Al-Sadr calls ceasefire after six days of clashes
Al Sadr has announced a ceasefire in Basra, which is astonishing enough, although he appears to be doing having, to all intents and purposes, defeated that brave warrior Maliki of Arabia in his attempt to crush the Mahdi army ahead of the regional elections.
The government's plan to win control of Basra may now be abandoned, after more than 300 deaths. Its authority was further damaged when soldiers were shown on television handing over their weapons to the Mehdi Army.The Roads to Iraq website is carrying more saying that al Sadr has given the Iraqi government a 9 point list, which the government have agreed to, as his conditions for a ceasefire:
The newspaper says that among the points is the withdrawal of the Iraqi and American forces from Basra, stop the raids against the Sadrists, Maliki to return to Baghdad in 48 hour followed by the ministers [Defense and Interior].I wonder how Bush will attempt to spin this defeat? Days ago he was hailing this as "a defining moment in the history of Iraq". Now Maliki has agreed to leave Basra within 48 hours and stop raids against the Mahdi army. It's hard to sell that as "a defining moment in the history of Iraq" unless it is a moment which illustrates your defeat.
Followers of Mr Sadr handed out sweets as a symbol of victory in his main stronghold of Sadr City, though hours later, rockets were still being fired towards the government and American headquarters in the Green Zone. The US military was shocked at the speed with which the crisis span out of control. Boasts about the ability of the Iraqi army to cope on its own are demonstrably untrue.
No doubt they will now try to sell this as al Sadr backing down and offering a ceasefire and will concentrate on the statement that, "Because of the religious responsibility, and to stop Iraqi blood being shed, we call for an end to armed appearances in Basra and all other provinces."
However, to do so one would have to ignore the fact that the Mahdi army have not disarmed and have announced that they will not do so until the occupation ends.
This humiliating climbdown by Maliki of Arabia surely spells the end for his administration? I can't see how he is left with a single shred of credibility after this enterprise.
Bush, of course, is much more used to humiliating failure and wears it like an old suit, so I expect the events of the past few days will simply morph into the rest of his history in that country and have no effect at all on him.
We are so used to hyperbole from this man that he can actually claim that we are witnessing, "a defining moment in the history of Iraq", a moment in which the forces he is backing are soundly defeated, and none of us even stop to ask ourselves the significance of what has just occurred.
That says something. It says that most of us, deep down, know that the president is full of shit. So there's no need to pay too much attention to what he says, even when he claims that we are witnessing "defining moments of history". He says stuff like that all the time, it's simply not important. And even when he's defeated during such a "defining moment", we simply shrug it off as yet another defeat in a long, long line of defeats.
However, what's most clear from these recent events is that the myth that the Iraqi army are going to stand up so the US forces can stand down, is simply that: a myth.
Click title for full article.
Tags:
10 comments:
Of course what few mention is that all of this is the result of the British failure in the south and their humiliating retreat in Basra. Had they done their job to begin with this wouldn't have been an issue.
No, Jason, do keep up. What caused this was Maliki deciding - of his own violition - to suddenly attack the Mahdi army because al Sadr appears likely to defeat him in forthcoming elections.
Unless you are suggesting that the British advised him to do that then you are simply talking gibberish.
I am referring to the fact that from the very beginning the British left the militias running things in Basra through their inability to take control of the situation, which was only exacerbated by their retreat under fire to the airport, where, with the exception of some recent support given to the Iraqi military, they have remained hiding ever since.
Their strategy for the region was a complete failure. The initial US strategy was equally pathetic, but at least they proved willing to adapt in order to try and achieve success. The British just plain surrendered. You can say whatever you want about the reasons for going there in the first place, but you as a nation are there now and you're all going to have to deal with it. Iraq is a dangerous place and the mission is extremely difficult, but if you all have such an unwillingness to even attempt to be successful, why on earth are you still there?
Your nation's unwillingness to fight in any circumstance is disturbing. I don't blame the grunts on the ground, it is the result of a weak populace and government infected with a virulent strain of misplaced pacifism that has effectively neutered your military.
