Juan Cole's Informed Comment on the return of Sistani

[Career Prole]

http://www.juancole.com/2004_08_01_juancole_archive.html#109346534326005705

Sistani's return raises many questions. Note that he did not fly into American-controlled Baghdad but rather to Kuwait, traveling overland to Basra. Since Basra is in British hands, with a Shiite governor that seems pro-Sistani, it seems possible that Sistani's people coordinated his return with the British and with the Basra authorities rather than with the United States and the Allawi government. Indeed, America's most militant asset in Najaf, governor Ali al-Zurfi, seems dead set against Sistani returning with crowds this way. You have to wonder if the British MI6 and military are showing some insubordination toward the Americans by allowing all this, as a mark of their disapproval of the gung-ho Marine attacks in Najaf, which have caused trouble in the British-held South and endangered the British garrisons.

<snip>

If Sistani does lead a popular march of the sort the press is describing, it might be the most significant act of civil disobedience by an Asian religious leader since Gandhi's salt march in British India. And it might kick off the beginning of the end of American Iraq, just as the salt march knelled the end of the British Indian empire.


Professor Cole presents his usual sound insights on Sistani's return and the march to Najaf which he'll be leading but my biggest question on this situation was not answered there.
Sistani is highly popular, but also frail and made this trip in defiance of medical advice.
Does anyone have any thoughts/insight on which way this could go if Sistani's heart should give out and he dies from the stress?
I'm having thoughts a volatile situation could erupt in a flash, but to whom would the anger be directed...al-Sadr or the U.S. occupation?

[Tatiana]

1. This is one of the day's MOST SIGNIFICANT developments!

(emphasis mine):

Sistani's return raises many questions. Note that he did not fly into American-controlled Baghdad but rather to Kuwait, traveling overland to Basra. Since Basra is in British hands, with a Shiite governor that seems pro-Sistani, it seems possible that Sistani's people coordinated his return with the British and with the Basra authorities rather than with the United States and the Allawi government. Indeed, America's most militant asset in Najaf, governor Ali al-Zurfi, seems dead set against Sistani returning with crowds this way. You have to wonder if the British MI6 and military are showing some insubordination toward the Americans by allowing all this, as a mark of their disapproval of the gung-ho Marine attacks in Najaf, which have caused trouble in the British-held South and endangered the British garrisons. Likewise, one wonders if Basra governor Hassan al-Rashid is entirely loyal to Allawi. A lot of southern Shiites would be pretty upset with the way Allawi and his two main henchmen, Interior Minister Falah al-Naqib and Defense Minister Hazem Shaalan have been reviving old Baathist stereotypes about the Shiites and pursuing iron fist policies in the Shiite holy city of Najaf.

If Sistani does lead a popular march of the sort the press is describing, it might be the most significant act of civil disobedience by an Asian religious leader since Gandhi's salt march in British India. And it might kick off the beginning of the end of American Iraq, just as the salt march knelled the end of the British Indian empire.

Juan is no alarmist. He usually provides pretty cogent analysis. I tend to agree with him here. I think the British, very quietly behind the scenes, are trying to distance themselves from American brute force and work with the Iraqis to expel the U.S. presence in the region and bring stability.

[Career Prole]

3. You noticed that too, eh?

It struck me as a strikingly strange way to make an entrance. That's why I included it in the quote. I wanted a second opinion and I got it...thanks, Tatiana! :thumbsup:

[starroute]

2. I'm not sure it would result in anger

Americans have a strong belief in cause and effect. As a result, when bad things happen, they always look around for someone to blame.

Moslems are far more fatalistic. They consider everything that happens as the will of Allah. So I don't believe they'd blame either the Americans or al-Sadr if al-Sistani died.

I'm fairly sure they would regard him as a martyr and would regard his death as a self-sacrifice that underscored the worthiness of his cause. However, I have no idea whether this would make them more likely to turn towards violence or whether it would reinforce al-Sistani's own policies of more tempered opposition.

[Career Prole]

4. Thank you, starroute. I think what worries me most is if some in the crowd

feel it was the will of Allah for Sistani to lead them to martyrdom in their holy city. An overwrought, grief-stricken crowd, a rock thrown here...an overly tense trigger-finger there...maybe I just worry too much. I believe I'll drink to Ali Sistani's health to be on the safe side. :scared:

[robertpaulsen]

5. Kicked and bookmarked!

An important story with clear-headed insight.

:kick: