U.S. Troops Will Likely Enter Parts of Najaf, Iraq Soon

[hang a left]

U.S. Troops Will Likely Enter Parts of Najaf, Iraq Soon to Clamp Down on Rebels, General Says

An Iraqi man uses an axe to help destroy a burning U.S. Army Humvee after it was attacked by insurgents in Baghdad, Iraq, Sunday, April 25, 2004. (AP Photo/Muhammed Muheisen)
04-25-2004 07:30 AM
By DENIS D. GRAY, Associated Press Writer

NAJAF, Iraq -- U.S. troops will likely enter parts of Najaf soon in a move to clamp down on the rebel militia of a radical Shiite cleric but will stay away from sensitive holy sites in the center of the city to avoid rousing the anger of Shiites, a U.S general said Sunday.

Shiite leaders have warned of a possible explosion of anger among the country's Shiite majority if U.S. troops enter Najaf, and until now U.S. commanders have been saying troops would not go in.

With the new move, the military seeks to impose a degree of control in Najaf, while hoping that a foray limited to the modern parts of the ancient holy city would not inflame Shiites. Brig. Gen. Mark Hertling did not say when troops would move in, or how many.

American officials were attempting a similar limited step in the war-torn city of Fallujah, the other main front of fighting in Iraq this month.

http://sandiego.cox.net/cci/portal/_pagr/127/_pa.127/669?view=article&id=D825Q2L00

[leftchick]

1. these people are clueless...

Fucking clueless. Just entering the CITY will inflame the Shiites!
Here we go.... Bring em on! you aWol* chimpass*!! :grr:

[krkaufman]

8. Dear gawd!!!

Even al Sistani has said that there is a "red line" around Najaf, warning the Americans not to enter the city.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/16/1082055647373.html?from=storyrhs

...

More than 2500 American troops surround the city, primed for an attack to capture the renegade imam Muqtada al-Sadr.

But the powerful spiritual leader of all Iraq's Shiites, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has told them that he has "drawn a red line" around Najaf.

It's a classic Iraqi power-play. Al-Sistani has brought Sheikh Sadr to heel so now he will protect him against an American threat to capture or kill the imam who is wanted on murder charges.

Ayatollah Sistani has no formal political standing, but he is the most powerful figure in post-Saddam Iraq. The deal he is offering the Americans is that they should back off in the face of his defusing a Shiite uprising that risked all-out war between the US and the majority Shiites.

...

[Norquist Nemesis]

2. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.

Stupid. Dumb. Bad bad very bad move.

[Disturbed]

3. Stupid or?

Is something else going on?

[Norquist Nemesis]

7. Where's my hat?

Do you think something else is going on?

[krkaufman]

10. Yes, I now do believe that something else is going on.

We're doing far too many things lately that are just downright aggressive and provocative. After reading/hearing a Presidential campaign poll analysis recently, correlating fear in the electorate to * gains, I'm evolving to the opinion that the * Campaign/Misministration may be orchestrating many of these blunders to increase chaos pre-election.


----

• Fallujah reprisal siege: as stated elsewhere, why do these 4 killings warrant such special attention? Fallujah is a known insurgent stronghold. The best medicine for such towns is to get the rest of the country prospering, and then they'll get on board 'cause they don't want to be left behind. Quarantine them, maybe, to protect the rest of the country, but don't play into their hands.
  
• al Sadr offensive (shutdown of paper, arrest of lieutenant, promise of al Sadr's capture): same as Fallujah. Why must al Sadr be addressed NOW? It's a political matter for the Shiites to work out. Left alone, he has little power; only through our military response does he gain followers.
  
• siding w/ Sharon on lopsided unilateral move in Palestine/Israel conflict: * might as well have pissed on the Palestinian flag. What a diplomatic f___up. Did he fail to ask Powell's opinion on this one, too? Do we even *HAVE* a State Department any more?
  
• appointment of Negroponte as US Ambassador to Iraq: linked to death squads, linked to Iran-Contra scandal that funded the arming of Iraq's enemy, the man who lied to the UN in order to create a facade of legitimacy for *'s invasion of Iraq. * couldn't have proposed a more controversial candidate.
  
