Just Look at WTF the US is Doing To Najaf........

[leftchick]

These poor people. Look at this little picture of their city. This does not even show the damage to the cemetery or the "Old City" the US is bombing right now as I type. I am so ashamed....



An Iraqi civilian crosses an area where al-Mahdi army loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr clashes with U.S. and Iraqi forces in the besieged city of Najaf, Iraq (news - web sites), Sunday Aug. 22, 2004. Militants loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr kept their hold on the revered Imam Ali shrine as clashes flared in Najaf on Sunday, raising fears a resolution to the crisis in the holy city could collapse amid bickering between Shiite leaders. (AP Photo/Hadi Mizban)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/iraq

<snip>
Early Sunday, U.S. warplanes bombed the Old City, scene of much of the fighting, and the sounds of shelling could be heard in the streets, witnesses said. The U.S. military could not confirm the bombing, but said operations in Najaf were ongoing.


Three mortar shells exploded near a police station that has repeatedly been attacked by al-Sadr fighters. No one was injured, witnesses said.


Fighting in the nearby city of Kufa on Saturday killed 40 of the militants, according to a source in the Interior Ministry. However, Mahmoud al-Soudani, head of al-Sadr's office in west Baghdad, called the claim "government propaganda" and said only one militant had died in Kufa Saturday.

[leftchick]

1. Poor kid....

Where is that newly painted school and school books?



An Iraqi boy, living in a ghetto near front lines in the besieged city of Najaf, looks for something to salvage from a garbage dump outside his home August 22, 2004. More than two weeks of fighting between radical Shi'ite militants and U.S. forces has cost more than just lives in Najaf, a city that is sacred to millions of Shi'ites around the world. Some Iraqis who have not fled the violence are trying to scratch out a living under fire from all sides. But it is getting more difficult as the stand-off drags on and U.S. forces try to tighten their siege on the streets around the Imam Ali shrine where fighters loyal to radical Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr are holed up. REUTERS

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

40. Here's another one...

[leftchick]

44. That poor baby....

:cry:

[BootinUp]

2. but my pResident said "Let freedom reign!"

[Ilsa]

49. Oh, they thought he said,

"Let mortars rain!"

[leftchick]

3. Death and destruction....

A US tank aims its cannon down an alleyway in Najaf. Heavy shooting and mortar fire erupted near the Imam Ali shrine in the holy city of Najaf, as Shiite Muslim militiamen clashed with US troops.(AFP/Ahmad Al-Rubaye)

[DemoTex]

4. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

Hosea 8.

We are sowing the seeds of a shit-storm of biblical proportions. I fear for the future. We have, indeed, turned another corner.

[Mari333]

5. That was the * base plans all along

they got really pissed off when jesus didnt return in 2000, so they are attempting to create their own Armageddon..
the US is run by people who are insane and delusional, period.

http://www.againstbombing.com/ArmageddonUpdates.htm

[karlrschneider]

25. As the Chimp would say,

"let's do a 360 and the hell outta here!"
;-)

[salib]

6. Talk about WMD

Just go over to some of these pages and look at the arsenal we are using on Iraq, and Najaf in particular. Cluster bombs, napalm, carpet bombing, circling gunships, etc., ARE WMDs! Just look at the results.

[paulk]

7. doesn't al-Sadr hold some responsibility for what's going on in Najef?

It's not like the citizens of Najef invited him to come in there and take over the Imam Ali Shrine. Or use it as a military base of operations.

[gratuitous]

8. Well, let's see . . .

I don't recall the name Moqtada Al-Sadr coming up anytime between the roll out of this new product line in September 2002 and the launching of the invasion in March 2003.

What we have is a very large, very wealthy country, armed to the teeth, has deposed the leadership of a small, impoverished country. The very large, very wealthy country, with the largest military force ever seen on the planet, has been spending over a billion dollars every week, pounding on the smaller, impoverished country for nearly six months.

