Sadr Tells Mehdi Army to Stop Fighting

**onedomino** · #1 (**permalink**) 03-30-2008, 09:19 AM

It looks like Americans and British joining the battle in Basra has convinced Sadr to give up...for now. He is not stupid, and fighting the Americans and British in open combat is stupid. He is trying to preserve the Mehdi Army for a day when he can battle just other Iraqis without interference from the US and UK.

Quote:

Iraq's Sadr orders armed followers off the streets

complete article: http://www.reuters.com/article/featu.../idUSL30714216

NAJAF, Iraq, March 30 (Reuters) - Iraqi Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr called on his armed followers on Sunday to leave the streets and stop battling government forces in Basra and other southern towns.

"Because of the religious responsibility, and to stop Iraqi blood being shed, and to maintain the unity of Iraq and to put an end to this sedition that the occupiers and their followers want to spread among the Iraqi people, we call for an end to armed appearances in Basra and all other provinces," Sadr said in a statement given to journalists by his aides.

DeadCanDance · #2 (**permalink**) 03-30-2008, 09:42 AM

Smart, on his part.

He's not offering to turn over the Mehdi Army's weapons, or to disarm. Which is what Malaki demanded and gave them a deadline to do.

Obviously this will play out like it always does. The mehdi army will keep their weapons, will not disband, but will put on a show of cooperation to give malaki a face-saving opportunity. It's happened a thousand times before.

What al-sadr wants is political power. Not a full blown shia on shia civil war. I suspect al sadr and the militias will still, for all intents and purposes, control southern iraq. And the iraqi government in the green zone will still be relatively powerless there.

***Gunny*** · #3 (**permalink**) 03-30-2008, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeadCanDance

Smart, on his part.

He's not offering to turn over the Mehdi Army's weapons, or to disarm. Which is what Malaki demanded and gave them a deadline to do.

Obviously this will play out like it always does. The mehdi army will keep their weapons, will not disband, but will put on a show of cooperation to give malaki a face-saving opportunity. It's happened a thousand times before.

What al-sadr wants is political power. Not a full blown shia on shia civil war. I suspect al sadr and the militias will still, for all intents and purposes, control southern iraq. And the iraqi government in the green zone will still be relatively powerless there.

I agree with your assessment. It's a strategy I would think all of the different factions would use. Had they all done so from the start, we'd be mostly gone by now if not entirely and they could commence to beating each other up without interference.

Paulitics · #4 (**permalink**) 03-30-2008, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GunnyL

Had they all done so from the start, we'd be mostly gone by now if not entirely and they could commence to beating each other up without interference.

But isn't that precisely the reason we're supposedly still there? Because that's what would happen if we left?

I mean, when is it time to go? When the rest of the world trusts the muslims to stay friendly? Come on, that's a pipe dream. If anything, we've been conditioned to think they'll NEVER be friendly. So when do Iraq war supporters decide it's finally time to go? I don't see any time in which it would be deemed ok to leave, given the reasons why we're staying there to begin with.

DeadCanDance · #5 (**permalink**) 03-30-2008, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paulitics

But isn't that precisely the reason we're supposedly still there? Because that's what would happen if we left?

I mean, when is it time to go? When the rest of the world trusts the muslims to stay friendly? Come on, that's a pipe dream. If anything, we've been conditioned to think they'll NEVER be friendly. So when do Iraq war supporters decide it's finally time to go? I don't see any time in which it would be deemed ok to leave, given the reasons why we're staying there to begin with.

It's a classic Catch-22

We won't give the iraqi army heavy weapons, artillery, and modern capabilities because we don't trust them. They might turn those weapons over to insurgents.

If we stop paying the sunni insurgents to stand down, they'll probably go back to attacking us.

We can't forcibly disband and disarm the shia militias and the mehdi army because they will full out revolt against the occupation.

You couldn't dream up a worse clusterfuck.

***Gunny*** · #6 (**permalink**) 03-30-2008, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paulitics

But isn't that precisely the reason we're supposedly still there? Because that's what would happen if we left?

I mean, when is it time to go? When the rest of the world trusts the muslims to stay friendly? Come on, that's a pipe dream. If anything, we've been conditioned to think they'll NEVER be friendly. So when do Iraq war supporters decide it's finally time to go? I don't see any time in which it would be deemed ok to leave, given the reasons why we're staying there to begin with.

Basically, as soon as the Iraqi government can stand on its own without the US military. That's when we're supposed to leave.

Whether or not they kill each other over their little patch of sandbox after that fact is established and accepted is completely irrelevant to me.

The only feasible plan I have heard is that Iraq be divided into 3 countries. That will of course be unacceptable to some of each fact except perhaps the Kurds so the borders will have to be enforced by military. That is the only way that makes sense to me from a practical and realistic standpoint.

