Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Stunning victory achieved in Basra, or possibly stunning defeat

posted at 2:50 pm on April 1, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Mission accomplished has been duly declared, although the JAM in Basra remains apparently intact and raids are still ongoing to seize some of the weapons whose surrender was the accomplishment the mission was aimed at. I’ve given up trying to figure out who won, a conclusion I reached when I found myself nodding along with this theory that Sadr’s actually in cahoots with Maliki to target the “rogue” JAM units who are operating essentially as renegades but under the Mahdi Army banner. The idea is that since anyone who doesn’t obey Sadr’s ceasefire command is by definition renegade, they can be killed without any objection from loyal Sadrists, which squares with the fact that the Sadrist leadership has itself been killing renegade JAM types for months now to reassert its authority over the movement before its reputation sinks too far. Everybody wins, in other words: Sadr gets to see who’s loyal and who isn’t and Maliki gets to ice some troublemakers. Except that, er, a full-scale urban conflict seems like an awfully long way to go to make that happen, especially when each man stands to lose a lot of face if things get out of hand and don’t go his way. Plus, why on earth would Iran have pressured Sadr into declaring a ceasefire? All that does is make it easy for the Iraqi Army to identify the disloyal “rogue” units — who are being supported by Iran. Ah well. Cloak and dagger sure is fun, isn’t it?

So, I give up. My hunch, as I’ve said before, is that this will end up like Israel’s war with Hezbollah insofar as (a) the media pronounced it an unmitigated disaster, (b) the damage to the bad guys was much greater than reported, and (c) even so, the mission ultimately failed to cripple a lethal Iranian proxy, leaving it to regroup and fight another day after it’s been extravagantly resupplied. If you’re not finding those tea leaves to your liking, read Nibras Kazimi (“Maliki won, pure and simple”) or Dave Price (“Good God, the guy surrendered”) for the “total victory” interpretation. Or, for the “total defeat” spin, try Time (“How Moqtada al-Sadr Won in Basra”), which notes that the outcome does at least prove that Sadr still holds sway over most of the JAM; the Wall Street Journal (“Basra Battle Strengthens Sadr”), which for a right-wing paper is more relentlessly dour about this and what it portends for Sadr’s electoral prospects than most of the left; or this longish piece at Small Wars Journal by Malcolm Nance, who views the options here as essentially pulling out and leaving the JAM in place or sucking in U.S. and possibly British troops for an all-out assault on the Basra equivalent of Sadr City:

Basrah has JAM forces in the Hayaniyah, Jumhuriya, Five Mile, Downtown, al-Ma`qal, al-Janinah, and al-Kazirah sections of the city as well as reports they control the road from al-Amarah, another JAM stronghold north of the city. 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…

No one doubts US Supremacy on the battlefield, but this is the Iraqi Army engaged now in Basrah and by all accounts performing poorly. Any attempt to extract them will be a victory for the JAM. On the other hand the JAM can easily make it clear that hardball is a two way game, as they have done in the past. They could suddenly disappear from the battlefield, secretly open up those hidden away crates of Iranian made EFP-IEDs and make Basrah a living hell for whoever comes in with armor.

Finally, if you missed the update to InstaGlenn’s post about the NYT correspondent who used to be an officer in Saddam’s army, go read it. If guys like that are never to be trusted, then we really need to rethink this Sunni Awakening outreach program that’s been working for us over there.

Update (Ed): The British have decided to stick around Basra for a while:

Thousands of British troops are to remain in Iraq longer than expected because of the recent upsurge of violence in Basra, the Defence Secretary announced today.

Plans to withdraw 1,500 soldiers starting this spring have been put on hold, Des Browne told the House of Commons. But he insisted that the “clear direction of travel” was to reduce the size of the British commitment.

Gordon Brown announced plans to cut the current UK force at Basra Air Station from 4,000 to 2,500 last October.

But last week the instability of the city was exacerbated by a much-criticised offensive by Iraqi government troops against militias loyal to Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. British and American warplanes were called upon to offer air support after government forces were repulsed.


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

Comment pages:

Defeat. Arrest the chubby guy with BO (that would be Sadr.

RobCon on April 1, 2008 at 2:53 PM

If guys like that are never to be trusted, then we really need to rethink this Sunni Awakening outreach program that’s been working for us over there.

Damn, I was just going to ask you to please tell us stories about Anbar with a side of hot chocolate so I`ll feel better.

