"For what reason: because a majority of residents in these support a political movement, and militia, that oppose our presence."

Actually, it's because Sadr City hosts the remnants of a political movement that tried to cleanse Baghdad of its remaining Sunnis, kidnap and strong arm any dissenting voices in the area under their local control, that did murder journalists like Steven Vincent, tried to effect a coup in the Hawza in Najaf, and increasingly have become the cat's paw of Iran in its goal of making Iraq a vassal state.

PS: How's your imaginary mullah doing in Qom? Does he return your fan mail?

I do believe it was the U.S./Maliki/Badr operation Forward Together that initiated the serious ethnic cleansing (of the Sunni insurgency & its supporters) in Baghdad. It was during June and July of 2006 and sectarian violence reached its peak (up25% from previous months) during this time. Afterwards the operation was declared to have been a failure for the escalation in violence, but in many respects it was successful in achieving the desired effect of ethnically cleansing  Baghdad. Of course the JAM was unofficially involved in the process - but has taken the lions share of the blame  for it - but lets not forget who started it. Or likewise lets not assume that the current assault on Sadr City was really started, or has anything to do with these mysterious "special groups". Because the intent is essentially the same.

Since reading about the current campaign in Sadr City in McClatchy and the BBC (although the status quo ante wasn't markedly better), I've been amazed at how there hasn't been a peep out of the major American "news" networks. Amazed even compensating for my jaded expectations. The big news out of the area was some Iranian weapons (read: out of all the weapons captured, some might have been from Iran)... oh wait, on second thought maybe they weren't Iranian weapons (and if none are Iranian, their origin isn't news), nevermind... look over there though! scary muslims we can mention in the same breath with Iran are shooting in Beirut!

This last point is the lesson to be learned here. Since there was a CNN reporter with a camera in Beirut, it's news; no reporter in Sadr City when all hell breaks lose, not important.

Eric, I know you're reluctant to cross-post too much, but this is an excellent summary of a huge story being severely under-covered in the news and in the blogs. Presumably, one of the reasons you were invited to join the posters at ObWi is to leaven their almost-total focus on the U.S. elections.

"This is Why the Left Must Lose in November
—Gabriel Malor

I've been taking some flak from commenters for insisting that McCain must win in November. As I've said before, it's not because McCain is going to make a great president or achieve much for Republicans. It's because the alternative is so very much worse.

That's what crossed my mind when I saw the following. What follows is the type of thinking that you will see in the White House should the Democrats win in November. WARNING: it is a concentrated example of the half-truths, distortions, and outright lies that passes for foreign policy discussion on the Left. And if you're anything like me, it's really going to make you mad.

So let's recap the scene: the US military and its Iraqi "allies" are laying siege to a sprawling neighborhood in Baghdad housing roughly 2.5 million Iraqis, launching air strikes, artillery attacks, tank shells and other assorted ordnance, shutting down hospitals and bombing others, cutting off the supply of food and walling off entire sectors of the embattled region, causing a refugee crisis by their actions - and now actually pursuing a policy with the intent of creating a larger refugee crisis!

Witness the liar's casual blend of truth and falsity, used to imply malicious intent that doesn't exist. It's true that U.S. and Iraqi forces are fighting to take and keep control of portions of Sadr City and that one hospital was shut down and another damaged in a bombing. It is also true that the U.S. is building a concrete barrier through the city.

It is absolutely false that the hospital was bombed intentionally--as the liar implies--or that the U.S. has cut off food to the city. In fact, the article he links to (which we will, for now, assume is accurate) notes that the U.S. military is distributing food and medical supplies. This is curiously omitted from the liar's post, given how concerned he is about the residents of Sadr City. According to the article, the Red Crescent estimates that only 6% of the city's population have experienced food, water, or medical shortages during the weeks of fighting. More than that, it also notes that the "refugee crisis" which he blames on the U.S. and Iraqi forces hasn't actually materialized.

It is also manifestly untrue that the intent of the U.S./Iraqi operation is to create a "larger refugee crisis." In fact, the idea is to put an end to mortar and rocket attacks on the Green Zone, U.S. military bases, and civilian areas which are coming out of parts of Sadr City.

Confusion about the difference between purposeful goals and regrettable, unintended, but unavoidable consequences is not unusual on the Left. The twisted morality that disregards intent makes claims of moral equivalence so much easier.

The liar's most pernicious distortion comes next:

For what reason: because a majority of residents in these regions support a political movement, and militia, that oppose our presence. Can't have that. Because we have to keep 150,000 troops in Iraq to safeguard the Iraqi people. After all, whose gonna set up the tents in the refugee catch basins we so magnanimously helped set up to receive the overflow from our relentless assault on political movements that would make it harder for us to stay in Iraq. To safeguard the Iraqi people.

He thinks that the U.S. is targeting Sadr City merely because a "political movement, a militia" that opposes the U.S. hides in its slums. He makes no mention of the roadside, car, and market bombings, and rocket and mortar attacks that the Mahdi Army has committed. He ignores the Mahdi Army's attacks on Sunni mosques and attempts to "cleanse" a portion of the city of Sunni Arabs. Conveniently forgotten is journalist Steven Vincent who was killed almost certainly by members of that "political movement."

This distortion, wherein the Left imputes political animus to the U.S. government, is shameful, dreadful stuff. It is a mild flavor of conspiracy theory. The obvious purpose--American and Iraqi authorities want the Madhi Army to stop killing people--is disregarded in favor of a dubious, but oh-so-satisfyingly nefarious one: the Americans and their Iraqi stooges are "relentlessly attacking political groups." Another Leftist recently in the news, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, would no doubt agree. He's also fond of malicious government conspiracies.

This is the type of person you are inviting to enter the center ring when you say "we can wait 'til 2012." Democratic voters, Democratic thinkers, Obama's staff and advisers--these are the people you are flirting with when you say "McCain will do so much damage to the Republican Party." Consider for a minute how much damage these people will do to the United States.

This is why the Left must lose in November. I'm not asking you to vote for John McCain. I'm asking you to vote against having a Leftist in the White House. "

Gabriel Malor    May 10, 2008

http://ace.mu.nu/

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy" -- Mahatma Gandhi

Five years of war has wrought more than 4000 American deaths (closer to 5000 if the deaths of contractors are included), an Iraqi death toll numbered in the hundreds of thousands, Iraqi refugees that can be counted in the millions, and a dollar cost to the United States estimated in the trillions.

And even though the majority of Iraqis consider attacks on American soldiers justified, think that the presence of American soldiers is making the violence worse, and want the American military withdrawn from Iraq within a year or less, there are still some Americans who impute only goodness and idealism when the US bombs and kills innocent Iraqis. With no supporting evidence, they blurt out claims like "It is absolutely false that the hospital was bombed intentionally" even though the US military has issued no such denial, and the head of Baghdad's health department said about the hospital bombing: "They (the Americans) will say it was a weapons cache (they hit) But, in fact they want to destroy the infrastructure of the country."

http://www.middle-east-online.com/English/?id=25706

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r4Eout3OAM 

Just how much more blood and treasure must be spilled for an occupation that is largely opposed by both the occupying and occupied countries?