Muqtada al-Sadr

[Arrian]

Spin, spin, spin. Yeah, baby.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

hammorabi (sic) an Iraqi blogger

"The Wahabist slipped in the crowds in Kufa and attacked Kufa Imam Ali Mosque killing and injuring many.

Muqtada Sadr militiamen mixed with the aggregations entered Imam Ali Shrine in Najaf and escaped outside. This was the request of MS for Ali Sistani to save him a face. The most beneficiary one from Ali Sistani call and arrival was MS because he utilized his call for that face save.

Through out all recent history wars Najaf never had like this destruction before! It becomes a city of Ghosts and death. At least 25 bodies of executed civilians and police men have been found in the basement of the court set up by Muqtada Sadr. Some of the bodies have mutilated and burned badly. The sadistic personality of MS and his thugs is similar to the sick personality of Saddam and his thugs. Some of Saddam thugs indeed changed the Khaki uniform to Turbans.

The worst affected people by the peaceful solution in Najaf are the Wahabists especially in what is called (Saudi Arabia) and Zarqawi thugs. They regret that in their web sites while they were very happy and congratulate each other about the
recent fighting.

The tragic Russian airplanes found to have traces of explosives in their remaining. No one claimed the attack yet!

The mouth of terrorists Al-Jazeera which regret the peaceful solution in Najaf claimed that a group of terrorists killed the Italian reporter Enzo Baldoni. "

[lord of the mark]

From BBCArabic.com: The main factor behind the escalation of events in Najaf is the muteness of Ayatollah Sistani. If he had spoken positively - or even negatively - the problem could have been resolved, because he has many deluded followers.
Essam Al Hussainy, Baghdad, Iraq

From BBCArabic.com: Moqtada Sadr capitalised on his father's reputation and deluded his followers, who are mostly poor and uneducated. He is himself manipulated by a group of extremist clerics to make him serve their own political ambitions. This is happening at a time when we all strive for a stable life and want to rebuild what Saddam Hussein has destroyed.
Bassem, Iraqi in Oman


From BBCArabic.com: If Moqtada Sadr was a real nationalist, he would have turned his father's followers to a loyal electorate. But his anarchic tendencies are reminiscent of Saddam's infamous reign of terror, which will prevent him from taking on any political position in the future. We have to work together to re-educate Moqtada's followers in order to join forces for the benefit of our country.
Aseel, Najaf, Iraq

From BBCArabic.com:The current crisis in Najaf will have a dramatic effect on the democratic process in Iraq. Moqtada's men turned to dangerous outlaws when the government tried to hold them back. The case would have been entirely different if the confrontation was with any of the well-established political parties in Iraq. These parties that have long suffered from Saddam's tyranny would never resort to violence. They are people of principles and know how to maintain a sensible political dialogue, reflecting a clear ideology. This is why we have to eliminate the likes of Moqtada first before starting any democratic process in Iraq.
Ali Al-Dabbagh, Najaf, Iraq

From BBCArabic.com: I appeal for the Mehdi Army to walk out of the Holy Shrine and for Moqtada to surrender to the Iraqi authorities and apologise to the people of Najaf for all the destruction he caused.
Ahmed, Najaf, Iraq

This whole issue has compromised the government in the eyes of Iraqis because of its blatant impotence in the Najaf crisis

Tark Ali, Iraq
From BBCArabic.com: The events in Najaf have proved without any doubt that the Iraqi government is an extension of the occupation and showed that it readiness to sacrifice its very own people if necessary. This whole issue has compromised the government in the eyes of Iraqis because of its blatant impotence in the Najaf crisis. Najaf events will not compromise the so-called democratic process in Iraq, simply because such process doesn't exist to start with.
Tark Ali, Iraq

From BBCArabic.com: These actions are intended to divert the public's attention from what is going on in the rest of Iraq.
Ahmad Hassan Al Banna, Iraq

From BBCArabic.com: Events in Karbala have proved that democracy and armed militias don't go hand in hand. How can democratic elections be held in Najaf under Moqtada and his men? All militias should disbanded and incorporated in one National Army, including the Kurdish Peshmergas.
Haydar Al Karbala'i, Iraq

From BBCArabic.com: I have become convinced more and more that oil has everything to do with the war in Iraq.
Nasser Kabbara, Worcester, UK

From BBCArabic.com: The people of Najaf are far more afraid of Moqtada's men than of American attacks. Most of them want to see his army leave as soon as possible. No one here dares criticising him they fear his fierce reprisals.
Bassem Al Najafi, Iraq

[Ramo]

Regarding who won, I'll have to go with Cole's analysis on this:

Winners and losers:

I think the big losers from the Najaf episode (part deux) are the Americans. They have become, if it is possible, even more unpopular in Iraq than they were last spring after Abu Ghuraib, Fallujah and Najaf Part 1. The US is perceived as culturally insensitive for its actions in the holy city of Najaf.

