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
Iraq
Al-Sadr threatens to end cease-fire
2008-02-20
Anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr threatened to lift a six-month cease-fire by the end of the week, officials said Wednesday — a move that could send his Shiite militia fighters back out on the streets and jeopardize recent security gains that have led to a sharp decline in violence.

Iraqi police, meanwhile, held funerals Wednesday for 14 officers killed the night before as they responded to a rocket attack launched from a predominantly Shiite neighborhood against U.S. bases in the capital. In a separate attack, three American troops were killed by a roadside bomb Tuesday night in northwestern Baghdad, the U.S. military said. Their names were not released.

Al-Sadr's Shiite Mahdi Army is among the most powerful militias in Iraq, and the cease-fire he ordered last August has been credited with helping reduce violence around Iraq by 60 percent or more in the past six months.

Sheik Salah al-Obeidi, a spokesman for al-Sadr in the Shiite holy city of Najaf, said that if the cleric failed to issue a statement by Saturday saying that the cease-fire was extended, "then that means the freeze is over." Al-Sadr's followers would be free to resume attacks. Al-Obeidi said that message "has been conveyed to all Mahdi Army members nationwide."

The threat was confirmed by another al-Sadr official, who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

The U.S. military has welcomed the cease-fire, saying it is a major factor in the sharp decline in violence. But it has insisted on continuing to stage raids against what it calls Iranian-backed breakaway factions of the Mahdi Army militia — moved that have angered the cleric's followers.

Influential members of al-Sadr's movement said earlier this month they had urged the radical cleric to call off the cease-fire, which was initially set to expire at the end of the month.
...
Posted by:ed

#12  DarthVader, am with ya.
Posted by: twobyfour   2008-02-20 23:55  

#11  The "Taliban Surge" + Mugniya/Mugniyeh, Africa, now Sadr > looks like the "Final/Decisive Battle" for IRAQ ISN'T GOING TO BE FOUGHT SOLELY INSIDE IRAQ. Risque' harbinger for IRAN, + AMER HIROSHIMAS. RADICAL ISLAM WANTS A BLOWOUT???
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2008-02-20 21:58  

#10  That was a huge mistake on our part not to take out Tater in An Najaf siege in August 2004. Once he got his sorry a$$ out of a crack, he got some legitimacy with the Iraqi govt and he has been an abcess on the body politic since then.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2008-02-20 15:04  

#9  We should just say, "Wish granted!" and take his out out violently, painfully and quickly.
Posted by: DarthVader   2008-02-20 14:04  

#8  The way it will probably play out is that some "breakthrough" will be engineered so that he can claim something as some sort of victory and extend the ceasefire. It might not be anything real, it is possible he could simply make something up. In that case we would likely not refute it unless there was some major problem with doing so.
Posted by: crosspatch   2008-02-20 13:59  

#7  Have to agree that he has more power in saying so than doing so. If he get his butt kicked by the IA then he is done and he fails his poobah 'infidel antics' class.

From the other end, if his troops or irun is chomping at the bit for a fight that will also hurt his power if he does not do something, by which he fails his poobah 'jihad theories' class.

Tough spot. I'd suggest to him to do it over spring break when he is in dubai playing goat golf.

-totally agree Bobby
Posted by: swksvolFF   2008-02-20 12:59  

#6  Of course, it's the AP that want us to believe that the entire reduction in violence is completely the result of Mookie and other, non-military actions.
Posted by: Bobby   2008-02-20 12:23  

#5  Yeah, let's get it over with, Mookie!

On the other hand, what if he released his 'lions of islam' and nothing happened?

Must have at least crossed his mind....
Posted by: Bobby   2008-02-20 12:12  

#4  i wish he would put and end too it so we could finally wipe his rag tag "militia" off the face of the earth. They kinda reamind me of the milituia that used too arm themselves in the swamps of florida and georgia and i guess southern alabama
Posted by: sinse   2008-02-20 11:57  

#3  It would be in his interests to wait until AQ is totally destroyed in Mosul.
Posted by: 3dc   2008-02-20 11:08  

#2  He will always "threaten" to end the ceasefire. That is a source of power for him. But when the time actually comes, he will back down because he has little support even among other Shiites.
Posted by: crosspatch   2008-02-20 10:38  

#1  You'd think Tater would wait till the surge force has been completely drawn down (summer) - or even till theres a new US prez, since theres like a 5-50 chance it will be someone committed to a quick drawdown of remaining forces - why call off the ceasefire NOW?

1. Hes got superior insight into the US electoral process, and thinks the hardliner in the race is going to win, and wants either A. To get the offensive underway before that or B. wants to influence the US election
2. Hes hurting from the surge, too many of his cells are being broken up, too much progress is happening, and he has to try to stop it now before its too late
3. His friends in Teheran are pressing him to attack now for their own strategic reasons, in an attempt to gain leverage and so press to relieve pressure on Hezb, Hamas, etc.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2008-02-20 09:50  

00:00