Al-Sadr Calls on Militia to End Uprising

That's great news. Declaring that security and stability have to be the first priority should soon separate out the iraqis from al queda et al. If successful it may sound the beginning of the end of Al Queda.

 

Please elaborate.

Al Qaeda survived quite well without having anything more than minimal affiliated operations in Iraq from its inception to 2003. How would this be the beginning of the end of their Pakistani, Afghan, Saudi, Yemeni, Sudanese, Egyptian, Turkish, North African, Indonesian, European & American operations?

 

I think he just means Al Qeda in Iraq, like if you keep fighting you are not a real Iraqi Muslim but an outsider fomenting trouble.

That would put the rebels about on par with the US troops as invaders to galvinize a pro-Iraqi nationalist movement and promote cooperation between the sects and warlords.

It wouldn't be much of a stretch to say the US/Allawi coalition might get a little help from the Mullahs on locating and striking Al Qeda cells inside Iraq on the enemy of my enemy basis.

 

Absolutely correct about within Iraq, GP.

Although I don't want to too positive for you, Sam, but that might have a lot of effect on AQ in other places. Not the West saying 'get out - we don't agree with your radicalism,' but a muslim nation saying it. And AQ wouldn't have much choice but to continue to declare the new Iraqi regime an enemy, even if people like Sadr join them - because they are clearly renouncing AQ.

Don't hit the roof now though, Sam. A LOT stuff would have to fall in place for that to happen. But I wouldn't mind.

 

None of your analysis computes.

Shi'ite Sadr would never have been anythng more than a temprorary Al Qaeda ally of convenience. Never underestimate the amount of acrimony between Shiites and SUnnis, especially in Iraq.

Anyway, where are all the people condemning the appeasement of Sadr? He's come off as a winner in all this, he led a bloody guerilla/terrorist uprising against the US, killed lots of americans, sacrificed a lot of his own people, survived, and was rewarded by recognition by Sistani as a legitimate figure. He's well on the way to rehabiitation

The loser of course is US backed Allawi. Upstaged by Sistani he loses legitimacy.

Finally, even if it happened, how would the removal of loosely affiliated Al Qaeda groups in Iraq lead to a "domino effect?" Al Qaeda is already officially persona non grata in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, etc etc etc. But they're still there. Hell, the only time the Saudi citizenry gets upset is when they attack w/in the Kingdom.

 

Again I think the Musilm leaders are sage old politicians that use posturing and fluid alliances to advance their agenda. They may not like it but the US is a force within Iraq. If they see we won't oppose them as they consolidate their power base of (Shia over Sunni) if they just give up Al Qeda (more Baathist, Sunni than Al Qeda in reality) I think they will be pragmatic. It advances their cause.

I think but we can probably also use our influence to protect the minority rights of the Kurds , perhaps even with some degree of autonomy.

We give up some of our desire for secularism and womens rights but you have to compromise to get out of this at some point. And it may be in the long run the Sunni's will side with the secularist to counter the Mullahs so you end up somewhere between Turkey and Iran.

 

Oh, ok. Well nevermind then

Its not about a permanent connection between AQ and Sadr, its about the outgoing perception of AQ among Muslims. The perception is that neither Sadr or Sistani are US puppets, and when they come out against AQ that affects their legitimacy among everyday Iraqis, and potentially other Muslims. That is far different that the Saudi government or Afghan government condemning AQ.

You can't have it both ways, Sam. Either you think its a good thing the uprising is over (which one might reasonably infer from your previous posts about how bad the violence is), or not. If you think Sadr should have been more forcefully taken down, then you sure are doing a terrible job conveying it, lol. Sadr coming into the process is ultimately far more desirable than blowing up the shrine, wouldn't you say?Sistani hasn't shown that he wants to assume a political position, and that is unlikely, so there is no zero sum game between the two, as you assume. Regardless, as long as Iraq is stabilized there is a good chance for a desirable outcome, whether Allawi is still in power or not.

