April 8, 2007

Sadr: It's On

Moqtada al-Sadr has decided to finally acknowledge that the surge strategy in Baghdad will undermine the basis of his power in Iraq, and has ordered the Mahdi Army to resist American and Iraqi forces trying to put him out of business. In a missive to his forces today, Sadr told his minions to focus their attacks on American forces where possible in order to keep from losing all political standing in Iraq:

The renegade cleric Muqtada al-Sadr urged Iraqi forces to stop cooperating with the United States and told his guerrilla fighters to concentrate their attacks on American troops rather than Iraqis, according to a statement issued Sunday.

The statement, stamped with al-Sadr's official seal, was distributed in the Shiite holy city of Najaf on Sunday — a day before a large demonstration there, called for by al-Sadr, to mark the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad. ...

In the statement, al-Sadr — who commands an enormous following among Iraq's majority Shiites and has close allies in the Shiite-dominated government — also encouraged his followers to attack only American forces, not fellow Iraqis.

The orders come from a diminished Sadr, who still has yet to poke his head above ground in Iraq since the beginning of the surge. At first, he fled to Iran supposedly to hold strategy meetings with senior Mahdi Army commanders and to consult with his Iranian allies, but most suspected he bugged out before the Americans could seize him and his most loyal followers. Sadr had apparently hoped that the Americans and the Nouri al-Maliki government would be satisfied in helping Sadr purge his more fractious members, but fighting over the last week made it clear that the entire Mahdi Army would have to go.

The Mahdis have a big problem, though, and that is that they relinquished momentum to the US and Iraqi forces several weeks ago. They have been pushed farther to the margins in Baghdad, and the residents there do not want to see them return. Sadr's flight and apparent refusal to return publicly makes them look weak and craven. The Iraqi forces present an even more difficult problem politically, as they are primarily Shi'ite and have growing support from the populace -- and no matter what Sadr orders, it will be difficult to attack Americans without engaging the Iraqis as well.

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.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sadr: It's On:

» http://conservativethoughts.us/2007/04/10/581/ from Conservative Thoughts
Moqtada al-Sadr has decided to finally acknowledge that the surge strategy in Baghdad will undermine the basis of his power in Iraq, and has ordered the Mahdi Army to resist American and Iraqi forces trying to put him out of business. In a missive to h... [Read More]

Comments (30)

Posted by GarandFan [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 8, 2007 11:26 AM

As I said a long time ago, we should have killed that fat little #%$ when we had the chance.

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 8, 2007 11:36 AM

Oh, I sincerely hope that fat little bastard's worthless group of thugs tries it. Our soldiers and Marines will pile them up like cordwood.

Cap'n Ed wrote:

His declaration in that city will likely result in more skepticism than enthusiasm, especially since Sadr keeps mailing in his orders from Iran.

So, that would kind of make him the ultimate chickenhawk, don't you think?

Posted by Lew [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 8, 2007 12:13 PM

So Al Sadr wants to have his own little "surge", does he? Oh goody, let's dance Fatso!

Posted by rbj [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 8, 2007 12:26 PM

It is way overdue, but keep the pressure on now. Take out all the trash.

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 8, 2007 12:59 PM

Mookie Sadr is ignorant!


Without knowledge.

At least we should know the "face" of this enemy. Who is nothing but a terrorist. Like a goon in any neighborhood that has no functioning police department.

Yes. He has money for explosive devices.

One of the things in Iraq that flows, is money. (Billions of it provided by Bush, when he thought he could "buy the countryside.")

Very much like gazoo.

I'm sure, today, the europeans see that the PA did not invest in infrastructure. So, you can begin to recognize these places: No electricity. No toilets. And, inhabitants that steal the sands surrounding the cesspool

So, while the media refers to this as "war." And, worse, one we are "losing," what you are really seeing is SOAP OPERA.

Then, you want to apply conventional means to this crap? Huh?

Bush went into Iraq for his own motives. Not necessarily ever discussed.

I'll give you a comparison. The Man Upstairs was watching Truman. Truman was asked to recognize Israel, back in May 1948. And, Truman probably thought to himself, that the arabs would come in and destroy the Jews. So, he decided to look like "the good guy."

