U.S Forces Orderd To Abandon Checkpoints In Sadr City

Iraqi Prime Minister al-Miliki orderd US Forces to aboandon checkpoints established in Baghdad's "Sadr City" area as of 5pm today, and to cease operations against the radical Mahdi Army militia.



In the opinion of this Writer, it is now, more than ever, the time to seriously consider getting the hell out of Iraq. As this War wears on, and down, it begins to look more and more like Vietnam, and especially so today, with the seeming establishment of a "sanctuary" in Sadr City for the staunchly anti-American Mahdi Militia.

"Red October" has ended with 103 American Deaths, making this the bloodiest month in more than 2 years. Do we really want American Troops involved in yet another long War of Attrition; another Vietnam? In my opinion, we have done our job. Our "job" was to oust Saddam, and create enough stabilization to allow the Iraqi People to choose. We have done that, and it is over. They need to supply their own blood for the establishment of their own Democracy, We have done enough, and it is high time we pack it up and come home.

Here is your "October Surprise", Folks.


Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Can we finally admit the Iraq war is a complete failure?

[edit on 31-10-2006 by Ed Littlefox]

I do agree somewhat with your assessment and as much as I may want to show this Prime Minister what will happen to him if we pack up and leave we simply can't. You have to think of the long term implications of us leaving Iraq and what that's going to mean for us and for the region.

On another point, US Forces should not follow orders from the Iraqi Prime Minister, especially when that means stopping our ongoing operations.

[edit on 31-10-2006 by WestPoint23]

Well...if this is what the new Iraqi prime minister wants. Let him have it.

I agree out job is done and its time to go back to looking for OBL. What they do with their freedom is up to them. We have done all we can.

It's that old saying.... "you can lead a jack ass to water but you cant make him drink"

Looks like they are pulling the checkpoints in order to ease tensions with the Mahdi Army.

Healing Iraq has the scoop and Muqtada Al-Sadr's latest proclaimation:



Meanwhile reinforcements have arrived and:
US force in Iraq swells to 150,000: Pentagon

posted by Ed Littlefox

Prime Minister al-Miliki ordered US Forces to abandon checkpoints in Baghdad's "Sadr City" area as of 5 PM today and to cease operations against the radical Mahdi Army militia. U.S. forces disappeared within hours of the order setting off celebrations among civilians. Small groups of men and children danced in circles chanting slogans praising al-Sadr. Armed men ringed the edge of the sprawling slum now under the control of the Mahdi Army militia run by radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Checkpoints were set up last week as U.S. troops launched an intensive search for a missing soldier, who has yet to be found.
[Edited by Don W]


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

It is now time to seriously consider getting the hell out of Iraq. As this War wears on it begins to look more and more like Vietnam, and especially so today, with the seeming establishment of a "sanctuary" in Sadr City for the staunchly anti-American Mahdi Militia. [Our] "Red October" has ended with 103 American Deaths, making this the bloodiest month in more than 2 years.

Do we really want American Troops involved in yet another long War of Attrition; another Vietnam? In my opinion, we have done our job. Our "job" was to oust Saddam, and create enough stabilization to allow the Iraqi people to choose. We have done that, and it is over. They need to supply their own blood for the establishment of their own democracy, We have done enough, and it is high time we pack it up and come home. Here is your "October Surprise" Folks. [Edited by Don W]

What we have done is eliminated the one counter-force against Iran setting itself up as the regional hegemony. Size-wise, population-wise and oil reserves-wise, Iran is about to take control of the Middle East. It is too late to undo this mess. It is now time to reduce our losses. 103 dead GIs this month. As in the Hippocratic oath, "Physician do thy patient no harm." I should say, no MORE harm. www.pbs.org...

The Iraq regime change game is over. Shia 1, Neo-cons, 0.


