Sistani sanctions attacks on US troops
There has been another shift in Iraqi politics,
Maliki and Sistani met Thursday.
There's a fair argument that this is just part of the broader intraShia politics. Sistani affirmed Maliki and "adherence" to the law, and then issued these edicts which will cut into Sadr's support, but still, when Sistani does this it has impact.
Juan Cole has a looong post on Sistani and his motivations.
(Later: Todd notes in the comments that I'm painting this too simplistically and too black and white. He's right. It's more about Sistani positioning himself relative to the broad Shia politics and against the US occupation than about Maliki/Sadr.)
Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric has been quietly issuing religious edicts declaring that armed resistance against U.S.-led foreign troops is permissible — a potentially significant shift by a key supporter of the Washington-backed government in Baghdad.
Maliki and Sistani met Thursday.
There's a fair argument that this is just part of the broader intraShia politics. Sistani affirmed Maliki and "adherence" to the law, and then issued these edicts which will cut into Sadr's support, but still, when Sistani does this it has impact.
Juan Cole has a looong post on Sistani and his motivations.
(Later: Todd notes in the comments that I'm painting this too simplistically and too black and white. He's right. It's more about Sistani positioning himself relative to the broad Shia politics and against the US occupation than about Maliki/Sadr.)
posted by mikevotes at
7:46 AM
2 Comments:
"Sistani affirmed Maliki and "adherence" to the law, and then issued these edicts which will cut into Sadr's support,"
Cole's analysis, while admittedly speculation, doesn't support the idea of undermining Sadr. He views the recent vague remarks by Sistani as part of a pattern moving towards a religious decree against the presence of foreign occupation troops.
Sistani's remarks are often as cryptic and obscure as Greenspan's pronouncements. But Cole excerpts quotes from Sistani's representatives that strongly indicate the Grand Ayatollah is not opposed to the existence or arming of the Mahdi Army.
"Rule of law" and "obedience to the government" do not directly support an embrace of foreign occupation troops. And in a country where dozens of militias exist, virtually all refusing to recognise Maliki's legitimacy to varying degrees, the "obedience to government" remark applies to much more than Sadr's militia.
As the Grand Ayatollah, Sistani is going to be extremely cautious in his public remarks. One wouldn't expect the Pope to call for the armed overthrow of a government, and Sistani has clearly eschewed the Iranian-style theocratic approach.
The Administration has said in the past that they would be willing to withdraw if the Iraqis demanded it. They've even included that as a possible definition of "victory". The religious establishment may be willing to take Bush up on his offer.
It would certainly be problematic for Bush and McCain to maintain an occupation against the expressed wishes of the Iraqi people.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 11:41 AM
Okay, yeah, I reread it and you're right. I oversimplified and made it far more black and white than it is.
And, although Sistani is not being too explicit (or even issuing these publicly,) the political meaning of this will be clear to the Shia and others that watch him.
BUT, I do think you're right in that it's all more about positioning relative to the Shia people and the US occupation than about Maliki, Sadr or picking sides. It's broad Shia politics, not narrow.
Sorry, I wrote the post poorly.
By
mikevotes, at 1:23 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home