what was obama talking about ? they don't look bitter to me

Guns, fun for the whole family!
..

former cia analyst ray mcgovern-- "cheney and petraeus didn't know? that's a crock ! "

was cheney behind iraqi army's recent failed offensive ?

is there a resemblance ?

the similarity in nose and moustache. the stocky body type ...was one of saddam's hangmen actually muktada al sadr ?

john mc cain just doesn't get it ...

i’m watching the fox sunday morning talking heads political show when they feature a segment where john mc cain is interviewed by chris wallace . (that annoying little right wing shill is mike wallace’s son ? )

though clearly not the sharpest knife in the drawer, mc cain seems like a sincere grandfatherly type. i admit after he confessed that he made a mistake when he voted against establishing a holiday for dr king , it was not easy to dislike him despite the goofy grin he repeatedly flashed at inappropriate points during the interview .

from what i saw , at first i thought he was simply a bad liar, but was later forced to believe that mc cain honestly just does not get it.

he reminded the audience that he had supported the "surge" and he insisted that the surge has been a "big success" so we need to stay the course.

even after the rightwing reporter pointed out that it was the sunni stand down and muktada al sadr’s six month ceasefire, and not the surge that resulted in violence levels in iraq reducing to the levels they were at in 2005, mc cain seemed as if he didn't hear it.

also mc cain needed to be reminded that reducing violence to 2005 levels does not really add up to progress since saying that you’re only as broke as you were in 2005 still means broke as hell --thus it couldn’t be honestly counted as "progress" .

mc cain again flashed that goofy grin like the lounge lizard singer who falls off the piano, yet doesn’t miss an off-key note , and went right on to say that the recent iraqi government offensive was a big success and showed the al maliki government’s growing strength.

even the right wing fox guy is incredulous at this remark and blurts out that one thousand al maliki soldiers defected almost en mass, turning over weapons and vehicles to al sadr’s forces during that campaign --how can you say the al maliki government was successful ?

another shit-faced grin from mc cain the gold lame-wearing lounge lizard who from the floor , segues right into his next cover tune, "al sadr lost because HE called for the cease fire, not al maliki"-- followed by that top 40s oldie but goody hit , " only losers call for ceasefires in war, not winners."

that’s when i knew --the guy is clueless .

the interview ended and like one of many fox network featured silverhaired elvis-imitators who’ve played "the world famous tuxedo lounge here in beautiful downtown boise " --mc cain grinned , and said goodbye .

"you’ve been a wonderful audience --thank you very much !"

what the media continues to fail to mention...

not just "fails to mention" , but "distorts" beyond recognition.

to get an idea , compare this portion of an article from today's on-line BBC news story about the situation between robert mugabe and his ruling ZANU-PF party and main opposition rival morgan tsvangirai head of the MDC party, with the article below written two years ago about economic sanctions on zimbabwe.

the mugabe government has asserted all along that the sanctions were in retaliation for his seizure of lands from white farmers-- a small minority of the population compared to the black majority--the "rhodesian" whites were the children of british citizens who during the colonial era, took the best lands by force from the blacks when zimbabwe was the british apartheid colony of rhodesia.

britain had agreed to pay these whites for the lands and they were to be distributed to black families in a newly independent zimbabwe. that was back in 1980 when mugabe took office.

twenty years had passed and britain had paid nothing to white farmers and white farmers STILL held the overwhelming majority of the best farmlands in zimbabwe .

facing rebellion by his own army veterans who had fought and won the war of liberation against the apartheid white rhodesian "government",and with these angry veterans threatening to, if necessary , slaughter the whites and take the lands back, mugabe issued the government decree that took the lands away from the white farmers.

with provocative headlines in the media reading akin to, "black mugabe kicks white family farmers off their highly productive white family farmlands" , his "demon status" in western media reached new heights .

BBC reports today that tsvangirai's MDC party claims he won the recent zimbabwean election with 50.3% of the vote . they claim tsvangirai is thus 0.3% above the constitutional requirements of 50% for a candidate to claim the presidency and a run-off election being unnecessary .

first today's BBC description of the western sanctions on zimbabwe :

Sanctions

Zanu-PF leaders backed Mr Mugabe's participation in a possible run-off on Friday. There had been speculation he would stand aside rather than face a second poll.

But a BBC southern Africa correspondent, Peter Biles, says the ruling party remains divided, with many who would still like to see a change of leadership, believing that under Mr Mugabe, Zimbabwe has no future.

Western countries imposed sanctions following allegations that Mr Mugabe rigged the polls in 2002.

The sanctions are targeted at Mr Mugabe and his close associates - they are subject to a travel ban and an assets freeze in the European Union and the US.

Mr Mugabe, 84, came to power 28 years ago at independence on a wave of optimism.

But in recent years Zimbabwe has been plagued by the world's highest inflation, as well as acute food and fuel shortages, which correspondents say have driven many voters to back the opposition.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7332334.stm




Economic sanctions undermine Zimbabwe's economy


By Tawanda Hondora
11/03/2006

WHAT has caused Zimbabwe’s once stable economy to so spectacularly collapse?

Many in the world place the blame on Robert Mugabe, the country’s President

Among the issues usually cited are Mugabe’s land policies, endemic corruption, Zimbabwe’s involvement in the DRC war, absence of the rule of law, and other ill-conceived economic policies.

It is also argued that Mugabe’s political intolerance, electoral fraud and gross human rights abuses have contributed to the country’s economic malaise.

Indeed, it is true that each one of these often cited factors has contributed, or provides an explanation to Zimbabwe’s current economic problems. However, western countries and media almost collectively ignore one other significant factor responsible for the country’s economic collapse: economic sanctions imposed by the US, the EU, and Australia against Zimbabwe.

Given that Mugabe’s often cited and main transgression, which has given rise to the country’s international isolation, was his forcible expropriation of farmland owned by the country’s white farmers, and the implications of his actions for the respect of private property rights and investments in the region, this collective amnesia is hardly surprising.

It is often argued that the sanctions in place against Zimbabwe are not economic in nature; rather, the argument goes, there is in existence a regime of smart sanctions, which targets specific ZANU PF loyalists.

This is not true.

Zimbabwe’s economic woes are the direct result of a concerted and systematic campaign to effect regime change through an economic implosion.

Zimbabwe has a critical shortage of foreign currency. However for the past four years or so, Zimbabwe has been unable to obtain finance or credit facilities from international lenders to inject into the economy. And this is a direct consequence of a sanctions regime imposed against the Zimbabwe by particularly the US, and the EU.

That Mugabe is an evil, brutal, dictator that needs to be removed from office is not in doubt. It is however immoral to cause the removal of Mugabe from office by precipitating the collapse of a developing, only recently independent, now famine-ravished African country through an economic sanctions regime.

The US introduced economic sanctions on Zimbabwe through the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, 2001. (ZIDERA) Through this enactment Zimbabwe’s access to finance and credit facilities was effectively incinerated.

ZIDERA empowers the US to use its voting rights and influence (as the main donor) in multilateral lending agencies, such as the IMF, World Bank, and the African Development Bank to veto any applications by Zimbabwe for finance, credit facilities, loan rescheduling, and international debt cancellation. The US cites Zimbabwe’s human rights record, political intolerance and absence of rule of law as the main reasons for the imposition of sanctions. The ZIDERA also suggests that if Zimbabwe acts to correct these ills, then the sanctions will be removed and economic support measures are suggested.

Simply put, owing to the size of the US vote and influence in these institutions, neither the IMF, World Bank nor the African Development Bank will lend to Zimbabwe, or offer it credit facilities. Therefore, needless to say, as a direct result of the US 2001 Act, Zimbabwe’s relationship with these multilateral lending agencies was immediately and severely affected.

In addition, Zimbabwe’s ability to reschedule its loan payments and to apply for debt cancellations in times of severe financial crisis was severely affected.

And once the IMF and World Bank stopped doing business with Zimbabwe, this had an immediate and adverse impact on Zimbabwe’s credit and investment rating. And with a drop in investment rating went the dream of low cost capital on the international markets.

ZIDERA was a masterstroke. At the stroke of a pen, Zimbabwe’s access to international credit markets was blocked. And relying purely on barter trade, and trade, mining, agricultural concessions, and on exports-generated foreign currency, Zimbabwe’s economy has been slowly but surely asphyxiated.

And the consequent foreign currency crisis has resulted in the continued devaluation of the domestic currency, rapid inflation, and all else that has manifested itself in the current Zimbabwe economic crisis.

In addition, both the US and the EU have frozen financial and other assets of persons, or companies linked to ZANU PF. It is alleged that such companies sustain the ZANU PF government. There may be a grain of truth in that observation. However, what is often ignored in the race to rid Zimbabwe of Mugabe is that companies operating in Zimbabwe provide a livelihood to thousands of families, and contribute to the development of the country.