[GIs, 2,800 + KIA.] Our legacy? Hezbollah is stronger in south Lebanon. The IDF was defeated. They did not find the 2 soldiers. Hamas is stronger in Gaza and the Occupied Territories. The IdF has not found the 1 soldier. The Shia is on the rise, while the Sunni is on the decline. Both Israel’s iDF and America’s much touted and highly vaunted “shock and awe” Armed Forces are now at the mercy of 20,000 to 50,000 insurgents. Semi-skilled killers who can’t be stopped because they enjoy at least the passive support of the general population, as we also saw in Vietnam. Towel-heads we call them.

You cannot defeat a popular guerilla movement. Ask the French in Algiers. Ask the Dutch in Indonesia. Ask the Brits in India or in Rhodesia now known as Zimbabwe. Ask the Russians in Chetnya. Ask the Americans who cannot get over Vietnam. But we can’t ask the 2,800 dead GIs. They are forever silent. Who deserves "credit" for that? The Oberfuhrer, Herr Rumsfeld? Or our Commander-in-Chief himself? Somebody made this boo-boo. It did not happen in a vacuum. Can we know who?


[edit on 10/31/2006 by donwhite]

First of all, Iraq belongs to the Iraqis.

We have Mr. Bush giving himself credit for the democratic elections in Iraq and the democratic elected prime minister.

Guess what!!!!

Over and over the prime minister democratically elected in Iraq has been complaining about the lack of power that his government has due to the intervention of the US and coalition forces.

One thing is that the insurgency may see this as a weakness and look like the prime minister power is weak to control the country.

Perhaps the so call inability of the Iraqi government to function is because the US and coalition is not giving the government a chance to take the reigns and responsibilities for their own nation.

Perhaps the reason for so much problems is the presence of US in that country.

Now the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iraq wants to show that he is in command.

And guess what people!!!!!

US and coalition can not do a darn thing to stop him from exercising its power because our troops, the president and the generals are not the ones that were elected to run the Iraqi Nation.

So this one is something that is worth to watch and see

US actually is powerless in Iraq because Iraq has a government in place already.

Perhaps our greedy government should stop listening to the private interest that wants to keep our troops protecting their interest in the Iraqi oil and get the heck of Iraq and let the Iraqis run their own country.




[edit on 31-10-2006 by marg6043]

Either the PTB knew it would come to this and the whole Iraq invasion was a stepping stone to war with Iran, or the ones who planned this debacle were a bunch of short-sighted idiots.

There is getting to be no in-between, and I think we will all have our answer soon. I'm going with the invasion of Iraq as a set-up to war with Iran scenario, but I'm not a betting man.

I weighed in a month or so ago on a similar topic...said it then, say it again...it's time to leave, and let the Iraqi's sort it out. I was accused of having a "cut and run" mentality...not so, cutting and running is something you do when you realize you have had your ass handed back to you, we haven't. What our politicians have done is try to use our military forces as social arbiters, peacekeepers...the U.S. military is NOT a peacekeeping force, let the French and Germans keep the peace, how many times do we have to prove that to ourselves?

After 5 years in the U.S. Navy (81-86) what I learned is our role to the world is forward projection of force and protection of our, and our allies interests and if necessary global ass kicker. Our politicians continually put our forces in a position of being a policeman, and cops we are not.

I would not send the French or German troops in to wage war and defeat a common enemy, nor would I leave U.S. forces in place one minute longer than necessary to rebuild and keep the peace...

A global alliance of military forces is like a tool box...you gotta know when to use a wrench and when to break out the hammer!

what I should have said is...you gotta know when to put the hammer away and start turning wrenches...the initial assault is over...we clearly won...it's time to roll up sleeves and rebuild, something the American military was not designed to do.

[edit on 31-10-2006 by deadbang]

Time to roll up the tents, hitch the wagons and get the hell outta dodge!


These muppets in the UK and USA have handed Iran a present of awesome value - Iraq itself is now going to be the next stop for the Iranian army, and gives the Iranians a clear non stop run across non - contested airspace into israel.


