Hot Air » Blog Archive » Good news and bad news from Iraq

Good news and bad news from Iraq

posted at 5:37 pm on September 3, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

The good news: the prime suspect in the Samarra shrine bombing and purported number two of Al Qaeda in Iraq has been arrested.

The bad news: Sistani says it’s too late.

Update: One of Sistani’s aides was gunned down this afternoon. Sunnis? Or is al-Sadr sending the old man a message?

Update: The Kurds are taking advantage of the Sunni/Shiite discord to kinda sorta declare their independence. Al-Maliki has responded by ordering them to reinstate the Iraqi flag, or else.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages:

Well, obviously if your religion was founded by a child molester, you’re going to be prone to failure.

JamesVersusEveryone on September 3, 2006 at 5:44 PM

Terrific.

Allahpundit on September 3, 2006 at 5:49 PM

Kind of a sad state of affairs when our hopes rested with an Ayatollah. Ah, we’ve come to this!

THeDRiFTeR on September 3, 2006 at 6:04 PM

So why hasn’t anyone made Al Sadr do the frog march?

Iblis on September 3, 2006 at 6:28 PM

So why hasn’t anyone made Al Sadr do the frog march?

He should have been marked for death two years ago. I remember following that standoff at the Najaf shrine, sure as I was sitting here that we were going to put him on ice and that’d be the end of the Mahdi army. Bush let him walk as a concession to Shiites, in hopes that he might be “integrated” into the political process. Fucking moron.

Allahpundit on September 3, 2006 at 6:30 PM

So why hasn’t anyone made Al Sadr do the frog march?

Because that wouldn’t have been nice. It was better to give him a role in the government than to put him down like the dog he is.

He is the biggest mistake we’ve made in Iraq.

Pablo on September 3, 2006 at 6:42 PM

Moron indeed, but that is what happens when you try to give an Islamic terrorist a break.

That is also what happens when we try to ‘work with the democrats’.

BTW, good point about how they pay for that ~~school~~ castle. Inquiring minds do want to know.

DannoJyd on September 3, 2006 at 6:43 PM

I remember following that standoff at the Najaf shrine, sure as I was sitting here that we were going to put him on ice and that’d be the end of the Mahdi army.

Allahpundit on September 3, 2006 at 6:30 PM

Somehow, I don’t think it would have been that easy. This guy and his family have a bit of a history in Iraq.

From the Council on Foreign Relations website:

His father, the Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr, was the most powerful Shiite cleric in Iraq in the late 1990s. His uncle, Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Sadr, was a leading Shiite activist who was executed by Saddam Hussein’s forces in 1980. Muqtada al-Sadr went underground in February 1999 after a spray of gunfire—from Saddam’s agents, according to most accounts—killed his father and two brothers. He inherited a network of schools and charities built by his father, along with the allegiance of many of the elder Sadr’s followers. In his early thirties, Muqtada al-Sadr lacks the decades-long religious training required of the highest-ranking Shiite authorities, so he bases his claim to authority on his lineage, leadership of the rebellion, and popular support.

and,

Experts say he commands the loyalty of some 3 million to 5 million very poor Shiites across the country; his stature grows with this group after each confrontation with the United States.

THeDRiFTeR on September 3, 2006 at 6:47 PM

This guy and his family have a bit of a history in Iraq.

Can he stop bullets with his head?

Pablo on September 3, 2006 at 6:49 PM

We have become passive pawns in this mess there. This is a war and we should have been kicking ass from day one and not stopped until total victory. Sadr should have been dead long ago and his army along with him. But we looked at polls and listened to the bleeding hearts…now look at what we have. I am disgusted with the total mess. Either we fight or get the hell out.

Wade on September 3, 2006 at 6:51 PM

This guy and his family have a bit of a history in Iraq.

Yes, but his is the cult of personality around which the army coalesces. As your own quote says, “his stature grows with this group after each confrontation with the United States.” Getting rid of their leader and trying to reorient them towards Sistani and the elected government might not have caused the whole force to disband, but surely it would have had some pacifying effect.

