Article

2006-08-29 Iraq

50 Tater Tots and 20 soldiers killed in Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2006-08-29 00:00|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [11138 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Like I was saying ... pretty hard to figure out the parties over there.... makes all sorts of openings possible

Posted by 3dc 2006-08-29 00:12|| 2006-08-29 00:12|| Front Page Top

#2 Will someone please explain why Sistani can't get Tater under control? I thought he is the man.

Posted by Penguin 2006-08-29 00:22|| 2006-08-29 00:22|| Front Page Top

#3 He forgot to get Tater to the vet for his rabies and distemper booster shots.

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2006-08-29 00:23|| 2006-08-29 00:23|| Front Page Top

#4 Sadr City is Baghdad's chamber pot. Time to empty it. Why Moqtada Sadr still exceeds room temperature is a mystery for the ages.

Posted by Zenster 2006-08-29 01:22|| 2006-08-29 01:22|| Front Page Top

#5 Tater is definately night soil. Take it out now!

Posted by Besoeker 2006-08-29 02:02|| 2006-08-29 02:02|| Front Page Top

#6 The beginning of the long-awaited Tater roast?

Posted by SteveS 2006-08-29 04:23|| 2006-08-29 04:23|| Front Page Top

#7 I am all for putting 3dc in over all charge or dealing Iraq and Iran he has some good workable ideas that others could implement. Iraq and Iran are now intertwined. Iran has totally penetrated Iran and is causing lots of the problems sectarian and otherwise. When life gives you lemons make lemonade.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2006-08-29 04:53|| www.sockpuppetofdoom.com]">[www.sockpuppetofdoom.com] 2006-08-29 04:53|| Front Page Top

#8 It looks like both the new Iraqi government AND the new Iraqi security troops are willing to fight, and fight Sadr. A good thing, no?

Posted by Thrans Cromose2465 2006-08-29 07:04|| 2006-08-29 07:04|| Front Page Top

#9 Yes, if the whole story is being told and if accuracy by the dimwit reporters can be held at bay...

Remember, the Defense Minister is a Sunni - he will be using "regular" Iraqi Army forces - no matter what the idiot reporter calls them - and seems to be prosecuting the "rogue" militia in Sadr's back yard. That's actually pretty funny, IMO. Note he (the DM) is calling for troops from other locales - i.e. not predominately Shia, I'd bet, probably Kurds are his best bet - though they don't have a dog in this fight, actually. This is sectarian BS, so the Kurds should get a pass and let the Arabs kill each other if that's what they're determined to do.

Sadr is a Shia, of course, and has the support of the PM and Interior Minister, both Shia. The IM controls the "security forces" - recall the previous Shia IM under Jaafari had "rogue" security forces who were detaining people illegally and forming quaint Shia Death Squads. The NEW IM may be "better", but let's not get gushy quite yet. I am certain that the PM and IM, pals of Sadr who pretend that he's all "political" and legit, are not too happy with this, unless they've suddenly decided to be real Iraqis - rising above the sectarian thing - and not stooge agents of Iran, which is their normal gig.

So much fun, so many possibilities, so many centuries of sectarian hatred to overcome. We and the Kurds should set up a picnic on the bluff and just watch, not get caught in the middle. It has been going on for 1400 years and won't be solved in this decade, I'm certain. Declarations and confabs by Sheikhs notwithstanding. Only if this shit cuts into their income in a serious way will a solution be seriously considered, I think. Right now, it is not affecting the Shia pilgrim game much, since most of the Shia Holy Places are south of where the action's taking place up in and around Baghdad.

Does all that make sense? LOL.

Program! Get yer program!

LOL.

Posted by Threatch Unons6270 2006-08-29 07:29|| 2006-08-29 07:29|| Front Page Top

#10 This is their big chance to wipe out the Mahdi Millitia, hope they dont blow it.

Posted by Closing Jeanter5105 2006-08-29 07:50|| 2006-08-29 07:50|| Front Page Top

#11 re Tater.

A nice plump car bomb [VIBED] would be soo sweet.

Posted by RD 2006-08-29 08:32|| 2006-08-29 08:32|| Front Page Top

#12 Both the US and Iraqi forces know where Al-Sadr is. He doesn't make his location too much of a secret and appears in public often. Truth is, we are not willing to take the steps necessary for victory over these thugs. Our military and our executive has a massive PC infection. Taking out tater would VASTLY improve the outlook for Baghdad. To hell with fears it will spark 'sectarian violence'. What do they think they have now?

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-08-29 08:47|| 2006-08-29 08:47|| Front Page Top

#13 1. Sadr claimed these are "rogue" elements, but they seemed strong enough to take over half the town. I have a difficulty believing this wasnt all the Mahdi Army "militants" in Diwaniyah. Sounds to me like the govt decided, while not going after Sadr directly, to keep him from expanding his base to Diwaniyah, and he conveniently decided his guys there were "rogue" to avoid a loss of face. Maybe. Seems like Maliki and the Iraqi Army are willing to fight to contain Sadr, but dont feel ready to take him on directly. Hes betting they never will be ready.