I think it will take 100 yrs. to get ANY kind of positive outcome from this adventure.

ThePrez on April 1, 2008 at 2:56 PM

If guys like that are never to be trusted, then we really need to rethink this Sunni Awakening outreach program that’s been working for us over there.

I’m thinking the guy may actually help bring balance to the NY Slimes.

amerpundit on April 1, 2008 at 2:56 PM

As I’ve said before… give it a week and see who has boots on the ground in these cities.

We have very conflicting reports hitting the MSM… none of which seem to be talking to either the US or Iraqi Armys…

Romeo13 on April 1, 2008 at 2:58 PM

Stunning victory achieved in Basra, or possibly stunning defeat

Well I think that has got it bracketed.

MB4 on April 1, 2008 at 3:00 PM

The term is hunta – it means a truce, but one where the stronger accepts the truce only to stop the fighting even though they fully know all it will do is allow the weaker to regroup to fight again someday. It’s what Israel did when they failed to decimate Hezbollah a couple summers ago. It’s a pc way to fight a war. It ensures the fighting will go on forever. It causes much more death and destruction by not decimating the enemy when he is down.

JustTruth101 on April 1, 2008 at 3:10 PM

Was gonna go on a long rant, but thanks to JustTruth101, no need. Amen, buddy, you get it.

tomk59 on April 1, 2008 at 3:12 PM

Dude, the WSJ is only libertarian on its opinion pages. The news section is at least as liberal as any major paper.

Alex K on April 1, 2008 at 3:16 PM

Actualy its a difference between Modern Western thought, and historical thought, on war itself.

We see was as what happens when Politics fail… as a last resort.

They see politics and War as much more tightly linked, and just a small step from one to the other… therefore its MUCH easier for them to forge, or break, alliances with those they were shooting at yesterday.

Romeo13 on April 1, 2008 at 3:19 PM

The term is hunta

The term I believe you’re looking for is “Hudna.”

The Israeli war with Hezb’allah was a disaster to be sure. Fought in a tentative and “scared” manner that was very uncharacteristic of Israel. Fought in the midst of a media who first cheered the Israelis then slowly but surely turned against them. Fought whilst “fauxtography” was occuring.

The IDF now is a different animal than the one even two years ago. That’s how much having Ehud Barak as defence minister has changed the outlook and aims of the IDF. Nasrallah knows that if he takes a crack at the Israelis this time, he’ll be crushed. They try the backdoor in Syria and the IAF shows up. Now if they can stop the rockets into Sderot, perfecto.

mjk on April 1, 2008 at 3:20 PM

Was this really the Cradle Of Civilization?
Same genetic track?
Cripes.

Stephen M on April 1, 2008 at 3:30 PM

Was this really the Cradle Of Civilization?
Same genetic track?
Cripes.

Stephen M on April 1, 2008 at 3:30 PM

Yes, this is where it all began

bnelson44 on April 1, 2008 at 3:42 PM

Was this really the Cradle Of Civilization?
Same genetic track?
Cripes.

Stephen M on April 1, 2008 at 3:30 PM

A huge mischaracterization in my opinion. The cradle of modern man possibly but the the title of Cradle of Civilization I think should go to Greece or thereabouts.

brtex on April 1, 2008 at 3:44 PM

The fight against JAM is very different from the Israeli fight in Lebanon in one key way: Israeli doesn’t have to govern Lebanon. If Sadr stays quiet and Maliki can get Iraqi national army in charge of the port and oil, then that is a huge victory, no matter the rearming that might occur in the meantime.

It’s all about the local sympathies. When the Sunnis turned against AQI, they were ratted out of every safehouse and bomb factory across Iraq. From what I read, JAM wasn’t popular with the Shi’ites after turning into a mafia protection and intimidation racket. If the central gov’t comes in and provides better security and less corruption, the locales won’t be any too happy to see a return of JAM.

Clark1 on April 1, 2008 at 3:44 PM

Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.

TBinSTL on April 1, 2008 at 3:44 PM

mjk on April 1, 2008 at 3:20 PM

You’re right, it is hudna, thank you! :-)

JustTruth101 on April 1, 2008 at 3:49 PM

Krykee doodle. That snake pit is almost as convoluted as the democratic delegate apportioning system….

locomotivebreath1901 on April 1, 2008 at 3:58 PM

Iran doesn’t really benefit from an intra-Shi’ite power struggle, since the money from Basra stops coming in. Hence the Quds Force orchestrating part of the ceasefire. Their support for the militias has more to do with taking shots at the Great Satan (that’s me).

