He’s Baa-aaaaaaaaaaaack
Guess who’s back, back again
Sadr’s back, tell a friend
Guess who’s back, guess who’s back,
guess who’s back, guess who’s back,
guess who’s back, guess who’s back,
guess who’s back…
He is a monster, cuz nobody wants to
See bin laden no more they want Sadr
He’s chopped liver
Well if you want Sadr, then this is what he’ll give ya
A little bit of Bin mixed with some hard liquor
Some vodka that will jumpstart his heart quicker
Then a shock when he gets shocked at the hospital
By the Dr. when he’s not cooperating
When he’s rocking the table while G’s operating “Hey”
You waited this long to stop debating
Cuz he’s back, he’s on the rag and ovulating
He know you got a job Dick Cheney
But face it, your heart problem is complicated
So the FCC won’t let him be
Or let him be Bin so let me see
They tried to shut him down on MTV and TMV or MVT
But it feels so empty without him
So come on dip, bum on your lips
jump back, jiggle her hip and wiggle a bit
And get ready cuz this is about to get heavy
He just settled all his lawsuits, “_uck you Georgie!”
Here’s the man, aaaaaaaaal-Sadr:
I said this looks like a job for me
So everybody just follow me
Cuz we need a little controversy,
Cuz it feels so empty without me
That’s right Ladies and Gentlemen: Iraq’s number one terrorist, Muqtada al-Sadr, is back in Iraq. He’s back in ‘da hood.’
Preach it brother!
The cleric, addressing a large crowd amid heavy security, called for American forces to leave Iraq, but pointedly did not say how quickly those troops should leave, as he has in the past. A longer timeline would serve to give Mr. Sadr’s Mahdi Army extra time to prepare for the departure of the Americans.
Mr. Sadr called for an end to fighting between the Mahdi Army and Iraqi forces and police, asking his followers to conduct peaceful demonstrations instead. And though the Mahdi Army has been heavily involved in the nation’s brutal sectarian violence, he requested reconciliation between Shiites, Sunnis and Christians.
No deadlines?
Sounds like the plan approved by Congress!
Why did he leave Iran, where he is safe from the American army?
The prevailing view among American officials familiar with intelligence reports about Mr. Sadr’s return is that the cleric’s aim at a minimum is to raise his political profile in Iraq and possibly strengthen his position in anticipation that provincial elections may be held next year. There have also been reports that his militia has been splintering during his absence, and he may also be trying to reinforce his influence over his supporters.
He’s waiting, he is sitting around, observing, he will rebuild his ‘army’, he will expand his influence and then, when the Americans are gone, the al-Sadr army will take over completely. Iraq will be run by al-Sadr et al. Some consider this to be a ‘lesser of two (or several) evils,” I don’t. al-Sadr is evil and letting him run Iraq will result in a Shiite Iraq, cuddling up to Iran. I believe that Iraq should have a strong leader, but that leader should, in the long run, be dedicated to democracy, equality and even laicism (I look at the Kemalist model). al-Sadr is everything but. He’s an extremist, he’s not a nationalist. He will not be able to unite the Iraqi people. The only thing he might be able to do, is to unite the Shiites so that they can kill as many Sunnis as possible or force them out of the country.
23 Responses to “He’s Baa-aaaaaaaaaaaack”
He should be tracked down and wiped out with Predator UAVs armed with HELLFIREs. (A few of those fired every day keep the vermin at least at bay. Stay in your caves!)
In a better world, he would not last even a day in Iraq without being captured or killed. If we capture him, he belongs on an immediate express flight to Guantanamo, muy pronto!
(Only because Russia is degenerate these days and hasn’t offered us the use of Kolyma, heh, heh)
Don’t make the guy 10 feet tall. His recent low march turnout is evidence he’s running out of people who will follow him based on love of his family’s past contributions. His personal actions are losing him his following and that’s something that’s tough to come back from. If his popular support collapses, eventually the Iranians will shut off the money spigot and then he’s through.
But honestly, this country doesn’t have the rudimentary ingredients for a democracy. Of course that’s what we prefer, to justify removing Saadam, but the Iraqis don’t trust each other enough to cede power to a federal government. They prove it every day, and will continue to do so until we leave that country. Even if a system like that were miraculously to work while we were there, won’t it collapse as soon as we leave?
The British tried and failed before us and paid a very high price. I think, inevitably, that Iraq will be ruled by the Shia, with ethnic cleansing or at the very least reduced rights for everyone else. A democracy would be even weaker than Lebanon’s, which is incredibly fragile. Or it would be one in name only- like Egypt’s. Why do people always think that elections are all that’s necessary for democracy? Do you see them having religious tolerance? Ever????