Back then? To Truman, General Douglas MacArthur "was the bad guy." And, with the UN's "halp" Truman also set about to destroy MacArthur. Do you know why?

In 1948, MacArthur wanted the GOP nomination. Which went, instead, to John Dewey. John Dewey LOST. It was the SECOND TIME he lost. He already lost to FDR's 4th term WIN. And, FDR was so sick, he won, anyway.

Didn't stop the GOP from picking "stupid."

My point? The Man Upstairs. Let's thing happen; but the consequences to them are not disclosed until there's a passage of time.

Iraq? Free of Saddam!

The House of Saud? Well, they thought, with Bush's "halp" they'd own all the sand in the Mideast.

While, if you look at your map, you'll see "over there" that THE HOUSE IS DIVIDED!

Lincoln knew what it meant to live with the frictions caused by idiots who try to control flagpoles. Well? The south ripped the American flag off of their's. Though not all slave-states did that.

And, Lincoln set about a SUCCESSFUL (it turns out), Civil War; to make sure nobody ever again decides that's it's okay "to leave the Union."

We get pretty mediocre presidents most of the time.

Truman, sure did get to kill the competition he thought he'd get from MacArthur in 1952. So, instead, he got IKE. Ran home like the ninny he was.

While India? Who "halped" destroy MacArthur; by opening up those diplomatic bags containing MacArthur's plans for Korea? Ah. The perversity of "justice."

FDR freed India from the yoke of England. Forcing Winson Churcill, in early 1942, to seek India's separate signature, on the Allies United Nations, standing to fight Germany, Italy, and Japan. Otherwise known then, as the Evil Axis.

Winston Church fought, but could not contain the "Jewel in the British Crown." While the Indians turned around and shafted American Soldiers during the UN's Korea stalemate.

You thought Truman was popular?

Like Bush, he made a bet. It "halped" the ball to go rolling. But the UN? Turned around and carved out Pakistan. To give the Indians a taste of the same medicine; she delivered to US. Go figa. How things work out.

While the Man Upstairs lets men plan.

It's over over a long period of time that you can see the results, brought on by mistakes, made by idiots.

Maliki? He wants no part of the sunnis. He does NOT want to see a huge crescent shaped Mideast with the House of Saud on top.

So, the stinky leadership smells, now, of Blair. Who is no Winston Churchill. While the "Texas moron" is no FDR.

Does it matter?

So far, it's just a soap opera. We can wait for better weather. And, better leadership. And, a general concensus that it doesn't pay to give the House of Saud "every grain of sand."

Posted by av8tor [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 8, 2007 1:18 PM

Ah Carol, I love your posts although they can be difficult to follow at times. However today I think you have eaten to many marshmallow peeps. Happy Easter!

Posted by Anthony (Los Angeles) [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 8, 2007 1:51 PM

And, somewhere in Baghdad, you just know that some American Infantry are grinning and saying "Bring it on." :)

Posted by patrick neid [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 8, 2007 2:36 PM

this is my standard post i pull out so i don't have to type it again:

"if i've said it once i've said it a hundred times--we need to change the scope of this war from bottom up to top down. either we are in a war on terror and the states that sponsor it or we are not. we know who the terrorists are and we know what states sponsor it. that said why are the top 100 hundred leaders of iran, syria, hamas, hezzbollah, sudan, al sadr etc still alive? forget attacking whole countries, start with the leadership. think cruise missiles without warning, all on the same nite."

every soldier that al sadr kills we are partially responsible for. all the excuse makers here and at other sites bear the same if not more so for encouraging these monsters that they have a chance. these people need to be executed immediately. they should have been several years ago. as i said previously:

