You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq-Jordan
Sadr unhurt, in talks to leave shrine: Iraq govt
2004-08-13
Iraq's interim government said Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr was negotiating to leave a shrine in Najaf on Friday as thousands of protesters across southern Iraq condemned a US offensive in the holy city. Demonstrators gathered in five cities in Iraq to vent their anger at the assault on Sadr's forces launched by US marines on Thursday, amid conflicting reports over whether the firebrand cleric had been wounded during the fighting. Gunmen also kidnapped a British journalist in the southern city of Basra and threatened to execute him within 24 hours if US forces did not pull out of Najaf. But the gunmen later said they would release Sunday Telegraph reporter James Brandon after Sadr's office intervened. "As a result of mediation by the office of Sayyed Sadr, the British hostage will be released and handed over to Sadr's office in Basra," one of the captors said on a videotape that also showed Brandon.
"See? See how humanitarian we are? An' we sprung 'im, just like that! We're a power to be reckoned with!"
The nine-day uprising in Najaf has killed hundreds and threatened to undermine the rule of interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, who is walking a tightrope trying to crush the radical Shi'ite rebellion across southern Iraq that has hit oil exports. Speaking on Thursday after US marines backed by aircraft and tanks launched an assault on Sadr's Mehdi fighters around the Imam Ali Mosque and an ancient cemetery -- both militia strongholds -- Allawi urged the fighters to surrender.
Ummm... That doesn't sound so conflicted to me...
Sadr spokesman Ahmad al-Shinabi said the cleric was wounded at 4.30 a.m. in the cemetery on Friday. "He was in the cemetery at the time. He was wounded in the chest, arm and leg," Shinabi told Reuters in Najaf. Interior Minister Falah al-Naqib denied Sadr was wounded and said a truce had been in force since last night. He said the government was negotiating Sadr's departure from the revered Imam Ali shrine, where he has been holed up with his fighters.
Methinks Tater's indulging in a little John Kerry-style bravery there...
Residents said Najaf was quieter than on Thursday, but there had been sporadic clashes overnight from the city centre. Despite the government denial that Sadr was wounded, the news could trigger outrage from the majority Shi'ite community, where there is growing anger at the US assault near Iraq's holiest Shi'ite sites even from those who scorn Sadr's views.
That's what it's supposed to do. The rubes buy that stuff every time...
Witnesses said US forces had allowed several ambulances to take out at least eight wounded Mehdi fighters. "Sayyed Moqtada will not be touched if he leaves the shrine peacefully," Naqib said.
Posted by:Fred

#29  LH, interesting then that Allawi authorized ISF and USMC to attack a Mosque. Perhaps he's testing the ice for the big one. Maybe the raid will give Sistani something to think about.
Posted by: Mr. Davis   2004-08-13 11:55:04 AM  

#28  Maybe just hurt enough for a Purple Heart Kerry style?
Posted by: True German Ally   2004-08-13 4:58:24 PM  

#27  sadrs aides say hes hurt, Iraqi govt says no, and Fox reports a US official saying yes he is. Apparently not seriously though.
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2004-08-13 2:50:05 PM  

#26  There are cults in Islam you know, just like any other religion.

I'm beginning to believe that Islam itself is one big cult.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2004-08-13 2:22:35 PM  

#25  Okay, now, I'm just confused. Is he hurt, or isn't he? Make up your mind, people! This isn't Schrodinger's Cat, here!
Posted by: The Doctor   2004-08-13 2:12:35 PM  

#24  actually in centuries in which muslims didn't consider Jerusalem holy, Muslims dissed the Dome of the Rock for having un Islamic architecture (the Dome is in the middle, the building is 8 sided and it doesn't have tall minarets on each side).
Posted by: mhw   2004-08-13 1:57:03 PM  

#23  mhw, IIUC the Koran says Muhammed ascended from "the farthest Mosque" in arabic Al aqsa. After the Arab conquest of Jerusalem by Caliph Omar(?) it was determined that the Temple Mount was what the Koran was referring to.
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2004-08-13 1:15:12 PM  

