IRAQ: Not quite the surrender Maliki had in mind

It appears that Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's ultimatum to Shiite Muslim militiamen to surrender to the Iraqi government might not be working precisely as he had intended.

When nobody had turned up by Friday, Maliki gave members of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr's Mahdi Army militia 10 more days to turn in their weapons and renounce violence.

Instead, about 40 members of the Shiite-dominated Iraqi army and National Police offered to surrender their AK-47s and other weapons this morning to Sadr's representatives in the cleric's east Baghdad stronghold of Sadr City.

One of the police officers told journalists assembled at Sadr's office that he was heeding a call by an Iraqi cleric based in Iran, Ayatollah Fadhil Maliki, to stop fighting fellow Muslims.

"We came here to tell our brothers, the followers of Sadr, that we will not be against you," said the officer, who was dressed in civilian clothes and had his face covered with a scarf and dark sunglasses.

Sadr's representatives refused to take the men's weapons, saying they belong to the government. Instead, the representatives offered the men olive branches and copies of the Koran.

Maj. Gen. Abdul Kareem Khalaf, a spokesman for Iraq's Interior Ministry, said today that lots of militiamen had also handed over weapons since the deadline was extended but provided no specifics.

More than 150 people have been killed since the crackdown began Tuesday in the violence-plagued southern oil hub of Basra. Fighting quickly spread to other Shiite strongholds in the south and parts of Baghdad, raising fears that a unilateral cease-fire declared by Sadr in August could collapse.

Sadr has urged his followers to abide by the truce. But the cleric does not want them to hand over weapons to the current Iraqi government, said Sheik Haider Jabiri, a member of Sadr's political committee based in the Shiite holy city of Najaf.

"They should hand over the weapons to a government that will be able to take out the occupier," said Jabiri, a reference to U.S.-led forces in Iraq.

— A Times special correspondent in Sadr City

Comments

[masmanz]

Just understand that we have already handed over Iraq to Iran, whether we stay there getting our soldiers killed or come back right away, the end result will be the same. Save money, save lives, bring the troops back. Acknowledging a mistake is a lot better than keep on doing the same thing over again. Bush and Rumsfeld promissed the troops that as soon as we kick Saddam out we will be heading back. Why are we still there?

[escariot]

Ahh...backing down! That's what it is. Thank you for clarifying that for us James. I was wondering how that was going to be spun.

For a minute there I thought it was simply a matter of the Cleric finding a way to allow Maliki to get out of the corner he had painted them all into.

I'm so glad you are here to keep us all informed and we don't have to, you know, think for ourselves or anything. I'm sure we've heard the last of that guy now and democracy will flourish due to the brilliance of the US policy which has accomplished this great turning point in the endeavor.

And we have learned soooo much! That Maliki will decide when to take on his political opponents, with the use of the armed forces, because as it has been mentioned ANYONE can see how we can't be arming miltiias and allowing them to roam around controlling whole swaths of territory. Except for the Sunni Awakening guys of course, they're diferent. And the Badr guys, because they are, well, connected to the Maliki government. And like that...

oi

[dheg]

James, you don't get it. Sadr's not backing down. He just scored a huge political victory. The Mehdi are intact and will keep their weapons plus apparently some newly acquired ones from the conflict. And the government has agreed to release the Mehdi that they have captured. Sadr has allowed Maliki a face-saving way out of a no-win situation. Sadr has bolstered his stance as one who supports peace and negotiations and stands for the people of Iraq. Maliki is again characterized as a US puppet attacking his own countrymen.

[James]

So I see that Sadr is backing down this morning. Too bad for all the anti-US, anti-Iraqi, pro-Sadr commentators on this blog, no? And why do you think Sadr is backing down -- because he loves peace or because, contrary to the press reports and pro-Sadr propaganda, the Sadrists are being militarily defeated?

[Terrible]

No doubt the "conservatives" (as if!) posting here would like their military "hero" mccain to go over there and show our troops how he surrendered to the first armed enemy he faced. The whole lot of these bush loving America hating fake conservatives are real heros as long as they're dropping 500lb bombs on farmers and their families but throw up their hands and cry for mercy as soon as the face an armed enemy.

[blogenfreude]

C'mon you nattering nabobs ... you go to war with the army you have!

[tutankamun]

it a shame to watch tv and see what happening in Iraq is it a democracie or demoncrazie?how can american be so idiot to let the devil rule from 2003 irq invasion to this time.the world belong to all of us america the will never win this war cos the dont care about iraq. shite and shites fighting what going to do with american let them die us mny us possible cos the war is illegal.victory to the madhi cos the are iraqis

[Helena Montana]

""Everyone with any sense knows that the Mahdi are Iran supported insurgents waiting to overthrow the Iraq government as soon as the coalition forces leave."