• Bremer announcement of full sovereignty on Iraqi television, almost immediately contradicted as only partial: nuff said.

[Barkley]

18. Very good analysis

Thanks!

[Lorien]

23. Yes, excellent

I recall reading in some news source (brain isn't accessing exactly where) that this is indeed the Pearle / Wolfowitz strategy; create total chaos, inflame the Mideast, Holy war achieved. Causing the people at home to feel nervous about "changing horses" in the middle of such a mess is an extra added benefit. :grr:

LOL! I just used the spellcheck function, and it suggested "Halfwits" for my spelling of "Wolfowitz" (which may or may not be correct). How appropriate!

[bemildred]

24. Yeah, very good ideas.

I balance that line of thought against the fact that getting
our forces crushed in a mass insurrection looks bad, you know
like what occurred in Iran in 1979, but it's hard to tell how
seriously that possibility is taken.

[Lindacooks]

27. Excellent!

THanks for posting this - I think you're right on the money.

[Norquist Nemesis]

28. When you put it that way

you've made some excellent points and you've convinced me. I also wonder how re-Baathification is playing into all of this mess.

[demoman123]

31. Good points, but....

I think this is too early to be promoting pre-election chaos. September-October would be a better time frame. Starting this early leaves too much time for the unpredictable to happen.

[krkaufman]

44. what, like the chaos would subside?

I hear what you're saying, but the Misministration can't afford to wait that long, for two reasons that I can think of...

(1) If they wait too long, heck, the Iraqis might have been able to form a working government and negated the need for American troops. Trying to create chaos at that point would be too obvious, or might not precipitate chaos as rapidly as needed for pre-election sphincter shrinkage.

(2) 9/11 Commission testimony and repeated expose books have forced their hand, perhaps, necessitating action a bit earlier than they would have preferred. (Much like they were forced, in Fall 2002, to start the *public* ramp-up to war sooner than they had wanted, due to the Harken Energy scandal bubbling to the surface.)

By the way, I'm not totally sold on my own conspiracy theory, as stated in the bullet points above. It's just that the only other rationale that I can see for their blunderous actions is extraordinary incompetence -- and for some reason I find willful maliciousness more comforting than unprecedented incompetence.

[leQ]

34. that was insightful

and put in a way that should knock some sense into the sheeple if spread around enough.

[Kinkistyle]

13. Shiite uprising brings us closer to War with Iran

Number 2 in the "Axis of Evil". The Shiites in Iraq are supported by Iran and a battle with the Shiites could bring us much closer to finding an excuse to just march our troops across the Iranian border ("freedom-haters coming from Iran" etc...)

[keithyboy]

12. Yes, it's called US approved genocide. It's all over Iraq.

We have lost all moral authority for doing anything good in the world.
All we have left is military might...perhaps that's more than enough.

[Aidoneus]

15. There was any moral authority to be lost?

:shrug:

[0007]

4. Why sit around for weeks and telling the world what you're gonna do?

How many warnings, how many threats? The intelligent move would be to leave Iraq and let the Iraqis people decide their own fate, not us forcing our will and our democracy.

Dumb dumb dumb dumb

[teryang]

16. Another spike in casualities this month

...is politically unnacceptable at home. It is inconsistent with the latest message, "we're going to break the back of the resistance."

[Mikimouse]

20. The answer is fairly simple, as I see it...

Blustering and sabre rattling is something that the RW eats up like candy. There doesn't have to be any substance to it, as long as it is 'decisive', and 'plain spoken'. Repeat it enough times and Americans will be worked up to a fever pitch, so no one will object to the genocide when it comes, and it will come! But no one will notice, because they will be so filled with their sense of 'purpose' that the genocide will be billed as something 'they asked for'.

[Jacobin]

21. EXACTLY, I can't tell you how many times I've heard

RW'ers say "Didja hear tha prezdint? He's gonna kick some raghead ass!!"

Appealing to his base.

