When the Iraqi government finally took the long-expected action to establish control of Basra after the British pullback left it in the hands of militias and gangsters, suddenly the media declared that the country had reached the brink of collapse. They highlighted stories of defections from the Iraqi military and opined that the surge had failed. Moqtada al-Sadr would finally achieve his goal of controlling the South and would expose the Baghdad government as a house of cards. Guess which side just sued for peace?

Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr offered Sunday to pull his fighters off the streets of Basra and other cities if the government halts raids against his followers and releases prisoners held without charge.
The offer was contained in a nine-point statement issued by his headquarters in Najaf.
An Iraqi government spokesman welcomed al-Sadr’s order, saying it was “positive and responsive.”
Al-Sadr demanded that the government issue a general amnesty and release all detainees. The statement said he also “disavows” anyone who carries weapons and targets government institutions, charities and political party offices.



Anyone who follows the news closely in Iraq knew this day would come. The British left a power vacuum behind in the south that the Baghdad government could not fill at the time, and Sadr and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council’s Badr Brigades filled it instead. They have fought each other and some smaller Shi’ite groups for control of the streets ever since 2005, as Steven Vincent tried to warn people just before they murdered him in Basra. The Iraqi government had no choice but to challenge the militias for control of Basra and the surrounding areas, but they waited until the Iraqi Army had enough strength to succeed.
Did our media give anyone this context? No. They reported it as some kind of spontaneous eruption of rebellion without noting at all that a nation can hardly be considered sovereign while its own security forces cannot enter a large swath of its own territory. And in the usual defeatist tone, they reported that our mission in Iraq had failed without waiting to see what the outcome of the battle would be.
Sadr now wants to disavow anyone with a gun. The Mahdis, which found themselves on the short end of the stick, have just watched their Fearless Leader surrender — again — and this time leaving them twisting in the wind. That isn’t the action of a victor. Perhaps our media would like to explain that in the context of their clueless reporting so far.



Update:

Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr said Sunday that he was pulling his fighters off the streets nationwide and called on the government to stop raids against his followers and free them from prison.

And Nouri al-Maliki remains in Basra. Buh-bye, Sadr.

This is typical Arabic crap. They are getting their but ts kicked and want an easy way out. they will just regroup and pop up again. If the opportunity presents itself we need to kill this fat bast oops illegitimate person. They could have done it in Najaf several years ago and let the Iraqis talk them out of it. Same thing that happened with Bin Laden. Give this rat a little hole and he will squeeze through it.

Do you mean this past weekend...when Iraqi lawmakers secretly traveled to Qom...to beg Sadr to stop military operations?

LoL...

Mccain will make things better....when he invades pakistan.....and pakistan bombs india cause of the invasion.......

Obama the best bet, eventhough they all have their ups and downs, at least he looks Muslim.....Maybe he'll be brave enough to talk to them....strike a peace agreement........

OH BUT WAIT: that will mean Obamas minister will be televised every weekend, and maybe can explain why so many deserved to lose their life on Sept. 11......


Anybody wanna vote for me

Thats very admirable, roadkill...

Perhaps you'd like to follow up with a point?

If I had to 'splain it to ya, you wouldn't understand.

I don't understand...


That's true -- but not in the way the President meant it. As the smoke clears over new rubble in Iraq's second city, at the heart of Iraq's oil region, it's apparent that the big winner of the Six-Day War in Basra are the forces of rebel cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army faced down the Iraqi armed forces not only in Basra, but in Baghdad, as well as in Kut, Amarah, Nasiriyah, and Diwaniya, capitals of four key southern provinces. That leaves Sadr, an anti-American rabble rouser and nationalist who demands an end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq, and who has grown increasingly close to Iran of late, in a far stronger position that he was a week ago. In Basra, he's the boss. An Iraqi reporter for the New York Times, who managed to get into Basra during the fighting, [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link. that the thousands of Mahdi Army militiamen that control most of the city remained in charge. "There was nowhere the Mahdi either did not control or could not strike at will," he wrote.

Please explain to me...how this scenario is, in any conceivable way, good for coalition forces...

You will never convince him that Iraq begged Iran for Al Sadr to stop.

Why would Al Sadr be hiding in Iran? Kind of like the rest of the islamo-terrorists. Hide in relative safety while their followers murder innocent people in the market place.