Iraqi military ‘shows Bush something’

As Kevin Drum noted, the Iraqi military faced off against the previously obscure “Soldiers of Heaven” in a fiece battle in Najaf over the weekend. It didn’t go well.

Iraqi forces were surprised and nearly overwhelmed by the ferocity of an obscure renegade militia in a weekend battle near the holy city of Najaf and needed far more help from American forces than previously disclosed, American and Iraqi officials said Monday.

….Only a month ago, in an elaborate handover ceremony, the American command transferred security authority over Najaf to the Iraqis.

….Among the troubling questions raised is how hundreds of armed men were able to set up such an elaborate encampment, which Iraqi officials said included tunnels, trenches and a series of blockades, only 10 miles northeast of Najaf. After the fight was over, Iraqi officials said they discovered at least two antiaircraft weapons as well as 40 heavy machine guns.

It was one bloody skirmish, but it may nevertheless be helpful in shedding light on the bigger picture. Indeed, there are a few ways to look at this. First was OTB’s Dave Schuler, who noted, “Aren’t large pitched battles like this characteristic of insurgencies that believe they are on the upswing? Not particularly good news.”

Second was Steve M., who emphasized a disconcerting question: how did a few hundred Iraqis set up an elaborate encampment of “tunnels, trenches, and antiaircraft weapons”?

And lastly, of course, there’s the president’s take on the same event.

The weekend’s battle was the first question raised by NPR’s Juan Williams when he sat down with the president yesterday.

MR. WILLIAMS: All right, Mr. President, the reports that 300 militants were killed, an American helicopter shot down yesterday in Najaf – that’s one of the deadliest battles of the war, what can you tell us?

PRESIDENT BUSH: You know, Juan, I haven’t been briefed by the Pentagon yet. One of the things I’ve learned is not to react to first reports off the battlefield. I will tell you, though, that this fight is an indication of what is taking place, and that is the Iraqis are beginning to take the lead, whether it be this fight that you’ve just reported on where the Iraqis went in with American help to do in some extremists that were trying to stop the advance of their democracy, or the report that there’s militant Shia had been captured or killed. In other words, one of the things that I expect to see is the Iraqis take the lead and show the American people that they’re willing to the hard work necessary to secure their democracy, and our job is to help them.

So my first reaction on this report from the battlefield is that the Iraqis are beginning to show me something.

The president’s first instinct to avoid comment was the right one, but he just couldn’t help himself. He wanted Americans to believe that the Iraqi army’s performance in Najaf was an encouraging sign.

The Iraqis are “beginning to take the lead”? No, they’re not, neither in Najaf nor in Baghdad. The Iraqis “are beginning to show [Bush] something”? Like what? Their inability to “take the lead”?

If the president had said progress is slow and that we need to patient, that’s an argument that can be judged on its merits. But Bush’s comments on NPR highlight just how little has changed over the last four years — bad news is good news, evidence that Bush is wrong becomes evidence that Bush is right.

The battle in Najaf indicates that Iraqi’s are taking the lead, all right — the Iraqi insurgents. And the Iraqis are definitely showing us something — that the situation there may be much worse than we dreamed. How else can one interpret such a level of organization among dead-enders?

  • “some extremists that were trying to stop the advance of their democracy”
    How clueless can one person get? Reports say that the fighters were members of something like a cult, who sought to bring about the second coming of the Mahdi by slaughtering the Shiia leadership in Najaf. I don’t think democracy plays a big role in their motivation.
    Would it be too much to ask that our Fearless Leader at least demonstrate some minimal level of familiarity with reality before he opens his mouth (let alone makes decisions)?

  • Why do I find myself rooting for the insurgents? Is it because of all the brave resistance fighters we honored as heroes in Hollywood WWII films since childhood?

    Could be. So, good on the “obscure renegade militia” for standing up to the evil oppressors and their lackeys!

    And better luck next time.

    [Does anyone get my point here?]

  • There was also this quote from Bush:

    “…the violence is caused by Sunni Arabs like al-Qaida”

    Except this particular violence was evidently caused by a bunch of Muslim rapturites. Nutcases yes, but certainly not Bin Laden followers.

    To be fair, there is still some confusion over which groups might have been involved in the violence (even Juan Cole can’t figure it all out from the Arab media coverage), but every report at least referred to the involvement of a Shi’ite millenarian cult.

    Unfortunately this source of violence doesn’t square with the Chimp narrative so he just makes up sh*t that has a link to 9/11.

