John Cole says Sadr is a radical cleric

[BlackJack8324]

Eugene, Ore.: Professor Cole: Given that Mr. al-Sadr's support base is the two million impoverished people of Sadr City, do you feel that Mr. al-Sadr's resistance is directed mostly at the Americans because he feels: a. it's the best way to intimidate the secular Iraqi middle class? b. because he sees significant number of Iraqis who are dissatisfied with Ayatollah al-Sistani? or c. he may be able to gain greater recognition or respect from within certain Iranian circles?

Juan Cole: Muqtada wants an Iran-style government in Iraq, and is a follower of the ideas of Ayatollah Khomeini. He is also a strong Iraqi nationalist and finds foreign, Christian Occupation impossible to accept. Obviously, he cannot get a Shiite-dominated, clerical theocracy in Iraq as long as the Americans are occupying the country. So he has to try to get them out first. I think his dedication to an independent Iraq is primary, since he is risking his life for it. If he only wanted power, he would operate more carefully so as to ensure he was alive to get it.


Wheaton, Md.: Isn't it well known that the government of Iran is directly behind the incitement, funding and arming of the Shiite terrorists in Iraq? Why isn't the U.N. and the rest of the world condemning Iran for this?

Juan Cole: No, I don't think Iran is behind the Sadr movement or the Mahdi militia. It is a homegrown phenomenon, springing from the Shiite Iraqi ghettoes. Actually the Sadr movement are very critical of Iranian dominance of Iraqi Shiism.

The Iranians probably give Muqtada some money and supplies, but they give money to all major Iraqi factions-- Ahmad Chalabi, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), the Kurds, etc. They seem to want to make sure that whoever comes out on top has reason to be grateful to them.

There are a handful of Iranian volunteers in the Mahdi Army. Some are pilgrims who got caught up in the fighting and joined the Sadrists. Others slipped across the border to fight. They don't seem to be numerous and there is no evidence that the Iranian government is sending them.

In fact, when Muqtada visited Iran in June of 2003, the high Iranian clerics told him to make a common front with Sistani and not make waves.


http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/04/r_outlook081604.htm

[BlackJack8324]

1. This kind of puts to rest the idea I've heard from some DUers

That Sadr is just some freedom loving Iraqi.

[jimshoes]

2. It will certainly be worth the 200 billion

spent to take him down a peg.

[Jack Rabbit]

4. Freedom-loving vs. Nationalist

Of course, freedom-loving and nationalist aren't mutually exclusive of each other, but one doesn't necessarily follow from the other, either.

Sadr is a nationalist. He is opposed to foreign occupation of Iraq or to any Iraqi government that is dependent on foreign troops for its survival and authority. If foreign troops left Iraq, Dr. Allawi would be wise for the sake of his health to follow them.

Sadr is also an Islamist. As Professor Cole says, he would like to see an Iranian-style Islamic Republic in Iraq. That's not a democratic system. In Iran, for instance, a group of twelve clerics determines who is and who is not sufficiently Islamic to run for a seat in parliament. In a democracy, the people, collectively and at large, are the sole judge of who is qualified to hold elected office.

As a democrat (small-d), I would prefer to see a democratic Iraq. Unfortunately, that is not on the table. Iraq's principle choice seem to be: (1) to acquiesce to quasi-colonial US-dominated government in which any government will be more responsible to the US and dependent on US forces to maintain order; or (2) to resist the foreign occupation and set up a sovereign and independent state that would most likely be an Islamic republic.

[BlackJack8324]

6. He's not even a nationalist...

I'm not sure if Sadr really cares about a unified Iraqi state. He just wants to retain control of Najaf. If we had just given Allawi control of Sunni areas I doubt Sadr would've done anything against us.

[Disturbed]

5. Fairy Tales.

Painting the picture of al Sadr as a "Freedom Fighter" and a hero is a childish notion. Most people have self centered motives for what they do. Is that necessarily totally wrong? Whether al Sadr is a power seeking person or a heroic, selfless leader of a movement of Iraqi self deterimination isn't the prime issue, in my view.

The primary issue is the Iraqi "sovereignty". The US & the UK took it upon themselves to overthrow Saddam and his regime to avoid facing that regime from selling oil via the Euro and to establish a US/UK Military force in the ME. That goal has been accomplished. Now Iraq is in a colonial situation with a US Puppet Regime that has a stranglehold upon the economy of Iraq.

The Hand-Over That Wasn't: Illegal Orders give the US a Lock on Iraq's Economy
by Antonia Juhasz

Officially, the U.S. occupation of Iraq ended on June 28, 2004. But in reality, the United States is still in charge: Not only do 138,000 troops remain to control the streets, but the "100 Orders" of L. Paul Bremer III remain to control the economy.

These little noticed orders enacted by Bremer, the now-departed head of the now-defunct Coalition Provisional Authority, go to the heart of Bush administration plans in Iraq. They lock in sweeping advantages to American firms, ensuring long-term U.S. economic advantage while guaranteeing few, if any, benefits to the Iraqi people.

The Bremer orders control every aspect of Iraqi life - from the use of car horns to the privatization of state-owned enterprises. Order No. 39 alone does no less than "transition from a … centrally planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat. Although many thought that the "end" of the occupation would also mean the end of the orders, on his last day in Iraq Bremer simply transferred authority for the orders to Prime Minister Iyad Allawi - a 30-year exile with close ties to the CIA and British intelligence.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0805-07.htm

[bemildred]

3. Also puts to rest the charge he is an Iranian agent. nt

[Cocoa]

7. BlackJack8324 doesn't like Sadr

that's fine, but don't bring Juan Cole into it.

[BlackJack8324]

8. why should I like Sadr?

He's a religious fanatic.

[PATRICK]

9. Interesting, familiar focus shift

Instead of on the invincible army taking minimal casualties who is setting out to massacre and mop up resistance with a show of "restraint".
There are hundreds of Sadrs worldwide. The US is the issue,a s Sadr might point out. The goals of this tainted operation are hideously complex and nearly all suspect and most are unjustifiable in any way.

So we demonize the appointed target and put our best foot in our mouth.

The slight temptation to fantasize the victim as a martyr hero is the flip side of our national avoidance. We shouldn't even be there in the first place. Now we are to believe that Sadr will walk into power like Khomeini unless we pacify him out of existence for the sake of Bush/Cheney 2004?