Protests Unleashed by Cleric Mark a New Front in War

[kskiska]

Monday, April 5, 2004; Page A01

BAGHDAD, April 4 -- By unleashing mass demonstrations and attacks in Baghdad and southern Iraq on Sunday, a young, militant cleric has realized the greatest fear of the U.S.-led administration since the occupation of Iraq began a year ago: a Shiite Muslim uprising.

Fighting with U.S. troops raged into the night in a Baghdad slum, and hospitals reportedly took in dozens of casualties. But even before sunset, there was a sense across the capital that a yearlong test of wills between the American occupation and supporters of Moqtada Sadr had turned decisive, and its implications reverberated through Iraq.

The unrest signaled that the U.S. military faces armed opposition on two fronts: in scarred Sunni towns such as Fallujah and, as of Sunday, in a Shiite-dominated region of the country that had remained largely acquiescent, if uneasy about the U.S. role. If put down forcefully, a Shiite uprising -- infused with religious imagery, and symbols drawn from Iraq's colonial past and the current Palestinian conflict -- could achieve a momentum of its own.

During the last year, Sadr has appealed to poor and disenfranchised Shiites, the majority of Iraq's population, with a relentless anti-occupation message. A junior cleric, the 30-year-old's authority is far overshadowed by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the country's leading religious figure. Sadr and his followers remain distinctly unpopular in the Shiite holy city of Najaf, where the more established clergy hold sway. But he commands a street following in Baghdad and the long-neglected cities of the south, and his militia of several thousand men has grown in strength and influence.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50349-2004Apr4.html

[frank frankly]

1. nightmare time

everything until now has been warm up

will the world outlast BushCo?

:shrug:

[David Dunham]

2. It's nightmare time for Bush and the whole US because of him.

[kainah]

3. but just watch

come hell or high water -- or both -- he will have his little ceremony on June 31st and it will make about as much difference to the real situation over there as his May 1st speech.

[daleo]

13. June 31 would be an appropriate day for the ceremony

Nothing personal, just pointing out the unintended irony as there is no June 31 on the calendar.

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. This is not a new front

This front has always been there. Recall the Marines who were forced to get on one knee at the beginning of this genocide else they get mobbed?

Facing this is just part of the evolving process that has been predicted for the last couple of years here on DU.

[alcuno]

5. The U.S. will now have to kill or capture Sadr.

They're not going to just let him stay on the loose. Then what.

[NNN0LHI]

9. Then Sadr will become a martyr and someone else will take his place n/t

[0007]

10. They'll hunt him down a like a dirty dog. Some will sell him out

for reward money. But another will pop right back up. We should have learned something from the Brits eighty six years ago.

[Crunchy Frog]

14. Then the shit will really hit the fan. eom

[NashVegas]

17. My, What a Pleasant Fellow

Whether justified or not, Mr. Sadr has a reputation for vengefulness. Last April, Abdul Majid al-Khoei, a rival Shiite cleric, was hacked to death by a mob, a crime one of Mr. Sadr's henchmen is now accused of committing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/05/international/middleeast/05SADR.html

[IndianaGreen]

18. That incident was widely reported in the foreign press and posted in DU

A pro-Saddam cleric was the real target of an angry crowd when Abdul Majid al-Khoei stepped-in to prevent harm. He was hacked to death by the angry crowd together with the pro-Saddam cleric.

There was no assassination!

Why would anyone believe the NY Times after all the lies it has published about Iraq?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

25. Link? Reference?

If it really "was widely reported in the foreign press and posted in DU", it shouldn't be difficult for you to provide a link.

[IndianaGreen]

26. Here is the BBC story that I bookmarked at the time of the incident

Al-Khoei was not the target, but the other cleric who had been a Saddam supporter.

There was no murder here. The US is lying as usual.

Shia leader murdered in Najaf
Thursday, 10 April, 2003

A senior Shia cleric working with coalition forces has been killed inside a mosque in the Iraqi holy city of Najaf.
Abdul Majid al-Khoei returned to Iraq from exile in London only last week.

He was one of two Muslim leaders hacked to death outside the Ali Mosque, one of the holiest sites for Shia Muslims.

The other was cleric Haider Kelidar, whom according to Arabic satellite channel al-Jazeera, had worked for Saddam Hussein's ministry of religious affairs.

<snip>

He (Khoei) had noticed Mr Kelidar coming under attack by a crowd and gone to help him - but was himself knifed. Both men died.

Other reports said crowds shouted abuse at the clerics, causing Mr Khoei to produce a gun and fire shots.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2936887.stm

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. Your interpretation of this news article is bizarre.

The article repeats conflicting reports about what happened, without drawing any conclusions or asserting what the reality of what happened was. Yet you have decided it supports your preconceived ideologically based opinions.

Then there is this bizarre passage - you say "There was no murder here. The US is lying as usual." and then immediately quote the headline of the article: "Shia leader murdered in Najaf"


:wtf:

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

30. I remember it well,

and it is not clear from the news reports what happened.


Rather than using my preconceived biases to form an opinion, I choose to reserve judgement when the facts are not clear.



Whereas you use an article called "Shia leader murdered in Najaf" to bolster your argument that "There was no murder here."


I guess those reading this can decide for themselves which of us is making more sense.

[DrBB]

6. If Shiites are coming off the bench

...we are in some real pretty shit indeed. Tricky thing here: it's not just Shiites vs Americans (vs Sunnis). It's one guy leading a radical Shiite faction who sees going after the US as a way to achieve preeminence in his own sect and thereby achieve credibility as the guy who will help them consolidate power over against their long-time oppressors, the Sunnis.

Up to now, the Shiite majority has been content to let the US fight the Sunnis and take the losses. Which maybe they still are, as a populace. But Moqtada Al Sadr is now betting that, with Bremer's idiot move of shutting down his newspaper, he's in a position to mobilize Siite resentment toward both entities (Sunnis and the US) as a way to shoulder aside the more conciliatory leadership and take over the leadership. The US is getting ready to stomp on the Shiites hard in vengeance for slaughtering the mercenaries. I'm guessing thal Sadr has seen this for what it is: a moment of vulnerability for both his enemies. A moment when he can exercise his ability to mobilize the Shiites to maximum advantage. If non-affiliated Shiites see him as able to wield power against both bad guys, it will enhance his position.

He has been cut out of any role in the up-coming constitutional settlement (which is itself a horrible fraud). He's got nothing to gain by playing nice and everything to gain by wreaking havoc.

[markses]

7. An excellent article

That analysis is really good at laying out the key parties and their variable relationships. It does not explain a few things:

• The analysis states that the Mahdi Army has been growing in power since October. At that time, the MA had about 500 members; now it has 10,000 and I've read other reports that say tens of thousands. At the same time, the article states that Sadr has been keeping a low profile, and that Sistani has been more influential. This group of assertions seems contradictory on its face. The question, then, is this:
  
  
  
  • How could Sadr's group grow virtually exponentially if his influence and profile has been decreasing relative to Sistani's more moderate position?
    
  
  
• Related: What political/organiozing activities have the Sadr group been practicing in order to account for a massive rise in popularity?
  
• Doesn't the increase in the mahdi Army demonstrate both a political and intelligence failure (and perhaps even a military failure) on the ground?
  
• What relationships, if any, have been established between the Sunni insurgents in the north and the Shi'a in the south. In the last month, we saw joint Shi'a and Sunni protests in Baghdad, and perhaps more alarmingly, we saw a duplication of IED tactics as far south as Amarah and Basra (in one incident, several British soldiers were wounded by a roadside bomb attack on a convoy). Wouldn't these indicate closer coordination between the Shi'a and the Sunni than were previously expected?
  

Needless to say, there's a lot more the analysis does not account for, but overall, it is a good primer for folks to get a lay of the land.

[IndianaGreen]

16. The analysis is total bunk

Nothing but drivel to keep the American sheep in line.

Here is the BBC:

The protests were triggered by the closure of Mr Sadr's main newspaper a week ago; they intensified after the arrest on Saturday of one of his top aides, Mustafa Yacoubi.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3599771.stm

[Feanorcurufinwe]

24. Why are you pretending that isn't in the Post article?

Even after it has been pointed out to you?

The latest round of tension began March 28, with the U.S. closure of Sadr's al-Hawza newspaper.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50349-2004Apr4.html

[bpilgrim]

8. i think we will respond with more pressure

i doubt the neo-cons are able to see any other solution, besides it fits their 'vision' of the future, mini nukes and moabs, cheaper, don't need the draft and much quicker.





and so it goes...


so many places to conquer so little time...

peace

[teryang]

11. This situation is way beyond American control

Good analysis, poor prognosis.

[Eye and Monkey]

12. bump

[IndianaGreen]

15. The Post story is bullshit. It was Bremer's closing of a newspaper

that triggered this chain of events as the following paragraph in a BBC dispatch reminds the reader:

The protests were triggered by the closure of Mr Sadr's main newspaper a week ago; they intensified after the arrest on Saturday of one of his top aides, Mustafa Yacoubi.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3599771.stm

Remember what happened after Bremer fired the entire Iraqi army, all 400,000 of them?

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndianaGreen]

20. I read that in the BBC earlier this morning

The Post is crap, as is the NY Times, and the rest of the American media. They are the enablers of the war in Iraq.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. But the Post and the BBC agree about the newspaper

Are you saying the Post is crap because you read it after the BBC website?

[IndianaGreen]

22. The Post as a newpaper is crap

just like the NY Times and WSJ. They are responsible for selling Bush as a "wartime king" and the WMDs claims about Iraq.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndianaGreen]

29. Where are the WMDs?

I wasn't among those idiots that kept posting those "this is it, folks!" stories every time a trailer or a cylinder was found in Iraq with the claim they were proof of WMDs.

The one fact is that the US government lies about Iraq today as much as it did yesterday. Why do some people still choose to believe the US government?

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

33. Why accuse me of something I didn't do?

I wasn't among those idiots that kept posting those "this is it, folks!" stories every time a trailer or a cylinder was found in Iraq with the claim they were proof of WMDs.

Neither was I. So why falsely imply that I was?



The one fact is that the US government lies about Iraq today as much as it did yesterday. Why do some people still choose to believe the US government?

I don't know, you'll have to ask one of those people.



The fact remains, you posted: The Post story is bullshit. It was Bremer's closing of a newspaper that triggered this chain of events

Yet the Post story does include this information:

The latest round of tension began March 28, with the U.S. closure of Sadr's al-Hawza newspaper.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50349-2004Apr4.html

did you forget to read it before you labelled it 'bullshit'?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

32. Why are you pretending that isn't in the Post article?

The latest round of tension began March 28, with the U.S. closure of Sadr's al-Hawza newspaper.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50349-2004Apr4.html

You criticize the Post article for not including this information... :wtf: Did you forget to read the article before labeling it bullshit?

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.