Extreme makover: Sadr edition
In a further development indicating Sadr's shift since his return,
Also note that this comes shortly after Iraq's other main Shia movement SCIRI (now SIIC?,) underwent its own makeover trying to hide its historical ties to Iran.
The politics are on for the next round of Iraq. I think it's telling that both movements appear to be working to develop their Iraqi nationalist, political first images. I don't think this speaks well for the mid term future of the Maliki regime.
Radical Iraqi cleric Muqtada Al Sadr met his top lieutenants yesterday to discuss a new direction for his movement after his return to public life following a mysterious seven-month disappearance.....
"The Sadr movement is going to appear in a new form and with a new style on the Iraqi scene," said the movement's spokesman Sheikh Salah Al Obeidi.....
Also note that this comes shortly after Iraq's other main Shia movement SCIRI (now SIIC?,) underwent its own makeover trying to hide its historical ties to Iran.
The politics are on for the next round of Iraq. I think it's telling that both movements appear to be working to develop their Iraqi nationalist, political first images. I don't think this speaks well for the mid term future of the Maliki regime.
posted by mikevotes at
10:42 AM
10 Comments:
Is this a sign of Iraqi opposition groups -- insurgents -- maturing into real political movements? As Sinn Fein to the IRA?
I have a feeling most of the doings of the Iraqi government are to some degree the result of US herding... the calves may wander and there may be a few strays, but the herd is controlled, by and large. If the insurgents truly turn into a strong, grassroots supported, nationalist political movement, does that bode good or ill for the US? If Bush's bluff is called regarding democratic self governance, and it ends up giving the US a smack-down, what then?
I think the Bush admin is looking for a way to declare victory and leave. They need two things: to recast the "insurgents" as political opposition; recast al-Qaeda in Iraq as minor and being dealt with by the Iraqis themselves; a statistical contortion that shows reduced violence. Like the toddler in a temper tantrum, however, Bush will cut his nose to spite his face. He will not be "told" when to redeploy, he has to be seen as the Commander Guy. The emperor will not be dictated to.
By
-epm, at 6:06 PM
I think you are spot on. The Shia parties, militias and tribes are the building blocks of the new Iraq in the Red Zone: The more Cheney & Co. try to crush the Sadrists, the more they are committing the American people to an expensive, bloody and permanent mandate in Mesopotamia.
By
Vigilante, at 6:55 PM
EPM, I don't know whether it indicates a real shift or just the development of a political arm.
Sinn Fein may be a fairly apt example. At this point, power in Iraq still evolves from force so I can't see anybody really giving up the gun, but in order to transition to a "legitimate" government, they will have to have an entity outside their military arm.
And, I don't know if this bodes good or ill in the longer term. In the short term it will enable the US to use politics as a lever. In the mid to long term, however, I wonder at the loss of control.
I guess the question would be, does the US still have the power to grant legitimacy? Could Sadr for example sweep through the provincial elections (that may never be held) and gain power despite the US>
And Bush is definitely looking for a way out. The Republican Congress turning on him even tepidly, has gotten his attention.
I think they may have pointed out that his legacy may be a decade out of power for the Republicans. Not exactly Ronald Reagan.
...
Vigilante, I think you hit on a key point that I'm not too certain on.
How much of the power is coming from inside the Green Zone, and how much comes from outside?
Maliki is powerless, but is that from inside political fighting or is the inside fighting an effect of a broade disillusionment throughout the country?
(And, does the Us fighting Sadr give him more power?)
I don't know.
By
mikevotes, at 10:00 PM
Good point about trying to shed the Iran ties. Sadr had a monopoly on the nationalist Shia vote as he (or rather his father) was the only major Shia cleric never to leave Iraq to study or simply seek shelter in Iran.
This explains why the U.S. was so quick to place Sadr in Iran and why Sadr has not openly admitted to being there: a trip to Iran discredits Sadr in the eyes of the Shia nationalists of which Sadr remains the most powerful.
The real struggle, between the Mehdi Army and the Badr Brigades, will be the bloodiest of them all. Perhaps even more bloody than the slaughter of the Sunnis after the Americans leave.
I keep saying this: although the Americans are nearing the end of their struggle for Iraq, the Iraqis are only just beginning.
By
Praguetwin, at 4:18 AM
I wonder about the Mahdi/Badr struggle because it has occasionally flared significantly in the south, only to brought down by each sides leaders.
There are obviously people on both sides that want such a conflict, but at this point, it is being kept from large open conflict.
What are the politics driving that? Is it the Shia leaders? is it in deference to Sistani who has always spoken of a unified Shia bloc?
You're right, there's a huge potential for violence there as the two groups face off over control of the government and the massive oil money, and general corruption in the region, but why has it stayed mostly tamped down thus far?
Maybe because the British are mostly pulling out, so the battle is on hold til then?
By
mikevotes, at 8:20 AM
"I don't know whether it [Sadr's talk of a new direction] indicates a real shift or just the development of a political arm."
Yes. Good point. Mehdi Army isn't morphing into a political movement, but it be adding a political wing.
"I keep saying this: although the Americans are nearing the end of their struggle for Iraq, the Iraqis are only just beginning."
Well put. For too long we have acted like we could simply birth a nation in our image in Iraq, when in fact it's the Iraqi's -- in all their variants and factions -- who must produce a nation in their image. At best we can be a competent midwife... but we can't pretend that we are the mother of the New Iraq.
By
-epm, at 9:27 AM
Yeah,
and let me add that we still hold the imperial notion that we we say will be the future of Iraq.
Look at the recent debate.
By
mikevotes, at 11:06 AM
Well, I think that the Shia will first want to take care of the Sunni before they battle for control. Also, by fighting each other, they play right into the hands of the Americans. As long as the Americans are still there, the two major Shia blocks will likely keep their battles restricted to squabbles. The leadership gets together and says, "okay look, the Americans love to see us fighting each other. Is that what we want to do? Make the Americans happy?"
Probably not so simple, but something like that. Priorities:
1. Get rid of the Americans
2. Slaughter the Sunnis
3. Fight for ultimate control
Not so much priorities as a flow chart of actions.
By
Praguetwin, at 3:17 PM
I think you've read their memos.
"From the desk of Al-Sadr,
Things to do today...."
They're also fighting a very quiet behind the scenes battle for the favor of the Iranians who at this point are working with them both, but as steps one and two move towards completion, will begin to favor one side over the other.
By
mikevotes, at 6:23 PM
Just speculating, of course, but it seems logical.
The fight you talk about will be harder for Sadr to win while retaining local support. I susupect the Iranians will throw their hat in with however they see as the favored potential winner so long as they cooperate.
I think the Iranians would like to go with SIIC, but they recognize how much popular support Sadr has so they are not done courting him.
By
Praguetwin, at 4:03 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home