Australia is reported to have denied Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe officials’ business visas to travel to Australia. And the US is putting in place a raft of measures aimed at specified ZANU PF linked individuals, their families, and companies.

It is apparent therefore some of the most powerful countries in the world have put in place measures to bring about the downfall of Mr. Mugabe by orchestrating the economic collapse of Zimbabwe. It is wrong to conflate Zimbabwe with the personality of Mugabe. They are two distinct entities. It cannot be right to say that economic support will be provided to the country once its leader is out of power. As Zimbabwe, all too dearly knows following the Lancester House Agreement of 1979 on the land question, such promises are impossible to enforce.

No matter how evil a dictator Mugabe is, it cannot be right to force his downfall by killing off the country’s fledgling economy, by erasing the gains made after 1980, and worsening the AIDS, and unemployment crisis.

Those championing the imposition of the economic sanctions often retort that Zimbabwe’s ability to borrow from the IMF and World Bank was restricted in any event because it had fallen foul of its agreements with the IMF. This argument is however disingenuous. It ignores the other more vicious consequences of ZIDERA on the Zimbabwean economy.

In addition, the suggestion that what is in existence is a regime of symbolic travel bans and some asset freezes is far from the truth.

It is correct that Zimbabwe must be made to pay its debts, including money that it owes the IMF. However, in the circumstances of Zimbabwe, going through a financial crisis, it is immoral for the IMF to insist on the payment of over US$175 million on pain of expulsion from the institution for non payment.

Zimbabwe recently managed to stave its expulsion from the IMF by reportedly paying £150 million towards its debt obligations to the institution. It was all too obvious however that Zimbabwe paid the money out of desperation. The country cannot afford the payment it made. Zimbabwe paid the money because, owing to US influence among others, it was unable to formally reschedule its IMF loan payments. Amidst all this, it is reported that the country has critical foreign currency shortages, has run dry of fuel and other essentials, has record high unemployment levels, and now has crippling inflation rates. In addition, the UN suggests Zimbabwe is suffering from famine.

The suggestion that Zimbabwe’s economy is what it is because of mismanagement is partly true but misleading. What Mugabe has done is to mismanage the endemic crisis caused by the country’s inability to access capital, which in turn are the result of a raft of economic sanctions in place against the country.

There are no doubt other reasons why Zimbabwe’s economy is in the doldrums; chief of which are myopic, ill-advised ZANU PF government policies and corruption. But one cannot ignore the damaging effect the sanctions have had on the economy and how the country and its economy are being slowly asphyxiated by the blockade on access to international capital markets.

The question has to be asked: are the US, EU, Australia, and the MDC, any closer to removing Mugabe from power because of the economic sanctions currently in place? Is it not true that an economically independent people are much more likely to vote or rebel against a brutal dictator?

Yes, Mugabe must be removed from power, as must the institutions he has created to bolster his political power. However, this is likely to remain a pipe dream for as long as the prevailing philosophy supports the destruction of the country’s economy.

Tawanda Hondora is a Zimbabwean lawyer currently studying towards a PhD at Warwick University in England. He be contacted at hondst@yahoo.co.uk

"somewhere in heaven"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-SI_gF9S34&feature=related "somewhere in heaven" video including dr king's "i've been to the mountain top" clip

pawns in the larger game ?

there have been during the recent al Sadr vs al maliki fighting in iraq , several rumors of fervent Us military activity near iran's border.

the rumors as far as i can determine have been based on a russian news article reporting these observations made by their military intel. but what i'm seeing in actuality, is russian media running in late march of this year, an article dated as being written about this same time last year.

because detailed invasion plans for both iraq and iran along with preparatory exercises and war games have been in the pentagon works and reworks since at least 1995 , i saw this recycling of the russian article as no real new evidence that the long dreaded Us attack on iran was beginning.

but then we saw articles stating that saudi arabia after cheney's recent visit was initiating measures to deal with massive radioactive fallout resulting from an attack on iran's nuclear power research facilities.

added to that, during german chancellor angela merkel's recent state visit to israel she referred to iran as world enemy number one in an address to israel's Knesset.

bush in his address to NATO chiefs reviewing the EXPANSION of the SIX DECADE OLD
EURO-AMERICAN MILITARY ALLIANCE , referred to his proposed and totally unnecessary missile defense shield for europe as a protection against iranian missiles that could hit europe.

