Shia backlash wrecks US strategy

Shia backlash wrecks US strategy

TIM RIPLEY

WHEN troopers of the US 101st Airborne Division first entered the Iraqi city of Najaf 17 months ago, they were greeted by huge and welcoming crowds chanting "Die Saddam, die".

This weekend, the same streets are littered with the debris from over a week’s sustained and bloody combat. Empty shell cases and burnt-out vehicles have replaced the flowers and flags of welcome.

A one-day truce to allow peace negotiations ended yesterday with hostilities expected to resume at any moment. Few expect a lasting calm in Iraq’s Shia regions any time soon.

All over southern Iraq, Shia fighters have traded fire with US, British and Italian troops for more than 10 days in the second major uprising in six months by supporters of the firebrand cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr.
(snip)
http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=941632004

to category one. :eyes:

today on this issue is very important. We do not understand the clan mentality because we are individualists. <http://www.juancole.com/>
Also look at the photographs he has linked of the people marching to make a human sheild, we are not seeing these photographs!

in such a fix. I'd rather have bad news every day than kept in the dark about what is really happening.

http://www.dw-world.de/dwelle/allgemein/bilder_show/0,3772,64949_6,00.jpg
http://www.dw-world.de/brazil/0,3367,7127_A_961235,00.html

or they have this in English

http://www.anewdeale-zine.com/

Some pics on google
http://images.google.com/images?q=Najaf+%2B+war+&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search

I think that may actually be Portuguese. Anyway, here's a website where people can get a free translation (link opens in new window).

part of the post that reads Why do the Mahdid fight.

US to redeploy 100,000 troops and shut bases

Peter Beaumont
Sunday August 15, 2004
The Observer

In February last year, however, when the proposal was first mooted, Pentagon officials presented the closure of the bases in Germany as punishment for Germany's refusal to back the war in Iraq.

Pentagon officials, who confirmed the planned announcement in yesterday's Washington Post, said the change is necessary to adapt the nation's military to the demands of the global war on terrorism and to take advantage of new technology.
(snip)
While Bush will emphasise the changing nature of the threat, it is clear that morale within the US military in an election year is a crucial issue as the death toll in Iraq rises. Discontent has been growing among relatives of servicemen and women, some who have barely been home between the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq.
(snip)
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1283660,00.html

If a person in such a position should start such a war wouldn't make sense to be sure that one could finish it fast :shrug:

The belligerent comments by National Security Adviser Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, after the collapse of the peace talks yesterday, warning "military clearing operations" would begin again soon, seem to have closed any negotiated solution to the current revolt.

Mowafaq al-Rubaie, a Shiite Arab member of the council, said the idea of using regional caucuses is “gone with the wind” and the only solution that Iraqis would support is a general election.

They found they cannot win on the ground so they are going to bomb the crap out of it from the sky.

Sounds like they want to make more Friends :shrug:

Iraq police urge media to leave Najaf

Baghdad, Iraq, Aug. 15 (UPI) -- An Arab news channel said Sunday Iraqi police have urged journalists and media representatives to leave the southern Iraqi city of Najaf.
(snip)
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040815-041222-2655r.htm
(published by the moonies, i.e. straight from the neocons)
http://www.cjr.org/search/index.asp?searchstring=washington+times&scope=owners

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&ie=ascii&q=National+Security+Adviser+Mowaffaq+al-Rubaie&btnG=Search+News

to watch as the people in the US, if you are here in the US that is

Did George Dubya Bush Collaborate to Cause the Terrorist Attacks on America?

last update: 12/1/2002

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a whole heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator " - G.W. Bush, on CNN 12-18-00.
Sure, it sounds crazy. Why would an American president cause the deaths of hundreds of citizens? Power? Approval Ratings? Re-election? One might think that the writer of this page must be horribly anti-American. This is simply untrue. I love America, and I want to see the perpetrators of the attacks brought to justice. But what if we're barking up the wrong tree? What if we're just going along with the plan, because that's what we've been programmed to do? Is it possible that George W. Bush might have been willing to sacrifice some people to reassure him of a re-election?

America is a great country, but do not forget that our government has fabricated numerous incidents in order to create a war. The Spanish-American War began with the sinking of the USS Maine, which was blamed on Spain but actually caused by an internal explosion. (Click here for more info.) World War II began for the US with the Pearl Harbor attack - an attack that killed thousands of Americans but also an attack that had a little cooperation from top US leaders, including the President. (Click here for more info.) During the Cuban Missile Crisis, our military proposed a hijacking of an American plane that would be shot down by a captured MiG in order to create public support of a war. (Click here for the original documents.) And the Vietnam War began with The Tonkin Gulf incident, in which the military lied about a "torpedo attack" on the USS Maddox to gain Congressional support for the war. (Click here for more info.) Before we allow more people to die, we need to closely examine the fact. Please read through this page with an open mind and consider the possibilities.
(snip)
http://www.geocities.com/bushdidit/

Links with background notes there at that link

Honestly there's no evidence Sadr's forces were disrupting the U.S. mission in Iraq so taking Najaf seems to be pretty pointless.

We basically should've given the Shia more control over Southern Iraq but Bush thought it'd score more points for re-election to be tough on Sadr. I'm not a fan of Sadr by any means and feel he's a fanatical scumbag but now he's gone from local thug in Najaf to prominent Shia leader thanks to Bush.