Apr 16 2008

Mahdi Army Getting Pounded, SurrenderMedia Exaggerates Minor Set Back

Published by at 8:00 am under All General Discussions,Iraq,Sadr/Mahdi Army

I will start with the Stupid SurrenderMedia trick of the week as they take a minor setback with a small group of Iraqi troops and try and extrapolate it into a representation of the entire Iraq war. The so called debacle is about one small group of Iraqi troops who acted like liberal democrats and ran from the terrorists, who were then replaced with troops less liberal and more stalwart:

A company of Iraqi soldiers abandoned their positions on Tuesday night in Sadr City, defying American soldiers who implored them to hold the line against Shiite militias.

The retreat left a crucial stretch of road on the front lines undefended for hours and led to a tense series of exchanges between American soldiers and about 50 Iraqi troops who were fleeing.

Oh my God! A stretch of road in Sadr City was left undefended for hours! How can we win a war when this kind of thing happens! Quick, run and hide and whimper. Pullease.

“If you turn around and go back up the street those soldiers will follow you,” Captain Veath said. “If you tuck tail and cowardly run away they will follow up that way, too.”

Captain Veath’s pleas failed, and senior American and Iraqi commanders mounted an urgent effort to regain the lost ground. An elite Iraqi unit was rushed in and with the support of the Americans began to fight its way north.

This episode was a blow to the American effort to push the Iraqis into the lead in the struggle to wrest control of parts of Sadr City from the Mahdi Army militia and what Americans and Iraqis say are Iranian-backed groups.

What a crock of SurrenderMedia garbage. There was no blow to American efforts. And in fact the fight against the Mahdi Army is going quite well (more on that in a moment). Some cowards collapsed in fear, some seasoned fighters took over, and we lost not an inch of ground. The fact this was so well covered with cameras and embeds would make me first wonder if it was another staged act for the clueless and easily duped media. I have no proof – except a string of numerous fake stories planted by the enemy in the news media ever since 9-11. Other than that well known (and well worn) pattern there is nothing to suspect the SurrenderMedia is just producing pro-terrorist propaganda since defeat in Iraq is slipping away from them.

The NY Times, being in the forefront of the SurrenderMedia, had to ignore a lot of other stories and events to create the delusion that we are losing to the Mahdi Army. If you look outside the NY Times and across a range of reporting you find the opposite is true. Take Bill Roggio’s reporting on how the battle for Sadr City and Basra is proceeding as planned (generally) and in measured steps (so as to not get killed or have innocents killed):

Iraqi and Coalition forces are pressing the fight against the Mahdi Army in northeastern Baghdad and the southern port city of Basrah. Iraqi troops have cleared two Mahdi Army strongholds in Basrah and reportedly have surrounded three others as they prepare to press the operation. In Baghdad, the Iraqi Army and US forces continue to clash with the Mahdi Army while forces have moved into southwestern Sadr City and set up a “demonstration area” to distribute aid and provide local security.

Or how about the reporting by AFP from Basra and the sea change in conditions there since the Mahdi were purged:

Three weeks after Iraqi troops swarmed into the southern city of Basra to take on armed militiamen who had overrun the streets, many residents say they feel safer and that their lives have improved.

The fierce fighting which marked the first week of Operation Sawlat al-Fursan (Charge of the Knights) has given way to slower, more focused house-by-house searches by Iraqi troops, which led on Monday to the freeing of an abducted British journalist.

Residents say the streets have been cleared of gunmen, markets have reopened, basic services have been resumed and a measure of normality has returned to the oil-rich city.

The port of Umm Qasr is in the hands of the Iraqi forces who wrested control of the facility from Shiite militiamen, and according to the British military it is operational once again.

However, the city is flooded with troops, innumerable checkpoints constantly snarl the traffic, residents are scared to go out at night despite the curfew being relaxed, and the sound of sporadic gunfire can still be heard.

An AFP correspondent said three northwestern neighbourhoods once under the firm control of the Mahdi Army militia of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr — Al-Hayaniyah, Khamsamile and Garma — are now encircled by Iraqi troops who are carrying out door-to-door searches.

Two other neighbourhoods once dominated by the Mahdi Army, Al-Qiblah in the southwest and Al-Taymiyyah in the centre, have been cleared of weaponry and many people have been arrested, military officials say.

Residents expressed relief at the improved security.

