You’d think that after lying continuously about the reasons for the invasion and subsequent five-plus-year occupation of Iraq that the liars in question would be pretty damn good at it by now.
On March 27, 2008, Bush regime officials did tell the truth regarding the fact that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had initiated the fight between Iraqi national forces and Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army. But that’s where the truth ends. The battle was not an indicator of any type of success for the surge. And, the fighting did not prove the fighting prowess of Maliki’s forces. What this little operation did prove however was that:
Nouri al-Maliki got his ass handed to him on a platter.
It was a grave miscalculation on the part of our nutcase-in-chief and the vaunted General Petraeus. It’s clear that it wasn’t even a product of bad intelligence. It was an ill-conceived exercise in incompetence, short-sightedness and very poor judgment.
In fact, the only thing accomplished by Operation Knights Assault was that the Mahdi Army -- thought by both the Bush and Maliki regimes as having been weakened by disorganization and internal feuding – is back stronger than ever; more loyal to Sadr, and more than ever dedicated to both expelling occupation forces from their land, and wresting control of the Iraqi government from the frighteningly incapable hands of Maliki.
As soon as Maliki and by extension the Bush regime realized their grievous mistake in attacking the Mahdi Army in Basra, they began a sustained propaganda assault on the American people. The off-the-record statements saying Prime Minister Maliki had launched the operation -- without any consultation from Washington -- began pouring out of the White House like the raw sewage is currently pouring out onto the streets of Baghdad. But, the prolific propaganda campaign wasn’t driven only by the potential embarrassment for the White House; it was also initiated to provide General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker contrived cover for when they travel to Capitol Hill next week.
In their collective infinite wisdom obtuseness, what Petraeus, Crocker, al-Maliki and our dear frat-boy-in-chief failed to consider was the fact that al-Sadr’s declared ceasefire was not an indication of weakness or disorder on his part, but rather a time of retooling, re-organization and purge in which his Mahdi Army could only emerge stronger, better organized and better equipped – due in part to the acquisition of the reported thousands of so-called "missing" American weapons.
David Swanson hit the nail on the head with his piece over @ The Smirking Chimp:
Bush may not be the greatest of wordsmiths, but he certainly nailed it when he said that the battle in Basra, in which the puppet government of Nuri al-Maliki and the Iraqi military were attacking the entrenched Mahdi Brigades of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr for control of Iraq's crucial port city, was a "defining moment" in the five-years-and-running Iraq conflict.
That battle, which saw al-Maliki fly down to the presidential palace in the country's second largest city to direct the army's fight, only to be spirited away by an American air rescue team when he was in danger of being captured or killed, is indeed a defining moment.
(my emphasis)
Mission accomplished, shrub. Let’s see, no political progress over here -- no reconciliation under there. What’s that you say? China making oil deals in Iraq... really?
I shouldn’t joke about it. What Bush has done by prolonging this immoral occupation is simply obscene. After another year, all we have to show for it is another thousand American deaths; tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths, and another $150 billion in American taxpayer money.
The country is still a basket case.
The battle of Basra ended--at least for now--with Moqtada al-Sadr stronger than ever, his fighters still armed and in control of the city, and of their stronghold in the slums of Sadr City, Baghdad. It concluded with a cease-fire agreement--negotiated by Iraqi government officials who, embarrassingly, had to go hat in hand to meet al-Sadr in his headquarters in Iran--under which the Iraqi army and police must stop attacking al-Sadr's forces, as they have been doing for months, and must release members of his forces currently being held captive.
So, what brought on this game-changing err in judgment? The most likely scenario attributes the decision-making to General Petraeus.
This story in the Asian Times sums it up pretty well:
Pentagon officials weren't sure why the Mahdi Army was not fighting back, but the Los Angeles Times (archives) reported on October 31 that they hoped that both the gradual decline in attacks would continue and that such a decline "means that Iran has heard their warnings". Two weeks later, Major General Jim Simmons, a deputy to Petraeus, said the Iranian "initiatives and commitments" to withhold weapons "appear to be holding up".
Petraeus, meanwhile, was convinced that the ability of the Mahdi Army to resist had been reduced by US military actions as well as by its presumed internal disorganization. His spokesman, Rear Admiral Gregory Smith, declared in early November, "As we've gone after that training skill levels amongst the enemy, we've degraded their capability..."
Then came Muqtada's announcement on February 22 that the ceasefire would be extended. That apparently convinced Petraeus and the Bush White House that they could now launch a large-scale "cordon and search" operation against the Mahdi Army in Basra without great risk of a military response.
Sadr’s surprise renewal of the ceasefire was apparently the real "defining moment." I know it’s a cliché but it really lulled Petraeus and Maliki into a false sense of security.
But, what’s it all mean for the immediate future?
The ability of Mahdi Army units in Basra to stop in its tracks the biggest operation mounted against it since 2004 suggests that Shi'ite military resistance to the occupation is only beginning. Through the strength of the Mahdi Army's response just before Petraeus' testimony, Muqtada has posed a major challenge to the Bush narrative of military success in Iraq.
And, by extension, a major challenge to the campaign narrative of John McSame. Democrats need to hit him over the head with this at every opportunity.
Congress needs to get wise to this charade as well, and slam Petraeus and Crocker with it next week.
Here's Time Magazine's take on the bungled operation.
How Moqtada al-Sadr Won in Basra
Peace