These are mostly Iraqi special forces with American advisers, operating in Sadr City a few days ago. Their firepower, discipline, and lethality is astounding.
According to the cameraman who shot the footage, only two Iraqis were slightly injured, even though the raiders were under heavy RPG and small-arms fire from the rooftops. There was an AC-130 gunship overhead, which the Madhis targeted with a machine gun. That’s the line of tracers you see arcing up into the sky.
Note the GAU miniguns that fire 50 rounds per second. That’s the loud ripping sound you hear.
And no civilians were hurt.
The Madhi Army and the Qods Force simply can’t survive confrontations like this.
Five years of blood, sweat, effort, pain, and expense are now paying off.
Obama and Clinton must be defeated, in order that men like these Iraqis continue developing their ability to fight all enemies, foreign and domestic.
You’d think the NYT would take their cue from The New Republic and simply lie about what happens in Iraq: it’s much more difficult and time-consuming to disprove, and by the time the report is disproven, everyone will have forgotten about the story anyway.
The Fog Of War in the U.S media is thicker than ever. Yesterday on Fox News Mathew Fisher’s on site report was all over the map. He did say however that the Mahdi army had deserted the streets of Basra and all was quiet in Basra and Bahgdad.
Brit Hume’s panel, including the estimable Krauthammer, then unanimously opined that Sadr had emerged stronger than before.
The Fog Of War in the U.S media is thicker than ever. Yesterday on Fox News Mathew Fisher’s on site report was all over the map. He did say however that the Mahdi army had deserted the streets of Basra and all was quiet in Basra and Bahgdad.
Brit Hume’s panel, including the estimable Krauthammer, then unanimously opined that Sadr had emerged stronger than before.
Brit Hume’s “All Stars"--and, sadly, that includes Krauthammer--aren’t “All Stars” but in reality are the “Planet of the Clangors.” Fred Barnes is the worst.
Does anybody - anybody - have any idea how many casualties there were on the Iraqi forces’ side? I only see quotes of “400 people” dead or whatnot. This coverage has been disgraceful from the get-go.
Does anybody - anybody - have any idea how many casualties there were on the Iraqi forces’ side? I only see quotes of “400 people” dead or whatnot. This coverage has been disgraceful from the get-go.
Details are often kept deliberately ambigious in these reports, all the better to leave the impression that 400 “civilians” were killed - and guess who probably killed them? That’s right, the U.S., the Iraqi Army, anyone but the jihadists. Only the round, ugly number is of any use to the MSM - just like when they pop the corks every time we reach another “grim milestone”.
Disgraceful indeed. But don’t question their patriotism!
If you have to guess who won, then Maliki lost. He lost an opportunity to subdue a foe with sufficient force that all other opponents in Iraq would shrink into the shadows out of fear. The absence of visible shock and awe will have the same consequence as when the Coalition was unable to quickly quash a growing opposition in 2003-04. Such opposition will only be encouraged. A win for Maliki and the West depends on establishing a strong military force behind a Central Government.
If you have to guess who won, then Maliki lost. He lost an opportunity to subdue a foe with sufficient force that all other opponents in Iraq would shrink into the shadows out of fear. The absence of visible shock and awe will have the same consequence as when the Coalition was unable to quickly quash a growing opposition in 2003-04. Such opposition will only be encouraged. A win for Maliki and the West depends on establishing a strong military force behind a Central Government.
I disagree. Sadr was forced to sue for peace from his hideout in Iran. The people of Iraq understand the implications of that simple fact.
The anti victory crowd has made much of their contention that Iran brokered a deal, and perhaps they did. But the bottom line is Sadr is NOT in theatre and thus his ability to rouse new followers is impaired.
If you have to guess who won, then Maliki lost. He lost an opportunity to subdue a foe with sufficient force that all other opponents in Iraq would shrink into the shadows out of fear. The absence of visible shock and awe will have the same consequence as when the Coalition was unable to quickly quash a growing opposition in 2003-04. Such opposition will only be encouraged. A win for Maliki and the West depends on establishing a strong military force behind a Central Government.
