| Submit your comments on this article | |||
| Iraq-Jordan | |||
| Account of Broad Shiite Revolt Contradicts White House Stand | |||
| 2004-04-08 | |||
But intelligence officials now say that there is evidence that the insurgency goes beyond Mr. Sadr and his militia, and that a much larger number of Shiites have turned against the American-led occupation of Iraq, even if they are not all actively aiding the uprising. A year ago, many Shiites rejoiced at the American invasion and the toppling of Saddam Hussein, a Sunni who had brutally repressed the Shiites for decades. But American intelligence officials now believe that hatred of the American occupation has spread rapidly among Shiites, and is now so large that Mr. Sadr and his forces represent just one element. Meanwhile, American intelligence has not yet detected signs of coordination between the Sunni rebellion in Iraq's heartland and the Shiite insurgency. But United States intelligence says that the Sunni rebellion also goes far beyond former Baathist government members. Sunni tribal leaders, particularly in Al Anbar Province, home to Ramadi, the provincial capital, and Falluja, have turned against the United States and are helping to lead the Sunni rebellion, intelligence officials say. The result is that the United States is facing two broad-based insurgencies that are now on parallel tracks.
According to some experts on Iraq's Shiites, the uprising has spread to many Shiites who are not followers of Mr. Sadr. "There is a general mood of anti-Americanism among the people in the streets," said Ghassan R. al-Attiyah, executive director of the Iraq Foundation for Development and Democracy in Baghdad. "They identify with Sadr not because they believe in him but because they have their own grievances." While they share the broader anger in Iraq over the lack of jobs and security, many Shiites suspect that the handover of sovereignty to Iraqi politicians from the American occupying powers on June 30 will bypass their interests, Mr. Attiyah said. Also hard to gauge is the relationship between Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and Mr. Sadr. Ayatollah Sistani is an aging cleric venerated for his teachings, while Mr. Sadr is a youthful rabble-rouser, with little clerical standing. This week, Ayatollah Sistani issued a statement supporting Mr. Sadr's decision to act against the Americans, but emphasizing the need for a peaceful solution. In this, the older man seemed to be marking out a position that allowed him to associate with the tide of Shiite popular feelings, while allowing Mr. Sadr, for whom he is said to harbor a personal contempt, to risk his militia — and his life — in a showdown with the Americans.
In the Shiite-dominated areas of Iraq, some Pentagon officials and other government officials believe that Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed Shiite extremist group, is now playing a key role in the Shiite insurgency. The Islamic Jihad Organization, a terrorist group closely affiliated with Hezbollah, is also said by some officials to have established offices in Iraq, and that Iran is behind much of the violence. C.I.A. officials disagree, however, and say they have not yet seen evidence that Hezbollah has joined forces with Iraqi Shiites. But C.I.A. officials agree that Hezbollah has established a significant presence in postwar Iraq. The Lebanese-based organization sent in teams after the war, American intelligence officials believe. There were some clues to an Iranian presence in Kufa this week. There are close ties between the Shiite clerical establishments in the two countries. But whether the Iranian role extends beyond finance is hard to know. | |||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #16 LH: All of your points are correct. I was guilty of oversimplifying. There is also talk radio, which seems to have captured a lot of the conservative audience and perhaps even pulled it away from newspapers. Network TV news has another problem altogether. Their viewer base is contantly shrinking. They are too afraid to jettison Rather and Jennings for fear of losing the over 50 demographic (their last remaining stronghold). And they are too afraid to make the radical changes they need to compete. The Internet as a medium is really polarizing. Mostly because of its participatory nature, I think. Conservatives are mostly Thinkers and Judgers. Liberals are mostly Feelers and Perceivers. Since usually the most extroverted of both types participate on web forums, the exchanges tend to be acrimonious and thus polarizing. I think that in the end, it will force us communicate better. That's another post, though. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2004-04-08 12:15:00 PM |
| #15 "Actually, no. 3.5m people need weapons and ammunition." -um, maybe you mis-read my post I'm saying there is no general uprising as much as the media would like it to be. But, actually yeah, ZF if we're talking hypotheticals - only 1/2 the pop there needs to provide aid and comfort to a guerilla force of even half that. And no, we would not level cities in a general revolt from civilians, unfortunately due to political reasons. You even stated the problem - they are not all bad guys. Thus the rub. We would not make Fallujah, Kut, Ramdi, or anyother piss hole a Free fire zone. If 10,000 guerillas were dug in and started ambushing patrols in an urban environment - we would be in a shit load of trouble, especially if they had the backing of the majority of the local pop, which they don't right now. I've done enough urban training to know of what I speak. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-04-08 12:04:29 PM |
| #14 Take into account we have only 130K troop strength don't ya think if 3.5 million people were fighting us we'd be overwhelmed in about a day? Actually, no. 3.5m people need weapons and ammunition. A general revolt would produce a host of targets. Our problems in Iraq don't stem from our inability to kill large numbers of people. The issue has always been to find and either capture or kill the bad guys. If they're all bad guys, the choice is easy - bring in the B-52's, the B-1's, the A-10's, the AC-130's, the howitzers, the mortar tubes, the MLRS's, et al. We can quash this in a matter of months, once and for all. And the aftermath would be peace, as in Japan and Germany after most of the fighting-age population was killed off. But that's not what we're getting - it's the same old hit-and-run tactics we've been getting for about a year - insufficient to inflict real damage in the form of thousands of US KIA, but enough to bring the Cassandras out in force about the drip-drip-drip nature of American losses, which according to these defeatists, could be ended by simply withdrawing from Iraq. So why not withdraw? Because this would be interpreted (correctly) by America's potential adversaries as evidence of American weakness. The fact is that the US cannot afford to withdraw from Iraq. It's not a matter of machismo - it's a matter of deterrence. If the US withdraws from a region that is critical to US national security interests (home to 2/3 of the world's oil) what will it do with respect to far less important countries like Taiwan and South Korea. Our enemies (China, North Korea, various Muslim terror sponsors) are watching this. The toll in Iraq will be a small downpayment on the pain ahead if we withdraw. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-04-08 11:47:06 AM |