Allahpundit on September 3, 2006 at 6:51 PM

Yes, but his is the cult of personality around which the army coalesces. As your own quote says, “his stature grows with this group after each confrontation with the United States.”

Allahpundit on September 3, 2006 at 6:51 PM

(emphasis mine) Namely, the iraqi poor. Also, it think it appropriate to remember the catalyst to the initial surge of support.

THeDRiFTeR on September 3, 2006 at 7:06 PM

Namely, the iraqi poor.

Yes, and as you’ve pointed out, the Mahdi army comes from that group. Regardless, the point holds: kill their figurehead and reorient them towards the elected government or pacific Shiite leaders like Sistani.

Also, it think it appropriate to remember the catalyst to the initial surge of support.

Really? Why? Do you really think al-Sadr and his militia would have sat by placidly had their newspaper — which was inciting violence, lest we forget — never been closed? If he was a Christian, you’d see him for exactly what he is: a populist demagogue using religion to accumulate power. If he hadn’t used that as a pretext, he’d have used something else. But since there’s an anti-American angle to be had here, you’ll happily exploit that even if it means essentially apologizing for him.

How many media options are available to Iraqis now compared to during the Saddam era? I think it appropriate to remember that.

Allahpundit on September 3, 2006 at 7:23 PM

I wonder if Iran has a hand in any of this…naaaah, they wouldn’t do something like that. That would be undermining the “democratic process,” and they support a free and democratic Iraq. They said so, and I believe them.

Rick on September 3, 2006 at 7:25 PM

But since there’s an anti-American angle to be had here, you’ll happily exploit that even if it means essentially apologizing for him.

Allahpundit on September 3, 2006 at 7:23 PM

You have, once again, turned me into some sort of anti-american and have, once again, completely missed the point of my original contention, namely, that I don’t think that it would have been as easy as just greasing the guy. Personally, I think this guy, and his ilk, (ie. religious and political opportunists willing to sacrifice the lives of others for their own political ends) amount to about as much as the dot above the i of the word shit. Notwithstanding, had we left his paper alone, lying rag that it may have been, (I’ve never read it, so I’ll reserve judgement), I don’t think he’d have reached the heights he has now.

Where, in all of what I’ve said here, do you find evidence of my being his apologist?

THeDRiFTeR on September 3, 2006 at 7:37 PM

How many media options are available to Iraqis now compared to during the Saddam era? I think it appropriate to remember that

CNN was there…oh yeah, but they were not reporting on the atrocities being committed by Saddam – almost forgot.

Rick on September 3, 2006 at 7:40 PM

Notwithstanding, had we left his paper alone, lying rag that it may have been, (I’ve never read it, so I’ll reserve judgement), I don’t think he’d have reached the heights he has now.

I think I can safely assure you that a publishing career was not a central goal for Mister al-Sadr. The newspaper business doesn’t require the maintainence of a standing army. As you mentioned earlier, his family has a history and it is not analagous to the Sulzbergers’. The day the Moqtada al-Sadr went too far and got the final smackdown he was bucking for should be a part of it.

Pablo on September 3, 2006 at 7:44 PM

How many media options are available to Iraqis now compared to during the Saddam era? I think it appropriate to remember that.

Allahpundit on September 3, 2006 at 7:23 PM

That is, in fact, an excellent question, though I suspect it would be very difficult to quantify under current conditions. From your link:

I no longer have power to save Iraq from civil war, warns Shia leader

Also, I personally believe 99% of the media in Iraq today is not “available to Iraqis”. Certainly not electronic media, and the vast majority of the print media there is aimed at foreign consumers. My humble opinion, but I haven’t been there since Hussein was run out.

THeDRiFTeR on September 3, 2006 at 7:52 PM

Time to move the troops North, tell Turkey to shut the fungus up unless they want another ayatollah controlling their Southern border, and watch how the show develops.