What portion of comparative blame would you apportion to one religious leader in his 20s, without arms or financial backing, who rallies some of the people to resist the invader?

[paulk]

9. the blame I would apportion is exactly what I said

Was he invited to take over the shrine? Was he invited to go against the Shi'ite leadership in how to deal with the occupation?

Yes, the Bush administration's actions with regard to Iraq are wrong.
But using that as justification for al-Sadr's actions is equally wrong. Mr. Sadr also has blood on his hands.

[gratuitous]

10. And I stand by my question

How much responsibility is "some"? I never heard of this guy before the U.S. started working Najaf over. I don't know of any strategic importance attached to the city. I don't know anything of al Sadr's antecedents to his present position. Was he a cleric at the shrine? I don't know.

Did he voluntarily go to Najaf, unarmed, when it became a flashpoint? I don't know, but if he did, I'd be willing to say that if he was an American cleric going to a besieged Cleveland or Wichita, the media would be reporting on him quite differently.

Do you have some firsthand information that would suggest that by rallying his countrymen to defend their city and shrine against a foreign invader he has somehow initiated hostilities? I'm not willing to point at any Iraqi and say he or she is doing right or wrong. At least not until I've been under an analogous situation.

[paulk]

12. I don't have time to give you a history of the Mehdi militia and Sadr

there is plenty of info on the net, both pro and con, and that's a better place to go to than DU, which can be quite opinionated.

Juan Cole's blog is a good place to start.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/

I can't respond to your questions because they show a real lack of knowledge about what's going on regarding Sadr - I know that sounds horribly condescending, but it's the truth.

[gratuitous]

14. I readily confess my ignorance about al Sadr

From your previous posts, I gathered that you don't know how al Sadr came to Najaf, either. I posited a couple of scenarios: Either he's been in Najaf all along, so he's defending his own city from a well-armed foreign invader. At least, that's a possible interpretation for him.

Or, al Sadr came to Najaf to defend the city's shrine, which is quite important to his Shi'ite faith. He came without arms, as far as I can tell, and entered a city that is a flashpoint between the Iraqi defenders and the American invaders. At least, that's a possible interpretation for him.

Prof. Cole's website seems chock full of his distillation of stories in the American media, which I am sure is a valuable resource. However, it doesn't appear that he is currently on the ground in the area. I've read and heard a lot of media reports, and while I'm sure that Prof. Cole's expertise gives him a greater insight into those reports, I'm not sure that the basis for those reports (that is, the American media) is a reliable source of information.

Do you have firsthand information that would help all of us get a better idea of what sort of "blame" should attach to al Sadr? That is, what facts and information are you relying on that would lead me to believe that al Sadr isn't an Iraqi patriot, and has some personal responsibility for the terrible events in Najaf, enough that we should ignore or elide the American responsibility for same?

[paulk]

19. I'm not going to argue with you

You have a search engine - use it and you will discover how uninformed
your scenarios are.

As for Juan Cole - the media comes to him for information and interpretation, not the other way around. As with any pundit, he should be read with the knowledge that all sources are biased. Juan Cole is a liberal, and is regarded by most as fair and objective. It's a starting point.

No one on this board has first hand information. I can only make interpretations about Sadr and his actions based on what I read on the internet.

I have never said that I don't believe Sadr is a patriot. In fact, I would call him a "nationalist", which is a particularly virulent strain of the disease.

I have never said that we should "ignore or elide the American responsibility" for the terrible events in Najaf. Only that al-Sadr is not entirely blameless. Najaf became a flashpoint because of his presence. Hundreds of thousands of pilgrims come to that shrine every year - and who controls the shrine controls their donations. It's a major revenue stream, and this, more than anything else, explains Sadr's occupation of the shrine. Political movements cost money.

