April 23, 2007
IT AIN'T EASY BEING MOOKIE:
Sadr's murky vision for Iraq (Edward Wong, April 22, 2007, International Herald Tribune)
[P]ress his aides for concrete details of a timetable to present to the Americans, and the picture becomes murkier. They say they want the Americans out. But not just yet."In order to drive out the occupation, we need to build up the security forces; then we can have a timetable," said Abdul Mehdi Mutairi, one of Mr. Sadr's top political officials, as he smoked at his desk inside the main Sadr office in Baghdad, his television tuned to an Iranian-financed satellite network. He was referring to the Iraqi government's largely Shiite army and police, which by all accounts could not yet control Iraqi violence on their own.
The gap between Mr. Sadr's public oratory and his actions shows that he, as much as any American or Iraqi official, is captive to the fact that there is no easy path to securing Iraq's future. He does have a starkly plain vision — a centralized Islamist Iraq ruled by nationalist Shiites who are distanced from, if not openly hostile to, the United States. But he also has a problem all too familiar to the Bush administration: he does not know exactly how to realize his vision, given the complexities of the conflict.
He has become a great improviser, the Miles Davis of the war.
Neither he nor we can acknowledge that we're de facto allies. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 23, 2007 7:07 AM
C'mon. He considers the democratically elected Iraqi govt as an occupying force. At many points in the past he has chosen to go against this Iraq govt and the US forces. He can realize his vision by not encouraging violence, not trying to overthrow the elected Iraq govt, and by helping the Iraq govt and the US secure the country so that the US would then leave. But he won't because he is taking orders from Iran whose best interests rely on an unstable Iraq.
Posted by: AWW at April 23, 2007 12:13 PMC'mon. He considers the democratically elected Iraqi govt as an occupying force. At many points in the past he has chosen to go against this Iraq govt and the US forces. He can realize his vision by not encouraging violence, not trying to overthrow the elected Iraq govt, and by helping the Iraq govt and the US secure the country so that the US would then leave. But he won't because he is taking orders from Iran whose best interests rely on an unstable Iraq.
Posted by: AWW at April 23, 2007 12:16 PMWe should have withdrawn to the sideline guarding Iraq's borders as soon as Saddam was captured. We should let the Shiites and Sunnis to fight it out, then come in to mop up. By guarding the borders we can prevent outsiders to come in to exploit the situation, and let the Iraqis who have a stake in the country to come to terms with each other. If the Dems really wanted to protect the troops, they should demand redeployment to the borders, not to Okinawa, not to withdraw. They could have more credibilities in national security and don't have to exaggerate global warming as a greater threat than terrorism.
Posted by: ic at April 23, 2007 12:43 PM"Miles Davis of the war"
I'd prefer he follow the err..ahh...actual frigging tune.
Posted by: h-man at April 23, 2007 1:49 PMHe's part of the elected government. He considers us an occupying force. We are.
Posted by: oj at April 23, 2007 2:33 PMOf course you would, we're calling it. He just isn't interested in being Step-n-fetchit
Posted by: oj at April 23, 2007 5:10 PMMookie is a Saddam wannabe. Kill him now. The last thing Iraq needs is a petty street thug (with dreams of Khomeini in his head) morphing into a puppeteer.
If we are just using him to 'punish' the Sunni, then we really have to kill him before we leave.
Posted by: jim hamlen at April 23, 2007 10:52 PMExactly wrong. Saddam was a garden variety rationalist. Mookie is a Shi'ite.
Posted by: oj at April 24, 2007 6:37 AMSaddam was a goon with a big budget and connections. Mookie is pretty much the same, although on a small scale (for now).
If God were part of Mookie's world, he would be quite different - he would either be more fanatical (in which case he would already be dead), or he would be opposed to the Shi'ite abortion that is Iran. But he isn't. So he's just a junior tyrant with dreams of swords. Big deal.
Posted by: jim hamlen at April 24, 2007 7:31 AM