The Mahdi Army is back. From the Telegraph, with thanks to JJohnson:
American troops and the Mahdi Army militia of Moqtada al-Sadr clashed in the slums of Baghdad yesterday, raising fears for the future of a year-long US truce with the fiery Shia cleric's gunmen.The fighting came as insurgent attacks took the lives of at least 31 people, including 13 commandos from the elite Wolf Brigade, the Iraqi army's showcase anti-terrorism unit, killed when a suicide bomber rammed into their convoy in the south-east of the capital.
Mahdi Army gunmen opened fire on US forces that entered their stronghold in Baghdad's Sadr City slums to arrest three of their colleagues accused by the Americans of running a "kidnap and torture" cell.
Coalition forces in Iraq appear to have run out of patience with the Mahdi Army after what one US officer described as "repeated provocation" in recent months.
The crackdown began last week when British officers arrested three senior Mahdi Army officials in Basra on suspicion of carrying out attacks on military targets in southern Iraq.
The arrests caused a week of tension in the southern city between British forces and Sadr's outlawed Mahdi Army, which was suspected of having taken captive two undercover British soldiers who were later arrested.
The jihadists made a peace agreement, and then broke that agreement when it became advantageous to them?
Hmmm, after 1,400 years, I'm starting to see a pattern here.
An indistinguished member of a supposedly distinguished family of Shi'a clerics who were, according to Gertrude Bell, a source of discontent and insurrection in the 1920s, a seminary student who is stuck permanently at the ABD (All-But-Dissertation)level, not because he has been ill-treated but becuae he is just too stupid, and will never rise to the grade attained by Al-Sistani and resents it, and takes that malevolent and turbaned resentment and with it has built his own following, which appeals in turn to the resentments of the lowest economic class of Shi'a, those who not only resent the Sunni masters but the better-off Shi'a for whom, if religious, al-Sistani may speak, and the much smaller class of so-called "secular" Shi'a for whom Allawi, Chalabi, et al. may represent.
What does Moqtada al-Sadr want? Whatever he can get. He would like power, recognition, respect, money. If not in some philo-Iranian camp (as, say, some members of both the SCIRI and Dawa Parties), it is not because he dislikes the power of clerics in the Islamic Republic of Iran, but rather because he dislikes the pecking-order of clerics, that Qom-seminary ranking, in which he, alas, hardly rates a mention. Better to be a big fish in the pond of Sadr City than a guppy in the greater world of Iranian Shi'a.
His fighting against the Americans in Najaf and elsewhere should not confuse the Americans into thinking he is part of the Sunni attacks, both by followers of Al Qaeda who regard the Shi'a as Infidels (as Zarqawi has repeatedly insisted), and by those who wish to preserve Sunni Arab supremacy even though, in the new "democratic" regime, they don't have the votes. He is out for himself and only himself. If he were to disappear, the movement would disappear, and the Shi'a who gave their support to his chiliastic Mahdi Army would revert to supporting the mainstream as represented by the Dawa and SCIRI parties, and al-Sistani, the man whom Tom Friedman enthusiastically insisted should be awarded the Nobel Prize.
If the Americans withdraw soon, As Soon As Possible, starting one minute after the December 2005elections, what one might call bellovianly The Deen's December, they will do more than husband resources that are now being squandered. They will force Moqtada al-Sadr either to betray the Shi'a and throw in his lot with the hated Sunnis (an impossibliity), or to bend to the will of the much larger number of Shi'a who have not been impressed with his wild-eyed hysterical rants to the Shi'a underclass. They know what his forces did in Najaf to the Shi'a they kidnapped and killed. One has only to take a look at his face, his demeanor, to take his measure -- and the Allawis and the Chalabis and even al-Jaafari and al-Hakim, loath him, as of course they should. If the Americans leave, he will be taken care of, put paid to, by one side, or the other. It really does not matter which.
An indistinguished member of a supposedly distinguished family of Shi'a clerics who were, according to Gertrude Bell, a source of discontent and insurrection in the 1920s, a seminary student who is stuck permanently at the ABD (All-But-Dissertation)level, not because he has been ill-treated but becuae he is just too stupid, and will never rise to the grade attained by Al-Sistani and resents it, and takes that malevolent and turbaned resentment and with it has built his own following, which appeals in turn to the resentments of the lowest economic class of Shi'a, those who not only resent the Sunni masters but the better-off Shi'a for whom, if religious, al-Sistani may speak, and the much smaller class of so-called "secular" Shi'a for whom Allawi, Chalabi, et al. may represent.
