The Exile

As I write, various wankbloggers and other assorted tosspots are proclaiming that the surge is working, victory is just around the corner and light can be seen at the end of the tunnel as far as the war against Iraq is concerned. The good thing about this collective wad shoot is that it means that the war will go on and a lot more occupiers will go home in boxes, but that means that the war against Iraq is far from over.

How do I know? That's easy - the guerrilla standard hasn't been raised over Baghdad yet and the collaborators are not dangling from lamp posts.

Look, the "strategic" victories that the warmongers are wanking over only exist in their little minds. There are no strategic victories in a war like this because the Iraqi team aren't fighting to hold territory. Their aim is to keep the war going until the foreign team gets sick of it all and goes home.

The various home players are changing their strategies and that accounts for the relative lull in the fighting. That said, the Iraqis still managed to cull 29 Americans last month, and God knows how many collaborators. Sadr is turning his militia into a cell-structured guerrilla force, very similar to the one that drove the French out of Algeria. That force may be getting advice from Hezbollah up in Lebanon because some of the attacks that they have recently mounted show all the hallmarks of professional training.

The point is that with a well-trained cadre of guerrillas fighters - say a couple of thousand or so - the Sadr boys can keep the war going pretty much forever. When the Americans do call it a day, then the militia can be reactivated to fight the civil war for control of the country, but for the moment, why bust a gut?

Like I said, this is not about territory, this is all about keeping the war going. If the Iraqis can do that then eventually they will win.

The Americans have threatened to hit back at Moqtada al-Sadr's 60,000 strong militia, if he unleashes it against the occupation forces in Baghdad.

It is to be expected that the webmongs will shortly start cheering that on, but sensible people are encouraged to pause for a moment and think through the consequences.

If Sadr's militia is destroyed as a single fighting force, with the man himself either dead or captured, then that does not end the war. All it will mean is that the militia will bombshell into small groups, rather like the Sunni guerrillas who made life so entertaining for us as they culled Americans on a daily basis.

When that happens any hope of recreating Iraq as a functioning state will have gone, but more entertainingly, it will mean that the Americans will not be able to leave the country even if they wanted to. The small Shia groups will clash with each other, but they will also come together to kill Americans. The war will just go on and the American economy will just continue to sag under the strain.

Go ahead, America. Kill Moqtada al-Sadr.

The recent fight to take Basra was an "unmitigated disaster at every level", according to the British commanders who watched the disaster unfold. So why is the British trained puppet army so crap?

The answer is rather simple - they fight for money and the militias and guerrillas fight for ideologies. The latter almost always trumps the former.

Let's think about this in a British context. You go to work to earn money. As I said recently, it is neither your place, problem nor profits that are at stake. You collect your wages on Fridays and then become a free man until Monday morning swings around again. If the employer wants to change something, then the bugger had better have a fucking big stick to enforce his will. Otherwise you will just ignore the odious little maggot.

Why do you think that the Iraqis are any different from us? They join the army for the pay packet, just like we go to work for the same reason, but they are as indifferent or hostile to their employers as we are to ours.

The militias, by way of contrast, are fighting for reasons of tribe, nation or religion. A soldier who only signed up for the money isn't going to go into battle against men who share his basic set of ideological values.

This is why thousands of puppet troops deserted rather than go into action. By deserting in that way they ensured that none of them will suffer a court-martial, and all of them will continue to draw their wages. Imperialism will come up with a face-saver along the lines of more training is needed, and nobody will face up to the simple truth that the Iraqi army is little more than a form of outdoor relief for the unemployed of that benighted land.

If you have been follwing the news over the past few days then you will have noticed the glee with which the American media have reported the story that Muqtada al-Sadr would disband his militia if so instructed by the senior Shia religious leaders. Not just the media, but a fair few British wankblogs were getting ready to greet the news that the Sadr militia were no more with a furious pud pull, followed by a great spurt all over the monitor screen.

Sorry, boys, but you can put your todgers away because it isn't going to happen. They've told him to keep his army intact.

As Juan Cole pointed out, Sadr has a habit of offering to disband his militia from time to time because it makes him look all sweetness and light in Shia eyes. The good Dr Cole also pointed out that the chances of the militia actually being disbanded within a week of its victory over the imperialist forces and their stooges in Basra were non-existent.

Lads, what can I say? This is a no-wank moment.