Maliki to Sadr: Disband your militia or else

[Kuciwalker]

WaPo claims that Sadr said he would comply if al-Sistani ordered him to.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/07/AR2008040700252.html

[snoopy369]

The OP said that also I believe. No odds on whether that actually will happen or not (probably not...)

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Patroklos
So explain to us how you can gain territory and be routed.

When you fail to accomplish any of your stated operational goals and the ending lines are virtually identical to the starting lines then it is a failure. They tried to take territory and failed until the US came in and saved their bacon.

Try to spin it all you want but that is the simple facts.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by snoopy369
The OP said that also I believe. No odds on whether that actually will happen or not (probably not...)

OP didn't say, unless I can't see it, that Sadr will comply.

[Patroklos]

When you fail to accomplish any of your stated operational goals and the ending lines are virtually identical to the starting lines then it is a failure. They tried to take territory and failed until the US came in and saved their bacon.

Hmmm, so tell me exaclty how the Iraqi army fought militias without ever actualy entering Basra? Tell me how the battle lines are the same if Iraqi army units are in Basra as we speak?

Stated operational goal: Restore order to Basra/
Reality today: Iraqi Army patroling Basra, miilitias nowhere to be seen.

Reality

And btw, please tell me when American combat troops came to save the day. Spare us your predictable and obviously pathetic attempt to insist a squad of SF and a few officers consulting at the HQ negates the hard work of 10K+ Iraqi soldiers.

And btw Oerdin, if you intend to insist the postitions are the same (despite that be obviously false), that STILL isn't a route.

[Zkribbler]

I think there is a massive misunderstanding of the opening article. It is NOT about a military confrontation. Rather, it is an attempt by Maliki to POLITICALLY isolate Sadr and make him irrelevant.

[KrazyHorse]

I think you overestimate the difference between politics and the barricades in Iraq.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo
What we're seeing is an attempt to disenfranchise the Shia underclass (the Sadrists would likely make up tons of ground in free and fair elections, given that they previously boycotted the provincial elections).

Wait, so you're suggesting that Maliki wants the militias to stay put?

[Ramo]

Which militias? He's fine with certain militias, and not so fine with others (like pretty much everyone else with power in Iraq). He's down with the Badr Corps, which is controlled by the most important party in his government, and huge part of his security forces. He's on decent terms with the Peshmerga, whose political wings are also propping up his rule. He's much less of a fan of JAM, Fadhila, and the Awakening Councils, groups that don't get state largess.

[Darius871]

From context you might as well guess I mean the JAM along with any splinters that A) generally consider themselves more in line with Mohammed Sadeq's legacy than Moqtada and/or B) broke with Moqtada because of doubts about the ceasefire, but in either case probably still remain loosely associated with the JAM and might follow its lead (both Fadhila and al-Khazaali's crew come to mind, and it's even been suggested that al-Araji is becoming more independent, and this goes without mentioning countless minor cells well below the media's radar), not groups that favor Maliki. You still haven't answered my question. Do you seriously believe that Maliki and his backers actually prefer that Sadr's "influence" - even when viewed as a network of association moreso than a monolithic entity - should continue to be backed by arms?

[Ramo]

That's a silly question. Iraqi politics is played by having an effective patronage machine, and that's what JAM gets the Sadrists. They're not going to give it up unilaterally. Are you implying that giving your chief rival, and only your chief rival, the choice of disarming or being disenfranchised is some sort of good-faith action in the interests of democracy?

I think Sadr is playing Maliki pretty effectively. Najaf doesn't have the political influence to demand Sadrist disarmament when the party of the clerical establishment gets to keep their guns. Sistani is ailing and AWOL, the Najaf establishment is waning, and Qom is waxing. That's why Iran, and not Najaf, brokered the recent cease-fire (one that Maliki is apparently brazen enough to break a week or so later).

I don't get Maliki. Always acting in the interests of his sect, always for his faction within the sect. He's a destroyer of states.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
I think there is a massive misunderstanding of the opening article. It is NOT about a military confrontation. Rather, it is an attempt by Maliki to POLITICALLY isolate Sadr and make him irrelevant.

The problem is, Sadr is far from irrelevant. His movement boycotted the last elections, allowing Maliki's crowd to take power. Sadr's people intend to contest in the elections, and they are widely expected to be the largest party, and the Sunni's are going to participate also, meaning Maliki's days are numbered unless he can crush the Sadrists. That's what this has all been about.

This is a trap. Mailiki knows that Sadr would be insane to disband his militias while Maliki's party retains his. His followers would be then be unable to defend themselves from Maliki's forces, who would then crush them before the elections, enabling Maliki and company to retain "control" of Iraq. The U.S. doesn't want Sadr to win either, cuz he'd order the U.S. out.

Brilliant, but evil, and thoroughly anti-democratic.

[GePap]

Under what legal basis could Maliki ban a party from running in an election?

Wouldn't the Parliment be the one to have to pass a law saying so? Unless there is a clear legal precedent for the executive branch banning parties from elections (and I highly doubt there is such a thing), trying to carry out such a threat would only undermine the legitimacy of the coming elections and create further tension within the Shiite community.

[chequita guevara]

I think he could do it under the basis of he's got the government and the Bush administration is backing him up.

[GePap]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I think he could do it under the basis of he's got the government and the Bush administration is backing him up.

Yes, and governments in power can steal elections all the time, that does not mean that in the minds of most Iraqis the situation would be seen as legitimate, which is much more important for creating any sort of long term change.