hold the phone georgie --does any one with even the most slender connection to REALITY ask the question, who in their right mind would even think to attack europe?

the europeans have for centuries been armed to the gums--the problem of the last five centuries is not some global bully attacking the peace loving europeans , its the exact opposite. the heavily armed and highly warlike europeans have been the global bully.

the last sixty years of relative peace in europe were the result of two world wars fought in large part in europe by europeans that left close to seventy million dead and devastated the land and economies. european on european crime--as ahmadinejad of iran pointed out and was crucified by the western press.

from 1945 to about 1975 was the era of decolonization in the third world where former colonies of european powers hd to fight brutal and protracted wars to gain pseudo-independence from their former colonial masters .

Europeans, even after being treated as colonies themselves by the nazis and finally being on the receiving end of what europe had been dishing out to the non-white world since columbus sailed the ocean blue--almost immediately after the second world war, the european colonial powers proved they had learned nothing from their "what goes around comes around" experience of being used as hitler's colonies and waged genocidal and brutal wars in asia and africa against the nonwhite peoples who only wanted the same freedom from colonization and racist oppression the europeans had just fought against the nazis to end.

i'm no historian , but OTHER THAN EUROPEANS THEMSELVES, who has had the means or inclination to attack europe since the days of the ottoman turks and the fall of constantinople around the year 1453?

what are they so afraid of ? WHO HAS BEEN THEIR ENEMY --other than themselves ?

even the 'terrorist" attacks in madrid and london had their own national security services fingerprints all over them . so who are the most heavily armed people in the world--the europeans and their global offspring--so afraid of? and why?

iran is no threat, the Un's international atomic regulatory agency even said the iranian nuclear program was civilian in nature--despite the UNFOUNDED ravings to the contrary of the bush administration and the israelis --two of the world's biggest nuclear powers --with enough nukes between them to incinerate iran at least a hundred times over.

yet the Us maintains, if memory is correct , at least three carrier groups in the persian gulf-- the nimitz the eisenhower and the john c. stennis.(they actually had the audacity to name an aircraft carrier after the overtly red neck racist mississippi senator john stennis ?)

the Us runs naval wargames off iran's coast.

the Us in march pushed through new rounds of sanctions against iran allowing member nations of the security council (the Us Uk france etc) to stop and search iranian ships and planes --looking for nukes and bin laden, i guess .

and a measure by the Us treasury department treats iranian banks as money launderers for terrorism and those doing business with iranian banks as basically aiding and abetting terrorism .

an article by john mc glynn titled "day of infamy : the march 2008 Us declaration of war on iran " reports :

...make no mistake. As of Thursday, March 20 the US is at war with Iran.

So who made it official?

A unit within the US Treasury Department, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), which issued a March 20 advisory to the world's financial institutions under the title: "Guidance to Financial Institutions on the Continuing Money Laundering Threat Involving Illicit Iranian Activity."

FinCEN, though part of the chain of command, is better known to bankers and lawyers than to students of US foreign policy. Nevertheless, when the history of this newly declared war is someday written (assuming the war is allowed to proceed) FinCEN's role will be as important as that played by US Central Command (Centcom) in directing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In its March 20 advisory FinCEN reminds the global banking community that United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSC) 1803 (passed on March 3, 2008) "calls on member states to exercise vigilance over the activities of financial institutions in their territories with all banks domiciled in Iran, and their branches and subsidiaries abroad."

UNSC 1803 specifically mentions two Iranian state-owned banks: Bank Melli and Bank Saderat. These two banks (plus their overseas branches and certain subsidiaries), along with a third state-owned bank, Bank Sepah, were also unilaterally sanctioned by the US in 2007 under anti-proliferation and anti-terrorism presidential executive orders 13382 and 13224.

As of March 20, however, the US, speaking through FinCEN, is now telling all banks around the world "to take into account the risk arising from the deficiencies in Iran's AML/CFT [anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism] regime, as well as all applicable U.S. and international sanctions programs, with regard to any possible transactions" with – and this is important – not just the above three banks but every remaining state-owned, private and special government bank in Iran. In other words, FinCEN charges, all of Iran's banks – including the central bank (also on FinCEN's list) – represent a risk to the international financial system, no exceptions. Confirmation is possible by comparing FinCEN's list of risky Iranian banks with the listing of Iranian banks provided by Iran's central bank.

