August 15, 2004
MAJOR LEAGUERS:
Iraqi Troops to Take Lead In Fighting Sadr's Forces (Karl Vick and Rajiv Chandrasekaran, August 15, 2004, Washington Post )
Prime Minister Ayad Allawi will send Iraqi troops to Najaf to battle a Shiite Muslim militia, Iraqi officials and U.S. commanders said Saturday after peace talks collapsed between the interim government and rebellious cleric Moqtada Sadr."The army will be deployed now" to the city, where U.S. forces have been fighting the militia, said Sabah Kadhim, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry. Units of the new Iraqi army would immediately prepare for an offensive aimed at evicting Sadr's Mahdi Army from the shrine of Imam Ali, a sacred site the militia has used as a refuge, he said.
News of the deployment -- the first since sovereignty was restored to Iraq on June 28 -- reached U.S. forces just as scores of tanks, armored troop carriers and Humvees lined up inside the gate of the main U.S. military base in Najaf, apparently preparing for significant combat operations just hours after a two-day truce had been called off. They then turned around and went back into camp.
A U.S. commander spread the word that missions were being scrubbed, conveying a message written on a Post-it note that the prime minister was angry and was "sending Iraqi Army to settle the problem."
They just keep demonstrating why sovereignty should have been handed over sooner. Posted by Orrin Judd at August 15, 2004 12:00 AM
This is the tipping point in my view. A successful effort by the Iraqi army will cement the new government in the eyes of the people and the region. Failure cannot be an option. Failure will fuel a civil war and invite (more) meddling by Iran and Syria.
Posted by: at August 15, 2004 9:13 AMOne other thought.
Needless to say, a successful Iraqi Army adventure here will enable the US to redirect its attention to the next threat, Iran and Syria.
Unsuccessful, we will be bogged down in a meat grinder.
Posted by: BusyBody at August 15, 2004 9:14 AMThis is indeed the tipping point. Assuming they are successful (and I'm quite sure that the US commander will make very sure that they are successful!), then the endgame is on.
After that, it'll be just wogs killing wogs. And the "world opinion" doesn't give a rats pattotie about that, because it isn't a stick they can whack the US with.
Falaujah will be next unless it submits to the inevitable voluntarily.
Posted by: genecis at August 15, 2004 11:24 AMDidn't a whole battalion of this mighty Arab army just get overrun and lose all its weapons without a fight?
Posted by: Harry Eagar at August 15, 2004 1:40 PMThe Brits took Manhattan.
Posted by: oj at August 15, 2004 1:42 PMCouldn't keep it.
It seems to me, among many other complexities, that the notion of Iraqi sovereignty or nationalism (define how you will) is at odds with battling outfits like the Shia Democrats.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at August 16, 2004 2:13 AMHarry:
Yes, that's the point isn't it? They couldn't keep it no matter how badly we fought initially.
Posted by: oj at August 16, 2004 8:38 AMYes, but we don't, I think, want Baghdad.
The Redcoats, in this analogy, are the (mythical) Iraqi nationalist, more-or-less democratic, self-governors.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at August 16, 2004 2:21 PMHardly matters since both the British and we are democrats, does it? So will both sides in Iraq end up.
Posted by: oj at August 16, 2004 4:07 PMWe and the British had the advantage of not being Arab, not being tribal and not being Muslim.
Time to invoke the John Morris Rule.
If you are preaching to an informed audience, the "furniture" of your talk must be convincing. They may not like your message, but they won't even listen if they think you don't have your facts right.
If Muqtadar can call himself a 'Shia democrat' to an audience of Shiites, then he is.
And that defines, if not completely, at least considerably what they mean by 'democracy.'
It is not even second-cousin to what we mean.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at August 16, 2004 7:02 PMHarry:
It's identical. Shi'ism is rather similar to Christianity and Judaism making them natural democrats. Your caee for the Sunni is stronger, though non-Arab Sunni have adapted to democracy quite easily--far easier than any non-Anglo Europeans. So we're down to Sunni Arabs, who are unfortunately trapped in the Wahhabi dead end--but they're backing out.
Posted by: oj at August 16, 2004 9:14 PMHow do you explain the lack of Shia democracy in fact during its first 1,300 years?
Posted by: Harry Eagar at August 17, 2004 2:50 PMThe same way you explain the absence of Jewish democracy until 1947. You've stumbled into the key to the matter though--Shi'ism, as a religion of the oppressed, is ideally suited to separation of Church and State.
Posted by: oj at August 17, 2004 4:14 PMShiism ideally suited for secularism?
Yeah, if they deep-six the Koran first.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at August 17, 2004 5:26 PM