Could very well Kim. Either that, or a strong man will stand up, who actually believes in modernization in the long run and who will oppress all opposition, be it sunni or shiite. I really believe that we should look at Turkey if we want to know what it takes to succeed in Iraq. Of course, Turkey doesn’t have an Atatürk… so… well… I’m not very hopeful I have to say. Damage control is probably the best ‘we’ can do.
> A democracy would be
> even weaker than Lebanon’s,
> which is incredibly fragile.
(and also subject to interference by its neighbors)
> Or it would be one in
> name only- like Egypt’s.
Why “an” Iraq? Many of us see partition as likely.
All we can do now in Iraq is deal with reality and face our limited choices squarely. We are not able to provide a level of security that is adequate for any semblance of normal life for Iraqi’s. That this state is not going to be acceptable to Iraqis is exactly why we cannot stay there indefinitely and part of the reason we are likely creating more terrorists than we are killing. They live there, we don’t. At some point they’ll be there and we won’t. The Iraqis, both friend and foe know this. Knowing this, they will and are positioned to reach for any security arrangment that will fill the gap we created, as well as further their sectarian ambitions for power.
Reality is that we are well into the end-game of our military involvement in Iraq. Rather than talk about victory or defeat, I find it more useful to think in terms of End State.
My best guess is the end state is a Moqtada al-Sadr led Iraq supported by the US militarily. I hate the idea, but he is wildly popular with the majority Shia, he has an army, and like any good politician will promise whatever the Iraqi people want to hear. In this case – a semblance of security in an Iraq free of American occupiers. Make no mistake – that is exactly what a majority of Iraqi’s want, and that is what al-Sadr is offering. I don’t know if he can deliver. You don’t know if he can deliver. The Iraqi’s don’t know that he can deliver or how much blood will be shed in getting there from here. But they do know now, that the US cannot deliver a peaceful safe Baghdad for them.
If al-Sadr is the end state, the only question is how and when we get there. At some point we will have to take the risk that things will not get appreciably worse when we leave. We could be wrong, but we will have to take that risk eventually, it is only a question of when. If we had other leadership here, we might be able manage a transition to an al-Sadr government with at least a facade of democracy in place and a minimum of bloodshed. With this administration, we are likely to see nothing but pushing this problem over the horizon to the next administration, at enormous additional cost to our treasury, our military, our standing in the world, and an even greater cost to the Iraqi people.
I thought the Iraqis themselves don’t want a partition, because the oil revenues wouldn’t be divided fairly. .
I’ve seen little evidence that those in power in Washington care what Iraqis want.
They don’t care, but it is not in our power to force a partition on them either. But their leaders are just hopeless. Maybe we should pull back into Kurdestan and protect their people, that way we could move back in if all He** breaks loose. I don’t think the surge is working.
kritter,
The surge is working fine. It’s just that you are confused as to the goals of the surge.
It provides an excuse to give the occupation just a few more Friedman units.
And no folks, we aren’t about to arrest him. We are apparantly counting on him.
And MVG, Muqtada al-Sadr is hardly “Iraq’s number one terrorist”.
K.
> I thought the Iraqis
> themselves don’t want
> a partition, because the
> oil revenues wouldn’t be
> divided fairly. .
Some do, some don’t. Those who believe they’d get the oil, or want partition for other reasons, do. (The Kurds are a distinct group and many of them would welcome partition and even independence.) Those who fear losing the oil, don’t.
You have three groups and two oil field areas. Oops.
The Sunnis fear losing the oil.
There is more to it than the internal situation. If Iran can’t expect to control all of Iraq, Iran could easily enjoy controlling just the south, and then look toward Kuwait [smack, smack]. Turkey would likely oppose partition; they are on record as disfavoring Kurdish independence. Saudi Arabia would assist the Sunnis.
> Maybe we should pull back
> into Kurdestan, and protect
> their people, that way we
> could move back in if all He**
> breaks loose.
That’s where we should have US military bases.
Simply fleeing from Iraq is not going to solve everything. And those who already have long wanted us out of Iraq, totally, immediately, will the first and loudest to complain, naturally, if things get worse (as they well) after we leave.
Sadr called Israel, the UK, and the USA the “evil trio.” That sounds a lot like what you hear from the enemies within the West.
Forgive my utter ignorance but…………….
What the H is a friedman unit?
‘Sadr called Israel, the UK, and the USA the “evil trio.†That sounds a lot like what you hear from the enemies within the West.’
