NationStates Jolt Archive

Many of you probably think he already is out of hand. But as this poll shows, the overwhelming majority of Shi'ites never liked al-Sadr, and I doubt he'll gain the support of the entire Shi'ite population anytime soon.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/WorldNewsTonight/iraq_poll_040405.html
As for the arrest warrant out for him, I found that it was months old, issued by an Iraqi judge investigating the murder of a Shi'ite cleric long ago. This guy was on our radar then. Why he wasn't arrested then is beyond me.

he WAS not very popular...we are about to change that...

he WAS not very popular...we are about to change that...
Don't worry. Thats all planned by Bush. If this guy gets more support in Iraq, maybe his support in the Shi'it neighbour country Iran will grow too. Since the Mullahs run Iran, there may be lot´s of Iranians wanting to go to war against the American agressors. Haliburton&co then will have a reason to go and liberate Iranian oilfields as well.

he WAS not very popular...we are about to change that...
Don't worry. Thats all planned by Bush. If this guy gets more support in Iraq, maybe his support in the Shi'it neighbour country Iran will grow too. Since the Mullahs run Iran, there may be lot´s of Iranians wanting to go to war against the American agressors. Haliburton&co then will have a reason to go and liberate Iranian oilfields as well.

Sounds good. I think I'll vote for Bush.

This is why I think that this arrest warrant should've been carried out earlier. Now this entire situation's exploding.
Luckily, as I've shown, only about 1% of Shi'ites support him. That figure will only grow to 3-4% tops, and very few new supporters will be die hards. They're fanatics, they join a movement for a few months, but they then get bored with it, or find no point in continuing it. Right now, the Shi'ites don't want negative attention from the US. They realize al-Sadr is doing just that. Besides, if al-Sadr is arrested, I'm sure quite a few clerics will privatly be very happy. They'll keep a lid on this, and stop a massive Shi'ite rebellion.
Another thing I've read in Time magazine one week (forgot which one) is that there's a reason al-Sadr isn't popular: he acts like he owns the country. He's established courts. The US has allowed them to exist because they don't hand down death sentences, but he has courts, and prisons. And he has a radical interpretation of Shar'ia. He throws them in prison for minor crimes, like adultry, petty theft, etc. But it even goes to something basic: he punishes those who speak out against him and happen to walk into his neighborhoods. And only Muslims get trials from him. His militia has been known to burn Christian liquor stores. Most stores now have to employ armed guards.
Despite this, it may be a delicate operation. Violence will only make this worse for us. And the administration knows that going into mosques isn't politically rewarding, and that's where he's held up in. This'll have to be an extremely delicate operation, and probably conducted by Iraqi security forces.

he WAS not very popular...we are about to change that...
Don't worry. Thats all planned by Bush. If this guy gets more support in Iraq, maybe his support in the Shi'it neighbour country Iran will grow too. Since the Mullahs run Iran, there may be lot´s of Iranians wanting to go to war against the American agressors. Haliburton&co then will have a reason to go and liberate Iranian oilfields as well.

Sounds good. I think I'll vote for Bush.

Seconded. 8)

Perhaps this isn't an exact analogy, but I imagine JFK and LBJ never thought Ho Chi Minh would get out of hand either. And if you think that Al-Sadr doesn't have support, read this article from the Sydney Morning Herald. (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/05/1081017100527.html)

This is scary:
The fighting erupted when five trucks of US soldiers and the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps (ICDC) tried to enter the district and were attacked by Sadr supporters, Amid said.

Coming under fire, the ICDC, a paramilitary force trained by the Americans, turned on the US soldiers and started to shoot at them, according to Amid.

The soldiers fled their vehicles and headed for cover and then began to battle both the Mehdi Army and the ICDC members, he said. Their vehicles were set ablaze.

What was that about being able to turn over authority by June 30?

It's scary that power figures like Sadr can silence the opposition like that and get aaway with it.

