Muqtada Renews call for US Departure
Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr, the young Shiite nationalist cleric, preached openly at Kufa before about 1,000 worshippers for the first time in many months on Friday, AFP reports in Arabic at Sawt al-Iraq He preached in his kafan, or burial shroud, a sign of defiance and willingness to be martyred. See the picture, here].
He said, "I renew my demand that the Occupation depart or set a timetable for withdrawal."
He added, "I demand that the government not extend the Occupation even one day, since it has no authority to do so, especially after the signatures that were gathered from members of parliament and the million-man demonstration that came out to demand that [departure]."
On May 10, a majority of members of the Iraqi parliament signed a petition demanding a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops and presented it to speaker of the house, Mahmud al-Mashhadani.
At the end of his sermon, Muqtada chanted "No, no to evil! No, no to America! No, no to Israel! No, no to Satan! No, no to colonialism!" and his congregation shouted the slogans with him.
Muqtada appears to have reemerged in public on assurances that he would not be arrested (or killed) by the US military if he did so.
He also condemned fighting between his Mahdi Army and Iraqi government security forces, saying that such clashes were deliberately set up as a trap by the United States. This charge is probably his way of trying to rein in the more extreme commanders in the Mahdi Army.
He comes back in public at a pregnant moment in Iraq, with his main rival, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, undergoing chemotherapy in Iran. Muqtada may see an opportunity to have his Sadr Movement displace al-Hakim's SIIC. Al-Hakim visited the White House on Dec. 4, 2006, and called for US troops to remain in Iraq. Sadr's demand for a timetable for withdrawal is much closer to Iraqi public opinion (and that of the public in the US, as well).
The al-Maliki government is also very weak and in danger of collapsing, and some think Muqtada is maneuvering to have the Sadrists form the next government.
Greater Sadrist political influence, which is Iraqi nationalist and even nativist, would put pressure on the Bush administration to set a timetable for withdrawal of troops.
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 5/25/2007 08:26:00 AM
|
Facebook
6 Comments:
Dr. Cole,
Has anyone from the military, government (Iraq, US or coalition), or states surrounding Iraq call for a minimization of patrols and other security operations?
Has anyone asked if they can stay in the country, but not be as visible?
It seems that a complete withdrawal would be bad. A complete stay is proving to be bad. And there does not seem to be talk of a compromise.
Since when did negotiations become a zero-sum game? (2000?/2004?)
It is as I thought (and said here a few days ago), Iraqi nationalism is a much more powerful force than one thinks. And it is on the rise again. Muqtada al-Sadr is probably sensing a movement of feeling among Iraqis.
Alex,
It's a great pity that so many people in this country have been bamboozled by the notion that Iraqis are incapable of nationalism. This same nonsense was promulgated about the Palestinians. I suspect the kings of England couldn't believe that the 13 colonies could ever make common cause against their overlord; they were, after all, British!
It's true that many of the the Arab states were carved out of parts of the Ottoman Empire but lots of countries around the world were formerly parts of the British empire but their citizens see themselves (and others see them) as having a distinct identity.
I lived for years in the Middle East and I found that nationalism runs as strongly (and is fostered as assiduously by governments)there as it does in the U.S.A.
Great post and excellent analysis, as per usual, Professor Cole.
The defiance of the burial shroud was the first thing I noticed as well. The significance was sikely lost on most Americans, but it most assuredly spoke loud and clear to his followers.
I heard again tonight on the news that the "radical firebrand" cleric was hiding out in Iran until today.... with no evidence to support this at all.
Meanwhile, the "bush-hand-shaking" cleric IS in Iran for medical treatment, but this is not noted as being the least unusual.
There is a story today by a former McClatchy staffer who is an Iraqi his 65 year old and very ill father was arrested by US troops because he supposedly had explosive residue on his hands - meanwhile, Iraqi parliament members have also been accused of having explosive residue on their hands, but were not arrested.
I think the Fatah al Islam group in Lebanon was funded/supported by Hariri and the cheney/saudi guys.
The LA Times in an article ("Anti-U.S. cleric reappears in public"} on yesterday's sermon by Muqtada Sadr, concludes with a report that the U.S. military had killed five militants and arrested one in a joint raid on Sadr City and that "the arrested fighter, who was not identified, is suspected of being a proxy for Iran's Revolutionary Guard" and allegedly led a "secret cell terrorist network known for faciliating the transport of weapons and explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, from Iran." the statement read.
So there we have it, the excuse, the trip-wire that our president is sure to exploit as he tries to trick us into making war upon Iran. Which raises the question as to who is this unidentified militant, and how convenient it is for the war-mongers that he's arrested at the very moment when our Navy is playing war games in the Persian Gulf. So we shouldn't be surprised if tomorrow or the next day, President George W. Bush II, wearing his serious face, informs us that our trusted military has provided him with so much conclusive evidence that Iran is supplying the Iraqi resistance with the EFPs that are blowing up our troops, that he's got no choice but to nuke'em.
Thusly does the Times fulfill its role (along with the NYT & WP) as one of the three newspapers of record, where reporters, guided by in-house Intelligence moles, carefully craft articles to justify the crimes against humanity that our government is carrying out in our names.
And the Times must have considered this piece to be of the utmost importance to its readers, since in addition to its two co-authors, there were four other contributors acknowledged plus unnamed special correspondents in Basra.
Post a Comment
<< Home