That would amount to conceding armed radical Islamists a base of open opposition to the United States and its allies. How you preserve that, without enabling a “safe haven” for Al Qaeda, I don’t know.
If the New Age Republicans are also going to “reasonably” concede that any violent destruction of jihadists in the Middle East is not progress of any sort, but rather, a sign of a failed foriegn policy, then we have imposed on ourselves a moral handicap that cancels our material supremacy.
The post at Counterterrorism blog concludes not merely that Maliki’s government failed to “achieve its primary objective”; although, if that *is* the worst of it, it is no small thing. I would be delighted if our sole objective in Iraq was killing Islamic terrorists and their defenders, but per President Bush, that is not our sole objective. Our larger objective is to prop up the Maliki governement and keep the peace until it can do those jobs itself. Here, the Maliki government has demonstrated it is still not nearly up to that task.
But that is not the whole story. Counterterrorism blog argues that al-Sadr, whom Paul does not mention, emerges from the latest skirmish as perceived victor. No single Iraqi, not even Sadam, has done more to prolong our stay in Iraq than al Sadr. The failure to shoot him or at least imprison him in 06 caused no end of bloodshed in Iraq and political damage to Bush and his allies here in the US. So, when do we get a clue about this guy? Paul’s suggestion that Sadr is merely a nuisance whose destructive influence can be balanced by unnamed rivals (Sunni militias?)suggests we may be back to a pre-surge mindset.
From where I sit, way,way back in the right field bleachers, the failure once again to defeat Sadr militarily and kill him was a very unfortunate development which we will likely regret down the road. Hope I’m wrong....
Death is the currency of war. He who has the most units of that currency inflicted upon his forces, with the historical exception of the Soviet Union, 1941-1945, usually loses.
Take Japan for instance. Hirohito surrendered not because of the appearance of the United States possession of a vicious new weapon, but because, in total, he thought he was looking at the extinction of the Japanese people. They had no food, no raw materials, no shelter. In addition to the loss of 100,000 civilians during the fire raid on Tokyo, early March, 1945, as well as 65 other cities, they had also lost the 4,000 defenders of Tarawa, the 27,000 defenders of Saipan, the 17,000 defenders of Guam, the 11,000 defenders of Pelieliu, the 400,000 defenders of the Phillipines, the 21,000 defenders of Iwo Jima, the 100,000 defenders of Okinawa. The Japanerse soldier died, he did not surrender. The religious Islamic soldier is quite similar to the Japanese Bushido warrior. Nothing like these casualties occurred in Basra. The fight is still on. When the blood letting reaches similar levels you can start speculating on who either achieved victory or suffered defeat.
Seems to me that when you stop fighting (Sadr/Mahdi Army) and the other guy stays to control the streets, set up bases, etc (Maliki). then you have lost. I just don’t get how this is spun as a loss for Maliki. Yes, Sadr is still alive, yes, elements of his “army” are still in place. But it is clear from the fight that they do not have the logistical capbility to last more than a few days. Maliki has far more power and seems to be continuing to use it.
Meanwhile, Sadr has steadily increased his ties to Iran. Maliki and others in Iraq’s government have political ties with Iran, but Sadr has appeared to focus specifically on nurturing military relations with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ Quds Force, the commanding officer of which, Brig. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, was involved in talks to end the violence in Basra. By proxy, Sadr is linked to Hamas and Hezbollah --
Backed by Iran, supplied by Iran and loved by Iran. Maliki also is in love with his close neighbours and if Sadr is succeding on the streets by strenghthening those ties so goes Maliki.
Maliki is “driven” by a lack of an air force or tank divisions. He cannot fight a modern war with any neighbor and therefore must see to it that no neighbor desires a war or occupation of Iraq.
Sadr would “win” if we pretended that killing hundreds of Mahdi Army milita in a few cities posed a real problem.
Since the mainstream media and the usual pundits and “analysts” are nearly unanimous in proclaiming an al Sadr victory, we can rest assured that Maliki won.
