The fact that the Iraqi Army has now moved in and secured areas of Basra formerly held by the Mahdi Army is news I am hearing little about in the mainstream media compared to all the criticism they leveled against the Iraqi government when they declared the Basra operation a failure:

Iraqi soldiers took control of the last bastions of the cleric Moktada al-Sadr’s militia in Basra on Saturday, and Iran’s ambassador to Baghdad strongly endorsed the Iraqi government’s monthlong military operation against the fighters.

By Saturday evening, Basra was calm, but only after air and artillery strikes by American and British forces cleared the way for Iraqi troops to move into the Hayaniya district and other remaining Mahdi Army militia strongholds and begin house-to house searches, Iraqi officials said. Iraqi troops were meeting little resistance, said Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, the spokesman for the Iraqi Interior Ministry in Baghdad.

Despite the apparent concession of Basra, Mr. Sadr issued defiant words on Saturday night. In a long statement read from the loudspeakers of his Sadr City Mosque, he threatened to declare “war until liberation” against the government if fighting against his militia forces continued.

But it was difficult to tell whether his words posed a real threat or were a desperate effort to prove that his group was still a feared force, especially given that his militia’s actions in Basra followed a pattern seen again and again: the Mahdi militia battles Iraqi government troops to a standstill and then retreats. [New York Times]

The problem with the media reports of what happened in Basra is that they are trying to declare a military operation a failure or a success by looking at it through American eyes.  These reporters do not understand that the Iraqi army has little to no artillery and air support, few combat seasoned soldiers, or competent commanders for their military operations.  It takes time to build and most importantly train an Army.  Of course mistakes would be made in the military assault on Basra because the Iraqi military is not the US military.  However, they gained important combat and most importantly logistical experience during the operation in Basra. 

The other thing that critics are missing is the back room politics being played out in Basra.  The Iraqi government may not have gone with an all out invasion into Basra at first because they had political measures ready to pressure Sadr to retreat from Basra without a lengthy fight destroying parts of the city.  Through this combination of military and political maneuvering conducted in the Iraqi way of doing things, the Iraqi government has been able to accomplish in a few weeks what the British military has not been able to accomplish in the years they have been stationed in Basra, driving out the Mahdi Army.  This seems some what significant to me. 

However, the fight against Sadr is not complete because it appears he is consolidating his forces in his Baghdad Sadr City stronghold preparing for a final fight against the Iraqi government:

The developments came as sporadic fighting continued to in some parts of Sadr City on Saturday night. Americans continued to strike Mahdi Army positions in the district’s southern sector, which Iraqi and American troops now largely control.

The fighting overnight Friday and into Saturday was worse than earlier in the week, and wounded at least 66 people, who were taken to the Imam Ali hospital in Sadr City.

Residents described mortar and rocket fire as well as gun battles, with the militias largely initiating the fighting in recent days. And an American reporter traveling with American and Iraqi troops saw that several additional companies had been sent into Sadr City on Saturday.

The Iraqi troops began clearing side streets and alleyways in the southern sector with the aim of gaining full control of the area. Meanwhile, the militias continued to try to dislodge them, infiltrating from the more northern part of Sadr City.

American forces are supporting the Iraqi Army with attack aircraft, medical care and some help with logistics. And while the Iraqi operation is principally focused on holding ground in southern Sadr City, the American focus in the area is mostly on stopping rocket and mortar attacks on the nearby Green Zone.  [New York Times]

I agree with how the US military is proceeding with this operation by allowing the Iraqi Army to lead it with US air, artillery, and logistical support.  This is an Intra-Shia fight and it important that this operation is clearly the Iraqi government imposing its will upon Sadr.  If the US military is left to primarily fight Sadr then it makes the Iraqi government look weak and validates Sadr’s propaganda that the Maliki government is nothing more then American puppets. 

The American military is implementing counterinsurgency tactics as, Herschel Smith explains, in the areas of Sadr City cleared by the Iraqi Army by doing things such as putting up concrete walls to divide the neighborhoods, bringing in humanitarian aid, and beginning civil works projects.  This operation I fully expect to be similar to the Basra operation where the going will be slow with no dramatic final battle but just steady progress against the Mahdi Army thugs until Sadr is completely delegitimized in the eyes of the Iraqi public.  It may not be pretty, but as was shown in Basra, it is better then the British model of conducting COIN in a Shia controlled area. 

The biggest thing I am wondering about this is why the Iranian government is clearly siding with the Iraqi government to destroy Sadr?  I am willing to bet a lot of back room deals between the US, Iraq, and Iran have been worked out in recent weeks which may explain why the Iranian president and Dick Cheney visited Baghdad in recent weeks as well.