Al-Sadr: Iraqi government worse than Saddam

[bemildred]

Seems to be throwing down the gauntlet here.

n an exclusive interview with Aljazeera, Shia
leader Muqtada al-Sadr said the Iraqi people
want the interim Iraqi government to resign,
saying its policies are worse than those of
Saddam Hussein.

Speaking from an undisclosed location in Najaf
before the announcement that talks with the
interim government had failed, al-Sadr
questioned the legitimacy of the Iyad Allawi
government and claimed that he, and the
Mahdi Army, were fighting for the rights of all
Iraqis."

---


When asked if he was seeking any political office in any future reconciliation
government, al-Sadr said he would not seek any official post, "not now, and until
I die".

"I refused to participate in their so-called national meeting which is why I...we
are targeted. I will not participate in any political discourse as long as there is an
occupation," he added.

more

[IndianaGreen]

1. Muqtada al-Sadr's views are representative of many Iraqis

I submit as evidence the following story posted elsewhere on LBN:

"Under Saddam, as long as you didn't go against the regime, you weren't hurt," says Dina's mother, Firyal. "Now, without doing anything, you get hurt."

Dina's father, an officer in Hussein's army, spoke out against him and was thrown in jail. Even that experience, faded with time, now seems tolerable compared with today's grief.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x750462#750505

Full story:

YAHOO NEWS

[bemildred]

3. He will be running the place next year if present trends continue. nt

[lynx rufus]

8. Hate to admit it but I find myself liking him more and more

[Vladimir]

26. As a communist,

I have little love for Al-Sadr and his religious fanaticism. But, as you correctly state, he does represent a large number of Iraqis, and as long as this is the case I think it is our duty to offer him our solidarity in the anti-imperialist struggle. If it was the case that the interim government was supported by Iraqis, then things may be different but it plainly is not. One cannot oppose a movement of liberation just because it happens to be fighting the US/UK and not for example Russia or Turkey.

[Union Thug]

29. You've expressed the same conflict I have...

...as an atheist i despise the religious fanaticism. As a socialist, I sympathize with anti-imperialist forces... dissonance incarnate.

[Vladimir]

33. I would much rather I could

support the Iraqi communist party, but they decided to go into the provisional government. Fucking sellouts.

On Edit: It occurs to me as I write this how sick it is for me to be talking of supporting something in Iraq from the comfort of my European sofa. As if I was watching a football game. Sick.

[calimary]

31. I just finished reading that Yahoo story. It made me cry.

"...but aren't we all better off without Saddam?" "...the world is a safer place without Saddam."

Just one more for the "yeah, SURE" file.

[AngryAmish]

2. This man has wisdom in his heart

Why he is not leading Iraq is beyond me.

[0007]

4. C'mon junior bring the troops home, quit fucking around!

[skip fox]

5. Al-Sadr will tear Iraq apart.

IMHO (but with little doubt).

And I don't need to make the argument. History will make it for me.

[Ripley]

6. Do you not think USA military is tearing Iraq apart?

How can you blame all of the violence on one man who is respected by the people of that country as a leader (albeit a religious leader) yet not seem to think American forces are where their hatred lies?

[skip fox]

9. We will probably all be able to witness the respect with which he holds

his fellow countrymen.

Whatever has happened in the past, we are here, now.

Unless this man is captured or killed, the country wil plunge in short order into civil war. If he is captured or kill by the Americans, the entire Middle East might be galvanized against us (I'm assuming you're an American, but you may be ready to inform me otherwise . . .). If the Iraqis capture or kill him the latter fate MAY be avoided.

At any rate we may be close to the grim end-game.

[Ripley]

10. I think you are witnessing that right now...

I actually saw on TV NBC I think, where 10,000 Shias marched holding his picture up...in a city outside of Najaf, don't recall which city. I hear this is why there is fighting in Kut, Samarra, Baghdad, everywhere. They support Sadr, no question.

Again, why would you blame him for the fighting, when clearly America is the one that has united the thousands of Iraqi's to fight against our occupation?