The "love for their fellow countrymen" approach is definitely a pipedream.

My point however, is the same I made concerning Saddam Hussein post-Gulf War I. Play along, let the inspectors do what they want, deal with it for a few years. We'd have been gone by 95-97 and he could resume his dastardly crap.

Same with these Muslim factions. Lay low, wait til we leave, THEN make your move.

In both cases, sound strategy apparently is too much to ask.

***Gunny*** · #7 (**permalink**) 03-30-2008, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeadCanDance

It's a classic Catch-22

We won't give the iraqi army heavy weapons, artillery, and modern capabilities because we don't trust them. They might turn those weapons over to insurgents.

If we stop paying the sunni insurgents to stand down, they'll probably go back to attacking us.

We can't forcibly disband and disarm the shia militias and the mehdi army because they will full out revolt against the occupation.

You couldn't dream up a worse clusterfuck.

We don't need to pay the Sunni. We don't need to try the "nice guy," negotiating strategy at all.

We have a military option available to us.

IIRC, you ARE for negotiations, right?

Paulitics · #8 (**permalink**) 03-31-2008, 12:39 PM

It's a little weird to me that there are better ideas coming from average citizens, then ones coming from the people actually in CHARGE.

It's why many people speculate, myself included, that we are only hanging around as long as we are so that the crony companies who got the big contracts can continue to make a killing...pun intended.

If it wasn't for Haliburton/Cheney, and Blackwater/Prince/Bush, I might not have nearly as much skepticism regarding the decisions made by the administration regarding the occupation. That will always be a conflict of interest as far as I'm concerned.

Why should we be ok with the 2 highest people in the administration responsible for this invasion/occupation having personal connections to the companies who are profitting the most from it? Especially considering how inefficient they've been at figuring out the quickest way to be done with the job and LEAVE.

***Gunny*** · #9 (**permalink**) 03-31-2008, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paulitics

It's a little weird to me that there are better ideas coming from average citizens, then ones coming from the people actually in CHARGE.

It's why many people speculate, myself included, that we are only hanging around as long as we are so that the crony companies who got the big contracts can continue to make a killing...pun intended.

If it wasn't for Haliburton/Cheney, and Blackwater/Prince/Bush, I might not have nearly as much skepticism regarding the decisions made by the administration regarding the occupation. That will always be a conflict of interest as far as I'm concerned.

Why should we be ok with the 2 highest people in the administration responsible for this invasion/occupation having personal connections to the companies who are profitting the most from it? Especially considering how inefficient they've been at figuring out the quickest way to be done with the job and LEAVE.

I don't know about average citizen. I, like any Marine SNCO, am well versed in strategy and tactics. It's required Professional Military Education if you want to get promoted.

The lesson here is that political ideology and unrealistic expectations from, and views of other cultures does not win wars. Superior firepower does. If we weren't prepared to go in and subjugate Iraq THEN rebuild it, we should have stayed home.

Forget all the PC bullshit. You roll over the place and you take out the enemy and anyone who becomes an enemy and if they're shooting from a mosque, you blow it up.

When the Iraqi's get the idea that they either behave or die, most will choose the former.

Too many fundamentals to waging war were not covered. Securing the Iraq borders is one. Keeping the religious fundies that were already isolated in isolation was another. Turning the military loose another.

Letting political correctness and the holier-than-thou, unrealistic, left-wing morals they impose on our military but not themselves here at home dictate tactics and strategy another.

So, far from being some genius conspiracy, it was instead a really dumb job of waging war.

BrianH · #10 (**permalink**) 04-01-2008, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paulitics

It's a little weird to me that there are better ideas coming from average citizens, then ones coming from the people actually in CHARGE.

It's why many people speculate, myself included, that we are only hanging around as long as we are so that the crony companies who got the big contracts can continue to make a killing...pun intended.

If it wasn't for Haliburton/Cheney, and Blackwater/Prince/Bush, I might not have nearly as much skepticism regarding the decisions made by the administration regarding the occupation. That will always be a conflict of interest as far as I'm concerned.

Why should we be ok with the 2 highest people in the administration responsible for this invasion/occupation having personal connections to the companies who are profitting the most from it? Especially considering how inefficient they've been at figuring out the quickest way to be done with the job and LEAVE.

I agree that the war hasn't been waged like it should have (though it's getting better), however, everytime you get into your car and drive to work (which agreed, some of us have to) you're contributing to the "oil stealing" that supposedly is going on over there. Same reason with gas prices...everyone complains about it. The only reason gas prices are so high, is because it doesn't matter what the price is, you, I, we will drive down to the quickie-mart and fill up our cars with it, then take a weekend trip. Those that think that we are over there for the oil are contributing just as much to this problem...myself included.