| #13 11A5S It was also the decline in the number of newspapers, leading to lots of newspaper monopolies. Who dont want to leave open space for a competitor by going overtly partisan. Reinforced by growing distrust of party affiliation in a more educated, middle class country. Lots more independents, fewer party members willing to vote a straight ticket regardless of candidate personality and ideology. Thinks nostalgically of the fat, chain smoking lady next door who had a job through the Brooklyn dem machine, and brought around petitions for whatever candidate needed sigs. Didnt think much of those hippie Mcgovernites. she didnt. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-04-08 11:31:04 AM |
| #12 You know before WWII, newspapers actually declared their party affiliation. Every burg had it's Republican and Democratic papers. A really big city like NYC had socialist papers. It must have been the strong feelings of national unity during WWII, leading into the "Cold War consensus," but somewhere along the way, newspapers started pretending that they were bipartisan and above the fray. I'd be much happier with a NYT that printed "The Nation's Leading Liberal Voice" on its masthead than with the current fiction. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2004-04-08 10:51:53 AM |
| #11 OS: I'm sure that was a rhetorical question, but: no. When we win, the NYT will report that the rebellion has been "driven underground" and our brutal tactics in repressing the rebellion have created more terrorists. Note that the whole article is structured to reinforce the "Bush Lied" theme. |
| Posted by: Matt 2004-04-08 9:52:10 AM |
| #10 Well seeing as there is close to 7 million people between Baghdad and the rest of the triangle, if say even half revolted - that's 3.5 million. Take into account we have only 130K troop strength don't ya think if 3.5 million people were fighting us we'd be overwhelmed in about a day? However, as of right now we have a little more then 40 casualties.......WAKE UP UH-MERIKA!! |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-04-08 9:18:30 AM |
| #9 Shiite broads are revolting, too? |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2004-04-08 9:12:15 AM |
| #8 It's as if they've been waiting for this to happen. And now they can't contain their glee. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-04-08 3:41:05 AM |
| #7 I wonder if the NYT will print a retraction when this "rebellion" is flattened and quite in a week. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-04-08 3:31:13 AM |
| #6 Well said Badanov. It's like watching somebody play Jeopardy. "What Mohammed said befor he slay the dragon." A Bi-polar attack from Iran!? Me think'n Sadr is old cannon fodder of the Iranians. Dupes. "Yea play along and Iraq can be yours." Now their done with. Useful idiots, no! |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-04-08 2:02:31 AM |
| #5 The more you read NY Times and other leftist news outlets, you will steep yourself into the world of rhetoric and bywords. Idioms like 'broad-based' and 'rising' Really. Someone tell me what does 'large hatred' means. Did the writer just concoct a concept for which there is no corresponding reality? I think it is the sound of the words; maybe they get a raise from the boss or a blowjob from an intern, I dont know. Read other 'news' articlse by the NY Times and listen to NPR. You will hear these terms and learn to find out even more weird concepts the left creates in order to advance their main agenda: Destruction of the United States by wrecking its military/security systems. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-04-08 1:40:22 AM |
| #4 Also hard to gauge is the relationship between Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and Mr. Sadr. Are you kidding me? A quick google search will show you: 1. On the same day that al-Khoi was murdered, Sadr's supporters besieged the home of Grand Ayatollah 'Ali Sistani in Najaf and demanded that he leave town or be killed. 2. Muqtada al-Sadr is directly involved in Sheikh al-Khoi's murder. 3. Sheikh al-Khoi's father: Grand Ayatollah Abu al-Qasim al-Khoi was a personal mentor and friend of Sistani's 4. In 1999, shortly after the four days of American and British airstrikes during Operation Desert Fox, Sadr's father, Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr, began to preach against the regime in his Friday mosque sermons. The elder Sadr was a senior Shiite clergyman who had previously avoided friction with the Baath regime, and so his sermons against Saddam immediately won him huge support with younger Shiah. Attendance at his sermons ballooned. Grand Ayatollah Sistani objected to Sadr's preaching because he feared the regime would retaliate in devastating fashion against the entire Shiite community. Muhammad al-Sadr was soon assassinated, almost certainly by Saddam's intelligence services, who feared he might spark a general Shiite revolt against the regime. The Sadr family, and the deceased ayatollah's son in particular, never forgave Sistani for his objections. 5. In 1992, Sistani's competed with Khamenei for the position of Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Iranians fear that Sistani's may be quietly supporting a limited U.S. presence and, more importantly, a democratic Iraq rather than the a theocracy. 6. Sistani is allied to the Iranian moderates (President Khatami and his circle), while the Sadr is allied to Khamenei, the Rahbar (Supreme Leader). |
| Posted by: ZoGg 2004-04-08 1:29:43 AM |
| #3 Perhaps the Shiite's are pissed about job opportunities. That would explain the "broad based" aspect. Yep I think jobs! I mean think about it. "It's the economy stupid." And thats how I feel, stupid. How could I have missed such an obvious Hesbollabian moment. Sad! |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-04-08 1:29:20 AM |
| #2 I dunno, John Burns (contributed to this piece) is pretty good and reliable. It's worth hearing a contrary opinion. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2004-04-08 1:03:03 AM |
| #1 The NYT is a piss yellow rag. Its journalistic offal should not be posted herein or on any other website frequented by decent people. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2004-04-08 12:49:25 AM |