It reminds me of what happened to Paul Wellstone.

It's scary that power figures like Sadr can silence the opposition like that and get aaway with it.

It reminds me of what happened to Paul Wellstone.

Don't forget John Denver.

"Sunshine on my shoulders makes me happy," etc.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/home/index.asp

Devious.

Perhaps this isn't an exact analogy, but I imagine JFK and LBJ never thought Ho Chi Minh would get out of hand either. And if you think that Al-Sadr doesn't have support, read this article from the Sydney Morning Herald. (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/05/1081017100527.html)

This is scary:
The fighting erupted when five trucks of US soldiers and the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps (ICDC) tried to enter the district and were attacked by Sadr supporters, Amid said.

Coming under fire, the ICDC, a paramilitary force trained by the Americans, turned on the US soldiers and started to shoot at them, according to Amid.

The soldiers fled their vehicles and headed for cover and then began to battle both the Mehdi Army and the ICDC members, he said. Their vehicles were set ablaze.

What was that about being able to turn over authority by June 30?
This is, indeed, troubling. But it did not elaborate on the circumstances. Was it a few officers, or the whole team there? Was it intentional, or friendly fire? Did coalition troops shoot them for some reason? That's what we need to find out.

I don't think it matters why the ICDC started firing on coalition troops--the fact that they did is serious, especially considering the continued violence and the fact that the Sunnis are now involved. This is getting uglier by the second. More dead today and the situation is slipping further and further out of control.

This dude is nothing. Now, if you have all been paying attention.. the guy you really need to worry about is Ayatollah Ali Sistani. When he speaks.. ALL the Shi'ites listen. He is already not that pleased with what the Americans are doing.. but thus far is just sitting back.. however most people in the know are quite concerned about him. Now if the Americans piss him off.. all bets are off. I can't see the Americans being able to sustain that type of chaos on the ground.. they would have to withdraw.. or nuke em.. or carpet bomb the whole country.. Nah, I wouldn't worry about this young cleric in the news.. he's not the problem, he's just the problem of the day. The real threat , the one man in Iraq who will make or break the Americans plans is Ayatollah Ali Sistani

This is an old article.. (March/04).. but it gives you a bit of a profile on him..

http://www.lebanonwire.com/0403/04030602IND.asp

The problem now is that Al-Sadr is openly connecting himself with Sistani, acting as though he (Al-Sadr) is Sistani's general leading the troops into battle against the occupiers. This article (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/06/international/middleeast/06CND-IRAQ.html?hp) talks about that as well as the most recent violence. This is the most chilling bit, I tihnk. Meanwhile, Moktada al-Sadr, a rebel Shiite cleric who is wanted by American forces in connection with a brutal killing last year, continued to invigorate his followers. In a statement issued on Tuesday from Najaf, Mr. Sadr urged disciples to keep up the fight against occupying forces.

``America has shown its evil intentions,'' Mr. Sadr said, ``and the proud Iraqi people cannot accept it. They must defend their rights by any means they see fit.''

He also aligned himself with the country's most influential religious figure, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

``I proclaim my solidarity with Ali Sistani and he should know that I am his military wing in Iraq,'' Mr. Sadr said.

Mr. Sadr, whose followers launched the most serious insurrection of the post-invasion period starting on Sunday, said, ``I will put the city with the golden dish between Ali Sistani's hands after liberation.''

The golden dish refers to the golden shrines of Najaf, some of the holiest sites in Shia Islam. Najaf, south of Baghdad, is the home of Ayatollah Sistani, who is considered much more moderate than Mr. Sadr. On Sunday, Ayatollah Sistani issued a religious decree urging Iraq's Shiites to stay calm.

