Sistani Arrives to Break US Seige of Najaf Shrine.

Things are complex. From a Time Magazine piece.
********

Moqtada's Here to Stay
The lesson of Najaf is that Sadr's radical populism has a large following


...Reports from the frontline leave no doubt that U.S. and Iraqi forces were closing in on the shrine, while many Sadrist fighters had already fled. But their "defense" of the most revered of Shiite shrines under fire from a widely loathed "infidel" army has further enhanced Moqtada Sadr's already considerable political standing among Iraqi Shiites — a fact that has led the interim government to stress that even after three weeks of violent defiance, it wants to draw Sadr into the political process, for the simple reason that he's too dangerous to them outside. Indeed, the government will quietly breathe a sigh of relief if Sadr emerges from the standoff unscathed, because if he'd been killed during the battle his followers would likely have waged a low-intensity guerrilla war against the U.S. and its Iraqi allies for the foreseeable future.

The political victory of Sadr's Mehdi army may only be coming into view with the resolution as orchestrated by Sistani. Najaf is in ruins, and while many of the city's residents will blame Sadr for choosing to fight there, there's little doubt that throughout Iraq and the wider Arab world the inclination will be to hold the U.S. responsible. Sadr's message of uncompromising opposition to the American presence in Iraq may resonate even more strongly.

Media accounts usually contrast Sadr's radicalism with Sistani's moderation, and draw attention to the fact that the latter is a far more influential figure among Iraqi Shiites. But the fact that Sistani appears to have been compelled to rush back from Britain — where he was undergoing treatment for a heart condition — in order to lead a mass march on Najaf is an indicator that things are not quite that simple.

The Grand Ayatollah is a strictly religious figure, whose authority is recognized and venerated — even as it is, effect, challenged to move in a more radical direction — by Sadr's movement. Sistani is a "Marjah," an object of emulation in the Shiite tradition, whose position is attained through decades of patient learning and Islamic jurisprudence. Sadr is a junior cleric, although his supporters have taken to referring to him as a Hujjat al-Islam, or jurisprudent, the next step up the ladder, although most observers doubt he has completed the requisite studies.

But Sadr's challenge occurs less in the realm of religion than in the realm of politics,

link

 

Surfguy, I don't think Sadr's purpose was to protect the Mosque. He was using the Mosque for protection.

I think Sadr is just acting like a politician. He is appealing to the great majority of Itaqis who want the US invaders to just leave. Someone is going to fill that void.

Don't forget that very few Iraqis other than Chalabi and the exiles wanted us to go to war in the first place. Once it happend, many were glad Sadam was gone, but then wanted us to leave.

The neocons of course are determined to stay for many years, so the killing goes on.

 

Winners and losers: per Juan Cole

I think the big losers from the Najaf episode (part deux) are the Americans. They have become, if it is possible, even more unpopular in Iraq than they were last spring after Abu Ghuraib, Fallujah and Najaf Part 1. The US is perceived as culturally insensitive for its actions in the holy city of Najaf.

The Allawi government is also a big loser. Instead of looking decisive, as they had hoped, they ended up looking like the lackeys of neo-imperialists.

The big winner is Sistani, whose religious charisma has now been enhanced by solid nationalist credentials. He is a national hero for saving Najaf.

For Muqtada, it is a wash. He did not have Najaf until April, anyway, and can easily survive not having it. His movement in the slums of the southern cities is intact, even if its paramilitary has been weakened.

posted by Juan @ 8/27/2004 06:52:17 AM from juancole.com