What does Moqtada al-Sadr want? Whatever he can get. He would like power, recognition, respect, money. If not in some philo-Iranian camp (as, say, some members of both the SCIRI and Dawa Parties), it is not because he dislikes the power of clerics in the Islamic Republic of Iran, but rather because he dislikes the pecking-order of clerics, that Qom-seminary ranking, in which he, alas, hardly rates a mention. Better to be a big fish in the pond of Sadr City than a guppy in the greater world of Iranian Shi'a.
His fighting against the Americans in Najaf and elsewhere should not confuse the Americans into thinking he is part of the Sunni attacks, both by followers of Al Qaeda who regard the Shi'a as Infidels (as Zarqawi has repeatedly insisted), and by those who wish to preserve Sunni Arab supremacy even though, in the new "democratic" regime, they don't have the votes. He is out for himself and only himself. If he were to disappear, the movement would disappear, and the Shi'a who gave their support to his chiliastic Mahdi Army would revert to supporting the mainstream as represented by the Dawa and SCIRI parties, and al-Sistani, the man whom Tom Friedman enthusiastically insisted should be awarded the Nobel Prize.
If the Americans withdraw soon, As Soon As Possible, starting one minute after the December 2005elections, what one might call bellovianly The Deen's December, they will do more than husband resources that are now being squandered. They will force Moqtada al-Sadr either to betray the Shi'a and throw in his lot with the hated Sunnis (an impossibliity), or to bend to the will of the much larger number of Shi'a who have not been impressed with his wild-eyed hysterical rants to the Shi'a underclass. They know what his forces did in Najaf to the Shi'a they kidnapped and killed. One has only to take a look at his face, his demeanor, to take his measure -- and the Allawis and the Chalabis and even al-Jaafari and al-Hakim, loath him, as of course they should. If the Americans leave, he will be taken care of, put paid to, by one side, or the other. It really does not matter which.
An indistinguished member of a supposedly distinguished family of Shi'a clerics who were, according to Gertrude Bell, a source of discontent and insurrection in the 1920s, a seminary student who is stuck permanently at the ABD (All-But-Dissertation)level, not because he has been ill-treated but becuae he is just too stupid, and will never rise to the grade attained by Al-Sistani and resents it, and takes that malevolent and turbaned resentment and with it has built his own following, which appeals in turn to the resentments of the lowest economic class of Shi'a, those who not only resent the Sunni masters but the better-off Shi'a for whom, if religious, al-Sistani may speak, and the much smaller class of so-called "secular" Shi'a for whom Allawi, Chalabi, et al. may represent.
What does Moqtada al-Sadr want? Whatever he can get. He would like power, recognition, respect, money. If not in some philo-Iranian camp (as, say, some members of both the SCIRI and Dawa Parties), it is not because he dislikes the power of clerics in the Islamic Republic of Iran, but rather because he dislikes the pecking-order of clerics, that Qom-seminary ranking, in which he, alas, hardly rates a mention. Better to be a big fish in the pond of Sadr City than a guppy in the greater world of Iranian Shi'a.
His fighting against the Americans in Najaf and elsewhere should not confuse the Americans into thinking he is part of the Sunni attacks, both by followers of Al Qaeda who regard the Shi'a as Infidels (as Zarqawi has repeatedly insisted), and by those who wish to preserve Sunni Arab supremacy even though, in the new "democratic" regime, they don't have the votes. He is out for himself and only himself. If he were to disappear, the movement would disappear, and the Shi'a who gave their support to his chiliastic Mahdi Army would revert to supporting the mainstream as represented by the Dawa and SCIRI parties, and al-Sistani, the man whom Tom Friedman enthusiastically insisted should be awarded the Nobel Prize.
If the Americans withdraw soon, As Soon As Possible, starting one minute after the December 2005elections, what one might call bellovianly The Deen's December, they will do more than husband resources that are now being squandered. They will force Moqtada al-Sadr either to betray the Shi'a and throw in his lot with the hated Sunnis (an impossibliity), or to bend to the will of the much larger number of Shi'a who have not been impressed with his wild-eyed hysterical rants to the Shi'a underclass. They know what his forces did in Najaf to the Shi'a they kidnapped and killed. One has only to take a look at his face, his demeanor, to take his measure -- and the Allawis and the Chalabis and even al-Jaafari and al-Hakim, loath him, as of course they should. If the Americans leave, he will be taken care of, put paid to, by one side, or the other. It really does not matter which.