He's not "defending" the shrine against foreign invaders. He has openly declared war on the provisional government, then holed up in the one place they couldn't attack him. Pretty smart, really. Unfortunately, the consequences for Najaf have been devastating. The pilgrims have stopped coming, and with them the money that is the city's lifeblood. Not to mention the death and destruction - which is being dealt out by both sides. The people of Najaf don't want Sadr there. The fighting has destroyed their livelihoods.

al-Sadr is not the knight in shining armor many on this board seem to think. Yes, he wants the occupation ended. His tactics seem more likely to foment civil war than bring any peaceful solution to the crisis in Iraq. His long term goals include the imposition of a Khomeni style fundamentalist theocracy on Iraq. He is a right wing religious fundamentalist, and, as progressives, we should keep that in mind.

[homelandpunk]

23. gratuitous BEAT YOU to a pulp. Way to go gratuitous!!

I'll take your last sentence in your last post to encapsulate your entire flawed argument.
Sadr wants to impose a right wing fundamentalist government in Iraq.
Yep.
Which is WHY he should have been controlled and subjugated by a secular strongman whom Chimpy should have left in power. Once Saddam and his sons were gone, there is only two options. Replaced with a right wing religous fundamentalist government, or replaced with a strongman who will kill the same kind of people Saddam was killing.
Oh, but THIS strongman will never have the kind of respect Saddam at least had, because this strongman and his killing will be supported by the U.S.
"You don't know that!!"
Um....yes I do. And so do you. ;)

[paulk]

27. dear punk

It is well documented what Sadr's belief's pertaining to the future form of an Iraqi government are.

Other than that, I can't make heads or tails of your post. I have no idea what your point is.

And what's this "beat you to a pulp"? Are you in highschool?

[tabasco]

24. How do you know the people of Najaf don't want him there?

I have read many reports of western (non-US) journalists being threatened in Najaf by the residents, who believed the journalists were US. It sounds to me like the people of Najaf hate us more than they dislike Sadr's presence. I'm sure they're not too thrilled with their city becoming a battleground, but that doesn't mean they do not support the leader of Iraqi forces on that battleground.

[paulk]

29. Sadr doesn't equal the "leader of Iraqi forces"

he represents a faction. Albiet an armed faction, which carries some weight. I don't see the relevence of western journalists being threatened to the citizen's of Najef love for al-Sadr.

from Middle East Online:

Tribal chiefs in this holy Shiite city Wednesday publicly expressed their irritation at their presence while the standoff between Sadr loyalists and the US-led coalition entered its third week with no sign of a solution.

They appealed to Sadr's Mehdi Army militia and Iraq's interim government to spare Najaf and avert a bloodbath.

The appeal was launched after a meeting with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the Shiite majority's revered spiritual leader, according to officials close to the Marjaiya, the highest Shiite religious authority.

from San Francisco Chronicle:

"Nobody likes him here at all," said taxi driver Khalid Mishbeel, who only felt comfortable speaking once he was driving out of town. "I earn my living taking pilgrims into Najaf, but since all this trouble here, there have been hardly any coming here."

". . . people here are afraid of al-Sadr, because he has all the men and all the guns, just like Saddam. If you complain about him, you will get his men come round to your house to question you. That is why everybody puts his picture in their shops."

From Los Angeles Times:

As U.S. troops await orders to enter this Islamic holy city, militant Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr and his militia are strengthening their control here, stockpiling weapons, seizing key religious sites and arresting or detaining those who challenge him.

In the last two weeks, Sadr's followers — many rushing here from Baghdad, Fallouja and other areas of Iraq — have fortified their positions in the city and the neighboring town of Kufa, including at Najaf's gold-domed shrine of Imam Ali, one of the most revered mosques in the world.

Sadr's forces have evicted more than 100 rival Shiite clerics and shrine employees, replacing them with their own armed militiamen, who roam the rooftops and courtyards of the shrine with rifles and rocket-propelled-grenade launchers hung over their shoulders.


From Phlidelphia Inquirer:

Commanders of al-Sadr's militia have insisted that on the orders of al-Sadr, there are no weapons inside the shrines in Najaf and neighboring Kufa. In a recent visit, a reporter saw none visible in the first floor offices and parlors of either holy place, and no armed al-Sadr loyalists are inside the shrines' compounds.

