Sadr orders militia not to evict Iraqis from their homes

[ECH1969]

Radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, one of the most influential figures in Iraq, called on his followers to stop driving people from their homes.

Sadr founded the Mahdi Army, one of the most powerful militias in the country, but it appears to be only nominally under his control.

The militia has been repeatedly implicated in sectarian-motivated attacks that have left the morgues of the nation choked with bodies.

On Friday he issued a statement saying that if the rumors about his followers taking part in such killings were true, he would denounce them.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061016/wl_mideast_afp/iraqunrestshiite_061016152911

[4dsc]

1. Time to evict Sadr... n/t

[Eugene]

2. Sadr has done this routine too many times.

His men terrorize and kill and then he calls them off,
talking of unity and brotherhood. He certainly took
his time after this weekend's bloodshed.

Sadr has already said that he intends to fight the civil
war and win. That is the only honest statement he has
made, given the actions of his Mahdi Army.

[Kagemusha]

4. Reminds me of an old video game.

This old game was a Civilization-type game called Colonization. You'd see an Indian raider icon approaching one of your towns when relations were poor. Just before combat begins, you get a text pop-up: "Raid by Indian tribe. Local chieftain denies involvement." <begin Indian war cries>

That's the role Sadr's in. He gets to deny involvement while the militia continues to do the damage. How much real control he has is irrelevant because he benefits more from appearing to be out of control than appearing to be in control in this instance. The occupation is far from over so, he can worry about disciplining the nuttier elements once the Sadr movement runs out of external enemies (not likely anytime soon at all). In fact, in a completely ironic way, the US is sort of doing his dirty work for him by culling the nuttier elements who would be hard for him to control on his own to begin with, being a religious leader and not a military strongman. Persuasion is more useful than force in his line of work.

(Note that the portrayal of Native Americans in that instance was one side of a more complex whole - while in that game, Indians could be very useful allies if properly befriended, that one part in particular stood out as playing to the "two-faced chieftain" stereotype which is HARDLY unique to the Americas, but rather, a phenomenon known well among local political leaders of nations far and wide, civilized or little more than a collection of huts. A vivid image gets the point across for me here, that's all.)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

6. 386/sx16?

:rofl:





State of the Art. :woohoo:

[Kagemusha]

7. Yes, that one. I said old, didn't I? Great cover art though.

And one of the most complex economies in a game of that type ever seen. After all, if you're gonna stick it to the British in your little War of Independence, forget buying muskets from the Mother Country - make your own. Classic Americanism.

Some principles are just time-honored.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

9. Oh, make no mistake, I love my old sx computer!

[Odin2005]

8. That's an awsome analogy! God, I miss playing that game...

[NOLADEM]

3. Sadr does not have control of his militia

Many elements are working outside of his command. He is in 'control' of them only as much as he agrees with their actions.

[Kagemusha]

5. It's sad. Sadr gets it. Persuasion goes further for him than force.

Granted, things like the Golden Mosque bombing really cut off any hope he had of persuading regular Sunnis to tolerate his brand of leadership - as I'm sure the bombers of that mosque fully hoped - but even so, the Sadr movement has only continued to boom because of the Shiite support it has. Sadr absorbs support by being there for the disaffected (and the longer Iraq sucks, the more the disaffected Shiites, of which there are many, gravitate to him). Sadr's people find external targets to pound, which only heightens most poor Shiites' view of them as 'our SOB's' (because these same people wouldn't accept being ruled by thugs in normal times, which these are not). And as for the fringe elements, Sadr trying to use words to restrain them (somewhat) rather than trying to put them down with force (whether he can succeed in that or not) is using the carrot more than the stick.

Put bluntly, all of this is the exact opposite of how the US military does its business in Iraq. Sadr's doing everything right that the US military is doing wrong on a much smaller budget (albeit with a fair bit of home turf advantage). In particular, Sadr recognizes that the greater his reliance on the power of persuasion, the greater the effectiveness of the bullets that his movement does use. Persuasion is a force multiplier. So, completely in spite of the fact that many Shiites, Kurds and a huge heaping lot of Sunnis hate his guts, he has a far, far, FAR more powerful base of support in that country than the US military can ever dream of.

[frylock]

10. i only clicked on this to see if sadr would be labled a radical..

or a firebrand.