NationStates Jolt Archive

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aqWFUS6KVwfk&refer=us
While's he offering to withdraw from the Iman Ali Shrine, he refuses to disband the Mahdi Army. This, I fear, means even more confrontations, and all the while, al-Sadr can use it to mobilize the Shi'ites against the government in Baghdad. When will this ever end?

Ah, finally an intelligent post with a worthwhile topic to discuss. From what I can tell, al-Sadr is finally coming to realize that he is losing more support by holding a holy shrine hostage than he is gaining supporters by opposing the US. Look for things to change as soon as Sistani gets back, even though a few articles I have read seem to give the impression that al-Sadr is either unaware of the actual situation or is giving a false front in order to wring more concessions out of the Interim government.

Most of the support that al-Sadr has accumulated has begun to evaporate due to his lack of success as well as his tendency to disrupt or destroy the lives of other Iraqis rather than to inconvenience the Americans. There is only so long you can remain in one place under siege but protected by the restraint of your enemies before you lose face and influence. The longer the siege goes on, the worse al-Sadr's position will get. Hopefully he realizes that the sooner he capitulates, the better the settlement he will get. Right now, for example, he has been granted amnesty for the suspicious murder of a rival and been given assurances that he will have an opportunity to be a part of the political process if he chooses. It should be pointed out that representatives of the assembly that has been deciding the future of the Iraqi government approached representatives of al-Sadr to invite them to the conference, but were refused.

EDIT: Oops I forgot to read the article first (I'm using a tabs browser so I just forgot it was there), but it pretty much said that al-Sadr is gonna do what I expected him to.

While he wont disband the Medhi army, just how effective will they be w/o his leadership?

He didn't step down as leader of the militia, he just told them to give up control of the shrine. Of course, this assumes that he has some sort of direct control over his followers, which I sincerely doubt. His words are what binds them to him, but I don't expect that his words dictate their actions as their actions are probably predicated upon their intepretation of his words. If they decide that al-Sadr is abondoning the principles that created his movement, they could easily turn on him. That might even be preferable to al-Sadr mantaining control, since it would create a split in the movement and would further marginalize it in the minds of the Iraqi people.

Ah, finally an intelligent post with a worthwhile topic to discuss. From what I can tell, al-Sadr is finally coming to realize that he is losing more support by holding a holy shrine hostage than he is gaining supporters by opposing the US. Look for things to change as soon as Sistani gets back, even though a few articles I have read seem to give the impression that al-Sadr is either unaware of the actual situation or is giving a false front in order to wring more concessions out of the Interim government.

Most of the support that al-Sadr has accumulated has begun to evaporate due to his lack of success as well as his tendency to disrupt or destroy the lives of other Iraqis rather than to inconvenience the Americans. There is only so long you can remain in one place under siege but protected by the restraint of your enemies before you lose face and influence. The longer the siege goes on, the worse al-Sadr's position will get. Hopefully he realizes that the sooner he capitulates, the better the settlement he will get. Right now, for example, he has been granted amnesty for the suspicious murder of a rival and been given assurances that he will have an opportunity to be a part of the political process if he chooses. It should be pointed out that representatives of the assembly that has been deciding the future of the Iraqi government approached representatives of al-Sadr to invite them to the conference, but were refused.

EDIT: Oops I forgot to read the article first (I'm using a tabs browser so I just forgot it was there), but it pretty much said that al-Sadr is gonna do what I expected him to.
He thinks, however, that he's winning. I see why he may think that, as he's a David against America's goliath. However, David didn't have the holiest site in Shi'ite Islam in his possession, either. al-Sadr must be either paranoid, or not a religious man, to assume that the US would destroy that mosque just to get him. But anyhow, he thinks he's winning. He's even been daring enough to invite the Pope to Najaf for mediation and moral support for al-Sadr. I'm betting that the Vatican won't even comment for al-Sadr's request.

I like the fact that the IRaqi forces are the ones doing the gun pointing. Shows that the interm gov. is getting stronger and they might be free one day.

I like the fact that the IRaqi forces are the ones doing the gun pointing. Shows that the interm gov. is getting stronger and they might be free one day.

There are pros and cons to this. While it is good that Iraqis are beginning to be a part of the solutions to their problems, it would be a catastrophe if Iraqi forces loyal to the government clashed openly in large forces with al-Sadr's Mahdi army. The last thing we need is to add more fuel to a civil war, especially since in previous situations Iraqis loyal to the government have been unwilling to fire upon fellow Iraqis, and many have even surrendered or fled rather than do so. Until there is a much greater sense of Iraqi identity, it could be very harmful is there should be an open conflict between the two, especially if Iraqi defense forces fail under pressure to shoot people they may not fully disagree with. I hope that the Iraqi troops being used in Najaf are the most disciplined and well-trained group availible.