Since the mainstream media and the usual pundits and “analysts” are nearly unanimous in proclaiming an al Sadr victory, we can rest assured that Maliki won.
Whoohoo ignore the facts, reality is a stranger, the truth a lie.
LOL! Let me guess, Harry. The “91” in your moniker denotes the year you were born? Or are you actually 91 years old? I doubt the latter, and suspect the former.
Let’s look at the cast of characters associated with CSIS, which is where your “cite” came from. Not only do I see a ton of Clintonistas in there, but assorted “advisors” from the worst Presidency in history, Jimmy Carter’s.
Zbig is there, but also Wes Clark. Reliably anti-Bush “retired General” Tony Zinni is there, along with anti-American Democrat John Murtha.
I have no issue with one guy’s opinion, but trying to cherry pick your sources is weak.
LOL! Let me guess, Harry. The “91” in your moniker denotes the year you were born? Or are you actually 91 years old? I doubt the latter, and suspect the former.
Let’s look at the cast of characters associated with CSIS, which is where your “cite” came from. Not only do I see a ton of Clintonistas in there, but assorted “advisors” from the worst Presidency in history, Jimmy Carter’s.
Zbig is there, but also Wes Clark. Reliably anti-Bush “retired General” Tony Zinni is there, along with anti-American Democrat John Murtha.
I have no issue with one guy’s opinion, but trying to cherry pick your sources is weak.
Oh Del, you support your argument, that quotes only one source, by attacking my single source. I love you man but at least provide an article and or source, because your opinion aint worth nothin.
As for Wes Clark, this is how we treat our Heroic Military.
Nice.
Edited: And Del I talk to you the way I do because the only way to argue with an amazing argument such as:
LOL! Let me guess, Harry. The “91” in your moniker denotes the year you were born? Or are you actually 91 years old? I doubt the latter, and suspect the former.
It’s amazing isn’t it? The same people who claim that Iraq has been the single largest US foreign policy disaster in history, on the basis of 4,000 KIA (from an army of 1 million) in 6 years, are trying to tell us that Sadr “won” by losing 2,000 subhuman scum (from a mob of 60,000 max) in less than a week.
It’s amazing isn’t it? The same people who claim that Iraq has been the single largest US foreign policy disaster in history, on the basis of 4,000 KIA (from an army of 1 million) in 6 years, are trying to tell us that Sadr “won” by losing 2,000 subhuman scum (from a mob of 60,000 max) in less than a week.
No, what people are arguing is that it took Iran to broker the peace.
It’s amazing isn’t it? The same people who claim that Iraq has been the single largest US foreign policy disaster in history, on the basis of 4,000 KIA (from an army of 1 million) in 6 years, are trying to tell us that Sadr “won” by losing 2,000 subhuman scum (from a mob of 60,000 max) in less than a week.
No, what people are arguing is that it took Iran to broker the peace.
Do you actually understand what that means?
No, people aren’t “arguing” that, they’re “asserting” that. I’ve seen no actual proof that the Iranian’s did anything other than provide a room in which their stooge Sadr could grovel for peace.
Which brings me to another conundrum, I though you anti-American types pooh-poohed the idea that Iran was sending weapons into Iraq? I also though you all had argued that Sadr was actually a big Iraqi nationalist who had the fewest ties to Iran among the major political players there? Yet now you tell us that the Qods force arms and controls Sadr’s militia? Funny, the administration and various milbloggers have been making that point for 3 years, yet were met with hoots and hollars of warmongering from the left.
Seems the left is having trouble keeping their stories straight again, eh? I guess, in the lefties world, Sadr is a big Iraqi nationalist totally beholden to the Iranian Qods force but not actually using all those Iranian weapons their supplying him. Ah, now it all makes sense.
What Paul Mirengoff, and the rest of the commenters on this thread, fail to realize is that Basra is in the south. Basra is the gateway to the interior of Iraq from the Persian Gulf. Ditto for Iraq’s access to the Persian Gulf for its oil exports. It’s the only section of Iraq’s border that isn’t landlocked. I call that a strategic imperative with no room for doubt as to who should be in control of Basra.