But gunmen armed with Kalashnikovs and a few with rocket propelled grenades routinely patrol the rooftop of the Kufa Mosque and the outside of the Najaf shrine as well as religious buildings near both holy places.

Al-Sadr during the past three weeks has had a seemingly limitless supply of money to buy arms because he now controls the Grand Imam Ali Shrine in Najaf where billions of dinars and foreign currencies are routinely deposited into the glass-encased tomb by religious Shiite pilgrims. Money is also deposited in a lesser Shiite shrine that he controls, that of Moslem bin Akeel, a nephew of Imam Ali, who is buried in a compound behind the Kufa Mosque.



--------------

In a battle between infidels and Sadr, I'm sure the majority of Muslims will back Sadr. I'm also sure the citizens of Najaf would rather that battle be fought on Sadr's home turf of Bahgdad rather than their backyard.

[tabasco]

36. Yep, just like the residents of Fredericksburg.

They weren't too happy about the war coming to town but they still loved Robert E. Lee. Sadr is no General Lee, but he has widespread support, especially among younger Muslims (you know, the guys actually doing the fighting).
Sadr is probably not the tactician at Najaf, but the tacticians are working for him.

[gratuitous]

26. But that's what I've heard

Is that al Sadr is indeed in Najaf to rally support for the defense of the mosque. I'm not saying that he's a knight in shining armor; I've freely said that I don't know anything about al Sadr beyond what the embedded media have told us. These are the same folks who tried mightily to persuade me, in conjunction with their administration and military handlers, that Saddam was such a clear and present danger to me that we had to pre-emptively invade Iraq. Before the smoking gun of his past atrocities became a mushroom cloud over one of our fair cities.

Well, I didn't believe the media, the administration, the intelligence community or the military then about Iraq. I'm reluctant to trust their word on al Sadr now. If Najaf "became" a flashpoint once al Sadr went there and declared his opposition to the provisional government as you say, then there are any number of ways that the U.S. and its hand-picked regime might have responded. They have chosen to "pacify" Najaf with troops weaponry. I don't think that was the only option they could have pursued.

It's as if a hornet landed on your big toe and got ready to sting you. If you picked up a shotgun to blast the hornet, you would very likely have stopped it from stinging you. But the remedy seems far worse than the disease. Al Sadr could have been dealt with in several ways; the inability of the provisional government or its military handlers to consider any alternatives hardly seems like al Sadr's fault. Once the troops were sent in to pacify the resistance, I submit the course was set, and the city was in for the destruction that followed, regardless of what anyone in the city did.

[paulk]

34. question to ask yourself: If al-Sadr wasn't there

who would they be defending the mosque against? Sadr is holding the shrine hostage for his own political advantage. He could stop the destruction if he wanted to.

The Bush administration's handling of this whole affair... I'm not sure the word "incompetent" even covers it. There are times when I think Bush is trying to provoke a wider conflict.

The best thing the Americans could have done was to leave Sadr alone and let the Shi'ite religious authorities deal with his occupation of the shrine. Or not. It's their shrine.

[gratuitous]

38. That would have been a perfectly good alternative

They could have just left the shrine and the city alone. What does it matter if al Sadr stands at the shrine, thumping his chest, if no one is around to give half a rip?

Instead, under the rubric of "driving out the insurgents," we have smacked another tar baby (no racist meaning intended, but a reference to the original "Uncle Remus" story) and gotten ourselves enmeshed in another house-to-house struggle, where all of our vaunted weaponry is nullified because we dare not knock down the mosque.

Another possibility would be to say to al Sadr, "Okay, you're clearly not on board with the interim government, and you seem to command a fair amount of respect or something else with a segment of the population. Tell you what: You organize a political party, write out a platform of what you believe, and we'll enter your slate of candidates for office along with the others for the national elections that we're going to hold. How about it? If you represent all of Iraq, you should have no trouble commanding a governing majority at the polls in a free and fair election." And anyone else who squawks that al Sadr is getting preferential treatment gets the chance to form their own party as well.

Is the Bush administration trying to provoke a wider conflict? I'd hate to answer in the affirmative, but the actions of the military and the civilian authorities certainly make it look like the Bushistas are trying to pick a fight with a billion Muslims. I rather wish they wouldn't.

[Vladimir]

48. Of course you know exactly why they can't

let Sadr form a party and stand in the election, don't you? He would win.

As a little measure of the support enjoyed by the resistance in general earlier this year, I wonder if the historians amongst us could tell me the last time a resistance movement, 1 year from the surrender of their country, were able to take control of 3-4 major cities within the country (even if only for a brief period of time). I know of no such example...

[grasswire]

43. didn't...

...al-Sadr come to gain power when Bremer banned the newspaper? That was the genesis of his ability to gain supporters, IIRC.

[madfloridian]

17. I was just reading what Juan Cole said about Sadr.

What it boils down to is that WE are in HIS country because our government lied to our people and the world. WE are attacking a holy city, which is not what America is about.

Sadr wants us out of there. That is basically what Cole says. He actually makes it clear what he wants. Cole does not appear to attribute actual blame to Sadr.

We are in his country, having illegally and immorally invaded it last year. What do you expect?

If someone invaded our country, would you not fight back?

[leftchick]

30. very well said madfloridian....

The point of this thread was to show what the US has done to Najaf. Al-sadr is actually irrelevent to the constant bombings the US is doing to that beautiful city and many others daily in Iraq. If not al_sadr the US will have a new bogey-man to use as an excuse to throw more bombs. It is an insane mission concieved of by insane policy makers in the WH and these poor people are suffering every fucking day because of the USA!!!

:grr:

[paulk]

33. al-Sadr is completely relevant to the bombings

the attacks wouldn't be happening if he wasn't there. That's the whole point! Why is al-Sadr in Najaf?

Why is the Mehdi Army in Najaf? Why have they taken over the shrine?
Neither Sadr or his militia are from there - why are they in Najaf?

[leftchick]

35. no logic there at all....

Why the fuck did the US bomb the Hell out of Fallujah for DAYS and KILL hundreds of innocent Iraqis? Let's see.... hmmm... al_Sadr wasn't there... oh, oh I know... some bad guys who burned some mercenarie corpses were there and we needed to kill LOTS of people to show how bad the MuriKans are when you cross them. THAT is the point....

[madfloridian]

39. First question: "Why are we in Iraq?"

See, you are missing the central issue which NONE of our candidates is addressing. We are there because of lies. Thus the rest of your argument becomes moot.

They did not attack us, we had bombed the hell out of them for 12 years. They had nothing to do with 9/11.

Your argument is skewed and means nothing. We attacked HIS country.

[uhhuh]

41. Nope

They would be bombing sections of Baghdad, or Kufa, or Basra, or anywhere that the people of Iraq were not rolling over and accepting this occupation.( Oh wait, they are doing that too.)

Let me ask you, since Saddam was deposed, how many bogeymen have the trotted out as heads of the resistance?

I can think of, Baathist dead enders, foriegn provocatuers, that one legged guy that keeps growing back his leg and coming back from the dead, Al Qeda infiltrators, and Al-sadr.

I know I'm missing some.

They will not stop coming up for excuses to kill these people into submission until they do just that or are forced out.

The provisional government has virtually no support, and what little support they have is from people who will either profit from the staling of the resources of their country, or from people who are so shellshocked and terrified by the constant death and carnage, that they would have Saddam back if the terror would stop.

This is blatant U.S. terrorism.

Al-Sadr has a small role in what is happening in Najaf. If he wasn't there, somebody else's name would be on the reports of why we have to go in there and "pacify" the population.

