Muqtada al-Sadr

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I pointed out not just his violence but his thuggishness. Perhaps thats no reason to doubt his word, but aggie seems to think Allawi having been allegedly a Baathist thug 30 years ago is reason to doubt his word.

Im merely saying that Sadrs character is no cleaner than that of Chalabi, Allawi, Sharon, or any other player in the region. AFAIK Juan Cole normally thinks it appropriate to include sources aside from a players own words in judging their goals and motivations. Yet here he seems to think thats not appropriate. Seems inconsistent, thats all. And perhaps motivated by Juan Coles agenda.

Can you show anything in which Juan Cole ignores or dismisses the policy statements of Allawi or Chalabi in any way? Cause if you don;t, you have little if anything to start charging Cole with a bias.

This discussion of Sadr's aims came about by the very original question, which is, what does he want. Juan Cole has provided us with the single most coherent answer which comes from the person in question. Can you present us with an alternate list of Sadr aims (and notice Juan Cole acknowledges Sadr's seeming aim of an Iranian style clerical regime and authoritarian government) for the group?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
"He wants Iraqi Shiism to emerge from Iran's shadow and to establish its independence from Iran. His movement is rooted in the Shiite ghettos of Iraq and is very indigenous. He is not Iran's catspaw in Iraq, quite the opposite. He is strong Iraqi nationalist."


In particular this is questionable - its clearly in Muqtys interest to say so, and it deserves belief as much as Hitler saying that he was not a catspaw for Germany industrialists who were secretly funding him.

Lets take the Hitler example: the German industrialists did fund him becuase they thought his aims were much like theirs. But I am sorry, Hitler was no catspaw of German industrialists. They did fine under him for a while, but his plans could not possibly have been their plans, and it brought them to their dooms.

So if anything, the Hitler example undermines your skepticisms. After all, The industrialist went TO Hitler, not the other way around. IN the same way the Iranians could be funding Mutky to further their own aims without being fully aware, or carring, what his true aims are.

After all, were the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan nothing more than a catspaw for the US?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon
Sadr hates our freedom.

not sure, but if this is supposed to be an ironic reference to Dubya saying OBL hates our freedom, you need to do more research. Sayd Qutb DID hate our freedom, which he experienced quite directly in Greeley Colorado. In particular he hated the seperation of religion from state, which though a late development in the west, he saw as rooted in Christianity (I wouldnt necessarily agree, but we're talking about Qutbs positions, not mine) Do you really think that OBL thought Qutbs analysis was wrong??? That he has broken with Qutbism???? On the basis of a few public statements clearly aimed at a muslim world that is largely NOT Qutbist? Looking at OBLs public statements of the last 10 years is NOT the equivalent of looking at Mein Kampf, its more like looking at Hitlers speeches of the late '30s, when he tried to portray his goals as limited.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon


Are you seriously calling the Iranian theocrats Nazis? Sure, they aren't too hot, but they certainly aren't up to Adolf's standard.

can you read??? "OBL hates our freedom, you need to do more research. Sayd Qutb DID hate our freedom, which he experienced quite directly in Greeley Colorado"

FYI, OBL is short for Osama Bin Laden, who is a Saudi, not an Iranian. Sayd Qutb was a founder of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and he was an Egyptian, not an Iranian. Im also not saying Qutb or OBL were Nazis, merely making a point about taking them at their word. Do you beleive that only Nazis make self serving public statements of their goals? (BTW it was GEpap who introduced the Nazi analogy)

[Agathon]

Islamists hate the decadence of the west, so do people like John Ashcroft. But that's not where most of OBL's support comes from. By far his most popular statements concern foreigners meddling in Arab countries and propping up corrupt and unpopular governments.

Even if OBL won and expelled the US from the Middle East, no one would buy his Islamist ideals. Hardly anyone in the Middle East wants to live that kind of life. The only reason the Algerians voted for the Islamists in the early 90s was because they would, as someone said, have voted for the Gay Liberation Front if it had had a chance of removing the government from power.

And with regard to Iran: do you realize that many progressive Iranians are hopping mad with Bush because his idiotic "Axis of Evil" comment set the reform cause back ten years?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap



Can you show anything in which Juan Cole ignores or dismisses the policy statements of Allawi or Chalabi in any way? Cause if you don;t, you have little if anything to start charging Cole with a bias.
?

hell, im not researching everything cole has written. Im going by my impressions of comments about the occupation and the IGC since June 2003. If YOU can show me where Juan Cole judges Chalabi's goals purely on his public statements do so.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Lets take the Hitler example: the German industrialists did fund him becuase they thought his aims were much like theirs. But I am sorry, Hitler was no catspaw of German industrialists. They did fine under him for a while, but his plans could not possibly have been their plans, and it brought them to their dooms.

His defeat, which he certainly did not plan, almost brought them to their doom (many of the firms survived the war of course, or were revived after '48) Tell when, prior to 1943, his industrial supporters opposed him.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


not sure, but if this is supposed to be an ironic reference to Dubya saying OBL hates our freedom, you need to do more research. Sayd Qutb DID hate our freedom, which he experienced quite directly in Greeley Colorado. In particular he hated the seperation of religion from state, which though a late development in the west, he saw as rooted in Christianity (I wouldnt necessarily agree, but we're talking about Qutbs positions, not mine) Do you really think that OBL thought Qutbs analysis was wrong??? That he has broken with Qutbism???? On the basis of a few public statements clearly aimed at a muslim world that is largely NOT Qutbist? Looking at OBLs public statements of the last 10 years is NOT the equivalent of looking at Mein Kampf, its more like looking at Hitlers speeches of the late '30s, when he tried to portray his goals as limited.

I doubt Qutb would really define our state as "free", since it seems to be a freedom from God, and as Elok would say, what kind of freedom is that?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon


Islamists hate the decadence of the west, so do people like John Ashcroft.

LOTM - Qutbists (which not all Islamists necessarily are) hate the seperation of religion and state, and the form of democracy. They dont just want the imposition of some religious law (which is already widespread in the Islamic world) but the extinction of ANY distinction between religious and political leadership, as in Afghanistan under the Taliban.


But that's not where most of OBL's support comes from. By far his most popular statements concern foreigners meddling in Arab countries and propping up corrupt and unpopular governments.

LOTM - yup, and most of the folks who voted for Hitler just thought Versailles was unfair, and wanted jobs. But we were not discussing OBL's followers, we were discussing OBLs own aims.


Even if OBL won and expelled the US from the Middle East, no one would buy his Islamist ideals. Hardly anyone in the Middle East wants to live that kind of life.

LOTM - As was largely the case in Afghanistan as well, yet the opposition to the Taliban was effectively squelched.

And with regard to Iran: do you realize that many progressive Iranians are hopping mad with Bush because his idiotic "Axis of Evil" comment set the reform cause back ten years?

And what does this have to do with anything above in this thread? (Aside from eliding over the divisions within the Iranian oppposition)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


I doubt Qutb would really define our state as "free", since it seems to be a freedom from God, and as Elok would say, what kind of freedom is that?

I suppose Qutb wouldnt say "I hate their freedom" He would however hate many charecteristics of our society which WE consider essential to our freedom, so from our POV he WOULD hate our freedom. Bush says "they hate our freedom" NOT "they say they hate our freedom"

[Ramo]

Reports ive seen say that SCIRI and Dawa get their support from the Khatami govt, while Sadr gets his from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and others close Khamenei.

And I haven't seen any real evidence to that effect, beyond token support (the Badr Corps, BTW, were trained by the Revolutionary Guard, so I think the connections between the it and SCIRI are fairly significant). Iran gets everything it wants with SCIRI or Da'wa in power (and it's very likely that Da'wa would form the heart of an elected Iraqi gov't). But it gets an unstable, nationalistic regime with Sadr in power.

As for attacking Sistani for being Iranian, that does not at all show Sadr isnt getting help from the Iranians. as Karl Lueger, Mayor of Vienna once said about his partys antisemitism and his acceptance of help from wealthy Jews drawn by his opposition to socialism "That (antisemitism) is for the gutter - I decide WHO is a Jew"

The point is that while Sadr may have some token support from Tehran, that doesn't make him their puppet and certainly not their main branch of support, any more than Lueger was the puppet of or primarily supported by wealthy Jews.

It may well survive in some form. But should Sadr get away with the assasinations of other Shia leaders, and the taking over of key cities, it will be a worse form.

It shouldn't have come to this in the first place, but I think backing off and addressing the social causes of Sadrism (urban poverty, unemployment) in the long term is the only viable option.

And losing would seem proof that hes NOT the mahdi.

I don't think that many of Sadr's followers consider him the Mahdi. Anyways, seeing him getting killed (in the Imam Ali Shrine) would just prove to his followers that all hell is breaking loose, so the coming of their messiah is on hand.

Or they decide that its not worth dying, and give up.

That isn't tribal custom.

Especially if the cousin whos killed is known to the family as a criminal, as apparently many mahdi army members are.

Source?

Look, in April we killed thousands of Mahdi army members. Where are the thousands of new recruits?

What do you mean? You don't think he's getting new recruits (thousands either way, I think is overstating it).

which is why we wont destroy it.

How are we going to pull that off?

Ramo, the Iranians are playing the same role here their ancesters the Persians once played in financing the Spartans during the Peloponnesian War.

Ditto 117 AD. When Trajan conquered Mesopotamia, the "Iranians" financed a Jewish revolt in North Africa that forced a Roman withdrawal to deal with it.