Ropera on September 3, 2006 at 7:53 PM

Also, I personally believe 99% of the media in Iraq today is not “available to Iraqis”. Certainly not electronic media, and the vast majority of the print media there is aimed at foreign consumers. My humble opinion, but I haven’t been there since Hussein was run out.

Oh really – and what would lead you to have that “humble opinion”?

Rick on September 3, 2006 at 7:56 PM

Oh really – and what would lead you to have that “humble opinion”?

Rick on September 3, 2006 at 7:56 PM

Well, this:

Thanks largely to deteriorating security, electricity – along with water, sewage, and oil production – has dropped below prewar levels. Before the invasion, for example, Baghdad was receiving an average of at least 16 hours of power a day. Today, with insurgents targeting power plants and electrical lines on an almost daily basis, the city gets power just four hours each day on average.

THeDRiFTeR on September 3, 2006 at 8:03 PM

The Drifter’s pas de deux, or three, or four:

- AP posts something
- some commenter or other jumps in (or perhaps, if the hours are odd for the U.S. gives TD a chance to go first, as France is 6 hours ahead of Eastern time)
- TD jumps in and leaves the impression that it’s the fault of the Americans, whatever the subject…
- AP or some commenter reasons back, with examples, usually reminding TD of his harsh views
- TD softens the blow by explaining same or other facts/beliefs away, usually with links to prove it
- TD also claims to have been wrongly accused of pro-Muslumism, anti-Americanism, EU-ism, leftism or other -isms
- AP or commenter is tired of ‘dancing’…and moves on

Another time, another post, another pas de deux, or three, or four…

Entelechy on September 3, 2006 at 8:06 PM

- TD jumps in and leaves the impression that it’s the fault of the Americans, whatever the subject…

Entelechy on September 3, 2006 at 8:06 PM

Love the blog, what can I say. And I do have an opinion on some things. Are you suggesting that perhaps I should keep them to myself?

THeDRiFTeR on September 3, 2006 at 8:17 PM

Drifter, that FEBRUARY 2006 article doesn’t mention anything about the Iraqi’s getting news. Stop with the typical liberal attempts at trying to make your points with every piece of negative news you can find.

Once again, nobody ever said this was going to be easy or a cakewalk. My guess is that the Iraqi interviewed for that article was probably one of the fortunate ones under Saddam’s regime. Then again, I haven’t seen any good detailed articles (not even from the old Iraq Daily) that discussed the electricity levels during that time.

It’s so easy for people like you to sit around and criticize the big, bad Americans (under “W” – cause Bubba did everything the right way – when he used the military, it was for good).

Rick on September 3, 2006 at 8:30 PM

Non, non, mon amis électronique, au contraire, you have no idea how much I love freedom of expression for all, and diversity of ideas (the most important diversity, so almost ‘forbidden’ by our elites in the media and other…)

Also, from one who loves this blog very much, I would never suggest that you quit. In addition, I find you to be intelligent and interesting, two characteristics I adore in anyone.

It’s just befuddling to me how the elites of the world find fault with the U.S., no matter what, so long as it comes from a conservative administration. With the liberal administrations they are in love with, even if they make huge mistakes (i.e. the start of the Vietnam war by Pres. Kennedy). No need to argue back too much as I have heard or read this a million times from there, from here and from all over.

Consider this, sincerely – Mr. Clinton was my President and I don’t fault him on everything, absolutely everything.

Bonne nuit and please keep sharing.

Entelechy on September 3, 2006 at 8:39 PM

Once again, nobody ever said this was going to be easy or a cakewalk.

Rick on September 3, 2006 at 8:30 PM

MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who’s a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he’s written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: “It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars: “The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator.”

Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a breakfast with reporters: “What you’d like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. . . . Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the ’90s,” when its forces were routed from Kuwait.

Rick: I don’t see the word easy or cakewalk!

