Super: Two senior Iraqi generals being questioned about Karbala attack
posted at 1:08 pm on February 1, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Yeah, the one Iran allegedly was involved in. Just the sort of happy tiding we want to surf on as the security crackdown in Baghdad begins. No details about what role the generals might have played, but here’s a clue:
“The attackers went straight to where Americans were located in the provincial government facility, bypassing the Iraqi police in the compound,” [a military spokesman] said. “We are looking at all the evidence to determine who or what was responsible for the breakdown in security at the compound and the perpetration of the assault.”
Gen. Casey told the Armed Services Committee yesterday he expects troops will be stationed inside Sadr City. Problem? Nope: as previously reported, most of the Mahdi Army leaders are bugging out to ride out the storm:
The instructions delivered by emissaries of anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr at a recent meeting in Baghdad were clear to militiaman Massan Abdul Hussein.
“They informed us to hide the weapons,” Abdul Hussein recalled of the Jan. 21 meeting in the Shula neighborhood. “They said: ‘We will not allow anyone to carry any arms, even if it’s a pistol under their shirt. This is not acceptable.’”…
“We should try at all costs to avoid any confrontation with the American forces, and even if they raid our offices or our houses, we should try to avoid a confrontation,” he said. “We do not want this to lead to a larger outbreak of violence.”…
In recent weeks, Mahdi Army leaders have left Baghdad to avoid being targeted, according to Iraqi and U.S. officials. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s office has received reports that some Mahdi Army leaders are moving to Iran and Syria, according to an aide to Maliki who spoke on condition of anonymity.
They’ll play nice for awhile to prop Maliki up and give Bush an opening to declare victory and withdraw, then they’ll come back and resume command. We can use the lull to train the Iraqi army and dismantle some of the militias’ supply lines and financial infrastructure and supply lines, but there’s no way to destroy an enemy under western rules of engagement if he won’t fight:
If Sadr’s militia does indeed attempt to wait out the security crackdown, Casey said, that “would clearly present a challenge” to the Iraqi government, which he said underscores the need to have Iraqi forces capable of bringing security to the country. Developing effective Iraqi forces has been a U.S. goal for more than three years. Casey noted earlier in his 46-page statement, which was filed yesterday with the committee, that one of the most significant mistakes that U.S. officials made in Iraq was overestimating the speed with which Iraqi forces could be developed.
While the Shiite militias appear intent on waiting out the Iraqi-American security offensive by moving out of the city and lying low, Sunni insurgents will take a different course, Casey predicted.
Meanwhile, Newsweek reports that the CIA is worried about archterrorist Imad Mughniyeh organizing attacks against the U.S. in case we hit Iran. An Iranian “official” chuckled about it:
“Americans’ interest in Mughniyeh shows their desperation for any insight into Hizbullah operations,” says the official, who refused to be ID’d speaking on a sensitive subject. The official seemed amused to be asked about Mughniyeh. “To my knowledge, he hasn’t been involved in any operation for the past decade. There’s a new cadre of operatives in Hizbullah that Americans don’t know anything about. And I’m not going to tell you about them, either.”
Exit question: Just how many troops are involved in the surge? Too many, says Gen. Casey.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Hudna at its worst, and our government will fall for it unfortunately.
bbz123 on February 1, 2007 at 1:14 PM
You remember the 40 acres and a mule folks? I think we should clean out Iran and give them the 40 acres and a mule we “owe” them…
Tim Burton on February 1, 2007 at 1:25 PM
Culture of corruption.
tommy1 on February 1, 2007 at 1:43 PM
No Brainer here…
the whole country is corrupt…
retired on February 1, 2007 at 1:52 PM
You know……. as this continues, day in and day out, brave American troops being sold out and killed by back stabbing, double dealing, theiving, lying, Alli Babba and the forty theives in another 1001 Arabian nights (sorry, I am just really pissed off)…… an interesting thought came to mind.
It was the scene in Apocalypse Now….. after all the madness, near the end of the movie, after Martin Sheen killed the Col., and was flipping through his papers, he came across a note, written in red ink (blood)…….
Sorry, I think it is just time to let these people know we are serious and this gray area between the good guys and the terrorists is just not going to be tolerated anymore.
PinkyBigglesworth on February 1, 2007 at 1:54 PM
as the terrorists leave, do they wave bye-bye to us, the American fools… ?
question is, do we wave back, smile and send love kisses,, ?? or do we follow them and kill them in the middle of no-where while they drive through the deseret singing cumbyia ??
retired on February 1, 2007 at 1:55 PM
Progress IS being made.
