Sadr’s Triumphant Surrender
The media appear to be unanimous: by getting his butt kicked, surrendering control of Basra, and being mocked as an Iranian catspaw Sadr has… succeeded.
Many Iraqi politicians say that Mr. Maliki’s political capital has been severely depleted by the Basra campaign
Really? The same Iraqi politicians who were so opposed to Sadr they boycotted talks aimed at a peaceful resolution, calling it a “law and order” issue, thus preventing a quorum?
and that he is in the curious position of having to turn to Mr. Sadr, a longtime rival, for a way out.
Yes, how strange that he would talk to the enemy when negotiating that enemy’s surrender. Bizarre, yet. Perhaps even unique in the annals of war.
It’s hard to believe how reality-averse the analysis on this confrontation has been:
”Al-Sadr achieved what he wanted,” said Vali Nasr, an expert on Shiite politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. “He stood his ground, made his point and showed he has the real power in the south, not his rivals.”
He didn’t stand his ground, he ordered his men to hide indoors like whipped dogs. He showed he has the real power to… what, exactly? Lose hundreds of fighters in a few days, then surrender?
Al-Sadr, 34, was bold enough to place demands on al-Maliki’s administration.
Cute. Terms of surrrender are now “demands.”
In a nine-point statement issued Sunday, al-Sadr demanded that government forces stop rounding up his supporters and free security detainees not charged with any crime — two issues at the root of last week’s deadly violence.
No, the violence was caused by Maliki objecting to Sadr’s people running around the streets of Basra stealing oil, kidnapping businessmen, and shooting anyone they felt like. And I doubt anyone involved seriously believes the Iraqi government isn’t going to continue arresting rogue Sadrists. That “concession” is meaningless, a fig leaf to preserve Sadr’s dignity.
Al-Maliki — left humbled by the stiff resistance in Basra and the Shiite backlash in Baghdad and elsewhere — was further bowed by saying al-Sadr was taking a “positive step in the right direction.”
Good God, the guy surrendered. What is Maliki supposed to do, publicly kick him in the teeth?
In the interview, conducted in an undisclosed location, al-Sadr also called his reclusive nature a “tactic.”
Funny, it’s usually called “hiding.”
I haven’t seen the media swoon this hard over a militant anti-American in decades. Is Sadr the new Che?
UPDATE: As usual, Bill Roggio has a much more realistic appraisal:
The reasons behind Sadr’s call for a cessation in fighting remain unknown, but reports indicate the Mahdi Army was having a difficult time sustaining its operations and has taken heavy casualties. “Whatever gains [the Mahdi Army] has made in the field [in Basrah], they were running short of ammunition, food, and water,” an anonymous US military officer serving in South told The Long War Journal. “In short [the Mahdi Army] had no ability to sustain the effort”
…571 Mahdi Army fighters have been killed, 881 have been wounded, 490 have been captured, and 30 have surrendered over the course of seven days of fighting.
Subscribe to Dean's World by Email
21 comments
It looka like al-Sadr had a Pyrrhic victory. Only without, ya know, the “victory” part.
james joyner has drawn parallels between this clash and the war between Hezbollah and Israel. Wherein no side winning constitutes a “win” for Hezbollah or the Mahdi militia.
I don’t know that I’m in a position to know whether I agree with that assessment or not (inclined to say “not,” prematurely), especially in Joyner’s hands. He does a less-than-admirable job arguing his position, but at its heart (and possibly in more able hands) it’s at least an argument that awards victory to Sadr that is not ridiculous on its face.
Well, the difference is Nasrallah didn’t order Hizbollah to sit inside while the Lebanese Army took control of a major city away from them.
maybe. like i said, i don’t know that i buy the parallels argument. but i mean more in the larger sense that after the israel-hezbollah war, hezbollah still existed and basically controlled what they did pre-war, meaning a “loss” for the israelis. similarly, the mahdi army still exists and could cause trouble in basrah if they decided to at a later date. thus a “loss” for maliki. i don’t know. still a tenuous argument at best.
The analysis contains a good deal of spin, but there are some nuggets of truth. Sadr maintains a substantial force of arms and will no doubt make every effort to rebuild what he has lost so he can reassert his presence in the future.
It’s sort of like knowing you have a snake in the garden and trying to stomp on its head. You might run it off and make it hide, but you still have a snake in the garden.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Obama’s Surrender day
Here’s an interesting story from FoxNews (I hope that made some of you gag)
about the biggest domestic terrorist threat in the USA.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..The real domestic terrorists
Does the Iraqi army control Basra now?
