But failure has a better publicist.
Which is why, I suppose, Paris Hilton’s response to the John McCain celebrity ad drew more attention across the blogosphere than did the news yesterday that Moqtada al-Sadr is telling his thugs to stack arms.
The story, broken yesterday by the Journal’s Gina Chon, marks the latest of serial defeats for Mr. Sadr, beginning in February 2007 when he was forced underground (reportedly to Iran) in anticipation of the surge of U.S. troops. More recently, the Mahdi Army was defeated and evicted from Basra and other southern strongholds by an Iraqi-led military offensive. The Mahdi Army capitulated without a fight from its Baghdad enclave of Sadr City. Now the young cleric will focus his group’s efforts on politics and social work, perhaps while he pursues theological studies in Iran. He wouldn’t be the first grad student in history with a tendency toward rabble-rousing.
In many respects, the story of the Mahdi Army’s decline follows the same pattern as al Qaeda’s: Not only was it routed militarily, it also made itself noxious to the very Shiite population it purported to represent and defend. It enforced its heavy-handed religious edicts, coupled with mob-like extortion tactics, wherever it assumed effective control. The overwhelming Shiite rejection of this brand of politics is another piece of good news from Iraq, as it means that Iraqis will not tolerate Iranian-style theocratic rule.
On the topic of Basra and the Mahdi Army, here is news I’d rather not have read:
A secret deal between Britain and the notorious al-Mahdi militia prevented British Forces from coming to the aid of their US and Iraqi allies for nearly a week during the battle for Basra this year, The Times has learnt.
Four thousand British troops – including elements of the SAS and an entire mechanised brigade – watched from the sidelines for six days because of an “accommodation” with the Iranian-backed group, according to American and Iraqi officers who took part in the assault.
I’ve never heard anyone complain about the valor and professionalism of Tommy in the trenches, or for that matter, any of the fighting forces who trace their lineage back to the Olde Empire. Soldiers often wish that the same could be said of their political masters.
About the Brits: You are correct – the article clearly stated that it was a decision or deal made at a much higher level than the military, certainly higher than the “tommie” level.
No matter what, I would not want to be the one to call any of their Marines, Paras, or SAS, sissies for sitting out the Basra event. I admire these guys, but find it hard to admire many of the upper levels in the political arm.
Peter Wehner over at Commentary wrote on the WSJ piece – called the Mahdi stand-down a decisive milestone…
Maybe the title to The Times’ article should have been this quote: “Without the support of the Americans we would not have accomplished the mission because the British Forces had done nothing there. ”
Kinda O/T but reminds me of this incident: We had one New Zealand exchange officer at an officer’s call apologize to our Parachute Battalion officers for his nation’s refusal to allow American warships to seek port in NZ, due to the presence of nukes. Well, we thought “the USN must have pissed them off some other way of course..” Burly son of a gun was hard to take down during party games but of course the best ones always are..(–*
Lex, Strongly suggest you remove your rose colored Angl0phile glasses with repect to the British military…the sun has finally set on the former British Empire…in the final analysis we are ultimately and truly alone …moving forward we can and should count only on our fellow Americans… the other useless bastards, in my humble opninon, should all take a flying f**k … Best
Snake – well said. With great style too.
- I’d probably vote for da bimbo over B. a H.O. ! At least she wants to drill, right?
- I’ll ask for the 1000th time- why isn’t Mookie-Baby pushing up daisies?
- Agree with Snake on our stalwart ally..ever since Market Garden.
b2
b2,
I’d rather vote for Obama than Paris, any day. As a matter of fact, if she were to be elected President, I’d go to great lengths to bring back Soviet Communism just so I’d have someplace without an extradition treaty and robust censorship so I’d have someplace to defect to where I wouldn’t have to hear about it anymore.
Also, I wholeheartedly (and seriously) concur with your questions about why al-Sadr’s isn’t finding out who got the afterlife right.
The Brits deserve to come in for criticism when they agree to do something as tactically important as an accommodation without coordinating it with their allies, but, overall, they’re the best support we have in Iraq and in Afghanistan, esp. the latter where they’re covering territory that other NATO allies have openly declared they would’t touch with a ten foot saber (a weapon they might end up putting to use if they keep neglecting their military budgets). At least Tommy comes prepared and with a full heart to his business.
Re Paris Hilton, I don’t see what’s so clever about her response. The idea that oil which won’t come on line for the next several years can act as a stop-gap measure to prevent energy prices from rising in the near future doesn’t seem to be very well thought out. Then again, neither was McCain’s ad. Is that supposed to be the joke?
I reckon that the thing that’s clever is that so much of the late run-up in oil futures has been speculative (i.e, psychological). When it turns out that the US might be serious enough about the problem of demand to 1) moderate their driving habits, and 2) actually tap into home-based reservoirs, the markets eased well in advance of the resource.
Hence the name, “futures.’