Via the AP: al-Sadr calls for attacks on U.S. troops
The renegade cleric Muqtada al-Sadr urged Iraqi forces to stop cooperating with the United States and told his guerrilla fighters to concentrate their attacks on American troops rather than Iraqis, according to a statement issued Sunday.The statement, stamped with al-Sadr’s official seal, was distributed in the Shiite holy city of Najaf on Sunday — a day before a large demonstration there, called for by al-Sadr, to mark the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad.
“You, the Iraqi army and police forces, don’t walk alongside the occupiers, because they are your archenemy,” the statement said. Its authenticity could not be verified.
If the message is authentic, then this will bring into serious question whether the surge has achieved any actual success at all. If the Shi’ite militias, which allegedly have been peaceful of late, decide to launch attacks on the “occupiers” then I don’t see how anyone can claim that the policy has been efficacious at all–as the basic idea was to pacify Baghdad and specifically to reign in, if not wholly disband the militia groups. Further, if Sadr is willing to launch attacks now, then it raises serious questions about any kind of near-term political solution (not that there was a lot of evidence that such a solution was likely to happen in any event).
Sphere: Related Content
April 8th, 2007 at 9:15 am
I can easily believe that al-Sadr would call for attacks on American troops, but neither of the quoted passages in the article present him doing so. The statement passage in your blockquote urges non-cooperation with the Coalition on Iraqi government forces, which is not the same as urging attacks on US troops. The passage later in the article tells Sadrists not to attack Iraqi government forces. It says Iraqis need to stand against the occupier, but apparently this involves “patience.” (His word.)
This is either an incredibly indirect way of calling for attacks, OR it’s not a call for attacks at all, OR there are more explicit passages the article didn’t bother to quote. If it’s the last, it’s really sloppy journalism. Heaven knows we’ve seen enough of that.
April 8th, 2007 at 10:30 am
I noticed the same things Jim did - and would add that a week ago the Iraqi government announced that Sadr had told his militia to “stand down” and that the Sadr office in Diwaniya are saying unrest there is due to “rogue elements” of the Mahdi Army.
Regards, Cernig
April 8th, 2007 at 11:19 am
[...] Dr. Steven Taylor has a slightly different view: If the message is authentic, then this will bring into serious question whether the surge has achieved any actual success at all. If the Shi’ite militias, which allegedly have been peaceful of late, decide to launch attacks on the “occupiers” then I don’t see how anyone can claim that the policy has been efficacious at all–as the basic idea was to pacify Baghdad and specifically to reign in, if not wholly disband the militia groups. Further, if Sadr is willing to launch attacks now, then it raises serious questions about any kind of near-term political solution (not that there was a lot of evidence that such a solution was likely to happen in any event). [...]
April 8th, 2007 at 11:20 am
[...] Dr. Steven Taylor has a slightly different view: If the message is authentic, then this will bring into serious question whether the surge has achieved any actual success at all. If the Shi’ite militias, which allegedly have been peaceful of late, decide to launch attacks on the “occupiers” then I don’t see how anyone can claim that the policy has been efficacious at all–as the basic idea was to pacify Baghdad and specifically to reign in, if not wholly disband the militia groups. Further, if Sadr is willing to launch attacks now, then it raises serious questions about any kind of near-term political solution (not that there was a lot of evidence that such a solution was likely to happen in any event). [...]
April 8th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
[...] See also Cernig, just because that’s usually a good idea anyway. Posted by Jim Henley @ 7:12 pm, Filed under: Main « « TSA begins sinister “Phase Two” of Operations |Main | [...]
April 8th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
It’s not defeat if civilians are safer but the Sadrists split into the violent fringe tt cannot be co-opted and that which stays out of it. That is true even if our casualties increase, especially if we beat them in a few months’ time, no?
Unless of course ono assumes the whole enterprise to be wrhtless and not worth the candle, in which case teh mere declration fo further hostilities is every reason to leave.
April 8th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
I’m a little unclear on what you are trying to say.
One things sticks out, however: the assumption that there is a chance that “they” will be beaten in a few months’ time. It is unclear to me that there is any “they” in Iraq likely to be defeated in a few months’ time.
April 9th, 2007 at 6:40 am
[...] I mentioned the message from Sadr yesterday. [...]
April 9th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Anti-U.S. rallies mark Iraq anniversary reads the MSNBC headline that accurately depicts the general, defeatist “wisdom”.
Shiites rally to mourn Saddam’s fall, almost. That’s the headline one would seem to take from recent events. Actually, Sadr is just trying to reassert his authority with stunts like this. His underlings have shown disconcerting independenc…
April 15th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
[...] As General Petraeus has noted: the solution in Iraq will be a political one, not a military one. As such, the fact that Sadr has been releasing inflammatory statements, encouraging anti-US demonstrations and now withdrawing from the government suggests that the political solution is not going too well at the moment. Filed under: Iraq | | [...]