It's not just the UK though, it's pretty much the whole of western Europe. Western Europe as a whole has done nothing of consequence in Iraq, was criminally negligent in Bosnia, and has done nothing in Africa in general and most unforgivably the Sudan in particular.
Is there nothing you people will fight for? You were willing to let genocide go on in Bosnia until the US stepped in, and you're letting genocide happen in the Sudan. It's not like most of western Europe is using its military for much outside token numbers in Afghanistan and Iraq for some. Why doesn't western Europe take the opportunity to actually do some good in the world for a change and use its power to actually help people, and try doing it on your own for once?
I am referring to the fact that from the very beginning the British left the militias running things in Basra through their inability to take control of the situation
At least we don't pay the militias, Jason, which appears to be the Bush gang way of controlling militias. Previous enemies who have been killing Americans are now armed and paid for by your government. Oh yeah, that's honourable.
You might attack what you perceive wrongly as a British unwillingness to fight, but the Bush gang seem to think the can buy their way out of any conflict or, as was the case in Afghanistan, pay the Northern Alliance to do the bulk of the fighting for them. Your nation have not managed to rid Baghdad of militias and have instead started paying them not to kill you, so please, no speeches about the British "failure" to clean up Basra. We left there peacefully, without even having to bribe them.
You are trying to turn Maliki's stupidity into a British problem and it simply won't wash.
Why doesn't western Europe take the opportunity to actually do some good in the world for a change and use its power to actually help people, and try doing it on your own for once?
What a fucking cry baby. Your nation, who have invaded more country's than any other in the past fifty years, now cry that the rest of us don't do it for you? We have to let you lot do it all, Jason, as war is God's way of teaching Americans geography.
And as for Bosnia, I think it was Blair who persuaded Clinton to step in, not the other way around.
As facile an understanding of a situation as ever I see. Money and soft power are legitimate tools to obtain national objectives, as you would know had you ever stepped foot inside a classroom or read a book. Since all western Europe has is money and soft power, I would think you would be more cognizant of the concept. Of course most of us realize that money and soft power that can't be backed up by hard power is tantamount to no power at all, but that's a conversation for a different day.
We left there peacefully
I believe the correct term is retreated.
You are trying to turn Maliki's stupidity into a British problem and it simply won't wash.
No, Maliki's stupidity is a separate issue from the complete British failure in Basra.
now cry that the rest of us don't do it for you?
I'm not saying anything about doing anything for us, I'm talking about western Europe doing anything at all. Just by your assumption that I want Europe to do anything for us illustrates the point that you in fact must believe that the US is responsible for acting militarily when required to address any problem in the world.
I specifically mentioned Africa (and specifically Sudan) since Africa is firmly within Europe's sphere. But of course, western Europe would rather watch genocide unfold then undertake the military action necessary to put an end to the situation.
Hell, you all won't even let what is going on be referred to as "genocide" in the UN since using that term would legally require certain responses that would be deemed distasteful.
We have to let you lot do it all
When is the last time western Europe has done anything of consequence?
war is God's way of teaching Americans geography
Painting an entire population with a stereotype. Now just what is that called....
And as for Bosnia, I think it was Blair who persuaded Clinton to step in, not the other way around.
You're out of your mind if you believe that. Blair was however one of the main proponents for action in Kosovo, which is in fact a different country than Bosnia.
As facile an understanding of a situation as ever I see. Money and soft power are legitimate tools to obtain national objectives, as you would know had you ever stepped foot inside a classroom or read a book.
Let me get this right, you are saying, contrary to what you said before, that it is now okay to "leave the militias running things" as long as they are paid to do so by the Americans, yes? That's soft power. But when the British achieve the exact same goal by not paying, that's surrender? You are a joke, Jason. And your patronising tone doesn't mask the stupidity of what you are actually saying.
I'm not saying anything about doing anything for us, I'm talking about western Europe doing anything at all. Just by your assumption that I want Europe to do anything for us illustrates the point that you in fact must believe that the US is responsible for acting militarily when required to address any problem in the world.