Yes that’s the point I was trying to make on the Rosie thread. One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. The difference is that we have the ability to obliterate him and his followers from the face of the earth- while he just has a large group of followers and some help from the Iranians. But it wouldn’t surprise me if he patterned his speech on the “Axis of Evil” phraseology. I guess no one would want to go to war otherwise.
kritter,
Friedman Unit
Davebo- thanks- that’s hilarious. But Friedman isn’t the only one that’s been doing that- Bush, Rumsfeld, Casey, Condi, Petraeus, -they’ve all used 3-6 months since the war began. Now it inches up month by month- with the surge- first we were going to know something by April, then the beginning of summer, then the end of summer, then August, then September. I even saw one of Boehner’s speeches where he extended it to October.
Aw, hell — we may not get to see al-Sadr wiped out, necessarily:
“Al-Sadr’s resurfacing could only have been made possible by a deal worked out between the United States and Iran in which Washington assured Tehran that al-Sadr would be on the U.S. military’s ‘no touch’ list.”
“Just after Friday prayers on May 25, Iraqi special forces backed up by British troops killed Mehdi Army militia commander Abu Qader, also known as Wissam al-Waili, and at least one of his aides after they resisted arrest in the oil-rich southern Iraqi city of Basra. … It could very well be that Abu Qader had become a Mehdi Army renegade and that his elimination was a quiet show of good faith by al-Sadr.”
“As al-Sadr proceeds in efforts to purge his militia and political bloc of dissidents, he will be counting on the assurances he has received from Tehran that a U.S.-Iranian negotiated blueprint for Iraq will involve implementing a new political order in Baghdad that will safeguard the interests of the al-Sadrite movement.”
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=289258
“I believe that Iraq should have a strong leader, but that leader should, in the long run, be dedicated to democracy, equality and even laicism”
That would be nice. But the problem is there isn’t one single person who fits that description whose in any position to take over. Everyone there with political and military clout is an out and out fundamentalist bastard that will end up with ties either to Iran, or al-queda.
Al-Sadr has had numerous joint marches with various Sunni groups despite his militia. So he could indeed build cross sectarian support. Personally, as bad as Al-Sadr is, he is probably the best realistic end game we have.
I watch the MSM headlines to see if we are ‘rehabing’ him. So far the word ‘radical’ has almost disappeared recently. Notable, since he may as well have changed his name to include this word given its near 100% use previously. Lets see if extreme, or anti-american goes next…
Is it just me, or does Sadr and Rosie look like brother and sister – LOL.
He’s waiting, he is sitting around, observing, he will rebuild his ‘army’, he will expand his influence and then, when the Americans are gone, the al-Sadr army will take over completely. Iraq will be run by al-Sadr et al. Some consider this to be a ‘lesser of two (or several) evils,†I don’t. al-Sadr is evil and letting him run Iraq will result in a Shiite Iraq, cuddling up to Iran. I believe that Iraq should have a strong leader, but that leader should, in the long run, be dedicated to democracy, equality and even laicism.
When you say “some” consider al-Sadr to be the lesser of two evils, are you referring to Iraqis? Some Iraqis consider him to be the lesser of two evils?
You say you want Iraq to have a strong leader who in the long run will be dedicated to democracy, equality, and laicism (which I am not sure what that is). So which people will be the ones to make certain that Iraq has a strong leader who will be dedicated to democracy in the long run? I mean, I assume that if it’s a democratic Iraq you want to see, then it has to be the Iraqi people who decide who will run Iraq. I don’t know enough about al-Sadr to state categorically that he is “evil” — at least, no more evil than Dick Cheney — but when you say that “letting” al-Sadr run Iraq will result in a Shiite Iraq, one of the questions I would have is, Are you suggesting that the “letting” or “not letting” should come from the U.S. government? I’m truly puzzled at how that approach is going to be compatible with democracy. How can Iraq become a democracy if the U.S. decides which leaders they will “allow” as leaders? How can Iraq become a democracy if ANYone but the Iraq people themselves decide who will lead them, and what kind of government they will have?
That is the inherent contradiction, isn’t it?
[...] sir. He’s back. Who? al-Sadr. The Shiite who left for Iraq, whose departure before the surge proved the surge worked [...]
MVDG-
Your suggestion that modernization is a key element for Iraq’s future is, on the face it, sound. Just like democracy, though, the concept of modernization is also controversial in the ME. For those Muslims who see the current situation as a clash of civilizations, modernity is in direct oppostion to the traditionalism they espouse.
In all our searches on how to deal with the ME, it’s been a basic belief that we should make them more like us. While that would work out well for world stability, it’s not what they want. We always return, and should return, to the basic question: if we are to convert them, how do you convert unwilling subjects?