And Al Sadr is out...

[Caelius]

And where des he go of all places?

Feb. 13, 2007 — While members of the U.S. House of Representatives take turns weighing in on President Bush's planned troop surge in Iraq, the focus in Iraq is not on the arrival of more U.S. troops, but the departure of one of the country's most powerful men, Moqtada al Sadr and members of his army.

According to senior military officials, al Sadr left Baghdad two to three weeks ago and fled to Tehran, Iran, where he has family.

Al Sadr commands the Mahdi army, one of the most formidable insurgent militias in Iraq, and his move coincides with the announced U.S. troop surge in Baghdad.

Sources believe al Sadr is worried about an increase of 20,000 U.S. troops in the Iraqi capital. One official told ABC News' Martha Raddatz, "He is scared he will get a JDAM [bomb] dropped on his house."

Sources say some of the Mahdi army leadership went with al Sadr.


Though he is gone for now, many believe al Sadr is not gone for good. In Tehran he is trying to keep the Mahdi militia together.

In recent months, al Sadr has come to the political table to force change rather than use military force to have an impact. Sources say an even more extreme faction within his militia isn't pleased with this turn of events and is trying to force the cleric to respond to recent Sunni attacks with more violence.


U.S. officials say they are going to watch those members of the Mahdi army left behind in Baghdad. Sources say two scenarios are possible: Either al Sadr will be driven further into extremist mode or he will continue going forward with the political process.

Interesting to say the least, though not surprising considering all the dirt Al Sadr and his cronies have on their hands concerning their involvement in the all the ethnic cleansing going on.

[JP226]

pussy, he should stay and fight.

[Lord Rahl]

Hopefully the intelligence is true and the violence will subside.

[hsimoorb]

Sources believe al Sadr is worried about an increase of 20,000 U.S. troops in the Iraqi capital. One official told ABC News' Martha Raddatz, "He is scared he will get a JDAM [bomb] dropped on his house."

It appears these "scources" are either White House Employees, or complete idiots. We don't need 20,000 troops to drop a bomb. Nor will the 20,000 troops bring us any better intel on insurgent leaders, if there are many of those around. Fact is, we needed 200,000 more troops, and we needed them when we first invaded, not in 2007.

Hopefully the intelligence is true and the violence will subside.

Well, the whole Iraqi insurgency isn't just Al Sadr pulling strings beheind the curtain. I can only guess that his "army" will be just as effective without him. Insurgencies don't need recognizable figures, who are just target practice for Apaches. Now if Sadr had gotten himself "martyred", then yeah, this might be a thing.

[Erik]

It appears these "scources" are either White House Employees, or complete idiots.

I think those "sources" are the "senior military officials" that the article mentions before.

I heard on the news that it was disagreement amongst his own militia, not US involvement, that drove him out.
The "sources" of this article also underlines this by stating:

Sources say an even more extreme faction within his militia isn't pleased with this turn of events and is trying to force the cleric to respond to recent Sunni attacks with more violence.

In any case I think this is a bad thing.
Al Sadr was one of the most reasonable militia leaders.
His replacement(s) will almost certainly be a lot worst.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Juan Cole gives some pretty good reasons to treat this story with extreme scepticism:

The press record I assembled, below, does not support Muqtada's disappearance to Iran. It is possible but not likely that Muqtada would go to Iran. He and his family have endlessly made fun of the al-Hakim clerical leaders for fleeing to Iran to escape persecution by Saddam Hussein, when the al-Sadrs insisted on staying in Iraq. Muqtada's father was killed in 1999 by Saddam's agents because he stayed and gave defiant sermons. So it would be a lot of crow to eat for Muqtada to go to Iran to escape the Americans. Plus, there is nothing in the Iranian press about him showing up in Qom, and an Iranian diplomat denied the story. Without more and better evidence, this account strikes me as suspect, and I would guess that if Muqtada disappeared, it is inside Iraq.
("On the Mystery of Muqtada al-Sadr's Disappearance", Informed Comment, 14.02.07)

The fact that this story comes from "US Government sources" in a week where the White House is stepping up the emphasis on links between the Iraq Civil War and Iran, this story reeks of high convenience. Cole follows with a long analysis of where al-Sadr has been popping up over the last few weeks and what the Mahdi Army is up to.

This isn't to say the story isn't true, just that it needs to be handled with care.

[wilpuri]

Also I was a little surprised at this, considering Muqtada's anti-Iranian past. The biggest obstacle between Iraqi and Iranian shia co-operation is Iraqi nationalism.

Americans should thank Saddam.

[boofhead]

These guys are all the same. They are all full of rousing speeches and great at getting others to die for them, but when it comes to the crunch they are just ball-less bearded bastards in stupid hats.

I could slap that freak down with one hand tied behind my back.

(Oh Lord I've done it now; the minions of Hell cometh for me with belt-bombs...and neg-rep)

[jankren]

This news came from the same source who said there was WMD in Iraq, right?

[Caelius]

No...

[Tuareg]

I am sad for some of you, after reading how people are happy with Sadr left Baghdad. Some of Americans are really greatest morons of all the times.

Everyone who opposses USA must be dirty, corrupt, mad, coward right? So if you will be able to kill or kick out their gang leaders all the elements of resistance will finish and your beloved strong, brave US army will finally can report victory and declare that the country is safe and secured, right?

Wrong.

The resistance will go on without their current leadership. Because it is not a gang you are dealing with. An entire country is in a very rightous rebelion against American invasion. Sadr as a leader of Shiah, is surely an important figure, but if he leaves the country, or even if he would be killed, the anti-American characteristic of the Shiah society will not change. A real social movement creates its own leadership. Same is true for all elements that resisting the invasion.