"what is this constant bullshit about massive strikes, bombings etc that both supporters and opponents run out to deal with the terror nations. the only thing we have to do, and sooner or later we will do it, is admit we are in a war. not some "new age" war with that requires new tactics etc. that's just excuse making. all wars are the same--you kill bad guys wherever you find them--in large quantities if you can. tell me, if during world war II we knew where hitler or any of his generals were would we have tried to kill them? come on now a little louder i can't hear you. yes, that's right, we would have.
well, we know where the terror leaders/generals of this war on live and sleep every night. the leaders of iran, syria, hamas, hezzbollah, al sadr and sudan are very easy to find--yet we let them plan everyday how to kill more of us in their attempt to return the world to the 7th century. so please stop with this crap about massive air strikes, millions of dead and dying and all these other hobgoblins that are trotted out to prevent us from killing these monstrous bastards. what's it going to take--israel becoming a glass factory? 9/11 certainly was not enough. how much anecdotal evidence do we need over the last thirty years to conclude that there are loosely united groups centered in the middle east that mean to bring us down. they are funded and directed by the countries listed above. please for the love of god stop acting surprised when this info shows up. this "i'm shocked, i'm shocked" routine is getting old. i'm getting to the point that if iran is getting nukes, i hope they get them tomorrow and use them the day after. anything to get us off our sorry asses and confront the obvious while there is still time. right now we are losing this war--bigtime by staying bogged down in iraq. the leadership in syria and iran should have been gone two years ago along with al sadr. now look at the mess we are in."

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 8, 2007 3:48 PM

patrick neid wrote (April 8, 2007 02:36 PM):

the leadership in syria and iran should have been gone two years ago along with al sadr. now look at the mess we are in.

Agreed. How might things be different if Mookie couldn't run to Iran because there would be nobody there to welcome him, or at least they'd know better than to let him in?

"AH! Stay out of our country! You're attracting Tomahawks like camel shit draws flies!"

Posted by AST [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 8, 2007 8:16 PM

If I were in the Mahdi Militia, I'd be looking for a different line of work, at least until Congress finishes cutting our troops off at the knees. Iran might pay well, but dead is still dead.

We won this war in the first few weeks, but we've been losing the occupation, until now. With things getting better, both Muqtada and Pelosi/Reid realize that their time is running short to defeat our troops.

As for what we coulda, shoulda, woulda done, I think that this is typical of all our wars. The president listens to his advisers. Sometimes he has to go through a number of them before he finds the ones who get it right. Now we're getting it right, but the Dems don't care. They'd surrender to an Al Jazeera camera man at this point.

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 8, 2007 8:50 PM

Some people call what we're doing "war."

Not really.

We could call it "peaces."

And, the failure of diplomacy to choose a sign that would give this whole "game" purpose and direction.

Ain't there yet.

You're still just bystanders. Looking at the tent. Wondering if the rug is of any quality. Or not.

Personally, I think rugs are a waste of time. On the floor. Or on top of some bald guy's head. But business is business.

We went into Iraq for reasons that got muddied. Blair joined Bush; after throwing in the WMD Red Herring.

Bush went in with enemies. Seems not to care. Which is to his credit.

And, the Brits went into Basra. Right away. They didn't fight. But actually "halped" their friends, the Saudis.

How did the Saudis get these friends? Small band of Bedoins. A tribe. Living in Saudi Arabia. Not in dwellings. But in shifting from place to place. As a group, of course. With the world's worst version of Islam. So, when you start fishing; you'll be looking into the pit of Whabbism.

And, the Brits. And, the French. And, the Americans, following WW1, which we won, got taken to the cleaners by the Saudis! Who gave us permission to extract their oil, as long as we gave them the profits. And, did not expect them to "modernize." Or, what those riches would have done for most folk.

The Saudis haven't changed.

The diplomatic pants dancers haven't changed, either.

But the world's needs for oil, grew. What did you expect? For electricity you'd all form circles, and like in Blazing Saddles, fart to the center?

We're pretty phobic, too, about nuclear fuels.

So the Saudis made out like bandits.

andits is a good word, here. It describes in a nutshell, what happens when Westerners travel to the sands of Arbia. And, get snookered.

While, it's possible, finally some architects, building Dubai up, post Gulf War One; have done nothing much put build a city to look like Singapore. On a stagnant lagoon.

Nothing is really moving away from this picture; because where is the motatiion?

