Headline reads: Muqtada al-Sadr extends Iraqi cease-fire!

Anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr announced Friday that he has extended a cease-fire order to his Shiite Mahdi Army by another six months, giving Iraq a chance to continue its fragile recovery from brutal sectarian violence.

This is really great news. I can't stress this enough. You see the surge was partly responsible for a reduction in violence, but in my analysis of the timing of the first cease-fire by al-Sadr, it was his cease-fire announcement that stopped the majority of the violence 6 months ago. This gives the Iraqi government one more chance to get its act together, before we start pulling out our troops.

But this is very good news!

To read the article click here.

Headline reads: Anti-US Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr Cease-Fire in Doubt!

That's right, Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has said the cease-fire he put in place 6 months ago expires on Saturday. He has not said whether he will continue the cease-fire or will just let it end, which has ominous consequences for our troops and the Iraqi government.

I had done a study to see which event most closely correlated to a reduction in Iraq. I checked into the dates of the surge and when we were at full strength. I checked into political statements here at home from the Congress and I checked into the date that Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr announced the cease fire of his Mahdi Army militia and the single best correlation was with the cease-fire. Which means that if the cease-fire expires, not only will troops be frozen in place and not come home, but we will begin to see those high number of U.S. fatalities that I have reported so often.

Also, from a political perspective, John McCain's stand on the war and the surge will be shot full of holes. It will strengthen Barack Obama's position in the run up to the election. The challenge will be not to believe the B.S. that is sure to fly from the Administration when casualties rise and they press for the case to continue the fight, which is not fighting al-Qaeda but a Civil war between Shia's and Sunni's.

Let's hope, for our troops sake, that the cease-fire is continued. We will know by Saturday! Stay tuned.

To read the entire article, click here.

Who's in control of Iraq? Gen. Petraeus or Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr? You'll know by April Fools day

The U.S. Military has decided to reduce the number of troops from the "surge" in Iraq, according to news reports. It is expected that 30,000 troops will come home by July of 2008 and leave a remaining force of about 145,000, which does not include contractors. What does this all mean? Will the gains claimed to be the result of the "surge" be won and not prove fleeting? Did the surge really result in the gains or was it the fact that Shia Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr asked his Militia to stand down on Sept. 1st. We will find out the answers to these questions as the time the militia stood down is going to come to an end, coinciding with Troop withdrawal during the next 6 months. By April 1st (April Fools Day), if Shia Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr continues to keep his Militia off the streets, there will continue to be less violence. If he chooses to stir up the ethnic battles with Sunni's, the violence will emerge quickly in April, which will be at least 3 months before the 30,000 troops are totally home.

Watch casualty numbers for the next 5 months, especially Aprils to reflect what choice has been made. Interestingly, it will coincide with the rhetoric leading up to the U.S. Presidential debates between both the Democratic nominee and the Republican nominee for President.

U.S. Fatalities significantly down for 2 consecutive months. Why?

I have been trying to figure out the main cause of the reduction in violence over the past several months. I can think of at least 3 contributing factors. First, there is the "surge" in U.S. forces. Secondly, there was the order that Shia Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr asked his Militia to stand down for 6 months. Thirdly, there were the Sunni's deciding to work with U.S. forces to rid the area of Al Qaeda. Then there is the fact that President Bush seemed to get his way with the Congress on spending and legislation to support the troops. Lastly, the 3 leading Democratic PresidentiaL candidates, Hillary, Barack and Edwards, have sidestepped the issue of bringing home the troops and stated that they could not guarantee they could bring home the troops by 2013, the end of their first term if they were chosen as President.

Let's take a look at the timeline of these events. Which one or two fit the timeline best?

1. The "Surge"

Dec. 6th, 2006 Iraq Study Group report. Jan. 10th surge announcement by President Bush. Surge started by 82nd Airborne on Jan. 10th. June 17th surge complete. (These dates seem much earlier and one would have to assume it took 2 1/2 months to make things better after all the troops were there. This is possible)

2. Shia Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr 's Militia stops fighting

Sept. 1st. (This seems to fit exactly withing the 2 months and would be a precipitous event. Highly likely)

3. Sunni's decide to work with U.S forces to rid themselves of Al Qaeda

May 1st was the first report of this story. 2nd major story appeared early June. (Again, these dates seem much earlier and one would have to assume it took 2 1/2 months to make things better after the decision was made. This is also possible.)

4. President Bush gets his way with Congress.

February 17th non-binding Iraq Warner/Levin amendment looses, Sept. 26th Kyl-Lieberman amendment with support from Hillary, passes, Oct 1st Senate vote unites Iraqi's in anger over Biden Amendment calling to creat a fedral system of 3 States of Iraq, as Iraqis see this as a threat to their sovereignty. (This might have an effect if Iraqis were watching our news and were united on how to play this to get us to leave. Possible but not probable)

5. Leading Democratic candidates say can't commit to bringing troops home.
August 19, debate in Des Moines, Iowa, then Oct.30th debate in Philadelphia, PA (Possible but not probable)

Many of these dates do coincide with the very significant reduction in U.S. Fatalities for September and October with Oct being the most impressive reductione. But to ascribe a highly proable cause, it is important to understand the chartacter of the war and what was going on in Iraq. Most would agree, both Republican and Democrats alike, that ther fighting in Iraq was mostly between Sunni and Shia's and that it was a Civil War that was going on in Iraq. Therefore this coiupled with the dates leads me to conclude that the standing down of Shia Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr Militia is the most probable of reasons that thee has benn a significant reduction in U.S. AND Iraqi casualties. It amkes sense and the dates are closer in proximity than any other dates as one would have to estiamte at how long the effect took to be seen. This would be the case for the Surge and it wouldn't have as much of an effect as one side choosing to stand down in the conflict. That's what I would bet on. How about you? Waht do you think mnakes sense? It could be a single action or one in combination. It doesn't hurt having the troops there trying to keep the peace and it doesn't hurt to have the Militia stand down. That's a win-win.