Do you have any proof?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
hell, im not researching everything cole has written. Im going by my impressions of comments about the occupation and the IGC since June 2003. If YOU can show me where Juan Cole judges Chalabi's goals purely on his public statements do so.

The thing is, Chalabi is not in trouble due to his policy aims, but for scandals and such.

Sadr is a problem becuase of his policy aims (like not "colaborating with the occupation forces".

His defeat, which he certainly did not plan, almost brought them to their doom (many of the firms survived the war of course, or were revived after '48) Tell when, prior to 1943, his industrial supporters opposed him.

Its not that the industrialists ever opposed him- its that his aims were not the same. I seriously doubt the racial extermination of "untermensch" was part of the plans of Krupps or Siemens: getting rid of communism, yes, but then, those would have been Winston's Churchill's aims as well.

Having a common anti-Communist agenda did not make them best of friends, nor did it mean Hitler was beholden. By 1943 there was nothing the Industrialists could do vs. Hilter anyways.

[GePap]

Also, US kill figures seem a little inflated to me, if only because the only thing we have is the word of the US in a lot of instances. After all, according to the US military we killed Saddam once, and also Chemical Ali.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo

And I haven't seen any real evidence to that effect, beyond token support (the Badr Corps, BTW, were trained by the Revolutionary Guard, so I think the connections between the it and SCIRI are fairly significant). Iran gets everything it wants with SCIRI or Da'wa in power (and it's very likely that Da'wa would form the heart of an elected Iraqi gov't). But it gets an unstable, nationalistic regime with Sadr in power..

Dawa cant run an elected govt without significant support from either fundie Sunnis, or secularist Shia, either of which makes the govt unreliable to Teheran. And worse the very existence of a democratic Iraq is a threat to the Expediency council, though NOT to Khatami. Which is the point I think. A Dawa govt, assuming its free of the Americans, is still an ally of the Khatami reformers against the Expediency Council - while Sadr is not.

The point is that while Sadr may have some token support from Tehran, that doesn't make him their puppet and certainly not their main branch of support, any more than Lueger was the puppet of or primarily supported by wealthy Jews..

I dont know whether muqtys financial support from Teheran makes up 5% of his budget or 50% or 95%. I doubt we'll know for some time.

It shouldn't have come to this in the first place, but I think backing off and addressing the social causes of Sadrism (urban poverty, unemployment) in the long term is the only viable option..

In this we are in agreement. But to GET to economic development the security situation must be addressed first. The immediate question is whether letting Sadr getting away is less damaging than arresting him, or at least driving him by force from the Shrine.

I don't think that many of Sadr's followers consider him the Mahdi. Anyways, seeing him getting killed (in the Imam Ali Shrine) would just prove to his followers that all hell is breaking loose, so the coming of their messiah is on hand.

I dont think we know for sure what would think, or what actions this would motivate - but again, it must be seen versus the alternative.

That isn't tribal custom..

My impression is that tribes arent suicidal, and reconciliations are possible. Again, do we make more enemies by finishing him off now, or letting him grow stronger?

Especially if the cousin whos killed is known to the family as a criminal, as apparently many mahdi army members are.

Source?

LOTM - nothing handy, ive seen lots of references from Iraqi bloggers and others that many of the mahdi army are street thugs. Could be wrong,of course.

Look, in April we killed thousands of Mahdi army members. Where are the thousands of new recruits?

What do you mean?

LOTM - if killing a mahdi army member leads to their cousins et al joining up, than the deaths of thousands in April and May should have led to lost of new Sadrist recruits. Doesnt appear consistent with Sadrs weaker military performance now.

which is why we wont destroy it.

How are we going to pull that off?

LOTM - I dont know, but im not an infantry officer. I think Iraqi light infantry, probably at night, using lots of night vision equipment. Possibly a sequence of raids rather than one big attack. But certainly not by leveling the place.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


The thing is, Chalabi is not in trouble due to his policy aims, but for scandals and such.

Sadr is a problem becuase of his policy aims (like not "colaborating with the occupation forces".

I was not addressing why Chalabi was in trouble, but why Cole would not accept his statements about his own aims. Sadr claims to be an Iraqi nationalist who would oppose Iranian dominance. Similarly Chalabi claims to be a dedicated democrat and Iraqi nationalist, who would oppose any dictatorship, pro-American or otherwise, and who is NOT the catspaw of the Pentagon. AFAIK Cole does NOT take these claims by Chalabi about his aims seriously. Yet he does take Sadrs aims seriously. I questioned this, and Aggie said its cause Chalabi commited bank fraud, so you cant trust his word. Very well, Sadr commited murder - why can I trust him? People who commit political murder are more trustworthy than people who cheat banks? Or because the accusations against Sadr MAY be politically motivated? as if the accusations against Chalabi arent equally?? All im saying is that the treatment isnt parallel.