The 15 British kids? Okay. They were in uniform. But they sure didn't even look like hollywood actors. Unless you were making a gay film. Starring RIchard Simmons as Tony Blair. Then, what you saw, would work.

Tony doesn't like George. That's the current name of this show.

You wanted to see "action." And, all the director did was call "cut." And, the kids? Unlike most soldiers, exposed to war, who have their psychies really messed up by the realities of gun fire. These kids have hit the soap opera shows. And, each one stands to make some money. Their dear leader, the fat gal in the head scarf, really defies description. Most guys to wear the shoulder decorations she carried, would have had to have been much thinner.

And, we're discussing how America is TOUGH when she fights.

It's true we CAN BE TOUGH.

But we're not fighting. Fighting will come when a president marches into the White House, who is not beholden, through his family, to the House of Saud.

And, when others at the table can be honest. Including voicing suspicions that the kid from Texas is a moron. (Which is why the Brits weren't the first to complain about the TV qualities they got from the hostages; once the hostages, suffering nothing but carrying heavy bags out of iran; came home.)

Soap Operas, by definition, don't end.

And, all stage productions, even going back to the ancient greeks, were variations on gossip. And, gossip, by definition is ratting bethind the backs of others, distorted facts that make humans look bad. Old rule. Works for drama as well as comedy.

Since part of our successes deals with the fact that the House of Saud produces crap, not geniuses; at no time since 1918 did any one of them EVER learn a thing about engineering. Or sucking oil up out of a well.

Terrorists flourish, usually, in these environments.

While here in the USA, it's drugs, not oil. That's the money pit for the slums, and their goons.

You think this is a big problem?

As a nation, we've met it, not by looking for open and honest laws, but by building more prisons. And, having even more lawyers. Who corrupt everything they touch.

Behind the scenes?

Iraq's a learning curve. Some men? Coming from bad neighborhoods? Can grow jobs that give them talents. Or you didn't know about the "contractors." And, the facts on the ground, that Iraq CAN recover. And, Build. As soon as she figures out how to live life without the scourge of opporessors.

Lebanon tried. And, failed. And, the Israelis? Want no part of Lebanon! this surprised James Baker, last summer, very, very much.

And, the news? Hasn't contained a word of truth. Instead? It's just wall to wall propaganda.

Nothing knew. When you're not figuring out that the arabs and persians stink, you're reading "magic carpet ride" stories to your kids. Why?

All wars are intense. And, all of them end.

To get a good deal you need an engine that works, carrying things forward, afterwards.

After WW2, we got it right in Japan! THANKS TO GENERAL DOUGLAS MacArthur.

Alas, Truman had his way. And, the best man's career was destroyed. With the halp of Nehru and Gandhi. Who then got clobbered by the UN, when Pakestan was carved out of India, not just at any part, but at the head of their most holy river.

There's something about the jerks in charge, where you can see the pitfalls to their having guessed wrong.

And, most people today won't even tell you the truth.

It's not gonna hurt you to learn more on your own. Or, to pull the wool off your eyes. The truth is actually neat.

And, we've got years and years and years to build a better machine. While iran? They've already gone through a few heads. Where families at the top kill each other; to get the wealth of the nation.

The House of Saud? Screwing goats comes with a price. The one king is dead. He has 63 "brothers. Or something obscene, like that. The current king is 80. The youngest brother is already 63. (Maybe, that's where I got the #63 from?)

The killings that occur when rancor sets in. And, there's only one crown. IS the very mischief that will change the terrain. Almost cost free.

The other? Both iran and iraq have the POTENTIAL for a middle class! Not just slum people.

And, it's where a middle-class takes hold, that eventually ... just like the settling of America's Wild West; law and order comes in.

FRED THOMPSON has said some interesting things, stating his views, about what really took place with the ding-dong from iran, coming out winning the most, in the last "transaction."

All this shows is that having the words to speak can bring a man far, along the track of being heard.

Yes, Bush went in to get Saddam.

Yes, Truman accepted Israel's birth as a nation, in May of 1948.

Both men kept silent about their motives.

Ain't hard to know what happened.

