Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

Chicago Tribune

Cliffs notes: Shiite militia leader Moqtada al Sadr has ordered his militia not to fight the Americans arriving in Baghdad as part of the Presidents "surge".

Analysis: Short term this is obviously good news. Sadr is the major player among the Shiite camp in Iraq. His order will help us to keep Baghdad calm and reduce the US body count.

The problem is that this doesn't represent a huge change for Sadr. He has always preferred to keep his attacks confined to Iraqi Sunnis. Also, he still enjoys the protection of the Shiite dominated Iraqi government. I suspect that Sadr is just trying to lay low while he continues to kill Sunnis in anticipation of a Shiite dominated government after the US leaves.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

All,

Here's the deal w/ politics and other opinion-themed discussions in this forum.

I'm all for them.

However, I'm not for circular, repetitive arguments. And I'm not for stupid bickering.

So, offer your thoughts and rebuttals to points people make. But do one round of that. Don't respond back with the same point you already made. If three people have made the point already, don't pile on repeating the same thing.

Don't make snarky, trolling posts. An occassional witty rip on someone is of course fine. And, yes, I'll make arbitrary judgements about what falls into each category.

I'm happy to have discussions about anything, just don't want them to erupt into long bitchfests.

Having said that, carry on.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

iron,

One thing that sorta troubles me is the fact that Iraq has been something that I almost tune out now. Part of me feels like this is one of the most important things our country is involved in, both from a geopolitical perspective and from an internal "impact on American sentiment" perspective, and because of that I should have an awareness of the issue. However, what I find myself doing is being pretty keenly aware of high-level American involvement and the reactions of the general populace towards them, but with little real knowledge of the political situation over there, factions involved, etc. I suspect that many people are just like me and pretty much ignore much of what really goes on over there.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

the country should be split in three, is anyone really against that? some people just hate other people and that's the way it's going to be.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

I'd love to hear people's thoughts on what seems like the most likely scenario for how all this is going to play out, devoid of partisan rancor.

What frustrates me is people who seem to be hoping for disaster simply because their hatred of Gearge Bush supersedes all. Although no one will admit that of course. For the sake of the Iraqi people and world stability I'd really like to think there's some ray of hope.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

[ QUOTE ]
the country should be split in three, is anyone really against that? some people just hate other people and that's the way it's going to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mostly just the people who live in the part of the country that doesn't have oil, which is of course, most of the country. I don't think splitting the country into 3 will actually prevent a "civil war" over borders between the parts that are split off.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

I think that it as apparent that Sadr will do whatever is necessary to maintain his position and levels of violence until we leave at which time he will unleash genocide and revolution. Of course it's in his best interest for his troops not to fight American troops, that's not the battle he wants. iron81 is exactly correct.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

Turkey has big big problems with an indpendent Kurdish state and has come out that they would put up a fight to that.

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

[ QUOTE ]
the country should be split in three, is anyone really against that? some people just hate other people and that's the way it's going to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Daryn,

the problem is that the 3 groups are not separated along geographical lines many areas are mixed. The fear is that if you divide the country into thirds each group will then want to "purify" their part which could result in the killing of innocent people. Additionally there is a very large problem of how the oil resources would be divided, as well as concerns of Turkey of what affects having a neighboring Kurdish country would have on its stability.

Is it worth considering? yes but it is far from black and white like Joe Biden and some others would have us believe.

All of that being said. I agree with you and think that is what will end up happening one way or the other

Re: Sadr backs down in Iraq
 

For those who haven't been keeping track, here's an update on whats happening with regard to Iraq:

The new Democratic Congress has been making noise opposing the President's "Surge" plan to deploy 20,000 new troops to secure Baghdad. Democrats and Republicans in the Senate are currently negotiating a non-binding resolution opposing the plan.

The reason Bush is doing this is that infighting between Shiite elements backed by Iran and Sunni elements backed by Saudi Arabia and Al-Qaeda have been killing each other in Baghdad to the tune of about 100 casualties a day. Formerly mixed neighborhoods are becoming Sunni and Shiite dominated.

A big reason it has got to this point is that Al-Sadr is closely aligned with the Shiite dominated Iraqi Government headed by Prime Minister Ayman Al-Alawi (sp?). In addition to his militia, Sadr has become a kingmaker in Shiite politics. As a result, Alawi has taken no steps to rein him in and in fact has thwarted limited US efforts to fight him.

Of course, US efforts at fighting the Shiites are on the backburner because we have our hands full with the Sunni insurgency. The US toll passed 3,000 a month ago.