Because the main conduit to success for a group like AQ is support. While AQ has been condemned by governments across the globe, there seems to be plenty of support for them because those are seen as US puppets. If the perception starts to change from 'AQ is mujahadeen-like friendly muslims' to 'AQ is foreign interlopers with no interest in the everyday muslims welfare,' then that support could easily be affected. Exactly the same way the AQ attacks in SA make Saudis think twice about their opinion of AQ.

And in the beginning of Osama's rise they were not PNG, but one by one they have lost their state sponsors (Sudan and Afghanistan for example). Now their support is more localized and more dependent on the perception at large of their organization. AQ is a rabid dog and people will inevitably have to turn their support away as they get more and more radical and kill more and more people. This kind of denouncing can accelerate that process.

 

Generally, most of the comments from Sistani and such tend to be that they shouldn't attack other muslims, just westerners, and that they are infidels, etc.

I don't see that having the domino effect that you do. That's the kind of thinking that thought that we could have a self supporting Athenian democracy rebuild itself in Iraq under the peaceful rule of President Chalabi.

I don't remember taking a position either way. I'm just asking about what all of the red blooded hardliners who demanded that we crush the insurgency like bug justify the non-crushing thereof.

Actually, throwing him a bone or two a few years ago probably would have saved 1000's, or more of lives.

IRan v. 2.0 is a desirable outcome? Wow, glad we went to war for that. No WMD's, and a potential shiite theocracy.

I
Unfortunately, there's not a local Al Qaeda knights of columbus hall so that you can go in and evict them. Plus I doubt that the disbanding of a few hundred or thousand militants in Iraq will incite this sea change you predict as previously stated.

I'm pretty sure the perception of Al Qaeda in Spain was pretty negative. That didn't stop the Spanish group of loosely affiliated Moroccans in the Madrid suburbs. Plus, I don't think anybody in Waziristan really gives too much of a damn if they don't already.

 

I don't trust al-Sadr one tiny bit. The man has been shameless about using one of the most holy places of his own branch of Islam for his own purposes. Personal, political, or just a quest for some sort of justification for his existence, being the son of the former top Shia religious leader in Iraq, Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr, murdered by Saddam, most believe, in 1999.

That he is an opportunist to the nth degree is without question. He may be half mad. It wouldn't surprise me. He doesn't act like a sane person to me, simply because of the use of the Iman Ali mosque as a base for armed conflict. It's akin to using the holy sites in Mecca to battle the Saudi government, if you were an insurgent. Perhaps using holy sites for armed conflict is a Muslim tradition. I would doubt that, but I'm not an expert on religion.

I just don't trust him one damn bit. If he is allowed the kind of control over Najaf that is exercised by opponents of the occupation in Fallujah, and the surrounding area, then further trouble for the occupation and the "interim government" is assured. Sadly, I think that's the case, regardless.

The only positive from this, that I can see, is that the Iman Ali mosque has been spared destruction. I hope that can continue to be the case. It would have been better to have gotten rid of al-Sadr, instead of "enhancing" his reputation among Iraqi's who are influenced by his "message." It looks like that would have meant the destruction of Iraq's most holy place, so I'm not sure if it was ever a serious option.

The message, from us, is becoming pretty clear right now, to the insurgents and the extremists, that if you hold out and fight long enough, we will let you wiggle out to fight another day. In my opinion, we wouldn't have seen this happen in Najaf if we had taken care of business in Fallujah.

 

Well, I did see you say in another thread that you hadn't looked at the video the thread was about, so maybe you didn't read the article before you jumped in. The call was for an end to the insurgency against US and Iraqi forces. US forces generally are not regarded as muslims, although I'm sure there are some.

No. Its exactly the opposite. The reason it has a better chance of resonating is precisely because sistani and sadr are NOT chalabi style so-called puppets.

OK well have fun with your trolling.

Could be, or maybe he would have made his power play through violence. Not sure why that's a given, insightful, or relevant to whether it is NOW a good thing. It certainly doesn't prove this development is NOT a good thing, and seems to go the other way.