No, no. The people who address these problems do so - or should so so - through one of two forums; either the UN or Nato (and the latter usually only to stop genocide). You seem to think that it's the job of Europe to go plundering into every conflict in Africa and sort it. It's not any one continent or country's job to do this. When the world community decides to act through the UN, then we form a coalition. It seems sensible that all nations contribute to that coalition in ratio to their populations. The US tend to supply more troops because you are a nation of 250 million people and places like Britain have only 55 million. Then there's also the question that the US usually don't like to put their troops under foreign command, which is why - again - the US tends to send more troops.
When an attack took place against British territory in the Falklands we didn't ask for your help nor did we need it. And responding to an attack is the only way that a country can legally act in such a way within the UN Charter.
I specifically mentioned Africa (and specifically Sudan) since Africa is firmly within Europe's sphere. But of course, western Europe would rather watch genocide unfold then undertake the military action necessary to put an end to the situation.
What simplistic garbage. There have been many attempts to address Darfur through United Nations but China will, in all circumstances, apply a veto; mostly because the US, by invading places like Iraq to control access to the world's oil, is forcing China to scavenge about the planet taking oil where it can find it.
The fate of Darfur has much more to do with the actions of Bush than you are willing to admit. For example, why did Bush - who belongs to a party that supposedly supports market forces - block China's attempt to buy Unocal?
Don't you think actions like that have something to do with why China is in Sudan and blocking any attempts by Europe and the rest of the world to address the situation?
Painting an entire population with a stereotype. Now just what is that called....
It's called a joke. And it was a very good one.
Let me get this right, you are saying, contrary to what you said before, that it is now okay to "leave the militias running things" as long as they are paid to do so by the Americans, yes? That's soft power. But when the British achieve the exact same goal by not paying, that's surrender? You are a joke, Jason. And your patronising tone doesn't mask the stupidity of what you are actually saying.
I realize you have no concept of military operations, but am I to believe you don't understand the difference between a force exercising control through direct occupation of the streets, neighborhoods, and villages, and a force exercising absolutely no control by hiding in their base? Never mind, of course you don't understand the difference.
The people who address these problems do so - or should so so - through one of two forums; either the UN or Nato
You're kidding, right? The UN has never really done anything of consequence as far as stopping atrocities, and NATO can't do anything without US leadership. And I like the bit about NATO only acting to stop genocide. Can you point out to me where in the NATO charter it mentions that?
You seem to think that it's the job of Europe to go plundering into every conflict in Africa and sort it.
It's the job of strong and moral nations that have the political, economic, and military power to halt atrocities to make some attempt to do so. I would like to think that description would fit western European nations, but I have my doubts at times.
When the world community decides to act through the UN, then we form a coalition.
Which means never. And in the meantime people keep dying.
It seems sensible that all nations contribute to that coalition in ratio to their populations.
And which nations will allow their military to actually do any fighting?
The US tend to supply more troops because you are a nation of 250 million people and places like Britain have only 55 million.
And your nation, like the rest of western Europe, has grossly underfunded its military and left it hollow. I seem to remember that the UK cut its military by 40% after the cold war. That's criminal.
But this isn't a question of the fact that Europe has to rely on the US for almost every single military operation it dares to engage in. Some in Europe claim that there needs to be an EU military that serves as a complement to NATO. When the EU refuses to undertake any missions on its own, and when most EU nations refuse to allow their troops to engage in combat even when deployed to war zones, the future doesn't bode well for this kind of force.
When an attack took place against British territory in the Falklands we didn't ask for your help nor did we need it.
Yes, although Maggie was in charge then and your military was much larger.
And responding to an attack is the only way that a country can legally act in such a way within the UN Charter.
You are mistaken of course. And it is this very reason that the UN refuses to call the situation in Darfur "genocide".
There have been many attempts to address Darfur through United Nations but China will, in all circumstances, apply a veto; mostly because the US, by invading places like Iraq to control access to the world's oil, is forcing China to scavenge about the planet taking oil where it can find it.
Speaking of simplistic garbage... I like how you try to make excuses for the inexcusable. Your attempts to blame China's veto on the US, and excuse them for it as well, is just more of the same.
The fate of Darfur has much more to do with the actions of Bush than you are willing to admit.
Oh please. Everything in the world is not Bush's fault. Seek treatment for the BDS.
Don't you think actions like that have something to do with why China is in Sudan and blocking any attempts by Europe and the rest of the world to address the situation?
So China is blocking actions in the UN, and since you believe that the UN is some kind of world government with sovereignty over all nations and no action can be undertaken without their blessing, I guess that means that nothing can be done and people will just continue to die.
The truth is that any action that is moral and just is moral and just regardless of whether or not the UN gives its blessing. Clearly putting a stop to genocide is moral and just, and clearly military power is the best way to do so. Western Europeans need to stop being a bunch of amoral pussies, stop using the UN as a crutch for their fecklessness, and use their economic and military power for something other than pure self-interest for once.
I realize you have no concept of military operations, but am I to believe you don't understand the difference between a force exercising control through direct occupation of the streets, neighborhoods, and villages, and a force exercising absolutely no control by hiding in their base?
Your intial accusation was that we left militias in charge. My point is that the US have done the same. However, we achieved this without paying them.
You're kidding, right?
No. Because, unlike you, I believe in international law.
It's the job of strong and moral nations that have the political, economic, and military power to halt atrocities to make some attempt to do so.
Agreed. But it's currently impossible to do so through the UN. The only way we could achieve this is through Nato acting in a similar fashion as we did in Kosovo. Your nation is the strongest member of Nato, so why isn't it calling for some kind of action?
And your nation, like the rest of western Europe, has grossly underfunded its military and left it hollow. I seem to remember that the UK cut its military by 40% after the cold war. That's criminal.
We prefer to spend our money looking after our citizens with things like our national health service. That's not criminal, that was the democratic choice of the people.
Speaking of simplistic garbage... I like how you try to make excuses for the inexcusable. Your attempts to blame China's veto on the US, and excuse them for it as well, is just more of the same.
Explain to me why Bush - a man who supposedly believes in the power of the market - refused to allow the Chinese investment in Unocal? You have dismissed my argument, but you have not addressed it.
Everything in the world is not Bush's fault. Seek treatment for the BDS.
Again, you are using cheap name calling as a substitute for an argument.
So China is blocking actions in the UN, and since you believe that the UN is some kind of world government with sovereignty over all nations and no action can be undertaken without their blessing, I guess that means that nothing can be done and people will just continue to die.
I didn't make the rules, I simply pointed them out. And I have also pointed out that Nato, of which your country is a leading member, could intervene to stop genocide. Is your nation leading a campaign for Nato's intervention? No,it is not. So why are you looking to Europe - or blaming Europe - for a scandal in which your nation is also complicit?
The truth is that any action that is moral and just is moral and just regardless of whether or not the UN gives its blessing. Clearly putting a stop to genocide is moral and just, and clearly military power is the best way to do so.
I am in agreement with you there. However, your attempt to blame Europe and ignore the fact that the US is also complicit in this scandal is simply ludicrous.
Damn, I responded to this earlier but I must have previewed and not submitted. Oh well, I'm not going to bother to recreate it.
The gist of my response was that given the fact that the US is not in a position to provide anything more than logistical support and air power, it would be nice if the EU, which wants the world to see it as a military power, were to actually take the lead on something for a change without the US having to lead it to do so.
The gist of my response was that given the fact that the US is not in a position to provide anything more than logistical support and air power, it would be nice if the EU, which wants the world to see it as a military power, were to actually take the lead on something for a change without the US having to lead it to do so.
Firstly, the whole idea of a European army has always been put down by pro-US politicians in Europe, the loudest of which was Tony Blair, who insist that our defence comes from Nato.
Secondly, as I explained, under international law there are only two ways that this problem can be approached - either through the UN or Nato.
I agree that the US is too tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan to provide anything other than the air support you stated, but the same is also true for the British, we simply don't have enough troops to engage in the Sudan.
That basically leaves you with France and Germany. And on the back of our disastrous intervention in Iraq I imagine there is some understandable trepidation about involving themselves in risky foreign enterprises.
I personally would much rather that both out country's were engaged in Darfur rather than in Iraq, but then I have never supported our present misadventure.
Post a Comment