Didn’t seem to be much of a long-term plan…

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/05/is_sistani_promoting_attacks_o.asp

However, when 2 of 3 potential presidents are calling for the imposition of a power vacuum in Iraqwithdraw, it might make sense.

Obama and Clinton have interjected an unknown variable/risk into the whole political equation in Iraq. In short, it makes sense to hedge one’s bet.

Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki on Thursday said top Shiite cleric Ali Sistani expressed his support to the government measures taken to impose the rule of law.

PM Al-Maliki paid a visit to Najaf’s Shiite shrine and top cleric Sistani days after overseeing anew assault in Mosul to crack down on al-Qaeda.

“Talks with Sistani centred on issues serving Iraq”, said PM office statement received by Aswat al-Iraq-Voices of Iraq(VOI).

The PM noted “the religious authority supported the government measures in imposing the rule of law”, adding “he stressed the importance of holding weapons by government forces only, delivering services and carrying out reconstruction projects”.

Iraq News 23 May…

“I call BS on this article and question the motivation behind the two authors.”

Ditto that!

The edicts, or fatwas, by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani suggest he seeks to sharpen his long-held opposition to American troops and counter the populist appeal of his main rivals, firebrand Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia.

Aside from the fact that such fatwas would run counter to almost everything we know about al Sistani, the idea of al Sadr as an al Sistani rival is utterly fatuous — and never less so than in the “recent months” which are as close to any edict dating as the authors get. Frankly, the article itself strikes a peculiarly dated note — I suspect it may have been shopped around for quite some time and simply freshened up with the addition of a detail here and there.

In any case, if you’re an armed insurgent, what could be more convenient than a private fatwa from Iraq’s “most influential” cleric? I’d bet such claims are a dime a dozen. Unless the authors are al Sadr shills — or dupes — themselves, however, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to discover the Iranians stirring this pot.

But if anyone here – including Allah and Morrissey, who should go back to singing about the “boy with the thorn in side”, since correctly analyzing the situation in Iraq is so far out of his league — had bothered to do some scholarship on Iraq, you might have guessed that the Ayatollah had a certain bias against the infidels.

Try reading John Agresto’s book, Mugged By Reality.
Or do a little research on the Ayatollah’s son, Mohammed Redha al-Sistani. Or, visit Sistani’s site and see what
the Ayatollah regards as unclean (Christians,urine, semen…) Or do a search on the Ayatollah and funds sent to Qom. Or try a search at Jihad Watch. Or check out a site like Direland to see what the Ayatollah’s fatwa against gays and lesbians in Iraq did.

Even if the 48 hour rule has to be applied to this story, the Sharia-loving Ayatollah is not America’s friend and never has been. The fact that he has any influence in Iraq,
is a major disaster – we should not be empowering Islamists on the American taxpayer’s dollar.

I mean, these are the geniuses that were telling us Malaki was on the rocks after his massive loss in Basra, that the Mitey Mehdi Army was about to spring up and push him out, that the Green Zone was under “constant bombardment” for two months, that Sadr City was an impregnable Sadrist stronghold.

There may be a smoking gun somewhere but this article smells more like the Juan Cole gang desperately seeking to save face from their recent miscalls by using boogie man smoke machines.

Funny, he doesn’t look it….

ScottG on May 22, 2008 at 9:49 PM

Ah, but he is. Everyone keeps saying he is Iraqi by blood, he isn’t. He is Lebanese by blood.

“All spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.”

It just doesn’t pass the small test.

Second, on the Bullshit Scale, this is a pure 10 out of 10; Sistani doesn’t not at all believe in playing “politics”; he has issued fatwas in the past saying that his followers must not go against the “government”.

Second of all I’ve never heard of “individual fatwas” of jihad; it makes no sense to declare “jihad” against “occupiers” if you tell one or two people!

Just remember, Sistani may be Iranian by blood, but he definitely belongs to the Iraqi “Najafi” school of Ithna Asheri Usuli Shiites, the so-called “Quietists”, who are really influenced by the old apolitical “Akhbari” school if Shiites.

As Sadr, conversly, is Iraqi by blood, but he is definitely, theologically of the Iranian “Qomi” flavor of Ithna Asheri Usuli Shiites; instead of a “Quiteist”, he’s of the “Khomenist/Activist” stripe, a trouble maker and a pure Jihadist, who believes, unlike Sistani, in an active Political role for the Shiite Religious authorities.

Regardless, this is mostly BS, and political posturing by people close to Sistani, who are most probably worried by Maliki suddenly coming out on top in his battle with As Sadr, and they figure this might be a way to subtlely reign in Maliki, so he doesn’t get too powerful.

Here’s a nice turd in the progress punchbowl.

Flush him.

Muqtada al-Sadr is Lebanese

bnelson44 on May 22, 2008 at 6:56 PM

Funny, he doesn’t look it….

Agreed, the timing stinks and there is no reason Sistani would pull this crap for sport. Time will tell….oh and another point..Arabs love to lie!

In truth, we all know, including Sistani, that general peace is the quickest route to American withdrawl of ground forces. (Other than an Obama victory in US elections of course.) Air and armor will be needed for some time to keep other neighboring nations from meddling. Sistani could not be wishing for a Turkish or Iranian invasion so he would surely want an American Air and Armor deterence for now.

Hmmm, perhaps it was Barzini all along……

Ding! We have a winner. That gave me a great laugh and I needed one today.

Hmmm, I dunno. Go over to google news and do a search on “HAMZA HENDAWI” but select “2006″ and you will see that practically every single article written under that byline (and under HAMZA HENDAWI and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, of which there are several) are anti-American. I am not sure I would believe it. Reading it on the AP wire and that it comes out of the AP’s Baghdad bureau pretty much assures that it is agit-prop.