http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/08/iraq.main/index.html Al-Sadr to followers: Fight Americans, not Iraqis BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A powerful and radical Shiite cleric implored his followers Sunday to stop killing Iraqis and focus their violent efforts on ousting American forces from the war-torn nation. Muqtada al-Sadr also called on Iraqi forces to join the insurgents in the battle against "the occupiers." The firebrand cleric's mandate came as a Baghdad security spokesman announced that a ban on civilian vehicular traffic will go into effect Monday, the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad. The 24-hour vehicle ban is slated to begin at 5 a.m. (10 p.m. Sunday ET), Baghdad security operations spokesman Gen. Qassim Atta said on Iraqi state television. South of the capital, in Diwaniya, U.S. and Iraqi forces were in their third day of battling al-Sadr's Mehdi Army. Meanwhile, caravans of the cleric's followers were converging on Najaf, south of Diwaniya, for an anti-American demonstration scheduled there Monday at al-Sadr's behest. They walked through the streets Sunday chanting in Arabic, "No, no to the occupiers; yes, yes to Islam" and "Iraq will always be independent and free of occupiers," police said. Najaf is an al-Sadr stronghold and a Shiite hub. Authorities are stepping up security and checkpoints to prepare for the influx of al-Sadr supporters, Najaf police said. In a statement -- attributed to al-Sadr and released in Najaf on Sunday -- the cleric purportedly said insurgents should not be killing Iraqis and that Iraqi police and troops should be on the side of the militias. "You, the Iraqi army and police forces, do not walk alongside the occupiers because they are your enemy," it said. "I am here to advise you the honest resister hopes for two thing from God: either victory or martyrdom. But at the same time, the honest resister should not kill a fellow Iraqi." The statement also carried a message to the Mehdi Army forces in Diwaniya: "My brothers in the Mehdi Army and my brothers in the Iraqi security forces, stop fighting each other. This will be an accomplishment in our enemy's scheme." The U.S. military said it has captured 39 militia fighters and killed several in the Diwaniya fighting, which began Friday and has been dubbed Operation Black Eagle. "So far, we have achieved great success fighting the terrorists," said Maj. Gen. Oothman Faroud, who is leading Iraqi soldiers in the Diwaniya operation. "We have freed the people of Diwaniya from the murder and intimidation that has plagued the city 24 hours a day, seven days a week for months."
nice diversion tactic. ignore the bombs blowing up innocent civilians and people trying to build a decent life...fight the "occupiers". hmmm...i wonder what is motivating him for such statements
Criticize me all you want, but the U.S. forces should have taken out Al-Sadr a long time ago. Now it's too late. There was a time he was on the run, could have been killed "accidently" and the ensuing ruckus would have been huge but manageable. Of all Shia leaders, this guy is most responsible for attacks against soldiers and death squads against Sunnis. He will be a bloody thorn in the side of Iraq for a long time.
We should have done it way before there was a Maliki government. Once Al-Sadr "crossed over" and became a part of the political process in Iraq, he became inoperable (if you know what I mean).
From what I understand it has had a positive effect on Baghdad, at least until a few days ago. Now if by 'working' you mean leading to the ultimate stability of Iraq, I would say no, but it has been effectual on a short term, local scale.
Saddam was doing a pretty good job of keeping his 'ilk' under control. Iraq could use another strong-armed dictator...too bad it will be a theocratic one.
via TMP -- The New York Times delivers the first major report on the surge's progress this morning, a painstaking effort involving statistics and on the ground reports. The verdict? American casualties are down in Iraq's provinces, but way up in Baghdad. Sectarian killings are down, but increased use of car bombs has kept the civilian death toll high -- and anyway the beheadings seem to be surging again. And as the U.S. moves to confront insurgents, the groups seem to be fracturing, making the fight increasingly confusing. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/w...ee3330e99&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
I think that this is a seriously flawed line of reasoning if for nothing else because of the likelihood that another radically inclined leader would fill the power vacuum. Just like taking out Saddam didn't really do anything positive for the long-term process of Iraqi democratization, killing Al-Sadr would do nothing positive for the long-term process of purging radicalism from Iraq.
precisely. just like zarqawi or hussein or any of these others haven't done much. the problem is systemic. but we just want to address its symptoms.
Because of his family background, Al-Sadr had a platform to wield influence that none of the other Shia radicals had. The fact that one individual like him has so much influence is very negative because the other Shia leaders can barely influence him. Taking Al-Sadr out a while back would have dealt a major blow to the growth and power of radical Shia militias in Iraq. Of course some would have tried to take his place, but this guy is very unique and his influence cannot be replaced. Secondly, the main problem with radicals in Iraq was (and still is I guess) in the Sunni camp. That is another, completely different equation. The more Al-Sadr's influence grows, the more one can argue HE is a bigger threat to Iraq's long term stability than the Sunni terrorists. In fact, some have argued a few months ago that he crossed that threshold and is already the biggest threat to Iraq right now. Lastly, comparing taking out Al-Sadr to invading Iraq is ridiculous and beyond absurd.