Of course, it would be tacky to point out that if we had never invaded and destabilized Iraq, there would be no Iran-supported insurgents.

[Ron Mepwith]

Those who recognize the Badr connections to Iran are right on target.
Sadr is a true national patriot for Iraq.
The U.S. military has made a tragic mistake in aligning itself with those who would destroy the Mehdi army.
The effort at destruction will fail. This will then result in the fall of the Malaki government as it's puppet status becomes so clear no one can deny it. (For those of you who know history, think of the Petain governemt in France, and the Quisling govenrment in Norway.)
Truly it is a defining moment--Malaki is defined as a Quisling and a traitor to the people of Iraq.

[langx]

Question for you Rambo Republicans.

When will the Iraqi Army be ready to stand up.

Gary J. Schmitt, a military analyst at the American Enterprise Institute who was an early supporter of the buildup, said he believed the administration was taken by surprise by Maliki's decision, but that with provincial elections set for October, the central government had to act.

"Tactically, this might not have been the optimal moment, or they may not have prepared as well as they should have. But I think it was quite predictable," Schmitt said. "With the elections coming, it should have been understood as a necessity."

So In other words since Sadr group was poised to take over they need to take them out.

I get it now. American Democracy at work.

[Langx]

This fight against the Mahdi Army was inevitable. Private militias loyal to individual clerics are simply unacceptable. I just hope that Maliki hasn't gone into this half-assed. But we are still paying the price for the shocking arrogance and stupidity of the Bush administration's people (Rumsfeld, Bremer, Sanchez, etc.) from 2004 through 2006. We should be much further along than we are now. Still, overall things are moving in the right direction.

Posted by: Dan R.

Unacceptable. That's how Iraq works. It's been that way forever. Who the hell are you typing on your keyboard in your mothers basement to tell someone how to run there country.

Republicans must smoke, snort or shoot a lot of drugs to get through the day.

It's the only way to explain the way they look at things.

Otherwise, If they had a brain they would kill themselves.

Is it arrogant or stupid to think a guy who couldn't run a baseball team would have the intelligence to run a country.

I can't tell the difference.

Dan?

[gerald reed]

Iran so what? Iran has much more right to involve itself in Iraq than the U.S. ever did. Surely if there were a war going on in Mexico or Canada, or anywhere nearby, the U.S. would be involved, sending weapons, troops, saboteurs, terrorists, etc.: remember the Contras, for example.
This may be Iraqi "Tet", showing the occupier and its puppet government that they may be struck at easily. gdeer

[gerald reed]

Iran so what? Iran has much more right to involve itself in Iraq than the U.S. ever did. Surely if there were a war going on in Mexico or Canada, or anywhere nearby, the U.S. would be involved, sending weapons, troops, saboteurs, terrorists, etc.: remember the Contras, for example.
This may be Iraqi "Tet", showing the occupier and its puppet government that they may be struck at easily. gdeer

[Colin Barnett]

Sadr does have some connections to Iran but he is a Nationalist and does not want Iraq to break up whereas some of the others Shiite militias would like to be autonomous. Therefore, Sadr has no interest in Having the Iranians involved in Iraq. Maliki has gambled heavily in deciding to take on the Sadrists at this time which is unfortunate for him as it appears to be going none to well. They are now requesting active assistance from both the British and us which reflects poorly on the ability of the Iraquis to provide their own security. Meanwhile Mr. Bush sees it all as a great success and a 'defining moment" thereby demonstrating once again that where Iraq is concerned he is living in a fantasy world.

[Frosted Flake]

Dan R.
Personal note : This is not a wargame. It is a war. Notice the difference.

On the topic of inevitability : Have you ever heard of Feudalism? Did you think the elections in Iraq were about anything else? Why then were voters offered slates instead of candidates?

The truth is, this "inevitable" civil war is the direct result of the political process we imposed. A process intended to put Iraq into the hands of those who would sell us oil. Now, if it had been a case of "Joe for this office, Fred for that one, Ed for the other, etcetera, then things would resemble (vaguely) the will of the Iraqi People. Instead we made them choose between slates, entire slates of "candidates".

If this is not clear, consider your position, if your ballot had two boxes. One labeled Democrat. The other labled Republican. Which would you check? And what good would it do? And how long would it be before you were involved in an "inevitable" war?

