NationStates Jolt Archive

...news like this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23866765) makes you do a happy dance.

...news like this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23866765) makes you do a happy dance.

I must say I am surprised, I would not have expected that from al-Sadr.

Please tell me this is true.

Please tell me this is true.

OK, this is true...

What do we all think the implications of this are for actions within Iraq? What do you think this means, and what impact do you think this will have on the perception of Sadr's militia, and the perception of the central government in Baghdad?

Further, what do you think this means for the central governments ability to act independently, or in opposition to powerful militia groups?

Biding his time, is he?

Clever guy. I thought so back in '04, and I still think so now. This isn't the last we'll hear of him.

A U.S. public address system in the Green Zone warned people to “duck and cover” and to stay away from windows.
http://www.mousemusings.com/images/cw_bertanim.gif
Ah, Bert, you do get around, don't you?


Certainly good news. Better if they actually started turning in weapons, but no one thinks that is really going to happen. Cease fires have happened before, so it's a grain of salt moment. Work has to be done to increase faith in the elections and a feel of representation. It's certainly not something we're (the US) are going to be able to do.

OK, this is true...

That's rhetorical. :rolleyes: :p

That's rhetorical. :rolleyes: :p

I know, I just couldn't resist...
:D

I note he's keeping hold of his weaponry. I suspect once the British in Basra are off the scene or otherwise occupied he'll move again and use Basra as a steppign stone. In the meantime, let's enjoy the lull...

What do we all think the implications of this are for actions within Iraq? What do you think this means, and what impact do you think this will have on the perception of Sadr's militia, and the perception of the central government in Baghdad?

Further, what do you think this means for the central governments ability to act independently, or in opposition to powerful militia groups?
It means exactly what you think it means. The government has failed to impose its monopoly on law-making. We now have three governments in Iraq: the one in the Green Zone, the Kurdish one and al-Sadr. Which is what it was like before, but now it's been made patently obvious that the official rulers without US troops fighting for them are basically a paper tiger.

Yay for less fighting?

If there is a person in Iraq who is deciding the safety of the nation who is not part of the government, then we have a problem...

...news like this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23866765) makes you do a happy dance.

Well this is indeed an interesting turn of events.

This could be some kind of ploy like the Tet Ceasefire. It could also be a step in the right direction. It would probbaly be wise to keep a hightened state of alert for now.

This could be some kind of ploy like the Tet Ceasefire. It could also be a step in the right direction. It would probbaly be wise to keep a hightened state of alert for now.
I don't think Sadr wants fighting for fighting's sake. He wants the Sunnis gone from Shia areas, presumably thinking it self-defense. He doesn't think the Baghdad government will protect Shias and their religion (and to be honest, neither they nor the Americans have given him much reason to suspect otherwise) and thinks that the Mehdi Army is in a better position to do so. So if the central government wants to encroach on its (and his) autonomy, he'll fight them. Otherwise he'll probably mostly leave them alone and concentrate on issues inside his own territory.

I don't think Sadr wants fighting for fighting's sake. He wants the Sunnis gone from Shia areas, presumably thinking it self-defense. He doesn't think the Baghdad government will protect Shias and their religion (and to be honest, neither they nor the Americans have given him much reason to suspect otherwise) and thinks that the Mehdi Army is in a better position to do so. So if the central government wants to encroach on its (and his) autonomy, he'll fight them. Otherwise he'll probably mostly leave them alone and concentrate on issues inside his own territory.

I may have been misinturpretted. I was meaning to imply that elements from any of the sides in this conflict could turn it back into a hotbed for violence; all side sinvolved need to be alert and ready. It would be REALLY nice if all sides in this argument could agree to let religion out of this and focus on thier own country... and I mean in a positive way. It took 50 congressional sittings to decide whether or not to change thier flag and they spend only minutes looking at the real issues. Hell militias like Sadr's have done more to improve the local standards in thier areas than the whole Iraqi goverment has in baghdad.

Important Question: How much of this was the United States and how much was the Iraqi Military? If it was a heavilly Iraqi operation, it would be good news indeed. Otherwise, nice from the standpoint of Sadr laying down arms momentarilly, but as Soheran so beautifully put it, "This isn't the last we'll hear of him."

I don't know things like this are always just temporary.

Important Question: How much of this was the United States and how much was the Iraqi Military? If it was a heavilly Iraqi operation, it would be good news indeed. Otherwise, nice from the standpoint of Sadr laying down arms momentarilly, but as Soheran so beautifully put it, "This isn't the last we'll hear of him."

The recent offensive in Basra was fought almost solely by the Iraqi army, with Coalition air support.