Posted by The Poet Omar [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 8, 2007 10:14 PM

Hmmm... well as I've said before, al-Sadr is a very dangerous man. Not because he leads an "army" of Shia fundamentalists. Not because he has political skills and a certain low cunning. It is because of who he is. Genealogically.

Al-Sadr is a direct descendent of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), a Sayyid in Shia terms. He is also the son of the late Mohammad Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr, former Grand Ayatollah (in Catholic terms, think Cardinal). This combination is especially dangerous, as Shia tend to elevate their religious leaders to cult status. I am, obviously, biased (I'm Sunni), but Shia Islam is based on what is essentially a messianic cult of personality revolving around Muhammad (SAW) himself and Ali (PBUH).

Al-Sadr is using his status as a descendent of Muhammad (SAW) to gain power over the Shia community in Iraq and, to a certain extent, in Iran. As pointed out above, he is no military leader, although he is an astute politician when need be. The Allied Forces in Iraq must tread very carefully when dealing with him as he cannot simply be "removed" as Saddam and his sons were. That would create an insurrection amongst the Shia and likely direct intervention by Iran which would only make the situation in Iraq worse.

Another part of the problem (from a Sunni perspective anyway) is the very name of al-Sadr's organization : the Mahdi army. That is essentially like calling your terrorist group the "Army of Jesus (PBUH)." The concept is blasphemous (again, to Sunnis) and ridiculous, yet we fail, in my humble opinion, to use that angle against al-Sadr. His authority comes from his assumed "righteousness" due to his genealogy. Let's try to pull that rug out from underneath him by exposing him for the political hack and religious sham artist that he is. Isolate him in Iran and work to make sure that his followers cannot organize and are imprisoned any time that they attempt to cause trouble in Iraq. Then make sure the remaining Shia in Iraq are convinced of the fact that he does not speak with religious authority, but rather is a religious fraud. That, in my humble opinion, is how you beat him.

Posted by das411 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 8, 2007 10:33 PM

THANK you Omar!! That is exactly why we cannot take out al-Sadr as so many over here would like to do, but instead must marginalize and isolate him like the Administration and General Petraeus have been doing for 2 1/2 years now.

Correct me if I'm wrong but was it not the elder al-Sadr whom the district in Baghdad is named after, and not his son the troublemaker?

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 8, 2007 11:16 PM

The Poet Omar, like IRAQ THE MODEL, definitely a worthy read.

Still, the Saud's took their money, and infamously went into the mosques, once run by "mom and pop" imams; safely ensounced in every community around the globe. Where getting along was paramount for arab businessmen. And, turned it all into a HOUSE OF HORRORS! Now terrorism rules the sunni's.

While "wack-o" terrorism rules the Shi'a.

Maliki was ELECTED. By Iraqis. Who have a parlimentary system. This was a change, let me tell ya, from Saddam! And, his Ba'athist henchmen.

Perhaps, the sunnis regret their loss of power?

But there's no way, in a country with 40% Kurds, and 40% Shi'a ... to try and find a religious solution, ahead. WON'T HAPPEN.

The best solution? To use the oil reserves that bless the iraqi's in having, to creating the wealth of a middle-class!

Denied now to iranians. Who've used up their religious furvor.

What's missing from all analysis; is that the Mideast is NOT going to become a hammer for the HOUSE OF SAUD. Forget this.


And, no. Israel is NOT the problem!

What should have been learned last summer; where the 3 Israeli hostages, now probably dead; did not get the soap opera offer given to the Brit's. Is tat what the Brits did, happens to be shameful. They turned their sea powers inside-out. And, the calamity has yet to be adjusted for. As the cancer of muslem lunacy grows in Europe. No quite "undetected." Just "unsolved."

The Kurds, meanwhile, have dug deep. Rather than build walls. UP. It's still to keep out the arabs.

Did I fail to understand what happened when Talibani just played with iran? Hmm? Seems, here, Maliki is keeping the wild Kurds under control. And, those five men are still in custody.

The Shi'a have their problems. The "elites" in Iraq are stil not pulling for the people. If they were? They'd grow a strong legal arm. That would put people in jail for stealing billions.

General Patraeus is, though, getting MORE cooperation from Maliki than ever!

Which is partially due to the fears Maliki got from America's congress.

One thing? It's like fighting fire with fire. (A standard operational procedure; to take control of conglagrations. By building "back fires.")

And, fighting lunacy with lunacy.

That's what happened when Congress began voting to "move troops to Okinawa."

While there's still plenty of pork in the military spending bill.

Does Bush sign it? Or not?

Oddly enough I've past caring what Bush does. Or doesn't do. And, I watch vacations from congress to see what the mischief will be, ahead.

No. James Baker is NOT funny! Can he get the $8-billion give-away to the Sauds? Dunno.

There's a lot of things that CAN happen.

There's also a lot of things that get dispelled, when they see the lights of day on blogs.

As to Mookie being thought of as "a decendent of mohammed," then, how come his dad didn't see fit to get him a standardized Western education? Why is the kid an idiot?

Why are the idiots in charge?

This is not a 'joke' question.

Maliki, by the way, is NOT an idiot! He's actually a man who lived in fear of Saddam. NOT IN IRAQ. But between two homes, he built. In Damascus. And, Tehran.

Can things get better instead of worse?

Well, you always have the example of gazoo. And, arafat's kleptomaniacs. Sitting out there as examples of when bad things get worse. And, when hostages are killed. SO there's no quid-pro-quo.

And? If Maliki isn't a genius, is Olmert?

ANd, "who knows what evils lurk in the hearts of men, where the Shadow do?"

I still think it's mostly all a skirmish, still. And, CEMENT WALLS are more the answer than you think.

Man, shades of religious fraud isn't new, either. But the arabs don't go about writing Elmer Gantry.

And, today? More people sleep than find reasons to go to church. And, those who go to church? Hope to keep from dying. A conundrum of sorts, I suppose?

Lincoln used to memorize the poet, Robert Burns. Calling upon reason to laugh. Do you know the poetry of Robert Burns? Lincoln did.

Posted by The Poet Omar [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 9, 2007 12:54 AM

Burns was, "...the best laid plans of mice and men...," was he not Carol?

Also, don't underestimate al-Sadr. Although not educated in the West, he does have the equivalent of a post-graduate degree (call him something like EBD status [everything but the dissertation] and quite close to a Western doctorate degree). I agree that the current trend of "pull back to Okinawa" is not only ridiculous, but impossible and shameful. Should Congress pass this bill and override the promised veto, I greatly fear for our military and the Iraqi people.

I also agree with you, Carol, that the Saudis are a big part of the problem in the world today. Were it not for their oil-deepened pockets, Salafism (aka Wahabism) would have died on the vine.

das, I'm not sure if Mohammad al-Sadr was the real "troublemaker" in the family. He was a leading Shia leader and an enemy of the Saddam Baathist government, whom the Shia accuse of being behind his murder. The current al-Sadr's father-in-law, Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr was a friend of the late Ruhollah Khomeini (not a good thing), but also an avowed enemy of Saddam and executed by the Baathists (nail through the head, it's said). Perhaps the person you are thinking of is that man's cousin, Mohammad as-Sadr, who lead the Iraqi revolt against the British. He was definitely a troublemaker who sought to install a Shiite Islamist government in Iraq (basically a failed attempt at what Ruhollah Khomeini did in 1979 in Iran).

Posted by Gary Gross [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 9, 2007 2:26 AM

This might work in our favor. If the Mahdi Army fights, then US & Iraqi troops can spot & kill them instead of them hiding until after the Petraeus Offensive ends.

Posted by Davod [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 9, 2007 3:22 AM


I agree that this guy has to be sidelined. It is a sad state of affairs when our intelligence communities cannot come up with a plan to show him up in the eyes of his followers.

This is a much larger problem as we should be doing the same to radical Islam in general.

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 9, 2007 6:18 AM

How do we go about marginalizing Sadr? If his cowering in Iran while he orders his followers to fight to the death doesn't do it, what will? It's VERY difficult to undermine a religious leader unless he gets caught redhanded doing something totally outrageous, and even then many of his followers won't be convinced; he would have been "set up" or the evidence would be faked.

Personally, I remain in favor of giving him a case of acute, terminal, rapid-onset lead poisoning.

Posted by patrick neid [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 9, 2007 8:26 AM

to all you nuanced excuse makers--al sadr should have been killed three years ago when he was in US custody.

his father was revered he was not. three years ago all but a handful of shia thought he was nothing but a fat ugly buffoon with severe dental problems. but now, after listening to folks like you, we have created a frankenstein that kills us daily while you cower in the corner afraid that you may be next. how pathetic. he needs to be executed. the newly dead blood is on your hands.

your continued rationalizing comes from cowardice. you are afraid to win the war. in fact you probably deny we are really in one. yours are the same excuses that wasted 'print ink' on the editorial pages in the UK and US during the late 30's on why hitler et al could not be confronted. the theory was he was more dangerous dead than alive. yours is the same excuse.

the leadership of iran, syria, hamas, hezzbollah, al sadr and sudan need to be executed now. the civil wars and carnage that follow are the necessary horrors so that the middle east/islam can transit from the 7th century to at least the 18th.

whatever you do stop making excuses on why these monsters should exist while they sip their lattes planning on the next set of murders and beheadings.

Posted by Achillea [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 9, 2007 8:48 AM

How do we go about marginalizing Sadr?

Sistani, maybe?

Posted by patrick neid [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 9, 2007 9:02 AM


that was a great link to orwell from a previous post.....thanks

Posted by BarCodeKing [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 9, 2007 9:10 AM

Mooqie needs to come down with a bad case of dead.

Time to make him a shahid.

Posted by The Poet Omar [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 9, 2007 9:53 AM

"the leadership of iran, syria, hamas, hezzbollah, al sadr and sudan need to be executed now. the civil wars and carnage that follow are the necessary horrors so that the middle east/islam can transit from the 7th century to at least the 18th. "

So, the ends justify the means, Patrick? That is remarkably similar to the thinking of those like al-Sadr.

As I pointed out, al-Sadr is considered (and would have been considered prior to his father's death, too, you can't simply brush aside genealogy) a holy figure to the Shia community. He is literally a direct descendant of the 6th and 7th Shia imams and, through them, from Muhammad (SAW). Shia are quite fanatical about their imams and those who are Sayyids. If we kill this man, blood will flow. Oh, yes, much of it will be Shia blood, but a fair amount will be American and British blood. Do we really want that? Are we not taking enough casualties now dealing with this man as he is? Why make him exponentially more dangerous by creating a matyr to rally around? Also, that provides an incentive for Iran to directly interene in Iraq, which, of course, means Saudi Arabia would have to jump in too, to protect the Sunni minority (whose safety they have pledged to protect). You may prefer to see an Arab/Persian bloodbath and think that the world will be a better place afterwards. I disagree. Why create a situation where tens of thousands of lives will be lost, when we can simply isolate al-Sadr, arrest his followers, and work on making him look like the fraud and fool that he is?

Posted by Courtneyme109 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 9, 2007 12:55 PM

Poet Omar. Careful! If all you say is true, then why doesn't the Mullahs regime knock him out? Consider - Mookie has blown it three times now - back in 2003 in Najaf, 2004 in Karbala and 2005 in Sadr City. All he accomplished was to get his minions in one place for the naughty Americans to step in and kill them off by the truck load.

Mookie also failed to get his own Shi ite majority in the gov, despite the nearly 80 mil Iran spent on it.

So, if killing Mookie will just set Iraq on fire then Iran had best hurry - before, once again the skoal chewing, ray ban wearing, cigar smoking sons of the Great Satan make it a dumb, deadly thing to be in the Mahdi Army.

Posted by Immolate [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 9, 2007 1:57 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't half the Shi'ites on the planet Sayyids (or Seyeds for you Persians)? Both my stepsons are. Seems like a pretty common thing. Haj would seem a bit more of a distinction.

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 9, 2007 6:37 PM


No prob. Orwell is one of my favorite writers. I even get a kick out of reading his essay on the perfect cup of tea (a drink I despise unless served very cold, very sweet, and with a very large plate of BBQ). His common sense and his passionate hatred of totalitarianism shine through in almost everything he writes. There's a socialist that I could get along with, I think!

Posted by The Poet Omar [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 9, 2007 7:32 PM

Courtney you have managed to both oversimplify and misstate the problem. Remember when Saddam was hanged? The Shia present shouted (allegedly), "Long live Mohammed Baqir al-Sadr." Shia have a long memory for this kind of thing (Saddam was blamed for ordering al-Sadr's execution). If you don't believe me, look at the early Shia-Sunni history. The followers and descendents of Ali (PBUH) killing Sunnis and being killed themselves. Sunnis and Shiites do not live together in peace without some overriding authority holding them apart (Saddam in Iraq's case). I am certainly ashamed at this tragic behavior (as should all Muslims be, Sunni and Shiite), but it is how it is for right now.

Are you suggesting that Iran should kill al-Sadr to create the excuse to enter Iraq? Possible, but unlikely. They seem to be currently enjoying the trouble that he is making for the Coalition forces at very little cost to them.

Also, you seem to want to see Iraq burn. Will that win the war? I suppose, but again I question your philosophy on this matter. You seem to be suggesting, as Patrick did that the ends justify the means.

Posted by The Poet Omar [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 9, 2007 7:53 PM

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't half the Shi'ites on the planet Sayyids (or Seyeds for you Persians)? "

Possibly, but not many actually have the genealogical records to prove it. The al-Sadr family do.

"Haj would seem a bit more of a distinction."

True, but in al-Sadr's case he does have a legitimate religious honorific (it counts among Shia, not Sunnis) : Hojatoleslam. It's his religious rank, roughly what Christians would call a bishop. I'm not sure if he has ever made the Hajj. As Saudi has been under the influence of radical Salafists for the whole of his life, he would have needed to hide his Shia status to enter. Shia are shoot on site to Salafists.

Posted by Waldo the Wanderer [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 3:36 AM

As regards Moqtada al-Sadr: yes, he comes from a line that states they are descended from the prophet. His father was a prominent leader. The mantle should have fallen to his older brother Mostapha, but he was killed when he attempted tp shield his fathers body when their car came under fire in February 1999.

What Moqtada is not is a leader whose religious fervor led him to lead his people.

Quoting Fouad Ajami, "The Foreigner's Gift" : "Young Sadr had not risen as a scholar; he hadn't the patience and the skills. He had not pored over religious texts or pondered schools of jurisprudence. He had his name, his passion for revenge, and the young "Sadrists" in the poor Shia slums of Baghdad whose anger and unsettledness merged with and reflected his own" p 99

Further perusal of this book will show that Moqtada used pretension, geographic distance, and guile to con the Ayatollah Haeri into legitimizing his claims-> Haeri later came to be at odds with Moqtada.

As regards Sadr telling his sadly misled followers to attack the Americans directly, I too say "bring it on".

Guess where I live, what my job is, and what kind of weapon I carry?

Posted by Courtneyme109 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 10, 2007 5:33 PM

Omar, I want to see Iraq turn into an egalitarian society with a free, uncensored press and open, transparent elections and a tolerate stance on all religions.

I was responding to your kinda sorta thought that Mookie is so vibrant, magical and untouchable that the evil crusaders shouldn't target him for fear of setting Iraq ablaze.

He's a punk who chickened out and split before the Surge really got started. His track record is weak - all failures. If Iran thought it was to their benefit to have him 'martyred' they'd best hurry before Al Sadr can add Kufa to his list of failures.

I understand your quick history on Sunni's and Shia's. I can see why you'd think like that. I can also point out that history doesn't share that view. For example - Japan. Japan was ruled by the brutal code of Bushido for centuries. They loved it, lived it and fought and died for it til sometime in Sept 1945. Now Japan has more in common with Israel than Saudi Arabia. Nothing magic about it.

Back to the surge - it's working. If insurgents hide or run off - their shame is again like burning coals on their head. If they respond to honor - they die - like the big battle near Baghdad today.