Redstate

In the battle for Basra ?? At least according to them. You would think they would have some small mention of the remarkable come from behind victory of U.S. forces.

I can't say enough how much better my life has become since I gave up the Times and the rest of the partisan media.

foolish to back off during this "cease-fire" from Al Sadr.....crush him and his Madhi army now and they will not have to deal with him in the future.....by the way this is indicitive to me of a population in Basra that is no longer in the mood for violence and in such will no longer allow "terrorists" to run their neighborhoods....Good job to the Iraq, American and British military in shutting it down quickly.

I am sure the media wing of the Democrat party wishes it would have lasted through the elections but they are finding out that Iraq is not the winning issue it used to be for them.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

is my hope that he and the Iraqi gov. REJECT the latest 9 point proposal by Sadr....

Mookie has posed this plan because he is losing....and he sees the writing on the wall. Stay firm Maliki, and destroy Sadr and his terrorist army once and for all.

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

But the Times job is to educate we wretched masses....Surely they would not mislead us. They have only our interests at heart.

I've been reading how badly it's going in Basra, then suddenly the news that Sadr has called for his militia to stand down? How could the MSM possibly have got this wrong?? Thanking God for Redstate, LGF, Hotair, Lucianne, etc. Can't believe I ever went to MSM for ANY news about ANYTHING. Frightening!

the U.S. siding with Maliki and Dawa over Sadr (possibly deceased)and his insurgents. Be that as it might be, it is much better framed as the United States taking the side of the elected Iraqi government as it tries to establish control of its own country.

If Mookie's boys want to be a legitimate part of this, they should run for election.

about this is the notion that the US is simply a helpless pawn in this. In social science (nyuk, nyuk) terms, were are being held as being without agency. We are simply passive participants.

This is nonsense. First and foremost, this is a helluva triumph for PM Maliki. He went against a sizeable portion of the Iraqi parliament on this and risked his neck, or at least a life in exile, if he failed.

The Iraqi armed forces have demonstrated they are more than adequately trained and equipped to handle this type of internal threat.

The central government comes out of this with its hand strengthened against all factions.

As to Sadr, by now his political allies should have come to the conclusion that he is a liability. His military followers can't be overly impressed at his strategic vision. If he is still alive he is well on his way to becoming a null set in Iraqi politics.

"A man does what he can and endures what he must."

Take out the Mahdi criminals (I will not even accord them the title "terrorist" - ['one man's freedom fighter'... and all that crap]). Stop talking to them; stop negotiating with them; stop offering arms deals; just take them out. Arrest them for being the murderers, hijackers, kidnappers, and thieves that they are. Sadr wants to set up a private militia? WRONG - his is a criminal gang; crush it. He sues for peace? No way: Sadr and these thugs had the opportunity for peace three years ago, two years ago, and last summer. They spat on it every time. Take them out: end the problem.

The battles in Basra and across Southeast Iraq are "aggressive negotiations."

Sadr is a master at this kind of brinksmanship. He moves freely in and out of armed conflict, using it as a tool to strengthen his position when circumstances are right, and ceasing hostilities when he thinks that is in his best interest. Warfare is just a bargaining chip to him.

In the Arab world, negotiating power follows actual power, and power is not actual until you have demonstrated the will and ability to use it. There is a lot of sabre rattling in that culture, but also an ability to discriminate between sabre rattling and actual intent. Usually once you show you mean business, you'll be treated as such.

That has happened here. By thumping Sadr between the eyes, Maliki changed the balance of negotations. Sadr, ever the bargainer, will immediately adjust his position to make the best of it.

But don't get carried away. Nobody is going to "crush Sadr once and for all." Anyone who says that has never been into Sadr City. Neither the US nor the Iraqi government can forcibly separate poor urban Shia from their militia. In many neighborhoods nearly every able-bodied male is a member of the militia in some fashion. Nor are we going to separate the Shia from their clerics. That is a fool's errand. We are alien rodent-eating lizards to them (remember V?).