The "deficiencies in Iran's AML/CFT" is important because it provides the rationale FinCEN will now use to deliver the ultimate death blow to Iran's ability to participate in the international banking system.

this condemnation is inspite of iran's efforts at improving its anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism regulations in order to bring them in align with international ( "international" means Us dictated ) prescriptions .

iran's efforts at improvement were acknowleged by the g-7's financial action task force in 2007 when it said it," welcomes the commitment made by Iran to improve its AML/CFT regime."

the article goes on to explain that the iranian banks and those dealing with them risk being cut off from the global financial markets-still dominated by the Us/Uk .

" So what does all this bureaucratic financial rigmarole mean?

What it really means is that the US, again through FinCEN, has declared two acts of war: one against Iran's banks and one against any financial institution anywhere in the world that tries to do business with an Iranian bank."

...at risk of having all 'correspondent relationships' with US banks severed, a disaster for any bank wanting to remain networked to the largest financial market in the world."

we must ask, do these unwarranted hostilities, threats of physical attack and attacks in actuality upon iran's economy have anything to do with the iranian plan to create an oil market that would sell iranian oil to the world in a currency other than Us dollars?

saddam hussein was tolerated by the Us until he, as revenge for being double crossed by his former allies and business partners in the whitehouse, ordered the selling of iraqi oil in euros instead of dollars--in defiance of the nixon brokered agreement with the saudis around 1974 that the saudis would sell oil only in dollars.

this saudi-Us agreement created an artificial demand for dollars--bolstering the even then faltering Us currency.

the dollar's present woes trace at least back to the 1970s when due to double digit inflation caused by the federal reserve printing increasingly worthless paper money to finance vietnam war debt, countries like france started cashing in Us dollars for the ounce of gold each 35 dollars could then be exchanged for.

to staunch the gold drain , nixon-- who ran on a promise of having a secret plan to end the vietnam war and instead extended the war to cambodia and laos and fought on for six more years-- took the Us dollar off the gold standard and said the dollar would no longer be backed by it, but instead by the productivity of the Us economy.

he also secretly cut the deal with the saudis to sell oil in dollars --making the Us greenback a petro-dollar for the next 30 years--until the saddam and then iranian challenges.

today as the dollar quickly sinks in the west and elsewhere around the globe, a war with iran would not bolster the fallen dollar and return it to unchallenged status as the world's sole reserve currency, but Us military control over the oil reserves of iraq and iran most certainly could.


if iran is finally targeted, syria would also have to be in the crosshairs because of its military power--though nothing compared to that of israel --is viewed as a threat to Us/Euro aspirations in the region.

the 2006 lebanon war between israel and hezbollah was intended to be the opening phase of hostilities leading to the Us ,israel showdown with iran and syria, but hezbollah, like al sadr's mahdi army in iraq , proved too tough for the Us surrogates.

reports have placed syrian troops on high alert in fear of a sudden attack

"Syria is preparing for a comprehensive Israeli strike which will be combined with an attack on Hizbullah, sources in Damascus have told the London-based Arabic-language al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper.



The sources, which refused to reveal their identity, reported that Syria was closely monitoring the movement of Israeli forces along the northern border.

Barak to Northern Command:

'Hizbullah growing stronger, but so are we' / Hanan Greenberg

Defense minister tours IDF’s Northern Command, says Lebanese Shiite group is ‘wary of firing at Israel at the moment, but beneath this blissful quiet there is a storm brewing’

The newspaper reported Wednesday that Damascus viewed the Israeli media reports and statements made by senior Israel Defense Forces officials as incitement and attempts to prepare the Israeli and global public opinion for a war against Syria.

The sources added that the Syrian forces were conducting wide-scale military maneuvers and have called up reservists in preparation for an Israeli attack.

In addition to the military preparations, the sources said, Damascus has raised its security alert level for fear that Israeli forces would infiltrate its territories through one of its bordering countries, mainly referring to Lebanon.

Over the past few weeks, the Syrians have stationed three armored divisions, special forces and nine mechanized infantry divisions opposite Lebanon's western valley, as the Syrians estimate that a ground Israeli invasion may take place in that area.

