.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Born at the Crest of the Empire

Friday, January 05, 2007

Forward Together II

Second verse, same as the first. A little bit louder, and a little bit worse.
Iraqi forces backed by U.S. troops will begin a neighborhood- by-neighborhood assault on militants in the capital this weekend as a first step in the new White House strategy to contain Sunni insurgents and Shiite death squads, key advisers to the prime minister said Friday. ....

The Iraqis did, however, signal continuing disagreement on key issues, including al-Maliki's unease over the introduction of more U.S. troops.

Another point of contention has been the Iraqi leader's repeated refusal of U.S. demands to crush the militia of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, one of the prime minister's most powerful backers.

Any serious drive to curb the extreme chaos and violence in the capital would put not only American forces but al-Maliki's Iraqi army in direct confrontation with al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.


In all seriousness, what has changed in the Iraqi dynamic to make this any more successful than the previous iteration in August?

Are the Iraqi forces more capable? Are they more willing? Are they better equipped? Are they any less infiltrated by the militias? Have there been any changes in the ministries? Has the underlying sectarian tension eased? Is Maliki any more willing to let the US take on the Shia militias?

What is that they say about repeating the same action over and over and expecting different results?

(Same article: Another US contractor was kidnapped.)

posted by mikevotes at 4:18 PM

4 Comments:

  • From what I heard from someone who was part of the August operation, they had their hands tied. Maybe they will take the gloves off this time.

    I'm not saying that is going to help (in fact, if true, this could be the point where the war really opens up), but if true, at least it would represent some change in tactics.

    I've long been of the opinion that when and if they take on the Mehdi army with the intention of wiping it out, that is when the real war will begin.

    That very well could be imminent as far as I can gather.

    By Blogger Praguetwin, at 6:31 AM  

  • I don't think so. For the US or Maliki to go after Sadr could well mark the end of the Maliki government. And as weak and recalcitrant as he is, the other option may be a rulerless Iraq.

    The Hadley plan for a new coalition was intended to make this possible, but it was falling apart before the Saddam execution. Now it's dead.

    And, I do think that if we go after Mahdi, it will be far worse.

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 11:12 AM  

  • And, I do think that if we go after Mahdi, it will be far worse.


    Me too.

    By Blogger Praguetwin, at 1:09 PM  

  • Just based on the numbers.

    Anbar represents something below 10% of the population. The Shia are roughly 60%, so figure Sadr represents 25%, with foreign weapons and training from Iran.

    The only bright spot is thatthus far, Sadr has seen very little value in dirctly fighting the US except for the two relatively small fights in 2004 which he used for politics.

    He wants to be anti-American, but doesn't want to pay the costs of fighting the Americans. (He gains more by fighting Sunnis.)

    That's the one mitigating factor from his side that has thus far kept the lid on.

    The Iraqis are not crazy. They practice a political rationalism which is backed up by the threats of torture and death to themselves and thgeir families.

    They are calculating far more sharply than we are.

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 2:21 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home