Top Shiite politician says Iraqis must arm to protect their homes

[Barrett808]

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Iraq's top Shiite politician Abdul Aziz al-Hakim said in an interview that Iraqis must arm themselves to protect their homes and that the shrine in Samarra destroyed by bombs in February should be rebuilt.

The leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution, leading group in a coalition of Shiite parties governing Iraq, outlined for The Washington Post a four-step process that would restore law and order in Iraq.

His comments came on the eve of a meeting here Tuesday between US President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki focusing on how to strengthen security in Iraq after the failure of a six-week crackdown on sectarian violence in Baghdad.

Hakim said his plan was not meant to supplant efforts by Maliki to quell the violence, especially the prime minister's program to promote dialogue between Iraq's various factions, which Hakim said coincided with his first step to restore security.

(more)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060725/wl_mideast_afp/usiraqshiitesecurity

[saigon68]

1. Quick get the NRA

[MidwestTransplant]

2. This will go from a small scale civil war to a large scale, full blown one

[bemildred]

3. An informal draft. nt

[nealmhughes]

4. If there is no law and order, then the public will form committees of

public safety. Meanwhile, one cannot blame them for wanting a force to protect their homes and sacred sites, but what if it becomes an instrument of retribution?

Then the Sunnis feel compelled to respond in kind, leading to more preemptive strikes, leading to: what we have now. And that is a civil war.

Secularizing Iraq was the best idea that the Baathists had: a Christian, Sunni and Shiite voice in the official party's policy. Too bad we destroyed Iraq without building up a secular government-in-exile to take the reins at the drop of the bombs.

Is there not a non-religious Socialist Party in Iraq? A monarchial right wing restoration pro-Hashemite party? In other words, a legitimate secular party of any bent? Evidently not.