Ask Me Help Desk - Mookie al-Sadr likely to disban Mehdi militia

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

Neither did incoming Sec Def Robert Gates in testimony

Think Progress » Blog Archive » VIDEO: Gates Says U.S. Is Not Winning Iraq War

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

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: â€œthe law is the only authority in the countryâ€ - The Long War Journal

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.

Quote:

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," 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

Quote:

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.