US troops move to disarm Iraqi firebrand cleric's guard
NAJAF, Iraq, Sept 3 (AFP) - US troops moved to disarm the volunteer guard of anti-US firebrand Moqtada Sadr on Wednesday but were thrice rebuffed, a spokesman for the Shiite Muslim cleric told AFP."Today around 3:00 pm (1100 GMT), the Americans came up to Sadr's house in three armoured cars and demanded that the special guard hand over its weapons but they refused," spokesman Qais al-Khazali told AFP.
"The Americans left and came back with Iraqi police officers who in turn demanded that the guards disarm but they too were rebuffed," he said.
"The Americans came again but, seeing a large number of Sadr supporters around the house, they left, perhaps to get reinforcements" ...
About 200 men, many of them armed, gathered outside Sadr's house late Wednesday afternoon.
I don't have any clear idea what's going on in Iraq. I'm just making educated guesses, based on what's reported in the media and my own sense of the situation. But it's been obvious for some time that the Coalition is itching to go after Sadr. In the wake of the Najaf bombing, maybe the decision to strike has been made.
Or (more likely) this may be another timid half-way measure -- not so much a strike as a warning shot. Maybe it's connected in some way with the fiery speech that Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim, brother of the martyred cleric Ayatollah Mohammad Baqer al-Hakim, made at the Ayatollah's funeral yesterday.
BTW, accounts of that speech, in which Abdel-Aziz denounced the Americans and called for an end to the occupation, appear to have been almost systematically removed from the web, with the previous files either replaced with different stories or toned down beyond all recognition. Only USA Today -- always the last to get the word -- still has something resembling the original report posted on its site.
Anyway, Abdel-Aziz held a press conference today in which he promised not to attack Coalition forces and said he would continue to cooperate with the occupation. He indicated, however, that his Badr Brigade militia, which is no longer even pretending to have been disarmed by the Americans, would continue to operate openly, and would "defend Iraqi interests."
This raises many possibilities. Perhaps the Coalition believes that if it disarms Sadr, Abdel-Aziz will also disarm his people. This would be about par for the course in terms of the utter naivete the Americans have shown so far.
Or, maybe the Coalition has decided to put all its chips on Abdel-Aziz and the Badr Brigade, in hopes of preventing, or at least discouraging, a Lebanon-style proliferation of armed militias. Abdel-Aziz, after all, is still inside the tent, pissing out. Sheikh Sadr is outside, pissing in.
Or, maybe the Coalition has decided that since it can't really do anything about any of this, it will make a few ineffectual gestures at disarming Sadr. But in situations like this, ineffectual gestures are usually worse than no gestures at all. The Coalition's timidity only reinforces the sense that the situation is slipping out of control -- forcing all the parties to scramble to protect themselves. Provoking Sadr, without dealing decisively with him, can only make a bad situation worse.
"Thrice rebuffed" -- what a great phrase! I'm going to try to work it into my daily conversation (not difficult, given my dating record).
Anyhoo, if it indeed unfolded the way the cleric's spokesman says it did, the incident reinforces the notion that the police are merely American patsys. The larger question is whether it will undermine their near-term effectiveness, or actually bolster it through showing restraint -- the "warning shot" rather than the brutality of a crackdown.
Either way, Sadr's power is in his militia. Peter Davis says the moderates in Iraq are calling for an immediate end to the occupation and threaten violence if it doesn't happen soon (the extremists are, of course, already engaged). Sadr is not going to unilaterally disempower himself.
Damned if you do.
Damned if you don't.
If the Americans try to intervene and disarm one/any/all of these groups and push comes to shove we will undoubtable kill a lot of people and put the lie to the fact that this whole little endeavor is simple about giving the Iraqi's the chance to self-determine.
If we don't intervene someday we are going to pack up all our soldiers and leave and all the inter-sect rivalries that are being suppressed due to our presence will erupt as soon as the last plane load of Americans leaves the airport.
Think Yugoslavia.
What a fine mess you have gotten us into now George W. Bush.
Interesting post, once again Billmon.
Here's my question.
US soldiers trying to disarm certain warlords. What's next? Is Sadr going to be the next Mohamed
Aidid (Mogadishu, 1993)?
Playing favorities among the Shiites is not a good idea. As our understanding of Iraqi culture and its politics is simplistic at best. One only has to witness Bremer and the neocons trying to turn Chalabi into the next puppet dictactor.
One little mistake in disarming Sadr's personal guard and it can become the eqivalent of sticking ones hands in a meat grinder for us.
naitivity
naivete, but who's counting? Good post.
Revealing quote from later in the same article:
"The US army did not immediately comment on the incident, but a Marine in Najaf, who declined to give his name, confirmed that a patrol had gone by Sadr's house. But he insisted the US soldiers did not ask for any weapons.
'We've worked the last four and a half months to bring stability to this place and the last three to four days have shot it all to hell,' he commented."
So when does the Civil War start ? Rummy will
Try to spin it as Normal for democratic freedom
and Just Untidy. I think it is like that Tidy
Bowl man, in a rowboat in a toilet. The US in
the boat and Iraqies debating wether to Flush.
I hear the police Don't have weapons. Like the
iraqies trying to guard infrastructure and having
to put their hand in their pockets and pretending
to have a gun or puting a shirt over a broomhandle
I hear that Figi is sending troops. Must have
a crack troops who canmake konk shells into WMD's.
Naïveté, using all the appropriate freedom, er, French accents. Great post, though, Bill.
There is also a typo in the word recognition. You know it was a great post when the commenters are proof readers.
The BBC also has the full text of Hakim's brother's eulogy here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3201079.stm
Sadr isn't giving up his weapons and the platoon that tries to take them is going to die.
They tried this before and were surrounded by hundreds of armed men. If they try to arrest Sadr, all bets are fucking off. It's a supremely stupid thing to do. Amazing.
Sadr City will erupt in violence if they arrest the man. And describing Hakim as pissing outside the tent is generous at best. He's extremely pissed as well and Sheik Fadlallah is saying that time is running out. The name is familiar because he has a little force called Hezbollah at his beck and call.
It's all starting to sound like the limerick about the lady who went for a ride on the back of a tiger ...
Trying to take sides in a Shi'ite conflict is a BIG mistake. Trying to disarm any of them is a bigger mistake. Can you imagine our troops trying to separate the 'good' Shi'ites from the 'bad' Shi'ites?
Let's stick BOTH hands inside the hornet's nest. Then let's invite our allies to stick their hands in, too.