Where in the hell...

[Michael]

Here's more Mookiemania!

Foreign Policy Magazine's present cover...



And here's the story...

The King of Iraq

As U.S. troops leave the country, one man stands to benefit above all: Moqtada al-Sadr.

Sadr -- feared by some, reviled by others and revered by a broad swath of Iraq's urban poor -- is now a kingmaker in Iraqi politics. It's a role that Sadr, the scion of a prominent clerical family, has been building toward since 2003. Immediately after the U.S. invasion, thousands of his supporters packed the dusty streets of Baghdad's Saddam City neighborhood (later renamed Sadr City) for Friday prayers week after week. Sadr rallied their ranks around his parliamentary list in the 2005 elections, making a strong showing, and then used his political clout to help push Nouri al-Maliki into the prime minister slot in 2006. But the friendship didn't last: Sadr bitterly split from Maliki when the latter allowed American troops to attack his militia members. Depending on whom you ask, Sadr either sensed he was next to be targeted and fled to Iran or was convinced of that fact by Iranian officials, who urged Sadr to leave for his own safety. Now, as U.S. troops withdraw and negotiations are underway in Baghdad to form a new government, Sadr may be planning his return. If he does, he will no doubt face jubilant crowds once again.

Read Article

Yes, that's my Mookie!

Still stirring up trouble and making western journalists quiver with fear and envy. Looks like he's getting ready to return to the big stage.

Btw, it amuses me the way western journalists describe Sadr. They seem try really hard not to explain what it is about Sadr that makes him so significant to Iraqi muslims. That line about "from a prominent clerical family" doesn't quite do justice to Sadr. His father was the last Iraqi-born Grand Ayatollah (assassinated by Saddam's security service) and the Sadr family traces descent from Mohammad (official Shi'ite line - or descent of Ali). That's way more than just a "prominant clerical family" and goes a long way to explain who Sadr is and why he's enormously popular in Iraq just by existing.

[The_Dot]

Unfortunately, al-Sadr isn't in the Hague, answering for the brutal ethnic cleansing campaign performed by his militia......

Thats how one could best "do justice" to him.

[Michael]

Originally Posted by The_Dot

Unfortunately, al-Sadr isn't in the Hague, answering for the brutal ethnic cleansing campaign performed by his militia......

Thats how one could best "do justice" to him.

Wow. That's some good ole' Bush Admin propaganda, vintage 2005 edition. Been a while since I've encountered that one.

That's always the problem with propaganda - when it is no longer useful to the those who propagate it, it is hard to get people to forget what you pushed them to believe when it becomes inconvenient later on.

As for Mookie at The Hague, I strongly doubt anyone could make that kind of case. The accusation was driven by US politics, not actual legal evidence. Strangely enough, as soon as the US domestic political need for that propaganda was no longer necessary, the accusation seems to have evaporated entirely. Amazing how that happens.

If you want to 'bash' Mookie, please feel free, but I'd suggest you make a good case for it and not rely upon propaganda statements that have no substance or evidence.

[The_Dot]

Originally Posted by Michael

Wow. That's some good ole' Bush Admin propaganda, vintage 2005 edition. Been a while since I've encountered that one.

I wouldn't know about that, since I don't take Bush's direction on what to think.

Originally Posted by Michael

That's always the problem with propaganda - when it is no longer useful to the those who propagate it, it is hard to get people to forget what you pushed them to believe when it becomes inconvenient later on.

This smacks of propaganda in and of itself - you're not refuting the allegations that Sadr's forces systematically purged followers of the other Muslim factions from his "city", but rather dismissing even the possibility by raising the Bush bogey-man.

That's pretty weak, IMHO.

There has been some coverage of the systematic removal of Sunnis from Washash, for example, including Time magazine's piece here: http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...550441,00.html or MSNBC's piece here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20546328/site/newsweek

Is al-Sadr the only cleric in Iraq using his private army to conduct sectarian purges? Probably not. But to dismiss the possibility that Sadr is engaged in such behavior outright with an appeal to the Bush bogey man is intellectually weak at best, IMHO.

