Article

2008-04-25 Iraq

Al-Sadr shift: away from politics and favoring fight

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2008-04-25 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11128 views ] Top
File under: Mahdi Army

#1 As wid any Campaign-War in World History, THE ISLAMIST JIHAD WILL PROVE A FAILURE UNLESS RESPECT, CREDIBILITY, AND POWER CAN BE ACHIEVED ON PAR OR GREATER THAN OTHER GLOBAL COMPETITORS = GREAT NATION/POWER RIVALS INCLUD ALLIES. The OWG ISLAMIST-JIHADIST CALIPHATE OR STATE CANNOT BE ACHIEVED UNLESS RADICAL ISLAM INCLUD IRAN, PAKI, ETC. CAN DEMONS ITS POWER = POTENCY AGZ THE US-WEST, RUSSIA-CHINA, NATO, SCO, EU, etal. SINGULARLY ANDOR COLLECTIVELY.

IMO, Radical Islam - Iran, OBL, Sadr, etc. - are counting on DUBYA = LAME DUCK [per MSM], and on the US-COALITION/ALLIES to stay in Iraq-Afghani as well as to NOT undertake any sort of unilater milaction agz IRAN. THEY ARE CONTENTING THEMSELVES WID NUCLEAR IRAN DOMIN THE CENTRAL ASIAN, PERSIAN GULF, + NEAR EAST REGIONS = BLOC OF NUCLEARIZED MUSLIM NATIONS.

IOW, the POST 2010/12 NEW GLOBAL JIHAD + future GLOBAL CALIPHATE will begin as a NUCLEARIZED REGIONAL-LOCAL CALIPHATE as long as the USA either "stays in place", withdraws, or even just reduces its force presence in the ME. IT WON'T MATTER AS LONG AS MAJOR WORLD POWERS TAKE NO ACTION AGZ NUCLEAR IRAN - THE US PER SE CAN STAY IN IRAQ-AFGHANI AS LONG AS IT WANTS TO.

THE JIHAD WILL SURVIVE, PREVAIL, AND WAR AGAIN EXCEPT NOW IS NUCLEARIZED.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-04-25 00:46|| 2008-04-25 00:46|| Front Page Top

#2 Condi still thinks you're a pansy.

It also would carry potentially disastrous security implications as the Pentagon trims its troops strength and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki finally shows progress on national reconciliation.

I thought that Maliki going after Tater was the reason the government was starting to pull together.

Posted by gorb 2008-04-25 01:44|| 2008-04-25 01:44|| Front Page Top

#3 Typical MSM hysteria : all sorts of "could, might, may" being invoked without any explanation of how he is supposed to accomplish this with the losses the Mahdi Army has taken in the past few weeks. And a lot of those losses are surrenders/defections.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2008-04-25 02:45|| 2008-04-25 02:45|| Front Page Top

#4 And all the women wearing jeans and returning to the university and all the other folks quoted in The Times article would love to have Tater back.

Intentional or not, what has happenend is we have allowed the folks - and the rest of the world - to see what would have happened without the rule of law. First Falluja and now Basra have been freed again - first from the oppression of Sadam, then from the oppression of their we-know-what-is-best-for-you betters (the democrats?)

Why is he always a "young cleric", anyway?

Posted by Bobby 2008-04-25 06:27|| 2008-04-25 06:27|| Front Page Top

#5 Even if he does have 60,000 fighters and 5,000 highly trained commandos (and I am doubtful of that), I think he's too late. The IA now outmans him and almost certainly out-skills him and out-commands him. And that's without US advisors and air cover. The only place he 'wins' is in ruthlessness, and if the US advisors 'turn their backs' I imagine the IA would have no problem frying some tater skins in hot oil.

Posted by Menhadden Snogum6713 2008-04-25 08:51|| 2008-04-25 08:51|| Front Page Top

#6 I think the Mullahs have decided to throw Tater under the bus partly because he became too expensive (I shudder at the dental hygiene bill).

Those 60k 'fighters' won't be loyal when their pay stops; the 5k commandos will, at least for a while decide to use their skills to rob and extort from the Shia civilians in the name of Tater.

Posted by mhw 2008-04-25 09:01|| 2008-04-25 09:01|| Front Page Top

#7 Lawmakers and politicians told the AP that al-Sadr's more belligerent tone is motivated, in part, by his wish to secure a place for himself in history as a nationalist leader and anger over the recent arrests of hundreds of supporters despite his unilateral cease-fire.

'Nationalist leader'? More like a Prince of Thieves. Meaning he has to constantly work to keep control. Since he doesn't have charisma and a rep outside of being 'his father's son', and he hasn't effectively established a climate of fear, he needs to play warlord.

Posted by Pappy 2008-04-25 13:28|| 2008-04-25 13:28|| Front Page Top

#8 If he wants to be a "nationalist" leader, it might help his cause if he was actually in the nation that he wanted to lead instead of hiding under his bed at Super Duper Mullah School in Iran while his Mahdi Army saps do all his bleeding for him...

Posted by tu3031 2008-04-25 13:42|| 2008-04-25 13:42|| Front Page Top

#9 He should have been stomped to a sticky red jelly the first time he raised his ugly head. Now we have to do it again. This time, I don't think Tater's gonna survive. One heavy ARCLIGHT strike against his "forces" will leave him with a handful of useful idiots (democrats), and not much else.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2008-04-25 16:09|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2008-04-25 16:09|| Front Page Top

#10 He should have been stomped to a sticky red jelly the first time he raised his ugly head.

Which is how martyrs are made.

Better to keep the incompetent, than to have someone with sense (and better teeth) show up.

Posted by Pappy 2008-04-25 21:31|| 2008-04-25 21:31|| Front Page Top

23:33 Mike
23:33 Frank G
23:26 OldSpook
23:22 smn
23:10 smn
23:01 Harcourt Jush7795
22:57 Frank G
22:56 twobyfour
22:54 smn
22:42 RD
22:38 Anguper Hupomosing9418
22:15 Darrell
22:10 DK70
22:09 Alaska Paul in Chefornak, AK
21:58 OldSpook
21:57 Alaska Paul in Chefornak, AK
21:55 Pappy
21:55 Alistaire Sleasing2074
21:54 OldSpook
21:54 Glenmore
21:52 Alaska Paul in Chefornak, AK
21:49 JosephMendiola
21:45 bombay
21:44 no mo uro