#22  GJ - yeah, and as a Jew, holy (kiddushin) doesnt apply to Muslim or Christian stuff, and Jews whove died for kiddush hashem - the sanctification of the name - ie the honor of G-d - are the only "martyrs". So if you are trying to tell Gentle that using her own definition of "holy" rather than that used by the folks in question is silly, i must agree with you entirely. Gentle is being very silly here.
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2004-08-13 1:12:51 PM  

#21  with respect to Jerusalem-- the Koran doesn't mention Jerusalem but people say that when the Koran says Damascus it means Jerusalem--for the past 14 centuries Muslims have toggled between dissing Jerusalem (in about 9 of those centuries) and embracing it as holy (in the other 5 centuries).

and possibly Gentle considers Shia to be non Muslim (a number of Sunni consider the Shia to be kufr or worse).
Posted by: mhw   2004-08-13 1:09:13 PM  

#20  gentle,

Suggesting that Shia Islam is a "cult", while Sunni Islam is "true Islam" does not make you sound either tolerant or gentle. I am not a muslim, and I am NOT going to judge which group of self proclaimed muslims is authentic. From my point of view Shia is just as authentic as Sunni, and as far as I can tell Shia muslims DO treat the resting place of Ali as a holy place - enough so that Shia from all over the world attempt to be buried near it, in a striking parallel to the Jews from all over the world buried on the Mount of Olives near the Temple Mount, and, AFAIK, for similar reasons.
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2004-08-13 1:08:46 PM  

#19  Jerusalem isn't "holy" either--Mohammed just jumped on it to have something to fight about with the Jews!
As a Christian, the word "holy" doesn't really apply to Mooslim stuff.
Nor does the term "martyr."
I've never heard of anyone being called a martyr except Christians until 9/11.
Posted by: GreatestJeneration   2004-08-13 1:05:29 PM  

#18  I have an Islamic holy place - my local Indian restaurant.
Posted by: Bulldog   2004-08-13 1:04:49 PM  

#17  Muslims have only three Holy places:
Jerusalam, Mecca, and Madinah.
The rest is just fabrication. There are cults in Islam you know, just like any other religion.
Posted by: Gentle   2004-08-13 12:59:48 PM  

#16  The question is whether al-Sadr bites; was listening to 1010AM WINS or 820AM WCBS, neither was confident that he'd accept ...
Posted by: Edward Yee   2004-08-13 12:59:18 PM  

#15  mr. D yeah, although the Mosque in Kufa is not of national and international importance, and so wiring it to blow wasnt really a threat. we've attacked mosques before - the Shrine in Najaf is really something else, despite some people here who think Islam (sunni and shia) has an infinitude of holy places.
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2004-08-13 12:54:55 PM  

#14  Every yahoo, wannabe revolutionary in Iraq is learning right now that the consequences of challenging the central government ain't that bad. And Tater will be back again--with better organization, planning, and arms--whenever he thinks the time is right. Huge mistake not to finish off him and his movement right now.
Posted by: sludj   2004-08-13 12:37:39 PM  

#13  [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]
Posted by: Mr. Davis TROLL   2004-08-13 11:55:04 AM  

#12  CNN:

In Kufa, a neighboring town north of Najaf, Iraqi security forces led a pre-dawn raid with U.S. Marines on a mosque described by Marine Capt. Carrie Batson as a "militia strong point."

"Iraqi security forces entered the mosque, cleared it of [al-Sadr's] militia men, killing several of them, also taking eight detainees," Batson said.

not sure of the timing, but it seems like the ceasefire MAY be limited to Najaf, allowing Iraqi and coalition forces to clean up elsewhere.

Also CNN reports that Sistani has sent a delegation to the talks.

My guess - Sistani, who DOESNT want a civil war among Shiites, who doesnt want Sadr to look like either a martyr or here, displacing the influencing of Sistani and other "moderate" clerics, insisted on these talks. Allawi is NOT strong enough politically to defy Sistani (and by extension, Jaafari) and so agreed to the talks. With direct representation for Sistani, Sis will be able to see whos being conciliatory and who's not.
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2004-08-13 11:34:08 AM  

#11  BBC,Sadrs demands:
"Among them:

US forces must withdraw from Najaf
Sacred Shia sites must be administered by religious authorities
The release of captured fighters and amnesty for Sadr supporters
The restoration of basic services in Najaf


Earlier, Interior Minister Falah Naqib told the Reuters news agency the cleric would "not be touched" if he left the shrine peacefully.