In fact, what manner of "holy man" needs a private army anyway? Isn't that pretty much a gigantic red flag?

Originally Posted by Michael

As for Mookie at The Hague, I strongly doubt anyone could make that kind of case. The accusation was driven by US politics, not actual legal evidence. Strangely enough, as soon as the US domestic political need for that propaganda was no longer necessary, the accusation seems to have evaporated entirely. Amazing how that happens.

Hmm. Lots of knee-jerk reactionary thought in evidence - the US is bad, so Sadr is good? Utter folly.

[Michael]

Originally Posted by The_Dot

I wouldn't know about that, since I don't take Bush's direction on what to think.

I didn't say that you did. When the US media pushes a message (as they did this one), it is sometimes difficult to discern where the message originates.

Originally Posted by The_Dot

This smacks of propaganda in and of itself - you're not refuting the allegations that Sadr's forces systematically purged followers of the other Muslim factions from his "city", but rather dismissing even the possibility by raising the Bush bogey-man.

That's pretty weak, IMHO.

No, its entirely arbitrary. First of all, singling out an instance of mass murder in Iraq is rather arbitrary. If one makes accusations of 'ethnic clensing', which ones are you referring to? There are several episodes to choose from - several of which were bought and paid for by US taxpayers. Choosing to be outraged by one instance, but not the others, is in my opinion, arbitrary.


Secondly, the assertion that Sadr is single-handedly responsible for the carnage in Iraq since 2003 just isn't credible. Indeed, it is laughable if one accepts all that the US government has said about him.

How can one be dismissed as a buffoon and a minor player, and claimed to be the mastermind at the same time? US Government has never been able to decide which 'spin' to put on Sadr so they use both.

Originally Posted by The_Dot

There has been some coverage of the systematic removal of Sunnis from Washash, for example, including Time magazine's piece here: http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...550441,00.html or MSNBC's piece here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20546328/site/newsweek

I didn't issue a word of doubt that there has been quite a bit of systematic ugliness going on in Iraq since 2003. Indeed, the ugliness is piled on ten feet thick over there. No doubt about that. Enough murdering going on over there to make Johannasburg look safe by comparison (barely).

My point was all about the evidence that Muqtada al-Sadr was the mastermind or even the leader of such operations is essentially non-existent.

Originally Posted by The_Dot

Is al-Sadr the only cleric in Iraq using his private army to conduct sectarian purges? Probably not. But to dismiss the possibility that Sadr is engaged in such behavior outright with an appeal to the Bush bogey man is intellectually weak at best, IMHO.

In fact, what manner of "holy man" needs a private army anyway? Isn't that pretty much a gigantic red flag?

The Madhi/Medhi Army is not Muqtada's private army and never was. It pre-exists him. The Medhi Army, like the Iraqi people, tend to follow Sadr's orders, but only in respect for who Sadr is. Muqtada does not "own" the Iraqi people any more than he "owns" the Medhi Army.

Originally Posted by The_Dot

Hmm. Lots of knee-jerk reactionary thought in evidence - the US is bad, so Sadr is good? Utter folly.

Speaking of utter folly.

My long-standing analysis of Muqtada Al-Sadr stands on its own merits. If you want to critique my views on Muqtada Al-Sadr, there are several threads in this forum where the issue is addressed, including this one. I'll be happy to defend my views against any reasoned argument or evidence. Bush Admin propaganda doesn't count.

[Americano]

Originally Posted by The_Dot

Hmm. Lots of knee-jerk reactionary thought in evidence - the US is bad, so Sadr is good? Utter folly.

Considering the death, poverty and refugees created by the US invading and destroying Iraq I'd think Sadr would look good to many Iraqis.

[dilettante]

Originally Posted by Americano

Considering the death, poverty and refugees created by the US invading and destroying Iraq I'd think Sadr would look good to many Iraqis.

I doubt many Sunnis look fondly upon a Shiite cleric with his own little army. Not that they look fondly on the US either...

[Americano]

Originally Posted by dilettante

I doubt many Sunnis look fondly upon a Shiite cleric with his own little army. Not that they look fondly on the US either...

As Sunni are in the minority there's no doubt about that. Not only did the US kick them in the ditch, that seems to be the same pattern being followed by the new Shia government.

[Michael]

Originally Posted by dilettante

I doubt many Sunnis look fondly upon a Shiite cleric with his own little army. Not that they look fondly on the US either...

Indeed, the US military took out the Sunni's patron saint Saddam and exposed the Sunnis of Iraq to suffer retribution from the Shi'ites whom they collectively abused so much for so many years with the support of Saddam's regime.

And you are quite right that the Sunnis rationally fear the Shi'ites (I would too if I had used state power to persecute them the way the Sunnis did for so long). However, this also explain why the Shi'ites don't care much about what the Sunnis think - the Shi'ites remember well the favored position of the Sunnis in Saddam's regime (the same regime that assassinated the Grand Ayatollah Sadr).

That being said, when one speaks of the danger of militia groups in Iraq, I think it is rather partisan to single out the Medhi Army and ignore all the others.

For example, there are the "Sons of Iraq" - which is a Sunni militia army created and fully financed by US taxpayers. The Kurds also have a militia army (partially financed by US taxpayers). There is also the Badr Brigade, which is the militia arm of the SRCII, which was a partner to the original US administration - it is also an exclusively Shi'ite group (and entirely financed by the Iranians). On this basis, I consider the singling out the Medhi Army as somehow unique, or unusually dangerous or even politically destablizing, is highly questionable.

And last, but certainly not least, if you read the article that I posted above, the reason that Sadr is on the cover of Foreign Policy magazine this month (King of Iraq) is because he just met with Allawi in Syria a couple weeks ago. By all accounts, Allawi was paying his respects and seeking Sadr support in the formation of a government. Allawi's political party is majority Sunni (for those of you without an Iraqi-political scorecard!).

In other words, Allawi, the political champion of the Sunnis, is seeking to make a partnership with Muqtada Sadr. That's hardly a sign of the Sunnis quaking in fear of Darth Mookie and his Shi'ite Army.

[dilettante]

Originally Posted by Michael

Indeed, the US military took out the Sunni's patron saint Saddam and exposed the Sunnis of Iraq to suffer retribution from the Shi'ites whom they collectively abused so much for so many years with the support of Saddam's regime.

And you are quite right that the Sunnis rationally fear the Shi'ites (I would too if I had used state power to persecute them the way the Sunnis did for so long). However, this also explain why the Shi'ites don't care much about what the Sunnis think - the Shi'ites remember well the favored position of the Sunnis in Saddam's regime (the same regime that assassinated the Grand Ayatollah Sadr).

That being said, when one speaks of the danger of militia groups in Iraq, I think it is rather partisan to single out the Medhi Army and ignore all the others.

For example, there are the "Sons of Iraq" - which is a Sunni militia army created and fully financed by US taxpayers. The Kurds also have a militia army (partially financed by US taxpayers). There is also the Badr Brigade, which is the militia arm of the SRCII, which was a partner to the original US administration - it is also an exclusively Shi'ite group (and entirely financed by the Iranians). On this basis, I consider the singling out the Medhi Army as somehow unique, or unusually dangerous or even politically destablizing, is highly questionable.

I don't think anyone here is 'singling out' the Medhi Army and pretending other militia groups don't exist. They're one of many extra-legal partisan militias, The Medhi Army is just the one you'd expect people to bring up in a thread about Muqtada al Sadr.

Originally Posted by Michael

And last, but certainly not least, if you read the article that I posted above, the reason that Sadr is on the cover of Foreign Policy magazine this month (King of Iraq) is because he just met with Allawi in Syria a couple weeks ago. By all accounts, Allawi was paying his respects and seeking Sadr support in the formation of a government. Allawi's political party is majority Sunni (for those of you without an Iraqi-political scorecard!).

In other words, Allawi, the political champion of the Sunnis, is seeking to make a partnership with Muqtada Sadr. That's hardly a sign of the Sunnis quaking in fear of Darth Mookie and his Shi'ite Army.

Well then, can we say "well down, Allawi" for reaching out across the lines for the sake of stability?