The AP story of the Basra development that I read this morning packed a similar song-and-dance. The “hidden” motive, however, was more obviously on display. The rhetorical manipulation ran thusly: (1) Maliki had said that he was determined to have a military victory; (2) what he got was Sadr’s agreement to pull his people off the street; (3) therefore, failing to get the “military victory” by having the other guy blink first is a form of “defeat.” How so? The implication seems to be that there’s a “macho” quotient in play here: only if you beat the hell out of someone do you “win.” Mere surrender is not good enough.
This, any rate, seems to be the reasoning of “kilfoster” cited above. There’s a grungy “anti-macho” spin going on there, which when it runs down and stops appears to be some sort of upside-down demand that if you’re going to “do war” you better do it the way those who don’t do the fighting both abominate and insist upon.
This, any rate, seems to be the reasoning of “kilfoster” cited above. There’s a grungy “anti-macho” spin going on there, which when it runs down and stops appears to be some sort of upside-down demand that if you’re going to “do war” you better do it the way those who don’t do the fighting both abominate and insist upon.
If you have to guess who won, then Maliki lost. He lost an opportunity to subdue a foe with sufficient force that all other opponents in Iraq would shrink into the shadows out of fear. The absence of visible shock and awe will have the same consequence as when the Coalition was unable to quickly quash a growing opposition in 2003-04. Such opposition will only be encouraged. A win for Maliki and the West depends on establishing a strong military force behind a Central Government.
Those who follow the war to liberate Iraq have long understood that once AQI was eliminated it would then be necessary to deal with the Shiite militias in order to fully establish the Rule of Law. Given that AQI is decimated but not yet completely defeated it was surprising to see the duly elected governement of Iraq move against the militias when it did.
What is not surprising is the coverage of this initiative. In a war where every success has been minimized and every set back maximized it is hardly surprising that the The Basra Initiative (hereaftter TBI) is being portrayed as a set back, a defeat yet, for the Government of Iraq (erroneously referred to as Maliki).
At the beginning of TBI the Mahdi army controlled the streets of Basra. In the course of TBI the Mahdi army sustained heavy casualties whereas the IA sustained light casualties. The leader of the Mahdi army proposed terms of a ceasefire but his army then left the field of battle without waiting to see whether those terms were accepted.
At the end of TBI the Mahdi army no longer controls the streets of Basra. The Mahdi army quit the field of battle after taking heavy casualties. Clearly, this was a glorious victory for the Mahdi army and a defeat for the the governnemnt of Iraq = a defeat for George Bush. Like, Not!
The Fog Of War in the U.S media is thicker than ever. Yesterday on Fox News Mathew Fisher’s on site report was all over the map. He did say however that the Mahdi army had deserted the streets of Basra and all was quiet in Basra and Bahgdad.
Brit Hume’s panel, including the estimable Krauthammer, then unanimously opined that Sadr had emerged stronger than before.
Brit Hume’s “All Stars"--and, sadly, that includes Krauthammer--aren’t “All Stars” but in reality are the “Planet of the Clangors.” Fred Barnes is the worst.
Oh yes, great to see you sallying forth Ms Brown -especially with your parents along to award the 5 stars. Fred Barnes may only be the editor of a great magazine but his worthiness pales in comparison to someone like you who thinks a personal attack devoid of facts is somehow worthy of comment on this site. Did you make an unintended right turn?
If the Iraqi (forget the MSM) perception is that Sadr blinked then Maliki wins this standoff. My reading is that this is not the case. The Mahdi militia just put there arms down to pick them up another day. Maliki’s government controls Iraq only to the extent that the militias are cowered by the Iraq Army. Fortune, as understood by Machiavelli (and James Ceasar) must be managed to the extent possible and not allowed to travel its own course. Maliki either seizes the occasion or shrinks back and puts his Fortune in the hands of others who neither wish him nor the nation-state of Iraq well.
