Apr 10 2008
Sistani Does Join Maliki And Isolates Sadr
Bumped to Top, More Updates Below!
I posted the news yesterday that Iraq Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani had basically thrown Mookie Sadr under the bus and sided with the Iraqi government of Maliki, and then waited all day to see any secondary reporting the act. None came but Sadr did have spokesman come out and claim Sistani had told him to keep his Mahdi Army. It seems Sadr lied (and the SurrenderMedia bought it hook-line-sinker and bobber). Bill Roggio has the confirming news, so far the SurrenderMedia is embarrassingly mum:
With the Iraqi government applying pressure to the Sadrist movement and Muqtada al Sadr to disband the Mahdi Army, Iraq’s senior Shia cleric has weighed in on the issue. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the most revered Shia cleric in Iraq, backed the government’s position that the Mahdi Army should surrender its weapons and said he never consulted with Sadr on disbanding the Mahdi Army. Instead, the decision to disband the Mahdi Army is Sadr’s to make.
Sistani spoke through Jalal el Din al Saghier, a senior leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a rival political party to the Sadrist movement. Saghier was clear that Sistani did not sanction the Mahdi Army and called for it to disarm.
“Sistani has a clear opinion in this regard; the law is the only authority in the country,” Saghier told Voices of Iraq, indicating Sistani supports Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki and the government in the effort to sideline the Mahdi Army. “Sistani asked the Mahdi army to give in weapons to the government.”
Sadr did not consult with Sistani on the issue of disbanding the Mahdi Army, disputing a claim from Sadrist spokesmen who intimated Iraqi’s top cleric told Sadr to maintain his militia. “The top Shiite cleric had not been consulted in establishing the Mahdi Army, so [he] could not interfere in dissolving it,†Saghier said. “Whosoever established the al-Mahdi army has to dissolve it; Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr established this army and it is only him who has to dissolve it.”
Sistani is telling Sadr you either follow the law and do right or become a criminal and suffer the consequences. But it is Sadr’s responsibility to chose his path. Sadr is now completely exposed while his militia causes death and destruction fighting the authorities. Now the bloodshed is on his hands, as it was all the time.
And now the SurrenderMedia needs ask itself why it allowed itself to be dupes for a two-bit thug like Sadr. Why did they report propaganda that could not be confirmed. Why did they buy into the implausible, since Sistani has been against the militias for a long time and has been a supporter of the new Iragi government since its creation. Why would the liberal media defy all that history and run with Sadr’s cow manure?
Was it to give a boost to the Surrendercrats in Congress? Is our media willing to pass on lies to the American people as fact? Lies promulgated by a thug whose minions are killing US soldiers as we speak? At some point a price must be paid for this kind of support to our enemies, accidental or not.
If the SurrenderMedia and Surrendercrats don’t do some hard soul searching on how they are the useful puppets of the killers of our people, then America will do the soul searching and decide what to do about this terribly screwed up situation. We don’t need people echoing the lies of murderers of Americans, just to give them more cause to murder more Americans.
In related news Petraeus told Congress the actions against Sadr’s Mahdi Militia could take months. Then again the thug could collapse much quicker now that he is clearly working against the Shiite spiritual leaders.
Also, the UK SurrenderMedia is all miffed that Maliki snubbed UK forces when it needed some back up in Basra.
Iraq has snubbed British forces in Basra, turning to US troops to help fight Shia militia in the southern city despite the presence of British soldiers.
The withdrawal by British troops in September from their base at Basra palace to the relative safety of Basra airport outside the city has been blamed for the decision by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, to call for American help fighting the Mahdi army two weeks ago.
The UK Forces did not try to use the counter-insurgency tactics that the US did which turned the tide against al-Qaeda. They used the liberal “declare victory and leave a vacuum” and did to Basra what the Surrendercrats in Congress want to do to Iraq – which is hand it over to a new generation of thugs. Those finding for something more lasting and humane – like democracy in Iraq – would obviously pass by the offer to have more of the same bad ideas which brought about much of the hate in the Middle East in the first place.
Update: As we learn more (and ignore the myopic media) we see that the Basra move was, as I said a while back, an effort by Iran to take control of the port city of Basra – something Iran has been trying to do for decades.:
A GAMBLE that proved too costly.
That’s how analysts in Tehran describe events last month in Basra. Iran’s state-run media have de facto confirmed that this was no spontaneous “uprising.” Rather, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) tried to seize control of Iraq’s second-largest city using local Shiite militias as a Trojan horse.
…
The Iranian plan – developed by Revolutionary Guard’s Quds (Jerusalem) unit, which is in charge of “exporting the Islamic Revolution” – aimed at a quick victory. To achieve that, Tehran spent vast sums persuading local Iraqi security personnel to switch sides or to remain neutral.
The hoped-for victory was to be achieved as part of a massive Shiite uprising spreading from Baghdad to the south via heartland cities such as Karbala, Kut and al-Amarah. A barrage of rockets and missiles against the “Green Zone” in Baghdad and armed attacks on a dozen police stations and Iraqi army barracks in the Shiite heartland were designed to keep the Maliki government under pressure.
…
he expected call from the Najaf ayatollahs to stop “Shiite fratricide” failed to materialize. Grand Ayatollah Ali-Muhammad Sistani, the top cleric in Iraq, gave his blessings to the Maliki-launched operation. More broadly, the Shiite uprisings in Baghdad, Karbala, Najaf and other cities that Quds commanders had counted upon didn’t happen. The “Green Zone” wasn’t evacuated in panic under a barrage of rockets and missiles.
But the blindfolded media and liberals claim Iran is perfectly reasonable and are not involved in Iraq. In fact, Barack Obama wants to sit down to tea with the Mad Mullahs and Ahmedinejad (God’s messenger, so he claims) and chat about Iraq. No wonder they tried to grab the southern part of Iraq before our elections. H/T to reader Kathie
Update: Make sure to check out the interview with Bill Roggio at Front Page:
FP: So what about the news reports that indicated that the U.S. and the Iraqi Security Forces’ Basra offensive against Sadr was a failure?
Roggio: The reports of the death of the Iraqi Army in Basrah were widely exaggerated. The Iraqi Army and police met some stiff resistance in the opening days, but the media jumped to call this failure. Prime Minister Maliki did not plan well for the operation and jumped the gun on its execution by months (it was to be carried out in July). An Iraqi Army brigade fresh out of basic training was thrown into the fight and cracked – about 500 troops “underperformed or deserted” according to the New York Times, and 400 police deserted. But the other estimated 44,500 Iraqi security forces in Basrah held.
The Iraqi command rushed in reinforcements – about 1 Division or 7,000 troops, and by the weekend the Iraqi security forces began to get the upper hand. Then Sadr ordered his Mahdi Army to leave the streets. By the end of the fighting, more than 500 Mahdi fighters were killed, about 1000 wounded and another 300 captured in the fighting in Basrah, Baghdad, and the great South, where the military performed well against the Mahdi Army.
…
FP: What role is Iran playing? This whole face-off revealed Iranian military intervention in Iraq to be a given, right?
Roggio: To streamline operations in Iraq, Iran’s Qods Force established a unified command, called the Ramazan Corps, and split Iraq into three roughly geographical regions. I obtained a detailed description of the Ramazan Corps’ command and control network, storage and distribution facilities, training camps, and ratlines – or supply lines – into Iraq last fall.
The Ramazan Corps is a military command with senior Qods Force generals in charge. They direct the flow of weapons, cash, and the deadly rockets, mortars, and explosively formed projectiles into the hands of the Special Groups working in Iraq. The Ramazan Corps also brings Iraqi fighters in Iran to train them, and runs training camps inside Iraq as well.
The Times Online just released information that the Ramazan Corps “were operating at a tactical command level with the Shi’ite militias fighting Iraqi security forces” during the recent fighting in Basrah. “Some were directing operations on the ground.” This should come as no surprise to anyone following Iranian activities inside Iraq or have an understanding of the Ramazan Corps. Iran is fighting a thinly veiled, undeclared war against both the Iraqi people and the United States.
