We may be at a very crucial point in Iraq. Laughing Wolf has some thoughts.

Sadr sure hopes this is Iraq's Tet:

From yahoo news:

> > Sadr was holed up inside the holy Kufa mosque, where centuries earlier the founder of Shiism, Imam Ali, was killed in 661 AD, even before the coalition announced a warrant was out for the defiant young leader. > >

If so, he shouldn't. The Vietnamese lost the Tet Offensive. The point about Tet is how the media will report it.

I though the Ramadan offensive was Tet.

Here's my hypothesis - four mercs blunder into the middle of a Sunni powerkeg, primed by a messy transition to the First Marine (and what the HELL were four soldiers of fortune doing alone in there!!!). At the same time (coincidentally) the CPA is clumsily trying to shut down Sadr before the transition, by shutting down Al-Hazaw and activating months-old arrest warrents. Sadr (who's a nutter but not stupid) combines paranioa and pragmatism and realizes this is the time to launch an offensive - as much against Sistani as the CPA.

I dont think this is some pan-Arab scheme as the Laughing One would suggest. I think it is more a manifestation of the basic unit of war: The GodAllMighty Cockup - mixed in with a lot of intraIraqi Kabuki.

And if the martyr-in-the-mosque report is correct - the appropriate analog is not Tet, but Waco.

I agree with Duncan's Sadr vs Sistani comment. And after the arrest of one of his top aides, Sadr may have figured its now or never.

= = =

As far as the Tet Offensive, I just read an interview with a US officer who went to Vietnam to study that war. He met with a high ranking officer whom he told "You never beat us in a significant battle."

The Vietnamese responded, "That is true. It is also irrelevant."

Remember "Chess vs Go" ?? - - I fear Wolfowitz is a darn good chess player and a lousy Go player.

Oh, and as far as Waco, that mosque has particular historical significance for the Shia. No one else ever gave two cents for that Waco compound.

We dig him out of there and its a bloodbath and then his legacy will be to have been martyred by the Americans just like his father and brothers were martyred by Saddam.

= = =

But here is the acid test, IMHO. If the Iraqi police cut and run we are in big trouble. If the Iraqi police stand up to Sadr and fight his thugs/militia then we are in very good shape.

Bill - this might be your answer:

"The fighting erupted when five trucks of US soldiers and the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps (ICDC) tried to enter the district and were attacked by Sadr supporters, Amid said.

Coming under fire, the ICDC, a paramilitary force trained by the Americans, turned on the US soldiers and started to shoot at them, according to Amid.

The soldiers fled their vehicles and headed for cover and then began to battle both the Mehdi Army and the ICDC members, he said. Their vehicles were set ablaze.

I hope this is wrong.

Otherwise the analog will be Dien Bien Phu.

Sh*t.

At todays Centcom briefing the Iraqi police were described as a "mixed bag" - no indication Iraqi police fired on Americans yet they apparently did abandon several police stations rather than fight.

Too early to tell much more.

Bill White
" As far as the Tet Offensive, I just read an interview with a US officer who went to Vietnam to study that war. He met with a high ranking officer whom he told "You never beat us in a significant battle."

The Vietnamese responded, "That is true. It is also irrelevant." "

The quote is from 'On Strategy' by Harry G. Summers. I don't remember where I read this, but a former General who fought on the North Vietnamese side claimed (paraphrase) that no high ranking officer of the NVA would say anything like that, as (from their POV) it was untrue.

Laughing Wolf's article has had me thinking all day, but probably not in the way that he intended. His analysis makes the elementry mistake of failing to distinguish between Shi'a (Sadr's crew) and Sunni (Fallujah) populations and objectives. This is a critical error. Hatred between the Shi'a and Sunni is far more ancient and deep-rooted than their respective hatred of us; had we actually been committing atrocities in Fallujah, Al-Sadr would probably have proclaimed a national holiday, and *then* staged his rebellion.

Without commenting on the wisdom of the overall war and occupation, I will say this: we are now fully committed, and have no alternative but to win the day. The alternative is too horrible to contemplate. So it is not wishful thinking when I say that we are thoroughly losing this occupation and this war, and it is precisely because of the sort of mistakes that Laughing Wolf makes.

Iraq is a highly divided society, and it is important to understand the divisions between Shi'a, Sunni, Kurds, and Arab Nationalists (to name just a few of the major groups, and to say nothing of the myriad factions therein). Understanding this is not simply an intellectual exercise; it is critical to the success of the undertaking.

I am reminded of the contrast between this occupation and the British occupation of greater India during the "Great Game" of the 19th century. At the peak of their power in India, there were fewer than 15,000 Britishers on the ground. They wielded their power via an intricate network of human intelligence, playing both sides of even the most trivial of internal conflicts, all to the British advantage. By understanding the complex nature of Indian society -- when to speak Hindi, when to speak Urdu, when to be bold and when to be meek -- they were able to skillfully manipulate India to their advantage (and, I would argue, to India's advantage).

In comparison, our occupation of Iraq is almost comically simple minded. We are barely aware of Iraqi society itself, instead ascribing all of the complications to "thugs and evildoers" or to individual, made-for-TV Bad Guys. The last I heard, Bush was rattling on about how the whole problem was "one man who opposes democracy and freedom"; no mention of his several million followers or what their motivations might be.

I'd like to think that this simple-minded analysis was simply the televisable sound-byte version of a much more complex and thoughtful stategy. Unfortunately, our actions on the ground (mostly) say otherwise. As long as we persist in believing that there are simple explainations and simple solutions in Iraq -- or, worse, that our superior firepower obviates the need for that kind of understanding -- then we will continute to lose the occupation, and the war.

"four mercs"

Use of that term is offensive in the extreme, and demonstrates a certain callousness in the user, and a willingness to dehumanize.

My apologies to anyone offended by my misuse of that term.
It was an awful fate for anyone, and so far as I know the motives of the Blackwater contractors were well-intentioned. I might have hoped it was clear that I was angry that they found themselves in such a terrible situation - their job was protecting supplies, not going into the Ground Zero of Baathism.

However, it seems that the use of civilian contractors in a war zone, especially in a forceful role, is a very grey area. Rhetoric aside, Haliberton has had real problems meeting its logistical responsibilities. The abuses of the local population by DoD contractors in Bosnia are a matter of record. The lack of regulation, of applicable law, is troubling. And friction between contractors and the military, noted in Time this week, may have had a role in allowing this potentially decisive tragedy to happen.

(While we are on the subject, I would add that I find the loosely used slur "tranzi" equally offensive.)

It wouldn't have occurred to me that the word "tranzi" would be offensive, Duncan. Is it because it seems like a play on the word "Nazi"? I never intend it that way--I just think of it as shorthand for "transnationalist progressive," and I assume that most people who are of that persuasion wouldn't necessarily object to that phrase.

I suppose, though, in thinking about it now, that whoever came up with it was attempting to make a parallel.

Here the origin story of the term. Its connotations appear quite deliberate. Derived, of course, from Fonte's article on "Transnational Progressivism", where he boldly redicovers the concept of corporatism (a old sin of both the left and the right, born of relying to much on ideological certainly over informed skepticism).