P.S. The Suck, does. JJ too. As any with any sense know well.

[Escariot]

Um...JJ

Look up the SICI and the Badr Brigade. They were founded in tehran. Are backed by Tehran. The Sadr movement is Iraqi and has more followers in the shiite population but less money, and, apparently the SICI is now backed by the US Army.

In effect we have taken sides in a civil war, siding with one of the partisan groups against another. And we are siding with the group with LESS popular support and the backing of Tehran.

SICI stands for the Supreme Islamic Council of Iraq.

A brilliant strategy I guess...

[Max Thrax]

You conservatives are a great comedy show...such scared , weak and cowardly little men. All you do is talk, talk, talk....talk about freedom, talk about victory, talk about honor. What you WON'T DO, is enlist and put your money where your big big mouths are. So what's holding back you super duper patriots from serving your country in a time of war? Are you too busy fighting the battle to shove one more Little Debbie's snack cakes into your already full mouths?

[Dan R.]

"The Suck", you are absolutely right about liberals. They base their opinions on childish emotionalism instead of reason. They want to do what makes them feel good at the moment. Not only are they idiots, but they're hypocrites as well. If it had been Bill Clinton that had invaded Iraq and overthrown Saddam, they'd be hailing him as the greatest liberator since Dwight Eisenhower.

This fight against the Mahdi Army was inevitable. Private militias loyal to individual clerics are simply unacceptable. I just hope that Maliki hasn't gone into this half-assed. But we are still paying the price for the shocking arrogance and stupidity of the Bush administration's people (Rumsfeld, Bremer, Sanchez, etc.) from 2004 through 2006. We should be much further along than we are now. Still, overall things are moving in the right direction.

[Mark]

The fools who post here saying Sadr is Iran-supported have no idea what they are talking about. The Iranian government is more closely linked to the current govt. in Iraq than it is to Sadr. In fact, Sadr doesnt want outside (read US OR Iran) influence in Iraq and has said so many times. It is this war's dirtiest little secret that the US and Iran are allies in Iraq and that by helping fight Sadr, the US is actually strenghthening Iran's hold on Iraq. Both countries have an interest in stabilizing Iraq and despite the rhetoric of war, work together behind the scenes.

[The Bite]

I ask you The Suck, what do you have to offer except misinformation and propaganda also? Are you an Iraqi? Are you muslim? Maybe you're a citizen of Iraq?? Possibly you're just more serious and are an expert in these things. And I'm sure you'd say that the eruption of violence in southern Iraq, where US-backed government forces were battling Shiite militias, was a "by-product of the success of the surge."

[Nobody Important]

Both sides fighting in Basra have connections to Iran, though the Iraqi government is more connected to them than Sadr. And let's not forget that a lot of insurgents are coming from our BFF Saudi Arabia. Gee, I bet that these pro-Iran-war people want to go after Saudi Arabia, too. Oh, wait, Cheney wouldn't like that...

Anyone who fell for WMD and the fake Iraq/al-Qaeda connection shouldn't be lecturing others on how well thought-out arguments are, btw.

I love my country, that's why I'm looking forward to Bush being out of office.

[The Suck]

Comment sections are amazing. I have never read an intelligent argument on these pages, just punditry. Amazing thing is, the liberals in this crowd, the ones who are supposedly the intelligent and educated ones, have the least thought out arguments. They boil down to "I hate G.Bush", "I hate my country", and "Everything they tell me is a lie". Maybe you should come to Iraq and see what it is really like over here instead of just reading misinformation and propaganda?

[Anis Mohiuddin]

Every American seems to know that Mahdi army is Iran backed and that they are ready to overthrow Iraqi Govt as soon as Americans leave. Is n't this knowledge the same as WMD Bush claimed Iraq had before he started the war? After the war what happened to WMD? It does n't matter. Bush never was turned in but Iraq got destroyed.

This typical Israel fed knowledge is the most dangerous element in American brains which is as empty as that of Bush; or full of crime filled rubbish? Arabs are most foolish people in this world. America, their arch enemy is harboured by the same Arabs as their friend.

Bush cannot do anything in China and will not attempt any of his nonsense there despite Tibet.

[james hendricks]

The surge is working. The surge is working. The surge is working. The surge is working. The surge is working. The surge is working. The surge is working!
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Come on everybody...all together...THE SURGE IS WORKING.

[G.Bush]

"Everyone with any sense knows that the Mahdi are Iran supported insurgents waiting to overthrow the Iraq government as soon as the coalition forces leave."

LOLOLO

more spin from Imperial Headquarters & King George