[IndianaGreen]

13. We lost the hearts and minds a long time ago, it is time to leave Iraq!

US soldiers aim their guns as Iraqi civilians flee their
homes for safety during a day of heavy gun battles in the
holy city of Najaf in southern Iraq on Thursday, Aug. 12, 2004.
US forces launched a major offensive to crush a militia
loyal to Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. The fighting between
US forces and al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia began here a week
ago and has spread to other Shiite areas of the country.
(AP Photo/Hadi Mizban)

Published on Thursday, August 12, 2004 by the Los Angeles Times
World's Shiites Warn That US Is Treading on Sensitive Ground
by Henry Chu and Teresa Watanabe

BAGHDAD — With its twin minarets and glinting gold dome, the Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf has been a beacon for the Muslim faithful for more than a thousand years. But with fighting raging around the Iraqi shrine, one of the holiest sites in Shiite Islam is reprising a different historical role: rallying point against foreign forces.

In 1920, rebels intent on kicking out British troops occupying the region gathered at the mosque and readied for revolt. Among their leaders was Sayyid Mohammed Sadr — the scion of a prominent Shiite family and a future prime minister.

Eighty-four years later, cleric Muqtada Sadr, one of Sadr's descendants, wants the U.S. military out. All eyes are once again trained on the shrine, where a final showdown between Muqtada Sadr's militia and American troops may yet take place.

"Keep fighting even if you see me detained or martyred," Sadr said Wednesday to his armed followers, many of whom are holed up in the shrine. "I thank the dear fighters all over Iraq for what they have done to set back injustice."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0812-02.htm

[skip fox]

14. Not a matter of blame, a matter of pragmatics.

I've cast the blame at W.'s door in dozens and dozens of threads. For instance last year at this time screaming with certainity that Iraq had NO WMDs (while other DUers "shushed" me . . . claiming, logically, that if some were yet found I'd/we'd have egg on our faces . . . but I knew that there were none because we'd already captured so many of the Iraqis in charge, incl over 45 represented by that dreadful deck of cards . . . and you know damned well that we were offering the sky to anyone who would point us to WMDs). I say this only to show I do not sympathize with why and how we went to war, but I recognize we are there now and that any CHANCE (however slight) for Iraqi stability (which probably means regional stability as well) rests with the fate of al-Sadr. Simple pragmatics.

[louis-t]

16. And remember, they are not being forced

to carry those signs this time.

[bemildred]

12. There is no risk of a civil war while foreign troops are still there.

There is an ongoing anti-colonial war to repel foreign invaders.

At present we seem to be doing an execellent job of uniting the
place against us, and al Sadr seems to be the primary beneficiary
of that.

I have to assume at this point - since we have failed to capture
or kill him - that we are not on top of that problem. I have
no doubt at all that that was the intent of this last little
fandango. We would be looking at gritty pictures of him getting
his teeth inspected just like Saddam if things had worked out.

[Vladimir]

37. I am not so sure

that the US can afford to kill or arrest him any more. If for no other reason, because thre are plenty of other clerics out there and a martyr will only help them recruit support to their cause. For me, this whole game is about containment and the US not losing face.

[bemildred]

39. They would have done far better to ignore him, IMHO.

(From their point of view.)

But that he exists at all as a political power on the present
scale is because of failures of the CPO(Bremer). He got his start
providing social services to those Bremer kicked out in the cold,
and he provides jobs (fighting us) where otherwise there are none,
and much of his base comes from people that the central government
will give the IMF/WTO/Privatization treatment to if it can, and they
support him because he is willing to stand up and defend their
interests.

But, as I say, I see no reason to think that they are up to the
job or killing/detaining him at this point. I am presently waiting
to see if/when the "offensive" starts up again and what they try to
do next. It seems to me he has them in a bit of a zugzwang situation,
but they could always get lucky.

[calimary]

32. They already HAVE civil war, in effect. It just hasn't been formally

designated as such.

And all we have to do now is make al-Sadr a martyr. Yeah. That'll work out JUST PEACHY for us over there. Both in Iraq, and outside of it - all over the Middle East. They'll just LOVE us for that. If indeed they don't already just LOVE us.

What have we done...

[Lizzie Borden]

43. Yup!

When you're right, you're right!

[IndianaGreen]

7. It was America that has torn Iraq apart!

I remember when our troops arrived in Lebanon in the 1980s, they were welcomed as liberators by the large Shia community in Beirut. That did not last long!

US onslaught on Najaf triggers protests and fighting across Iraq
By Peter Symonds
14 August 2004

There is no doubt that the real criminals—the US and its Iraqi collaborators—are poised to use their vastly superior military means to finish off the Madhi Army in a massacre. What has forced a temporary pause in the fighting is concern, in Baghdad and Washington, over the political backlash such a bloodbath would cause.

Outrage over the US actions in Najaf has led to a series of public protests as well as open armed conflict in other cities in the predominantly Shiite south of Iraq. Even the loyal defenders of the US occupation have been compelled to acknowledge the extent of public hostility. Saad Jawal, a spokesman for the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), declared yesterday: “The people feel anger. They feel the (Shiite community) has been attacked by American forces.”

On Thursday, about 5,000 protesters took to the streets of the southern city of Basra, demanding the withdrawal of US forces from Najaf and condemning Allawi for working for the US. A Madhi Army commander Sheikh Saad al-Basri warned: “If peaceful demonstrations do not work we will take the path of jihad in defence of our country.”

Protester Hasan Ali Abdul-Wahid told the media: “We condemn the criminal acts done by the occupation forces and the Najaf police against our people in Najaf.” Abed Jassim angrily denounced the prime minister declaring: “Allawi and the governor of Najaf are responsible for this massacre. They provided protection for the Americans to kill the Shiites.”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/aug2004/iraq-a14.shtml

[Darranar]

11. He's too late, America already has. n/t

[slojim240]

17. You mean more than Bush has already torn Iraq apart?

It can't get much worse.

[markses]

15. There can be little doubt that the US provoked the recent fighting

It is pretty clear that the US had a purposive strategy in mind, and ruptured the fragile ceasefire with the Shia. The way al-Jazeera was shut down just before hostilities really took off, and the way Sistani was ferried out of the country on supposed health issues are clear enough to all observers. Most in Najaf believe that the days of provocation (including the murder of two of al-Sadr's guards by US troops during the cease-fire) were deliberate and calculated to re-start hostilities. The questions are:

1) Why?
2) Why now?

Several answers suggest themselves:

A. Allawi's hold on power is extremely tenuous, and the US/Iraqi Comprador cabal feel that they have to get the south under something like sovereign control before they launch all out assaults on the Sunni cities in central Iraq. To the extent that al-Sadr was even gaining in popularity, he had to be dealt with. The backfire is obvious, and even expected.

B. Bush's polls go up when American troops attack. It may be as simple as that.

C. The Iraqi elections are slated for January. al-Sadr must be presented internationally as a criminal faction prior to the elections.

D. al-Sadr's forces were actually consolidating a good deal of power, and would have thrown in for civil war. They just might.

E. The US/Iraq Comprador regime may have been willing to throw the dice on a wedge between Sunni and Shia. I don't think they'll get it. We notice the extreme quiet from fallujah and Ramadi, perhaps, but the Sunni uuprising continues full bore across most of the Sunni Triangle, with several tribal leaders in the Sunni areas urging support for al-Sadr. The US/Iraq Comprador Regime may have miscalculated the level of disagreement between these factions with respect to the new government.

I'd love to hear others. I think this decision was a major gamble, and may have thrust us into catastrophe. Apparently, Sadr City (the 2 million strong Baghdad "suburb" - actually a place of dire poverty) has thrown in almost fully with the Mehdi Aremy, the Shia council members are resigning the government in droves, and the legitimacy of the Allawi faction is seriously under question throughout the formerly peaceful south. If the kill or arrest al-Sadr, there will be a disaster that we cannot yet reckon the cost of, with possibly tens of thousand thrown into the chaos. Bad scene, and a major miscalculation on the ground, but perhaps good for Bush's polling numbers. What better than to have the war get bad again, so that the American people will have to support the CiC. When 2-5 are dying a day, the CiC looks bad. If 10-20 are dying every day, the CiC must be supported, etc. We all know this mastrerfully deceitful logic.

[bemildred]

18. Well said.

I am skeptical that B. had a lot to do with it, but otherwise ...

[skip fox]

19. Wow. Reason. What a concept.

Yes, I like the analysis very much, but feel that reasons C. and esp. D to stop al-Sadr are valid, at least now. (Now, that is, that we're at THIS juncture.)

[markses]

23. I take "at this juncture"

to mean that you don't have to do any causal analysis, or any long-view justification - since "at this juncture" means that anything that came before is assumed and cannot play into the justification one way or another.

It is a dodge, and a false display of pragmatism, since pragmatism knows that only a complete analysis of the situation will lead to justifiable results, and no analysis is complete without a full historical and causal element. So, I reject your restriction of the analysis to "this juncture, since I don't think we know what is justifiable or useful "at this juncture" without factoring in and examining what led to "this juncture," and I don't think any response that ignores those elements of the situation can be labelled either ethical or pragmatic.

It is also for this reaon that I see explanations C and D as precisely invalid as justifications for the US/Iraq Comprador slaughter of the Shia throughout the south (for we are putting down a Shia rebellion in the same manner and with the same brutality as Saddam Hussein did in 1991). In the first place, the simple fact that the US/Iraq Comprador element fears the electoral chances of the "radical" Shia is no justification for their slaughter. Given the course of the (continuing) US domination of the Iraq oil colony, the US has created the very conditions for the election that it wishes to now change. The farce of democratic elections is only being intensified as farce.

Second, since there is no legitimate government and no law in Iraq, any civil war would be the parceling out of conditions precisely created by the illegitimate US invasion. Of course, "at this juncture" is meant to elide this obvious fact, and the brutal crushing of the Mehdi Army (and any civilian who happens to be around, including - one suspects - the 2 million residents of Sadr City who overwhelmingly support al-Sadr...see point 1 about elections :eyes:) is meant to avert the brutal civil war (one wonders if the calculation was made in terms of quantities of bodies or qualities of suffering, for the US/Iraq Comprador apologists would certainly argue that the brutal murders now occuring in fact are somehow less than the brutality of an imagined and only possible civil war). If the civil war was to be waged against the comprador elements of the US puppet regime, however, it would be as justified as any other rebellion against colonial puppets, and the cause of the colonial puppets would certainly not serve to justify - in the broad sense - more attacks against the people (whose democratic will you would deny by your own admission when you claim point C to be valid!!!).

So, no. I don't agree with you that C and D are valid reasons for the current slaughter of the Iraqi Shia.

[skip fox]

28. Your reasoning is as straight as anyone else with an ideology

to defend. Even going to far as to framing the context as "valid reasons for the current slaughter of the Iraqi Shia." Geez.
I was hoping for human dialogue.

[markses]

30. Your ideology shows through as well

If you don't take these offensives as slaughters of Iraqi Shia, then the last thing anyone could expect from you is a "human" dialogue.

I make no apologies for my ideology. Neither should you.

[skip fox]

36. Do you ever listen to yourself?

"If you don't take these offensives as slaughters of Iraqi Shia, then the last thing anyone could expect from you is a "human" dialogue."

Discussion as mugging.

And to be so perceptive! To know my ideology from a few sentences analyzing a current situation! Astounding. I suppose you saw me in Cook County Jail in Aug. 1968, or as a CO during the Vietman War, or entertaining the Secret Service after writing Johnson a letter, or on Burden of Proof and dozens of talk radio programs attacking the "talking points" Starr used to extend his authority into the Lewinsky "affair" while defending the work of a graduate student and myself which called into question this document's provenance (our work written about by Oliphant, Conoson, Lyons, etc.), or . . . Well, really quite remarkable.

Won't argue more due to 1. futility, 2. no internet at home, 3. events in near future very likely will show just what type of human al-Sadr is. Have all the last words you need. Long may they last you.

[Ripley]

40. I'll have the last word...

To your #3: events in near future very likely will show just what type of human al-Sadr is.

That's a pretty vague statement. But I'll hazard a guess you mean he doesn't respect the Shia whom he is considered a leader. I don't know what will happen if he becomes a martyr by death/capture or if he lives on the run, like Arafat. But you seem to have some inside knowledge that he is going to resume "gassing his own people" like Saddam or something. I wonder how you know that.

I don't necessarily see someone who leads a resistance fighting an occupation by an outside country as a "bad" human. Do I know what "type" of human al Sadr is? No. But a lot of Iraqi citizens seem to, and I think it is their choice, not mine.

[markses]

41. A bizarre screed

You claim to know my ideology from my sentences, then balk when someone returns the same to you. Then the life story, which is supposed to do what?

Whatever type of person al-Sadr is (I suppose you accuse me of being a supporter), he has not demonstrated the capacity to level parts of large cities, as have his attackers. Your enthusiasm and faux justification for their efforts exposes you. One can note that you ceased justifying and started attacking me, which really says it all. I'll not end with last words, or strangely cede the last words to you (in order to seize them myself). You should, however, listen to yourself every once in awhile. You'd learn something.

[slojim240]

20. Every indiginous people fighting againt "occupiers" is labeled "terrorist"

"criminal" "thugs" It's a pattern. When you have the power to define, you have absolute power...good is evil, evil is good. Self-defense is an unprovoked attack; an unprovoked attack is self-defense. War is peace; peace is capitulation and bad. Drink up! This is the life we have orderd for ouselves. Deal with it!:toast:

[Ripley]

21. It reminds me of what happened in Haiti recently...

The media repeats the government line. Deposed leader. Militant cleric. They repeat it over and over, so no one questions why so many Haitians or Iraqis support those guys. We simply "know" that those men were our enemies, they were/are bad either crooks, or crazy anti-American potential dictators who are against their own people.

But when hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's are marching all over the whole damn country in support of al Sadr, not Allawi, and not just in the Sunni triangle, well.... you'd think there would be one honest-to-goodness American journalist out there who would want to report the real story. I guess not.

[stickdog]

22. The neocon doctrine is to thrive on chaos and upheaval.

They view violent uprisings and especially "terrorist acts" as their favored means of control.

Chalabi is still operating behind the scenes with Pearl's (and Wolfy's?) blessing to foment the seeds of an "indigenous" Iraqi uprising.

The neocons' idea, I think, is to try to rig all sides of the game. Unfortunately for them, al-Sadr is one of those "unriggable" wildcards, so they can only try to set themselves up to benefit from his martyrdom.

[bemildred]

24. Well sort of.

Chalabi == NEOCONs
Allawi == Pragmatists/State Dept.

The NEOCONs having driven things into the ditch, Allawi is
supposed to salvage it somehow, and the NEOCONs are temporarily
in eclipse, I think. They do seem to have a fondness for
"Shock and Awe" and "Shock treatment" and things with "shock" in
them, mainly because they think it lightens the burden of having
to think about what you are doing carefully so as not to fuck up.

[Vladimir]

27. Point C is the crux

IMO, if democratic elections were held in Iraq today (whatever democratic may mean in this context), al-Sadr would win by a landslide. And this would fuck the US six ways from Sunday.

[daleo]

34. There is also the minor point of Chalabi

First he is charged with money laundering, then upon his return he is not arrested. Who is Bush going to support, between Allawi and Chalabi? Does it even matter? Perhaps any and all potential puppet regimes will be rejected. Bush will kill a lot of Iraqis before he ever throws in the towel, though. As you say, killing Iraqis is good for his polls, as long as not too many U.S. soldiers die. I hope Kerry will be different in this regard. It is a sad fact, that we can't really be sure of this point.

[ecoalex]

38. Except Sistani had an angioplasty in England

I saw it on cursed CNN , the devil traitor.

[paulk]

42. I can't agree with the idea of Sistani being "ferried" out of the country.

Sistani more than likely left so he wouldn't be put into the position of taking sides - especially Sadr's side.

[Union Thug]

25. The US media tries to marginalize...

...al Sadr as a rogue radical with only a few armed thugs protecting him. However, I've heard a couple of reports now that mentione THOUSANDS of supporters offering to be human shields for the man.

The puppet government is in trouble.

[Disturbed]

35. Colonialization.

The last the thing that the Neo Fascist in charge of the USA want for any country in the ME is "democracy". Democracy the big lie that the Neo Fascists spout out to the ignorant. The USA is not a democracy. It is a Plutocracy.

The Hand-Over That Wasn't: Illegal Orders give the US a Lock on Iraq's Economy
by Antonia Juhasz

Officially, the U.S. occupation of Iraq ended on June 28, 2004. But in reality, the United States is still in charge: Not only do 138,000 troops remain to control the streets, but the "100 Orders" of L. Paul Bremer III remain to control the economy.

These little noticed orders enacted by Bremer, the now-departed head of the now-defunct Coalition Provisional Authority, go to the heart of Bush administration plans in Iraq. They lock in sweeping advantages to American firms, ensuring long-term U.S. economic advantage while guaranteeing few, if any, benefits to the Iraqi people.

The Bremer orders control every aspect of Iraqi life - from the use of car horns to the privatization of state-owned enterprises. Order No. 39 alone does no less than "transition from a … centrally planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat.

Although many thought that the "end" of the occupation would also mean the end of the orders, on his last day in Iraq Bremer simply transferred authority for the orders to Prime Minister Iyad Allawi - a 30-year exile with close ties to the CIA and British intelligence.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0805-07.htm

* If you read the entire article you will know that there is no "sovereignty" of Iraq. Dumbass doesn't know the meaning of the word and doesn't care.