Aughh!

No. 2 US commander hopes al-Sadr will stop attacks
By BUSHRA JUHI, Associated Press Writer
23 Apr 2008
BAGHDAD - The No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq expressed hope on Wednesday that radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr would use his influence to stop his followers from attacking U.S. and Iraqi forces as clashes spread to the outskirts of Baghdad.

Where to start?

"Hope": our only strategy. Several previous posts have noted this Administration's "magical thinking" worldview, in which reciting the right incantation is presumed to immediately change the "facts on the ground." A few previous posts have noted the military's adoption of this worldview, with ever-expressed "hope" that things'll turn out just dandy... but no actual planning to move towards a satisfactory end-state.

Today we see this yet again: a top U.S. commander in Iraq "hopes" that al Sadr will rein in his militia. Meanwhile, what is U.S. policy towards al Sadr & his Mahdi Militia? We attack them at every opportunity, and encourage our Iraqi allies to do the same!

Without looking up all the sources, I feel reasonably certain that most policy-makers have observed that there is no purely military solution in Iraq, but that a political solution is required. At least, these are the words they mouth in public.

When push comes to shove, what's been our sole response to difficulties? Military action - even passing up opportunities for political engagement when they present themselves.

How did we respond to al Sadr's August cease-fire - which held through last month? We targeted leaders of his organization for arrest, and continued to launch military raids in his Baghdad base of Sadr City. Here was an opportunity to encourage the Maliki government to engage Moqtada in political discussion... and we cheered when Maliki launched a military offensive against Sadrists in Basra!

How have past military actions against the Mahdi Militia ended? Not well. Since our first encounter with Sadrist forces in Najaf in 2004, every time the U.S. military has engaged the Mahdi Army the engagement has resulted in a public relations boon for al Sadr. No - his militia has never "won" a battle against the U.S., but they've never outright lost one, either. In every case, they've lived to fight another day.

Once upon a time, W was fond of using the American Revolution as an analogy for Iraq. He never got it right, somehow identifying the U.S. occupation with the American Patriot cause. Even casual students of the American Revolution know that the number of battles won by Colonial forces can be counted on fingers of one hand (Saratoga, Trenton, Cowpens, Yorktown). Number of engagements Colonials lost is large. But - somehow the Continental Army survived all the losses to fight another day. And every day the Continental Army remained in the field - however ineffective a military force it might have been - contributed to the Patriot victory.

Eventually the British public & Parliament had had enough - the cost in blood and treasure of the American Revolution to the British Crown was too high to be sustained. Sound familiar?

So, yes, let's keep "hoping" al Sadr reins in his militia... BUT - maybe we should start pursuing policies that might encourage this result!

Stop the madness!