Al-Sadr Offers Peace in Iraq

[sabra]

Source: AP

BAGHDAD (AP) - Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is offering to pull his fighters off the streets of Basra and other cities if the government halts raids against his followers and releases prisoners held without charge.

The offer is contained in a nine-point statement issued by his headquarters in Najaf.

Al-Sadr is demanding that the government issue a general amnesty and release all detainees. The statement said he also ``disavows'' anyone who carries weapons and targets government institutions, charities and political party offices.

There was no immediate comment from the government.



Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/7422979

[Stuart G]

1. A pause that refreshes............

If Maliki accepts, it will be a ...just a pause...
.........(for who knows how long...a long moment or a short one.)

If he doesn't accept, he, the prime minister, will have to accept the consequences of what is obvious...

[FarCenter]

8. A truce or peace treaty is an opportunity to refit and rearm

Study history.

[magellan]

42. For both sides

And considering "our" side is being humiliated and stands to be outright crushed if Al Sadr decides to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war....

[Stuart G]

2. According to the BBC, He has already pulled the troops out..it has been done..

Iraqi cleric calls off militias
breaking news.........BBC

Iraqi Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr has ordered his fighters off the streets of Basra and other cities in an effort to end clashes with security forces.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7321464.stm


Iraqi cleric calls off militias
breaking news

Iraqi Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr has ordered his fighters off the streets of Basra and other cities in an effort to end clashes with security forces.

He said in a statement that his movement wanted the Iraqi people to stop the bloodshed and maintain its independence and stability.

Previously Mr Sadr had defied a government deadline to hand over weapons in return for cash.

The fighting has claimed more than 240 lives across the country since Tuesday.

[Zynx]

35. I think this is at least the fourth time he has done this.

[acmavm]

3. Those bombing raids from the skies will bring em to their knees every

time. And the criminal cabal understands that very well.

[humbled_opinion]

7. Yeah maybe we should go hand to hand then

.... Please...

Whatever it takes to save our troops.... PERIOD...

If we have to bomb from the air then I say bomb them not one more soldier on the ground to die in this mess.

[kas125]

9. Isn't bombing them from the air

the way the whole mess started in the first place? Whatever it takes...PERIOD?!!?

[acmavm]

11. Yeah, that was/is pretty fucked up. It's THEIR country. So kill 'em in any

or every way possible to save the people who are occupying THEIR country? I mean, I know they're our kids but fuck, these people sure as hell don't deserve to die. OR to lose their country.

[AteAlien]

12. That's one thing that riles me

Bombing and using missiles, yet some want to continue living in their small, dark boxes without having to peek out at the truth - bombs and missiles kill innocent people. Innocent people just trying to survive without food or water or electricity or safety.

Hey, it's not like they're real people or anything. <sarcasm>

If we don't bomb'em there, you just know they'll send over their dirty bomb makers and kill Grandpa. <more sarcasm>

[Name removed]

14. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[High Plains]

13. Better that we kill innocent Iraqi civilians?

Which seems to happen with some regularity with our precision bombing.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zynx]

32. War is unfortunate in that you have to make decisions like that.

I would favor the lives of our troops if it came down to it.

[tkmorris]

39. But plenty of civilians on the ground will die

That's ok then? No worries, as long as they aren't American?

[bemildred]

4. Profile: The Mahdi Army

The Mahdi Army is an armed group loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr, a Shia leader from a dynasty of revered clerics persecuted under Saddam Hussein, Iraq's former president.

The group was formed after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 to protect Shia areas after the collapse of public order in the aftermath of the invasion after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 .

Its members are often popular in neighbourhoods they control because the group offers services that the Iraqi government is often unable to provide.

"This is an army of volunteers ... They are clerics at night and heroes during the day," Abu Bakr, a resident of Baghdad's Sadr City district, said.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/361C19D2-2910-45E8-BD3D-8660E6E14465.htm

[onager]

10. Yeah, the Mahdi Army is a bunch of sweethearts...

"Morality Militia" Controls Basra

The Shiite militiamen allegedly killed more than 40 unveiled women in the past five months.

CAIRO — Scrolling through mobile phones for "immoral" music or pictures, ordering all women, including Christians, to wear hijab or face death and instructing men to grow beards, self-appointed Shiite morality police are now controlling the southern Iraqi city of Basra, The Times of Britain reported Saturday, December 8.

"Whoever disobeys will be punished. God is our witness that we have conveyed this message," reads one of the many graffiti scrawled across walls and electricity pylons in the second largest Iraqi city.

A huge advert for mobile phones, featuring a mother and child, has been defaced to blot out the uncovered woman's head with the slogan "No, no, to unveiled women" sprayed below...

Ali Yusuf, a student, recalled how militiamen had stormed a party welcoming fresh students at a Basra college, reading a set of strict rules.

They ordered students to turn off the music system and one of them picked (up) the DJ's microphone to start their "morality" demands with praise to Moqtada Al-Sadr, the leader of the Shiite self-styled Mahdi Army, said Yusuf.

