In an act of pure 7th-century diplomacy, Al-Sadr calls for British hostages to be seized, so that he can use them to buy back two of his top men, held in Basra by the British. From the TimesOnline, with thanks to Granny Weatherwax:
THE radical Shi’ite leader Moqtada al-Sadr has authorised his militia to kidnap two Britons in Iraq in the hope of swapping them for two of his senior officials who are held in Basra by British forces.A senior official from al-Sadr’s Mahdi army in Baghdad said that al-Sadr had given the order after last month’s dramatic rescue of two SAS men whom he had been hoping to use as bargaining chips.
The source said al-Sadr had given British authorities until yesterday to release his men, but they had failed to do so.
“In return for our two officials, two Britons will be taken,” the source said. The two need not necessarily be from the British military, but could be civilians, he added.
The source claimed that the Mahdi army had already pinpointed two British targets working for private security companies in the affluent Mansour district of Baghdad. Several British security firms have bases in the area.
In any legitimate legal system around the world al-Sadr's words would land him in jail on conspiracy charges. Why is this not happening in Iraq?
Al Sadr should have been road paste at least a year ago.
Instead of a Karen Hughes 'listening tour' we should send Norman Schwartzkopf for a lecture tour. Our government is light years from understanding what works in the Middle East. They will hate us no matter what we do, but respect comes when they fear us. No amount of public school self-esteem building is going to squeeze lemonade out of that tribal backwater.
By the way, who has the most self-esteem and lack of guilt feelings?
Sociopaths and dictators. Your tax dollars at work in the public schools.
Why was he not taken out?
He should have been roasted more than a year ago when he caused all the trouble in Falludja.
The lack of resolve of this administration fuels the insurgency and makes the US the laughing stock of the world.
Ah yes. The kinder, gentler, jihad, the inner spiritual struggle. The religion of peace and tolerance strikes again.
Hmmmm.
The British wanted to deal with Basra and Al-Sadr with "soft power" and now it's gotten them to this point. It's their problem, their responsibility and they'll either fix it or ask for help.
OK, we all keep asking 'Why did nobody take out Sadr a long time ago?'
Can someone actually give the reason? Not that we have to agree with the reason, and not that the reason is going to necessarily make any sense (though it might-- you never know), but does anyone actually know what the US/British were thinking when they decided not to respond to his incitements last year?
Sure, i'll give you some reasons for the handling of Sadr by the allies:
they see that Sadr is not the main enemy, because Sadr, as a shiite hotshot, will gain from 'democracy' in Iraq; to off Sadr would force Sistani to rouse the mob against the allies, whereas now he is, sure of victory in 'the democracy', not opposing the allies and his people are working with the Kurds, to start 'the democracy'; they know where to find this guy, and his senior cronies, so the allies can always make that decision, and Sadr knows it.
However Sadr also knows it would be a last resort, so dangerous could the shiite response be, and that includes Sistani's lot, that the allies really don't wanna do it, and he is pushing that envelope.
The allies, backed by Sistani, cut this guy down to size last time. Sure hope they don't have to again; sure hope that Sadr wants to play a part in 'democratic', or 'post democratic' Iraq, and makes belligerent noises, but doesn't fuck with the allies.
Sure, i'll give you some reasons for the handling of Sadr by the allies:
they see that Sadr is not the main enemy, because Sadr, as a shiite hotshot, will gain from 'democracy' in Iraq; to off Sadr would force Sistani to rouse the mob against the allies, whereas now he is, sure of victory in 'the democracy', not opposing the allies and his people are working with the Kurds, to start 'the democracy'; they know where to find this guy, and his senior cronies, so the allies can always make that decision, and Sadr knows it.
However Sadr also knows it would be a last resort, so dangerous could the shiite response be, and that includes Sistani's lot, that the allies really don't wanna do it, and he is pushing that envelope.
The allies, backed by Sistani, cut this guy down to size last time. Sure hope they don't have to again; sure hope that Sadr wants to play a part in 'democratic', or 'post democratic' Iraq, and makes belligerent noises, but doesn't fuck with the allies.
"they'll either fix it or ask for help."
I think we'll fix it.
"they'll either fix it or ask for help."
Poisoned chalice for our troops.
Basra should be handed over to the British Military, with no intereference from Londonistan, Baghdad or Washington.
If the gloves of civility were taken off, our chaps would, & I have no doubt after speaking to many of them, take care of business to put the area on an even keel for its "peaceful" citizens.
The chaps & chapesses out there want the absolute authority to be extremely firm & extremely fair - then everyone would know what to expect, wouldn't they?.
Being forced by Politicians to turn a blind eye to Sadr & his toy militia has got us to this point - & that is straight from the troops mouths.
Personally, I am with Hugh on this now.
Lets get the hell out & leave them to it - no British or Americans or Australians should die for a new Islamic Republic of Iraq.