Al Sadr Doesn't Like The Surge

[Annie]

Gee, wonder why?

http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/1601/Iraq_Papers_Monday_Sadr_Speaks

In Iraqi newspapers today, Al-Mada says that fresh Iraqi Army units will be transferred from Kurdistan to support the security plan in Baghdad, which comes after initial concerns were voiced regarding Kurdish participation in the maintaining of order in Arab areas. Az-Zaman writes on Iraqi-American disagreements over the de-Ba'thification law, and in a very important development, Muqtada al-Sadr made his first statement after his “disappearance” criticizing the Baghdad security plan and the American occupation.

Az-Zaman reports that Muqtada al-Sadr made a statement from “an unknown location,” his first since speculations started regarding his whereabouts. Muqtada’s letter was read by a representative to thousands of Sadrist supporters in Baghdad. From his hideout (which some still think is in Iran) al-Sadr made the first direct attack on the security plan by a high-ranking Sadrist official, he criticized that the plan was executed by American forces, which he termed “the enemy.” The Shi'a leader also called for an “Iraqi strategy,” that is “neither sectarian not authoritarian.” Finally, he called on his supporters to “distance themselves” from the security plan, “which is controlled by our occupying enemies.”

 

[maineman]

he is a major player with an enormous amount of clout with the shiite population.

If your vision of "victory" is to be fulfilled, we will need to get him and Sistani totally onboard with our plan.

 

[Annie]

he is a major player with an enormous amount of clout with the shiite population.

If your vision of "victory" is to be fulfilled, we will need to get him and Sistani totally onboard with our plan.

He should be taken out. Sistani basically is on board.

 

[maineman]

take Sadr out and watch the reaction.... and I disagree about Sistani

 

[Annie]

take Sadr out and watch the reaction.... and I disagree about Sistani

based upon what?

 

[Gurdari]

Hard to argue an Iraqi has less right to decide the future of his nation than an army of foreigners...

 

[maineman]

based upon what?

his ties with Iran....

my belief that the term "moderate shi'ite ayatollah" is a non sequitur.

 

[Annie]

his ties with Iran....

my belief that the term "moderate shi'ite ayatollah" is a non sequitur.

Ah but that doesn't necessarily mean that he doesn't want stability for his country.

 

[maineman]

Ah but that doesn't necessarily mean that he doesn't want stability for his country.

of course he wants stability for Iraq: he wants a stable shiite dominated theocratic state.

how does THAT fit in with your vision of victory?

 

[Annie]

of course he wants stability for Iraq: he wants a stable shiite dominated theocratic state.

how does THAT fit in with your vision of victory?

Actually, they are the majority. The Sunnis have dominated the scene for too long. How they work it out, will have to be an Iraqi settled score.

 

[maineman]

Actually, they are the majority. The Sunnis have dominated the scene for too long. How they work it out, will have to be an Iraqi settled score.

I am well aware of the sectarian demographics.... my point was: sistani is not about to give away the power of the predominant majority...and the sunnis are not going to accept living under a shiite theocracy.... and the way that they have all chosen to settle their score is violent....and what is our role in all of that?

 

[Annie]

I am well aware of the sectarian demographics.... my point was: sistani is not about to give away the power of the predominant majority...and the sunnis are not going to accept living under a shiite theocracy.... and the way that they have all chosen to settle their score is violent....and what is our role in all of that?

I never said you weren't aware. Calm down, I'm at school and writing off the top of my head, between other things. They will have to find a way to compromise, or not. General P has asked for time until summer, then if not better, would be reconsidered. Seems reasonable.

 

[maineman]

I never said you weren't aware. Calm down, I'm at school and writing off the top of my head, between other things. They will have to find a way to compromise, or not. General P has asked for time until summer, then if not better, would be reconsidered. Seems reasonable.

seems reasonable to me as well.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Actually, they are the majority. The Sunnis have dominated the scene for too long. How they work it out, will have to be an Iraqi settled score.

And all the more reason for US troops to be removed from the mix. As it stands now US forces are acting in support of a Shi'ite government headed by Nuri al Maliki, who remains in power at the pleasure of Muktadah al Sadr. US troops are being forced to take sides in a civil war...A civil war President Bush has yet to admit even exists.

 

[Annie]

And all the more reason for US troops to be removed from the mix. As it stands now US forces are acting in support of a Shi'ite government headed by Nuri al Maliki, who remains in power at the pleasure of Muktadah al Sadr. US troops are being forced to take sides in a civil war...A civil war President Bush has yet to admit even exists.

I just returned home and am trying to find some of the things I've read, but stumbled across the following; in and of itself, it addresses one of the reasons we should do all in our power to 'win.' Iran is not going to go away:

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_20727.shtml

Secretive force at center of tensions between U.S., Iran
Feb 22, 2007
Jonathan S. Landay, McClatchy Newspapers

A band of religious warriors that Iran's clerical rulers created to spread their country's Islamic Revolution has joined Iran's nuclear program at the center of the rising tensions between Washington and Tehran.