So far, though, Mr. Sadr's followers have not been heeding it. Day after day, the black clad militiamen have rolled over Iraqi security forces in a number of cities, including Kufa, Najaf, Nasiriya, Basra and Baghdad, and taken over government offices. The string of successes seems to inflate Mr. Sadr's popularity and draw more recruits to his Mahdi Army, a private militia that attracts both idle youth and adults with jobs. In some cities, like Kufa, his followers have completely replaced police and security forces, essentially establishing an occupation-free zone and patrolling towns in blue and white government cars that just days ago were driven by members of the newly formed security forces.

So Al-Sadr isn't the big cheese, not yet. But he's kind of like Hamas to Sistani's PLO--Sistani puts on the face of collegiality and legitimacy and Al-Sadr keeps the pressure on with violence. It's not a perfect analogy, I know, but it's got some validity, I think.

The problem now is that Al-Sadr is openly connecting himself with Sistani, acting as though he (Al-Sadr) is Sistani's general leading the troops into battle against the occupiers. This article (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/06/international/middleeast/06CND-IRAQ.html?hp) talks about that as well as the most recent violence. This is the most chilling bit, I tihnk. Meanwhile, Moktada al-Sadr, a rebel Shiite cleric who is wanted by American forces in connection with a brutal killing last year, continued to invigorate his followers. In a statement issued on Tuesday from Najaf, Mr. Sadr urged disciples to keep up the fight against occupying forces.

``America has shown its evil intentions,'' Mr. Sadr said, ``and the proud Iraqi people cannot accept it. They must defend their rights by any means they see fit.''

He also aligned himself with the country's most influential religious figure, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

``I proclaim my solidarity with Ali Sistani and he should know that I am his military wing in Iraq,'' Mr. Sadr said.

Mr. Sadr, whose followers launched the most serious insurrection of the post-invasion period starting on Sunday, said, ``I will put the city with the golden dish between Ali Sistani's hands after liberation.''

The golden dish refers to the golden shrines of Najaf, some of the holiest sites in Shia Islam. Najaf, south of Baghdad, is the home of Ayatollah Sistani, who is considered much more moderate than Mr. Sadr. On Sunday, Ayatollah Sistani issued a religious decree urging Iraq's Shiites to stay calm.

So far, though, Mr. Sadr's followers have not been heeding it. Day after day, the black clad militiamen have rolled over Iraqi security forces in a number of cities, including Kufa, Najaf, Nasiriya, Basra and Baghdad, and taken over government offices. The string of successes seems to inflate Mr. Sadr's popularity and draw more recruits to his Mahdi Army, a private militia that attracts both idle youth and adults with jobs. In some cities, like Kufa, his followers have completely replaced police and security forces, essentially establishing an occupation-free zone and patrolling towns in blue and white government cars that just days ago were driven by members of the newly formed security forces.

So Al-Sadr isn't the big cheese, not yet. But he's kind of like Hamas to Sistani's PLO--Sistani puts on the face of collegiality and legitimacy and Al-Sadr keeps the pressure on with violence. It's not a perfect analogy, I know, but it's got some validity, I think.

Well, umm gee.. I've been here all day posting and I haven't been paying enough attention to todays news. I knew that Al-Sadr was doing this because they closed down his newspaper last week.. it was quite big news. What I didn't know was that today he moved down the street from Sistani.. This might be very bad indeed after all.. Now he could just be posturing.. it's possible.. but if Sistani is giving him the "ok" to do this, then I can only conclude a few things..

1) The Americans really don't realize what this will mean and what is happening.

2) The Media and the White House are majorly down playing this.

3) This is only the beginning and it's going to get a hell of a lot worse with no end in sight if Sistani is allowing this to happen and doesn't call for calm.

Oh and a side note.. if the Americans try to go and arrest Al-Sadr and Sistani's people get caught in the cross fire.. if Sistani didn't give him the ok.. then he just might.. in fact, if Al-Sadr ends up getting taken out by either arrest or killed.. this could cause a huge backlash.. It all rests in the hands of Sistani.. the fact that we haven't heard him come out yet after the week end of bloodshed and call for calm... might already tell us some thing..