I believe demolishing Hussein’s military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they’ve become much weaker; (3) we’ve become much stronger; and (4) now we’re playing for keeps.

Ken Adelman
Washington Post
Wednesday, February 13, 2002; Page A27

THeDRiFTeR on September 3, 2006 at 8:50 PM

Not to be a party pooper, but isn’t this the 87th time we killed a number two guy in Al Qaeda. It is time to stop fighting this war with one arm tied behind our back and aim just a little higher next time. This doesn’t have to be a 100-year war.

Valiant on September 3, 2006 at 8:59 PM

Notwithstanding, had we left his paper alone, lying rag that it may have been, (I’ve never read it, so I’ll reserve judgement), I don’t think he’d have reached the heights he has now.

You think taking away a huge propoganda tool helped him gain popularity?

I would love to hear more detail on this conclusion.

B Moe on September 3, 2006 at 9:00 PM

Drifter, once again, you are confusing the issues – much like the MSM (including Fox) and the rest of the liberals, you are confusing the “Iraq War” and what is taking place today – the actual Iraq War was a “cakewalk”, and is OVER. We aren’t fighting Saddam’s regime anymore, and haven’t been for some time. This is us trying to reconstruct Iraq, and as expected, dealing with many militant groups in doing so. We have made many mistakes in the reconstruction phase (I will not argue we haven’t), but that doesn’t mean we just abandon these people now. Is that what you are suggesting?? Please clarify, because all I ever hear from your side is criticism with no REAL suggestions. Pulling out the troops or redeployment is a bunch of crap and you know it. That will result in the biggest blood bath ever – you think it’s bad now, these poor people will literally be slaughtered. Then, we will really look bad to the rest of the world – and I know how you liberals hate to look bad to the rest of the world (especially the EU).

Rick on September 3, 2006 at 9:14 PM

From Asia Times online:

The punishment of yet another media outlet can only confirm the worst views Iraqis have of Americans and draw parallels with the censorship imposed by the previous government. Shi’ites view themselves as an oppressed and persecuted sect. Muqtada Sadr himself often warns of his impending martyrdom. By closing down the newspaper the Americans are supporting these fears. and continuing to squander the goodwill they might have received from Shi’ites in the beginning of the occupation, when they had disposed of Saddam. Al-Hawza only had a circulation of a few tens of thousands. Muqtada reached his supporters through his sermons, CDs of which were then sold throughout the country, through statements posted on the walls of his local offices, and through the sermons of his local representatives. Closing al-Hawza will not prevent him from reaching his audience, it will only increase his supporters.

(all emphasis mine) I should point out that I don’t subscribe to the all the opinions expressed in the article, but only where I’ve added emphasis.

THeDRiFTeR on September 3, 2006 at 9:20 PM

Sorry, the above as a response to:

You think taking away a huge propoganda tool helped him gain popularity?

I would love to hear more detail on this conclusion.

B Moe on September 3, 2006 at 9:00 PM

THeDRiFTeR on September 3, 2006 at 9:21 PM

…but that doesn’t mean we just abandon these people now. Is that what you are suggesting?? Please clarify…

Abandon these people? Looks and sounds to me like they want us out, but we have no intention of actually leaving. Never did. We’re building a permanent military presence in Irak, let no one tell you otherwise. I just didn’t think we belonged there in the first place.

BTW, I supported Reagan in 81, Bush Sr. in 89 (but not in 93, I was a Perot man that year). I’ve been away since 95.

THeDRiFTeR on September 3, 2006 at 9:31 PM

On the question of Electricity in Iraq, it is reported that its availiability has improved.

“Power is more equitably distributed today, and on average Iraqis outside of Baghdad receive more hours of power than before the war,” Crum said.

I don’t know how reliable the source is though.

DannoJyd on September 3, 2006 at 9:32 PM

Perot in 92, sorry. My bad. It’s 3:34 am here.

