Article

2008-04-03 Iraq

Timing, weaknesses in Iraqi offensive surprised Bush administration

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2008-04-03 00:00|| || Front Page|| [4 views ] Top
File under: Mahdi Army

#1 Reminds me a bit of First Fallujah - bad guys were getting bloodied so a truce was reached & losing side declared winners. Substitute Mehdi's for AQ and Iraqi Force for US force. In both it was quickly obvious that crushing the bad guys would cause more collateral damage than was politically acceptable at the time. Time will tell if Second Fallujah is repeated.

Posted by Menhadden Snogum6713 2008-04-03 08:05|| 2008-04-03 08:05|| Front Page Top

#2 There are a huge number of "devils in the details" with this story. To start with, the Iraqis have no air power at all, much less the ability to deliver less destructive explosives in a populated area--so how are they expected to magically sweep away bad guys without destroying a large part of town?

Yet without these, they would have to use and risk many more infantry as well, suffering much higher casualties--against people trained by the Iranians to set up ambushes and other traps.

On top of that, who the hell in the Pentagon is speaking out of turn, calling for troop reductions against the wishes of the field commanders? It is good to shut them up under any circumstances--along with the anti-war politicians hoping to make hay by demanding faster withdrawls.

Posted by Anonymoose 2008-04-03 08:42|| 2008-04-03 08:42|| Front Page Top

#3 i agree with much in the above comments, though Id say that the Tatertots were that well trained in urban defense, and that the IA has so few quality units that they have to hoard them as precious even in a showdown with perhaps their principle (nominal) enemy, is precisely the point, though it can be spun in either direction.

As for who in the Pentagon is speaking for withdrawl against Petraeus, I dont think its a secret that lots of folks in the Dept of the Army, both civie and brass, dont think the incremental benefits of keeping 140,000 troops in Iraq through Jan '09 (as opposed to taking out one or two brigades in or right after mid '08) are worth the continued strain on the Army (mainly on non-coms and mid ranking officers)

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-04-03 09:11|| 2008-04-03 09:11|| Front Page Top

#4 This is the best the MSM can do to make a Tet. In the end they'll be as effective as reporting the Patriots won the Super Bowl by the close of the third quarter. Nice try. However, there are enough independent viewers who can see the whole game to report otherwise.

Posted by Procopius2k 2008-04-03 09:58|| 2008-04-03 09:58|| Front Page Top

#5 I'm beginning to this our (also my) denotation of the Mahdi army as tatertots is becoming outdated.

Maybe the ones who did most of the fighting were, in effect, mercenaries paid by Iraqi agents of the Iranian Republican Guard (who are thus doing a type of outsourcing).

Posted by mhw 2008-04-03 10:03|| 2008-04-03 10:03|| Front Page Top

#6 Warren P. Strobel and Nancy A. Youssef, McClatchy Newspapers

Posted by RD">RD 2008-04-03 12:57|| 2008-04-03 12:57|| Front Page Top

23:47 Cromoting Panda8770
23:33 JosephMendiola
23:28 JosephMendiola
23:25 JosephMendiola
23:12 M. Murcek
23:11 JosephMendiola
22:51 Frank G
22:44 JosephMendiola
22:42 Frank G
22:35 JohnQC
22:33 JosephMendiola
22:14 g(r)omgoru
22:00 rjschwarz
21:59 KBK
21:57 rjschwarz
21:57 KBK
21:42 Broadhead6
21:38 Mike
21:25 M. Murcek
21:23 Broadhead6
21:18 Elvis On a Tractor
21:16 Frank G
21:16 Mullah Richard
21:15 Broadhead6