Let’s Not Confuse The Narrative With Facts

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warns David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker not to mess with her narrative on Basra. One wonders if she is certifiable yet?





___________________________________________________

Wow. Pelosi has her narrative and does not want to hear any dissent from these two government servants, Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, during their testimony before Congress slated for 8 and 9 April. If a Republican issued a similar warning to a witness before a hearing, we'd never hear the end of it. Anyone tired of the double standard yet?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) warned Army Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker on Thursday not to "put a shine on recent events” in Iraq when they testify before Congress next week.

“I hope we don’t hear any glorification of what happened in Basra,” said Pelosi, referring to a recent military offensive against Shiite militants in the city led by the Iraqi government and supported by U.S. forces.

Although powerful Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr agreed to a ceasefire after six days of fighting, Pelosi wondered why the U.S. was caught off guard by the offensive and questioned how the ceasefire was achieved, saying the terms were "probably dictated from Iran.”

“We have to know the real ground truths of what is happening there, not put a shine on events because of a resolution that looks less violent when in fact it has been dictated by al-Sadr, who can grant or withhold that call for violence,” Pelosi said.

Read the whole story at the Politico.

So let’s flush out that the likely contours of Speaker Pelosi’s narrative just a tad, since the MSM has been playing this one to the hilt for the past week, and various Democrats have been weighing in:

1. The offensive was a partisan political dispute with PM Maliki allied with the SIIC against a powerful Shia political rival.

2. Sadr is a national political figure with wide appeal.

3. The violence is down in Iraq because of Sadr’s ceasefire. Maliki’s move foolishly threatened that ceasefire. Sadr can turn on or turn off the violence in Iraq at his whim. The U.S. cannot control the violence.

4. The Iraqi military lost in the conflict Maliki started. Sadr won.

5. Calling on U.S. air power shows that the Iraqi military is weak.

6. There were mass desertions from the Iraqi forces during the fighting.

7. Sadr’s offer of a cease fire was a “face saving measure” for Maliki

8. Iran won also, as the most important power broker, able to influence Sadr.

9. And my personal favorite, from Harry Reid, is that the Basra offensive is proof that “our troops mired in an endless civil war."

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t one of the benchmarks a requirement to disarm the militias? And do you think that maybe Maliki’s willingness to take on Sadr might not improve his standing as a nationalist leader and earn a great deal of trust among the Sunnis and Kurds? And hasn't reoncilliation been a word ever on the tip of Pelosi's forked tounge?

No matter. Let’s go down the narrative:

1. The offensive was a partisan political dispute with PM Maliki allied with the SIIC against a powerful Shia political rival.

I love this one. This spin actually came from Sadr himself on March 21. The MSM liked it enough to pick it up and run with it, presenting it as their own sage analysis.

The fact that Basra is Iraq’s only port city and its economic lifeline were apparently unimportant. It appears to equally have passed by our Democratic leaders and the MSM that Basra was under the control of Sadrist criminal gangs who were running it like their own personal cash cow while using ever more violence, murder and intimidation to impose an Iranian style mini-theocracy on the city. Obviously, none of these would be reasonable justifications for an offensive to establish government control.

2. Sadr is a national political figure with wide appeal.

The MSM has been playing this up for years. They found in Sadr an anti-American that they can throw their arms around and pump up as the true voice of Iraq. The fact that there is a democratically elected government reflecting the will of the people – and that Sadr neither leads it, nor holds more than 10% of the seats in the Parliament – is merely an unimportant and ancillary fact for them.

Sadr has precious little appeal, he is a tool of Iran – and indeed, his militia is a creation of Iran on the lines of Hezbollah – and his ideology is the establishment of a Shia theocracy in Iraq along the lines of Iran. Every place his militia has held sway, they impose Islamic law to go along with their criminal enterprises and reign of thuggery. If you want to see his appeal, check on the DOD or at the Long War Journal on April 10 to see how much support there was among the 20+ million Iraqi Shia for the million man march Sadr has called to be held in Baghdad on April 9.

3. The violence is down in Iraq because of Sadr’s ceasefire. Maliki’s move foolishly threatened that ceasefire. Sadr can turn on or turn off the violence in Iraq at his whim. The U.S. cannot control the violence.

Sadr’s forces got decimated by the U.S. in 2004. When 2007 rolled around and the surge began, the U.S. was explicitly targeting Sadr. He ran for Iran while his remaining militia melted away – but for those who were working directly for Iran. Sadr’s “ceasefire” merely put a spin on what was already reality.

Maliki’s Basra offensive led the Sadrists to rise up in all of the areas that they control. And by March 29, but for Basra, the Sadrists were defeated in each of those areas - Hillah, Kut, Karbala, Najaf, Diwaniyah, Nasiriyah, and Amarah. And the U.S. secured Baghdad’s Sadr City.

I question just how much violence Sadr can create beyond that happening right now as a result of Iran’s use of Sadr and his militia as their own private proxy forces.

4. The Iraqi military lost in the conflict Maliki started. Sadr won.

Yes, the WaPo actually printed that verdict. And others on the left have embraced and duly celebrated this alledged victory over the U.S. and its allies.

Yet, when the conflict ended six days after it had begun, the Iraqi government was in control of Basra and had replaced militia control of the port with military control. Sadr’s forces were indoors as the Iraq Army marched through all of Basra, conducting raids for Mahdi Army commanders wanted for criminal activities. So explain again, how did Sadr win?

5. Calling on U.S. air power was a sign of weakness of the Iraqi Army.

I can’t wait to hear Petraeus on this one. This is actually how things are supposed to function as the Iraqi military stands up. They do not have any functioning air combat units yet. So they do the grunt work, we support from the air and provide a strategic reserve with our own grunts. Calling this weakness shows just how utterly clueless are our MSM. They really should be given at least a course on the military before they try to report on it.

6. There were mass desertions from the Iraqi forces during the fighting.

About 4% of the Iraqi forces in Basra deserted or underperformed. Given the great concern about infiltration of those forces with Mahdi Army members and given that the brigade with the most desertions had literally just come out of basic training, I’d say this overall is pretty good. It certainly suggests that there is much less infiltration than has been feared.

7. Sadr’s offer of a cease fire was a “face saving measure” for Maliki.

Lolllllllllll . . . . this is a good one. After six days of fighting, Sadr unilaterally orders a cease fire and makes demands, Maliki accepts the cease fire, ignores the demands and continues operations in Basra. Whose face was saved again?

8. Iran won also, as the most important power broker, able to influence Sadr.

Could it be that the Iraqis are getting pissed about Iran’s continued deadly meddling in their country and had a heart to heart talk with the Qods Force Commander? I don’t know what was said in the meeting in Tehran – and neither do those speculating in the MSM or the halls of Congress. What we do know is the end result - that Iran and its proxy Sadr seem to have gotten nothing out of this ceasefire but a chance to live to another day.

The more telling thing is that Iran holds what may be a high degree of influence over Sadr and his militia. That is an indictment of both Iran and Sadr.

9. And my personal favorite, from Harry Reid, is that the Basra offensive is proof that “our troops mired in an endless civil war."

Harry Reid so loves that “civil war” mantra - reality be damned. I am far more inclined to agree with Kimberly Kagan. What we just saw in Basra was not simply the government retaking its territory from criminal thugs, it was the first shots of the Second Iran Iraq War.

At any rate, so much for Pelosi and her narrative. You know, the thing of it is, after watching Pelosi in action throughout her time in the House of Representatives, I honestly believe that there is no such thing as objective reality for her. She presents as a woman so deeply invested in partisanship that, for her, spin is reality. And given the position she holds, that reality is frightening indeed.