Mahdi Army’s Power Much Reduced

by William Teach | July 27, 2008 8:44 am

Usually, I start this type of story out with “I bet you think this was found in the Credentialed Media” or “I wonder if the CM will cover this,” or something to that effect, and the story comes from a source such as Operation Iraqi Freedom[1]. In this case, THE main newspaper component of the Credentialed Media, The New York Times, actually is the one writing the story. When these stories do appear in the Times, it is usually Saturday, and I have the theory that that happens because all the editors start their martini weekends early Friday after a long week of bashing Bush, America, McCain, Republicans, etc. But, to appear in the Sunday edition? Impressive[2]

 The militia that was once the biggest defender of poor Shiites in Iraq, the Mahdi Army, has been profoundly weakened in a number of neighborhoods across Baghdad, in an important, if tentative, milestone for stability in Iraq.

Would we have seen a story like that just 6 months ago? Certainly not on page A-1. And certainly not describing the Mahdi Army, which the Credentialed Media seemed to be rooting for, as a criminal enterprise later in the article.

It is a remarkable change from years past, when the militia, led by the anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr, controlled a broad swath of Baghdad, including local governments and police forces. But its use of extortion and violence began alienating much of the Shiite population to the point that many quietly supported American military sweeps against the group.

OK, so the Times can’t quite give credit to the United States military and The Surge. Liberals are still liberals.

 Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki struck another blow this spring, when he led a military operation against it in Baghdad and in several southern cities.

He did? While I do not want to take credit away from Maliki, has the Times heard of The Surge?

Iraqi petting zooIt is part of a general decline in violence that is resonating in American as well as Iraqi politics: Senator John McCain argues that the advances in Iraq would have been impossible without the increase in American troops known as the surge, while Senator Barack Obama, who opposed the increase, says the security improvements should allow a faster withdrawal of combat troops.

It is fun how clueless Liberals are. I guess it is only John McCain who says The Surge, which the Times cannot even capitalize, has been the main cause of the decline in violence and the Mahdi Army. Sigh. Reality Based Community.

And Barry, like any good liberal worth his weight in arugula, uses the security improvements as a means to call for redeployment.

The changes are not irreversible. The security gains are in the hands of unseasoned Iraqi soldiers at checkpoints spread throughout Baghdad’s neighborhoods. And local government officials have barely begun to take hold of service distribution networks, potentially leaving a window for the militia to reassert itself.

The Iraqi’s are almost there. Very close. Just a little more time. After all that we and the other Coalition forces have done, isn’t it worth it to give just a bit more time to the endpoint, rather then washing our hands of it? Or do Democrats really want a replay of our exit from Vietnam?

But, getting beyond the biases of the Grey Lady, the Times should be shown a little bit of kudos for printing an article that shows that The Surge has worked, things are coming together in Iraq, and the end point, ie, a stable Iraq, with a democratically elected government, and a military and police force which can stand on their own, is almost here.

Even The Associated Press thinks the US is winning a war that was once lost[3] (at least lost in their minds.) And Michael Totten[4] defines victory in Iraq.

As seen at Pirate’s Cove[5].

  1. Operation Iraqi Freedom:
  2. Impressive:
  3. US is winning a war that was once lost:
  4. Michael Totten:
  5. Pirate’s Cove:

Source URL: