Posted on 08/27/2006 7:24:35 PM PDT by Dawnsblood
For months, calming statements from the ayatollah held Shiites back from retaliating for killings by Sunni insurgents. But three years of insurgency, sectarian tensions and miserable living conditions have shrunk the space for temperance and given extremists plenty of room to operate. "[Sistani] doesn't have the same degree of influence," says Joost Hilterman, director of the International Crisis Group's Iraq program, based in Jordan. "He may be saying the same things, but fewer people are listening to him." As much as anything, the battle now is about which voices will shape the future of Iraq. Not too long ago Sistani would have won that contest hands down. When Moqtada al-Sadr, the young radical Shiite leader, laid siege to the Imam Ali shrine and fought U.S. Marines to a standstill in Najaf in the summer and fall of 2004, Sistani put an end to the insurrection in a matter of days upon his return from London, where he was receiving medical treatment. He successfully lobbied to hold elections on an Iraqi timetable and convinced U.S. officials of the need for a referendum on the Iraqi constitution. Sistani's calls for unity after bombings of Shiite shrines worked for a remarkably long time.
But last February, when terrorists struck one of the most important sites in Shia Islam, the Askariya shrine in Samarra, it unleashed a wave of bloodshed that even Sistani couldn't control. "I reiterate my appeal to realize the magnitude of the danger threatening the future of [our] country," he said after the Samarra bombing. Since then the violence has only gotten worse, and Sistani has retreated further into his inner sanctum.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
I call total bull****. The US military crushed the Najaf rebels.
...al Sadr..."fought the US Marines to a standstill".....Did that really happen? My selective memory recalls that the politicos put a restraint on the Marines and they stood outside al Sadr's territory looking on for the most part.
Comments?
vaudine
The problem is that there will be NO stability in Iraq until Iran and Syria are delt with.
WE have to destroy the Jaish Al Madhi and we have to comfront the Mullas in Iran.
This adminstration is wasting time with the UN. Iran will continue to cause trouble in the world unless WE, not the UN, deals with them. It's that simple.
I find it very... interesting... that the radicals seem to have a much easier time winning 'hearts and minds' of muslims, while far more prominent and respected voices of reason keep loosing influence.
Yes. Al Sadr can do what the hell he wants to. He gives sermons every friday. There is an unspoken cease fire with him.
Why I have no clue.
This whole article was designed to keep up the myth that Iraq is a disaster.
Barret M107 rounds for misters Al-Sadr and Hassani.
No no no. The problem was that the Najaf revolt took place the same time as the first battle of Fallujah. Najaf took precedence and the Marines basically had to "stand outside looking on" at Fallujah. They devoted their full attention to Najaf and annihilated Sadr's army there.
The main reason Sadr was relatively quiet until this year was that he lost so many men at Najaf.
It is appeasement. Political correctness. Wimpness. Too many libs at home. Vietnam syndrome.
If the cameras got perfect cues of this terrorist's mug, should be an easy sight for a sniper, better yet a laser-guided bomb and take out out the whole cabal.
Look how Israel just caved, perfect example.
Oh! OK..they got his men but let him go, right? That was wrong, and so was standing outside Fallujah--they should have pulled a German Panzer maneuver--let the bulldozers roll with the marines right behind to mop up the varmints as they scurried.
vaudine
I don't think Iraq is a disaster. However, the hour of decison for this adminstration on Iran is growing nearer. Come January 20th, 2009 the war on terror is over. Regardless who is elected in November of 2008, with the exception of maybe 3.
Once those troops leave Iraq, they are not going back.
If the Al madhi army is not destroyed, it will make it more difficult to secure the country.
Yes the Al Madhi army was responsible in killing Al Qaeda terrorist, but the time is no to destroy Sadr and his army.
I think we need to finish them off once for all.
I'm honestly not sure what following Sadr even has these days.
Most Iraqis aren't stupid. A lot of them have probably realized by now that you hang with Sadr you're going to end up dead at some point.
If he had a massive following, I'd imagine Iraq would truly be in a civil war by now.
Again I will defer to someone with boots on the ground.
ok which loser put "bushdisaster" on the keywords?
The US military crushed the Najaf rebels.
Why would you take stock in ANY story coming from Newsweek, Time, or any of the news weeklies? They WANT to put the worst face on Iraq because they hope it will make the President and his Administration look bad.
I understand that we put a royal beatdown on the Madhi army there, but Sistani has mostly calmed the Sh'ia down as Sadr tried to do the opposite. If Sadr is now winning the religous arguement there, we need to know that. That said, I really wish we would have dealt with Al Sadr when we had the chance.
Wasn't I. I think Iraq is a success, but we got to take care of Iran before it's too late.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.