The nightmare Bush dreads most
By Dilip Hiro
Public opinion polls are valuable chips to play for those engaged in a debate of national or international consequence. In the end, however, they are abstract numbers. It is popular demonstrations which give them substance, color, and - above all - wide media exposure, and make them truly meaningful. This is particularly true when such marches are peaceful and disciplined in a war-ravaged country like Iraq.
This indeed was the case with the demonstration on April 9 in Najaf. Over a million Iraqis, holding aloft thousands of national flags, marched, chanting, "Yes, yes, Iraq/No, no, America" and "No, no, American/Leave, leave occupier."
The demonstrators arrived from all over the country in response to a call by Muqtada al-Sadr, a radical Shi'ite cleric, to demand an end to foreign occupation on the fourth anniversary of the end of Ba'athist rule in Baghdad.
Both the size of the demonstration and its composition were unprecedented. "There are people here from all different parties and sects," Hadhim al-Araji, Muqtada's representative in Baghdad's Kadhimiya district, told reporters. "We are all carrying the national flag, a symbol of unity. And we are all united in calling for the withdrawal of the Americans."
The presence of many senior Sunni clerics at the head of the march, which started from Muqtada's mosque in Kufa, a nearby town, and the absence of any sectarian flags or images in the parade, underlined the ecumenical nature of the protest.
Crucially, the mammoth demonstration reflected the view prevalent among Iraqi lawmakers. Last autumn, 170 of them in a 275-member Parliament, signed a motion demanding to know the date of an American withdrawal. The discomfited government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki played a procedural trick by referring the subject to a parliamentary committee, thereby buying time.
Opinion polls conducted since then show three-quarters of Iraqi respondents demanding the withdrawal of the Anglo-American troops within six to 12 months.
What makes Muqtada tick?
Though only in his early thirties and only a hojatalislam ("proof of Islam") - one rank below an ayatollah in the Shi'ite religious hierarchy - Muqtada al-Sadr has pursued a political strategy no other Iraqi politician can match.
The sources of his ever-expanding appeal are: his pedigree, his fierce nationalism, his shrewd sense of when to confront the occupying power and when to lie low and his adherence to the hierarchical order of the Shi'ite sect, topped by a grand ayatollah - at present 73-year-old Ali Sistani, whose opinion or decree must be accepted by all those below him. (For his part, Sistani does not criticize any Shi'ite leader.)
Muqtada's father, grand ayatollah Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr, and two elder brothers were assassinated outside a mosque in Najaf in February 1999 by the henchmen of president Saddam Hussein. The grand ayatollah had defied Saddam by issuing a religious decree calling on Shi'ites to attend Friday prayers in mosques. The Iraqi dictator, paranoid about large Shi'ite gatherings, feared these would suddenly turn violently anti-regime.
Muqtada then went underground - just as he did recently in the face of the Bush administration's "surge" plan - resurfacing only after the Ba'athist regime fell in April 2003; and Saddam City, the vast slum of Baghdad, with nearly 2 million Shi'ite residents, was renamed Sadr City. As the surviving son of the martyred family of a grand ayatollah, Muqtada was lauded by most Shi'ites.
While welcoming the demise of the Ba'athist regime, Muqtada consistently opposed the continuing occupation of his country by Anglo-American forces. When L Paul Bremer, the American viceroy in Iraq, banned his magazine al-Hawza al Natiqa ("The Vocal Seminary") in April 2004 and American soldiers fired on his followers protesting peacefully against the publication's closure, Muqtada called for "armed resistance" to the occupiers.
Uprisings spread from Sadr City to the southern Iraqi holy cities of Najaf and Karbala as well as four other cities to the south. More than 540 civilians died in the resulting battles and skirmishes. Since the American forces were then also battling Sunni insurgents in Fallujah, Bremer let the ban on the magazine lapse and dropped his plan to arrest Muqtada.
Later, Muqtada fell in line with the wishes of Sistani to see all Shi'ite religious groups gather under one umbrella to contest parliamentary election. His faction allied with two other Shi'ite religious parties - the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and al-Da'awa al-Islamiya (the Islamic Call) - to form the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA).
By so doing, in the face of American hostility, Muqtada gave protective political cover to his faction and its armed wing, the Mehdi Army. (US officials in Baghdad and Washington have long viewed Muqtada and his militia as the greatest threat to American interests in Iraq.) Of the 38 ministers in Maliki's cabinet, six belong to the Sadrist group. (On Monday, it was reported that the six ministers would quit the government because Maliki had refused to set a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops.)
When the Pentagon mounted its latest security plan for Baghdad on February 13 - aiming to crush both the Sunni insurgents and Shi'ite militias - Muqtada considered discretion the better part of valor. He ordered his Mehdi militiamen to get off the streets and hide their weapons. For the moment, they were not to resist American forays into Shi'ite neighborhoods. He then went incommunicado.
Muqtada's decision to avoid bloodshed won plaudits not only from Iraqi politicians but also, discreetly, from Sistani, who decries violence, and whose commitment to bringing about the end of the foreign occupation of Iraq is as strong as Muqtada's - albeit not as vocal.
In a message to the nation on the eve of the fourth anniversary of the demise of Saddam's Ba'athist regime, Muqtada coupled his order to the Mehdi fighters to intensify their campaign to expel the Anglo-American troops with a call to the Iraqi security forces to join the struggle to defeat "the arch enemy - America". He urged them to cease targeting Iraqis and direct their anger at the occupiers.
It was the Mehdi Army - controlling the shrine of Imam Ali, the founder of Shi'ite Islam, in the holy city of Najaf - that battled the American troops to a standstill in August 2004. The impasse lasted a fortnight, during which large parts of Najaf's old city were reduced to rubble, with the government of the US-appointed prime minister Iyad Allawi, favorite Iraqi exile of the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department as well as leader of the exiled Iraqi National Accord, failing to defuse it.
By contrast, it took Sistani, freshly back in Najaf, his home base, from London after eye surgery a single session with Muqtada over dinner to resolve the crisis. A compromise emerged. The Mehdi Army ceded control of the holy shrine not to the Americans or their Iraqi cohorts but to Sistani's representatives, and both Mehdi militiamen and US troops left the city.
The towering Sistani
Ali Sistani established his nationalist credentials early on. As the invading American forces neared Najaf on March 25, 2003, he issued a religious decree requiring all Muslims to resist the invading "infidel" troops. Once the Anglo-American forces occupied Iraq, he adamantly refused to meet American or British officials or their emissaries, and continues to do so to this day.
In January, 2004, when Washington favored appointing a hand-picked body of Iraqis, guided by American experts, to draft the Iraqi constitution along secular, democratic and capitalist lines, Sistani decided to act. He called on the faithful to demonstrate for an elected Parliament, which would then be charged with drafting the constitution - and he succeeded.
Sistani then issued a religious decree calling on the faithful to participate in the vote to create a representative assembly committed to achieving the exit of foreign troops through peaceful means. The White House, however, exploited Sistani's move as part of its own "democracy promotion" campaign in Iraq, with Iraqi fingers dipped in inedible purple ink becoming its much flaunted "democracy symbol".
When Allawi began dithering about holding the vote for an interim parliament by January 2005, as stipulated by UN Security Council Resolution 1546, Sistani warned that he would call for popular non-cooperation with the occupying powers if it was not held on time.
In the elections that followed, the United Iraqi Alliance - the brain-child of Sistani - emerged as the majority group and thus the leading designer of the new constitution. Respecting Sistani's views, the Iraqi constitution stipulated that sharia (Islamic law) was to be the principal source of Iraqi legislation and that no law would be passed that violated the undisputed tenets of Islam.
In the December 2005 parliamentary general election under the new constitution, the UIA became the largest group, a mere 10 seats short of a majority. Though Ibrahim Jaafari of Da'awa won the contest for UIA leadership by one vote, he was rejected as prime minister by the Kurdish parties, holding the parliament's swing votes, as well as by Washington and London. A crisis paralyzed the government. Once again, Sistani's intercession defused a crisis. He persuaded Jaafari to step down.
Jaafari's successor, Maliki, is as reverential toward Sistani as other Shi'ite leaders. For instance, in December 2006, when American officials reportedly urged Maliki to postpone Saddam's execution until after the religious holiday of Eid Al Adha (the Festival of Sacrifice), Maliki turned to Sistani. The grand ayatollah favored an immediate execution. And so it came to pass.
Sistani's next blow fell on the Bush administration earlier this month. He let be known his disapproval of Washington-backed legislation to allow thousands of former Ba'ath Party members to resume their public service positions. That undermined one of the White House's pet projects in Iraq - an attempt to entice into the political mainstream part of the alienated Sunni minority that is at the heart of the Iraqi insurgency.
In sum, while refraining from participating in everyday politics, Sistani intervenes on the issues of paramount importance to the Iraqi people, as he sees them. Western journalists, who routinely describe him as belonging to the "quietist school" of Shi'ite Islam (at odds with the "interventionist school"), are therefore off the mark.
Given Sistani's uncompromising opposition to the presence of foreign troops in Iraq, his staunch nationalism and the unmatched reverence that he evokes, particularly among the majority Shi'ites, he poses a greater long-term threat to Washington's interests in Iraq than Muqtada; and, far from belonging to opposite schools of Shi'ite Islam, Muqtada and Sistani, both staunch nationalists, complement each other - much to the puzzled frustration of the White House.
What must worry Washington more than the massive size of the demonstration on April 9 was its mixed Shi'ite-Sunni composition and nationalistic ambience. The prospect of Muqtada's appeal extending to a section of the Sunni community, with the tacit support of Sistani, is the nightmare scenario that the Bush administration most dreads. Yet it may come to pass.
Dilip Hiro is the author of Secrets and Lies: Operation Iraqi Freedom and After and, most recently, Blood of the Earth: The Battle for the World's Vanishing Oil Resources (Nation Books).
Original article posted here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I commented on one of your posts the other day and linked to your blog on http://deadissue.com - happened to see this piece on al-Sadr and wanted to thank you for posting it. I'm still learning as much as I can about all the players (al-Sadr in particular), and happened to write something last night on the topic. I'd be interested in knowing your opinion of it. Perhaps you could also post a link to deadissue - - - Looking forward to reading more!
Our Puppet Is Not Well
Since right-wingers are focusing on repeating over and over that the security situation within Iraq is improving, I'm quite sure that Democrats will continue to repeat over and over that a political solution is necessary to achieve any positive result. The President hasn't taken a word of it to heart, hasn't seemed to have learned anything along the way, and so we're in a spot where there's no viable strategy we can employ besides somehow evoking Muhammad himself, along with all his nephews, brothers, cousins, whoever he may have had relations with that some of these Flinstone cocksuckers may have idolized and killed their neighbors in the name of, to come back to earth and tell everyone to calm down, put down the guns, give the oil leases to the nice white men who went through all this trouble on your behalf, and don't let me catch you carrying on like this ever again.
Indeed, they should be ashamed of themselves, and not playing partisan politics like Moktada al-Sadr, who yesterday made news by pulling his 6 cabinet members out of the government, leaving 30 parliament members remaining, but certainly letting Maliki and the rest of this puppet regime know he was serious about lighting a match, burning the whole fucking place down if he had to, if they didn't succumb to his will and the will of the majority of Iraqis who are still there in demanding a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops. Echoing a similar sentiment here in the United States, al-Sadr has apparently been reading up on some of Augustus Caesar's greatest schemes, perhaps fine-tuning his rhetoric and actions to coincide with some sort of buildup over the next month or two, in concert with the gullible, permissive nature of the occupiers who carry big guns and kick in many doors, yet allow his people to demonstrate freely and organize against their efforts, even go so far as to declare Iraq as one country with one enemy, whose continued presence makes all Iraqis brothers in arms, if only for a short time.
Al-Sadr's words do not yet carry the weight of a future tyrant who is feared quite yet, but from where my fat ass is sitting, it could simply be my prejudice and inability to trust any of these players when they seem sincere, if not for the length of their beards, then their seemingly unquenchable appetite for mass murder, the killing of their own, so uninhibited and sportsmanlike in the mutilation and disposal of corpses in public, like trophies almost, the dead are handled in a way that most would assume to be for the benefit of an audience that will feel terrified and bend to the will of whoever made the deposit, though I suspect that the effect of all this, has by now become more of an overkill in that regard, and has instead crossed over into the realm of game hunting, the fulfillment of macabre fantasy, and for certain, a widespread level of acceptance in terms of knowing that there is no return to what they were before, and even if there was, who could live with such a monster and still claim to be a messenger of anything holy, let alone human?
It's not as if the phenomenon of a cease fire could actually take place on anyone's say-so this deep into the bloodbath, and as far as I can tell, al-Sadr is probably the closest thing there will ever be, next to Mohammad himself, of someone with the clout to command something and cause the maniacs to at least take some time away from making their latest victim howl in agony, long enough to get a few thoughts out of his head and into those of the most anti-social, yet insanely religious Iraqis around.
My educated guess about whether or not he could pull something off is worthless, but as of right now I'm skeptical that the withdrawal of his people from parliament would pay dividends immediately, as the game then would be on the streets exclusively, with his militias already proving difficult to control, being relied on to slaughter off enough ministry heads, gaining control of their flow of government cash, to continue the pac-man strategy, until either from fear or other circumstances, the voting majorities in parliament and within Maliki's own collection of brain cells inside his skull-cap, finally vote to eject the occupying force...all of which I'm skeptical about at this point, and soon to be indifferent towards once again (new semester getting serious). That said, the ball is in al-Sadr's court, whether anyone likes it or not.
Neither Maliki nor Bush have any say over the outcome of this mess, but both can and will indeed manage to make matters worse in the meantime. The entire thing is too far over their heads at this point, and as much as we Americans like to pretend it no longer matters, that firepower and money can make up for a lack of leadership skills in our executive branch, the law firm of Bush, Rove & Cheney simply do not possess the specific skills that a seat at this particular table requires. Supposedly a 'war czar' and the lone efforts and brilliance of one General Patraeus are enough for us to come out on top, but whoever actually believes such things at this point shouldn't even be reading something like this to begin with...in fact, if you've still got hope in your heart that for once these stooges haven't simply lied to your face about the strategy in Iraq, never visit this site again, and stay tuned to those cable news channels, flip around and get a taste of each dish on a daily basis, so you can always remember where you were when the war was won...
OK, now that the children have left the area, let's get down to some serious words that I find politically brilliant and depressing as hell at the same time:
Moktada al-Sadr: "Oh Iraqi people, you are aware, as 48 months have passed, that we live in a state of oppression, unjust repression and occupation. Forty-eight hard months — that make four years — in which we have gotten nothing but more killing, destruction and degradation...The occupier supported Saddam and helped him to become stronger, then removed him because his cards were burned,” he said, using an Arabic expression to note that Saddam Hussein was no longer useful to the United States. “The fall of Saddam means nothing to us as long as the alternative is the American occupation.”
The saddest part of all this is that we made this al-Sadr what he is today, by having our head up our ass for the first year after the invasion, and then simply playing the cards we were dealt once the votes were tallied, having gone into this war with not much more than the word of Ahmed Chalibi and his friends, the political landscape wasn't one that our intelligence could have helped "tidy up" in a way that would have sewn up our share of the spoils by now...hence the emergence of someone who did know a thing or two about the game being played, and once legitimized within the government, with his own puppet in Maliki as prime minister, it was simply a mission of consolidating power, stoking hatred of Americans and playing our own hapless leaders' soft spot for "good news" to his advantage.
So it went like this for a while, and desperation led us to an act that we'll likely regret for many years to come, that being the speedy trial of Saddam Hussein on a mere slice of the legitimate charges he should have been brought up on. Eager to have something, anything to grab onto and call a sign of progress, President Bush pulled the lever and Hussein's premature conviction and execution not only managed to rob millions of the justice we were supposedly there to provide, but it served as the most effective piece of self-promotion one could ever have hoped for...literally a once in a lifetime opportunity for publicity, one that will be signified by nothing more powerful than Saddam asking "Moktada?" following the prayer that turned into a campaign slogan, less than a minute before the trap door opened and the tyrant was no more. (Sources: Yahoo, NYTimes, NYTimes)
Interesting article. The major point of this article to me appears that the US is involved in a failing imperialist adventure; Al Sadr is capitalizing on the desire of Iraqis for Americans to leave; the author doesn't trust Al Sadr or understands the extend of his power: and that his power is a result of "our" missteps. The points I agree with to an extent. Despite the kind of entertaining writing style employed though, I am not sure that the author is saying anything new. Of course, Al Sadr has played his political (and military) cards well. Of course, Iraqis want us out, especially after the morons showed their complete incompetence and voracity for greed and avarice. Of course, we don't have any great answers and time will tell.
So the result from my perspective is what it has always been. We should just leave and have faith in the Iraqi people to solve their problems. Of course, this will not happen, especially as the neo Cons are help bent on carving up the country to at least establish a Kurdistan. In short, this has been nothing short of a monumental disaster of epic proportions and, yes, time will tell to see how fucked up it ultimately will be. But it is simply absurd to think that any government representative of the people will be favorable to the United States, just like it would strain the credibility to think that a French government after WWII would have been "friendly" towards Germany (especially if the Nazis were still in power). Just can't happen. When an occupying force is responsible for the deaths of around a million of its inhabitants and the displacement of over two million, and the numerous scandals that have been widely known, you are going to be hated for a long time to come. This is the ruined reputation that this Bushmonkey has done to the name of my country.
His damage will take more than a lifetime to repair. And many, many lives can simply never be replaced.
Hope this serves as an adequate response. Thanks for stopping by and posting.
I agree - there's no upside for anyone involved if we were to stay.
Post a Comment