Replies

A most interesting analysis by Mohammed at ITM. He is getting better all the time. Little hand wriging of lately just some very insightfull observations.
So I don't forget. If his words on Sistani's ninitial call for calm are accurate, then it would appear Sistani does not fit the profile I have harped on for a year and a half.
That being said. Time will surely show us his true intentions. In essence the write makes a further point already pretty well addressed by some of us, that the golden dump was blown by the sunni side, and zman is a Salafist. And clearly we know zman is one of the major players in breaking up Iraq for an eventual Caliph state down the pike.
But I for one will hot haggle over the prospects of who has the highest probability of doing the deed. It could have been a mix of Ansar al-Islam, other radical religious groups, working with zman foreign element, and with the aid of the Saddamist and or Persians (Sadrist).
What is more important to me from this article is that the grand ayatollah may end up being much more sinister then I for one have understood. Obviously, my opinions where that he was just a wise old holy man that wanted the best for all Iraqi with of course emphasise upon his Shia followers. Perhaps it will turn out that he is as guilty as anyone within the clerical establishments in undermining a democratic national government from coming into existence. I fully admit I have argued with those that have not had good opinions of him. And so be it. Let the cards fall where they may.
Many key points made by Mohammed could be disussed in detail , without perhaps reaching a final consensus being reached on any given point.
But clearly unless I missread, he appears to indicate his hope, based on first hand observations and the obviouse status of being a native, that the government at this point are aware that they must band together and put a muzzle on all religious factions, as well as the active militias.
In so doing, they would fulfill what a government is for. And if successfull, further remove a number of terms in the long equation that continue to represent reasons for civil unrest to occure. It always goes back to people of often humble origin being stired up and out of fear of being branded infidels with possible retributions against them, or simply taking the cleric's word as accurate must obey the call to fight or at least participate in angry mob demonstrations.
These clerics across the whole spectrum must along with their militias be made to stop their obviouse antics. The Iraqi constitution has sufficient articles dealing with insurection, sedition, civil unrest etc., to at this point give the government the proper authority to take the required steps to shut this whole mess down.
They really have little option at this point. Their black limos will go up in smoke if they do not act as one.
One thing is I may no longer speak about the need for Sistani to muzzle the fatboy. Perhaps the fatboy is really just carrying out the plan Sistani would have succeed. But I must be carefull. For that is based on the analysis of one Iraqi observing what he believes Sistani's true intentions are. This whole scenario is a like a Duncan yoyo.

Basically, Sistani and Sadr have supported the political process because because it helps them politically to do so. They don't want a fullscale civil war because that would hurt them. However, the Shia clergy is still willing to support violence when it suits their interests.

The militias of the Shia clergy were behind the attacks on the Sunnis in order to put more political pressure on the US to give them more power so they can put in a pro-Iranian Interior and Denfense Minister. Basically, what they are trying to pretend is Iraqi Shia are at wits end and if you don't give us what we want there will be civil war.