Al-Sadr Tells Followers to Fight Americans
Shi’ite (terrorist) leader Muqtada al-Sadr told his followers / private terrorist army to stop cooperating with the Americans and, instead, to fight them.
“You, the Iraqi army and police forces, don’t walk alongside the occupiers, because they are your archenemy,” the statement said. Its authenticity could not be verified.
“God has ordered you to be patient in front of your enemy, and unify your efforts against them — not against the sons of Iraq,” the statement said, in an apparent reference to clashes between al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army fighters and Iraqi troops in Diwaniyah, south of Baghdad. “You have to protect and build Iraq.”
Ed Morrissey isn’t impressed. First he explains that this is a sign that al-Sadr is losing influence due to the surge, and then:
Sadr has proven himself an adept politician, but a lousy general. Having him switch back into that role is a victory in itself for the American forces. Najaf residents recall the disastrous campaign Sadr staged there earlier in the Iraq war. His declaration in that city will likely result in more skepticism than enthusiasm, especially since Sadr keeps mailing in his orders from Iran.
Dr. Steven Taylor has a slightly different view:
If the message is authentic, then this will bring into serious question whether the surge has achieved any actual success at all. If the Shi’ite militias, which allegedly have been peaceful of late, decide to launch attacks on the “occupiers� then I don’t see how anyone can claim that the policy has been efficacious at all–as the basic idea was to pacify Baghdad and specifically to reign in, if not wholly disband the militia groups. Further, if Sadr is willing to launch attacks now, then it raises serious questions about any kind of near-term political solution (not that there was a lot of evidence that such a solution was likely to happen in any event).
I agree with Dr. Steven Taylor. If the Sadr militias will start attacking US forces on a grand scale again, well, violence will increase and the surge will be undermined. How one can see this as proof that the surge is working is beyond me to be quite frank.
Also: Senator John McCain wrote an OP-ED for the Washington Post about Iraq called, here we go, “The War You’re Not Reading About”.
No, he’s not referring to Afghanistan.
Cross posted at my own blog.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
10 Responses to “Al-Sadr Tells Followers to Fight Americans”
The “surge” is having incremental success because the Shia militias aren’t attacking Sunnis groups at this time. I would be more worried if the sectarian violence reverts back to previous levels. The US troops are now in Bahgdada as part of the surge, not in secure FOB. If the sectarian violence escalates because of Sadr, the US troops will be in the cross fire. The crossfire is a greater threat than direct confrentation(sp) with Shia militias – IMO.
Isn’t it funny that the person with the most power in Iraq isn’t even in Iraq?
I’m not sure how the U.S. government can ever safely give Iraq’s oil to Exxon achieve a safe Iraq for both Iraqis and the world without dealing with the large militia groups. The Al-Maliki puppet sovereign government will never really control the country until he wields more power than the militias.
—–
Can we start putting “(terrorist)” after any references to Bush/Cheney in the interest of fairness?
awww… the Moderate Voice comments dont support the delete tag
This is an interesting development and I wonder how the other Shiite groups will react. The other groups might use this declaration to eliminate a political rival, especially in the south where there have been clashes between rival militias. On the other hand polls show a majority of Iraqis think killing Americans is justified, this might encourage some to start attacking Americans where they have held off before.
That’s a disgusting remark.
Hi Michael,
Jim Henley, in comments at Steven Taylor’s blog, points out that the AP piece doesn’t actually quote a single thing that supports it’s headline.
I would would add that a week ago the Iraqi government announced that Sadr had told his militia to “stand downâ€? and that the Sadr office in Diwaniya are saying unrest there is due to “rogue elementsâ€? of the Mahdi Army. Yet there’s no mention of either of these factors in the AP story either.
Regards, Cernig
I think Morrissey is partly right: this statement is an assertion of his relevance and from a position of risk, if not weakness. But Micheal is correct in saying that Sadr’s forces laid low to let the surge go into action and now have apparently decided to no longer lay low – at least with respect to attacking Americans. I think Morrissey is naive to equate the Sadrist Mahdi Army of today with that of Najaf in 2004. They are much stronger now than before. The real danger is not that the Sadrists will kill tons of Americans but that they’ll completely destablize Baghdad again and make the American pacification/referee mission impossible. Sadr has apparently determined that by laying low he’s merely allowed Bush a pretext for declaring “progress” and maintaining the occupation. By fighting back against Sunni terrorism, which never abated during the “surge,” Sadr can re-destablize Baghdad and destroy morale among American Republicans such that both political parties will demand a pullout.
Cernig: good point, I expressed my own reservations less clearly by writing IF, but your point is valid and I should have made it expressively in the post myself.
My point is more if it’s true, then… etc.
But, yeah, one could criticize the headline at the AP. Well done
terrorist noun
One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives
Here are a couple quotes for you to mull over:
However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses. – Bush
Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we’ll get hit again, that we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we’ll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we’re not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us. – Cheney talking about why Americans shouldn’t vote for Democrats
That sounds like trying to terrorize the American population into voting Republican.
Michael, how could you read that article in any way closely and not question the headline?
Regards, C