The Allawi government is also a big loser. Instead of looking decisive, as they had hoped, they ended up looking like the lackeys of neo-imperialists.

The big winner is Sistani, whose religious charisma has now been enhanced by solid nationalist credentials. He is a national hero for saving Najaf.

For Muqtada, it is a wash. He did not have Najaf until April, anyway, and can easily survive not having it. His movement in the slums of the southern cities is intact, even if its paramilitary has been weakened.

The people of the urban slums still feel disenfranchised by the American occupation, by the Allawi gov't. They're not magically going to want to play ball with an inept, American-dominated (reinforced by the artillery barage in the area surrounding the Shrine, with who knows how many civilian casualties in addition to the damage to the Valley of Peace cemetery) elitist (further reinforced by the actions National Congress) gov't. So Sadr's base is still there, and is still quite antsy. And is feeling far more antsy than before this siege.

Of course, Sadr was outmaneuvered by Sistani, who stole some of his nationalistic thunder and perhaps some sway over his constitutency. He also alienated the people of Najaf, but the city has always belonged to the clerical establishment anyways. Also, his milita has been depleted, so it might be a short while till it can be reinforced. Hopefully, there'll be a free and fair democratic election before that could happen.

[Patroklos]

The urban poor of Iraq will support anyone who stands against athority, because the athorities have a mission to better the lives of the poor that they cannot fullfil.

Sadr, while he might promise the same, will never actually have to even try to do the same because he can always point at the US/Iraq government.

The slums have always been lost as far as opinion. What we need is the young professionals and the like, which we have Perhaps they do not love the US, but their lives are better and they can understand what is going on. I have first hand knowledge of this. Those are the people who will be responsible for rebuilding the state.

[Ramo]

The mission to better the lives of the poor is not one the authorities have attempted to fulfill in the least. They have consistently disenfrachised the poor economically and politically. Through breaking unions, through a contracting policy that exclusively favors the wealthy of Iraq and abroad, through massive privatization at a time of immense unemployment, through giving exiles almost exlusive political power, through preventing elections at every turn. So, yes, the slums will back anyone who stands against the Allawi gov't's and the Americans' authority since their influence has been invariably antithetical to their interests. The slums may have "always" been lost, but that's only because we've ignored them.

As for whether their support is needed, of course it's needed. An Iraqi state isn't viable as long as the poor see it as their enemy to the extent that they're willing to fight against it.

[Patroklos]

I didn't say that the government was trying to alleviate the problems of the poor, they are in no position to do so, like I said earlier your skipping steps. Labor unions at this juncture! You have no idea what stage they are at, and what has to happen first that might not fit your ideal views before things can reach the level you want. Economic foundations are never pretty, look at all the West's struggles. And look at all the failed economies where we tried to do what you are advocating in Iraq (ie Africa).

Anyways, it is not that the government failed the poor, it is that the poor expects results whether they were trying to or not. They have no expectations from Sadr right now, because he is not in charge. However, how long whould his support last if he did come to power, and ended up as unable to help them as the current government is out of neccesity.

[Ramo]

This isn't a step process, again. I don't know where you've learned your economics, but there isn't some magical level such that before it labor unions tank an eecoomy. Labor unions are instrumental in terms of developing a healthy middle-class dominated economy, and developing a civil society, both things Iraq desperately needs. As for proving why a prohibition against unions is necessary for economic development, you'll have to do better than saying "Africa." What the hell does that mean? The US, BTW, has had legal labor unions for well over a century and a half, and they've played a huge role. Particularly since the Great Depression. I guess according to your theory, the US' economy should've failed. Funny thing that it hasn't.

[Patroklos]

That is because our current industrial foundation was laid in 1865-1890 not the great depression, and at that time there were few labour unions. It was the events of those years that percipitated the formation of unions, which AFTER we were now an industrial economy with boming production and output found their rightful place in bringing some of the generated wealth to the people. Note there had to be weath for the unions to fight for their share.

Tell me the nation that skipped industrialization with its great pain on the lower classes and went straight to a successful starbucks bound middle class?

So are labor unions bad. No. Are the the universal solution to the development of the Iraqi economy as you worshop then as idols. No. Are you economic performance expectaions of Iraq unrealistic. Yes. And the lower class of Iraq share your impossible goals.

It isn't magical R, it is history.