IF the news media were truly journalists and not propagandists this news would be headlines across the nation. The view from the region is Sadr and the Mahdi Army are toast – definitely read this one!
The young Shiite leader’s sin is that he did not find out from the start, and perhaps still has not found out, how Iran used him to deepen the sectarian divide in Iraq, despite his moderate stance in this respect. His pursuit of revenge from the “Baathists,” the followers of Saddam, who killed his father and uncle, has turned into an out of control, generalized campaign of sectarian eradication. Iran’s objective for adopting, arming and financing Al-Sadr’s militia was to create a “balance of terror” with Sunni dissidents seeking to defend their position and interests in the new system. Consequently, the “Mahdi Army” that grouped fighters from every impoverished region of Iraq, including some criminal gangs, turned into security groups led, controlled, and directed by Iranian intelligence, which took advantage of decades of social and political oppression.
The media and liberal ‘experts’ really screwed up on this one. How many mulligans do these people get before they are tossed out of the game?
Update: How long can the media hide the truth about how Sistani just threw Sadr to the sharks:
“Al-Sistani has a clear opinion in this regard; the law is the only authority in the country,†al-Saghier told Aswat al-Iraq – Voices of Iraq (VOI).
“The top Shiite cleric had not been consulted in establishing al-Mahdi army, so it could not interfere in dissolving it,†he added.
“Whosoever established the al-Mahdi army has to dissolve it,†he underlined.
“Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr established this army and it is only him who has to dissolve it,†he explained.
“Al-Sistani asked al-Mahdi army to give in weapons to the government,†the Shiite official said.
Now, will Sadr do as he was asked by the Grand Ayatollah? H/T Protein Wisdom.
I thought this was interesting at “Freerepublic”, Taheri is usually a very reliable source.
IRAN’S BUSTED IRAQ BID (Iran’s Quds unit failed to destabilize Iraq)
04/10/2008 2:23:16 AM PDT · by TigerLikesRooster · 17 replies · 601+ views
NY Post ^ | 04/10/08 | AMIR TAHERI
IRAN’S BUSTED IRAQ BID By AMIR TAHERI April 10, 2008 — A GAMBLE that proved too costly. That’s how analysts in Tehran describe events last month in Basra. Iran’s state-run media have de facto confirmed that this was no spontaneous “uprising.” Rather, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) tried to seize control of Iraq’s second-largest city using local Shiite militias as a Trojan horse. Tehran’s decision to make the gamble was based on three assumptions: * Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki wouldn’t have the courage to defend Basra at the risk of burning his bridges with the Islamic Republic in…
You beat me to it Kathie, was going to post it in the other thread, so much for Maliki being in bed with Iran.
Fanastic post, AJ – this is the kind of synthesis and analysis that major media USED to be able to do, but no longer.
“Was it to give a boost to the Surrendercrats in Congress?”
– Yes.
“Is our media willing to pass on lies to the American people as fact?”
Every minute and every hour of every day.
“Lies promulgated by a thug whose minions are killing US soldiers as we speak?”
They prefer that US soldiers are killed, because it’s a useful club to beat Bush over the head with. And just look at Jay Rockefellers statement the other day – they really never could stand the military anyway, or anyone who supports it.
“At some point a price must be paid for this kind of support to our enemies, accidental or not.”
They don’t think so. They think you can fool all the people all the time, or at least enough of the time to win an election.
I noted another interesting thing about *all* of the stories you quoted, something that I’ve been noticing from every other source as well, no matter their affiliation. And this is that *everyone* seems to agree that Sadr is now just a figurehead with no actual operational control over “his” Mahdi Army or anyone associated with it. That also probably explains why he’s so quick to seek some kind of negotiated end to this – he knows better than anyone that no one in “his” army actually takes orders from him anymore.
Who do they take orders from now? If it truly is Iran, then Iran has just taken a beating. If not, then probably no one at all and in that case, they are finished.