Killing civilians in Iraq to shore up his base at home.

It's political. Because even smirky knows, at this point, that we will NEVER EVER successfully repress the Iraqis.

[Mikimouse]

22. Pathetic ain't it. The thing that really gets me is...

that it is so transparent, and yet that POS is still perceived in a positive light (perhaps an angelic light?). While it is part of the normal cycle of civilizations for the powerful to be supplanted eventually, I had no idea that it could happen so quickly or so soon. I feel that it is only a matter of time before one of the other world powers decides that enough is enough, and declares itself in support of the Iraqis, opposed to the US. While there are no other 'superpowers' at the moment, one has only to consider that the Huns and Visigoths were not superpowers by comparison to Rome, either. They still eventually managed to prevail.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

30. In some circles, it's called psychological warfare. The idea is to...

...get the opponent so anxious and worked-up that at first contact they either surrender, break and run, or fight poorly at best. Casualties are generally pretty light under those circumstances.

Then again, the opponent can get so worked-up that they fight like madmen in a suicidal rage. Casualties are very bad under these conditions.

I'm betting that the Iraqis will fight very hard when faced with the potential death of both themselves and their families.

[dbt]

5. Hooray! At last I have the answer!

We really are that stupid.

:freak:
dbt

[Wright Patman]

6. Saddam

no doubt entered Najaf at will, did he not? Or is this something not even he would have done?

Obviously, we are now tilting toward the Sunni cousins of Prince Bandar in our struggle to rule Iraq. Big suprise.

It makes sense. The Sunnis exhibited minority rule over Iraq just as the GOP upper crust does here.

[Aidoneus]

11. During the Shaaban intifada.. (1991)

Najaf saw very heavy fighting, as both it and Karbala` were liberated from the state's control, later retaken with much loss of life. I have no doubt that the occupyers will follow in Saddam's footsteps and flood his path with fresh blood (much of it their own).

[JoFerret]

25. Saddam may have entered Najaf at will

- I don't know. But I do know he steered clear of Fallujah. Or at least - it was never really in his control in spite of his reign of terra.

[krkaufman]

9. good one n/t

[mmonk]

14. Stupid is as stupid does

[ze_dscherman]

17. Bitter Rice

From Uri Avnery, published March 22, 2003:

Beware of the Shiites.

The troubles of the occupation will start after the fighting is over. Here is a personal story and its lessons:

On the fourth day of the 1982 Israeli attack on Lebanon , I crossed the border at a lone spot near Metulla and looked for the front, which had already reached the outskirts of Sidon . I was driving my private car, accompanied only by a woman photographer. We passed a dozen Shiite villages and were received everywhere with great joy. We extracted ourselves only with great difficulty from hundreds of villagers, each one insisting that we have coffee at their home. On the previous days, they had showered the soldiers with rice.

A few months later I joined an army convoy going in the opposite direction, from Sidon to Metulla. The soldiers were now wearing bulletproof vests and helmets, many were on the verge of panic.

What had happened? The Shiites received the Israeli soldiers as liberators. When they realized that they had come to stay as occupiers, they started to kill them.

When the Israeli troops entered Lebanon , the Shiites were a down-trodden, powerless community, held in contempt by all the others. After a year of fighting the occupiers, they became a political and military power. The Shiite Hizbullah is the only military force in the Arab world that has beaten the mighty Israeli army.

Sharon is the real father of the Shiite force in Lebanon. Bush may well become the father of Shiite power in Iraq. The Shiites, 60% of the Iraqi population, have until now been down-trodden and powerless. When they realize that the Americans intend to stay, they will start a deadly guerilla campaign. Bush does not intend to leave Iraq, as Sharon did not intend to leave Lebanon.

Then what? America will claim that Iran, the Shiite neighbor, is behind the Shiite guerillas. In Iran there is a lot of oil. That's the next target.

http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/article237.html

[catmandu57]

19. I'm past believing that we do anything with intelligence

Nothing will change until we ride these "people" out of town on a rail covered in tar and feathers.
They have armmageddon in their eyes, and will do whatever it takes to make their wetdream come true.
I only hope we can get our job done before they do theirs.

