| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| Iraqi Shi'ite leaders tell Muqtada to hang it up |
| 2004-05-05 |
| Representatives of Iraq's most influential Shiite leaders met here on Tuesday and demanded that Moktada al-Sadr, a rebel Shiite cleric, withdraw militia units from the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala, stop turning the mosques there into weapons arsenals and return power to Iraqi police and civil defense units that operate under American control. The Shiite leaders also called, in speeches and in interviews after the meeting, for a rapid return to the American-led negotiations on Iraq's political future. On Tuesday, the Shiite leaders, including a representative of a Shiite clerical group that has close ties to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, effectively did what the Americans have urged them to do since Mr. Sadr, a 31-year-old firebrand, began his attacks in April: they tied Iraq's future, and that of Shiites in particular, to a renunciation of violence and a return to negotiations. Their statement repeated warnings to American troops not to enter Najaf and Karbala in pursuit of Mr. Sadr. Although American commanders have hinted at an offensive soon against against Mr. Sadr's force, the Mahdi Army, they have repeatedly said they do not intend to attack Najaf or Karbala. They have not made such a promise about Kufa, a small city six miles northeast of Najaf, where Mr. Sadr appears to have established his headquarters. Although Shiite leaders have made similar demands of Mr. Sadr before, it has never been in such strength. About 150 leaders attended the gathering, representing many of Shiism's most influential political, religious and professional groups. One group, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI, has close ties to Ayatollah Sistani, who is regarded as Iraq's top Shiite cleric and the country's most influential political voice. It has been several weeks since Mr. Sadr suggested he might heed Shiite leadership. The Shiite leaders convened in Baghdad on short notice, reflecting their urgency to calm a month's violence sown by Mr. Sadr across much of southern Iraq. Equally disturbing to many Shiites, American occupation officials, faced with the dual challenges from Mr. Sadr and Sunni Muslim insurgents in Falluja, have handed some authority in Falluja to elements of Saddam Hussein's former army, despised by Shiites as an instrument of his repression. Several Shiite leaders acknowledged that they had delayed issuing their statement until there were clear signs that public opinion among Shiites had moved strongly against Mr. Sadr. Reports in the past two weeks have spoken of a shadowy death squad calling itself the Thulfiqar Army shooting dead at least seven of Mr. Sadr's militiamen in Najaf, and several thousand people attended an anti-Sadr protest meeting outside the Imam Ali shrine in the city on Friday, according to several of the meeting's participants. Mr. Mahdi, from the SCIRI group, which is close to Ayatollah Sistani, was blunt about Mr. Sadr's decline in popularity. "He's 100 percent isolated across most of the southern provinces; he's even isolated in Najaf," he said. "The people there regard him as having taken them hostage." He said Mr. Sadr had also been criticized by his most powerful religious backer, Grand Ayatollah Kazem Hossein Haeri, based in the Iranian city of Qum, who had urged Mr. Sadr to pull his militiamen out of Najaf and Karbala and to stop storing weapons in mosques. Several speakers implied that the Sunni minority intended to derail the American-led political process, and thus the prospect of a Shiite majority government. On few occasions, if any, since the American invasion last year, have mainstream Shiite leaders spoken so bluntly in public of the political rivalry with the Sunnis, who were referred to repeatedly by speakers as "they" or "the other side," and barely at all by name. Before joining with other Shiite leaders for the Tuesday meeting here, Shiites on the governing council, including Mr. Mahdi, had a tempestuous meeting with the two top American officials in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, the civilian chief of the occupation authority, and Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the commander of American forces. At one point, the council members said, they told the Americans they were risking civil war between Iraq's Sunni and Shiite communities by endorsing the Falluja deal with elements of Mr. Hussein's old army. In near 100-degree heat in the late afternoon, few of the Shiite speakers stirred much enthusiasm. But the strongest murmurings of the meeting came when Taqlif al-Faroun, a tribal leader from Najaf, said Shiites should give the American forces a green light to go after Mr. Sadr in the holy cities. "Najaf is not Mecca," he said. "The Americans don't want to go into the shrines. They want to get rid of criminals and thieves. So what if they enter the city?" Across the roof, dozens of men responded approvingly. "Yes, yes!" they said. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #10 Big ed - yeah, me too The clerics wont go as far as a Najaf tribal leader, methinks. Sadrs real base of support is NOT in the south, but in the poor Shiite neighborhoods of Baghdad, notably Sadr city. Southern tribals dont give two ****s about Sadr City, it seems, but the clerics still wont write off influence over such a big chunk of the Shiite population. The Shiite clerics - NOT our friends, NOT our enemies. A group of cautious men, who very carefully monitor which way the wind is blowing. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-05-05 12:17:45 PM |
| #9 The primary mistake made in Fallujah was one of procedure. We should have reduced the "insurgent"/Jihadi garrison in the Golan first, and THEN proceed with the installation of a Sunni hard boy. Following that up with rumors and leaks from the Green Zone of how well Sunnis manage civil affairs, Sunni wizardry with troops in the field, etc. A couple weeks of that, and Sadr'd be swinging from Najaf lamp post. Fallujah, as Old Spook has mentioned at Rantburg and at other venues, has a special place in the hearts of most Iraqis. It is not, however, a happy place. We should have finished the thugs off two weeks ago, while suffering minimal fuss from the Iraqi 'street'. |
| Posted by: mrp 2004-05-05 12:08:28 PM |
| #8 Pssst - Mullah al-Sadr, dude. .. Chill out. In near 100-degree heat in the late afternoon, few of the Shiite speakers stirred much enthusiasm. But the strongest murmurings of the meeting came when Taqlif al-Faroun, a tribal leader from Najaf, said Shiites should give the American forces a green light to go after Mr. Sadr in the holy cities. "Najaf is not Mecca," he said. "The Americans don't want to go into the shrines. They want to get rid of criminals and thieves. So what if they enter the city?" Across the roof, dozens of men responded approvingly. "Yes, yes!" they said. Taqlif al-Faroun? I like this guy. |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-05-05 11:47:32 AM |
| #7 Wretchard has a good post today, too. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2004-05-05 11:31:47 AM |
| #6 RM Bingo! Hats off again to Wretchard. Sadr is, ultimately, Sistanis problem. We seem to have finally manipulated Sistani into dealing with his problem. A neat middle ground between treating Sistani with kid gloves, and treating him as an enemy. If Bremer was behind this i must take back some things I said about him elsewhere. Although I would repeat again that I hope that to the extent we can reduce Sistanis influence, it will be to increase the influence of Iraqi local councils, and, yes, pro-democracy pols, and NOT typical Arab nationalists Anti-Israel types like Adnan Pachachi. And BTW, yeah, the Thulfiqar army thing sounds very like something Spec Ops would have a hand in. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-05-05 9:36:00 AM |
| #5 Beers all around for the |
| Posted by: AzCat 2004-05-05 9:28:14 AM |
| #4 Go Lucky! |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-05-05 7:49:48 AM |
| #3 What about all the holy shit. We might enflame the street. Might take years to get the Mo's to calm down. Holy crap Batman! Perhaps we should take a knee, ask a mullah about perceptions maybe, don't know, what! |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-05-05 2:29:47 AM |
| #2 RML - Indeed, Wretchard discussed triangulating to bring Shitstani down out of his clouds - and maybe it is working. I must say, however, that there is far too much machination and far too little straight-shooting, of both types, for my taste. If it works, okay - they're wizards. My gut tells me we should be about 5x more hardcore with Sadr and in Fallujah - kicking ass right up to the moskkk door, at least. Anything less will magnify the jihadi bandwagon effect. Just my 2 cents. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-05-05 1:41:01 AM |
| #1 Interesting. The fact that we are willing to talk to the Sunnis and do the Fallujah deal gets the Shiites off the dime on al-Sadr. They want power and they're afraid we'll give it back to the Sunnis. We're playing the middleman now, not Sistani, and this was predicted in a Belmont Club article last month. We go into Najaf now ONLY if the Shiites demand it. And they should lead the way themselves and take a few bullets... |
| Posted by: RMcLeod 2004-05-05 1:04:20 AM |