Could the NWO really be all about the destruction of israel and the rise of the caliphate? could all this 'illuminati' stuff actually be a islamic secret society that those with greed have fell in with?????

This mess just confuses me more and more and more each passing day and each passing piece of stupidity.

I'm a democrat and I don't belive in leaving Iraq. What heppens when we leave and the shea take over? We end up with a Iraqi goverment alined with the Iranians. Then we end up with more fruitloops blackmailing us for oil.

posted by deadbang

I said it then, say it again . . it's time to leave, and let the Iraqi's sort it out. I was accused of having a "cut and run" mentality . . not so, cutting and running is something you do when you realize you have had your ass handed back to you, we haven't.

Agreed. We never had sufficient forces to occupy Iraq. To throw over the regime, yes, to occupy, no. Regrettably, our military is suffering a defeat that it does not deserve. This will cost us more lives later on. This is one example how civilian control of the military can produce a disaster. OTOH, good generals and admirals should have quit by the dozens. Before the shock and awe event. For that, they will always share the blame for this failed undertaking. The Nuremberg Defense works no better here than it worked in Germany post 1945. It’s ok for privates, but not for generals.

After 5 years in the U.S. Navy (81-86) I learned our role forward projection of force and protection of our interests and if necessary global ass kicker. Our politicians continually put our forces in a position of being a policeman, and cops we are not.

Again, restated, but still dead-on! And worth repeating.

I would not leave U.S. forces in place one minute longer than necessary to rebuild and keep the peace . . A global alliance of military forces is like a tool box . . you gotta know when to use a wrench and when to break out the hammer! [Edited by Don W]

We need a new Central Command top dog. Are you available Deadbang?



[edit on 10/31/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by wantsome
Then we end up with more fruitloops blackmailing us for oil.

Exactly, this is what makes me especially angry. All the money and scorn and deaths and we will be worse off than before! Something needs to happen. Split Iraq up into different regions or something. The current way of doing things is CLEARLY not working.

You can not just split Iraq because that is what the agenda of Private interest has been all alone.

The Iraqis will never go for it, Iraq doesn't belong to US.

A division without the Iraqis approval will end in a bigger mess that is right now.

They will keep fighting and never recognize the borders, they will invaded each other for oil control and the death toll will be horrendous.

Seems to me calling off the search for the missing soldier brings back deja vu of Gaza and Lebanon last summer.

So, will this be a big excuse to attack with all the fire power they can muster? (after the ammo dump fire last month, have to wonder how much has been replenished) And after the troops are out of harm's way (closing the checkpoints).

Deadbang is right on the money here, nice post man.

I would not send the French or German troops in to wage war and defeat a common enemy, nor would I leave U.S. forces in place one minute longer than necessary to rebuild and keep the peace...

A global alliance of military forces is like a tool box...you gotta know when to use a wrench and when to break out the hammer!

what I should have said is...you gotta know when to put the hammer away and start turning wrenches...the initial assault is over...we clearly won...it's time to roll up sleeves and rebuild, something the American military was not designed to do.

posted by wantsome

I don't believe in leaving Iraq. What happens when we leave and the Shia take over? We end up with a Iraqi government alined with the Iranians. Then we end up with more fruit loops blackmailing us for oil. [Edited by Don W]

1) It’s a bit late now, to think of the consequences of leaving Iraq.
2) America needs to “get over it” vis a vis Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, Hezbollah and Hamas.
3) Oil has no value in the ground. Until it can be sold for dollars or gold. Ideology has never trumped the biblical proscription against ‘filthy lucre.” We’re top dog in the money field, so we’ll always get as much oil as we want.

So, what do you recommend, Mr W/S? Because this issue will be debated in public, we are in a dilemma. Richard Nixon lied in 1968 to get elected, but then he and Henry Kissinger prolonged the Vietnam War until 1974, when Congress cut off his funding.