The area is not only a strategic territory for Hizbullah, but also a problematic area for Syria, as it would not take the IDF long to place its cannons opposite the Syrian capital and control the Beirut-Damascus route."

and the winner is ?

moktada al sadr , ahmed chalabi 2005

so , i'm scanning sources of info looking for insight into the events of the last six days of fighting in iraq --what can only be described honestly as a stunning military disaster and crushing political defeat for the Us and it's puppet al maliki government in iraq when i find these rather interesting observations and comments.


"Guess who was mediating in the conflict between the sectarian militias of Badr and Mahdi? None other than the "secular-liberal"--that was how the US press referred to Ahmad Chalabi prior to the US invasion--Ahmad Chalabi. He was negotiating on behalf of his ally, Muqtada As-Sadr." -- as'ad abuKahlil

moktada al sadr from al jazeera interview





another observer going by the nickname "lenin" commenting on al sadr's "strange victory " also mentioned the similarities between iraq today and pre Tet vietnam of 1968 , but noted the presence of an overarching cohesive national unity in vietnam and the lack of the same in a fragmented iraq--but also noted al sadr is reaching out to the sunni resistance--moktada would have to be astute enough to know that the bushites, though temporarily set back, would eventually try again to neutralize or destroy al sadr's al madhi army :

What did he have to do to win? Well, once again, he didn't start or provoke the fight. In fact, he had recently renewed his organisation's ceasefire, so anything short of his being decisively defeated is by default a victory for him. Maliki's stated goal was to disarm the Mahdi Army, and that clearly isn't going to happen. Maliki tried to use the 'Iraqi forces' in order to defeat the Mahdi, but found he couldn't. Some Iraqi police refused to fight, while others took their guns and went to fight for the other side. Basra was decisively in Mahdi control. In short order, Baghdad, Kut, Karbala, Nasiriyah, Hilla and several southern cities and towns were in revolt. Hassan Jumaa of Iraq's main oil union reported that there was a widespread popular revolt, and there is evidence that both the US and Maliki feared the development of a combined national revolt. While Maliki had pleaded with the occupiers to stay out of fighting, lest it be seen as a war of occupation versus resistance (and the Dawa Party will not look good in the upcoming elections if he is seen as the occupiers' puppet), it wasn't long before he had to call them in. Now, it looks like they're having to settle for an Iranian-brokered ceasefire that leaves Sadr's organisation intact and his political standing immensely enhanced. What's more, it seems the negotiations were instigated by Maliki's government: "We asked Iranian officials to help us convince him that we were not cracking down on the Sadr group", said an Iraqi official. From "worse than Al Qaeda" to "pwease lets be fwends" is a big shift. Sadr's order for his militias to get off the streets is a test of his control over the organisation, but it is hardly a white flag.

Consider the position of the occupiers in all this. There is now a story going round that US officials didn't know that the attack on Basra was coming. As Marc Lynch points out, this is hardly credible. It is highly unlikely that Cheney's recent visit to Iraq didn't involve some discussion of the Sadrists. Assuming what appears to be obvious, namely that this attack was ordered by the US, then what is the upshot? If the US is obliged to accept an Iranian-backed peace deal, it isn't because they were militarily defeated. The US was bombing from a great height, and could easily have destroyed Basra and its inhabitants and the Mahdi fighters. The fact that this is not Fallujah is not because of the superior rifle power or military training of Sadr's supporters. It is because of Sadr's currently unmatched political power.

All of this is evidence that the Sadrists are improving their act.

... He positions himself as a leader of the resistance struggle and calls upon Arab states to lend the struggle political support. In reports of his wider remarks, he is said to have described the liberation of Iraq as the central strategic goal of the Mahdi, and predicted that the US will fall in Iraq as they did in Vietnam. Well, there's no doubt that this could happen, but for all that the similarities with Vietnam are rightly highlighted, there remains one staggering difference: there is no equivalent to the Viet Minh. There is not an organisation with the authoritative legitimacy, discipline, centralised power and political nous to even come close. The Mahdi cannot be that organisation, and of course Sadr is probably well aware of this, which is why he has been reaching out to Sunni resistance groups. Who could launch a Tet Offensive in Iraq today? That attack, a turning point which guaranteed the shortening of the American war, required a mass peasant army with fearsome self-control and a leadership with a sophisticated analysis of the domestic politics of the US and how the operation would impact on it. The army would not have been there for the fight had the Viet Minh not been able to offer a coherent strategy for national liberation and unite that with the declared goal of emancipating the peasantry. Any end to the American war in Iraq will result from the consolidation of a national federation of resistance groups with a singular political vision that offers something to the dispossessed Iraqi working class. Yet, for all the limits of Sadr's movement, he continues to rack up successes, to take his would-be terminators by surprise, and to consolidate his standing every time someone tries to take him down a peg or two.