[Dover]

26. Seems like it could be a trap.

And setting this or any trap would be easy. Simply draw a line in the sand and dare the machoBushco idiots to cross it. This is learned on playgrounds not war strategy rooms.

[Norquist Nemesis]

29. Question...Didn't Condi take over coordinating Iraq?

No wonder why she's in the cabal. Another proven incompetent.

[demobandit]

32. The thing nobody is discussing is..

What if we don't go into that city? What will that make us look like to the rest of the country? It will send a message that America will back down if they revolt, and that will sadly lead to more of our men dead that just going in fast and hard and cracking down on this Al Sadr.

Everyone needs to ask, which choice will lead to the least amount of American deaths over the long run.

[Norquist Nemesis]

33. Good question.

I think most of us are holding on to hope for negotiations to be successful though, thus removing the need for us to go in militarily. In the face of a revolt, we're damed if we do and damned if we don't.

[cambie]

35. The thing that you are not thinking about

is that there was no need for any of these people on either side to die. Four mercenaries got themselves on TV and Bush called for “heads to roll”. This is his cute down-home way of saying reprisal. Is it ok with you to send your children to die for some crappy mercenaries or become killers in an immoral aggression? I recommend thinking this through one more time very slowly.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. – Albert Einstein.

[Matilda]

45. The Iraqis are fighting a guerilla war,

and I don't know of any wars that have been won against guerillas
fighting on their own soil. Battles , maybe, but not wars.
Especially when their numbers can be supplemented from other
countries on their borders.

Nor, I think, would any general ever advise an attack simply because
it wouldn't look good not to - bad tactics. Which is why so many
real soldiers opposed pretend soldier Bush's plans in the first
place - the reasons for war were wrong, and the strategies non-
existent.

Interestingly, Australian P.M. John Howard yesterday pledged that
Australian troops would stay for another year - when he followed
Bush into this war, he said it would be months, not years, before
they came home. That's how it so often goes in war, which is one
reason why war is a BAD THING.

[ze_dscherman]

47. What's bad about backing down?

Isn't it backing down that the U.S. constantly asks from anybody else? Are there special excemptions to the U.S. that make it so superior that it NEVER has to say sorry, admit mistakes, draw back, negotiate a compromise?

This kind of behaviour is what many other countries loathe about the U.S., and this is what may destroy it sooner than thought.

[proud patriot]

36. FUCK WAR

:grr:

[Chicago Democrat]

37. US Troops will likely cause the beginning of the end if they attack

Najaf

[demobandit]

38. I disagree, this Al-Sadr seems to want to stir things up for no reason.

He wants power and is willing to kill 4 people and burn them to death to show he is serious. We can't stand their and let that happen. It sends the wrong message. Like it or not we are in this war and must fight to win. Otherwise it sends a message that America is weak and can be attacked at will.

Regardless if Iraq is moral or not. We must win this.

[shadu]

39. you are wrong

We need to get out of Iraq as soon as possible.
We are the criminal occupiers of a sovereign nation.
We are killing innocent people for no reason whatever.
There will be nothing gained by more death.

When are you enlisting?

[demobandit]

40. If we pull out now, what will we look like? Won't that just show

the Middle East that we are cowards and doesn;t that just invite another attack? The Middle East culture respects strength, not weakness. Why do you think most of the countries are dictatorships?

[PurityOfEssence]

41. You don't EVEN know what you're talking about

To start with, the four mercenaries were killed in Fallujah, which is a Sunni stronghold; Al-Sadr had nothing to do with that whatsoever.

As for the "if we back down we'll be destroyed" tack, it's at least consistent with the juvenile pissing contest of pathetic macho posturing that's at the core of this administration's idiocy, but it's still wrong. Even from a puffed-up tough-guy standpoint it would still be smarter to isolate Fallujah and make them make a move first. If you really want to spook the locals, you show them no uncontrollable emotion and take advantage of mobility and flexibility. If they get the idea that they can goad you into bad tactical commitment, then they get the upper hand.