The Quds Force, a secretive overseas arm of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, has operatives in Iraq and Afghanistan; runs Shiite extremist networks in Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and Europe; trains and arms Hezbollah and other Shiite radicals in Iran and Lebanon; and funds the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist group. Now it's arming Iraqi Shiite Muslims with armor-piercing bombs to use against American troops, according to U.S. officials.

Many experts now warn that if the U.S.-Iranian frictions over Iraq and Iran's nuclear program escalate into conflict, Tehran would use the Quds Force to launch terrorist attacks against U.S. and allied targets around the world.

...

 

[Bullypulpit]

I just returned home and am trying to find some of the things I've read, but stumbled across the following; in and of itself, it addresses one of the reasons we should do all in our power to 'win.' Iran is not going to go away:

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_20727.shtml

Firstly, there is no military solution to the conundrum that is Iraq. The US simply does not have the man-power or the financial wherewithal to bring it about. Unless the Sunnis and their Saudi supporters and the Shi'ias with their Iranian supporters can sit down at the negotiating table and hammer out a deal that is equitable for both parties, no amount of US military force will force the issue. The settlement MUST be a political one.

Regarding Iran, it should be remembered that Iran, via the Swiss, offered to come to the table for negotiations on each and every issue the Bush Administration now points to as bones of contention with Iran. This occurred shortly after US forces entered Baghdad. Karl Rove, according to an <a href=http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=36619>article by Gareth Porter</a>, was said to have received a copy of this offer in May of 2003. Instead of acting on this offer, the Bush Administration complained to the Swiss admbassador for having delivered the proposal.

So, before anyone goes crying about the threat posed by Iran, they should consider the Bush Administration's hand in creating that threat...Then exacerbating it. With its increasingly bellicose rhetoric towards Iran since his 2002 state of the union speech. Beginning with that speech, the Bush Administration has given Iran's Islamic hard liners the boost they needed to reverse that country's growing move towards the moderate end of the political spectrum. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the result.

Add to that the recent sacking of an Iranian diplomatic compound in Kurdistan; orders to capture or kill Iranians found in Iraq; the presence of two carrier battle groups in the Persian Gulf,with another on the way; the stationing of Patriot missile batteries in the region, and you have a powder-keg primed to explode. And if it dose explode, the responsibility for it can be laid, foursquare, upon the Bush Administration and its policies in the region.

 

[Annie]

Firstly, there is no military solution to the conundrum that is Iraq. The US simply does not have the man-power or the financial wherewithal to bring it about. Unless the Sunnis and their Saudi supporters and the Shi'ias with their Iranian supporters can sit down at the negotiating table and hammer out a deal that is equitable for both parties, no amount of US military force will force the issue. The settlement MUST be a political one.

Regarding Iran, it should be remembered that Iran, via the Swiss, offered to come to the table for negotiations on each and every issue the Bush Administration now points to as bones of contention with Iran. This occurred shortly after US forces entered Baghdad. Karl Rove, according to an <a href=http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=36619>article by Gareth Porter</a>, was said to have received a copy of this offer in May of 2003. Instead of acting on this offer, the Bush Administration complained to the Swiss admbassador for having delivered the proposal.

So, before anyone goes crying about the threat posed by Iran, they should consider the Bush Administration's hand in creating that threat...Then exacerbating it. With its increasingly bellicose rhetoric towards Iran since his 2002 state of the union speech. Beginning with that speech, the Bush Administration has given Iran's Islamic hard liners the boost they needed to reverse that country's growing move towards the moderate end of the political spectrum. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the result.

Add to that the recent sacking of an Iranian diplomatic compound in Kurdistan; orders to capture or kill Iranians found in Iraq; the presence of two carrier battle groups in the Persian Gulf,with another on the way; the stationing of Patriot missile batteries in the region, and you have a powder-keg primed to explode. And if it dose explode, the responsibility for it can be laid, foursquare, upon the Bush Administration and its policies in the region.

Bully, I for one do not consider you naive, so you are just being partisan. The offer the Iranians were offering has much reality to it as the cease fires offered by Hamas.

You are way over the top lately.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Bully, I for one do not consider you naive, so you are just being partisan. The offer the Iranians were offering has much reality to it as the cease fires offered by Hamas.

You are way over the top lately.

Facts are not partisan. I was merely pointing them out. You may form whatever opinion of the facts you wish, but they stand on their own merits.

 

[Annie]

Facts are not partisan. I was merely pointing them out. You may form whatever opinion of the facts you wish, but they stand on their own merits.

Exactly, that was MY point.