Sadr

nicky g · #1 01-11-2007, 05:36 PM

There is a widespread notion on this board that Muqtada al-Sadr is Iran's puppet in Iraq. I'd like to point out that this is completely wrong. Sadr is an Iraqi nationalist. His family stayed in Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and castigated other clerics who went to Iran. Members of the Badr Brigades, the militia of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, were trained by the Iranian Revolutionary guards and faught on Iran's side in the war - the Sadrists viciously condemned them for this and have long accused SCIRI of being an Iranian puppet, which has some truth to it. THe Mehdi Army and the Badr Brigades have occasionally fought each ohter. The violence has pushed Sadr closer to Iran and all Shi'i groups have some links to it. However of the important Shi'i groups, Sadr's is the least influenced by Iran. Comments such as "Iran will order Sadr to do such and so" are off the mark - the Sadrists are their own men and don't take orders from anyone.

iron81 · #2 01-11-2007, 05:55 PM

I'll admit that Sadr winding up in control of Iraq is 1. Likely after we leave and 2. Not all bad. He seems to have surpasses Al-Sistani for influence among Shiites because he was smart enough to back up his movement with weapons.

After the US eventually leaves, Iraq will most likely be dominated by Shiites with Sadr at the top of the list to become President. I think he'll be a decent ally in the War on Terror because the Al-Qaeda types have allied themselves with the Sunni insurgents that Sadr is currently fighting. If he can stop slaughtering Sunnis after he gains power I'd say that turning the country over to Sadr is the best, most realistic option for the US.

lehighguy · #3 01-11-2007, 06:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'll admit that Sadr winding up in control of Iraq is 1. Likely after we leave and 2. Not all bad. He seems to have surpasses Al-Sistani for influence among Shiites because he was smart enough to back up his movement with weapons.

After the US eventually leaves, Iraq will most likely be dominated by Shiites with Sadr at the top of the list to become President. I think he'll be a decent ally in the War on Terror because the Al-Qaeda types have allied themselves with the Sunni insurgents that Sadr is currently fighting. If he can stop slaughtering Sunnis after he gains power I'd say that turning the country over to Sadr is the best, most realistic option for the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you okay with him being in charge even if he turns out like Saddam. The consensus seems to be supporting dictators, no matter how ruthless, as long as they act in line with American interests is ok.

I think you have to be able to acknowledge that he probably won't stop slaughtering Sunni's if in charge. If you can live with that (the way we lived with the things Saddam did) then we can get out.

iron81 · #4 01-11-2007, 06:35 PM

I'm not ok with a Saddam style dictator in control, however I think there is an excellent chance that will happen. The reason I support US withdrawl isn't that there won't be a bloodbath when we leave, its that there is little we can do to stop the inevitable post U.S. bloodbath whether we leave next month or 5 years from now. It's just that the longer we stay, the longer the tension has to build so that when the [censored] hits the fan the worse it will be.

MoreWineII · #5 01-11-2007, 07:44 PM

Why would you prefer Sadr over Sistani? Sistani seems much less volatile.

iron81 · #6 01-11-2007, 08:29 PM

Sistani would probably be better than Sadr. The problem is, I don't think Sistani wants to be President. I was about to say he doesn't have the firepower either, but he could probably get there right now on sheer popularity if he wanted to. The fact that he hasn't and has allowed Sadr to gain power speaks volum

John Kilduff · #7 01-12-2007, 01:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
After the US eventually leaves, Iraq will most likely be dominated by Shiites with Sadr at the top of the list to become President. I think he'll be a decent ally in the War on Terror because the Al-Qaeda types have allied themselves with the Sunni insurgents that Sadr is currently fighting.

[/ QUOTE ]

With all due resperct, do you not think that Shi'ite firebrand fundamentalists also support terror? It's not only the Sunni version that does. Look at Iran, Iran supports lots of terror against Israel, and supports terror and insurgency in Iraq. No way would Muqtada al-Sadr be a good ally in the war against terror; he supports the very things that the jihadists are fighting for.

If you want Shari'a: if you want for women to be legally inferior to men, and for Muslims to have superior legal rights to non-Muslims, and for homosexuals to be persecuted under the law, and for the death penaty to be applied for adultery: then cast your vote for Muqtada al-Sadr! He's your man!

No offense, Mr. Iron81, but I think your view on such matters is uninformed or naive. Firebrand fundamentalist Islamists, whether they be Sunni or Shi'ite, are not about to become good buddies or dependable allies with The Great Satan (the USA). No-way-in-hell.

ed8383 · #8 01-12-2007, 02:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
After the US eventually leaves

[/ QUOTE ]
The US is not going anywhere my friend. They are not spending billions on permanent bases and a spanking new humongous american embassy just to say goodbye in 3-5 years. It doesn't matter who wins the next election, the U.S is staying there for good.

iron81 · #9 01-12-2007, 11:33 AM

I suppose I know that there isn't any hope for a western style democracy in Iraq. When I envision the best case scenario for Iraq, I'm thinking in terms of Saudi Arabia: a fundamentalist regime that nevertheless sells us oil and doesn't actively aid terrorists like the Taliban.

The worst case scenario would be the Taliban: actively supporting terrorists and brutally oppressing minorities and pretty much stuck it to us whenever they could.

The median outcome I envision is a government similar to Syria: not actively sponsoring anti-US terror and occasionally helpful, but still a big pain in the butt in the region. Its this median outcome that I think Sadr would follow if he ever gained control.

Ed, although I suppose your're right about us never leaving, our presence will eventually be reduced to what we had in Saudi Arabia: a friendly government allowing us to have our bases as long as we stayed on them in order to appease the populace. Although, if Sadr did gain control, I doubt he would let us stay at our bases.

morphball · #10 01-12-2007, 06:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There is a widespread notion on this board that Muqtada al-Sadr is Iran's puppet in Iraq. I'd like to point out that this is completely wrong. Sadr is an Iraqi nationalist. His family stayed in Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and castigated other clerics who went to Iran. Members of the Badr Brigades, the militia of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, were trained by the Iranian Revolutionary guards and faught on Iran's side in the war - the Sadrists viciously condemned them for this and have long accused SCIRI of being an Iranian puppet, which has some truth to it. THe Mehdi Army and the Badr Brigades have occasionally fought each ohter. The violence has pushed Sadr closer to Iran and all Shi'i groups have some links to it. However of the important Shi'i groups, Sadr's is the least influenced by Iran. Comments such as "Iran will order Sadr to do such and so" are off the mark - the Sadrists are their own men and don't take orders from anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your opinion that Sadr doesn't like Iran, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't accept their aid, and in doing so becomes beholden to them.