May 5, 2004
NOT SADR, BUT WISER:
Shiite Leaders Urge Cleric to End Fighting in 2 Iraqi Cities (JOHN F. BURNS, 5/05/04, NY Times)
Representatives of Iraq's most influential Shiite leaders met here on Tuesday and demanded that Moktada al-Sadr, a rebel Shiite cleric, withdraw militia units from the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala, stop turning the mosques there into weapons arsenals and return power to Iraqi police and civil defense units that operate under American control.The Shiite leaders also called, in speeches and in interviews after the meeting, for a rapid return to the American-led negotiations on Iraq's political future. The negotiations have been sidelined for weeks by the upsurge in violence associated with Mr. Sadr's uprising across central and southern Iraq and the simultaneous fighting in Falluja, the Sunni Muslim city west of Baghdad.
On Tuesday, the Shiite leaders, including a representative of a Shiite clerical group that has close ties to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, effectively did what the Americans have urged them to do since Mr. Sadr, a 31-year-old firebrand, began his attacks in April: they tied Iraq's future, and that of Shiites in particular, to a renunciation of violence and a return to negotiations.
It's quite nefarious the way the Shi'a of Iraq have almost universally opposed al-Sadr. After all, we all know they share his aims 100% and don't care to live in a peaceful democracy.
MORE:
Shiites form counter-militia to attack al-Sadr's army (SORAYA SARHADDI NELSON, 5/04/04, Knight Ridder Newspapers)
Armed with a 9 mm handgun and grit, Haidar is trying to do what the American military camped nearby hasn't done: Drive the gunmen of Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr from this holy city.Posted by Orrin Judd at May 5, 2004 1:42 PMSince mid-April, Haidar and scores of other young men from Najaf have gathered nightly in the city's sprawling cemetery to attack members of al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia. Only a few gunmen are targeted each time to prevent big firefights that might injure civilians, said Haidar, who spoke with Knight Ridder on the condition that his last name not be used.
"If we capture them and they swear on the holy Quran they will leave Najaf and never come back, we let them go," the 20-year-old furniture maker said. "If they resist, they are killed."
As of Friday, the group claimed to have killed more than a half-dozen Mahdi gunmen and chased off at least 20.
This is the first homebred movement against al-Sadr, and it illustrates the animosity toward the radical cleric within Iraq's Shiite community, which makes up the majority of Iraq's population. The Shiites were oppressed under Saddam Hussein's rule, and the United States has looked to them for support in its efforts to transform Iraq.
The problem with Sadr has always been a "I against my brother, my brother and I against our cousin, our family against the others" situation. There was and still is a danger that we could provoke other Shi'ites to side with him.
In the end, regardless of the real mistakes or great moves made by President Bush, Bremer, and the military, the end result of the occupation will decide how history judges the invasion.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at May 5, 2004 1:56 PMWhen's the last time you heard anyone but a conservative crank say that WWI and WWII were mistakes? Yet the first gave us WWII and the second the Cold War. We judge wars by whether we won them or not, never by how they turned out.
Posted by: oj at May 5, 2004 2:08 PMOJ, as far as I know, everyone now agrees that WWI was a mistake.
Posted by: PapayaSF at May 5, 2004 2:31 PMPapayaSF;
Even the Bolsheviks? They wouldn't have come to power without WWI.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at May 5, 2004 3:40 PMBut everyone was so excited about WWI (except the British and the Americans).
Posted by: jim hamlen at May 5, 2004 4:25 PMFrom Juan Cole's site:
http://www.juancole.com/
"' Everyone I speak to in Iraq including . . . a Sunni and a former Ba'ath party member by virtue of having worked as a school Principal thinks that the charges against Moqtada should be dropped even if they disagree vehemently with his politics and his methods. [She] . . . says, "they sit cross legged on the floor like it's a thousand years ago" She has utter contempt for the young theocrats but still sympathizes with the cause of an Iraqi accused on trumped up charges by foreigners. When US troops drive by the children chant Ash, Ash Ash Al-Sadr (long live Al-Sadr not because they support him, but because they know the Americans hate him). I can only imagine the chants and the number of posters if they suceed in capturing or killing him."
Some basic questions need to be asked:
If the Shiites are so opposed to Sadr, why did they let him take over their most holy shrine and still let him occupy it, despite the fact that each "leader" has more militia men under him than Sadr alone? If they're afraid of casualties, why do they strenuously forbid us from acting?
Sadr serves their purposes, and their using him against us. Every now and again they give us some lip service to maintain their credibility for June 30 (which, BTW, we still have no known plan for), but they don't seem to really mean it.
Posted by: Derek Copold at May 5, 2004 4:45 PMDerek - Sadr has Iran's backing, and any Iraqi ayatollah who moves against him will become a target of the Iranians. The U.S. didn't protect Ayatollah Khoei and no ayatollah trusts the U.S. to protect him. They have perfected submission after decades under Saddam, and they will assert themselves only with tremendous caution. We need to assist them by acting ourselves as the tough bad cop to their good cop.
Posted by: pj at May 5, 2004 4:59 PMWell, after our smashing demonstration of will in Fallujah, how could they possibly doubt us?
At any rate, they ALL have backing from Tehran. SCIRI's Badr Brigade was formed and trained in Iran and came over right after we went in. The same holds for Da'wa and Jafaaris. Even Khoei was and Chalabi is in cahoots with the Iranians.
Posted by: Derek Copold at May 5, 2004 6:19 PMDerek:
Juan Cole? What next, Chomsky? The far Right and the far Left really have merged.
Posted by: oj at May 5, 2004 8:25 PMIf they're capable of running a country, they must also be capable of running their own neighborhood.
They are not telling him to go, they are begging him to go.
They're useless. They can criticize but they are incapable of acting.
If they're afraid of the Iranians today (which I very much doubt, I say they're in bed with the Iranians), then after Orrin has withdrawn US troops, why are they going to be less afraid then?
Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 5, 2004 11:21 PMThey aren't afraid of the Iranians, they're afraid of us.
Posted by: oj at May 5, 2004 11:27 PMThey have a funny way of showing it.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 6, 2004 2:05 AMHiding in their homes until we leave?
Posted by: oj at May 6, 2004 7:50 AMI'd heard Sadr was losing some of his boyos to vigilante action...
It's reminding me more and more of the Wild West -- specifically Bleeding Kansas or the Bushwhackers and Jayhawkers or former Confederate guerillas turning "independent contractor". And now, vigilantes.
Posted by: Ken at May 6, 2004 12:33 PM