Paulitics · #11 (**permalink**) 04-01-2008, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianH

I agree that the war hasn't been waged like it should have (though it's getting better), however, everytime you get into your car and drive to work (which agreed, some of us have to) you're contributing to the "oil stealing" that supposedly is going on over there. Same reason with gas prices...everyone complains about it. The only reason gas prices are so high, is because it doesn't matter what the price is, you, I, we will drive down to the quickie-mart and fill up our cars with it, then take a weekend trip. Those that think that we are over there for the oil are contributing just as much to this problem...myself included.

Well, to be fair, I don't think we're "over there for the oil". I think anyone can admit that oil at least has something to do with it, but my personal opinion is we are over there maintaining the hegemony of the US Dollar. We obviously have a huge vested interest in making sure the Dollar is the world's reserve currency. Without that hegemony, we're nothing. We would be 3rd world in a matter of weeks or months if we lost that. The main reason being how much of the international community has their entire livelihoods invested in the US Dollar.

Saddam's regime posed a threat to that, because they were one of the very few regimes who had the audacity to challenge it.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...998512,00.html

Quote:

Saddam Turns His Back on Greenbacks

Monday, Nov. 13, 2000 By WILLIAM DOWELL/NEW YORK CITY

Europe's dream of promoting the euro as a competitor to the U.S. dollar may get a boost from SADDAM HUSSEIN. Iraq says that from now on, it wants payments for its oil in euros, despite the fact that the battered European currency unit, which used to be worth quite a bit more than $1, has dropped to about 82[cents]. Iraq says it will no longer accept dollars for oil because it does not want to deal "in the currency of the enemy."

The switch to euros would cost the U.N. a small fortune in accounting-paperwork changes. It would also reduce the interest earnings and reparations payments that Iraq is making for damage it caused during the Gulf War, a shortfall the Iraqis would have to make up.

The move hurts Iraq, the U.N. and the countries receiving reparations. So why is Saddam doing it? Diplomatic sources say switching to the euro will favor European suppliers over U.S. ones in competing for Iraqi contracts, and the p.r. boost that Baghdad would probably get in Europe would be another plus.

--By William Dowell/New York City

That was before 9/11, when no one really paid any kind of attention to that stuff.

Now that people are much more informed, I wonder why the media won't TOUCH the fact that Iran has been a threat to do that very same thing for a few years now. The speculation of when it will finally happen always seems to change, but there's no reason to believe they WON'T, considering the overall consensus of the regime seems to be that they are "evil" and "crazy". If they'd be crazy and evil enough to build nukes and blow something up with them, they'd be crazy and evil enough to buck the system like Saddam and change it's trade currency.

Sadly, that's still viewed as a bit of a conspiracy theory. I'm not sure why though, it seems pretty clear and present to me, with facts to support a precedence.

I have no doubt Dollar hegemony is one of the reasons for our presence, but I also don't rule out other reasons. I think it's the main reason, but I think the government knows it can't sell a war with it, because of the moral implications that come with it. Not very many people would support invading a country to maintain our currency. The Romans did that shit, we would NEVER follow the model of the Romans.

I don't know. Everyone has their own opinions, and as far as I'm concerned, my biggest issue with these wars has been this...No matter WHAT the reason for us being over there, it's bankrupting us. We can't afford to maintain this kind of an empire, where we just print the money when we have another target to bomb. I mean, we don't even raise taxes or cut spending in other areas to fund wars anymore. We just let everyone have their cake and it it too. Let's just deficit spend ourselves into oblivion, who cares! As long as we got our Xboxes, you know?

BrianH · #12 (**permalink**) 04-01-2008, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paulitics

Well, to be fair, I don't think we're "over there for the oil". I think anyone can admit that oil at least has something to do with it, but my personal opinion is we are over there maintaining the hegemony of the US Dollar. We obviously have a huge vested interest in making sure the Dollar is the world's reserve currency. Without that hegemony, we're nothing. We would be 3rd world in a matter of weeks or months if we lost that. The main reason being how much of the international community has their entire livelihoods invested in the US Dollar.

Saddam's regime posed a threat to that, because they were one of the very few regimes who had the audacity to challenge it.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...998512,00.html

That was before 9/11, when no one really paid any kind of attention to that stuff.

Now that people are much more informed, I wonder why the media won't TOUCH the fact that Iran has been a threat to do that very same thing for a few years now. The speculation of when it will finally happen always seems to change, but there's no reason to believe they WON'T, considering the overall consensus of the regime seems to be that they are "evil" and "crazy". If they'd be crazy and evil enough to build nukes and blow something up with them, they'd be crazy and evil enough to buck the system like Saddam and change it's trade currency.