2. Sistani - his ability to effectively call for restraint has declined drastically with the sectarian horrors in Baghdad. At some point it was simply too much for ordinary Shia. The Americans and the moderates hadnt protected them, time to give Tater a chance. Of course we know hes making the situation worse, but if someone comes to kill you, arent you inclined to go with the kind of guy who wants to hit back hard? Consider Tater a Shiite "Jacksonian" Sistani is the Shiite Clinton, or Powell. Whod you go with if you were a Shiite? Id go with Sistani of course, but im not a "jacksonian"

3. Now it seems like theres a deal to end the fighting, with the prov governor paying a visit to Sadr. Does this mean Sadrs won - the army was losing, and they needed Sadr to end it? Or saving face for Sadr after his boys lost? I dont know.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-08-29 09:45|| 2006-08-29 09:45|| Front Page Top

#14 "Taking out tater would VASTLY improve the outlook for Baghdad. To hell with fears it will spark 'sectarian violence'. What do they think they have now?"

Right now we have open supply lines for US forces from Kuwait to Baghdad. Im not sure its guaranteed wed have that if offed Sadr at this time.

Note - Diwaniya, IIUC, is one of the southern towns that sits on said supply lines. Preparing the battlefield?

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-08-29 09:47|| 2006-08-29 09:47|| Front Page Top

#15 TU6270 - that rant sounded familiar

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-08-29 09:48|| 2006-08-29 09:48|| Front Page Top

#16 Tater won't be taken out till we take out Ahmedinajihad. And they will probably be taken out concurrently. This may have been a live fire training exercise.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-08-29 09:50|| 2006-08-29 09:50|| Front Page Top

#17 Just have a few artillery rounds "wander" off target and hit Tater's house.

Happens all the time, ya know. Damn jet stream ;)

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2006-08-29 10:12|| 2006-08-29 10:12|| Front Page Top

#18 A cogent and useful summary, Threatch Unons6270.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-08-29 11:56|| 2006-08-29 11:56|| Front Page Top

#19 This is sectarian BS, so the Kurds should get a pass and let the Arabs kill each other if that's what they're determined to do.

That depends on if you prefer to see Iraq united or partitioned, Threatch Unons6270. At present, I still advocate a united Iraq. To somehow coordinate all three factions into a sort of viable federation is ultimately desirable, in that it will serve as a model for other potential Middle East Arab democracies as they come on line (and they will). Therefore, the Kurds, despite their admirable eschewal of revenge games in post-Saddam Iraq, must be brought in as third-party arbitrators to nail subversive shia and sunni factions. At least to some extent. The addage, "Freedom is not free", springs to mind.

The NEW IM may be "better", but let's not get gushy quite yet. I am certain that the PM and IM, pals of Sadr who pretend that he's all "political" and legit, are not too happy with this, unless they've suddenly decided to be real Iraqis - rising above the sectarian thing - and not stooge agents of Iran, which is their normal gig.

Don't count on anyone "rising above the sectarian thing" anytime soon. There has been little indiciation of such and it is precisely what needs to be eradicated for Iraq to become prosperous. This is why I only half-jokingly suggested blowing to hell that whole confab of tribal leaders gathered for that cooperation pact thingie. It is the senior echalon of the tribes that are most connected to ongoing strife and the least likely to abandon centuries of hatred. A younger generation of leadership is one of our only hopes.

Our military and our executive has a massive PC infection.

You are so right, mcsegeek1. I still maintain that this, at least partially, is attributable to Bush's perpetual overemphasis upon religiosity. His own theistic leanings prevent him from being overly critical of another religion. Look at how long it took him to finally begin outing "Islamic Fascism".

Taking out tater would VASTLY improve the outlook for Baghdad. To hell with fears it will spark 'sectarian violence'. What do they think they have now?

You are, again, exactly right. Much like Iran [irony meter pegging!], taking out their top leadership could not possibly make the situation any worse. Whomever steps into the power vacuum, be it in Iran or sectarian Iraq can only be less influential and therefore less of a threat. Sadr has much to answer for (or have we all forgotten the burnt bodies on the bridge thingie?), and bringing him to account will finally usher in an era of making examples out of those who encourage constant strife.

This is simply a mirror of how we need to begin targeting violent jihadist clergy all over the world. The sectarian warlords of Iraq are merely the same on a smaller scale and represent a fine starting point for a campaign of sorting out pro-violence Muslims.

Posted by Zenster 2006-08-29 14:35|| 2006-08-29 14:35|| Front Page Top

23:58 Zenster
23:55 Phil
23:55 Thoth
23:54 JosephMendiola
23:52 Zenster
23:49 Zenster
23:46 Thoth
23:46 Phil
23:46 JosephMendiola
23:46 anonymous2u
23:45 Phil
23:44 Thoth
23:43 JosephMendiola
23:42 RD
23:39 Thoth
23:38 Phil
23:34 ed
23:34 Thoth
23:30 Thoth
23:30 Zenster
23:29 john
23:29 ed
23:24 Zenster
23:18 ed
Merry-Go-Blog