Well, according to that article, Sistani did call for calm--the problem was that no one listened. Of course, it might have been one of those Willy Wonka "Don't. Stop." kinds of calls for calm--the story doesn't go into that--but it wouldn't surprise me.

Seem to recall this started with the occupation forces closing down a newspaper.

What a clever move that proved to be.

Explain again how this will aid in the development of democracy, and endear you to the local population please.

Seem to recall this started with the occupation forces closing down a newspaper.

What a clever move that proved to be.

Explain again how this will aid in the development of democracy, and endear you to the local population please.
I will admit that we may have never been in such a hurry to close it had it not been an occupation. However, it was inciting attacks, and that is illegal. There are hundreds of other papers that preach every non-violent philosophy on God's green earth, and they've managed not to be shut down.

Oh and a side note.. if the Americans try to go and arrest Al-Sadr and Sistani's people get caught in the cross fire.. if Sistani didn't give him the ok.. then he just might.. in fact, if Al-Sadr ends up getting taken out by either arrest or killed.. this could cause a huge backlash.. It all rests in the hands of Sistani.. the fact that we haven't heard him come out yet after the week end of bloodshed and call for calm... might already tell us some thing..
As of right now, he issued a statement urging both sides for calm. Now, about al-Sadr and the Mahdi Army, I think we should just stay outside the cities he controls for now. It's pilgrimage season, and the rest of the Arab world will be very mad if Najaf and Karbala are in disarray. Just establish checkpoints for roads leading out of the city or something like that, to make sure nothing like guns and such go in, or out. If we do, cordone off the cities, and send a few aid convoys in. al-Sadr is so unpopular, that his army can't be sustained for long. If they don't engage US troops, and they survive at current strenght for more than a month, I'll be very amazed.

Update (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/international/middleeast/08SHIA.html?hp)

Seems like US military intelligence is no longer saying this is limited just to Al Sadr.
United States forces are confronting a broad-based Shiite uprising that goes well beyond supporters of one militant Islamic cleric who has been the focus of American counterinsurgency efforts, United States intelligence officials said Wednesday.

That assertion contradicts repeated statements by the Bush administration and American officials in Iraq. On Wednesday, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that they did not believe the United States was facing a broad-based Shiite insurgency. Administration officials have portrayed Moktada al-Sadr, a rebel Shiite cleric who is wanted by American forces, as the catalyst of the rising violence within the Shiite community of Iraq.
Al Sadr is described as the catalyst, but they're saying that this new uprising goes far beyond him and far beyond the "former Ba'athists" who were leading the prior resistance. The end of the article basically says that there are a bunch of possibilities for who is fomenting the resistance, but that they're not sure. It's crazy on the ground over there.

Update (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/international/middleeast/08SHIA.html?hp)

Seems like US military intelligence is no longer saying this is limited just to Al Sadr.
United States forces are confronting a broad-based Shiite uprising that goes well beyond supporters of one militant Islamic cleric who has been the focus of American counterinsurgency efforts, United States intelligence officials said Wednesday.

That assertion contradicts repeated statements by the Bush administration and American officials in Iraq. On Wednesday, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that they did not believe the United States was facing a broad-based Shiite insurgency. Administration officials have portrayed Moktada al-Sadr, a rebel Shiite cleric who is wanted by American forces, as the catalyst of the rising violence within the Shiite community of Iraq.
Al Sadr is described as the catalyst, but they're saying that this new uprising goes far beyond him and far beyond the "former Ba'athists" who were leading the prior resistance. The end of the article basically says that there are a bunch of possibilities for who is fomenting the resistance, but that they're not sure. It's crazy on the ground over there.
I know it seems a little shaky right now. But I pray that this violence will end soon, and that as few people as possible need to get hurt. And I don't think that now's the time for the troops to withdraw.

