The Battle of Basra is a 'defining moment'... but for which side?

The Associated Press

Moqtada al-Sadr, whose Shiite militia battled Iraqi government troops and U.S. forces, declared victory in Basra.

Featured Topic | Posted 22 weeks 2 days ago

The Battle of Basra is a 'defining moment'... but for which side?

A cease-fire in the southern city of Basra appeared to hold Wednesday, despite isolated clashes between Iraqi security forces and local militias and a roadside bombing that targeted an Iraqi military convoy. President Bush last week called the battle in Basra "a defining moment in the history of a free Iraq" and a test of the Iraqi government to make decisions about its future.

On March 25, Iraqi forces launched a broad offensive against militias that controlled large portions of the oil-rich port city, drawing fierce resistance that lasted until Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on Sunday ordered his Mahdi Army to stand down, apparently in exchange for guarantees that his forces would not be targeted. The Iraqi government and Sadr both declared victory.

Does the Battle of Basra signal a turning point in the ongoing struggle to quell the insurgency in Iraq? Is Iraq more or less stable as a result of the fighting? Does the bloodshed in the southern part of the country represent a setback in the surge?

Who won?

Ben likes: Who won the battle of Basra?

In From The Cold

First of all, let’s assume that the latest Mahdi uprising was aimed at embarrassing (and weakening) the Iraqi government. If the offensive was going so well, why did Sadr -- or more correctly, his patrons in Iran -- decide to pull the plug? Assuming they still controlled large sections of Basra, Iraq’s second-largest city, the Mahdi fighters had little reason to lay down their arms.

Instead, it was Sadr who ordered his factions to cooperate with Iraqi security forces. During six days of intense fighting, the Mahdi Army took a beating, literally and figuratively. Even an insurgent force can’t afford to lose over 200 fighters a day, including those killed and wounded. We doubt that Sadr was concerned about the number of fighters he lost. What he couldn’t tolerate was the image of Iraqi security forces, backed by U.S. troops and airpower, routing his forces in Basra and Baghdad.

That sort of black eye doesn’t help Sadr, who still views himself as a major political force in Iraq.

Joel likes: Still an insurgency?

Abu Muqawama

The fighting in Basra and Baghdad is, on one level, about asserting the control of the central government. That is a good thing. But two, on another level, the fighting that took place last week was about ISCI trying to set the stage for this fall's provincial elections. It wasn't about the central government versus local authorities at all -- it was about cold-blooded intra-Shia politics.

Do we have a dog in such a fight? Alas, we do. That dog's name is ISCI. As the same friend mentioned above has noted, historians studying Iraq decades from now will wonder why the United States allied itself with the Iran-backed ISCI instead of the popularly-supported Sadr movement. (Hint to those historians: it's because they dress well and speak English. This is what happens when you send smart but young Republican loyalists -- who only speak English -- to help run the CPA in Baghdad.) Once again, we have backed the loser