Ignoring the general blather:
While Sadr represent a minority view of Shi'ite though, his actions have, if not raised his prestige, made the situation much more difficult for the US in the months ahead:
1. Iraqi security forces melted away everywhere-these are the guys we are supposedly going to keep Iraq safe..and they did nothing.
2. While most Shiia might not want to join and open revolt, the Shiia leadership ahs castigated the US as much as Sadr, and if the US gets into some serious fighting in Najaf and Kuffu, Shiia' will side with Sadr sympathywise, NOT the US-we see the same thing happening in Fallujah-general Iraqi sympathy, even among Shiia, is for the people in Fallujah and people do not blame the militants, they will blame the US-just like the Iraqi governing council is doing..
3. Oerdin is right-what the Shiia want is political control-which is exactly why the Sunni are nervous and the Kurds demanding a strong federalism, which the Shiia see as a way to deny them power. The interim constitution did nothing to fix this problem-and as of now, nothing has been done to actually make headway.
4. The fact is that almost all civil wars or insurrections begin small-the masses rarely want war and chaos-one motivated groups starts the mess-and everyone is forced to chose-which side do I back? Which side gets my sympathy. They do this if only to make sure if trouble gets to them, at least they have a side and will be safe. Right now, a lot of people are thinking about the choice-in theory, there should be three choices, The militants, the US, and the Iraqi council, with the hope being most will chose the last, cuase they certainly won;t chose the US and we don;t want them to chose the militants. But given point 1, the council and its security forces have been AWOL, lets guess who is elft to gain the greater sympathy? It ain't Kimmitt and Sanchez, thats for sure.
While Sadr represent a minority view of Shi'ite though, his actions have, if not raised his prestige, made the situation much more difficult for the US in the months ahead:
1. Iraqi security forces melted away everywhere-these are the guys we are supposedly going to keep Iraq safe..and they did nothing.
2. While most Shiia might not want to join and open revolt, the Shiia leadership ahs castigated the US as much as Sadr, and if the US gets into some serious fighting in Najaf and Kuffu, Shiia' will side with Sadr sympathywise, NOT the US-we see the same thing happening in Fallujah-general Iraqi sympathy, even among Shiia, is for the people in Fallujah and people do not blame the militants, they will blame the US-just like the Iraqi governing council is doing..
3. Oerdin is right-what the Shiia want is political control-which is exactly why the Sunni are nervous and the Kurds demanding a strong federalism, which the Shiia see as a way to deny them power. The interim constitution did nothing to fix this problem-and as of now, nothing has been done to actually make headway.
4. The fact is that almost all civil wars or insurrections begin small-the masses rarely want war and chaos-one motivated groups starts the mess-and everyone is forced to chose-which side do I back? Which side gets my sympathy. They do this if only to make sure if trouble gets to them, at least they have a side and will be safe. Right now, a lot of people are thinking about the choice-in theory, there should be three choices, The militants, the US, and the Iraqi council, with the hope being most will chose the last, cuase they certainly won;t chose the US and we don;t want them to chose the militants. But given point 1, the council and its security forces have been AWOL, lets guess who is elft to gain the greater sympathy? It ain't Kimmitt and Sanchez, thats for sure.
Comment