LT Nixon on April 1, 2008 at 4:07 PM

Well, we know who is causing all of the problems now don’t we. He moves out and the violence goes down. IF the Iraqi troops get themselves into BASRA…they won. If not…they lost. It is really pretty simple.

tomas on April 1, 2008 at 4:16 PM

Defeat. Arrest the chubby guy with BO (that would be Sadr.

RobCon on April 1, 2008 at 2:53 PM

Can’t. He’s in Iran.

BohicaTwentyTwo on April 1, 2008 at 4:32 PM

There is an election in October and both sides are trying to position themselves for that election.

bnelson44 on April 1, 2008 at 4:34 PM

CNN: “Haidar al-Abadi, a member of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s Dawa Party, said Iraqi Shiite lawmakers traveled Friday to Iran to meet with al-Sadr.”

for the “total defeat” spin, try Time (“How Moqtada al-Sadr Won in Basra”), which notes that the outcome does at least prove that Sadr still holds sway over most of the JAM

And who holds sway over Sadr? See above.

BohicaTwentyTwo on April 1, 2008 at 4:35 PM

Hmm, it’s fair to observe that the British would not pause their drawdown from Basra had this been a defeat for Sadr.

Sadr and his forces will not be defeated in one battle or in several days (or even weeks). We’ve had to spend so much time and attention against al-Qaeda that we neglected (not the right word but I can’t think of a better one) the Shi’a thuggery in the South.

Going to be interesting to see how Iran tries to influence our elections.

SteveMG on April 1, 2008 at 4:51 PM

Will the winners please stand up???

BANG!!!

Thank you.

landlines on April 1, 2008 at 5:46 PM

The forces at play in the Middle east are truly convoluted. I’m waiting for someone to come on here (and they will) and explain this in simple terms so that even I can understand them.

TooTall on April 1, 2008 at 6:09 PM

As I’ve said before… give it a week and see who has boots on the ground in these cities.
We have very conflicting reports hitting the MSM… none of which seem to be talking to either the US or Iraqi Armys…
Romeo13 on April 1, 2008 at 2:58 PM

The forces at play in the Middle east are truly convoluted. I’m waiting for someone to come on here (and they will) and explain this in simple terms so that even I can understand them.
TooTall on April 1, 2008 at 6:09 PM

Darn, where are Yon, Totten and Roggio?
At least “Mike” could give us an objective… “boots on the ground “report!

He does get out of the “Green Zone” doesn’t he?

Oh silly me!

J_Gocht on April 1, 2008 at 6:52 PM

Hmm, it’s fair to observe that the British would not pause their drawdown from Basra had this been a defeat for Sadr…

Good thinkin’, Steveo!

Sadr and his forces will not be defeated in one battle or in several days (or even weeks). We’ve had to spend so much time and attention against al-Qaeda that we neglected (not the right word but I can’t think of a better one) the Shi’a thuggery in the South…
SteveMG on April 1, 2008 at 4:51 PM

SteveMG are you and Saint Mc cousins?

It’s Shiite in the south. Sunni generally around Baghdad and al Qaeda [Sunni] being trained in Iran which is [Shiite]; according to Saint Mc.

Here’s a map that might help you both?
Will you continue to repeat it four times after being corrected by Holy Joe once, like Saint Mc?
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iraq_ethno_2003.jpg

J_Gocht on April 1, 2008 at 7:18 PM

SteveMG are you and Saint Mc cousins

?

Right, because once you’re a Shi’a or Sunni you’d never help the other sect out in a fight or struggle.

Oy, this is kindergarten thinking.

SteveMG on April 1, 2008 at 7:37 PM

The 9/11 report on assistance from Iran to al-Qaeda:

As we mentioned in chapter 2, while in Sudan, senior managers in al Qaeda maintained contacts with Iran and the Iranian-supported worldwide terrorist organization Hezbollah, which is based mainly in southern Lebanon and Beirut. Al Qaeda members received advice and training from Hezbollah.

