-Iraq, let alone fight Iran and its local militias on a new front.
* The Shiite clerical leadership in Najaf would oppose intervention by the new Iraqi security forces in a battle that could lead to heavy Shiite casualties.


Taheri doesn't think this will be the last Iranian gambit to control Southern Iraq.