THeDRiFTeR on September 3, 2006 at 9:33 PM

I don’t know how reliable the source is though.

DannoJyd on September 3, 2006 at 9:32 PM

I can’t comment on the reliability of the information from that site, but if I were you, I’d think twice about buying Iraqi Dinars. Thanks for the link.

THeDRiFTeR on September 3, 2006 at 9:38 PM

BTW, I supported Reagan in 81, Bush Sr. in 89 (but not in 93, I was a Perot man that year). I’ve been away since 95.

THeDRiFTeR on September 3, 2006 at 9:31 PM

80, and 88, during the elections as well as when they took office. Time for bed. Night night!

THeDRiFTeR on September 3, 2006 at 9:39 PM

By closing down the newspaper the Americans are supporting these fears. and continuing to squander the goodwill they might have received from Shi’ites in the beginning of the occupation, when they had disposed of Saddam.

Honestly, I don’t know enough about the situation to dispute this. I do wonder at the downplaying of the impact the paper had, though. From the same article, I found this interesting:

Another article warns that “America is untrustworthy and this is why [Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah] Khomeini called it the big devil because it came specifically to destroy Islam and to halt the export of the Islamic Revolution from Iran”.

Hmmmm.

B Moe on September 4, 2006 at 11:06 AM

Everyone here is missing the main issue, which is the loyalty of the Iraqi people. Nothing else really matters. This war is about changing loyalties from militias and tribal leaders to a central government. That kind of change is never easy and will probably take a generation or more. Insurgency is a battle for a population. We are losing this battle badly so far. It’s gotten so bad that even Sistani is giving up.

It’s easy to Monday-morning quarterback our decision not to kill Sadr and his top cronies two years ago, but remember at the time we were trying to get the Shiites on board in forming a government. We bet that Sistani would be able to either moderate Sadr, or diminish his influence enough that he wouldn’t be a major player. That was obviously a losing bet. We did try to kill him several times, but when he agreed to play ball we couldn’t just grease him after that – the penalty, we feared, would be too high.
Killing him then might have torpedoed the entire constitution and formation of the Iraqi government.

This has never been a war that the US power can win or lose. The Iraqi’s must ultimately decide where their loyalty lay. We, as foreign troops who don’t understand the language or culture, can only try to keep the lid on the boiling pot while doing what little we can to help the Iraqi’s figure things out somewhat peacefully. If the Iraqi’s decide to finally support the central government and reject militias, then we win. If not, then we lose, it’s almost as simple as that. Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines can do less than you’d expect to influence this battle for Iraqi loyalty. That has always been the great danger of this campaign – President Bush believes that people universally want freedom and democracy. So far, the Iraqi’s are proving him wrong.

NPP on September 4, 2006 at 1:37 PM

How many times can the number 2 guy be captured????

NPP: great analysis. What do you think of the notion that the eventual endgame here will be 3 separate states? If so, what can/should the US do to husband that process?

I don’t think there is evidence that people universally want freedom and democracy–think people want security and normalcy above all else, and that people generally want a measure of personal liberty. Democracy? Not so much.

Read over the weekend that there is a rapidly growing cottage industry in Iraq–fake passports. The middle class/professionals are bailing. Reminds me of Cuba as Castro was making his way to power.

honora on September 5, 2006 at 9:35 AM

Well, obviously if your religion was founded by a child molester, you’re going to be prone to failure.

JamesVersusEveryone on September 3, 2006 at 5:44 PM

What kind of idiocy is this? Yes Mohammed married a young girl–her age is in dispute but he followed the tradition of marrying a girl after her first menses.

Mary, as you recall, was twelve when she married Joseph, who was in his thirties. The practice of older men marrying and conceiving children with much younger women was commonplace in ancient times. And not because these people were perverse or immoral, it was a survival of the species strategy.

I get very irritated with assertive ignorance.

honora on September 5, 2006 at 9:53 AM

Comment pages:

You must be logged in to post a comment.