April 8, 2004
THE SOUTH FOREVER!:
Symbol of insurgency (Charles Recknagel , 4/09/04, Asia Times)
Behind this war of words, how much support does Muqtada have, and could his appeal grow even further? Analysts say Muqtada - a 30-year-old midlevel cleric - is now at a crossroad. Despite his proclamation of solidarity with Sistani, he has not gained the support of the grand ayatollah, who has issued calls for calm instead.A representative of Sistani repeated those calls on Wednesday as he visited Muqtada in Najaf. Shaykh Abd al-Mahdi al-Karbalai said: "We appeal for calm and restoration of public order, and we hope to settle this problem peacefully." The representative also said that "dialogue was possible" and that "firing without any reason was not justified".
Sistani's opinions carry the weight of law within the Shi'ite community, but Sadr's camp did not say whether the younger cleric will bow to the ayatollah's wishes.
Neil Partrick, a regional specialist at the Economist Intelligence Unit in London, says that Muqtada is not likely to win mainstream Shi'ite support without Sistani's backing. But the analyst says there is a danger that any US crackdown on the insurgency that inflicts high casualties could severely test Sistani's ability to maintain calm.
"Ali Sistani has made it clear that he does not and continues to oppose the use of armed action and believes in negotiation. His difficulty is, of course, that in the context of dealing with the insurgency, military action has been taken of a fairly heavy-handed nature in some places, and this arouses fellow feeling among Shi'ites," Partrick said.
Partrick continued: "But I think there are few signs that although there will be sympathy for Muqtada and certainly for the deaths of ordinary Shi'ites in the context of this campaign, there are few signs that majority Shi'ite opinion or indeed the Shi'ite religious and political leadership that is primarily working with the US coalition forces will actually go over to supporting violent insurrection. There are frustrations with the political timetable, but ultimately, of course, it leads to elections and effectively to majority Shi'ite rule - and that is not something which most Shi'ite wish to upset."
Sadr is basically Nathan Bedford Forrest. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 8, 2004 4:41 PM
...without the smarts to put down his gun when he's clearly whupped.
Posted by: Chris at April 8, 2004 4:50 PMChrisL:
No, that's the point--Forrest founded the Klan. Sadr is a dead-ender while his society is ready to move on, even if imperfectly.
Posted by: oj at April 8, 2004 5:04 PMOf course Forrest was an excellent military tactician, while Sadr has a talent only for whipping up mobs.
Posted by: Jason Johnson at April 8, 2004 5:15 PMThe Klan lost.
Posted by: oj at April 8, 2004 5:31 PMSend in Harry's grandfather.
Posted by: David Cohen at April 8, 2004 6:24 PMDoesn't Sadr wear black?
Posted by: jim hamlen at April 8, 2004 9:12 PMForrest lived past his 30th birthday
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at April 8, 2004 10:03 PMTook a hundred years. I don't have that long.
For an insurance agent, my grandfather led an adventurous life. The Klan may be a joke today, but it wasn't then.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 8, 2004 10:46 PMBut no one cares about your time--we're talking about the fiuture of a billion people. A hundred years would be far faster than the process transpired in the West, though they have the advantage of us pushing them.
Posted by: oj at April 8, 2004 11:57 PMThe major difference between them . . . Nathan bedford Forrest was a competent military leader.
Posted by: Mike Morley at April 9, 2004 6:43 AMHey! Bedford Forrest was a GREAT military leader!!
Posted by: Bob at April 9, 2004 9:56 AMHe didn't lose, he just wore himself out killing Yankees. A body can only do so much.
Seriously, I do remember reading that Forrest left the Klan early on once they turned to violence. He embraced Christianity later in life (sorry Harry), repented of his slave dealing past and opened one of the first airport Chick-fil-a's.
Posted by: jefferson park at April 9, 2004 10:55 AMOJ:
To be correct, Forrest's SIDE lost. As I recall, Forrest himself was never defeated in battle. As jefferson park said, there's only so much one man can do. Besides, those Chick-fil-a sandwiches are really good. BTW -- what the heck kind of name is Chick-fil-a?
Posted by: Bob at April 9, 2004 11:26 AMBob:
Yes, so the Sadr comparison works well, does it not? His side has lost but he fights on...
Posted by: oj at April 9, 2004 11:36 AMOJ:
Dunno. If Sadr had Forrest's military abilities, I'd be worried. But this guy looks like the Pillsbury Doughboy with a beard and funny hat. I'm sure he'd be the first to run (waddle?) if things got hot. The only way he can hurt us is if we leave him alone to spout his bile. Which, of course, is exactly what we seem to be doing.
Posted by: Bob at April 9, 2004 1:42 PMOrrin:
As Jefferson pointed out, another big difference between NBF and Sadr is that Forrest renounced racist violence and the Klan and converted to Christianity shortly before his death (that fact is recorded in his biographies). I strongly doubt that Sadr is ever going to renounce violence and/or come to Christ (or Allah).
Posted by: Joe at April 9, 2004 8:03 PMSadr is a loud-mouthed punk trying to live up to his father's reputation. And he has already run away from the Marines in the past week. But he can't get far enough.
Posted by: jim hamlen at April 9, 2004 10:43 PM