As one of your sources states, of course Iran isn’t done meddling and will try again. But this affair showed the Iranians that all of their assumptions about Iraq were wrong – if nothing else, that will lead to them being much more cautious before making another overt attempt to destabilize part of the country, and almost certainly will cause them to sit back and reevaluate the situation for a few months. That’s the critical window that’s open – if Iraq can finally be stabilized in the next few critical months, it can stand on it’s own for the rest of our lifetimes.
I noted another interesting thing about *all* of the stories you quoted, something that I’ve been noticing from every other source as well, no matter their affiliation. And this is that *everyone* seems to agree that Sadr is now just a figurehead with no actual operational control over “his” Mahdi Army or anyone associated with it. That also probably explains why he’s so quick to seek some kind of negotiated end to this – he knows better than anyone that no one in “his” army actually takes orders from him anymore.
Who do they take orders from now? If it truly is Iran, then Iran has just taken a beating. If not, then probably no one at all and in that case, they are finished.
As one of your sources states, of course Iran isn’t done meddling and will try again. But this affair showed the Iranians that all of their assumptions about Iraq were wrong – if nothing else, that will lead to them being much more cautious before making another overt attempt to destabilize part of the country, and almost certainly will cause them to sit back and reevaluate the situation for a few months. That’s the critical window that’s open – if Iraq can finally be stabilized in the next few critical months, it can stand on it’s own for the rest of our lifetimes.
first – show me where obama claims that ahmedinewhatshisname is god’s messenger. until then i’ll assume the rest of this post is as factual. second – “…if the news media were truly journalists and not propagandists…” we wouldn’t even be in iraq. if the press wasn’t a bunch of stenographers bush probably wouldn’t even have gotten a second term. so be careful what you wish for.
WWS, Peter Zeihan at Stratfor sai, as I recall, that Iran is upset that Sadr is trying to be a free agent with his “gang”. And that the gang has no standing of any value in Iran because Sadr is not a “religious” man and he is trying to get his “standing”. He also thought that the Iranians were forcing Sadr to become “political” and that would end the Madhi’s…
I like this title…….found at NRO
CLIFFORD D. MAY: I’d rather fight in Iraq for a century than declare defeat to the Islamists. “A Hundred Years of War?â€
Norm,
“if the press wasn’t a bunch of stenographers bush probably wouldn’t even have gotten a second term. so be careful what you wish for.”
You really are dumber than dirt…
whippet…personal attack with no substance. i’ll take it for what it’s worth.
Norm, remember what you just wrote, it’ll be the perfect epitaph for you someday:
Norm: Personal attack with no substance.
pretty much sums you up.
Norm, I believe AJ believes Ahmadinejad considers himself to be “God’s Messenger”. Altho I have not heard him in speeches reserve that bestowed title upon himself. Doesn’t mean he isn’t a serious bad guy tho.
However you misread, as AJ didn’t mean that to be BHO’s words.
Sadr formed the Mahdi militia in 2003. However they, just as so many other Islamic jihad groups, have become their own rogue elements. With Sadr not wielding the religious or political power they need to wage jihad under Islamic law, many now even ignore hime, and are now nothing more than thugs, gangs and mafia. All of which will end up under the Iraq gov’ts fly swatter over time.
As for the rest of your liberal media talking points, you may want to start reading some source material instead of media headlines.
Translation of IIS + documents confiscated in Iraq that detail Saddam’s relationship with Zawahiri and other AQ associated groups since early 90s.
Don’t want to believe translations because that inconvenient to your indoctrination? Try listening to the enemy direct… Zawahiri, in his own words from his “Open Forum” not a week or so ago. Promises the jihad influence will increase in the wake of a US withdrawal, and that the Awakening Council members will be dealth with… “death by battle, or peace with humiliation”.
Dr. Stephen Biddle’s (CFR) testimony before Congress Apr 2nd of this year, laying out an honesty withdrawal vs staying. Also says that the case for stability is much better now than last year. However the cost of leaving is also very high.
Documentation of WMD and proscribed weaponry in Saddam’s possession, and being moved prior, during and after CIF in the May 2004 UNMOVIC report.
Need any more source docs instead of headlines? My bookmarks are filled with them.
