Skewering al-Sadr

There's no shortage of bad news from Iraq out there, but the good news is hard to find. I think one of InstaPundit's best features is his habit of linking to the rare piece of good war news reported in the media. From him today, a report of how the Army's 1st Armored Division totally destroyed al-Sadr's army.

Comments

[JD]

Hmm. Well, it's good news, but the "we have totally destroyed them and there's nobody but a few stragglers left, with no capability to launch an attack" sounds a little too much like the "dead-enders" speech we heard a while ago for me to unreservedly congratulate General Hertling.

[hadayn]

From juancole.com, one of the few bloggers who actually seems to know something about Iraq:

"Muqtada has not really lost anything as compared to the situation before last April 3, when the American suddenly came after him. He did not control Najaf at that time, or the holy city of Karbala, either. His militia was strongest in the slums of East Baghdad. This is still true. The Americans killed perhaps 1500 of his best fighters, and captured or destroyed a lot of ordnance. But Muqtada has thousands of cadres, and they can be rearmed fairly easily (most have not really been disarmed). In the meantime, Muqtada was able to draw to himself the allegiance of a lot of Shiites, including armed fighters, who had not shown any loyalty to him before. I can only imagine that the militiamen in Kut and Amarah who fought for him included a lot of Marsh Arabs, most of whom had not been Sadrists in the past (they had their own Hizbullah organization). And his national standing has vastly improved, as even the Americans admit."

A May CPA famously found that 81% of Iraqis had an improved view of Sadr from 3 months prior, and 67% of I raqis support of strongly support him.

Instapundit's habit of desperately latching onto every piece of quasi-good news coming out of Iraq is not a virtue. The problem for the Iraq hawks is not that the media is against them, it is that reality is against them.

[hadayn]

From juancole.com, one of the few bloggers who actually seems to know something about Iraq:

"Muqtada has not really lost anything as compared to the situation before last April 3, when the American suddenly came after him. He did not control Najaf at that time, or the holy city of Karbala, either. His militia was strongest in the slums of East Baghdad. This is still true. The Americans killed perhaps 1500 of his best fighters, and captured or destroyed a lot of ordnance. But Muqtada has thousands of cadres, and they can be rearmed fairly easily (most have not really been disarmed). In the meantime, Muqtada was able to draw to himself the allegiance of a lot of Shiites, including armed fighters, who had not shown any loyalty to him before. I can only imagine that the militiamen in Kut and Amarah who fought for him included a lot of Marsh Arabs, most of whom had not been Sadrists in the past (they had their own Hizbullah organization). And his national standing has vastly improved, as even the Americans admit."

A May CPA famously found that 81% of Iraqis had an improved view of Sadr from 3 months prior, and 67% of I raqis support of strongly support him.

Instapundit's habit of desperately latching onto every piece of quasi-good news coming out of Iraq is not a virtue. The problem for the Iraq hawks is not that the media is against them, it is that reality is against them.

[dead_elvis]

When looking for Good News From Iraq, look no further than The Onion!:

http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4025

[brooklyn dave]

I really think Sadr is not defeated...he just changed the color of his caftan so he wouldn't have his ass totally wiped out. He is an Iranian puppet. I found the juancole.com excerpt to be on the money.

[the actual messiah]

I just find it funny that anyone would link to the Washington Times. Good stuff.

[Rick Barton]

but the good news is hard to find.

This is good news in the same way that a ship capsizing and some survivors unexpectedly being found is good news.

It would have been better if the whole event never happened. This war was unnecessary to our security but the American people were told huge and shameful lies by the neocon propaganda complex to make them believe the opposite.

Lies of such magnitude would have landed those who told them in prison had they been corporate CEO's.

[Douglas Fletcher]

I predict he won't be alive in a year.

[matt]

Well, perhaps the "good news" is hard to find because there hasn't been very much of it.

[planethoth]

Man, libertarians who don't care about liberty! I must have missed the concept! Seems common on here to have a kind of willful blindness about things. You don't have to be in favour of 'imperialism' or 'adventurism' to miss the facts about Iraq, do you?

So, it's 1991. The U.S. and some other countries go to war, probably rightfully so, against this sociopath Saddam, who decides he wants to annex Kuwait. But, instead of taking out the guy, they decide better to leave him in power for 'stability'. Of course, this was in no small part the wisdom of the loveable Saudis---nothing better than restricting oil supply so as to keep that petromoolah rolling in! Then came the uprisings, which Saddam crushed brutally, then came the impoverishment of the country and the solidification of Saddam's tyrant regime through one of the most useless sanctions regimes ever devised.

So, the libertarian looks at this situation and says, what? The U.S. should just leave them, and start becoming chums with Saddam again? The U.S. should maintain the status quo with sanctions?

I consider myself a libertarian. I am no 'imperialist' or even 'neocon'. It's really depressing that so many libertarians appear to be living in denial that other people's tyrannies affect them too. And if you think the United States helped create the conditions that promoted the Iraqi tyrrany, you have no business claiming that it isn't the U.S.' business to remedy that. You may be rightly skeptical of foreign interventionism, but you have no moral leg to stand on when you claim that all the United States had to do was leave them to their own devices.

The United States---and libertarianism---was born of a moral idea, that all people are created equal and free. You disgrace the idea when you, like Michael Moore talk about nonsense like 'the neocon propaganda complex'.

[Ken Shultz]

I found this sentence from the Washington Times article remarkable:

"Last week, Sheik al-Sadr surrendered. He called on what was left of his men to cease operations and said he may one day seek public office in a democratic Iraq."

Have I been asleep? If this has been reported elsewhere, I've completely missed it. It wouldn't be the first time that I missed something, but I pay pretty close attention. Has anyone else seen this reported elsewhere? Has the interim government dropped the charges against him for the April 2003 bombing?