Intelligence indicates the persistence of contacts between Iranian security officials and senior al Qaeda figures after Bin Ladin’s return to Afghanistan. Khallad has said that Iran made a concerted effort to strengthen relations with al Qaeda after the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, but was rebuffed because Bin Ladin did not want to alienate his supporters in Saudi Arabia. Khallad and other detainees have described the willingness of Iranian officials to facilitate the travel of al Qaeda members through Iran, on their way to and from Afghanistan. For example, Iranian border inspectors would be told not to place telltale stamps in the passports of these travelers. Such arrangements were particularly beneficial to Saudi members of al Qaeda.120

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch7.htm

But remember: Sunnis would never help Shi’as and vice versa.

SteveMG on April 1, 2008 at 7:43 PM

“http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch7.htm
But remember: Sunnis would never help Shi’as and vice versa.
SteveMG on April 1, 2008 at 7:43 PM”

I’m impressed! Either you’re one, very voracious reader… or you have one hell of a research team watching your back!

My thought is, we may be at logger heads with respect to terms…Your Shi’as maybe my Shiites?

I continue to admire your initial thought!

“Hmm, it’s fair to observe that the British would not pause their drawdown from Basra had this been a defeat for Sadr….”

J_Gocht on April 1, 2008 at 8:05 PM

I’m impressed! Either you’re one, very voracious reader… or you have one hell of a research team watching your back

!

No, I read the report when it came out. Kinda’ significant report, no?

To be blunt, I’m not sure what your point is. I think you took a shot at McCain for thinking that the Iranian Shia’s (Shiites, say sect w/different spelling) would assist the Sunni al-Qaeda.

My point is that while the evidence of that today is mixed that it shouldn’t surprise anyone that they would do so since they’ve done it in the past.

Anyway, re Basra: It sure looks like a victory for Sadr and a defeat for Maliki. But the final chapter hasn’t been written.

SteveMG on April 1, 2008 at 8:12 PM

“No, I read the report when it came out. Kinda’ significant report, no?”

Yes.

Interesting, are you an historical author or paid for your thought or research?

“To be blunt, I’m not sure what your point is. I think you took a shot at McCain for thinking that the Iranian Shia’s (Shiites, say sect w/different spelling) would assist the Sunni al-Qaeda.”

You got me. I was shooting verbally,euphemistically at Saint Mc!

“My point is that while the evidence of that today is mixed that it shouldn’t surprise anyone that they would do so since they’ve done it in the past.”

I agree.

“Anyway, re Basra: It sure looks like a victory for Sadr and a defeat for Maliki. But the final chapter hasn’t been written.
SteveMG on April 1, 2008 at 8:12 PM”

Lessons learned… almost half a century ago in Vietnam.

J_Gocht on April 1, 2008 at 8:48 PM

Watson… would request a moment of you time, Sir.

J_Gocht on April 1, 2008 at 9:16 PM

Watson,here… would request a moment of you time, Sir.
Mr. Holmes!

J_Gocht on April 1, 2008 at 9:16 PM

J_Gocht on April 1, 2008 at 9:41 PM

But remember: Sunnis would never help Shi’as and vice versa.
SteveMG on April 1, 2008 at 7:43 PM

How’s it go…NOW?

Even though you are my enemy….
And my enemy is your enemy…
…and I hate my enemy more than I hate your…enemy.
Even thou your enemy is my enemy…!
My thought would be…

KICK ARSSE and TAKE NAMES!

HUH?

J_Gocht on April 1, 2008 at 10:35 PM

It’s a victory.

They worked it out between themselves with a “little” U.S. help. Hopefully soon they work it out without any U.S. help.

A free and independent Iraq that fends for it’s self is the objective. This was a minor step in that direction. What they agreed on is not the point, they agreed is the point. That is progress for the Iraqi government and I for one am darn glad to see it.

Besides, the Iraqi government couldn’t wipe them all out without being compared to Saddam Hussien. This was a victory for the Iraqi government, and from my vantage point, their second, the first being the decision to make a stand in the Basra area.

Hog Wild on April 1, 2008 at 10:43 PM

As I am working with the IA, I think it is safe to say that they are doing a bit better than the press tells all of you.

Clark1, I think you have it.

The Brits are not staying because “Sadr won” – they are staying to make sure that their shifting out doesn’t appear to be fleeing – they got stung bad enough in the Basra/Shatt al-Arab area already… Once they hand off to the IA and US, they can continue to shift from Iraq to Afghanistan.

Anyways, I’ll be around to see the end result…

major john on April 2, 2008 at 5:42 AM

Comment pages:


You must be logged in to post a comment.