This is all very depressing :(

It would seem that this 'uprising' in Iraq is really little more than a bunch of 'I want a piece of the power' groups and some honest to goodness bandits coming out of the backwash to take advantage of the Al Sadr situation. In any case this all has to be cleaned up/out before any meaningful government can be established in Iraq.

I agree with a previous poster that the best idea might just be to encircle the cities and control who and what goes in and out (weapons and such) until the religious holidays and pilgrimages are over. The point to make clear to those entering these areas is that the Coalition is not responsible for their safety once they pass beyond the checkpoints.

As for foreign hostages being kidnapped and threatened if thier respective nations do not withdraw from Iraq.... the correct response would be that if the hostages were not immediately released unharmed, the number of that nations personnel in Iraq would be dramatically increased at once!

As for foreign hostages being kidnapped and threatened if thier respective nations do not withdraw from Iraq.... the correct response would be that if the hostages were not immediately released unharmed, the number of that nations personnel in Iraq would be dramatically increased at once!That's kind of difficult to do if you're a politician in a place where the majority of your population was against having soldiers there in the first place (especially in Japan, where there's a real argument that the deployment was unconstitutional). I mean, how do you, if you hope to win your next election, go to your populace and say "Look, I know you didn't want our soldiers there in the first place, and I know that we went in there based on a bunch of lies, and I know it's going to hell, but we need to send in more soldiers who will likely suffer further casualties"? Politicians of all stripes are always worried about one thing first--staying in office. There's no way that these other world leaders even consider putting in more troops.

al-Sadr's just taking advantage of the chaos in the Middle East. It's how all dictators gain power and prestige, they wait for chaos, and they strike.

al-Sadr's just taking advantage of the chaos in the Middle East. It's how all dictators gain power and prestige, they wait for chaos, and they strike.
If he's a dictator wannabe, he chose the wrong time to start. As you said, dictators need chaos. The south was mostly peaceful until he bursted in.
Luckily, he suffered a setback, and perhaps the entire uprising in general: US forces retook al-Kut. And according to coalition briefings today, al-Kut residents were happy we were there. I can only hope they're right.

Many of you probably think he already is out of hand. But as this poll shows, the overwhelming majority of Shi'ites never liked al-Sadr, and I doubt he'll gain the support of the entire Shi'ite population anytime soon.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/WorldNewsTonight/iraq_poll_040405.html
As for the arrest warrant out for him, I found that it was months old, issued by an Iraqi judge investigating the murder of a Shi'ite cleric long ago. This guy was on our radar then. Why he wasn't arrested then is beyond me.

The problem is...
He doesn't need to gain the support of the majority of the Shiite population.
He only needs the support of the radicals that have guns. Many angry Iraqi's have been lying low, because there was no organization to speak of. This guy has created the first organized resistance so far, and he is attracting fighters just because there are people who want to fight. The good news is, the coalition forces are killing them at a much higher rate than they are killing us. They will eventrually lose, and Iraq will be better off with fewer radicals around.

If the US was more like Israel, this knucklehead would have been "surgically removed" weeks ago.

Many of you probably think he already is out of hand. But as this poll shows, the overwhelming majority of Shi'ites never liked al-Sadr, and I doubt he'll gain the support of the entire Shi'ite population anytime soon.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/WorldNewsTonight/iraq_poll_040405.html
As for the arrest warrant out for him, I found that it was months old, issued by an Iraqi judge investigating the murder of a Shi'ite cleric long ago. This guy was on our radar then. Why he wasn't arrested then is beyond me.

The problem is...
He doesn't need to gain the support of the majority of the Shiite population.
He only needs the support of the radicals that have guns. Many angry Iraqi's have been lying low, because there was no organization to speak of. This guy has created the first organized resistance so far, and he is attracting fighters just because there are people who want to fight. The good news is, the coalition forces are killing them at a much higher rate than they are killing us. They will eventrually lose, and Iraq will be better off with fewer radicals around.