  • ….Among the troubling questions raised is how hundreds of armed men were able to set up such an elaborate encampment, which Iraqi officials said included tunnels, trenches and a series of blockades, only 10 miles northeast of Najaf.

    Doesn’t this sound like what the Israelis ran into in Lebanon? The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is creating a war lab that may be exporting techniques throughout the middle east.

  • yep, that’s our prezident, clueless george. does anyone else wonder whether this entire thing has been fabricated, to lend support to “the surge”?

  • They did take the lead. They identified a threat & then moved to stop it. They did still need our help … who thinks that if we re-deploy the obscure militia will “simmer down”? I don’t. Polite talk and tea are just for show in that part of the world … the real communication is shown by action.

  • I had a different take when I first heard this. Was this meant to be the PR blitz that the surge is working and the Iraqis are standing up?

    You start to get a feeling for what will get unraveled in the following days by how the media has a coordinated message, spouting the same spin, almost down to the word, simultaneously, the way suddenly every reporter suddenly discovers Obama’s got a funny name.

    How much were reporters able to see? Were any there to witness the battle, or is this in military press briefings? I remember another stunning battle before the election that turned out to be completely taken out of context, and this sounds like the kind of conventional battle in the kind of war Bush thinks he’s fighting, not the insurgency that’s actually there. Did these reporters leave their hotel to cover this? Is it the work of embeds?

    Tinfoil, I know, but a cornered animal is going to make some desperate moves.

  • To be fair, there is still some confusion over which groups might have been involved in the violence.. — Ed #4.

    Here are the groups:

    Illegal American invaders.
    Stool-pigeon lackey government.
    Noble resistance fighters.

    Where’s the confusion?

  • I think romanticizing the “resistance fighters” is a *very* bad idea, not to mention a little disgusting. From the sound of it, these were religious maniacs trying to bring about their version of The Rapture; they deserve no more benefit of the doubt than would armed nutball Christianists here in the US.

  • There should be something else among the troubling questions—such as how we can find out about this stuff before Bush supposedly does. His talking-points machinery will obviously blame it of Dems in Congress and the weekend protests in DC (the old “you-re-emboldening-the-enemy” rubbish), but the core point is that Bush’s “yes-poodles” don’t dare remind the emperor that he has no clothes—no functional policy—no signs of active cognition……..

  • The bubble lives.

    As fast as reality manages to tear off one layer of Bush’s bubble, another one grows over the man. He obviously is sending his people a strong signal to not bring him bad news, I hope we get a staffer to spell it all out in a book before too long.

    And I’ll bet those 60,000 mahdi army fighters in Sadr City aren’t building any tunnels or gathering antiaircraft weapons. Nah. This will be a cakewalk, just ask the retarded simian in the bubble over there.

  • Sounds like we lent serious air and ground support to wiping out Najaf’s version of Waco, Texas’ Branch Davidians. I wonder how many more of those groups are out there? Tens? Hundreds?
    Could these rival, nutjob groups be the only ones the Shia Iraqi soldiers are willing to kill or control? And could our military be in the process of identifying such groups in order to stage battles which make it appear the Iraqis are “showing us something”?

  • Reports say that the fighters were members of something like a cult, who sought to bring about the second coming of the Mahdi by slaughtering the Shiia leadership in Najaf.

    [peter]

    So…Not at all like Shrubya’s pals who want Israel to go boom so Jesus will come back and start bitch-slapping sinners.

    The Iraqis “are beginning to show [Bush] something”? Like what?

    [CB]

    1. That know they didn’t start this crap so they see no reason to finish it.
    2. That they’re smart enough to let some other guy catch the bullets.
    3. That like many civilized people they hesitate to shoot their own countrymen.

    pResident Evil’s glee over this victory gives me a sense of Mission Accomplished type Deja Vu. Plus there is the usual nausea at his super-sized ego backed by a pea sized brain. The Iraqi forces aren’t there to show “him” anything. This is not some fucking show and if they didn’t show him anything, what would he do? Ask for a refund on his ticket? Right. He’d do the same shit he’s been doing for the last three years, that’s what. Same vague hints that he’s “not happy” and the man the Iraqis elected might “have to go,” sprinkled with the suggestion that the Iraqi people themselves are a bunch of ingrates for failing to throw flowers and candy at their “liberators.”

    Absolut Bastard.

  • Dajafi makes a good point @ 10.

    Insurgents can have many reasons for fighting that have nothing to do with advancing or securing freedom. I can’t see how fighting to get the US out so that the fledgling government can be overthrown and replaced by another repressive regime is in the cause of freedom — unless freedom is simply defined as the ability to exercise one’s wishes. That would seem a tragically narrow definition of a grand notion.

