End of Mahdi Army Cease-Fire May Expose Minimal Role Of Troop Surge

Looks like all hell is going to break loose
http://www.politicallore.com/shaun-...re-may-expose-minimal-role-of-troop-surge/165

 

The Mahdi Army agreed to the cease fire because of the troop surge and al Sadr went on the lamb (hid out) in Iran while the US and Coalition went on the offensive.

 

In fact it was noted by the American military in Iraq, that even as the surge was announced and at its earliest stages, well before the American troop levels increased the mahdi army cut back on active violence. By the time of the formal cease fire in August '07 the mahdi army had already reduced its level of violence for a significant number of months.

All along military officers have noted that the quelling of violence in Iraq via the surge is not a sure thing.

Who knows what will happen going forward. With Sunni areas having been significantly quieted with radical fundalmentalist groups representing al queda in Iraq having taken a big hit....should the shiite reps of the mahdi army act up...maybe there would be more americans to quell the efforts.

Its an ongoing big unknown. As long as it is a big well armed nation there are no guarantees going forward.

 

Al-Sadr has announced a 6 month extension of the Mahdi Army cease fire today.

 

That is good. Now if we could disarm them that would be better.

 

I guess this may be true if you chose to ignore the other success. The Iraqi government has met many of the benchmarks since the surge, but you know- I guess you are just choosing to ignore that. Violence is also surprisingly down in areas where the Mahdi did not base itself as well. And strangely enough al Qaeda and its leaders have also admitted the surge has damaged them...

 

The surge has worked and it has given the Iraqi Government time to regroup.

 

Now, you know I'm not a supporter of our current policys. But, in the same aspect we are giving the militants and insurgents time to regroup as well. America has this belief that if we throw more money and fire power it will change everthing, but it won't.

 

The US is fighting a proxy war against Iran and Syria. The al-Qaeda in Iraq are funded and based in Syria and Iran trains and supplies the shia militias.

Both Hamas and Hezbellah are based in Syria and funded by Iran.

Cutting and running is bad business for the US.

 

Everyone actually thinks the mahdi army is as important of a player here as iran??????? They gotta be kidding me. I have been telling you folks all along, its the deal with iran thats calming things down(for now), not the troop surge or cease fire. These are minor contributing factors. If this deal breaks down, no surge possible can calm things down. The troop surge sheeple are so naive and its not very realistic with understanding that war. Iran can escalate or calm iraq down anytime it wants , same thing its doing with its stooges in lebanon hezbolla.

 

Bogart, we made that region unstable now by that lie of a war we have placed the iraqi civilians in. Yes syria and iran are involved but its more iran than syria. Syria is a secondary puppet of iran right now playing the helper role by allowing insurgents safe passage across its borders, but syria has no where near the military intelligence or financial backing that iran has. Seems like iran is doing what every budding regional power is doing, protecting its interests. If saddam were still there , there would have been a counter-balance which would have been beneficial to the region.

 

That's what I have been saying all along. Iran pulls the strings on the stooges in Iraq.

That's why George Bush didn't go after Saddam in the 1st Gulf War.

 

The largest militant group in Iraq isn't an important player?

 

There were no terrorists in Iraq before the war, just a dictator who apparently didn't have any WMDs as claimed

 

It's all irrelevant. Within 10 years, it is all going to be over because we are broke.

Bin Laden's plan was to bankrupt us, and he's succeeded.

 

Ansar al-Islam’s an al-Qaeda affliate was based in Iraq and have since renamed their organization to al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Mohammed Atta, the leader of September 11 terrorist attacks, met an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague before the September 11 attacks

Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the State Department listed Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism.

 

Bogart, it's all nonsense, and deep down, I know you are far to intelligent to buy into this. It's got to be some kind of lower brain survival thing that sees the Islamists as this overwhelming threat.

Reality is totally different, no matter how adamantly you argue against it.

More people die on the highways each year, than die to terrorist attack. The Continental US is under no threat of invasion. 19 Hijackers attacked the US, and after 6 years, we can't even defeat a country we bombed for 10 years, THAT DIDNT SEND THE TERRORISTS AGAINST US.

Whatever. You know this, but for whatever reason, chose to ignore it.

 

I'd have to just say, no. His plan was to divide American, which apparently has succeeded.

 

Gtech has allready tried bringing this all up before and all was debunked. Please stop bringing up false info. If you need to, please look through my old posts (that is if you care about the truth lol), and i know you have seen the debates between me and gtech. We are all too intelligent here to believe old posts that have allready been proven wrong.

 

All of these things were false and bush himself said. Are you going to call your president a liar also? Or no comment on this bogart.