Is this NYT story our oligarchy at work or a true perspective?

[tedzbear]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/24/international/middleeast/24NAJA.html


I do want to support the agenda of the Iraqi people and I wonder who really represents their interests: al-Sadr or his adversary imam, Sadr al-Din al-Kubanchi?

All of these Islamic names makes me feel like I'm bogged down in a Tolstoy novel.

:eyes:

[YankeeFan]

1. Read the Ethincs First

And Not the peoples names first.

That article is dead on. There really is no Nation of Iraq. There are different tribes of people with different ethnic backgrounds.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/24/international/middleeast/24NAJA.html?pagewanted=print&position=

For those who Don't subscribe or can't get the link to work:

Radical Cleric Is Unwanted by His Neighbors
By ABDUL RAZZAQ AL-SAEIDY and EDWARD WONG

AJAF, Iraq, April 23 — The black-turbaned imam sounded ready for martyrdom.

Standing in the courtyard of the golden-domed Shrine of Ali on Friday, staring at 2,500 worshipers seated on rugs, the imam, Sadr al-Din al-Kubanchi, hurled words as sharp as scimitars at the army that had invaded this holy city.

But the soldiers he denounced were not Americans but members of the ragtag Shiite militia known as the Mahdi Army. Dozens of them, bristling with Kalashnikovs and grenade belts, surrounded the shrine even as Mr. Kubanchi spoke.

They and their young spiritual leader, Moktada al-Sadr, had brought their war with the Americans to Najaf nearly three weeks ago, when they retreated here after a short-lived revolt against the occupation forces. More than 2,500 American soldiers have encircled the city in an attempt to flush out Mr. Sadr — and the residents here are caught in the middle.

"It's not brave to take refuge in the house or the mosque or the markets and use women and children as human shields," Mr. Kubanchi said of the Mahdi Army. "They are people who are trying to cheat you, and they are people from the regime of Saddam Hussein, former intelligence officers. They want to drag you into battle to be destroyed. If that happens, the soldiers will attack Najaf, and our enemies will happily see our blood flow."

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

[tedzbear]

3. The problem is al-Sadr isn't dropping bombs and missiles on the people...

...the USA is. The locals feel the Coalition is wrong in using overwhelming force to stop a small group of insurgents. The people are saying, "Why can't the Coalition let our native Iraqi security forces handle these guys instead of indiscriminately mowing down our
innocent friends and relatives?
While al-Sadr may be trying to grab power, so are all of the Shiite leaders at this point. In the end, the locals will side with a fellow Iraqi (no matter how opportunist) over the occupation when it comes to assigning blame. Kubanchi may very well alienate his followers if the Coalition continues to use bombs and missiles to stop what Bush calls a small, ragtag group of rebels. Once the Coalition's efforts to enforce the peace look callous and cruel, the people will turn against it. That is already happening for a large percentage of the locals.

Just because an opponent of al-Sadr throws his support behind the Coalition does not mean the people will. Whoever voices a rhetoric that best confirms what the locals are feeling in their hearts will win the day. Religion is like politics in that regard. The Coalition will not be helping Kubanchi by dropping more bombs and shooting at everything that moves.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. You must not copy whole articles

It's a clear breach of copyright. Site policy here is that 'fair use' means 3 or 4 paragraphs at most. I think it'll be too late for you to edit your post now, but bear it in mind for future reference.

[camero]

2. Oligarchy at work

They are trying to tie Sadr with Saddam. Typical propaganda. The fact of the matter is that Iraq has pretty much been like Yugoslavia in that there have been different religious factions and ethnicities that don't get along with each other until there is a common enemy.

If we got out now I could actually see Iraq becoming 3 seperate states after a civil war or UN peacekeeping.

[Must_B_Free]

4. A guy was telling me that the Kurds have the North pretty safe

This was a guy who was just there. He said that they should have their own state. He said they wouldn't get it, but they deserve it.

[camero]

5. They should really

Everybody talks about Saddam gassing the Kurds but noone talks about the Turkish gov'ts repression of the Kurds. Quite ironic. They could see that even a smaller state is better than none at all.

But you're right in that they won't get it either because the establishment doesn't want it.

[tedzbear]

6. Turkey threatens to attack the Kurds if they become autonomous.

The USA has gone out of its way to reassure Turkey that it won't let the Kurds try independence.
That's why the Kurds settle for unofficial independence under the Iraqi flag. They are caught in the middle and would be committing suicide if they pushed their luck.