You never learn do you? Zarkhavi is killed, but his followers are still fighting. Saddam is killed and anything goes better now? Do you remember when Humayni left Iran in exile and do you remember how he returned then?

What can be called a gang here is US government itself. I am sure if once Bush and just a few other leaders would be out of the game, there wouldn't remain any will at USA side to go on with the invasion. Americans aren't very brilliant with such things but you don't need to be very clever to discover how the current position keeps ruining all the interests of American people.

[boofhead]

I never suggested his death would change anything. But it would good to see.

And BTW the "resistance" as you term it is really just opposing militias. Even if the US leaves (which it will) they will continue their campaigns of bloody murder. They are not a resistance - they are godless murderers.

And BTW I am not American, and I don't think the US should have troops there anyway. Iraqis can kill enough of their own without US help.

[Tuareg]

I never suggested his death would change anything. But it would good to see.

And BTW the "resistance" as you term it is really just opposing militias. Even if the US leaves (which it will) they will continue their campaigns of bloody murder. They are not a resistance - they are godless murderers.

And BTW I am not American, and I don't think the US should have troops there anyway. Iraqis can kill enough of their own without US help.

When it comes whose death would be good to see I can count a lot of names too. But what is so exciting for some people about hearing Sadr has left Baghdad, that's what I couldn't get.

In war, people die. Did you totally forget who began that war? I am also not happy with what now happens in Iraq. But remember that Iraq was a "British built up country" which never had any national identity before 1920's. Different ethnics in the same land without a solid government and rule, what is so surprising about seeing violence? Is Sadr to blame for it?

Even in a western country, just say, in America today, if someone removes central government, army and all police stations, what can you expect from the public? Peace? How much time it takes before a mass of Blacks, Whites and Browns flame a civil war on the streets for the plunder of federal reserve, banks, shops and all?

USA, at first hand, carry the biggest crime of deaths and chaos in Iraq today, if that would be judged ethically. But ethics didn't have any role in invasion of Iraq, and also won't have any role in defeat of USA.

In a civil war in a country like Iraq, resistance comes only in that way. If you want to see romantic gentlemen who are fighting to protect woman and children, good luck to you. The godless murderers you pointed out are not worse than Americans.

If USA would believe that what to happen after they leave Iraq, would only be struggle and violence between paramilitar groups going on, they should quit by now. More concern is about what will happen when USA leaves and struggle ends with the victory of, for example, Sadr, and Iraq, or at least Southern Iraq unites under one banner. Saddam, who was actually a potential cooperator of USA, removed by USA only to be replaced by a sworn enemy.

My expression is: It looks like, someone, who has many supporters among todays government in USA, is trying to destroy all American interests, I have no other explanation of what's going on since first Gulf Crisis. I must also admit that this someone, is quite successful.

[Freddie]

I am sad for some of you, after reading how people are happy with Sadr left Baghdad. Some of Americans are really greatest morons of all the times.

For every ‘moron’ (as you so eloquently put it) that has come out of America there has double that number from Europe over the years.

I myself am sceptical weather or not this will subdue the violence that is taking place in Iraq right now, just the other day the Iraqi president was giving a speech to reporters on how the government was going to tackle the insurgency and at the same time you could here in the background car bombs going off. Let’s also not forget that the violence didn’t go away when Al-Quida lost their leader in Iraq (I forget his name, he was the one who was beheading people) was killed.

[danzig]

An entire country is in a very rightous rebelion against American invasion. Sadr as a leader of Shiah, is surely an important figure, but if he leaves the country, or even if he would be killed, the anti-American characteristic of the Shiah society will not change. A real social movement creates its own leadership. Same is true for all elements that resisting the invasion.

You ignore the fact the vast majority of the violence in Iraq has little to do with Americans and more to do with 'blood' feuds or power grabs by various groups. As some other people pointed out if the US pulled all troops out tomorrow very little would change in terms of violence, if anything it would get worse as all the groups made their mad rush for power/control. So where is the 'resistances' here? "Anti american characteristics" in Iraq arent the problem, its anti-the other guy among the various groups that is the problem. There is no 'righteous' rebellion in Iraq, the bulk of the people being killed are Iraqis themselves so where is this rebellion? What is going on Iraq can be classified less as Iraqi people vs Americans but rather Iraqi vs Iraqi...aka civil war like. Btw you'll be well advised to avoid tossing around generalizations like 'morons' with any group, Americans or otherwise in the future it kills any sense of credibility you have in your posts if you are going to engage in that nonsense.

[Mathias]

[CENTER][FONT="Comic Sans MS"][COLOR="Green"]


For every ‘moron’ (as you so eloquently put it) that has come out of America there has double that number from Europe over the years.

And europe has a popualtion that is more than double that of the USA.
Stupidity isnt restricted to regions or countries.

[Freddie]

And europe has a popualtion that is more than double that of the USA.
Stupidity isnt restricted to regions or countries.

I concur with that statement.

[Ummon]

For every ‘moron’ (as you so eloquently put it) that has come out of America there has double that number from Europe over the years.

I have to say: do you really think he is European?

[Freddie]

I have to say: do you really think he is European?

Well let’s just say I got a neg rep for that post and the comments left would suggest who ever left it was European.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Well let’s just say I got a neg rep for that post and the comments left would suggest who ever left it was European.

Or that someone felt that your assertion that "For every ‘moron’ (as you so eloquently put it) that has come out of America there has double that number from Europe over the years." was pretty much feeble school-yard "nyah nyah nyah" stuff and not exactly the most profound, eloquent or witty contribution TWC has ever seen. I never give negative rep, but when I read that post of yours I thought "Wow, that was a really childish and lame response."

Obviously I wasn't the only person who thought your reply was pretty pathetic.