We are identifying the leaders, recruiters, financiers, and those supplying logistics support, and shelter. Every day we get a bit stronger, as does the Iraqi army, and every day the militants get a bit weaker. We ARE winning.
RE:
We do not need to destroy them, we need to convince them to give up the fight.
If the militias think they can wait until we leave Iraq, then don’t leave.
The only reason the democrats have a complaint about our troops in Iraq is the casualties. If there are no casualties, no violence, and peace breaks out, the democrats loose their only reason to ‘cut and run’.
rockhauler on February 1, 2007 at 1:56 PM
The ROE must change, no matter how many troops we have over there…they must be allowed to fight the enemy.
.
Not just react, but to be proactive. IMO, success depends on it.
shooter on February 1, 2007 at 1:58 PM
Did you guys read this? They will bury their weapons, not hide them in their shirts, but in the ground(like WMD’S?) and wait.
They can wait 2,4, maybe 8 years… they don’t care in the ‘mindset’ of islamofascists. For us it’s Iraq and the WOT, but for them it’s just a small piece in taking over the world, and they do seem to have some patience. They can be active elsewhere, like in Africa somewhere, and wait.
We must open up on the terrorists NOW, kill them where they stand.
shooter on February 1, 2007 at 2:06 PM
I was of the opinion that we weren’t sending enough troops, so I am somewhat reassured by hearing that Casey thinks it is more than enough. I think more is still better, though.
Dusty on February 1, 2007 at 2:16 PM
Who then is left to be the vanguard of democracy in the middle east? For that you need, you know, people.
I understand the frustration but sometimes what may feel good doesn’t really make any sense.
honora on February 1, 2007 at 2:26 PM
Since you brought it up, this is one of the problems with liberalism.
RushBaby on February 1, 2007 at 3:01 PM
The best lesson to be learned from that movie about fighting this war is how Kurtz operated. He suddenly executed government Viet Cong spies, threw the ROE out the window and went after the VC ruthlessly. “The Viet Cong knew his name now, and they were scared of him.” That’s why the US military has to have Kurtz “terminated”, he impugns the morality of their compassionate warfare.
aengus on February 1, 2007 at 3:01 PM
In this case, you can’t even find him if he’s not fighting. But if they’re not fighting, and therefore neither controlling neighborhoods nor protecting any segment of the populace from any other, they’re not the strong horse.
The majority of the sectarian problems continue to exist because the IP/IA haven’t been able to take control in the affected areas, partly because they’re also a sectarian mess. If there’s a sincere effort to clean that up, it can be done. If Maliki is indeed in the tank, and doesn’t get tossed out, then we’ve got a problem. But if the short term result is that the bloodshed stops, I’ll take it. That will have to be attributed to someone, and who is that going to be? Ideally, it’s the Iraqi government.
This may be a time for the Sard boys to lay low, but it’s also a time for the government to consolidate it’s power.
Bush will be long gone before we withdraw from Iraq.
Pablo on February 1, 2007 at 3:23 PM
Khe Son underscored it, and it remains true today. Do not confront American military power, you will be pulverized. Feint, slip away, chip, undermine, poke, chisel, use a shovel and tunnel up the perimeter.
Only a completely unexpected response will change the playing field. US military must act creatively. Don’t leave the country. Retreat from the cities and regroup. Allow opposing militias to grow bolder in confrontation with each. Then flatten them both, for instance. Military must find a way to bring the militant factions face to face with US military power. US cannot defeat an enemy that chooses not to fight.
shaken on February 1, 2007 at 3:54 PM
Malarki prolly was in in the iranian ambush…
retired on February 1, 2007 at 4:44 PM
AP wrote: “….but there’s no way to destroy an enemy under western rules of engagement if he won’t fight.”
Followed by Pablo who wrote: “….if they’re not fighting, and therefore neither controlling neighborhoods nor protecting any segment of the populace from any other, they’re not the strong horse.”
Pablo has it right.
If the Shiite militias refuse to fight and lie low then they surrender the initiative and are no longer capable of controlling events. They become irrelevant.
If the coalition uses the time wisely, the result will be an entrenched Iraq government, with all the appropriate and necessary security protocols in place, and the Shiite militia leadership without a cadre.
In other words, once they get to Iran and Syria, they might not be able to come back.
georgej on February 1, 2007 at 4:53 PM