On NPR, news reports ODDLY referred to sadr's order to his forces to ceasefire as an order to "lay down their arms" --which sounds strangely like NPR was giving the impression that it was an order to surrender.

But then later , in its on location coverage , the reporter for NPR even admitted the madhi army representatives she talked to today , sent a captured iraqi police vehicle to pick her up for the interview.

And then later today in more of its "expert" analysis , the results of the battle were called a "stalemate" . the question must be asked HOW today NPR and its panel of esteemed professors could refer to the results of this recent conflict as a "stalemate" ?

al maliki's army and police forces hung back reluctantly rather than engage their opponents , when they did fight they lost and often had to request Us or british airstrikes and helicopter gunships to save them --al maliki himself the prime minister --had to be rescued and air-evacuated from one of his headquarters by Us forces when the madhi army located him and began shelling the headquarters with mortar and rocket fire .

With gunfire and explosions echoing round him, Lt Hamid Abbas of the Iraqi Army was letting no car pass unchallenged at his makeshift roadblock on the outskirts of a Basra slum.

His closest scrutiny, however, was reserved not for the few civilian motorists daring to venture on to the streets, but for other Iraqi army vehicles.

"Some of our soldiers have refused to fight the Mehdi Army and have instead handed their vehicles and weapons to them," he said, looking disgusted. "Now we are having to check every Iraqi army patrol that passes through to ensure they are genuine soldiers."

The scene on the other side of the battlefield proved his suspicions right. Dug in behind a wall was a squad of Mehdi Army fighters, the Shia militiamen Lt Abbas and 15,000 other Iraqi soldiers have been sent to quell.

Sure enough, one was driving an American-issue Iraqi army Humvee - one of seven, said the squad's leader, Haji Ali, handed to them by sympathisers within the Iraqi army.

--posted by anonymous



this was indeed an "defining moment" --but not the way bush intended. the iraqi army and police forces that the Us has sunk untold number of millions of dollars into and the Us and Uk spent five years training --showed no loyalty to their "government" , its leader or its Us sponsors.

these guys fought and performed and then fell apart predictably --many surrendered , defected , or ran away --like the old ARVN forces of south vietnam did when faced with a ferocious and indomitable North vietnamese army .

the madhi army in comparison , to the iraqi government forces , fought in a manner that showed themselves as highly disciplined, highly aggressive, highly motivated to win--in a way similar the army of north vietnam during the Us war in south east asia .

instead of pressing for a complete victory , al sadr was able to reign in his forces and pulled them off the streets -demonstrating not only his control over his forces and their discipline , but also scoring huge "humanitarian" points and an even greater POLITICAL victory with the common people with the sudden ceasefire allowing them the very much needed opportunity, after six days of fighting , to obtain water, food and also medical attention for the hundreds of civilians wounded in the fighting.

that the relatively young leader al sadr saw that the benefits of this political "humanitarian" victory could easily outweigh the benefits of pursuing the fight and pressing his military advantage in order to further weaken, crush and humiliate a clearly defeated iraqi government army demonstrates uncanny savvy .

in a proud , "macho" type culture where humiliating defeats are not easily forgotten , al sadr by showing "restraint" to an opponent his forces clearly had battered, won huge popularity points with the elder islamic clerics--restraint is a key tenent in all aspects of the faith , "we enjoin fasting upon you so that ye may learn restraint"--quran .

al sadr by showing this restraint in not furthering bloodying his defeated foes demonstrated mercy--every verse in the quran begins with the phrase,
"in the name of allah the MERCIFUL, the gracious--the beneficient ".

while maliki in the eyes of the iraqi public was proven to be little more than a stooge of the american occupiers--who had to use their infamous and much hated "airpower" to save him from certain destruction-- al sadr and the madhi army's esteem more than likely increased among the iraqis and even in the eyes of the defeated government forces--leaving the way open for reconciliation between the two--under the leadership of al sadr--a big political coup for al sadr who claims his goal is reconciliation with the sunnis , national unity and national liberation--meaning an end of the Us occupation.

if al sadr's party becomes a dominant influence in the upcoming elections --or gains sufficient clout , he could and has promised he will as major part of the legitimate government of iraq --demand the Us forces leave --what could bush do then if a democratically elected government of iraq asked the Us forces to leave?