Well, millions of Iraqis won't die now because of sanctions. A murderous genocidal dictator is no longer in power. There is a good chance there won't be a theocracy, but if there is it will be the Iraqis who decide to do it. Which of those things don't you like? Besides, Sistani, for example, has already weighed in that he was not seeking a theocracy and their secularly educated public buffers against that. As does their reproach to Iran's delegation seeking more influence.

Sigh. Little quips don't further your argument. As the perception of their legitimacy wanes, so will there support. Safe houses will become less. Tips and information will become more readily available. Recruiting will tail off. Businesses will be less likely to risk exposure by funneling money.

Obviously you doubt this. I guess we'll see what we'll see.

I'm not familiar with Waziristan, but many of AQ's operatives in the field are not ignorant hillbillies. They're educated and from mainline Muslim powers like Saudi Arabia. The more respected clerics, that cannot be brushed off as US puppets, denounce them, the less support they'll have over time. The thing that binds these loose groups is their religion. More and more members of AQ will question why killing Muslims wholesale is within the dictates of the religion. It is inevitable that there will be a breakdown. The question is how fast. Contravening authority figures can speed the process. Simple and hardly outlandish.

The bottom line is that I hope you're big enough to eat crow when things turn out ok in Iraq, and you're stuck holding the 'we should have left Saddam in power and stayed out of it' bag.

 

Hayes, rather than the point by point back and forth train to nowhere, I'll say this: You admitted above that your theory of Sadr and Sistani leading a domino effect ending in the downfall of Al Qaeda is a longshot, I agree.

I like my odds better than yours, so you can save your crow if you have any left over from the whole pre -war support thing. Where's your WMD bag?

Edit: BTW, I must say that I am glad you trust Ayahtollah Sistani's advocation of a non-theocracy (which, actually, isn't really true, what he advocates is direct elections so that he can get his supporters to elect islamists, such as himself). No chance he could be playing us, is there? He must be one of those secular ayataollahs, perhaps he is just an Ayahtollah of Rock and Rolla?

 

btw: thanks, Cohen. That was very nice of you to say.

I didn't say it was a longshot. I said it would be one step towards the inevitable decline of AQ.

Glad you're happy with yourself and your continous negative outlook. As I've been through with Glynch, whose persona your are seemingly gravitating towards, my views about the justifications for intervention haven't changed at all. As I've pointed out above, and that you ignore, quite a few good things have already come from the intervention.

Oh how quaint. More funnys from Sam. I never said I had complete faith in Sistani. I said he's come out to stop the insurgency, along now with Sadr. That is good. He has not made any overtures for political office himself. That is good. Sadr is no longer fighting. That is good. Both of them have now advocated Iraqis ceasing the insurgency, and that is good. Both because it reduces the number of insurgents while increasing the stability of Iraq and because it is desirable that muslim figures outside the US sphere of influence (or so perceived) denounce groups like AQ. Whether he's 'playing us' or not neither of us are in a position to know. As I've said before - if there is a theocracy and it comes through elections, I don't find that optimal but the Iraqis would have had their chance at a secular democracy. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so. And that's really worst case. Not the whole destabilization of the Middle East, or the 1000% upswing in terrorism that some people (how's your credibility doing these days?) that some predicted.

 

Sorry happy bunny, didn't mean to spoil the optimism of you throwing your lot in with Sadr and Sistani. Ahhh, democracy.

But yeah, I'm real redfaced over that decrease in terrorism that resulted.

And by "decrease", as the state department claimed, I mean "increased", as did the state department.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/10/powell.terror.report.ap/

I'm pretty sure my credibility is higher than theirs "Terrorism decreased this year and we are right, booyah!...oh wait, we forgot to count a few months, it, uh, increased"

I'm glad that you and I and red blooded americans will be able to walk the streets of Baghdad, Cairo, and Riyadh without getting kidnapped and then my head cut off. Safety rocks! I loved not being able to get into my apartment complex without showing my keys due to an orange alert!

