IRAQ: Fog of war

As Basra and Baghdad begin digging out from five days of fighting between Shiite militiamen and Iraqi and U.S. forces, people outside Iraq, and a lot of people in the country, are no doubt scratching their heads as they try to decipher what really happened.

The parties involved have not always helped clarify things.

Iraqi and U.S. officials say the military offensive that sparked the fighting was aimed at criminal gangs and rogue militias, not at the Mahdi Army militia of Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr. But it was Sadr's fighters who went on the defensive. It was also Sadr's call for a cease-fire that led to the calming of things today, and it was Sadr who got thanks from U.S. and Iraqi officials for calling the halt to combat.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki called Sadr's move a "step in the right direction." U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo echoed that today. "We join the prime minister in welcoming Sayyid Al Sadr's statement," she said.

Sadr, meanwhile, insists that his militia is innocent of the wanton violence that Maliki says prompted the crackdown, yet he showed a masterful command of the bloodshed. Shortly after his cease-fire call Sunday evening, the fighting that had raged in Iraq's strongholds ground nearly to a halt.

The U.S. military said it was surprised how quickly the effects were felt. Navy Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, a military spokesman, said that as of this afternoon, there had been a 20% drop in attacks nationwide compared with the previous day.

Iraq's government now is faced with trying to portray the Basra offensive as successful, even though Maliki's security forces proved unable to flush militias from Basra, as the prime minister had vowed to do. Three days into the battle, he called for help from American and British forces. U.S. warplanes conducted airstrikes, and U.S. Army special forces were involved in some ground operations.

As this was going on, U.S. officials hammered away at the idea that the Basra offensive was Iraqi-led and Iraqi-organized and a promising display of Maliki's determination to take on the country's militia problem — but not the Sadr's militiamen, they hastened to add.  President Bush called it a "defining moment" for Iraq.

There has been no U.S. reaction to the news that Iran, whom Washington accuses of meddling in Iraq's violence, played a key role in bringing the standoff to an end. Iraqi lawmakers have said they went to Iran and asked for help in brokering a deal between Sadr, who is believed to be in Iran, and Iraqi leaders.

Nantongo said she had no information on Iran's role.

This morning brought fresh attacks on the Green Zone, the Baghdad diplomatic enclave that was pounded throughout the fighting by missiles fired from Mahdi Army strongholds in east Baghdad. That raised questions about the effectiveness of Sadr's call for calm. Nobody was reported killed in the latest Green Zone strikes, but Iraq's Interior Ministry gave a grim accounting from the previous week of battles:

605 people dead, including 325 in Basra and 140 in Baghdad.

And the U.S. military today announced the deaths of two more troops. An Army soldier died in mainly Shiite northeast Baghdad earlier in the day when his vehicle hit a roadside bomb, and a Marine died March 29 of wounds suffered in an attack six days earlier, military statements said. The deaths bring to at least 4,011 the number of American forces killed in Iraq since the war began in March 2003, according to www.icasualties.org.

— Times staff writers

Comments

[PFC Torres,J.]

When are we going to stop makinging deals with the enemy and clean out Sadr City once and for all. I have lost friends there in recent days and am left scratching my head wondering why is this city a no-go zone for U.S. and coalition forces. If we are to make any kind of further progress here in Iraq, it will most certainly start with clearing out the Mahdi Army. It was reported that during the initial cease fire agreement with them that security had improved a drastic 65% across the country. If we want to improve the security conditions for any length of time I feel that agreements are not the answer. It is apparent that agreements will be broken, instead, loosen the already stringent ROE (Rules Of Engagement ), and let us do the job that we came here to do so we can all go home. For those not here in country, the IA (Iraqi Army) and IP (Iraqi Police) are not strong and compitent enough to fight this fight on their own. Their ranks are plagued with traitors and corruption who play both sides of the war. Honestly, they cant be trusted.
We just want to come home. But their must be some sort of a strateigic pull out . We cant just up and leave all at once. Let me tell you, It would be nice, but then this Govt. so many have died for to try and establish would be for nothing. At which point would crumble and who do you think would step in to rule or govern this land then? Al Saddr? Iran? Let us do our job so we can come home.

[Andrew Thompson]

In response to the previous poster, who said that 'people like Sadr will never give up until the US is out of Iraq' it might have been said the same of Al Qaeda, and yet look what has happened to them. Fallujah has made a huge turnaround, in fact all of Anbar province is much better than it was a year ago. The war is being won, if we keep on this path, peace and freedom WILL come to Iraq.

[mongoose]

Not so long ago the administration and the media have portrayed the so called "surge" a success. Yet there was always a big elephant in the room, but nobody talked about it. The reason the violence ebbed during the surge was because the Mahdi army was lying low. Let the Americans fight everyone else, and when we leave, the Mahdi army just has to step in and take control. So much for the success of the surge. The truth was here for all to see from the begining, but the White House lies, and the media just nods in agreement.

[Doug Akers]

"Sadr who got thanks from U.S. and Iraqi officials" - Now I'm sorry, but a militia based in Iran, in most people's view, is a terrorist organization. Now we are reduced to not only losing the war on terror, but thanking the terrorists for not continuing to embarrass us.

[TheOldHand]

The battle for Basra should be seen as one of the pivotal moments in the Iraq War. It is/was a test of the proclaimed desire to have the Iraq government fight its own battles. The government couldn't, and we helped. That placed us taking sides in a civil war between warring factions of one of the 3 major groups making up Iraq. Meanwhile, the battle was resolved by neighboring country (Shiita) Iraq, newly empowered by the removal of 2 enemies on its borders: Sunni Afganistan and Sunni Controlled Iraq (Russia, the last border, has been friendly if for no other reason than to annoy the US).

[captbilly]

We are making deals with the devil to make this war look winable. People like Sadr will never give up until the US is out of Iraq. The fighting we are trying to stop is largely the result of our being there int he first place. I can see no way that Iran, Syria or any of the other countries in the area will ever stop trying to tear Iraq apart so long as the US has influence there. I am terribly sorry for the fighting that will ensue when we leave, I am sorry for all the Americans and Iraqis who have already died, but that sorrow will not bring us a "victory" nor will it bring back the dead. Let's get out befor we bankrupt America.