“Control” may be too strong a word… but they have MORE control than they did. For now.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..The real domestic terrorists
Actually the real question of Basra is whether the Iraqi government can take their gains in the field and turn them into political gains in the area to weaken Sadr’s ability to regrow his army. They just may be able to do that, and I hope they can. If they do, then they will indeed “control” things. As an optimist, I am hoping that they are working hard behind the scenes to strengthen the legitimate government’s authority there.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..The real domestic terrorists
Smippet:
Quoth Roggio:
One day after Muqtada al Sadr, the leader of the Mahdi Army, called for his fighters to abandon combat, the fighting in Basrah has come to a near-halt, and the Iraqi security forces are patrolling the streets.
What’s not being said –these losses are occurring among the more experienced “core” of his militias. The sharpest edge of his sword has been blunted by nearly 2000 that we know of. It’s one thing to have 50,000 wannabes; another thing entirely to have 5,000 skilled fighters and lose half of them in barely a week of fighting. The key to this news is the logistics. They can’t sustain conflict. They are being systematically hunted. Effectively. They can’t be protected.
Back to Hamas, Hezbollah, AQ and the Syranians.
Actually the real question of Basra is whether the Iraqi government can take their gains in the field and turn them into political gains in the area to weaken Sadr’s ability to regrow his army.
The thugs come. They proclaim “real Islam” or “fighting the infidel”. They act like total criminals. They are expelled. They are not invited back.
This has been going on in Iraq for over a year.
It amazes me that so many here do not understand the dynamic.
It is rather simple. Not hard to understand. It has been repeated repeatedly.
Will Sadr come back? Well you have to ask yourself why he is hiding under a bed?
Did Nasrallah gain victory? Another guy who has to use a bed as cover. Victory for Nasrallh - “We are never going to do something that stupid again. We can shoot a few rockets every once in a while to keep up appearances.”
My favorite picture of that war - the “victors” high tailing it across a river with the unwounded holding plasma infusions for the “walking” wounded. Real winners at least have ambulances. Why no ambulances? The Israelis were shooting any thing that moved. And why were they doing that? Well the Hizzies were notorious for moving weapons in such vehicles.
The Lebanon War of ‘06 was a punitive raid. So far it seems the Hizzies were sufficiently punished. It was a real estate deal. Billions in property damage. Much of which has not been restored to its former glory. i.e. the ruble has been cleared and no rebuilding has taken place.
[…] 1st, 2008 at 02:20am Mark Noonan As noted by Dave Price over at Dean’s World: The media appear to be unanimous: by getting his butt kicked, surrendering control of Basra, and […]
Well, several on the right predicted a Tet (Media) Offensive this spring. Is this it?
Kristian H’s last blog post..Deleting spam autmatically (Postfix + Spamassasin)
CC,
I think those eco-terrorists are actually lumber barons.
Everytime one of those big houses gets burned down, LOTS of lumber will be purchased to rebuild them.
Tricksy ones, they is.
Very, very tricksy.
[…] going on in Iraq, largely in the absence of hard facts about the actual events and circumstances. Some see the operations there as the Iraqi government cracking down on anti-government forces lead by Moqtada al-Sadr. […]
[…] 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. […]
Surrender would be Sadr’s men turning over their weapons and Sadr going to jail. By making a cease-fire on his own terms, while retaining his freedom, weapons, and personal army, Sadr sets himself up as equal to Maliki in status. It is hard to imagine what better outcome Sadr could have hoped for. Sadr surely never imagined that his army had the manpower to take over the country, so it is likely that Sadr agreed to the cease-fire because he had achieved his objective–a demonstration that Maliki does not have the power to crush him. Sadr’s long-term goal is clearly to set himself as somebody who has to be negotiated with, with the goal of increasing his influence in the inevitable eventuality that the US begins to draw down its forces. Or maybe he’ll run for President of Iraq himself. After all, if Hezbollah could win in Palestine….
[…] The bad guys come out to die. A triumphant surrender? Remind us again who’s losing? Media scorekeeping leaves something to be desired. Don’t […]
[…] World : Sadr’s Triumphant Surrender The media appear to be unanimous: by getting his butt kicked, surrendering control of Basra, and […]
[…] And I’m beginning to discern a pattern here. […]
You must log in to post a comment.