Power Line News

Whoohoo ignore the facts, reality is a stranger, the truth a lie.

You’re right.  The mainstream media and all pundits and analysts have been scrupulously honest and objective about Iraq, beginning with the invasion itself.

My mistake.

Indybabe, I’m pretty sure everyone here understands the importance of Basra for Iraq. But again, it just makes no sense to think that Sadr won this battle. The Iraqi Army is patrolling the streets. They have far greater re-supply capability, force of arms, air support, etc. than Sadr’s mob. There is no way, regardless of Iranian support, that the Mahdi “army” could sustain a prolonged engagement. They took heavy casualties. They had no choice but to call for a hudna.

Indy Babe - 02 April 2008 11:54 PM

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.

Good post if you delete the words “and the rest of the commenters on this thread” . The suggestion that it doesn’t matter to American interests whether the streets of Basra are controlled by Shiite militias or the Iraqi governement is as ludicrous as the claim that Sadr won this battle.

In order to determine who won I would ask the following questions:

1. What “territory” was won or lost by each side?
2. What casualties, both absolute and as a percentage of troop strength, were sustained by each side?
3. What is the comparative willingness of each side to continue fighting?
4. What is the perception of the public in the areas involved in the battle as to who won?

Answers to these question leads to but one answer and I’m surprised that anyone but idiot Democrat Party supporters is promoting the idea that this battle was a setback for the government of Iraq. Did anyone really expect the IA to wipe out the Mahdi army in 3 days, especially when the Mahdi army left the field of battle?

I found this claim by Malcolm Nance at The Small Wars Journal typical of the negative coverage:

“No one who has ever been to Basrah would predict that the Iraqi Army, even with US Special Operations support would penetrate the Hiyaniyah district, a large swath of poverty-filled slums dominated by the JAM. Iraqi and US Special Operations had to spearhead the offensive there and still have yet to make more than limited headway. The British tried for five years and now have retired comfortably at Basrah airport.”

and very interesting in light of the fact that the same day or the very next day Bill Roggio reported that IA troops were marching through Hiyaniyah and facing little Mahdi Army resistance.

Harry91 - 02 April 2008 10:25 PM

PhdBill - 02 April 2008 10:22 PM

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?

It seems to me the JAM picked this fight, then got their asses kicked and declared a ceasefire to save face, which their Iranian sponsors endorsed. “Sorry boss, but we’re getting slaughtered. Can we stop now?”

The IA (Iraqi army) on the other hand hasn’t declared an end to the surge into Basra. The rule of law will be established there too, so that operation continues. I expect more trouble from the JAM. We’ll find out just how long their declared ceasefire lasts.

THE LONG WAR JOURNAL

Iraqi military continues operations in Basrah
By BILL ROGGIO
April 2, 2008 1:00 PM

[PHOTO]

[CAPTION]"Iraqi Army applicants wait outside the army recruitment center in Basrah, 550 km (340 miles) south of Baghdad on April 1, 2008. About 1,000 men from the southern cities of Basrah, Amarah, and Nasiriyah trooped to the recruiting center in Basrah to apply to be government soldiers.” Reuters photograph.

“Three days after Muqtada al Sadr ordered the Mahdi Army to withdraw from the fighting in Baghdad and the Shia South, the fighting has dropped dramatically. The Iraqi government has denied that it has agreed to Sadr’s terms. But the government has softened its rhetoric against Mahdi Army, instead shifting its focus on the “criminal elements” just as the US military has done over the past year. Meanwhile, the Iraqi security forces are continuing operations in Basrah.”

>>more

I must vehemently disagree with the original post, that Basra isn’t of strategic importance. It is, and not just because of oil or port facilities. It is one of the largest cities in Iraq. A critical part of our mission is to establish rule of law and support the legitimately-elected government (however imperfect it is).  Allowing armed militias to establish their own rule in Basra is not a clever “balance of power” game; it is a violation of law and a subversion of legitimate government.

As to who won, I have surveyed several Iraqis here in Baghdad.  Granted, none of them are JAM members (or at least wouldn’t admit it), but the universal consensus seems to be that Sadr lost heavily from this encounter, and not just because of the hundreds of militiamen killed.  Iraqis mostly want peace and a normal life, and have been growing accustomed to it in the last several months.  Sadr’s militia interrupted that, and his actions didn’t win him any new supporters.  Among his existing supporters, the hardcores who want to fight the Coalition and the Government are disillusioned that he backed down.

The view is mixed on whether this makes Maliki look stronger or not.

This incident probably shows that the Iraqi Government is not yet able to completely stand on its own, but also proves that they can (and are willing to) inflict heavy damage on armed militias that challenge them.

thanks for taking the time to give us a ‘close up’ report, IraqVet.

I must say that this seems to me a particularly silly question.

WE won, our side WON, and the other side LOST, by ANY rational measure.

A better question would be just how extensive was our victory.  Or did Maliki make mistakes that resulted in less of a victory than he could have, should have won.

But there is simply no question that we won a battle and an important one at that.

I EXPECT this sort of panicky, instant defeatism from the traitors among us; we patriots really OUGHT to be made of sterner stuff.

“You’ve got no arms. What are you going to do, bleed on me?”

Mookie ‘The Dark Side’ Sadr capitulates from weakness.

“Truce”?

Ya right.  No arms, no legs, bleeding out, but let’s call it even?

<chuckle>

IraqVet - 03 April 2008 03:15 PM

I must vehemently disagree with the original post, that Basra isn’t of strategic importance. It is, and not just because of oil or port facilities. It is one of the largest cities in Iraq. A critical part of our mission is to establish rule of law and support the legitimately-elected government (however imperfect it is).  Allowing armed militias to establish their own rule in Basra is not a clever “balance of power” game; it is a violation of law and a subversion of legitimate government.

As to who won, I have surveyed several Iraqis here in Baghdad.  Granted, none of them are JAM members (or at least wouldn’t admit it), but the universal consensus seems to be that Sadr lost heavily from this encounter, and not just because of the hundreds of militiamen killed.  Iraqis mostly want peace and a normal life, and have been growing accustomed to it in the last several months.  Sadr’s militia interrupted that, and his actions didn’t win him any new supporters.  Among his existing supporters, the hardcores who want to fight the Coalition and the Government are disillusioned that he backed down.

The view is mixed on whether this makes Maliki look stronger or not.

This incident probably shows that the Iraqi Government is not yet able to completely stand on its own, but also proves that they can (and are willing to) inflict heavy damage on armed militias that challenge them.

Thanks for the first-hand report and for your service!
Welcome to the PLForum, too!

May God bless all of our troops and bring you home to us soon safe, sound and victorious.