No, the best outcome of this conflict is exactly what has happened. Maliki has demonstrated his willingness to use power against all threats to state authority, and the Shia militia will adjust their approach accordingly. This is how power-sharing accords are worked out in the Arab world. Let them do their thing.

"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus

Our guys need to know we are pulling for them and we see the difference they are making, MSM be d*mned.

What we see unfolding in Basra and now spreading throughout Iraq is simply part of a continuing cycle in the country. US forces provide some ephemeral stability only to see a "stable" are fall into chaos again and again.

It is not anti-American, nor anti-troops, to acknowledge the obvious -- that long-held tribal and ethnic animosities, simmering resentment from years of oppression by Saddam, and anger at a perceived US occupation has created a cauldron that will boil over and spill into the streets for years to come. We simply can not stabilize Iraq. And no amount of cheer leading by our side changes that fact.

The longer we stay the longer the chaos will continue. I predicted at the outset of the war that this engagement was not going to be quick. Nor was it ever going to be successful. An outside force can't heal wounds that have been open for generations.

"The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men."

-- Leonardo Da Vinci

Notice how the focus has switched away from US troops- yet conveniently omitting the fact that the situation has changed to Iraqi troops fighting their own battles.

Wasn't this the defeatist mantra a year ago with the surge that the Iraqi's need to fight thier own battles?

The left, progressives, MSM, and the Democrats are dead set on rooting for failure because it is what they have based their political solvency upon, regardless of the situation or outcome in Iraq- they will root for failure.

Take a look at leftist sites, they are actually cheering for Sadr (a front page Kos story explains how Sadr has taken the moral high ground!).
_________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

I've been trying to follow as much as I could of the recent Iragi Govt offensive in southern Irag. Most of my information has come from blogs and radio (I really don't have the time to sit in front of a TV).

This is the first diary in Red State about the offensive that I have had the opportunity to respond to.

My assessment is that this situation in Irag is so opaque that none of us on these US shores really knows what is going on over there.

The one thing that I have read is that this military strike against Sadr is not so much to do with "fighting terrorists" as it has to do with the October regional elections. Knock Sadr out now so that the ISCI and their Badr Corp will control the south of Irag come October.

If we really want to find out who is the loser in this offensive (Sadr vs. Maliki) then we need to wait until the results of the October elections.

Sadr has not surrendered. He has never surrendered.

What he has done is called for a truce. Again. Just like last time.

In Islamic tradition going back to the time of the Prophet Mohammed, a hudna is a temporary tactical cease-fire, or tactical truce, that Muslims are allowed to make with their enemies when the odds are against them for the moment. It is never to last more than ten years, and can end sooner if the odds for the Muslim side have improved.

Muslims are actually proud of the fact that Mohammed made such a truce with one enemy in 626 A.D.. And then, as soon as he had built up his forces two years later, he broke his treaty with them, attacked them and defeated them. Yes, breaking treaties to advance the cause of Islam is actually an honored tradition in Islam.

Sadr is following classic Islamic tradition in this. Since an Islamic hudna can last up to ten years, Sadr is free to bide his time and wait us out.

It's too bad that absolutely no one in the United States Government seems to know anything about Islamic culture or about how Muslims have waged war. As Victor Davis Hanson has pointed out, how a society wages war is a reflection of its culture.

And America seems to know next to nothing about Islamic culture. If they did, they would understand exactly what Sadr is doing.

I've been reading Redstate blogs and posts for over a year now and have finally mustered up the courage to post something. But I have a question first. If I disagree with the war in Iraq can I post my thoughts about the war in more detail without getting banned? I would like to feel welcomed here and free to say what I really think. Can those of us who don't support the war explain why without getting raked over the coals? I think I have very good reasons and would like to tell Redstate readers why. Is that OK? I'd really like to know because I'm not sure how to proceed.