Comments on: The Al-Cockney Army

By: dsquared

dsquared — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 17:40:13 +0000

By the way, Abiola, until you get the distinction between “wanting something to happen” and “thinking something will happen” sorted out, I would stay away from both the Army and the stock market, as they can both be quite expensive places to learn the difference.

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:58:40 +0000

Shorter Abiola Lapite: Joining the reserve or regular British military of one’s own country is prima facie evidence of unpatriotic and cowardly sympathy with Islamicist terrorism and hatred for the British military. Even shorter Abiola Lapite: members of the British military awaiting a posting to Iraqwish Islamic militiamen to kill or wound members of the British military in Iraq. Really short Abiola Lapite: Yes, I am a cretin, aren’t I?

By: JamesW

JamesW — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:56:35 +0000

Abiola Lapite asks: “did the crushing of Simeon bar Kochba’s revolt in 136 CE lead to a radicalization of Judea?” It didn’t because the Romans cleansed Judaea of Jews in revenge. Dio Cassius: “Thus nearly the whole of Judea was made desolate, a result of which the people had had forewarning before the war. For the tomb of Solomon, which the Jews regarded as an object of veneration, fell to pieces of itself and collapsed. And many wolves and hyenas rushed howling into the cities.” (Cited on http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/revolt1.html) A few Jewish survivors hung on, but Judaism became essentially a religion of exiles. Contrariwise, the ruthless crushing of the previous Great Revolt in AD 65-70, ending in the destruction of the Second Temple, failed to extinguish Jewish national radicalism. It is possible for an empire to crush all-out colonial rebellion, but not an empire that pays any respect to the rights of man.

By: Abiola Lapite

Abiola Lapite — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:47:50 +0000

“(And please, that ‘almost’ is the sleazy equivalent of ‘if I offended anyone, I apologise’. I don’t buy it for a split-second.)” Whatever. I won’t be losing any sleep over it. “and don’t come whining back with some rhetoric about my seeking to close off debate.” You’re the one whining, not I. “You’re not debating anyone: you’re alleging sympathy, on zero evidence” On the contrary, all the evidence one needs is available right here in the previous comments to this post. “Are you going to say that I ‘almost’ sympathise with the guy who shot him?” And why not? For all I know you might loathe your NCO. You’re a fine one to talk about logical fallacies when your entire response is a sterling example of the genre.

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 10:29:04 +0000

JQ- from what I can read in the NYT, the US forces have more or less completely vacated Sadr City- two days ago the Sadr City inhabitants downed a US helicopter and there doesn’t seem to have been much in the way of reprisal. Maybe you’re right that he’s acting entirely irrationally. From the evidence available, I really can’t say. Btw, I re-read your post about publicising enemy casualties and I did mis-interpret you: apologies, and hopefully no offence caused. Abiola: ‘One almost gets the feeling that some people on here actually want America to be embarassed by al-Sadr’s irregulars – almost.’I am slated to go out to Iraq probably next year. For that reason, and for the reason that a bunch of my mates have served in Basra, and for the reason that I’ve got some kind of basic moral sense, no I don’t want to see Sadr ‘embarrass’ (translation into English: kill) Coalition troops. Clear on that, Patriot Boy? Yes, that’s an ad hominem remark- given that you’ve ‘almost’ accused people of sympathising with murderers, I think we might say that you’ve ‘almost’ made an ad hominem remark yourself. And don’t come whining back with some rhetoric about my seeking to close off debate. You’re not debating anyone: you’re alleging sympathy, on zero evidence, for the killers of American and British troops (and of Iraqi civilians), and seeking to cover yourself behind repetitions of the word ‘almost’. An NCO who trained me was badly wounded in Amarah last year. Are you going to say that I ‘almost’ sympathise with the guy who shot him?

By: weasel

weasel — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 06:51:14 +0000

Nice lively back and forth going on here. I’m reminded of some things I’ve read (possibly even on Riverbend) about how Sadr may not be widely admired, but if he were to be killed by the occupation forces, or any of the holy sites damaged, even folks that don’t like Sadr would perhaps be a tad pissed. Playing up that whole us v them thing, ya know? What do you folks think about Sistani’s sudden departure from the country in regards to all of this?

By: nick

nick — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 04:21:04 +0000

Do you really imagine that Iraqis are just a bunch of dumb religious sheep who’ll automatically get angry at whoever CNN tells them shot a hole in the roof of the mosque, without bothering to ask why they should have been provoked into doing so? If a bunch of renegade Mormons took over Salt Lake City, and in the course of liberating the city, the US blew large chunks out of the Temple, do you think that any Mormons expressing a small measure of displeasure at such consequences would be ‘dumb religious sheep’? Of course the Sadrists are fuckers for using their sacred sites as a battleground (although they’re also playing off the Shi’a history of glorious martyrdom) and of course plenty of Iraqis are very much pissed off with them. But the US has to pick its battles with a bit of care here. You’re the one throwing out filthy aspersions by suggesting that we’re rooting for the Sadrists here. (And please, that ‘almost’ is the sleazy equivalent of ‘if I offended anyone, I apologise’. I don’t buy it for a split-second.)

By: dsquared

dsquared — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 03:46:29 +0000

Abiola: but you will admit that the apparent facts about the growth in the size of Sadr’s forces are more consistent with him becoming a more rather than less popular figure?