The thousands-strong Mahdi Army has been implicated in the death-squad killings of Sunni Arabs over the past months...

According to Basra police chief. Major-General Abdul-Jalil Khalaf, more than 40 unveiled women have been murdered and their bodies dumped in the street by Shiite militiamen in the past five months.

Some of women had been gruesomely gunned down with their children.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1196786059804&pagename=Zone-English-News%2FNWELayout

[ohio2007]

23. The smaller mahdi militia is funded from Qom while the larger Badr militia is

receives funds from Tehran.
Mookie is the western MSM's poster boy underdog but still, the majority shia tribe rules in Iraq.
Just another layer to the Shia v. Shia political world being fought. Fought over the spoils after our exit.
They still have to sit down and implement articles to form a more perfect tribal confederation. Punk ass mookie the squeeky wheel wants to be treated like his father and will have to conform to what the tribes will decide.

[bemildred]

27. So what do you think of Abu Ghraib? Do you approve of torture when Bush orders it?

I'm not a big fan of al Sadr and his militia, but I don't see that they are in any way worse than the US military either. They have certainly not done even a small fraction of the harm.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zynx]

33. What would you rather have in your home town?

Sadr's militia is a violent, extremist group by any standard. They engage in targetted killings of different religious groups, which is something our army doesn't do.

[kas125]

36. Nope, we just bomb people from the air

and don't give further thought to whether ther're bad guys, good guys, old people, babies, entire families...

[bemildred]

38. Surely you are not suggesting the the US military engages in random killings?

Or what do you mean by saying that we don't engage in targeted killings?

I would prefer to have no armed gangs of any sort, uniformed or not, in my home town. But in any case, what sort of armed gang I would want in my town, if I must have them, depends on who I am and whether they are likely to attack people like me or not. I don't know of any more violent group than the US military, they take pride in it, but they are not as likely to attack me in my home town. On the other hand there is no chance in hell that the Mahdi Army will ever be in my home town, and if I was a Shi'ia living in S. Iraq they would be among the few good options open to me.

[bemildred]

5. Al-Sadr Offers Truce If Gov't Halts Raids

---

Al-Sadr is demanding in return that the government issue a general amnesty and release all detainees. He also "disavows" anyone who carries weapons and targets government institutions, charities and political party offices.

The Iraqi government has welcomed the order by al-Sadr to pull his fighters off the streets.

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh has told Iraqi state TV in an interview that the decision is "positive and responsive."

Earlier today, Shiite militia fighters stormed a state TV facility in the southern city of Basra, forcing Iraqi military guards surrounding the building to flee and setting armored vehicles on fire.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/30/iraq/main3980508.shtml

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

6. Now, how can you have a Forever War if they start talking Peace?

That's what's called "unclear on the concept". Sheesh! :sarcasm:

[Pavulon]

16. Al-Sadr calls off fighting amid airstrikes, crackdown

Source: CNN

Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr told his followers to stop fighting and cooperate with Iraqi security forces Sunday, as U.S. and Iraqi forces targeted his Mehdi Army in Basra and Baghdad

In the nine-point statement -- which was issued by his headquarters in Najaf and came a day after al-Sadr told his fighters not to surrender their weapons -- the cleric demanded that the government give his supporters amnesty and release any of his followers that are being held.

"We announce our disavowal from anyone who carries weapons and targets government institutions, charities and political party offices,"


Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/30/iraq.main/index.html

[angrycarpenter]

17. I do not think that we will stop

Al-sadr made the surge look bad. Bush will continue until he is dead.

[Sam Ervin jret]

18. What was that translation? carries weapons and/that/which target ......

or simply carry weapons?

I don't see these guys handing over their weapons any more that the NRA.

[MaryCeleste]

19. I read earlier that he had been wounded

It sounds like he taking the pragmatic approach, something about if you fight you die

[ohio2007]

22. We announce our disavowal from anyone who carries weapons and targets government institutions, ...

" We announce our disavowal from anyone who carries weapons and targets government institutions, charities and political party offices"

yep, I'm sure he uttered those words under duress.... of being turned into a pink cloud after the airpower being directed from the ground,by Iraqi govt forces, got real close.
Anyway,
he allowed his most hawkish lieutenants to continue to vent before a full rebellion in his group fomented. Times up, go back to planting IED's.( loophole in his comment )

mookie wants to be Mr revelant in October

[Igel]

44. I read that, too.

Didn't know if I quite believed it.

Today's story has it that he's in Iran and that the discussions were held there. It rises to about the same level of confidence, but at least is in agreement with most previous stories.

I wouldn't be surprised if he did return for the fighting. Nor would I be surprised to find that reports of his being wounded are simply wrong--having your leader wounded always arouses ire, and reports from "behind enemy lines" are often spurious and almost always unverifiable.

