No, Sadr did not win
Realclearpolitics.com featured last week’s Creators Syndicate newspaper column and the gents at Powerline commented. As the column attests, I saw the Basra and east Baghdad counter-militia operations very differently from the NY Times, etcetera. I don’t even want to bother with the various links logging the defeatist assessment, other than this typical herd-media column by Trudy Rubin. She labels Basra as a “debacle.” Hey, she wrote it. It’s dated April 7.
Quote:
Petraeus and Crocker did not expect that their testimony would be preceded by the debacle in Basra. As I wrote last week, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki initiated a major Iraqi military operation without prior consultation with the Americans. This has now been publicly confirmed by Crocker and other top administration officials…
(If the first link doesn’t hold up, try this one, entitled “Basra Blunder” in her home newspaper, the Philiadelphia Inquirer. It’s an earlier column, from March 30, which displays an even more reactionary negativism. What her analysis amounts to is anti-Bush Administration polemicism.)
I wonder how the coalition military did not know about the operation — there are coalition advisers in Iraqi brigades. Trucks move on roads watched by both Iraqi and coalition troops. I realize “prior consultation” is the important phrase — in my view, that’s a positive. The Iraqis planned the operation and carried it out on their own, without consulting Petraeus and Crocker. Good deal. In the long run that plays well politically in Iraq and it corners Sadr — the US did not tell Maliki to go after Sadr. If the US had, Sadr could tout that “prior approval,” maintaining that Maliki is a puppet, etc. Instead, you have an elected democratic prime minister who happens to be a Shia ordering his nation’s troops to strike a Shia gangster. Did Rubin miss that? Judge for yourself. I’d say she did.
Sunni and Kurd reaction to the attacks on Shia militias were positive– and that is a very important element of the political context.
From the AP report linked above:
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s faltering crackdown on Shiite militants has won the backing of Sunni Arab and Kurdish parties that fear both the powerful sectarian militias and the effects of failure on Iraq’s fragile government.
The emergence of a common cause could help bridge Iraq’s political rifts. The head of the Kurdish self-ruled region, Massoud Barzani, has offered Kurdish troops to help fight anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army militia.
More significantly, Sunni Arab Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi signed off on a statement by President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, and the Shiite vice president, Adil Abdul-Mahdi, expressing support for the crackdown in the oil-rich southern city of Basra.
At this point in Iraq’s development the political context is the dominant context. Sadr needed Iran to help negotiate a ceasefire? What does that demonstrate to everyone in Iraq about Sadr? The Iarqi Army had to test itself against the Shia gangs. No, it wasn’t perfect. War is not the realm of perfect. War is the realm of “friction,” as Clausewitz wrote, “the suck” in current lingo. When howitzers drop a salvo I guarantee you the situation is drastically imperfect.
But but but…as time marches it is increasingly clear the Iraqi Army did a far better job than the Shia gangsters.
Now Sadr is calling for “dialog.”
The lede:
Aides to Muqtada al-Sadr called Monday for dialogue to resolve a violent standoff with the Iraqi government, saying that the radical Shiite cleric would disband his militia if senior religious leaders ordered it.
The overture came as Baghdad’s main Shiite district of Sadr City faced continued clashes between al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army militia fighters and Iraqi troops backed by U.S. forces.
I will guarantee this is not the last battle. See my column:
The bottom line, again:
The Iraqi way often appears to be indecisive, until you learn to look at its counter-insurgency methods in the frame of achieving political success, instead of the frame of American presidential elections.
In southern Iraq and east Baghdad, Sadr once again lost street face. Despite the predictable media umbrage, this translates into political deterioration.
Think of the Iraqi anti-Sadr method as a form of suffocation, a political war waged with the blessing of Ayatollah Sistani that requires daily economic and political action, persistent police efforts and occasional military thrusts.
So what about last week’s instant narrative of doom? Is anyone besides me tired of it? The quick damnation of PM Maliki and the Iraqi Army’s efforts last week reveals an immense ignorance of warfare, one still rampant despite six-plus years of alleged experience; it displays not simply hasty, herd-mentality judgmentalism, but demonstrates in trump cards the sensationalist, fear-leveraging slant of most media coverage. Scare’em into reading the screed seems to be the herd-media’s order of business, and if that doesn’t work, affect deep moral outrage.
Until time proves the deep outrage was embarassingly superficial, and the political impulse rather than analytic honesty is revealed.
On NPR weekend this last weekend, Daniel Shore (who has always had a bit of BDS) went on
about the debacle since 1,000 soldier and police did not show up or refused to do their
duty. What he never mentioned was the total number of troops in the fight and if the
1000 was significant. He also never mentioned what, if any objectives were met by the
remaining number of troops. Were bad guys killed? Was the city taken from their hands? Did
many good guys get killed? Who knows? We just know it was a debacle and that 1,00o Iraqi
troops deserted.
How about a little context, people?
Comment by corsair the rational pirate — 4/8/2008 @ 6:05 am
Austin, I agree with your frustration, but I don’t agree about the cause. It’s not dishonesty on the part of the MSM, it’s their world view that there is no difference between two imperfect sides in a war. I blogged more about it here.
Comment by K T Cat — 4/8/2008 @ 6:21 am
The Philadelphia Enquirer (not even as credible as the National Enquirer) is a crytpocommie rag not worthy of wrapping fish (except possibly for Red Herring). They ignore the crime that is destroying Killadelphia, because to acknowledge it would be to dispel their entire worldview.
Comment by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater — 4/8/2008 @ 6:31 am
“it’s their world view that there is no difference between two imperfect sides in a war”
- a great way to hedge a bet when one waNts to attract as wide as possible an audience.
Conceit sells.
Comment by grichens — 4/8/2008 @ 6:37 am
About the only thing I wondered about was the wisdom of sending IA 14ID into such fighting, even with support of elements of other Divisions like IA 9AD… but the forces that had been gathering there for over a years, as seen at Bill Roggio’s place, indicated that something much larger was going on. Now we learn that the hard work began MAR-MAY 2007 and the dismantling of the Kazali and other organized crime networks, led to the uprooting of the Qods support cells along the towns from Basrah to Baghdad: Maliki had obviously had enough of that. I had expected a more classic ‘clean out Sadr City after distracting in Basrah’ but we got the much better ’secure Basrah and clean out the ratlines’. I like this solution much, much better.
Maliki is learning his COIN lessons.
The NYT, WaPo and others are not only not learning, they are now willfully ignorant and wish to remain in the dark by throwing out the candles and matches, trashing the flashlights and duct taping the curtains shut.
The NYT used to have John F. Burns who was damned good and was a straight shooter… no wonders he got kicked up to the European bureau chief position. That is ignoring a prime journalistic asset and removing qualified personnel from reporting they do well.
Comment by ajacksonian — 4/8/2008 @ 7:05 am
Hey, we just cannot have somebody changing the debate, can we. I mean, Iraq is all about George Bush and the Republicans, is it not? Democrats have already distanced from the disaster so that Bush, General Petraeus, and John McCain are entirely responsible. I mean, if you see some good news that indicates Iraqis are looking after themselves, then what is Nancy Pelosi going to say to Petraeus, and then some presidential candidates are going to have to explain how their position is better than McCain’s.
So keep Iraq out of the debate. Bad news only is welcome, ’cause then folks might have some ’splaining to do.
Comment by john — 4/8/2008 @ 7:20 am
If Basra was actually successful, then something supported by the opposition of the Democrats was successful.
This might make it more difficult for the Democrats to win in November.
With the likely exception of maintenance of their own, personal lifestyles, literally NOTHING is more important to many MSMers and liberals than Democrat electoral success. I think that they give no thought whatsoever to the short, medium or long term consequences of their positions beyond the potential of those positions to help them rise to power. Everything else — most certainly including American honor, security, and national integrity as well as foreign freedom and life — is irrelevant to them.
They want control over others, so they lie. That is what tyrants do. Shame on us that we are still surprised.
Comment by Troll Feeder — 4/8/2008 @ 9:12 am
It’s good to see that at least a few people are looking at the political side of this campaign. Big progress is being made there and The Gray Lady of NYC doesn’t have a clue. At first, I couldn’t understand why Maliki rushed into this without telling his troops, or even our troops. It means that they went into battle less prepared than seems prudent, but what better way to smoke out the militia components of your police and military. This is also why Maliki had to go to the front and let everyone know that this was not a fumble, but a fight to the finish. Getting parliment to pass a law that parties with militias could not participate in the elections was a great victory. My estimation of Maliki has risen a whole lot since the offensive began. Sadr may find it convenient to retire to Iran.