But don't let me ruin your party Hayes. Keep acting like the war is a success and was the awesome idea that you promised and you might believe it on day! Bet the long shot, you know, Rudy Ruetteger was a long shot too!

 

Get a grip. I'm optimistic about what appears to be a good development in Iraq. Not sure what your problem with that is. Oh, right...no optimism allowed.

This is like arguing with the GOP, lol. Never claimed it decreased, so I'm not sure why this CNN article is relevant. What I said was that doomsayers such as yourself were wrong that terrorism would explode and surely we would see many more attacks at home, which we haven't. Another red herring from the....Sham? Isn't that what they call you?

Ah, now I understand. Your convenience is the most important factor we've all been missing! And to think they'd want to increase domestic security after, uh, i dunno.....people flew big planes into US buildings? But that was a result of the Iraq interven......no, that's not right.

You're pretty non-responsive but that's not a suprise really. glynch rarely answers a post either. I know you showing your keys to get in your building is a big impact on all our lives. I, for one, will be up late tonight trying to figure out how I can help you on that one. But as I've pointed out, millions of Iraqis won't die now because there are no sanctions, the whole of the Iraqi population is out from under Saddam's boot and heading towards self determination - whichever form that may take, and a state sponsor of terror is gone. Those are facts, and they're a liiiiiiiittle more important than your convenience. Now you can weigh on one hand the increase in terrorism, which is certainly bad, and the decrease in US credibility internationally - if you can weigh than (you can't) and on the other the advantages ALREADY accrued by the intervention. Its not even close in favor of the intervention. So keep on wishing for the worst despite the facts. Its your miserable life.

 

Hayes, let me get this straight: You consider it a moral victory that acts of terror were sharply up, as long as it wasn't 1000 %, and as long as they weren't in the continental US?


It's funny, because, you know, on one hand you speak with great joy as to the enhanced human rights of the Iraqi citizens for whom we expended billions, killed tens of thousands of, gave up a 1000 of our own people in the process, hamstrung our millitary capablility, and ruined our political capital abroad. I never knew you were such a bleeding heart. But on the other hand - terror attacks up? Hundreds of dead spanish? Hey, wasn't us, pablo!

 

No. Not what I said. I said the increase was not even close to what the doomsayers predicted.

We expended billions, yes - and? As far as the dead: thousands died yes - millions saved - yes. You do the math.

Hamsrung our military - i like this one from the non-intervention crowd. You're against intervention but think we should keep our military out of interventions so we can intervene, lol. That makes sense!

Ruined our political capital abroad: again impossible to gauge - as I've shown in many threads already, the 9/11 political capital started to plummet as soon as we intervened in Afghanistan. Combined with Kyoto, the ABM Treaty, steel tariffs and other administration actions, this is hardly a unique effect of the intervention in Iraq.

Millions saved, dictator removed, state sponsor of terror removed - all those are good things. And facts rather than speculative 'crediblity' assertions. The policy comparision is simple. If you had your way Saddam would still be in power, the Iraqis under a never ending cycle of totalitarianism, millions would be dying from sanctions, and Iraq would still be sponsoring terrorism as a state. In the status quo none of those are true. You can claim your policy is better but there is no warrant for that claim.

 

How many millions were saved? you show me the math.

And by the way, if this is true, why don't the 80 -90% or so of Iraqis who don't want us around recognize this? I would figure that they would have better information in this area than you or me.

I"m against interventions? No I'm not. I'm against stupid interventions like this one.

I think we should have intervened in places where they can actually do something productive rather than create more terrorists. Or maybe we should have shored up Afghanistan before it slid back in to chaos.

And I've shown you many times that you are wrong, with empirical evidence
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206

Now where's your empirical evidence, Hayes? Please present it.

It's funny how you pretend like I'm the one speculating. You have not offered one shred of empirical data for any of your various theses. I invite you to present any if you have it now.