[camero]

7. If I remember right

That was a part of the multi-billion dollar bribe for use of Turkish airspace. Amazing how we choose our friends isn't it?

[politick]

9. Well that's what they want

and have always wanted, but giving them that would mean pissing off a Nato ally in Turkey, and we can't do that, now can we?

Meanwhile, Kurdistan has been the model democracym and thir peshmurga fighters battled bravely alongside US troops in hundreds of movements. They provided intelligense and manpower.

We'll still screw them!

[sandnsea]

8. It's not that simple

I don't think this Sadr guy is anybody to support. But HE wouldn't have any support if BUSH had done a half-ass decent job over the course of the last year. Any time there is a power vacuum, a radical rises up to fill it. That's just history. I think Sadr is that guy. Bush created the power vacuum by not having a governing process in place that had the support of the ME and the world.

The only way out is to try to bring the ME countries and the UN to the table. Which Bush won't do in a meaningful way. So now it's a clusterfuck and I think it's going to stay that way until Bush is out of office.

[RafterMan]

11. Here is Salam Pax's second-to-last post

"Remember the days when every time you hear an Iraqi talk on TV you had to remember that they are talking with a Mukhabarat minder looking at them noting every word? We are back to that place.

You have to be careful about what you say about al-Sadir. Their hands reach every where and you don't want to be on their shit list. Every body, even the GC is very careful how they formulate their sentences and how they describe Sadir's Militias. They are thugs, thugs thugs. There you have it.

I was listening to a representative of al-sadir on TV saying that the officers at police stations come to offer their help and swear allegiance. Habibi, if they don't they will get killed and their police station "liberated". Have we forgotten the threat al-Sadir issued that Iraqi security forces should not attack their revolutionary brothers, or they will have to suffer the consequences.

Dear US administration,
Welcome to the next level. Please don't act surprised and what sort of timing is that: planning to go on a huge attack on the west of Iraq and provoking a group you know very well (I pray to god you knew) that they are trouble makers.

Oh and before I forget.........Help please. "

Make of it what you will.

(on edit: grammar)

[tedzbear]

12. This is hearsay. Where is the link to these quotes?

I have not read anything like this anywhere, even in the WP.

[JanMichael]

13. It's on his blog.

Here.

[RafterMan]

14. I thought his signoff

was a little spooky.

Has anyone heard if he's okay?

[tedzbear]

16. What blog?

I get a "page cannot be displayed" reply.

[RafterMan]

17. disturbing

It was up when I pulled the quote, now I'm getting the same message you are.

To see the page, go to google and enter "Salam Pax". Under the first result, click the word "cached".

like this:

Where is Raed ?
where is raed? v2.0 Raed started writing on this Blog. Salam Pax kindly asks
you to always check who is posting, Raed's brain de-rails sometimes. ...
dear_raed.blogspot.com/ - 61k - Apr 22, 2004 - Cached - Similar pages <--- ****Click "Cached"****

I don't know if you'll be able to browse the archives from there, but you can definitely see the same page I did.

[JanMichael]

18. It works for me. Try it again.

http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/
http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/
http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/

[starroute]

15. I'm wary of any statement which begins "They know that . . ."

"They know that the hopes of a majority of Shiites of overcoming the long-running domination of Sunni Muslims rest with the success of the Americans' efforts to establish a largely democratic Iraq. They know, as well, that by advocating armed rebellion, Mr. Sadr's forces play into the hands of the violent Iraqi insurgents who seek to drive the United States out and reassert Sunni dominance."

There are no sources given for these assertions, and they seem far from self-evident. I can't help suspecting that they represent the beliefs of the writer of the article and not of the Shi'ite clerics at all.

I'm quite sure that the clerics are aghast at having the war brought into the middle of their holy city. But any suggestion that they "know" their best interests lie with the American occupation and not with their fellow-Shi'ites (however thuggish) seems like wishful thinking at best.

At worst, it may suggest that the US authorities have some hare-brained scheme of setting up a Shi'ite-dominated government after June 30 and inciting it to suppress the Sunnis for them. If so, that would be very bad news. I'm starting to think that the Americans have their hearts set on a civil war in Iraq and will do anything they can to get one.