  • dajafi #10: I think romanticizing the “resistance fighters” is a *very* bad idea, .. Bad for whom? It depends which side you’re on, as in all conflicts. What’s good for one side is axiomatically bad for the other. That was my point.

    Sure, I knew it was “a little disgusting” to throw in a diametrically opposite perspective, but I feel it is necessary. If we cannot stand outside a conflict and see it for what it is, we’ll always be confused about it. Balance, if you want to call it that, is always healthy.

    I absolutely take your second point about nutball religious maniacs on both sides. To me it’s pretty obvious that that’s what the whole thing is about. I owe no allegiance to either side. I consider both sides barbaric, blind, backward and stupid. Unfortunately, they’re also a damn nuisance.

  • There are monsters on all sides, no question, and we all know an American uniform doesn’t bestow clean hands. But given the inevitable mix of motivations for all sides involved in the fight, I think the US soldiers on the ground do have the relative moral high ground.

    FWIW, I wouldn’t necessarily say the same for the people giving them their orders–which might have been your main point.

    And were there an Iraqi (or some subdivision thereof) resistance movement that espoused pluralism and tolerance but just wanted the foreigners out, I could see some sympathy with them. Instead, though, we have al-Sadr, who seems like another thuggish psycho–a Saddam with religious delusions. Plus the odd group of super-nuts like this Hidden Imam crowd. No sale here.

  • #9 – Sorry, but a bunch of Islamic millenarians are hardly a resistance movement, and certainly not noble.

    Don’t know about you, but I can easily imagine Sunni militants and assorted other guerillas using the rapturites as cover to go after the Maliki army. The confusion, as you describe it, is understandable.

    What’s more problematic is El Chimpo’s assertion that all violence is rooted in Sunni Arab resistance. Of course he’s probably making this assertion at the same time as blaming Iran for the instability, which should simply confirm the man is a liar and a fool.

  • “You know, Juan, I haven’t been briefed by the Pentagon yet.”

    A major battle on the central front in the war on terror and the Pentagon has not breifed the CinC by the next day? It Iraq going to follow Osama Bin Laden down Bush’s memory hole? “Iraq, I just don’t spend that much time on it. I’m concerned with bombing Iran.”

    Jeebus, Joseph and Mary. .

  • Goldlocks asked: “Why do I find myself rooting for the insurgents? Is it because of all the brave resistance fighters we honored as heroes in Hollywood WWII films since childhood?”

    I root for the insurgents the same way I would have rooted for the German tribes (some of whom were likely my remote ancestors) in the Battle of the Teutoberg Forest, or my Irish ancestors in their struggle with the damn English, or my own American ancestors in their struggle with the British Empire.

    Anyone fighting the American Empire is “the enemy of my enemy” and therefore “the friend” of anyone fighting to restore the American Republic.

    As to Bush and his delusional take on his disastrous war: one small thing has happened that is very important – helicopters are no longer safe. We have lost 3 in a week, including the one in Diyala that was carrying the top local American commander and his staff. Helicopters have been the one untouchable – we have freedom of movement in the country to the degree we have control of the air and helicopters are safe. When the Russians started losing helicopters in Afghanistan, they started losing their war.

  • …unless freedom is simply defined as the ability to exercise one’s wishes.

    [beep52]

    According to the ShrubYa Dictionary 4 Lil’ Dicators (TM) that is the definition of freedom. We all know how well that works.

  • Dajafi (#17) said: “And were there an Iraqi (or some subdivision thereof) resistance movement that espoused pluralism and tolerance but just wanted the foreigners out, I could see some sympathy with them.”

    Dajafi – for you, or me, or anyone else reading this blog, or any other American – to assume we have the right to make such a value judgement of what we will and will not support in Iraq is to adopt exactly the same attitudes and outlook (we good Americans can take care of the poor benighted brown people, just let us do this for you) that the goddamned Neocons and that idiot Bush assume they have the right to.

    As with white people trying to tell black people during the civil rights movement who their leaders should be and how they should go about their struggle, we have not the right to that. We do have the right to straighten out the mess we can straighten out, with the hope that ultimately that will set up a situation where the Iraqis can find their own way to what they perceive as good.

    The White Man’s Imperial Mindset looks as bad on you as it does on any Bushite, my friend.

  • re Tom Cleaver #22

    I don’t see how expressing sympathy for someone who espouses “pluralism and tolerance” can be morally or ethically reprehensible. Forcing one’s ideology or form of rule on others is another matter.

