Posted on 08/06/2008 6:24:51 AM PDT by xzins
Report: Sadr to disarm Mahdi Army
Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr intends to disarm his once-dominant Mahdi Army militia and remake it as a social-services organization, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.
The transformation would represent a significant turnaround for a group that has been one of the most destabilizing anti-American forces in Iraq.
A new brochure, obtained by The Wall Street Journal and confirmed by al-Sadr’s chief spokesman, Sheik Salah al-Obeidi, states that the Mahdi Army will now be guided by Shiite spirituality instead of anti-American militancy. The group will focus on education, religion and social justice, according to the brochure, which is aimed at al-Sadr’s followers. The brochure also states that it "is not allowed to use arms at all," The Journal noted.
Posters have been put up in some areas of Baghdad saying a new direction for the Mahdi Army will be announced at this Friday’s prayers, the paper reported.
Disarmament is far from certain, the Journal noted, writing that the group is ridden with internal strife, and that al-Sadr now is believed to spend significant time outside the country, in Iran.
U.S. military spokesman Col. Jerry O’Hara told the Journal that the military welcomed the news, but said "the proof is always in the actions and not just the words, so we’ll take a wait-and-see approach."
Al-Sadr faces big challenges. The Journal wrote that hard-liners within the Mahdi Army will likely reject the new strategy, just as they have ignored his orders to freeze violent activities as part of a cease-fire. These members have also been threatening — and assassinating — rivals who support the cease-fire.
again?
It always amazes me how much we agree.
Maliki knows his life is tied to Sadr’s death or demise. Maliki’s military humbled Sadr’s in Basra simply by showing up.
BTW, isn’t Sadr still on vacation in Iran?
This is the latest in Sadr’s capitulations...on the heels of his overwhelming loss and embarrassment in Basra.
Maliki and the Iraqi military is in control.
Again? This is about the third time...
see #23
I think the last remaining member deserted poor mookie, adn the mookster is trying to save face.
I hadn’t thought about that, but he’s been out of country so long, one has to wonder how long you can be gone before your influence dries up.
Quick—elect Obama before we win!!!
LOL!
That inexperienced, socialistic politician would manage hand it over to the enemy in a matter of weeks.
this is such BS.
The model he's using is Hamas/insert any other islamic front group.
This guy needs to have an accident. He's going to be just like Yassar Afafat... blobbering on about peace while "militant factions" within his "peaceful" organization are "troubled" by their impatience.
Yawn, he's a toad for Iran. What we need to do is find men whose family members have been murdered by these guys. Put them in charge and give them the intel to root out the guys that are supporters of Iran.
We don't have to get our hands dirty, but just help whoever is our ally in that sh#t hole.
So they are to become democrats--promoting the interests of other nations (Iran) over the interests of their own in the name of justice. For these folks, politics is merely war by other means.
What rubbish. The US military chose to disarmed him. His forces went from a high of a rumored 50,000 to 200 after Basra. Totally obliterated. He's as relevant as used toilet paper now.
i figure that by now it’s just mookie and the goat left... and the goat is leaving
Not to be too tough on the Brits, but did the situation in Basra improve because of the surge or because the Brits left?
P2: I agree with you. As much as I’d like to chalk this up as a victory for the good guys, I won’t believe it ‘til I see it. Better yet, the only disarmed Sadr/Mahdi towelhead is a dead Sadr, IMHO.
Makes sense.
Many such movements (ex: Hezbollah and Hamas) eventually end up with a “political wing” and a “military wing”, and there’s little point in expending all of your efforts in going head-to-head with conventionally superior military opponent when you have the option of waiting them out while you build popular support by supplying social services other political entities can’t or won’t. There will always be young men willing to take up arms against “infidels” and “occupiers” and burnish the military wing’s reputation, while the political side enjoys the spoils of political power and need only be marginally less corrupt and inefficient than their political opponents to win and maintain popular support. And of course it’s very convenient to be able to claim that the military wing has “radical” elements that are conducting a military campaign in defiance of the more “pragmatic” political wing.
Unfortunately, it’s very difficult for objective “military defeat” to subvert the political position of such organizations.
Witness for example the fact that Hezbollah and Hamas maintain the political loyalties of large parts of the populations that suffer economic deprivation and sometimes personal disaster as a result of their politics as long as these costs can appear to have been sustained in defiance of their militarily superior “oppressors”.
And because their opponents will always be better armed and supplied, what appears to be outside to the outside world to be a hopeless situation of military inferiority and continual defeat can be presented to the supporters of such groups as “victory” over their adversaries.
IMO, the real test is going to be the ability of whatever government is in power in Baghdad (assuming there’s not been an Islamicist takeover already) to maintain public order and to compete to compete with Islamicist social and political movements to win the loyalty of the population.
I’m not very optimistic about this, for example the Israelis have been able to inflict far more grievous casualties on Hamas’ leadership (and especially the radical leadership in the military wing) that we will ever be able to inflict in Iraq, and the population in Gaza is paying a far higher price, personally and politically, that we are ever likely to inflict on civilian populations in Iraq, meanwhile Hamas remains viable, and in fact appears to be increasing in popularity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.