[Joanne98]

20. It won't work. His army won't disarm. They would be crazy too.

[143tbone]

21. Five things you need to know to understand the latest violence in Iraq

On Thursday, Joshua Holland and Raed Jarrar of Alternet, noting that “the U.S. media appears incapable of describing in a coherent way” the violence now wracking Iraq, listed “five things one needs to know about what's taking place.”

Read more:
http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/7293/

[WritersBlock]

24. The article referenced in the above response is a real eye-opener! Highly recommended. n/t

[sam sarrha]

25. hou much do we have to pay him this time..??

[fshrink]

26. Obviously a chess player.

Best move available.

[sofa king]

29. I'm not sure it's his move.

I suspect that the various forces in Iraq have a plan to keep the level of fighting up as high as possible. Sadr takes a breather, and some other armed force will take over the load. We'll know if I'm right by Tuesday.

They don't have to win, they just have to kill Americans all summer long.

[fshrink]

31. Iraqi factions don't act like one,

they also have political problems. Sadr, again, takes on the image of the negotiator, thus displaying the right mixture of force and pliability. If his offer is rejected, the Iraqi's government, and us of course, appear as the aggressor and Sadr gains. If the offer is accepted, or even if negotiations are accepted, Sadr appears as the leader of independent Iraq and gains. That's a good move: gain whatever the response.
Continuing the fight however is not a good move, because it supports the Iraqi government's depiction of Sadr as a bandit/smuggler/fundamentalist and makes his rebellious move "business as usual" without political gain.

[Zynx]

34. Indeed. These groups are not capable of getting past their vast differences

in view points and ambitions to pull off that sort of coordination. Sadr is controversial within Shiite Islam, much less within Iraqi public opinion in general.

[sofa king]

37. I agree, but I still think there's a plan.

What they can all agree on is that their internecine conflicts will never be decided so long as there are Americans interfering in force. I think they've all agreed, explicitly or otherwise, to make this the bloodiest year they can make it for the United States. It doesn't even have to be a plan. It's simply in everyone else's best interests, so someone is sure to take up the slack.

Therefore, I stand by my prediction that whatever else happens, no more than 48 hours will pass without a major attack on U.S. forces.

[Igel]

45. One possibility.

The one that many of his supporters will endorse.

Might be that he's being magnanimous in his superiority; however, even in defeat that's how you phrase your "offer" of peace, also known as requesting terms, so magnanimity is too ambiguous to be useful a guide.

Might be that he's in danger of having his forces crumble and most of the support for him with them. The other is that he caved when confronted with force. It's one thing to hold out for a week--it's another thing to be able to hold out for a month, actually win a battle, or defeat your enemy overall.

Might also be that he's decided to engage in a bit of jujitsu. He and everybody else has acknowledged that there are elements in his forces he doesn't actually control. This way he gets those forces loyal to stand down; those not loyal have a choice--they fight and possibly lose, or they also stand down. If they stand down, they've shown loyalty and can, presumably, be counted as Sadr's. If they don't, he wins by having unreliable elements purged.

A corollary to the last option is that by having his forces stand down, not only does he show his mastery of his people, but he protects them to fight another day. Perhaps when he has more moral authority behind him and it's not Mr. as-Sadr, but Aytollah as-Sadr.

The received wisdom is that the forces that aren't loyal are loyal to other people in Iran. Sadr's also supported by Iran--seriously so. In having his forces retreat to the sidelines, he'd be also engaging in intra-Iranian manoevring, highlighting the weakness, if not error, of those engaged in supporting the "special units" or whatever the term of art is for the less-than-loyal groups.

There are possibly more ways of thinking about it.

[bemildred]

46. He has nothing to win by getting in an all out fight, and a lot to lose.

He can wait, and it's a much better strategy for him to minimize the violence, once he's made his point. He seems to know his enemies better than they know him, and he's at least as good a liar as anybody in Washington.

[bemildred]

40. Probably, He seems to have taken back the initiative. nt

[AlphaCentauri]

28. how much?

[olddad56]

41. I don't think our current government is interested in any long term peace paln.

[Deny and Shred]

43. I thought Al-Maliki said this was to be a decisive operation.

I guess Al Sadr still holds the hammer. He says, truce, he gets truce; he says fight, the country erupts. The U.S. is backing the wrong horse.
Al Sadr is positioning himself politically. Al Maliki and Dawa are in, he's out politically. He stayed in Iraq all through Saddam and has major street cred in Iraq.
He is probably setting himself up to improve his position either through force if the U.S. leaves (as the Dem candidates have vowed to do) or politically, by showing Al Maliki still can't do much without his say so. A little resistance and the Iraqi national police and military switch sides.
Never fired, only dropped once. The surge is a farce. The violence is due among Shiite factions, and each is trying to gauge how best to position themselves once BushCO leaves office. It's all a mere hiatus.

[NeoConsSuck]

47. You brought up an excellent point

even our right wing MSM couldn't come up with one defection from Sadr's army. But there were hundreds of defections from Maliki's army.

If Sadr is so hated, and Maliki and the Americans are so loved, why all the defections to the other side?