More Good News From Iraq, Al Sadr Calls For New Start

In a surprise move Al Sadr backs away from confrontation and embraces conciliation. It appears that all the doom and gloom predicted by a biased press along with some antiwar minded public members is not going to happen as they said it would. Score one for the good guys, in sticking with its mission in the face of insurgents and a contrary public the coalition has in effect won this round of the battle to bring peace to Iraq.

BBC

Radical Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr has reportedly backed for the first time US moves to gradually hand powers over to an interim Iraqi government.

The change of heart came in a sermon at Friday prayers in the town of Kufa, two weeks after the government was formed.

Mr Sadr, a firebrand whose militia has fought US forces since March, called for a new start and an end to conflict, according to witnesses.

Of course in reporting this big news about Al Sadr the BBC had to show its arse with as much negetivity as it could find in the rest of the article following the Al Sadr portion of their story in an attempt to minimize the report - ah well at least they reported the story.

Originally posted by Phoenix
It appears that all the doom and gloom predicted by a biased press along with some antiwar minded public members is not going to happen as they said it would. Score one for the good guys, in sticking with its mission in the face of insurgents and a contrary public the coalition has in effect won this round of the battle to bring peace to Iraq.

What an interesting interpretation. What impact this report must have on your mind - what a glorious rainbow over the horizon!

Do you not understand what a hole the Bush admin has dug for itself, what is going on with the Kurds, and that Iraq is on the brink of all-out civil war? Do you not understand that the "War On Terror" is a complete fake for consumers like you?

Let's not even raise the spectre of what has brought on the about-face.

Are you watching a western movie with cowboys and Indians, saying "score one for the good guys"?

Ah, but there are several here who argue that truth is "subjective". You are entitled to yours, but unfortunately it is founded on lies.

[edit on 11-6-2004 by MaskedAvatar]

MA the Kurdish problem is a hangover from the ottoman empire that existed long before the US got involved in Iraq and it will probably still be a problem when we finally do leave that country. You seem to like to treat that issue as one that just cropped up in the new century - well it did'nt, but if you'd like to make your own thread about that issue I would be inclined to participate.

This thread was about Al Sadr appearing to capitulate in the face of opposition from the coalition and his own countrymen - and yeah that is my take on it without blindly following the media that IS biased towards under-reporting news of this nature.

If I was blindly being lead by the media I would be making post response's such as yours wholly believing only articles that paint the west as corrupt brainless losers. What can I say I'm an optimist by nature.





[edit on 11-6-2004 by Phoenix]

Originally posted by Phoenix
This thread was about Al Sadr appearing to capitulate in the face of opposition from the coalition and his own countrymen

This is what I chose not to raise. The machinations in influencing such clerics will not be fully known by distant observers, and based on the track record of those that have the most to gain in the pretence of a peaceful solution, there may be a noisome olfactory trend in the air around his mosque.

Yes, the Kurdish problem exists before, during and after the programming of Iraq Version 3.0, and the words of one cleric do not paint a rainbow on the horizon from where I am looking.

This is what I chose not to raise. The machinations in influencing such clerics will not be fully known by distant observers, and based on the track record of those that have the most to gain in the pretence of a peaceful solution, there may be a noisome olfactory trend in the air around his mosque.

Now this is something to discuss - Is Al Sadr just buying time and rebuilding his forces until such time that he feels success may be gained in another insurgency?

That IS a distinct possibility.

Strike too soon and the US forces will deal with it, wait to long and the nascent government will put it down.

Well when is the right time for Al Sadr to cause a noisome olfactory trend in the air around his mosque?

I see it as a race for who can recruit faster - Al Sadr or the government?

It also has to be taken into account that as things improve with infrastructure and economic gain Al Sadr will have a more difficult time getting converts.

My guess is that he will raise a stink a few months before the next scheduled elections in order to sow chaos and doubt amongst the Iraqi people in a bid for an Islamic representation in any government formed.

I think that al Sadr has finally acknowledged that his petulant child/angry young man routine has run its course. The coalition has a bullseye on his forehead, the elder clerics have turned vocal in their condemnation of his antics, the Iraqi people have become tired of the disruption of their daily lives caused by him hiding in their mosques and sniping at police and soldiers, and he has lost control of the insurgents.

He is saying to himself, maybe a life under/with the new government is better than the martyrdom I once espoused.

He talked big as long as he knew the US didn't dare actually take him out. Times have changed.

Originally posted by Phoenix

Now this is something to discuss - Is Al Sadr just buying time and rebuilding his forces until such time that he feels success may be gained in another insurgency?

That IS a distinct possibility.

I see it as a race for who can recruit faster - Al Sadr or the government?

This is exactly what Al Sadr is doing, he knows our side will try anything to avoid continued violence. He extends an olive branch in one hand, but what is the other hand doing?

I think that he will just recruit "quiet cells" of supporters and use them to continue the fight all the while denying any credit to their attacks.

He has already seen that exposing an Army of followers will only keep him isolated and he would want to avoid this and bide his time waiting for the right time (prior to the elections), to go full bore in his attempt to take control of the country...

Keep your eyes open to this man...

His main goal is to leap to power in Iraq, now.

1) he lost many of his troops in combat. They were nowhere near as skilled as the Saddamist Republican Guard/Fedayeen rebels or the Afghanistan-trained al_Qaeda sorts.

2) harder to recruit given #1.

3) his """electorate""" is turning against him.

And actually this is a good example of the axiom: "there is no substitute for victory".
Bottom line: the U.S. forces defeated al-Sadr's. This has a political consequence too, as do all military actions .

If al-Sadr had inflicted many casualties on the US and pushed them back without taking much hit of his own, he would have been popular and his power rising. He would have been able to recruit more into his private army.

The difference there is that the al-Qaeda types (foreign fundamentalist fighters) have absolutely NO political ambitions in Iraq themselves except to kill Americans and destroy the country. They want to blow up Iraqi power plants. They don't want to get into high office, they want to kill anybody who gets into office.

Their "constitutents" are the ones watching al-Jazeera in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, etc.

mbkennel, you are exactly right in your assessment, thanks for the well worded and thought out reply - timing is critical both for the new government and al Sadr, time will tell but I as an optimast bet on the government and the people of Iraq to see whats in their best interest.

al Qaeda doesn't want democracy and will fight while its there. But the fact is that they are up against an army. I bet both are lying in wait until they strike instead of open rebellion. al Sadr may call for a new start, but I bet he will still support insurgenct without it being directly related to him. I think its a new start for him, a new strategy, but I doubt its over.

jamuhn, yup I say you cant trust him to mean what he says after an obvious defeat at the hands of the coalition militarily and politically by home political strenth in the face of Iranian provocation - yes he is biding his time.