If the US was more like Israel, this knucklehead would have been "surgically removed" weeks ago.
I know, we should've arrested him when we had the chance. That arrest warrant is months old, yet the US was afraid to arrest him. But the situation has been allowed to grow into a nightmare.
However, I don't want America to act militarily like Israel. We should arrest our enemies, but never intentionally kill them, especially without a trial. Luckily, we may never quite sink down to the level of Israel, as this isn't a West Bank by no standards.

Many of you probably think he already is out of hand. But as this poll shows, the overwhelming majority of Shi'ites never liked al-Sadr, and I doubt he'll gain the support of the entire Shi'ite population anytime soon.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/WorldNewsTonight/iraq_poll_040405.html
As for the arrest warrant out for him, I found that it was months old, issued by an Iraqi judge investigating the murder of a Shi'ite cleric long ago. This guy was on our radar then. Why he wasn't arrested then is beyond me.

The problem is...
He doesn't need to gain the support of the majority of the Shiite population.
He only needs the support of the radicals that have guns. Many angry Iraqi's have been lying low, because there was no organization to speak of. This guy has created the first organized resistance so far, and he is attracting fighters just because there are people who want to fight. The good news is, the coalition forces are killing them at a much higher rate than they are killing us. They will eventrually lose, and Iraq will be better off with fewer radicals around.

If the US was more like Israel, this knucklehead would have been "surgically removed" weeks ago.
I know, we should've arrested him when we had the chance. That arrest warrant is months old, yet the US was afraid to arrest him. But the situation has been allowed to grow into a nightmare.
However, I don't want America to act militarily like Israel. We should arrest our enemies, but never intentionally kill them, especially without a trial. Luckily, we may never quite sink down to the level of Israel, as this isn't a West Bank by no standards.

It would be a risk to far too many American lives to try to arrest him.
That's why we haven't done it. Dropping a DaisyCutter on top of whatever
compound he is in would take care of him (and many of his minions!)
However, I'll agree that killing a cleric, no matter how bad we think he is,
will make us even more unpopular with Muslims worldwide.
It's a tough decision for the Administration to have to make.

Many of you probably think he already is out of hand. But as this poll shows, the overwhelming majority of Shi'ites never liked al-Sadr, and I doubt he'll gain the support of the entire Shi'ite population anytime soon.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/WorldNewsTonight/iraq_poll_040405.html
As for the arrest warrant out for him, I found that it was months old, issued by an Iraqi judge investigating the murder of a Shi'ite cleric long ago. This guy was on our radar then. Why he wasn't arrested then is beyond me.

The problem is...
He doesn't need to gain the support of the majority of the Shiite population.
He only needs the support of the radicals that have guns. Many angry Iraqi's have been lying low, because there was no organization to speak of. This guy has created the first organized resistance so far, and he is attracting fighters just because there are people who want to fight. The good news is, the coalition forces are killing them at a much higher rate than they are killing us. They will eventrually lose, and Iraq will be better off with fewer radicals around.

If the US was more like Israel, this knucklehead would have been "surgically removed" weeks ago.
I know, we should've arrested him when we had the chance. That arrest warrant is months old, yet the US was afraid to arrest him. But the situation has been allowed to grow into a nightmare.
However, I don't want America to act militarily like Israel. We should arrest our enemies, but never intentionally kill them, especially without a trial. Luckily, we may never quite sink down to the level of Israel, as this isn't a West Bank by no standards.

It would be a risk to far too many American lives to try to arrest him.
That's why we haven't done it. Dropping a DaisyCutter on top of whatever
compound he is in would take care of him (and many of his minions!)
However, I'll agree that killing a cleric, no matter how bad we think he is,
will make us even more unpopular with Muslims worldwide.
It's a tough decision for the Administration to have to make.
Well, whatever happens, he better not escape Najaf (the city he's in right now). Otherwise, he may end up becoming an al-Qaeda operative. And if this guy knows one thing that terrorists love, it's whipping up fanaticism.