Oops… let’s fix that UNMOVIC report link.. Cut/paste senior moment… LOL
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2004-435.pdf
I have to say that I just find the democratic leadership so stupid. So Iran is fighting Shea Arabs to annex their biggest oil producing city Basra and the Dems are calling it a civil war and we have to get out. Do they not read or do they not care?
We all should read this again, can be found on FREEREPUBLIC, to remind ourselves how miss leading dems are. Who says they care about others? It’s a big fake!
The dead speak
04/10/2008 12:09:43 PM PDT · by JZelle · 1 replies · 140+ views
The Washington Times ^ | 4-10-08 | Paul Greenburg
There are some names in the obituary columns that say more than the voices of the living. Such is the name of Dith Pran, who died in New Brunswick, N.J., March 30 at age 65. He was the Cambodian photographer who somehow survived the collection of killing fields that his country became after the Americans abandoned it. And who somehow made his way to the United States to tell the world about it. Millions of his countrymen lost their lives after the Khmer Rouge swept into Phnom Penh and began rounding up unreliable types — i.e., just about anyone who…
kathie…i’m an independent…and while i try not to stoop to childish personal attacks so i won’t call you stupid…i’d have to say you are ill-informed. iran has their hand in everything…absolutely everything…in iraq. they are backing sadr and maliki and al queda and sistani and who knows who else. what does that tell you? iran is a major player in iraq. the actions of the united states have given them huge leverage. some dems realize this fact of life (a fact we made happen) and understand that anything that happens in iraq will have to include iran some way some how. the administration prefers to saber rattle and pretend they will be able to accomplish anything in iraq in spite of iran. is there precedent for this? yes. some dems called for soft partitioning of the country. republicans said that was a non-starter…then they stood by while the inevitable happened…now you have ethnic cleansing and the same republicans scream victory while refusing to acknoledge the thousands that died who could have been saved if they were able to see reality instead of only their hyper-partisan views. so…you can continue your hyper-partisanship…or you can become better informed.
Strata quotes approvingly from media which says Iran is rather successfully conducting a “balance of terror” and finds optimism in it.
Since his man Maliki is warmly hugging an Iranian president Strata
has previously suggested is the most dangerous leader in the world, who is presumably playing a part in conducting the balancing act,one wonders whence the optimism.
…the SurrenderMedia and Surrendercrats don’t do some hard soul searching on how they are the useful puppets of the killers of our people, then America will do the soul searching and decide what to do about this terribly screwed up situation.
Yes, AJ, it is, all in all, a terribly screwed-up situation when your government is being played by Iran so well and your leader Bush’s
best strategy is to stonewall the whole thing into the next president’s
hands. Whoever he is will have to negotiate a deal with Iran if he wants an orderly retreat out of Iraq. Oh-and the 35% of the public
who still support the “screwed-up situation” don’t have a clue about
“what to do” about it, and will only wring their hands as the retreat
is negotiated.
http://www.counterpunch.org/smith04102008.html
Meanwhile as Smith outlines, Maliki’s crew has always been more pro-Iranian than al Sadr’s, with a history of open collaboration in the Iran/Iraq War where the US leaned heavily to supporting Saddam.
Bottom line-America has no Shia friends among the various factions it has set loose to war against each other, while Iran stays on good terms proportionately as it sees fit with all parties.
I see Norm is still crying about personal attacks.
Here’s a tip for you Norm…if you want to be treated with respect, you don’t walk into someone’s house invited, start flinging crap all over the walls, and then expect the host to clean it up and offer you a fresh gin and tonic. Especially, since it’s the same crap your leftist brethren have been flinging since 9/11, and it’s all been cleaned up over and over and over again. Got it?
You must occupy the high road before claiming it and at the rate you are digging, you may never see it.
I see Truthy is back to carry the Persian’s water for them.
Curious, no?
75…the problem with people like you is that people who disagree with you are “flinging crap” or fascists or surrendercrats…show me where i’m wrong and i will apologize and continue on with an open mind. however people like you don’t discuss…when confronted with ideas that conflict with your own you simply resort to childish personal attacks. that’s when i know that i am on the correct side of the debate.