Al Sadr in Tehran

Yes there can be doubt. Might they be supporting insurgents? Sure they might be.

But until we have real proof there can be doubt.

I am troubled by the lack of focus. Most of the U.S. troops have been killed by Sunni insurgents which definitely aren't in Sadr's militia, and aren't getting help from the Iranians. We need to focus on where the threat facing our troops is coming from.

 

These paragraphs are not exactly encouraging, no matter how you read it. Sounds like he may have retreated more because of the internal politics of his organization. If he bolted because he was driven out by more extreme elements, that doesn't bode well. Furthermore, if this part is true, why are we trying to kill Al-Sadr... shouldn't we be focusing on the extremists in his group putting the pressure on him?

Another reading of the story is that things are going exactly like some predicted... everybody hides until the "surge" manpower can no longer be maintained and then the violence starts again when we start to draw down as we inevitably must. And I find it questionable that he would fear a JDAM now more than before... it doesn't take 20,000 troops to drop a JDAM or figure out where his house is.

I also find it unremarkable that he would travel to Iran. I'm sure there will be some discussions while he's there, but as FB points out, this has nothing to do with the Sunnis.

I guess if you're inclined to look for anything that supports an attack on Iran or the Bush Plan in Iraq, this sounds like something, but color me unimpressed. At best, it's a lull, at worst it's the beginning of a more extreme leadership of the Mahdi Army.

 

I heard this on NPR and according to the report it said this wasn't confirmed. Also it seems strange since my understanding is that Al Sadr is on the no-touch list as the government and military knows that if Al Sadr was to be killed or even detained that would destabilize things much more.

 

we always know where sadr is but the troops aren't allowed to touch him; this troop increase has nothing to do with his move. his move is all about internal politics if it is even happening.

 

Yesterday: Blitzer talks with Michael Ware (CNN CORRESPONDENT in Iraq)

--------------------

BLITZER: We're following breaking news here in Washington. Two sources confirming to CNN's Suzanne Malveaux over at the White House that Muqtada al-Sadr, the radical anti-American Shiite leader in Iraq, the leader of the Mehdi Army has fled to Iran, circumstances unknown. The sources telling our Suzanne Malveaux and other news organizations here in the United States that he fled some two to three weeks ago. Let's go to Baghdad. Michael Ware is joining us, our correspondent on the scene.

Michael, give us your sense of what potentially this means. These U.S. sources suggesting Muqtada al-Sadr has fled to neighboring Iran.

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, it's 3:00 a.m. here in Iraq as this news is breaking. Clearly, it's very difficult to contact anybody. And frankly, what people in Washington are saying often bears little relation to what is really going on here on the ground.

So right now, it's only speculation that Muqtada has left. Has he left? If he did, did he flee, if so, for what reason? We have no idea right now, Wolf. Indeed, we were speaking to Muqtada's office in Najaf just a few days ago. They were certainly saying he was still in Iraq in Najaf.

We have sources close to his party who this evening were saying that they had heard this rumor a couple of days ago. They spoke to Muqtada's people. They were told also that he was here in Iraq, in Najaf. Now you would expect them to tell you this if he's fled, but you would also expect them to tell you this if he's here.

Either way, at the end of the day, what does it really mean? Is he running in flight for fear of the Baghdad security plan? I think that's most unlikely. I don't think Muqtada himself, his personal safety or freedom is really threatened politically or militarily by the Baghdad security plan. Indeed, if he does go to Iraq, does it weaken his power base?

I suspect not. I think it will put stress on it, but Osama bin Laden is in hiding and al Qaeda is still thriving. We see (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq on the run constantly. His organization doesn't skip a beat. I suspect that if Muqtada has gone to Iran for whatever reason, for whatever period, we'll not see the end of the Mehdi militia or the Sadr political movement.

BLITZER: In other words, potentially he may have just made a visit, a business visit to Iran along the lines of other Iraqi leaders, Muqtada al-Sadr, the president of Iraq, Jalal Talabani, all of them have at one point or another gone to Teheran for a visit, and it's potentially possible he may have just gone over to check in with Iranian leaders.

WARE: He's done that several times in the past, as I understand. Indeed, he was preparing for a visit to Damascus this week or next week. He's traveled the region just at the end of last year. On the stump, rallying support and reassuring Arab Sunni leaders. I mean this is a man who from time to time travels.

He coordinates with other leaders, and he coordinates with his various sponsors, including those who are in Iran. So is he here, is he not? Has he fled, has he gone of his own volition for what purpose? Totally up in the air. Let's go back and ask the White House and these unnamed sources, come clean, give us the facts.

BLITZER: How important is Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq, Michael?

WARE: Well, Muqtada's a vital element in many, many ways. I mean he's not the most powerful force or the politically or militarily here, but he certainly is someone who is in a position in the middle of such relative strength that he found himself in the driver's seat as king maker, able to propel an otherwise compromised candidate for prime minister into the, you know one of the top jobs in the country, as the chief executive.

