The Basrah Gambit

[Ken White]

I knew that - except for the words Kufr and Takfiri - but when we're moving troops to take part in inter shiite battles it's a lot harder to argue that "Iraq is the central front in the war on terror."

just watch what goes on. To my knowledge, no one other than politicians and pundits uses that phrase. What, precisely, does Central Front mean in any event?

Not that, even were that 'central front' statement remotely sensible, would it be negated by the fact that we're moving troops to take part in inter Shiite battles. That occurs on almost a daily basis there. Given a fight of any kind in Iraq, we're almost certainly going to be at least peripherally involved. Look at Najaf in '04. What difference does that make?

[Rank amateur]

even were that 'central front' statement remotely sensible,

I'm an ad guy. "Not remotely sensible" is what I do. Not remotely sensible can also decide elections. Just my opinion, but I think "bring home the troops who are not fighting Al Qeada" could win votes.

[Ron Humphrey]

I'm an ad guy. "Not remotely sensible" is what I do. Not remotely sensible can also decide elections. Just my opinion, but I think "bring home the troops who are not fighting Al Qeada" could win votes.

But this begs the question are those votes associated with grievance against a wrong action or are they votes without an inform and accepted awareess of the consequences of doing so.

In other words if you want me to do something because it's what you feel, believe whichever fine your the populous and ultimately you rule, However if you require this without consideration of it's very likely aftershocks and the very good possibility that you or your family may suffer from it in the long run then it's on you.

If on the other hand you are like many others who wish to push for what they want without being willing to accept responsibility for its outcomes, then Should the decision be quite that simple?

[Rank amateur]

then Should the decision be quite that simple?

John Kerry thought that every issue should be analyzed and explained in agonizing detail. (If I could've figured out a way to get him elected I'd be a lot smarter - and richer - than I am.)

[Schmedlap]

I'm unclear on some assumptions that seem to underpin much of the discussion about recent activity in Basra and Nassiriya. My impression is that the following are generally accepted as true:

1. JAM/Sadr is no better or worse than Badr/ISCI in terms of the security situation and any possibility of a future stable Iraq

2. Some type of action had to be taken against JAM and/or Badr in Basra, at some point in the near future

3. JAM has inflicted more damage upon the ISF than the ISF has inflicted upon JAM

If 1 and 3 are accepted as true, could someone please explain why?

[tequila]

1) ISCI/SCIRI began life as a creation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. It was originally a breakoff faction of al-Dawa which split mainly because its members chose to follow Ayatollah Khomeini's doctrine of vilayet-i-fiqh, or clerical rule. It may have achieved some independent political life since 2003, but its IRGC ties are strong and well-documented. Its political position regarding Iraqi federalism (advocating for a strong southern federal region with near-independent powers) is in line with Iranian interests.

3) Who knows proper casualty figures - I doubt anyone does. What matters is that the ISF was unable to seize or maintain control over any Mahdi Army strongholds in Basra until Sadr told the militia to stand down, while Sadr's forces were able to launch attacks throughout the south and put the ISF on the run in numerous locations including in Nasiriyah. I saw TV footage of Mahdi Army militia strolling about in broad daylight as late as yesterday, as well as several Mahdi Army fighters driving captured ISF hummvees. That Maliki extended his "deadline", took the deal, as well as claiming all along that he never targeted the Sadr Current specifically, shows that the ISF did not exactly sweep all before it.

[Schmedlap]

Its political position regarding Iraqi federalism (advocating for a strong southern federal region with near-independent powers) is in line with Iranian interests.

And the assumption is that the Iranian interests, in this case, do not align with Iraq's interests in long-term stability? A "federal region with near-independent powers" sounds like a description of Kurdistan.

What matters is that the ISF was unable to seize or maintain control over any Mahdi Army strongholds in Basra until Sadr told the militia to stand down, while Sadr's forces were able to launch attacks throughout the south and put the ISF on the run in numerous locations including in Nasiriyah.

It sounds like the criteria of success hinges not on what is accomplished, but how. ISF was only able to get this far because Sadr stood down. Nassirya may be under control now, but not before JAM seized the initiative. Why did Sadr tell his goons to stand down? Was he feeling generous? Was JAM incurring too many losses to sustain? Was he acting upon advice from Iran?

[Ken White]

I'm an ad guy. "Not remotely sensible" is what I do. Not remotely sensible can also decide elections. Just my opinion, but I think "bring home the troops who are not fighting Al Qeada" could win votes.

doing things that were not highly sensible would get you killed, you'll not mind if I agree with you on deciding elections and even on the bit about winning votes while pointing out that such an attitude has no place in geopolitics (See Kennedy, J; Johnson,L; Carter, J. Reagan, R; Bush G.H.W.; Clinton W.).

IOW, there's a time and place for not being sensible and one for being very sensible. It's sort of important not to conflate the two...

That doesn't mean for a second that bringing the troops out precipitously would be sensible and I'll also suggest that it might not buy nearly as many votes as you think. Further, the majority of those it did buy would be voting against a party, person or issue rather than for the issue cited.

I don't know of anyone who isn't ready for Iraq and Afghanistan to be over and done with. They aren't and won't be for a while. Why we're in either place is not irrelevant because the 'why' is directly related to the failure of four previous administrations from both parties to confront an obvious threat. That's hard for the western mind to grasp but it's harsh reality. A precipitous departure from either place will be touted as another failure. That, too is hard for western minds to grasp.

Whether you or I would have done it the way it was is immaterial; it was done that way. What the future holds is murky but I'll wager one thing -- if we leave early, we'll be back there (and it will be far harder) during your lifetime.

Sort of like Ron said above -- gotta think about the aftershocks...