By: Abiola Lapite

Abiola Lapite — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 03:24:53 +0000

“but it’s another thing entirely to piss off the entire Shi’a population of the world.” Which begs the question of how exactly you know that’s what we’re doing. How do you know that the Shiites aren’t even more pissed off that al-Sadr’s holding Najaf’s holy places hostage to further his own ambitions? It isn’t as if the far more respected Shiite clerics haven’t said they wanted him to leave, is it? I’m not a Bush supporter by any means, but the willingness of some on here to overlook inconvenient facts in order to paint the blackest possible picture disturbs me intensely. Do you really imagine that Iraqis are just a bunch of dumb religious sheep who’ll automatically get angry at whoever CNN tells them shot a hole in the roof of the mosque, without bothering to ask why they should have been provoked into doing so? If most of you really cared about what Iraqis are actually thinking – as opposed to what you hope they’re thinking – you’d expand your reading of what they have to say beyond just the River Bend Blog you all love to quote from: you might be surprised to learn that Iraq’s citizens aren’t as stupid as you seem to think they are, that they don’t all yearn to live under the thumbs of theocratic strongmen, and they just might see al-Sadr for what he really is.

By: nick

nick — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 03:08:14 +0000

One almost gets the feeling that some people on here actually want America to be embarassed by al-Sadr’s irregulars – almost. No. One gets the feeling that the people on here don’t want to wake up to TV pictures showing a huge fucking hole in the dome of the ‘Ali mosque. For some strange, inexplicable reason. Because it’s one thing to be fighting a minority of radicalised Sunnis who’ve killed lots of people, but it’s another thing entirely to piss off the entire Shi’a population of the world.

By: Barry

Barry — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 02:41:48 +0000

Ah, yes, blaming the left for the right’s f*ck-ups.

By: Abiola Lapite

Abiola Lapite — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 00:37:23 +0000

“Rather than hoping for a fairly quick “victory”, we should be hoping that it’s called off now before anything worse happens.” On the contrary, rather than calling it off now and perpetuating the delusion that his ragtag band can impose its will in the face of American might, they ought to be granted the martyrdom so many of them claim to desire. I’m seeing a strange assumption at work here, which is that al Sadr is some sort of representative of mainstream Iraqi opinion, rather than a leader of a minority grouping seeking to impose its will on the rest of the Shiites by force of arms. In all this talk of “disasters” and whatnot, might it not occur to some of you to find out what the opinions of the rest of the Shiites are before making predictions about what the annihilation of his “army” will do for his popularity? On the (not unreasonable) assumption that most Shiites aren’t suicidal fools, the notion that a wipeout of al-Sadr and his troops will lead to a “radicalisation” of the Shiite community is highly unlikely. It isn’t as if there aren’t any historical parallels to draw on this respect – did the crushing of Simeon bar Kochba’s revolt in 136 CE lead to a radicalization of Judea? One almost gets the feeling that some people on here actually want America to be embarassed by al-Sadr’s irregulars – almost.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Wed, 11 Aug 2004 21:22:48 +0000

If Sadr was acting on rational military calculation, he’d fight it out in Sadr city where his support is much stronger, and the chance of killing Americans much greater. The fact that he’s fighting on in the holy ground of Najaf is an indication that his statements about “the last drop of blood” are not merely rhetoric – he’s appealing to the memory of his martyred father, and willing to take the risk of the same for himself. If he is killed or captured, I doubt that this will end the Sadrist uprising – there is always someone willing to claim the mantle. The campaign against Sadr is a disaster all round. Rather than hoping for a fairly quick “victory”, we should be hoping that it’s called off now before anything worse happens.

By: Motoko Kusanagi

Motoko Kusanagi — Wed, 11 Aug 2004 20:01:32 +0000

This looked much more like a genuine private army; as part of the peace settlement in Najaf it was at one point seriously suggested that the Sadrists might provide the police force for parts of the town. As Dan Hardie pointed out in comments to the previous story, the current incarnation of Sadr’s forces looks somewhere between a rabble of irregular infantry and a street gang. Could this not be part of a learning process, rather than a sign of crisis? No genuine army would stand a chance against overwhelming US power. But the more irregular and unpredictable they get, the more they blend in with the population, the more dangerous they are. If I remember it right, after going to Fallujah during the heaviest fighting there, Rahul Mahajan wrote on his blog how the men there would be regular folks one day, mujahedeen the next. That makes things quite difficult for an occupying force, especially one with a fondness for rhetoric about liberation.

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:00:12 +0000

Not playing gotcha, but the WaPo had an excellent article this morning on the fighting in Najaf. Many points made, among them that the Mahdi army do sound reasonably sophisticated in infantry tactics- which, if true, makes me wonder what the hell they are doing actually coming out and fighting for ground in Najaf. Presumably al-Sadr has decided this is his best available strategy, rather than fighting a true guerrilla war- which if so means he has either taken leave of his senses or is aiming at a huge US over-reaction pushing more Shi’ite support his way. Article is at :http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53557-2004Aug10.html Info on the Mahdi army includes this: Soldiers said the insurgents showed signs that they had been training during a cease-fire that had kept violence here to a minimum since early June. U.S. units accustomed to the disorganized, hit-and-run strikes of insurgents in Baghdad and elsewhere were impressed to see the black-clad fighters of the Mahdi Army moving in coordinated units of five: typically three armed with rifles, which they fired to provide cover for the launch of rocket-propelled grenades, the weapon that has been most damaging to U.S. forces in Iraq. Additional evidence of training: flash suppressors on rifles, simple Starlight-brand night-vision scopes and the evacuation of wounded. Weapons were secreted throughout the cemetery. “These people are a trained militia,” said 1st Lt. Ronald C. Krepps of the 1st Cavalry, who added that one mausoleum contained photos of Mahdi fighters performing battle drills. “More professional,” said Miyamasu, the 5th Regiment battalion commander whose troops provided Najaf reinforcement. “I don’t mean to give them too much, but they’re good. These guys really make us work to kill them, but in the end, they’re dead.”