He's also got a militia that on the streets, on its own turf, has certainly given the U.S. military as good almost as it's received. Indeed, Sadr City, home to half the population, blindly loyal to this man, Muqtada al-Sadr, remains a place where U.S. forces can only go in guns blazing and tear out the same way. So this is a formidable individual.

He has political forces and militia factions throughout southern Iraq. Now, the Iranians have been putting pressure on him. He hasn't been playing ball with the Americans, and he hasn't entirely played ball with the Iranians. They have been chipping away at his (UNINTELLIGIBLE) so yes he's in a slightly weakened position right now. But right -- honestly, Wolf, everything is on the table in this country in every direction that you look, including Muqtada.

BLITZER: Michael, you were at that briefing over the weekend when military sources -- U.S. military sources in Baghdad suggested that the highest levels of the Iranian government were behind the introduction of these sophisticated munitions that were going into Iraq over the past couple of years, killed about 170 or so American troops.

And now we're hearing from the top U.S. military officer, General Peter Pace, saying he's not convinced that the highest levels of the Iranian government are behind it. He's not sure who is behind it. Are you surprised by this latest twist in this story?

WARE: Well honestly I'm not surprised by anything that comes out of the U.S. military these days, Wolf. I mean you know even when they have a song sheet, often it's -- they're not all on it. I mean let's look at the most recent helicopter crash. They're out there telling us it was a mechanical failure. The next minute, it was shot down. I mean there are so many contradictions in the U.S. message. I mean that's one of its great failings, so no, I'm not surprised. There's a lot of disconnects here.

BLITZER: Michael Ware on the scene for us in Baghdad.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/13/sitroom.03.html

 

maybe, maybe no, but he ain't no slouch

 

Interesting that you now agree with the logic that says that setting a troop withdrawal date is flawed b/c the insurgents will just hide until the date arrives....

All of this, of course, is with the backdrop of the liberals' political pressure (and media support of it) limiting our alternatives...

Hypocrisy at its finest, ladies and gents. Courtesy of the whino-libpig party...

 

basso, do you have anything to contradict what Ware is saying?

 

Once again you have shown that you are unable to grasp what the opposition are saying. Nobody is denying there will be chaos, just that the same chaos will take place later as well.

 

What on earth does this post have to do with anything? Certainly, it has nothing to do with Iraq, our invasion and occupation, and the chaos engendered by it. You could just as easily posted something about the Holocaust and Hitler. Aren't you ever concerned, basso, that by overreaching so much, you are apt to fall squarely upon your face?



D&D. Thump.

 

too late

 

By staying until '75 instead of leaving in '68 or '69 changed things how? Other than thousands of more dead U.S. soldiers?

Staying until '77 instead of '75 would have prevented what?

The sad history repeating has little to do with getting our soldiers out, and everything with putting them in in the first place.

What do you think will change in 2 years that will make it more feasable to get out then?

Everyone who talks about us not leaving because of chaos isn't coming up with a plan to halt the chaos at a later date or spelling out what will change other than more dead Americans by us staying.

 

As opposed to basso, 'on the scene' in Houston, TX to tell us about how the green zone doesn't really count as being in Iraq? Ever been to the green zone basso?

 

Not quite the same... still, I suppose his news analysis would be much more trenchant and his sources much better if he were reporting from his kidnapped location or the grave.

Implying the guy is a coward when he is over there away from family and friends and safety is really beyond the pale, particularly when the guy making the charge is sitting at home sipping brandy.

 

No, I agree with the administration and the military experts who have said repeatedly that the "surge" cannot be maintained given current troop levels.

I suppose you could make that leap and apply the same reasoning to a dated withdrawal, but the fact that you blame liberals and media for limiting the alternatives is way out of whack. This is the administration's war and their screw-up. By pursuing it and executing it the way they have, our alternatives are nothing better than a choice between bad and worse. Bad is leaving soon, worse is leaving later with the same results. By Bush continuing to define "victory" in a way that is designed for his domestic political base instead of dealing with the reality on the ground, he absolutely narrows our options... and does it with the support of people like you.

The hypocrisy is all yours TJ.

 

What does this example have to do with what's going on in Iraq?

 

You appear to play some interesting and cynical games, basso. What is it about my unacceptable Vietnam reference that is different from your Cambodia reference? Is it the fact that I tried to actually explain what factors made those references valid?

I guess this means that you think you can only come out with a favorable argument in discussions by manipulating the rules for that discussion? When you resort to this kind of manipulation, I think you actually do more of a disservice for your point of view than if you just ignored on the discussion. It reeks of desperation.

Sometimes I think you are a very intelligent and thoughtful person, in spite of the fact that I usually disagree. Sometimes, usually when you use these disingenuous tactics, I wonder if there are actually two very similar people posting under one pseudonym. I do think it is reasonable to make some allowance for the constant attack you receive as the only apparently sane person around here capable of arguing your point of view, but in this instance the dichotomy just seems too calculated for me to attribute it to frustration.