"We will go after the criminal elements which have penetrated the Sadr movement, but not Moqtada," he said.

So = we have a fundamental clash - Sadr wants amnesty for ALL his followers. The govt will let Sadr go, and presumably will amnesty the surviving cannon fodder, but insists on arresting "criminal elements" presumably Sadrs key lieutenants. The idea being to defang and humiliate Sadr, without martyring him. Doesnt sound like hes interested in accepting that.
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2004-08-13 11:27:23 AM  

#10  Points.
1. We know that it was intended that Iraqis, not Americans take the shrine, and there was concern about their training. Could this be an attempt at a breather while tactical training takes place?
2. Ceasefire in place - what are the arrangements for movement of food and water into the shrine? wounded out?
3. What is the nature of the talks? Welcoming Sadr as a political player with charges dropped, despite the second uprising and Sadrs military losses? Negotiations for orderly surrender? Something in between (IE political negotiations, but ones in which the Allawi position is stronger, recognizing Sadrs military defeat)
3. Need to reexamine and reshuffle Iraqi forces. Those in Najaf and Kut seem to have performed well. In Amara, OTOH, some ING seem to have threatened to switch sides, and in Baghdad mixed reports.
4. Need to slow down to manage the political reaction across the south. In April the strategy was to concentrate on the periphery, the smaller towns first, and go for the shrine towns last. This time it seems to have been to strike for the heart, for Sadr in Najaf. Meanwhile the smaller towns are, if not going to hell in a hand basket, in worse shape than Allawi and Coalition forces expected. Perhaps time to go back and deal with them?
5. Offer negotiations to show wavering govt members (Gawer, Jaafari) and others (Sistani, Moderessi) how reasonable Allawi is, and how inflexible Sadr is - THEN go in?
6. Perhaps new info has been gained on the tactical situation in the shrine, during yesterdays fighting (including perhaps info relating to the shrine being boobytrapped) Take a breather to modify tactical plans?

Theres ALOT going on here both politically and militarily. I would be slow to judge Allawi OR coalition strategy either way - could be stupid, could be brilliant, could be somewhere in between. We dont know - and may not know for some time.
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2004-08-13 11:08:35 AM  

#9  Sometimes one has to wonder WHY people feel a need to make keeping law and order an unnecessarily difficult endeavor.

Thousands of Sadr supporters protested in front of the Green Zone compound housing the Iraqi government and the US embassy in Baghdad. Several Iraqi police took part, holding up posters of the cleric and putting them on their vehicle windows.

Not a good sign. Whoever is hiring these people isn't screening them thoroughly enough. Again, making things needlessly difficult for themselves.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2004-08-13 10:31:15 AM  

#8  There's got to be something going on behind the scenes. Otherwise I'll have to give up on Allawi et al.
Posted by: Spot   2004-08-13 10:26:09 AM  

#7  THE IRAQIS can't be that stupid... can they?
Yes.
Like .com pointed out yesterday.... Western logic does not apply.
Posted by: Shipman   2004-08-13 10:12:29 AM  

#6  Here are the terms, Tater--You leave feet first on a slab, not breathing.
Posted by: Dar   2004-08-13 9:41:09 AM  

#5  â€œWe will go after the criminal elements which have penetrated the Sadr movement, but not Moqtada,” He's wanted for murder and the last time I looked that was a crime. SIGH! The Arab rules of negotiation.
Posted by: GK   2004-08-13 8:36:16 AM  

#4  Say what you want DPA, it is deja vu all over again.
Posted by: Ol_Dirty_American   2004-08-13 8:12:43 AM  

#3  THE IRAQIS can't be that stupid... can they?
Posted by: Tom   2004-08-13 8:10:27 AM  

#2  I'm choosing to refuse to believe this story. We can't be that stupid.
Posted by: Damn_Proud_American   2004-08-13 7:43:30 AM  

#1  is it just me or does this seem like a big mistake. Some bad guys are just better off dead.

It's like one of those slash and hash movies where they finally, finally, kill the bad guy, and as everyone breathes a sigh of relief, the "dead" bad guy pops back up and charges at them with a knife.

This is like Night of the Living Dead.
Posted by: B   2004-08-13 7:33:37 AM  

00:00