Talk:2008 Iraq spring fighting

Unsourced sections and statements

Many sections and paragraphs in this article are unsourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.189.190.8 (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Title concerns

I'm concerned about the title "Mahdi Army revolt". Is this NPOV? Everyking (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, how is this a revolt? I figured all that happened was that the agreement was broken and resulted in fighting. Hoboron (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Reports indicate this series of events was initiated by the Iraqi PM. Better title might be "Responses to Spring 2008 Basra offensive". YippeeYoTayYoe (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

no. I suggest Iraq Spring Fighting of 2008, like Iraq Spring Fighting of 2004 --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What about just 2008 Mahdi Army violence? And we can mention in the intro that it's a reaction to Basra.--Pharos (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

that would imply that only the Mahdi Army was violent. I suggest March 2008 fighting in Iraq--TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I see your point about implying the violence is one-sided. And March 2008 fighting in Iraq is certainly better than the current title, which just seems somewhat inaccurate. But I do still think the name should be somewhat specific to the actual circumstance: two recent ideas of mine are 2008 Iraqi fighting concurrent to the Battle of Basra and Madhi Army reaction to the Battle of Basra.--Pharos (talk) 04:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the reason to have such an accurate title. I'm moving to March 2008 fighting in Iraq. Simple enough --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

damn I have to ask for move. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've moved it per your suggestion.--Pharos (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

THX--TheFEARgod (Ч) 18:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

enemy KIA?

for the Terrorist killed dos that include from Basra or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.16.129 (talk) 13:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, for one it doesn't include the equipment losses of the Iraqis in Basra or the Mahdi wounded in Basra. Also the Iraqi captured/deserted/defected aren't listed in Basra, so are we to assume the only time Iraqi troops did this was in engagements outside Basra? Someone should seriously clarify the casualties for this article and the new battle of Basra one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.170.177 (talk) 08:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

what i heard

Mahdi Army ordered to end fighting by Al-Sadr, it on wikinews and other source to lazy to post it sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.16.129 (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Beginning of the fighting

Who says March 23 was the beginning? Serious clashes broke only after the beginning of the Basra op.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are right.--Pharos (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Battle of Basra (2008)?

It seems this article overlaps with Battle of Basra (2008). Should they be merged? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.189.190.8 (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

oppose the Battle is a part of this campaign but is notable enough --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"Propaganda victory" in the infobox

It may very well be a "propaganda victory" for the Mahdi Army, but this would belong in the article, not the infobox. There is no documentation at all about listing propaganda successes in {{Infobox Military Conflict}}. The infobox is for military victories and defeats.--Pharos (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

see here: Tet Offensive - it says psychological. Propaganda fits fine here. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC) BBC says "On the national political stage Prime Minister Maliki has been weakened, while Moqtada Sadr has been strengthened."[1] --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

One example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS among tens of thousands (?) of battle articles on Wikipedia should not be enough. This is going against the guidelines of {{Infobox Military Conflict}}. Again, I have no problem with mentioning this view in the article, but it doesn't belong in the infobox.--Pharos (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I still don't think it really belongs in the infobox, but at least "propaganda victory" is agreed on by a consensus of analysts. I'm not even sure what "political victory" would mean in a battle, other than taking the presidential palace and seizing the reins of government.--Pharos (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"Propaganda victory" is biased, why not just use psychologicall victory, politicall victory or say: Isurgents claim victory. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

no it's not biased, its what most third-part analysts say. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 18:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Pro-American anyalists you meen... Anyway the Mahdi Army revolt was because Iraq refused to let loose their prisoners and because of the revolt Iraq let go the prisoners, this makes the Mahdi Army the victor, it's not just propaganda, no, they actually gained their objectives. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

ok political is just fine, although the same --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It is more neutrall and while politicall victory indicates they didn't win the fighting but got what they wanted or it was to their advantage, propaganda victory indicates they actually didn't win but are using it for propaganda. Ayway, let's just keep politicall victory. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

propaganda victory means high publicity for the victor. Something like Hezbollah in Lebanon 2006, nothing else.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Debatable Statements

"Following the fighting the Maliki government agreed to political concessions for a cease-fire, including legal and military immunity for the Mahdi Army and a release of its captured members. This scored a major political victory for the Mahdi Army and also presented the fighting capabilities of the militia that were, despite a lack of heavier weapons, far greater than those of the Iraqi security forces."

These are two very debatable statements, considering that Maliki never ordered a halt of the offensive operations, he simply backed down from his initial approach -he is now only pursuing the "criminal" members within the militias-. He didn't even agree to the 9-point agreement sent by al Sadr [2]. Claiming that Maliki gave the militias "military and legal inmunity" is just absurd as hundreds of militants are still in prison, and the crackdown is still under way. On the other hand, the Mahdi Army suffered considerable casualties during the battle. To put things in perspective, by the third day of fighting, the Mahdi Army was suffering casualties at a higher rate that Al Qaeda and the ISI were at any point of 2007(the year of both the Awakening and the Surge).

We should clearly make the distinction that the Mahdi Army managed to defend itself well in their main strongholds (Basra and Sadr City) but they performed poorly in other regions of southern Iraq [3]. In return, The Iraqi Army was forced into a stalemate in Basra, failing to take control of any important district in the city. Both sides were suffering logistical strains. Most of the desertions ocurred in Basra (the local IP, very unreliable to begin with, and the poorly trained 52nd IA brigade, rushed into action with no combat experience at all)

The battle was unsustainable for both sides. They decided to back down. Al Sadr claims that he was able to stop the government's offensive, but he knows he just doesn't have the capability he had on 2004 to launch large scale operations. Al Malaki wasn't making much progress at all, and in fear of losing political support, decided to back down. But he never ended the crackdown completely -he is now pursuing only the most belligerant members of the militias, instead of the entire group.

This wasn't a victory for the Mahdi Army or the Iraqi government.

As for any "political capital" gained by Al Sadr, we should remember that "When the Iraqi opposition held an emergency session of parliament to oppose the Basra operations, only 54 of the 275 lawmakers attended".[4]