  • I’m still wary of the insurgent body count.
    Here’s my take:
    You have the number of insurgent KIA (200-300), who were said to have been well led, heavily armed, and in entrenched positions;
    and then there’s the number of Iraqi army KIA (10-20), an extremely low number of killed to take when assaulting a defensive position similar to the one described.

    So I’m left thinking the Iraqi troops went in, took some casualities, then pulled back and let the Americans pound the crap out of the area with air support. And like a previous conflict the US fought, this will become the norm for future “all-Iraqi” operations.

    But that’s just me.

  • #24…You got it except we pounded them from the air first. It was an offensive move and the Iraqi’s knew they were there. If the Iraqi’s don’t know what to call them except “the army of heaven”, then you know it had to be some obscure religious sect after rapture. Lord knows we have many in our country that wouldn’t make any sense to outsiders (Christ’s Church etc.). Probably the Iraqi & American intel knew they were there and what they were planning and were assessing the situation days before the attack. I’m sure we’d be the last to really know. The President not briefed refers to not briefed as to what to say to answer question. Iraq without air power means a lot of casualties and they don’t have an air force which would make them superior in the region. Hell maybe this is the way they get guns…from the battles they win

  • Tom (#22), I get your point and agree in part. But if it’s neo-colonialist/neo-imperialist to express a hope that the values of tolerance, pluralism and non-violence (or even violence as last resort) prevail in Iraq, or anywhere else–and even to consider the possibility that American actions can help make that happen–then I’ll accept that charge. I’m comfortable with this as I am in my view that those values lead to the best results for the most people, based on the evidence of history.

    Even if you consider our presence in Iraq to be a tragic mistake–as I do–and that we never should have gone in the first place (again, yes), I don’t think it follows that we must cede our values, step away, and accept whatever monstrous outcome results.

    (I write this while acknowledging that the operational decisions and consequences that flow from this opinion are hellaciously tough to figure through, even for people who aren’t ideological imbeciles–as the current decision-makers, of course, are.)

  • Mr. Joe,

    Thanks for the correction.

    It can only be a mere coincidence that they hit these guys right at a time when criticism of Bush’s new strategy is going on in this country. Absolutely no connection whatsoever.

  • Just a footnote, dajafi #17, because I can’t stay tuned here all the time, re “relative moral high ground”, etc.:

    Definitely, there are shades of motivations on all sides; but the over-all view we end up with is mainly influenced by the prime decision-makers. So, yes, I was thinking more of the people giving the orders than the soldiers themselves.

    When a mess as tragic and intractable as the Iraqi debacle arises through identifiable policy decisions, that turn out to have been grossly misjudged, not to mention blatantly illegal, one cannot help wondering what the underlying motivation was. Unfortunately, in the case of the Bush administration, it seems that a fantasy rapturist agenda may have tainted the decision process.

    I don’t think there’s any doubt that strong religious sentiments are stoking the fires of this conflict. My main point is that these fanaticisms are operating on both sides, which can be lost sight of when we examine the details of combat.

    “Both” sides is also a simplification. There are many sides, but primarily, for analysis of the bigger picture, the main sides are Christian versus Muslim. I don’t think there is any benefit denying or hiding this obvious aspect of the situation.

    Nor do I assume it is a bad thing. Muslims have been pains in the ass on many occasions in history — and so have Christians. I don’t like to see the damage and suffering self-righteous religious fanaticism can cause, and so I cannot take sides. Furthermore, I get upset when people whose opinions I enjoy and respect seem to get trapped in partiality at the expense of clarity.

  • I hate to admit this but Iraq is a done deal. It’s a big steaming pile of Bush BS and there’s not much hope of changing that. We will be getting out before Bush leaves office.

    What bothers me now is how much the MSM is getting sucked into the whole Iran is next talk. Didn’t the MSM learn anything in in the last four years? Isn’t the Libby trial enough compelling evidence that the WH will do anything and say anything once they decide what their next target is?

    I will not believe anything I hear about Iran until the evidence is dragged into Congress and verified by Congressional investigators. I expect the Congress to make it crystal clear that any military action against Iran will provoke a Constitutional crisis which will result in Bush being impeached.

    The American people voted out Republican Rubberstamp Congress and expect Congress to assume it’s role of preventing further stupidity by our President. You can also bet that any further blocking action by Republican Roadblocks is going to get them tossed out of Congress at the next opportunity. This Congress had a blank check to return our country to a balanced democracy. They had better cash that check.

  • Comments are closed.