how could the Us in any way justify its remaining in iraq ? to put it simply , it could not .

the iraqis might not even need a tet offensive to win their victory-- but we know the Us is allergic to democracy and has NO respect for democratically elected governments that won't bow down to Us wishes--ask hamas in palestine , ask aristide in haiti ,ask chavez in venezuela , ask allende in chile , ask mossaddeq in neighboring iran .

the Us meanwhile became even more hated by the iraqis for backing al maliki , for pushing him into the fight with al sadr , for making iraqis kill more iraqis ,AND for being like the hated israelis in palestine --showing no restraint in the use of airstrikes in cities against civilians in civilian heavily populated areas --of course once again killing and wounding women ,children and other noncombatants with its "smart bombs" and "surgical strikes' --american death from the skies for more iraqis .

and finally this , also posted by the anonymous source :

When US forces ousted Saddam's regime from the south in early April 2003, the Badr Organization infiltrated from Iran to fill the void left by the Bush administration's failure to plan for security and governance in post-invasion Iraq.

In the months that followed, the US-run Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) appointed Badr Organization leaders to key positions in Iraq's American-created army and police. At the same time, L. Paul Bremer's CPA appointed party officials from the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) to be governors and serve on governorate councils throughout southern Iraq. SCIRI, recently renamed the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC), was founded at the Ayatollah Khomeini's direction in Tehran in 1982. The Badr Organization is the militia associated with SCIRI.

In the January 2005 elections, SCIRI became the most important component of Iraq's ruling Shiite coalition. In exchange for not taking the prime minister's slot, SCIRI won the right to name key ministers, including the minister of the interior. From that ministry, SCIRI placed Badr militiamen throughout Iraq's national police.

In short, George W. Bush had from the first facilitated the very event he warned would be a disastrous consequence of a US withdrawal from Iraq: the takeover of a large part of the country by an Iranian-backed militia. And while the President contrasts the promise of democracy in Iraq with the tyranny in Iran, there is now substantially more personal freedom in Iran than in southern Iraq.

Iran's role in Iraq is pervasive, but also subtle. When Iraq drafted its permanent constitution in 2005, the American ambassador energetically engaged in all parts of the process. But behind the scenes, the Iranian ambassador intervened to block provisions that Tehran did not like. As it happened, both the Americans and the Iranians wanted to strengthen Iraq's central government. While the Bush administration clung to the mirage of a single Iraqi people, Tehran worked to give its proxies, the pro-Iranian Iraqis it supported—by then established as the government of Iraq—as much power as possible. (Thanks to Kurdish obstinacy, neither the US nor Iran succeeded in its goal, but even now both the US and Iran want to see the central government strengthened.)

Since 2005, Iraq's Shiite-led government has concluded numerous economic, political, and military agreements with Iran. The most important would link the two countries' strategic oil reserves by building a pipeline from southern Iraq to Iran, while another commits Iran to providing extensive military assistance to the Iraqi government. According to a senior official in Iraq's Oil Ministry, smugglers divert at least 150,000 barrels of Iraq's daily oil exports through Iran, a figure that approaches 10 percent of Iraq's production. Iran has yet to provide the military support it promised to the Iraqi army. With the US supplying 160,000 troops and hundreds of billions of dollars to support a pro-Iranian Iraqi government, Iran has no reason to invest its own resources.

Of all the unintended consequences of the Iraq war, Iran's strategic victory is the most far-reaching. In establishing the border between the Ottoman Empire and the Persian Empire in 1639, the Treaty of Qasr-i-Shirin demarcated the boundary between Sunni-ruled lands and Shiite-ruled lands. For eight years of brutal warfare in the 1980s, Iran tried to breach that line but could not. (At the time, the Reagan administration supported Saddam Hussein precisely because it feared the strategic consequences of an Iraq dominated by Iran's allies.) The 2003 US invasion of Iraq accomplished what Khomeini's army could not. Today, the Shiite-controlled lands extend to the borders of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Bahrain, a Persian Gulf kingdom with a Shiite majority and a Sunni monarch, is most affected by these developments; but so is Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province, which is home to most of the kingdom's Shiites. (They may even be a majority in the province but this is unknown as Saudi Arabia has not dared to conduct a census.) The US Navy has its most important Persian Gulf base in Bahrain while most of Saudi Arabia's oil is under the Eastern Province.