[Ramo]

That is because our current industrial foundation was laid in 1865-1890 not the great depression, and at that time there were few labour unions. It was the events of those years that percipitated the formation of unions, which AFTER we were now an industrial economy with boming production and output found their rightful place in bringing some of the generated wealth to the people. Note there had to be weath for the unions to fight for their share.

The point again is that they were LEGAL in this era. And they played in important part in the economy. They won us the 8-hour working day in 1886. They provided an important social benefit for farmers of the period (see the Farmers' Alliances). You still haven't put forth a reason why trade unions should be illegal. BTW, if there's no economic basis for them to form, they won't form.

The only thing you've said is "Africa." That ain't an argument. South Africa, BTW, probably the most developed state in Africa has the most vibrant trade union movement in the continent, going back decades.

Tell me the nation that skipped industrialization with its great pain on the lower classes and went straight to a successful starbucks bound middle class?

This doesn't have a single thing to do with what I was discussing. If having legal trade unions means "skipping industrialization," then the US "skipped industrialization."

So are labor unions bad. No. Are the the universal solution to the development of the Iraqi economy as you worshop then as idols. No. Are you economic performance expectaions of Iraq unrealistic. Yes. And the lower class of Iraq share your impossible goals.

Do you make **** up? Yes.

[Patroklos]

When I say Africa I refer to all the screwed up economies that are that way because we tried to advance there economies and social institutions before the actual circumstances warrented. I could add South America and a few Asian nations too.

Btw when did I say I wanted labor unions to be illegal, I just said there is no need to encourage or require them.

Talk about making **** up.

[Ramo]

The argument I was making was about how the occupation gov't has been repressing Iraqi labor rights. You might want to actually figure out what the hell you're arguing about before ranting.

And way to be particular about your arguments. "There are lots of places around the world that support my argument, but I'm not going to mention them specifically." Alright, find me all these places where the gov't fostering trade unions' "prematurely" has tanked their economy.

I'll even provide a counter-argument for you: Japan, where the New Dealers who ran the occupation helped to foster trade unions.

[Joseph]

Here is the bad. Sadr walk out alive to fight another day. (James Bond )
Some of Sadr men walk out alive with weapons to fight another day.

Sadr will be back maybe in a few month or a year, this guy will not know how let go. The Gov should try to deal with him in a month or two from now if they can get to him quietly.

[Patroklos]

The locations were not in response to "trade unions" as you deliberatly restrict the arguemnet. It was Western powers introducing advanced economic and social institutions into areas who are not ready for them (Iraq). Basically I think Iraq should naturally progress through all phases of economic activity, to include the less pretty forms.

You want us to impose concepts on them like preventing natural privitization (anything besides that is unnatural, unless you think Iraq is not even at that econimic phase, where unions are even more ridiculous) and following lowest bider contracting policies.

This hang up on unions is yours not mine, it is just the item out of the list I chose to run with.

[Ramo]

The locations were not in response to "trade unions" as you deliberatly restrict the arguemnet. It was Western powers introducing advanced economic and social institutions into areas who are not ready for them (Iraq). Basically I think Iraq should naturally progress through all phases of economic activity, to include the less pretty forms.

You're changing the argument. Here's what you originally wrote:
"I didn't say that the government was trying to alleviate the problems of the poor, they are in no position to do so, like I said earlier your skipping steps. Labor unions at this juncture! You have no idea what stage they are at, and what has to happen first that might not fit your ideal views before things can reach the level you want. Economic foundations are never pretty, look at all the West's struggles. And look at all the failed economies where we tried to do what you are advocating in Iraq (ie Africa)."

If you didn't mean unions in the argument, it was completely nonsensical.

You want us to impose concepts on them like preventing natural privitization (anything besides that is unnatural, unless you think Iraq is not even at that econimic phase, where unions are even more ridiculous) and following lowest bider contracting policies

Jeebus!
1. Unions aren't rediculous. They played a huge part in the Iraqi economy half a century ago before Saddam's rise. And they'll play a huge part nowadays, if the state doesn't get in the way. Iraq has plenty of industries, and unions are an important part in nonindustrial economies (again, in the US, look at the Farmers' Alliances of the 19th century).
2. I have no idea what you mean by "natural privatization." The point, again, is that Iraq's unemployment is astronomic, so privatizing state businesses, which could've been a social net, at this moment puts lots off people without any food or shelter, not to mention making Sadr's ideas much more appealing to them. In principle, I oppose state ownership of nonessential services, but this is a time that necessitates a broad social welfare net.
3. There isn't a lowest bidder contracting policy. To bring up the most prominent example, there are Haliburton's no-bid contracts.