March 29, 2008

ALL WE HAD TO DO WAS NOT ATTACK FIRST:

Alley Fighters (JAMES GLANZ, 3/30/08, NY Times)

No one has ever accused Mr. Sadr of being brilliant, charismatic, or even above average in the intellectual realm. But he has one thing few of those leaders have: he never left, even in the worst years of Saddam Hussein. And that does not just give him credibility on the streets. In a country where sheer social, religious, political, historical, geographic and psychological complexities are what seem to defeat all easy solutions, Mr. Sadr is one of the few who have been here continuously, absorbing the shifting lessons of the place. He has done his homework, he has put in his time.

And he has received the kind of props that must make an alley fighter proud. Two weeks ago, when I learned of the impending assault during a trip to Basra, senior Iraqi officials said that the crackdown would be unrelenting. “Whoever gets in the way will be dealt with swiftly, decisively and with no mercy,” one of them said.

But when Iraqi forces made little progress in Mahdi-controlled neighborhoods after the offensive began on Tuesday, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, who staked his political credibility on the operation by traveling personally to Basra to direct it, issued a curious 72-hour ultimatum to the fighters to lay down their weapons — or face consequences.

It was hard to imagine, after the start of an assault involving 30,000 troops, what more severe consequences could be. If the emptiness of the ultimatum was not enough to suggest that Mr. Maliki had left himself no way out of the alley except to back down, on Friday he said that he would offer money to anyone in Basra who turned in a weapon over the following ten days.

American forces have also found that they have little choice but to respect Mr. Sadr. After years of referring to him as little more than a thug — including a vicious battle against his fighters in Najaf in 2004 — the American military has begun referring to him as “Sayyid,” the honorific title accorded to a Muslim holy man. This is particularly true when military officials praise a loophole-riddled cease-fire that Mr. Sadr ordered last August, when he said that his militia should stop fighting but could respond in self-defense if attacked first.

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 29, 2008 10:21 PM
Comments

Things are not as they seem to the NYT. Patience.

Posted by: ghostcat at March 29, 2008 10:56 PM

"Mahdi Army"--The words continue to leap out at the reader, reminding us that the situation in Iraq is not war. Wars with "Mahdi Armies" are quickly resolved.

Posted by: Lou Gots at March 30, 2008 6:27 AM

The Brits lost Khartoum.

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2008 9:39 AM

Yes, but they won Omdurman, that's the important point. A hundred years before the Tomahawk strikes.

Posted by: narciso at March 30, 2008 2:58 PM

Battles don't matter when you lose the war. The Brits are gone from Khartoum.

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2008 3:53 PM

Let us get serious. The point about Omdurman is that the "Mahdi Armies"--all the armies of the spiritual jailhouse--are on the wrong side of the military threshhold. That threshhold is the minimum level of military competence a society must achieve to avoid being blown away like chaff.

This turned out to be true at the turn of the Nineteenth Century, and it is true now. "Mahdi Armies," Boxers, Ghost Dancers, all those forlorn atavistic barbarians, hang on to their delusion that their ju-ju will make the bullets bounce off, and the bullets never do.

They may annoy us with criminal mischief, but they do so at our sufferance.

The crack abolut the British "losing" Khartom Sudan is ahistorical. They administered the Sudan jointly with their middle eastern clients for around sixty years. You and I are of an age which allows us to remember when tht region was known as the "Anglo-Egyptian Sudan."

Posted by: Lou Gots at March 30, 2008 5:10 PM

To ghostcat's point - all others are saying the Mahdi army is getting pounded and Sadr is calling for a truce because he is losing. The NY Times and OJ can spin this as Mookie winning but Occam's Razor - he isn't

Posted by: AWW at March 30, 2008 7:29 PM

60 years? So Marxism won? Such short term thinking is gay.

Posted by: oj at March 30, 2008 7:30 PM

Not at all. The World Government has succeeded to the place of the British and we are in the homeland of the jailhouse for as long as we may deem it important to remain.

Posted by: Lou Gots at March 31, 2008 4:32 AM

Who is the Viceroy of the Sudan? Britain lost.

Posted by: oj at March 31, 2008 6:33 AM

Spin? One side retreated andthe other's dictating terms. Remove your hatred of Mookie and try looking objectively and it's obvious who won.

Posted by: oj at March 31, 2008 6:37 AM
« THERE REALLY OUGHT TO BE A KEG BY HOMEPLATE: | Main | IS IT ANY WONDER THAT BLACK CULTURE IS SO DISORDERED...: »