U.S. Preparing Long Iraq Drive to Quell Unrest (NY Times)

[MaineDem]

WASHINGTON, April 10 — American commanders are preparing for a prolonged campaign to quell the twin uprisings in Iraq, issuing orders to attack any members of a rebellious Shiite militia in southern cities relentlessly while moving methodically to squeeze Sunni fighters west of Baghdad until they lay down their arms.

Officials in Baghdad and at the Pentagon said the military was prepared, if no peaceful solution materializes, to use two distinct sets of tactics to counter what they viewed as two different insurgencies — both of them dangerous and complex situations on difficult urban battlefields.

One campaign would entail retaking cities around Baghdad, if necessary block by block against an entrenched Sunni foe. The other would involve a series of short, sharp, local strikes at small, elusive bands of Shiite militia in southern cities, continuing until the militia was wiped out. Even as commanders offered a cease-fire to Sunnis in Falluja, allowing Iraqis to try to find a peaceful solution, and postponed any assault on Shiites in Najaf and elsewhere during religious holidays, they prepared for campaigns against foes who showed unexpected discipline and ferocity this week.

"We are on a war footing," said a senior military officer in Baghdad.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/international/middleeast/11STRA.html?ex=1082260800

"war footing"? What have they been on, maneuvers???

[sspiderjohn]

1. "We are on a war footing"? They really don't get it, do they?

nt

[nodehopper]

2. two different insurgencies?

They are idiots. They refuse to acknowledge that Bush The United indeed united the Sunnis and the Shiites and insist on talking about it as two separate factions, and completely inaccurately referring to the situation in Iraq as "on the brink of a civil war." Um, civil war is when factions internal to the country are duking it out. When everyone unified to drive out occupiers, that's not a civil war, that's an uprising.

[Barrett808]

3. "We will always be humanitarian in our efforts"

"We will always be humanitarian in our efforts," Maj. Gen. James N. Mattis, commander of the First Marine Division, wrote in an e-mail message. "We will fight the enemy on our terms. May God help them when we're done with them."

Beautiful. The irony is excruciating.

[nodictators]

4. Twin Uprisings?

They should check out the following article (which has been mostly censored in the US):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1189295,00.html

Sunni and Shia unite against common enemy

Protest 200,000 join Baghdad rally to denounce US occupation

Jonathan Steele and Rory McCarthy in Baghdad
Saturday April 10, 2004
The Guardian

Up to 200,000 Iraqi believers, many of them Shias, crowded into the precinct of Baghdad's largest Sunni mosque yesterday to denounce the American occupation and pledge solidarity with the people of Falluja as well as the uprising led by the Shia cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr.
It was the largest show of joint support by Iraq's Sunni and Shia communities.

"Long live Moqtada, long live Falluja, long live Basra, long live Kerbala," they shouted, naming the various cities where Shias have attacked coalition forces. Many punched the air with their fists.
"It is a year since America with its ally, the British devil Tony Blair, launched its attack. The Americans invaded the land of Iraq, but they did not penetrate its people or their souls," Dr Harith al-Dhari, the main preacher at the Umm al-Qura mosque thundered into a loudspeaker, as the overflow crowd sat on the lawns and concrete concourse.

"A year has passed and where is the democracy they promised? Instead, we have terror and censorship and rivers of blood," he went on.

[markses]

5. They are going foward with the military strategy

That's clear enough. And I suppose that they even believe it is the best strategy - thye only possible strategy to accomplish their goals (their goal being retention of general control of the landmass, its reseources, and its inhabitants).

They will go forward. They will even be "successful" in the short term, perhaps.

Nevertheless, it is well and truly over for the United States in Iraq. With each military success, there will be a further degradation of Iraqi civil society. With each insurgent killed, there will a a surge in support of the "insurgency." The US campaign will swell a massive uprising on the part of Iraqis. This is already happening. I think that we've viewed these events much more sanguinely (pardon the phrase) over here than they are being viewed in Iraq. The siege of Fallujah is being viewed in Iraq as an assault on Iraqi civil society in its totality - not on a small band of marauders or "thugs." It is being viewed as a slaughter on par with the worst terrorist acts against any nation. For this reason, the Fallujah insurgents are being transformed into public figures roughly on par with the way firefighters were viewed in the days and months after September 11. The military policy is directly contributing to the insurgency.

The military option crew will say as follows: There is a threshhold. At a certain point, you will break the will of the insurgents, and then we can get on with forming a proper state. Even the freepers with "dreamy eyes full of megadeath" follow this basic principle. They will break, then we can begin.

That's the dicethrow right now: Will the insurgency break, or will it be deepened and strengthened. The military thinks the outrage will be temporary. Other think the military victory (which, mind you, we have yet to attain even in Fallujah and Kut!) will be temprorary. That's the crux of the dispute, as I see it.

[starroute]

6. At some point, outside factors will come into play

It's not just Iraqis -- the entire world is outraged, and reactions are sure to follow.

The coalition is already crumbling, but what comes next? Maybe something like the boycotts that brought down the South African apartheid regime? Maybe financial pressure by all the investors that are propping up the US economy?

Whatever it is, it isn't going to be pretty -- and it isn't going to be something that can be countered with a military option.

So hunker downs, guys. The shit hasn't even begun to hit the fan.

[Old and In the Way]

7. The war will be carried outside of Iraq. Of that, I have no doubt.

Who is foolish enough to take on the US military machine on a frontal assault? Iraqi's know that can't win a war fought on our terms. But they can and will fight where and how they choose.

We can't win a war of occupation, not in the long term. All we can do is minimize our losses by killing more Iraqis. But at what price? How long can we kid ourselves that we are "liberating" Iraq by destroying the country and its people?

[Robbien]

9. Good insight Markses

It is a shame that military intel has been so isolated inside the Green Zone that they really do not have a good read on the people. Their only source of info are Iraqi friendlies who are telling them what they wanted to hear, not what they needed to know.

They think Sadr is an outlaw. And he might be, but he is an Iraqi outlaw who is right now defending his country against occupation and thus has the support of Iraqi. (or does for now at least)

[FloridaPat]

8. I would sure like to see the entire US military march to the

nearest port and take over the ships and just come home. Tell the repubs to fight their own war.

Why is no one screaming about the treatment of the troops? Where are all these idiot flag wavers?