Account of Broad Shiite Revolt Contradicts White House Stand

[Robbien]

By JAMES RISEN

Published: April 8, 2004

<snip>

But intelligence officials now say that there is evidence that the insurgency goes beyond Mr. Sadr and his militia, and that a much larger number of Shiites have turned against the American-led occupation of Iraq, even if they are not all actively aiding the uprising. A year ago, many Shiites rejoiced at the American invasion and the toppling of Saddam Hussein, a Sunni who had brutally repressed the Shiites for decades. But American intelligence officials now believe that hatred of the American occupation has spread rapidly among Shiites, and is now so large that Mr. Sadr and his forces represent just one element..

Meanwhile, American intelligence has not yet detected signs of coordination between the Sunni rebellion in Iraq's heartland and the Shiite insurgency. But United States intelligence says that the Sunni rebellion also goes far beyond former Baathist government members. Sunni tribal leaders, particularly in Al Anbar Province, home to Ramadi, the provincial capital, and Falluja, have turned against the United States and are helping to lead the Sunni rebellion, intelligence officials say. The result is that the United States is facing two broad-based insurgencies that are now on parallel tracks.

The Bush administration has sought to portray the opposition much more narrowly. In the Sunni insurgency, the White House and the Pentagon have focused on the role of the former leaders of the Baath Party and Saddam Hussein's government, while in the Shiite rebellion they have focused almost exclusively on the role of Mr. Sadr. Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon that the fighting in Iraq was just the work of "thugs, gangs and terrorists," and not a popular uprising. General Myers added that "it's not a Shiite uprising. Sadr has a very small following."

According to some experts on Iraq's Shiites, the uprising has spread to many Shiites who are not followers of Mr. Sadr. "There is a general mood of anti-Americanism among the people in the streets," said Ghassan R. al-Attiyah, executive director of the Iraq Foundation for Development and Democracy in Baghdad. "They identify with Sadr not because they believe in him but because they have their own grievances." While they share the broader anger in Iraq over the lack of jobs and security, many Shiites suspect that the handover of sovereignty to Iraqi politicians from the American occupying powers on June 30 will bypass their interests, Mr. Attiyah said. With his offensive, Mr. Sadr has "hijacked the political process," he said. As a result, more moderate Shiite clerics and politicians risk going against public opinion if they come out too strongly against the rebellious young cleric, he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/international/middleeast/08SHIA.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5006&en=1d9c52b9fde61aa6&ex=1082088000&partner=ALTAVISTA1

comment: The article also talks about the Iranian Shiites and how they do and don't fit into the picture even though Bush is trying to paint them as the culprits. Very good article.

[daleo]

1. The White House always prefers to personalize things

I suppose it is an attempt to minimize legitimacy of dissent to U.S. foreign policy, but they always do this.

- It's just Ossama, no broader grievances.
- It's just Saddam and dead enders, no broader grievances.
- It's just Sadr and zealots, no broader grievances.

Then, when any of these individuals is removed from the scene (e.g. Saddam), a fresh outlaw poster goes up, and everything is reduced to this new individual. It is an immature way to organize reality, and you have to wonder if they really do this at operational levels, or if this is just for propaganda purposes.

Also, it is getting so that the word "thug" is losing all meaning.

[liveoaktx]

2. Was listening to Rumsfeld and the military guy today

and heard, several times, an analogy about the thugs coming into the schoolyard to harrass the students and teachers. Huh???? Our invasion of Iraq cannot be compared to *thugs* interfering with the operation of a school. It's more like some thugs blasted a hole in the side of the school and went in and took over the principal's office and now the people of the town want to take their own school back over. I'm tired of hearing the Iraqis described as insurgents, thugs, terrorists, etc. Makes me wonder what England thought of the original colonists in the US who dared to want to govern themselves and managed, even without the British looking over their shoulder, to figure out how to write a constitution.

[Fridays Child]

3. Good point...

...and welcome to DU. :hi:

[saigon68]

6. Iraqi volunteers

Iraqi volunteers drive with supplies towards areas under siege by U.S. forces in the restive town of Falluja, from depots in a Baghdad suburb April 8, 2004. Polish and Bulgarian troops battled Shi'ite militiamen in the Iraqi shrine city of Kerbala on Thursday as U.S.-led forces struggled to quell the worst violence since Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s fall a year ago. REUTERS/Ali Jasim

[saigon68]

8. Rumsfeld anf the Military guy== Dummy and Rummy below

Myers is a bootlicking ass wipe.

[DeepModem Mom]

4. The NYT is charging, on its front-page, that the WH is lying --

Pretty significant.

[leftchick]

5. That lunatic paula zahn screamed at her guest when he said this...

It was total whoring for the WH on her part. She had a guest on, A prof. from Sarah Lawrence university, EXPERT on Mid-East affairs and Iraq/Iran. He was suggesting exactly what the WH won't say and paula Screamed like a raving banshee that it just could not be true. Most embarrassing to watch.

As for rummy,myers and the rest. It is quite frightening that they are still exhibiting the same tunnel vision that got us into this occupation. I really think they believe their own BS and that does not bode well.

[saigon68]

7. Paula Zahn can try to explain this

Charles Pena, director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, summed up his take on the US occupation of Iraq this way.

"The irony is that last May and June, you had Iraqis saying, 'We're happy to be liberated. Now, please leave.'

"What we're seeing now is the result of overstaying our welcome. What we have now inherited, it seems, is our own version of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank - only with a much larger piece of real estate."