If we intend to stay in Iraq long after the potential party has lapsed into "Chris De Burgh / the only alcohol left in the place is Sherry" sort of territory (or in other words: Can you please get your coats & F__K off), then we had might as well accept that we are going to Tango with the Grand Cleric of Pudgyness, Moqtada Al Sadr, sooner, rather than later.
If its the last dance at the party shortly before throwing up & asking the UN for the cab fare home, I for one would like to see Arabia's Pillsbury Dough boy, Iran's ticket to a greater Iran, take a hit to his growing "legend".
Hugh:
Ever contemplated the possibility that Al-Sadr is Iran's stalking horse, giving grief to US forces because Al-Sistani won't?
BTW, re: your observation that Israel is but the Lesser Jihad, check out David Meir-Levi's Sept. 23 piece on frontpagemag.com on Arafat. It's a long piece with at least four continuations at the bottom (but well worth reading, so check the Archives for that date). Perservere to the last part and you will see Meir-Levi's reference, almost at the very end before the footnotes, to a speech Arafat gave over his cellphone from his bombed out compound, in April 2002, castigating his fellow Arabs for failing to come to his defence, and for failing to appreciate that a "Palestinian Entity" is the launching pad for a greater jihad.
Once a Muslim Brother, always a Muslim Bro at heart, I guess.
Concerning the literalistic apocalyptic self-understanding of al-Sadr and his minions:
"Many Shias believe the Mahdi, who is like the Shia messiah disappeared in the ninth century from Najaf and they're expecting his return to Najaf. And one of the reasons why they're fighting so bitterly is because many of Muqtada al-Sadr's followers believe that the Mahdi, the Shia messiah, is about to return.
"They say this often, he's going to return to kill the Americans, to defeat the Americans and the Jews who are occupying our country. You hear that statement from Muqtada al-Sadr's associates very, very often. It's unthinkable he would damage the shrine, although he would probably not mind if he could provoke the Americans to do some damage to the shrine."
(Comment by the journalist Nir Rosen, made on August 12, 2004, on the PBS Newshour with Jim Lehrer)
US_infidel
Lowering the intellectual tone here for a minute, have the MSM picked this up? What you have quoted does not sound particularly positive.
Concerned.
Take them on now and take them on hard.
We are paying the price for an inadequate response by our politicos initially in Fallujah. It was vital to show the Arab Muslims, who only respect force, that we were strong - after an initial 24hr warning to evacuate, the place should have been vaporized.Less "insurgency", no Al Sadr.It wasn't, and now there is a price to pay.
Unfortunately it will cost us some of our brave fighters.
Dgene,
Lyndon B. Johnson admitted later that the Vietnam war was conducted to ensure "attrition" rather than wipeout. Am I right about that?
For one thing, all mosques in Iraq should be considered as potential fortresses and ammunitions depots.
Yes, Hugh, I imagine that in Muslim terms Al-Sadr is some kind of Huey Long figure, but with even worse taste. Taste and manners in Muslim terms seems to be counted in terms of bodies, whose and how many. That's it.
Really disgusting, the whole business.
Hugh suggests that should the Coalition withdraw, Muqtada al Sadr will be eclipsed by moderate Shias and quietly ride off into the sunset. This is certainly possible. It's also possible that in the resulting power vaccuum, he and his followers might just assert themselves aggressively and gain a position of preeminence.
Al Sadr is perhaps the only major Shia figure who has significant support among Iraqi Sunnis. He could readily establish himself as the standard-bearer of Iraqi national unity and might just be the one figure who could head off a civil war.
Don't count him out.
SAS in secret war against Iranian agents
I cannot believe that if the US leaves Iraq, Sadr and his militia will be able to gain power. The only people in Iraq who can wield power are the Sunnis, simply because they are willing to be more ruthless than anyone else, by a wide margin.
How many secular, democracy-minded Shiites can you kill with a car bomb? The Shiites seem to lack the kind of martial mindset (in Islamic terms, that means suicide terror) to rule. Even the Iranians, bluster and all, are probably a flabby bunch when you compare them to the Sunnis. I wish we had invaded Iran. It might have gone the way Shrubco thought Iraq would.
Quijybo
So, it was just another hudna. Evidently, Muhammad's example continues to guide Muslims, regardless of their nationality, environment or political goals.
-----------------------------
dolphin, CAGE co-founder.
http://www.acage.org
Teratism:
This is no Vietnam.
There is no L.B.J. here.
We are fighting for our lives and our way of life against many Islamic bastards.
There are many fronts.
Why the obfuscation ?