I remain stunned at how our press has gotten Round Three against Sadr wrong. Jack Kelly counts this as a head scratcher, too.
The press likes to remind us that we haven't won yet and the war has gone on longer than World War II (as if our job ended in 1945, but that's another story).
I'd like to remind our press that the war has gone on longer than it takes to get a bachelor's degree in history and yet our press still doesn't have a clue about history or warfare. Isn't it damning that after this long, so few in the media can offer intelligent reporting and commentary?
But I digress. Posts on how awful our press is would be a full-time job. The reporters with a clue are out there but they are few in number.
The fact is, Iraq won the latest round of fighting. And even the fact that Maliki is fighting the Sadrists and the Iranians is a success without adding up the many pluses and few minuses.
Peters reports on what a friend in Iraq thinks:
But what about the recent fighting in Basra, portrayed as a disaster by the media? "The Iraqi Security Forces conducted a number of targeted operations, took over the ports [key prizes that had been funding the militias] and are in the process of reestablishing checkpoints and security positions in the city.
"The Iraqi operation did reflect a willingness to take tough decisions about tough problems. It also displayed the Iraqi capability to deploy two brigades' worth of conventional and special-operations forces on less than 48-hours' notice, with another brigade following. That would not have been possible a year ago."
My source acknowledged that "the planning for Basra was incomplete and some of the local forces were incapable of standing up to the Iranian-supported rogue-militia elements." The quality of Iraq's security forces remains uneven - but he sees them as remarkably improved, in general. Their performance in Basra was more impressive than feature-the-bad-news reporting implied.
This officer doesn't paint over the cracks in the Iraqi house, but he's convinced that the Basra operation did "reflect a determination of a Shia-led government to deal with Shia extremist challenges."
For myself, I watched the Basra dust-up from Panama, amazed at the willful obtuseness of "war correspondents" who still refuse to acknowledge basic military realities. They demanded a level of effectiveness from Iraqi troops that the British had been unable (and unwilling) to deliver over the last five years.
Maliki is still demanding that the Sadrists disarm:
With tensions rising, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, himself a Shiite, told CNN Sunday that al-Sadr's followers would not be allowed "to participate in the political process or take part in upcoming elections unless they end the Mahdi Army."
He was referring to provincial elections expected in the fall that are likely to redistribute power in Iraq. The Sadrists have accused al-Maliki's government and rival parties of trying to diminish their standing ahead of the vote.
Sadr wants to have elections with his guys having guns nearby to influence the outcome. This cannot be allowed to happen.
And it wasn't just Sadr that lost. Reports that the Iranians told Sadr to stop fighting seem true. This is even more significant considering that the Iranians were hip deep in the fighting:
IRANIAN forces were involved in the recent battle for Basra, General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, is expected to tell Congress this week.
Military and intelligence sources believe Iranians were operating at a tactical command level with the Shi’ite militias fighting Iraqi security forces; some were directing operations on the ground, they think.
I've worried that the next enemy we might have to face inside Iraq would be Iran. But given that Iran failed at the level of supporting and leading local Iraqi stooges, might we see Tehran escalate rather than see their efforts fail? Might the next step be fully formed Iranian light infantry units that enter Iraq and call themselves "Iraqis?"
Sadr lost Round Three. But the campaign may yet become one between Iraq and Iran. Since Iran has been at war with us for three decades since seizing our Tehran embassy, I hope we won't be too stupid to see who we need to stand with in that showdown.