103 dead GIs in October and what do we have to show for it? We can only hope a vote for a Democratic Congress can save lots of American lives and Iraqi lives. Fortunately for our soldiers in harms way, we could see this happen as early as in January, 2007. Bush43 offers only government by sloganeering. Stay the course. Cut and run. And now, Timetables. Q. How does a timetable differ from fixing a date?

If anyone can explain how we can prevent Iran from becoming the primo power in the Middle East after we knocked over Iraq, then I’d like to hear it. For my part, I do not see that as a bad thing. But then, I’m an unabashed, unreconstructed peace-nik.

Note: The Brits just gave Tony Blair his walking papers. To avoid a humiliating and disruptive floor fight in Commons, he agreed to leave office in May, 2007. How long after he is gone do you think it will be before the Bris begin to “come home?”

Without a sensible, widely supported plan, merely staying around longer offers no improvement over the likely outcome withdrawing today would produce. Lack of planning, lack of vision.

That’s the real problem. What good is it accomplishing at what price to stay longer?


[edit on 11/1/2006 by donwhite]

That's what is really starting to bother me, dw. Staying in Iraq at this point only makes sense if Bush is planning to invade Iran next, and soon. Not that that makes sense to me, but it is the only real reason I can see him wanting to "stay the course" any further.

I truly believe invading Iran at this point would draw the Russians in on their side and start an all out global shooting war short of a nuclear exchange. Once Russia gets involved China will commit, and the plains of Megiddo will be awaiting the final battle.

Originally posted by wantsome
I'm a democrat and I don't belive in leaving Iraq. What heppens when we leave and the shea take over? We end up with a Iraqi goverment alined with the Iranians. Then we end up with more fruitloops blackmailing us for oil.

So I see... we are to stay in Iraq because we don't want to be blackmailed for oil?!

If that is the mentality of democrats (of course, they're just as varied as repubs), then at least I see a reasoning to hate the democrats (or some of them).

You would sacrifice our soldiers to prevent you from being inconvenienced at home? Go sign up for the military then and get over there with a gun. Don't put my loved ones and friends in more danger because you don't want to be blackmailed for oil. Get a bike.

People that say things like this should be the first slinging a gun behind their backs and high-tailing to Iraq. If there is one thing I don't lose, even though I may despise this president, is that I will always support our soldiers.

posted by niteboy82

You would sacrifice our soldiers to prevent you from being inconvenienced at home? Go sign up for the military then and get over there with a gun. Don't put my loved ones and friends in more danger because you don't want to be blackmailed for oil. Get a bike.

People that say things like this should be the first slinging a gun behind their backs and high-tailing to Iraq. If there is one thing I don't lose, even though I may despise this president, is that I will always support our soldiers.

1) Wantsome did not send our soldiers to Iraq. The Gang of Four did that. Bush43, VP Cheney, The Oberfuhrer, Herr Rumsfeld and that Harmony Hound, Condo Rice.
2) "Support our troops" does not mean to park you brain at the door. You can sometimes support our troops BEST by bringing them home!


[edit on 11/1/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
1) Wantsome did not send our soldiers to Iraq. The Gang of Four did that. Bush43, VP Cheney, The Oberfuhrer, Herr Rumsfeld and that Harmony Hound, Condo Rice.

No he didn't, but he did seem a bit worried more about oil blackmail, than our soldiers coming home.

2) "Support our troops" does not mean to park you brain at the door. You can sometimes support our troops BEST by bringing them home!

Where did I indicate ever that I wanted our troops over there? Go back and reread what I said, I don't want the troops over there. Hence I would prefer someone whining about oil to be there than people I care about that are doing what they are ordered to do.

Don't always be a Bush43 patsy.

Nope you obviously are not in the "read niteboy82's posts" fan club. Please don't call me names, especially inaccurate ones. I thought I was known on here as a crazy bush hater. I must be slipping in my image.

Did you maybe quote the wrong person, donwhite? Because I have absolutely no idea where you are coming from in that post.