[devinsgram]

11. It still comes back

to the point that when you start an ill-conceived war, these type of things are bound to happen. There is plenty of blame to go around.

[Jacobin]

28. Dude. He has a 35% approval rating among Iraqis according to

Bremer's last poll and his popularity is increasing because he is fighting the occupiers.

[Aidoneus]

45. far higher than that--high 60s, actually

and increasing, both in depth among the "sortas" and in widening appeal.

[leftchick]

47. You Can not say that chimpy* is not a "Uniter".......

:hi: Aidoneus!!

[Darranar]

16. Um, who attacked Najaf?

Who killed dozens of innocent Iraqis in Najaf?

Who used helicopter gunships to sow destruction in Najaf?

This destruction can be laid at the feet of the immoral, aggressive, incompetent, and brutal policies used by the Bush Administration in Iraq. They are to blame.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Who invited those guys to store arms at Concord?

Or, dump that tea into Boston harbor? Or, shoot it out with Brits at Bunker/Breeds Hill?

About 1/3 of the citizenry. al-Sadr probably has at least that much support among the poor people he represents, and probably more among the Iraqis who want us out of their country.

[Nordic]

20. yeah, and Davy Crocket and Jim Bowie are responsible for the Alamo

We're giving the Shiites their own Alamo.

Or their own Manzanar.

They'll be martyred heroes forever and ever. The US will be the bad guys (like the Romans) forever and ever.

Nice, huh?

[madfloridian]

13. I'm sorry, but we are still talking about Vietnam.

That way no one, even Democrats, need talk about Iraq. We are just too busy talking about Vietnam now, so please don't interrupt.

(sarcasm fully intended)

[Tansy_Gold]

22. Exactly. And while insisting Americans did not commit

atrocities in Vietnam, we are able to continue to deny that we are commiting any in Iraq. (that's an editorial we, not a DU we.)

Deja vu all fucking over again.

[anarchy1999]

15. I believe Heartbroken might be a better word.

God, how so many of us around the world tried to stop this. Heartbreak is the only word I can find.

[Q]

21. How can anyone still defend this horror?

- No WMD. No threat to our nation. Saddam captured. What is there left to fight for? The only possible thing left is to completely dominate the Iraqi people, establish a puppet government and permanent military bases. But this is BUSH'S* AGENDA...not that of the United States.

- Americans who support this 'war' should be ashamed.

- And Americans tend to forget that it's UP TO THE OCCUPYING POWER to make sure civilians aren't killed. But it's as if the Bushies are INTENTIONALLY killing civilians with their cluster bombs and reckless attacks on civilian populations.

[Disturbed]

31. "nationalist", a particularly virulent strain of the disease."

This disease must be eradicated with strong medication. Perhaps a nuetron bomb would be applicable?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. Well, the bombers wouldn't even have to leave 'Murika.

Plenty of nationalism right here.

[gulfcoastliberal]

37. Destruction courtesy of Ayatollah Sistani

He gave the go-ahead on this. If Sistani decreed that American forces were unwelcome in Najaf, no way would this be possible. We must have made a considerable donation to his treasury for his permission (plus an all expenses paid trip to London while the bombs and shells fall). The Shiite Grand Ayatollah Sistani doesn't mind. Why do you? IMHO, the Iraqi's should question why their spiritual leader allowed this to happen. It wouldn't have been possible otherwise.

[lebkuchen]

42. I spoke with

a couple of Pentagon workers yesterday who work in Intel.

They said the US had lost control of several cities in Iraq, and here it is, right before the election.

Bush probably figures it looks better to the American people if he's demonstrating a "show of strength," no matter how lost the cause.

Apparently, Bush is very unpopular in the Pentagon, which was good to hear.

[leftchick]

46. Thanks so much for the information lebkuchen....

I have been hearing the same from several sites now. Basra especially seems to be gone!
The sin of all of this "show of strength" :puke: of course is more bush* dead bodies for "politics"...

:grr: