Is Al Sadr on our side or are we on Al Sadr's side?

[Renew Deal]

Have you watched the grainy execution video yet? It's at the top of CNN right now. It was taken with a digital camera or a cell phone. CNN provides a translation of the shouting. The executioners are chanting "Muqtada, Muqtada, Muqtada. Long Live Muqtada Badir Sadr."

Now what is that all about? I thought Al Sadr was the "insurgent leader." I thought he was on the other side. He's one of the bad guys. So why would his name be chanted at a government sponsored event (execution)? Who's side is Al Sadr on and who's side is the government on? Is Al Sadr just an Iraqi government troublemaker? Does this explain why the US hasn't killed him yet? I find this all way off the script.

[renie408]

1. I am not an expert on this. But I don't think we have a mutual side with Al Sadr. n/t

[bklyncowgirl]

2. And the Saudis have promised to retaliate we let Sadr's militias are allowed to massacre Sunnis

This is just one lovely big cockup from start to finish.

[Robbien]

3. The Iraqis view the execution of Saddam as a hit against Sunnis

Any damage to Sunnis are a plus to Shia and al Sadr.

[Renew Deal]

4. So in the end it's just about revenge, not justice.

That's surely how it seems.

[Robbien]

10. Riverbend has a new blog entry up on it

and yes, that is how she says Iraqis see it.

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

[ProgressiveMuslim]

5. I am flabbergasted that the US stood by

and allowed this execution to take place on Eid al Adha, a direct smack in the face to the world's Sunnis. That move will only further rancor and sectarian division, and create sympthy for Iraq's Sunnis.

I cannot fathom what the US thought would be gained by the timing of this.

If there were ever any time to flex our muscle in Iraq, the timing of this execution would have been the place to flex.

If the goal is to create a unified Iraq, how in the hell was this allowed to happen at that time??

I can't decide if it was ignorance and stupidity, or if there was actually a malicious intent. Some commentary on Al Jazeera suggests a belief that it was the American intent to keep Iraq in a state of civil war, in order to prolong the conflict for better access to oil. That seemed far-fetched to me, but really... HOW COULD THAT HAVE HAPPENED?

[Renew Deal]

6. It looks like malicious intent to me.

Did you read the blog post from some Iraqi woman that popped up yesterday? She said that she got a text message from the American gov't saying that Saddam was dead. She couldn't check until power came back on. When it did it was all over TV. According to the government the execution was conducted "before Eid." The problem was that Eid started Saturday for Sunni's. She saw it as another insult because Sunni's are Iraqi's too. I see this entire episode as a massive provocation. I just can't imagine why unless chaos is the goal.

[H2O Man]

7. Consider

al Sadr's father.

[MGKrebs]

8. I'm getting a little confused too.

The government is Shi'ite dominated but Saudi Arabia is on the side of the Sunnis. We are trying to support the (Shia) government, but they are apparently systematically wiping out the Sunnis. We are in effect preventing the Sunnis from fighting back. But, the Saudi's won't let us leave, presumably becasue they think we are protecting the Sunni's, or, they are anticipating a change in power structure someday.

[Dr Batsen D Belfry]

9. To answer the question, neither

Al-Sadr has been a thorn in our side from the beginning. He pushes, then backs down at the last minute.

He is next on the Bush hit list. Think about it.

1) This is probably part of the ultimatum from the Saudis. Get Sadr to quit killing Sunnis.
2) We are sending the 101st to Kuwait? They will not be there long. They will be part of the "surge" that will try to dislodge the Mehdi Army
3) We are sending at least two carrier task forces to the gulf. I would imagine one is to help support the 101st. The other is to prevent Iran from sending help since Sadr is Shia.

DBDB

[UTUSN]

11. Shrub "hit list". Good coinage. NIXON only had an ENEMIES list.

[H2O Man]

14. "a thorn in our side"

That's an interesting concept. He is, of course, a popular leader residing in his own land. The US is a very unpopular occupying force in his land. Perhaps we would benefit from taking a step away from the view that he is a thorn in our side.

[Dr Batsen D Belfry]

18. The thorn concept is precisely as you state

especially since we don't even understand the difference between Shia and Sunni

Perhaps instead of invading we should have tried learning about their culture then diplomacy.

DBDB

[LSK]

12. Al Sadr is the Shia militia leader who targets the Sunnis

It is no longer who is on "our side". It is a civil war.

From the ISG Report:

"moqtada al-sadr: Sadr has a large following among
impoverished Shia, particularly in Baghdad. He has joined
Maliki’s governing coalition, but his Mahdi Army has
clashed with the Badr Brigades, as well as with Iraqi, U.S.,
and U.K. forces. Sadr claims to be an Iraqi nationalist.
Several observers remarked to us that Sadr was following
the model of Hezbollah in Lebanon: building a political
party that controls basic services within the government
and an armed militia outside of the government."

[malaise]

13. Sadly the US has always sided

with the most evil and corrupt within societies. Afterall who else would sell out their own people, support their slaughter and allow the rape of resources in the name of a foreign government and its corporations.

Who they side with at any given moment in history depends on who will do the dirty work on their behalf. Today it's Al Sadr, tomorrow it will be someone else. Opportunists are omnipresent.

Add.

[MGKrebs]

15. At the risk of attributing more influence than is probable,

that is the kind of sweeping generalization that, repeated often enough, gives people the idea that liberals hate America.

Oh wait, I see you are from Jamaica. In that case I will just challenge your assertion by claiming that surely there must be at least ONE TIME in American history when "the US" has sided with only the second most evil and corrupt factions. Or maybe we sided with the second LEAST evil once. Maybe we even did the right thing once or twice. We didn't do too bad after WWll. We've been doing OK in the former Yugoslavia. I think we've probably been helpful in Egypt at times. I don't think sending guys to the moon was evil or corrupt.

I may dislike what my government does sometimes, but it is hard for me to let a slur like that go unchallenged.

[malaise]

16. Kissinger and Reagan sure did here

Seriously I can't think of one instance of the US siding with decent people who defended their own people, country and resources and I'm going back to the Haitian Revolution.

[sanskritwarrior]

17. Al sadr

is a man that plays off all sides to secure and expand his power base. With Saddam dead, the upcoming surge will be to destroy his militia.

Edit: I think that is foolish, just wanted to state what I have been hearing.