Mahdi Army Fighters Bedevil Coalition

[NNN0LHI]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040814/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_mahdi_army&cid=540&ncid=1473

BAGHDAD, Iraq - While no match for the U.S. military, the Mahdi Army militia loyal to rebel Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has bedeviled coalition troops across Iraq (news - web sites) for weeks at a time, its young fighters driven by religious zeal, desperation and an apparent readiness to die.

Their uprising also has soured relations between coalition forces and some of Iraq's Shiites, once grateful for a U.S.-led war that freed them from Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s clutches.

"We have the belief; they have the power," said one fighter known by the nom de guerre Abu Ghadhib. "I think the belief is stronger than the power."

Abu Ghadhib, who fought U.S. Marines in Najaf, and his comrades have little else. Many members of the militia, created by al-Sadr last year, are poor and unemployed, casting themselves as freedom fighters and defenders of their religion and country.

more

[madrchsod]

1. it`s their country

not ours. if they want to fight and die,so be it,we were there several hundred years ago...

[thebigidea]

2. I love how even articles like this...

... have to open with a caveat concerning the awesome power of the wondrous, unbeatable US military.

Just don't mention Vietnam! Or Iraq!

I'm guessing once we eventually pull out of the sandtrap that is Iraq, the RW will go on for years saying the problem was that we didn't get TOUGH enough... just like Vietnam.

[liberalrecruiter]

3. For only being a Bush...

he casts a long and shadow under which little grows - unless
you're a rich American corporation - as the Iraqi's are now
learning. Mr. Bush has done both them and the American people
a grave disservice in going into that country to
"liberate" them - to what? He doesn't have an answer
- because he didn't - and doesn't, have a plan for peace. 

If you listen to General (Ret.) Tommy Franks and many
distinguished generals before him, the military fights for
PEACE. -Oh, that's right, Mr. Bush doesn't listen to his
generals. He lets Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld play soldier.
Too bad he never got in the habit of reading. Perhaps he'd
have had the opportunity to learn that a great deal of the
problem with the 'progress' of the war in Vietnam was that it
was being overseen by Mr. Johnson - from the White House,
thousands of miles away. 

If Mr Bush would have just checked out a few books from the
library, he might have seen some the the famous pictures of
Mr. Johnson pouring over maps of Vietnam - and the captions
alone might have been a clue. -If you send the military to do
a job, let the generals do that for which they've been
trained. Oh. That's right. They're not as knowledgeable as
Mr's Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Sorry, forgot that. 

Now, our tax-monies are being shoveled at an alarming rate
into Iraq. Here in the US, monies are being poured into huge
security details around our politicians and other famous
people, due to "terrorist threats." 

In the meantime, gang violence is on the upswing -
significantly. Many of our large cities have no more police on
the streets than they did in the 1970's. What is the
definition of terror if it's not people are hiding in their
homes in increasing numbers because they're afraid that if
they go outside they'll be killed? Personally, I value a whole
lot of hard-working American's who live in those
neighborhoods, who go to work and desperately try to raise
their families far more than I do Mr. Bush. 

And don't EVEN ask me if I don't feel safer better place now
that Sadaam Hussein's gone. The answer is a resounding
"NO!" There WERE no weapons of mass destruction -
proven; there WERE no biological warfare weapons developed -
proven; there WAS no link to Al Queda - proven. What does that
leave? Freeing the Iraqi's from a horrid tyrant. That's great.
However, they have to be asking themselves now just how great
that is. I certainly am. 

[BlackJack8324]

4. Don't deny U.S. power

We could easily take care of the Sadr problem by bombing the crap out of Najaf. The thing is that'd be immoral and destroy our overall mission in Iraq.

The toughest thing about Mahdi is that it isn't an army, it's a militia of civilians. That makes it tough for U.S. troops to distinguish them from nonthreatening civilians.

Secondly Iraq certainly doesn't belong to these religious fanatics and we need to somehow prevent them from taking control of Iraq. However I think attacking Najaf has distracted us from our general mission.

[NNN0LHI]

5. What is "our" general mission in Iraq?

Thanks in advance.

Don

[leftchick]

6. what is our "mission in Iraq"

I am waiting for some great insight here.

[BlackJack8324]

7. the same thing Kerry said....

The intended mission to create a democratic government in Iraq that doesn't threaten its neighbors and doesn't attempt to acquire weapons of mass destruction. There's no evidence Sadr attempted to disrupt that. Bush just wants to look tough.