Doesn’t sound like we are back on our heels, it sounds like the Mahdi are contained and being rounded up and the locals are damn glad to be rid of them. There will always be some who don’t get, can’t do it or just don’t agree with what happens. Fact of life. But the media cannot expect to be taken seriously when they try and hoist these rare exceptions as the symbol of the greater populace. It is a joke and those who employ such propaganda are jokes.

Here is a bizarre story which I could exaggerate into something more than it is, if I had to concoct facts to make believe I had a clue what is going on. It is an interesting one, because it is (a) from a severely anti-American, pro-terrorist site and (b) it signals a change in Sadr City towards our success:

After a week of intensive bombing and embargo, Sadr-City accepted the American deal to form an “Awakening Council”, alrafedain reported that Abdallah Jasim al-Ali head of “Sadr-City Tribal Council” announced today of forming a militia in Sadr-City to counter the Mahdi Army.

He gave instructions to hang Mahdi Army members from light-masts if they fight against the government forces or innocents as the MA did with the Sunnis before.

I don’t read Arabic so I cannot validate the linked article. I don’t trust the site to report honestly, it is mostly propaganda. But I would not it as a possible signal of big changes coming. If the people of Sadr City and Basra have their own Awakening and start killing (or more likely turning in intelligence on) the Mahdi Forces amongst them this will end quickly and be another blow to extremism in Islam. The people know who is hiding weapons amongst their families. At some point they will want them gone, no matter what it takes.

Some other interesting reads about the pounding the Mahdi are taken can be found here and here. Never rely on one source of news to get the big picture, they are very informative reads.

75 responses so far

75 Responses to “Mahdi Army Getting Pounded, SurrenderMedia Exaggerates Minor Set Back”

  1. truthhard2take says:


    It’s too bad for your view the Iraqi majority considers the occupation itself barbarian terror.

  2. truthhard2take says:

    If all Iraqis knew Norm’s position, and that of his arrogant imperialistic sandbox “debators,” the poignant fact is, Norm would be far safer in far more square miles of Iraq than the latter who would
    only be relatively safe from purposeful and just attack in Kurdish-controlled areas.

    Fact is , as Republican Buchanan says, the Republican mainstream has committed moral and strategic suicide by supporting this war, by
    becoming or accepting the ideology of neocon-servatives rather than patriotic traditional conservatives.

  3. truthhard2take says:

    Vince is too stupid to understand Shia Islamics of an international caliphate bent are hopelessly outnumbered by Sunni advocates of same who consider them non-Islamic enemies worthy of slaughter.
    And that both movements have yet to accrue one ragtag army much less take over one nation.

  4. 75 says:

    Didn’t you just tell us the other day, Truthy, that Iran and Iraq were united and friendly? That insurgencies were growing? And suddenly they are worthy of slaughter and ragtag?

    Well done, dummy.

  5. Dc says:

    And what is your strategy/plan there truth? Let “militias” based on religious or racial divides have the legitimacy of states and recognize them internationally? Maybe at the UN? Or just let them kill each other back into the stone age?

    I vote for letting them kill each other so long as they keep it all in their own back yard. Of course, we could just go back to supporting nasty dictators who keep their boot heel on the throats of the people there for the sake of “stability”. But, then…if the “truth be told”, that’s what got us where we are in the first place—at least according to leading moonbat scholars.

    The truth that is hard to take is…you don’t have a plan…do you?
    Withdrawal is not a “plan”. It’s not a strategy. It’s a “tactic”.
    The withdrawal itself is a tactic..not a policy. I’ve heard no proponent of this explain or debate or even express what the “policy” behind the tactic of withdrawal is. Nor has anybody else. That’s not a secret.

    There IS no policy behind it. There is no strategy to debate…because neither you, nor the DNC has one to put forward. Where is your long range alternative plan to address the issues and dangers we face in the ME for which the tactic of withdrawal must be implemented immediately? Where are your assessments of what will happen in Iraq and other areas as the result of the withdrawal and how that will impact our national security and other interests in the region—and more importantly “why” that course is a better alternative for us?

    The way forward to fix things in Iraq and get them on the right track means a commitment to a strategy that will do that and a long term policy that is takes US interests and security into consideration. That’s given that the enemies of Iraq (not just “our” enemies) are going to be trying just as hard to undo whatever you try to do going forward. There are plenty of us happy to debate the merits of any such policy alternative for dealing with terroism or Iraq or Iran or any number of other issues facing our nation. The problem is neither you, or the DNC, has one or has offered one.

  6. Terrye says:

    If the Iraqi majority really felt that way I do not think we would still be there. After all if they make progess and security imporves, we leave. And besides, the Iraqis are not killing our troops in the kinds of numbers you would expect to see if they wanted us out right now.

    I do not doubt that they want to see foreign troops off their streets as soon as possible, but that does not mean they want to be abandoned.

    But hey, if it makes the left feel less like back stabbing cowards to say we are only running out on the Iraqis because they want us to, I guess we can not stop them.

    The sad thing is that none of these nimrods gave a passing thought to Iraq until they saw a chance to go after a Republican president. If the left and the Democrats had paid more attention a decade ago, we might have been able to avoid all this. But then again there was nothing in it for them. No political gain, no point in giving a rat’s ass. Kind of like Rwanda. They all felt so bad after a million people died, but somehow could not be bothered before hand.


  7. Terrye says:

    My reference to how the Iraqis felt was in response to some silly comment about how all the Iraqis hate us and want us out of there blah blah blah.

  8. browngreengold says:

    Once again, the “eject” button comes to mind.

  9. truthhard2take says:

    Minus 75

    Iraq is now dominated by Iran-friendly Shias, not Sunnis. Moron.

  10. Terrye says:

    And besides, if we really could just leave…why wouldn’t we? Do you really think the US Military and the White House would put themselves through all this if they did not have to? I mean really if all the Iraqis wanted us out and if the government could stand without our help and if there was no need for us to be there, why would we be? It is only a drag on the Republicans, so if all they care about is power and politics why place themselves in this situation when and if it was not necessary?

  11. truthhard2take says:

    I notice DC wants “plans” which all center on American activity in
    the Moslem world. Imperialist dirtbag. I wonder what Russian
    commentor is asking Putin about his plans centering in Canada
    and Mexico. Oh, that’s right. Russia doesn’t police the opposite side of the world with an Empire.

  12. Terrye says:


    The Shia are not the Borg and the majority of the population of Iraq was always Shia. Do you prefer Sunni AlQaida?

    And Sistani is not anti American. And a great many of the Shia in Iraq are not all that religious anyway.

  13. VinceP1974 says:

    Terrye: Sistani is not our friend. He’s your typical Kuffar hating Islamic nutcase.

  14. truthhard2take says:

    Sistani is so “pro-American” he has refused dozens (all) of offers to meet with American military and civilians.

  15. Dc says:

    I rest my case.

  16. truthhard2take says:


    He’s got every right to hate a foreign occupier just as you would have the right to hate the Chinese if they occupied America, you (hopeful) hypocrite.

  17. Terrye says:


    You idiot. Imperialism??? Are you serious? Time and again I have had to listen to people like you talk about how it is the responsibility of the US to feed and clothe and shelter about half the damn planet. No one asked Russia to do a damn thing. By the way, what about Chechnya? How many people do you think the Russians have killed there? Oh but that is ok.

    So the idea is that if we just take all our naughty soldiers and go home all well be well? Well sure, I mean after all back in the good old days before we were involved in Iraq things were so damn peaceful over there. If I remember correctly, Saddam tried to kill an American president, Iranians attacked our embassy and took our people, Hezbellah killed our marines and AlQaida attacked our mainland. And what should we do? Blame ourselves, filthy imperialists that we are.

    yeah, right. Sure. But first we have to save the people in Darfur, protect the high seas for trade and somehow keep the oil flowing so that the entire world economy does not collapse.

    Moron is right.

  18. truthhard2take says:


    I prefer never having gone in unthreatening Iraq and allowing their people to sort out their own religious,tribal,ethnic disputes-and the overwhlemign majority of Iraqis blame you and yours for the ensuing Shia/Sunni warfare. They do not, no matter how many times Strata lies about it, principally blame foreign jihadists who our barbaric invasion allowed in

  19. Terrye says:


    I have had relatives serve in Iraq and most of the people they encountered did not hate them. Btw, if we had not “occupied” Japan and Germany and South Korea, how many of those people would have suffered and starved and died you idiot.

    Back in the 90’s people like yourself were claiming that the sanctions were killing a hundred thousand children a year. As usual you made excuses for Saddam. Now when the US is in there building schools and hospitals you whine that we do not abandon those people to mayhem and God knows what else.

    Why do you hate the Iraqis so?

  20. truthhard2take says:

    Chechenya is a border dispute, Russia having controlled the area, oh at least a hundred and fifty years longer than European Jews have attempted to control Palestine.