[B.P.]

Ken -- NPR made mention of it a coupla days ago.

[iraqwarwrong]

The problem with this is that it ignores the fact that the Iraq war was wrong from the get-go.

[R C Dean]

I would refine your first sentence as follows, unless you want to make real the fond wishes of the anti-Bush media:

There's no shortage of bad news reports from Iraq out there, but reports of the good news from Iraq is hard to find.

Your phrasing makes it seem as if there really isn't much good happening from Iraq, and there really is lots of bad going on there. While this is what many want you to believe, it ain't necessarily so.

Pedantically yours,

R C

[Real Libertarian Anarchist]

How is this good news? Unless you are a neocon it is horrible news. A private defense force has been destroyed by US Imperialism, Inc. Now all they need to do is level the town and install a Wall-Mart.

[Josh]

So how come Sadr is not under US custody if he surrendered, and his army was "totally destroyed"?

[iraqwarwrong]

Rick Barton:

(a quick point) I resent your imprecation that the American people were forced to support the war! I do not support it and they can't force me and never did! Dissent lives whether you like it or not!

[joe]

well, you paid for it.

[iraqwarwrong]

i've never liked that complaint, you sound like a dang pennypinching conservative! the Iraq war was wrong whether I "paid" for it or not. If I didn't pay for it that would make it right??

Don't play into their "small government" hands, that's just what they would want. Next thing you know, more tax cuts for the rich. We have to be smarter than that!

[Douglas Fletcher]

Thank you. We heed and obey your received pronouncements from God.

[Rick Barton]

iraqwarwrong,

Your being forced to pay for the war is what I meant by being forced to support it. That is wrong because it was unnecessary for your security.

And what's wrong with being a "penny pinching conservative"? We really need many more of them.

"Don't play into their "small government" hands, that's just what they would want."

What?? The neocons who pushed the war sure aren't small government types. In fact, they often belittle the idea. Check out what William Kristol told the New York Times:

"If we have to make common cause with the more hawkish liberals and fight the conservatives, that is fine with me,"

The Weekly Standard editor added that the neoconservatives may just abandon the Right altogether and convert to neo-liberalism.

Tax rate cuts tend to allow the production of more affluence. But, we need for the government to cut spending, which is why we need to elect more of those penny pinching conservatives to congress!

[joe]

So let me get this straight: Sadr's military defeat (unquestionably a defeat, the 1st Armored beat him up good) has made him one of the most popular figures in Iraq, and he has announced his intention to use that popularity to accumulate political power.

I guess we can't possibly lose this war, since we keep winning every battle.

[Rick Barton]

planethoth:

"So, the libertarian ...says, what? The U.S. should just leave them, and start becoming chums with Saddam again? The U.S. should maintain the status quo with sanctions?

No way! Our government should have definitely not started supplying Saddam with weaponry again. And, the sanctions were only hard on the Iraqi people, and also one of the things that led to 9/11. In his 9/11 Fatwa Bin Laden listed the three reason for the 9/11 attack:

(1. The American military in the Arabian Peninsula too close to Mecca. (2.The blockade if Iraq. (3. American government support for the Israeli government's occupation of Palestinian land.
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm

"so many libertarians appear to be living in denial that other people's tyrannies affect them too."

But, unless those tyrannies threaten them, the US government has no right to force the American people help try to topple them. BTW, we know that the results of such efforts can be much different than what was hoped for.

"And if you think the United States helped create the conditions that promoted the Iraqi tyrrany, you have no business claiming that it isn't the U.S.' business to remedy that."

The brutal Iraqi dictatorship was in place when our government started aiding it, so that serves as no justification for forcing the American people to support the war. But, the ethical question that you pose is an interesting one, in the general case, anyway.

"You disgrace the idea when you, like Michael Moore, talk about nonsense like 'the neocon propaganda complex'."

This one seems like quite a Non Sequitur to me. There is a neocon propaganda complex, which pushes for more government, and observing the reality would seem to enhance libertarianism and certainly not "disgrace" it. If Michael Moore also uses the term (does he?), it doesn't take away from the observation.

BTW, I think that his first movie included so much BS that it was like a joke. I've read that this one is better, but we will see. It could hardly be any worse.

[iraqwarwrong]

just because I pay for it doesn't mean I support it! what is this! I'm totally AGAINST the Iraq war no matter what you say. (It was wrong).

I see, you say this weird "pay for=you must be in favor of it" thing since you are one of the right wing dings, since you want "more" conservatives. What are you doing arguing against the Iraq war then? your boys did it. and don't tell me the Neocons aren't conservatives don't make me laugh, ever know what the "con" in "Neo-con" stands for?

the rest of your post is just trickle down voodoo that I thought died out with. What does it have to do with the Iraq war being wrong!!!111 What a sideshow!

[matt]

Not sure anyone is still reading this thread but this Onion headline felt appropriate to post here:

"Vast Majority of Iraqis Still Alive"

http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4025

"iraqwarwrong":

If you've ever read any of Rick Barton's posts you surely would not accuse the neo-con's of being "his boys." (BTW, What do you think the "neo" in neo-con stands for?)

[Travis]

Sorry to join the flamewar, but I can't believe people are still bringing up the sanctions.

Did you ever hear about the oil for food program? The only reason sanctions were a problem for the people of Iraq was because it put the pinch on Saddam's spending. So he took his cash from the flesh of his people via the UN and myriad crooked burecrats. There was no reason for the Iraqui people to starve except that Saddam & various UN monkeys saw a chance to line their pockets a little more. We had very little to do with famines, it had much more to do with Saddam's need to build palaces and other things that he might or might not have been building.

[Travis]

..hehe, just remembered that I'm diggin up an old link for a friend and noone on the planet is going to read comments added this late.