Sadly, that's still viewed as a bit of a conspiracy theory. I'm not sure why though, it seems pretty clear and present to me, with facts to support a precedence.

I have no doubt Dollar hegemony is one of the reasons for our presence, but I also don't rule out other reasons. I think it's the main reason, but I think the government knows it can't sell a war with it, because of the moral implications that come with it. Not very many people would support invading a country to maintain our currency. The Romans did that shit, we would NEVER follow the model of the Romans.

I don't know. Everyone has their own opinions, and as far as I'm concerned, my biggest issue with these wars has been this...No matter WHAT the reason for us being over there, it's bankrupting us. We can't afford to maintain this kind of an empire, where we just print the money when we have another target to bomb. I mean, we don't even raise taxes or cut spending in other areas to fund wars anymore. We just let everyone have their cake and it it too. Let's just deficit spend ourselves into oblivion, who cares! As long as we got our Xboxes, you know?

That's a pretty interesting idea...I've never thought about it before. But to me, that would be a pointless battle. Then they would have to print out more money to make it "stretch" worldwide--devaluing it. The fact that we're printing up too much money and there's nothing backing it up. That's why the U.S. dollar was so valuable in the old days, we didn't worry about it becoming a world currency. We had it backed up and didn't print up more just because we needed it.

Paulitics · #13 (**permalink**) 04-01-2008, 10:55 AM

Hey, and gas prices are "high" because the price for a barrell of oil has gone up to over $100. It's not necessarily a high price, it's a low dollar. Inflation has caused commodities to skyrocket. If you look at the market trends, oil has been pretty much pegged to gold. Gold always goes up during a weak dollar, because it's an inflation hedge and people rush to it. We're exporting our inflation to other countries like Saudi Arabia, whose own inflation rate is up almost 9% this year, to a 27 year high.

http://www.ameinfo.com/150889.html

I hate when people blame it all on the oil companies. It's the "free market" at work. Not that I believe it to be totally free, but our monetary policy causes us to place blame on specific companies who appear to be benefitting the most from it.

Those companies are obviously being greedy and yeah it makes me sick, but they're not breaking any laws, and I thought that was supposed to be one of the benefits in this country...your FREEDOM to be greedy.

BrianH · #14 (**permalink**) 04-01-2008, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paulitics

Hey, and gas prices are "high" because the price for a barrell of oil has gone up to over $100. It's not necessarily a high price, it's a low dollar. Inflation has caused commodities to skyrocket. If you look at the market trends, oil has been pretty much pegged to gold. Gold always goes up during a weak dollar, because it's an inflation hedge and people rush to it. We're exporting our inflation to other countries like Saudi Arabia, whose own inflation rate is up almost 9% this year, to a 27 year high.

http://www.ameinfo.com/150889.html

I agree with economics, but I still feel like it's only high because we'll pay for it and they can keep raising the price. With all the profits their making, why don't they build more refineries? Because the few that they have are operating at full capacity and bringing in money.

In the middle east, gas is below $1.00. You would think that because very few people own cars, that cars would be a luxury for the rich and gas would be more expensive. What I don't understand, is how we ship oil from the middle east, bring it here, refine it, and send it back, and it only costs $.71. When we get oil from the same place, ship it here, refine it, and sell it and it's over $3.00. Something is backwards. I agree that inflation has something to do with it. I think the oil companies are raking in the profits and can do more so by raising gas prices more. They find every little excuse to do it. Everytime we get a hurricane here in the gulf we here, "Gas prices are rising because of the hurricane." or everytime theres a conflict in another country it's, "Gas prices are rising because of this conflict."

Here's a link on what's happening now in Congress...it will be interesting to see what happens.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344193,00.html

Paulitics · #15 (**permalink**) 04-01-2008, 11:11 AM

But see, why should we wait for congress to do it for us? How long have we been waiting now? DECADES?

Those companies are not breaking any laws. They are simply benefitting from the market conditions. They should have the freedom to legally pull in profits however the see fit. They're just working the market. Supply and demand. Demand goes up, price goes up.

Where the problem lies, is how we as citizens respond to it. We have all the power in the world. There are a multitude of ways we can cut back on our oil usage to where it would put a serious dent in the oil companies. But we don't, because we don't want it BAD enough.

We've let congress do our work for us for years, and all they ever do is NOTHING. They never will, because we keep electing the politicians who are in bed with their lobbyists. We know who they are, but yet we still keep electing them.

We have the power. We just don't use it, because most people can't be bothered with inconvenience, no matter how small, or how necessary it might be.