Comment by Richard of Oregon — 4/8/2008 @ 9:34 am
Having grown up in a journalists household..and heard more than a few complaints about the “direction of the industry” I will offer my two cents.
Woodward and Berntein were run of the mill reporters. Most “run of the mill” reporters have to live with Mom and Dad to make ends meet.
The “Mysterious DeepThroat” walked them right down a narrative into fame and fortune.
The die was cast…the only way to move out of what is nothing more than a glorified typing pool…is to get a big scoop or expose a huge wrong.
a few months ago I got to sit in on an editorial meeting for a small new England newspaper…they were really struggling to find an “Issue” fo this weeks newspaper. So I suggested why not whats “Right With the Town”…in a completely serious tone.
They all had a good laugh…then I asked when was the last kidnapping…in the 1600’s the indians kidnapped two settlers…the last murder…in the fifties a love triangle went horribly wrong and a jealous husband shot his wife…last person to die of a communicable disease…there was one person that died of Aids in the ’90’s…but nothing else since polio had been irradicated. Was there any record of anyone starving…not since the 1700’s…what about war…How many local boys have been killed in the war…none.
Then they decided since there really wasn’t any news this week..they would just that once go with a piece about “What was right”. They really,really struggled with the idea that they lived in an undeniably real “Utopian Paradise”.
Comment by Soldier's Dad — 4/8/2008 @ 10:38 am
Patton counseled his subordinates the truth is rarely as bad or as good as early reports. That is what we have here.
I have seen unrealistically pessimistic or unrealistically triumphalist reporting. Reading the reports from people in a position to actually know what is going on leads me to believe Knight’s Assault was not spectacular one way or the other, but on the whole is and is leading to good results.
The problem is as is noted here, the modern press expects perfection top to bottom and anything less than a wonderful result in a half-hour is failure.
Comment by Marcus Aurelius — 4/8/2008 @ 11:05 am
Welcome back, Col. Bay. We’ve missed you…
Comment by John Galt — 4/8/2008 @ 11:41 am
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 04/08/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Comment by David M — 4/8/2008 @ 11:43 am
The mere fact that it was Sadr who called for the ceasefire should have indicated to the Copperhead media that the result in Basra was more mixed than a “debacle.” The operation indicates to me that while the Iraqi Army’s fighting abilities have improved, skills like planning and logistics are still weak. Nonetheless, Maliki does deserve credit for being willing to take on the JAM. His decision to mount it when he did may have been influenced by the fact that Petraeus and Crocker would be coming to testify before Congress. An unambiguous success would have been a major boost. A risk on Maliki’s part, but I think a reasonable one. Better planning and logistics would have helped.
Comment by Rich — 4/8/2008 @ 2:21 pm
Rich,
However, Sadr’s declaration is balanced by the delegation that went to Iran to call the Iranians off. I don’t think things clear cut, but the news that Sadr called off his million man march is great news.
Bill Roggio has been doing some good reporting on this and they say this situation came as a complete political surprise to Al Sadr and politically speaking he is isolated. This is going to heat up before it is over. The political front sounds like it is well prepared, they had better make sure the PR/media front is well ready and then if they have to then finish the job on Al-Sadr.
Comment by Marcus Aurelius — 4/8/2008 @ 3:16 pm
My question is: who controls
a) Basra
b) Um Qasr
c) the flow of traffic through the ports themselves
Comment by Larry — 4/9/2008 @ 6:53 am
Did the delegation really go to Iran?
Comment by davod — 4/9/2008 @ 2:33 pm
Good Job getting back Austin. Missed your Blog.
Most of us, including MSM are incapable of taking the Long View. Can’t put things in context because researching the subject for Context take more time than we care to give.
It’s so very easy to react emotionally to whatever slaps us in the face and the MSM are masters of hauling out the most effective Images, Headlines for slapping.
Comment by Scott Sterling — 4/9/2008 @ 2:40 pm
#16 Davod
Doing some googling it appears the only person making that claim is Leila Fadel from McClatchy. A commenter at the Belmont Club puts the report up here: http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2008/03/after-surge.html
However, I a not certain if anyone else is verifying this claim or otherwise supporting it.
Bill Roggio has a story up stating that Sistani is counseling Sadr to disarm.
Comment by Marcus Aurelius — 4/10/2008 @ 10:37 am