As for Najaf, it's just nuts to go in there. It's a holy city, and defiling it will bring religious war. That's just stupid.

Back to my initial point: you make the same mistake that many conservatives and this administration make, you lump all enemies together as if they're the same. They're not. Many of our current enemies are enemies of each other. You're just about a blink away from saying that it's all being done by Osama.

[BeHereNow]

42. There is NO way to win.

You are correct, Sadr is practicing guerilla warfare
stategy. The loss of life will be massive and accomplish
the ultimate goal of the resistance. Proving who the enemy
really is, and gathering even more muslims in unity to
fight for Islam.
NO army in history has EVER WON this type of conflict.
We are going to get our asses whupped.
That is the plan. The neocons gain support because
their support base will be outraged and support more
troops being sent, the draft will pass because se have to
avenge our losses.
the whole situation is FUBAR.
BHN

[Aidoneus]

43. Huh?

If you're referring to the mercenaries that got themselves perished in al-Fallujah, sparking this latest round of hysteria.. I'd advise you to inform yourself first on the subject you are speaking on before speaking. Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr had exactly nothing to do with these events. Hell, not even the resistance fighters that first fired on the mercs did do the most 'interesting' bits--the most notable parts of that were carried out by other people of the city after the vehicle was knocked out, venting their frustrations (and deeper feelings) out on the for-hire agents of the invaders who have done such exponentially greater harm in the course of the aggression. How does the massacre of hundreds of people following this factor in to your message?

As for his ambitions, I don't know.. he lives there and you don't, so I guess his vote matters more than yours does. Or are you willing to have people killed to enforce the way you think it should be? Can somebody do that to your city? That's what you mean by "must fight to win"--what the fuck is there to be won?--Your right to barge into whatever inch of earth you fancy and boss people around? That which you support used an incredible amount of violence and murder to seize power. The boys you wish on to victory have and will kill thousands to enforce their will, and this hypocrisy cannot be rationalized without an honest unmasking (not forthcoming, I'll wager)

I don't think you need to worry about the question of morality, for even the slightest chance to place decently in that passed the rear-view mirror eons ago. The message your "victory" would send is far more repulsive than the idea that an aggressive empire isn't invulnerable (a message of hope to most of the world, in itself).

[Philestine]

46. America is weak

A blinkered approach to foreign policy and the moral bankruptcy of their leaders is making America vulnerable.

For a country born from the ideals of freedom, they are beginning to represent the oppression of the colonial system that preceded them.

Their strength would be better proved by their ability to really influence the world in a beneficial way, by advocating a belief that you must understand a nation before you can turn up, make a few sweeping changes and then pack your bags. Many of us hoped that such short-sighted nation tinkering, which has lead to incessant turmoil in the Balkans and Israel to name but a few, belonged an era very different from our own.

If America position themselves as the leaders of a world seething with hatred and resentment, I don't believe that to be real strength.

[ze_dscherman]

48. AL-Sadr is not responsible for anything in Fallujah.

Al-Sadr's stronghold is Najaf, a holy Shi'ite city, the mercenaries (a.k.a. private security forces) were killed and then burned in Fallujah (Sunni stronghold). He has no power there.

Please get your facts correct, instead of repeating "We must win or else everyone sees we are weak".

This is a situation the U.S. CAN'T WIN BY MILITARY MEANS. If they enter Fallujah (or Najaf) they MUST kill hundreds. The rest of the world has not forgot that Iraq was invaded with fabricated evidence, against the will of the majority, and against the U.N. security council. Neither have the Iraqis. In the long term, the U.S. will face even more resistance, and will be even more isolated.

If they enter Najaf, this will incite the anger of Shi'ites. The U.S. so far has been very lucky the Shi'ites remained relatively calm. Enter their holy city, kill one of their leaders, kill their people - and there will be war all over Iraq on a much bigger scale than now.

BTW, it's bush who wanted power, and who has sacrificed the life of thousands (Iraqi army, CIVILIANS and U.S. soldiers alike) "to show he is serious".