RE: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,148701,00.html

quote:

Tension between Mahdi and Badr has been steadily rising and a showdown between them is widely expected for domination of the Shiite south, which includes most of the oil wealth and major religious shrines. Control of the shrines brings millions of dollars in donations from Shiites worldwide.

Money for terrorist organizations. Its always about the money.

Mookie must die.

I say let them have their fight... and then destroy the winner.

Problem solved.

I wish the administration would quit hammering the al-Qaeda line... it's always al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda, ad nauseum.

The Shi'ites are a FAR greater threat there.

Anyone still think that there isn't a civil war going on in Irac? Time to get out of Dodge and let the people who actually have to live there sort it out. We did our part in getting rid of Sadam now we need to get back to Afganistan and get the man who we really should have taken out to begin with, Bin Ladin.Trying to keep the opposing forces seperated, only makes us targets from all sides.No way to win hearts and minds that way. Our kind of Democracy isn't going to work in that neck of the woods.Seems to me we are at a big cross words at this point and the Politicians have already screwed up the situation to the point that Our troops are taking Casualties unnessarily. Secure our Own borders and wait it out until we see a clear direction that the entire region is going and then we can react with our conventional forces with a real Cooaliton. Yes we are going to suffer high Oil prices but in the meantime Detroit and all the science we have here can reduce our dependance on oil and actually produce some products here in this country. A little Isolationism may be what we need in this country. And while we are at it, get rid of Nafta and Gatt. See, all the problems are solved and after only one cup of coffee.

Thank you vsaws. I totally agree with the majority of your viewpoint. Sadr is a pain in the rectum for Iraq as well as the US.

quote:

Originally posted by Joel97:
I say let them have their fight... and then destroy the winner.

Problem solved.

I wish the administration would quit hammering the al-Qaeda line... it's always al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda, ad nauseum.

The Shi'ites are a FAR greater threat there.

True, but they also represent the majority of Iraqis. Eliminating the threat means eliminating a majority of Iraqis, by that logic, which might have a few drawbacks.

On the other hand, we have managed to exploit divisions within the Sunni militias ... and General Petraeus is a very bright guy. I expect him to play divide and conquer on these folks too ... if we could wean the Badr organization (which has always concerned me far more than Sadr's bunch) even slightly away from the Iranians, we could go a long way towards the unified Iraq we have been working on accomplishing.

quote:

Originally posted by oldmole:
.......
True, but they also represent the majority of Iraqis. Eliminating the threat means eliminating a majority of Iraqis, by that logic, which might have a few drawbacks.

On the other hand, we have managed to exploit divisions within the Sunni militias ... and General Petraeus is a very bright guy. I expect him to play divide and conquer on these folks too ... if we could wean the Badr organization (which has always concerned me far more than Sadr's bunch) even slightly away from the Iranians, we could go a long way towards the unified Iraq we have been working on accomplishing.

I think you've got it. Now the question is will the White House and Congress get it. I have my doubts.

At least that’s the way this old soldier and proud Coast Guard dad sees it!

Anyone else feel that we should engage an enemy before it reorganizes? My concern is that the Sadr bunch will become as scary as Badr if they are afforded the time to reorganize and re-equip. It seems Iran would be in a position to supply mutiple sides and create desirable power vacuums that they would be able to fill.

Between wasps and cockroaches, I'd rather battle wasps. At least they have "predictable" group behavior and something to lose. An entity with infrastucture at risk is more likely to resemble an army. And we KNOW how to deal with an origized army, don't we. Watch it grow till it needs a "home of it's own" then drop the hammer on it's new home. Let's watch the good General Petraeus work. He's looking at keeping the troop strength at current level thru next summer. That's when I would look for the big "Smackdown". Sadr should be feeling pretty cocky about then.

quote:

Originally posted by OldArmyWOPA:

quote:

Originally posted by oldmole:
.......
True, but they also represent the majority of Iraqis. Eliminating the threat means eliminating a majority of Iraqis, by that logic, which might have a few drawbacks.

On the other hand, we have managed to exploit divisions within the Sunni militias ... and General Petraeus is a very bright guy. I expect him to play divide and conquer on these folks too ... if we could wean the Badr organization (which has always concerned me far more than Sadr's bunch) even slightly away from the Iranians, we could go a long way towards the unified Iraq we have been working on accomplishing.

I think you've got it. Now the question is will the White House and Congress get it. I have my doubts.

At least that’s the way this old soldier and proud Coast Guard dad sees it!

TAKE SADR OUT.....NOW.....THAN WHACK THE TURMOIL

Here we go again.Patreus says things are looking up....violence is down and Iraqi forces are coming together.If this clown starts shooting again it will all be for naught....back to square one.I agree...take him out.

What else do you expect?

I say we (the US) start occupying Basra to see if they attack us or if they hold the al Sadr line.

It's obvious that if the Sadr militia regroups that they intend to try to retake Basra. My bet is that those other 30'ish groups who signed an "oath of honor" (or whatever it was) would be willing to allow some troops into Basra if it would potentially help them fend off hostile rivals (i.e.- Sadr's Militia).

Also, it would also be a test of al-Sadr's influence.
*Could al Sadr get them to stop fighting us if we were to occupy Basra?
In any case, I think al Sadr would be forced to ask them to stop else he knows if there was confrontation, the US would wipe them out (in Basra).

Logically, you might ask ~ Why should we risk our soldiers in their fight?

Well~ either we have some influence over what happens in Basra or the Iranians do.

Besides that, it might have the added bonus of helping to "flush out" Al Sadr's whereabouts.

DRS

Soundsmore like they're gearing up to take on the US.
http://www.africasia.com/services/news/newsitem.php?are...2110709.0kr81n14.php

And the US forces are killing them. 9 in Sadr City yesterday.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/09/11/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq.php