Silent Sistani

Newsweek/ MSNBC ^ | September 4, 2006 Issue | Scott Johnson

[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.

[Dawnsblood]

Gwot, Iraq and Sistani were mine. The rest weren't.

[MikefromOhio]

Either that or I wish his men had hit him in the head, not the arm.

Anyway, Sistani did a lot, but the reason it got out of control in the first place was because he was having heart issues and was in the hospital in England.

I honestly DO NOT think Sadr is winning anything in Iraq.

I think this is just more wishful thinking by the MSM. Something to be watched for, for sure, but I don't think reality is playing quite this way yet.

[MikefromOhio]

I know.

It wasn't there when I hit the thread the first time.

[MikefromOhio]

freepmail :)

[okie01]

This whole article was designed to keep up the myth that Iraq is a disaster.

Exactly. This is pure propaganda.

This phrase...

"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..."

...proves the point.

[Stultis]

The problem is that there will be NO stability in Iraq until Iran and Syria are delt with.

Woulda been nice if Olmert had had the brains to attack Syria instead of, or at least in addition to, Lebanon. Woulda had the job half done. (Although granted that Syria is far and away the easier part.)

[Darnright]

>Why I have no clue.<

Sadr is part of the government. His machine won a sizable vote in the elections. He's able to give perks to those loyal to him (better medical treatment, cheaper burials, etc.).

He's probably laying low, biding his time, until the US pulls out. He'll then make his move to take over Iraq, imho.

[Dawnsblood]

I think a lot of the article is bologna, but I have to admit that I have not heard much out of Sistani lately and he is the one that issued the Fatwa at the begining of OIF that told Shi'ia not to oppose us and our allies. If the Shi'ia turn as a whole, life will suck there.

[speekinout]

We were murdering those dumb sonsabiatches by the bushel.

Yeah, you were. And the MSM was only counting the American casualties.

Shame on them, and THANK YOU.

[MikefromOhio]

I should have phrased that differently.

I wasn't in Najaf. However some of the guys I supported were. I was only a contractor and didn't actually get into the fight, I just supported those who did.

[Prokopton]

"The problem is that there will be NO stability in Iraq until Iran and Syria are delt with."

There never has been, and never will be, a "stable" Islamic country unless the stability was forced by a dictator at the point of a gun. Iraq was Sunni against Shiite against Kurd way before the US got there. Iran has been at war with itself throughout it's history. The same with Syria. The same can be said for every country Muslims conquered. The best we can hope for is that they fight each other to the extent we are less of a target. This is happening now in Iraq. The only other alternative is to eliminate all of them, but, with over a billion, no one is seriously proposing this.

There is no reason to believe that any Muslim country will renounce Islam to embrace democracy and individual freedom.
As these concepts are mutually exclusive, we are spinning are wheels attempting to force it upon violent, Islamic Countries. We can destroy much of the war making capabilities that can threaten us, but we can't make a people who believe in the Koran, which demands autocratic rule without individual liberty, freedom loving democrats.

[WOSG]

"If that idiot Al-Sadr really is winning the hearts and minds of the Shi'ia, life is really gonna suck in Iraq"

He's not... political process is now run by the grownups not al-sadr.

[WOSG]

"This whole article was designed to keep up the myth that Iraq is a disaster."

SPOT ON!


sistani is an important and positive element, but Iraq's issues go beyond appeals to calm.
There is a national reconciliation effort going on in Iraq.
It is important. It will be downplayed.

al-sadr is no leader, he's a speed bump to progress.
his militia is about to be defanged in upcoming operations in baghdad.

[WOSG]

"There is no reason to believe that any Muslim country will renounce Islam to embrace democracy and individual freedom."

You have already been proven wrong in your pessimism by the votes Iraqis already took. Yes, the forces of repression are strong, and islam as an ideology is hardly amenable to freedom, yet ... it is happening.

"we can't make a people who believe in the Koran, which demands autocratic rule without individual liberty, freedom loving democrats."

We are learning how many are Islamofascists and how many are patriots for democracy.

277,000 members in the Iraqi Army.
the insurgency? Maybe 5-10% of that.
the voters? 11 million.

I think you are right to criticize Islam wrt democratic compatibility, but are wrong not to recognize the tremendous progress in Iraq, and wrong not to consider that freedom and democracy has universal appeal.

democracy exists in Iraq and didnt before.
Iraq is already the most democratic Arab country in the middle east, and parts of Iraq (ie Kurdish areas) are enjoying both freedom and stability. As Iraq stands up their security forces, that will grow.

[Prokopton]

"You have already been prov wrong in your pessimism by the votes Iraqis already took. Yes, the forces of repression are strong, and islam as an ideology is hardly amenable to freedom, yet ... it is happening."

The so-called palestinians had elections and so does Iran. In fact, Hitler came to power by a democratic election. By themselves, without an underlying philosophy of freedom, elections mean little. The philosophy underlying Iraqi voters is Islam, the antithisis of freedom.

"We are learning how many are Islamofascists and how many are patriots for democracy."

You're "patriots" do not believe in individual freedom, they are Muslim. Fascists easily control those whose "religion" preaches autocratic rule and submission to the Mullahs.

I am obviously proud of the incredible job our armed forces have done in Iraq. I believe they are the finest soldiers in history. Their sacrifices prove they are also among the bravest our Country has to offer. However, they are soldiers, not social workers, political scientists or referees. I am optimistic our brave military will do whatever military mission they are asked to do. I am not optimistic about asking them to do the impossible, non-military job of making those who give allegiance to an anti-freedom murder cult into freedom loving "patriots".

[okie01]

...but I have to admit that I have not heard much out of Sistani lately...

And, if Sistani had anything to say, could you count on the MSM to report it?

Especially if it was supportive of the Bush administration, would you expect the MSM to utter a peep?

[WOSG]

"The so-called palestinians had elections and so does Iran."

I'll grant you Palestine but NOT Iran.

Do you realize that most Iranians do in fact want democracy?
Polling, although illegal in Iran was done on the matter (alcohol is illegal too in Iran, but they are no more dry than Chicago a la 1920s).

The thing is the Iranian mullahs threw out most of the candidates who were running and have created elections that are about as open as the elections in USSR. The theocratic mullahs overrule any act of parliament that they disagree with, making it a facade for tyranny.

Iraq's freedom and democracy is about more than the fact that they have had 3 successful elections last year. They are one of the few multi-party states, and have a more open press than any other country in the region. None of that exists in Iran, but it does in Iraq.

"You're "patriots" do not believe in individual freedom, they are Muslim. "

read and learn about what real Iraqis think. sure, some fit the stereotype you put them in, but most do not:

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

[WOSG]

Here's a comment from one of the Iraqis I speak of ...
I think he believes in Democracy and Freedom more than your average American Democrat, no?

---

Dear Omar and Mohammed

What? An alternative to democracy and freedom? In Iraq?

What for and why?

Let me ask everyone a question?

How many of you has seen the Electrical current at your houses or offices or factories etc.?

Yet when you wish to get into a dark room, you go to look for the light switch. then you turn on, believing the current exists and will travel through the wires conecting the bulbs.

Then the light comes on and you begin to see cleary in the dark space.

That is how democracy is in Iraq today, dormant but we know it is there like the Electrical current.

Another question. when you switch a fan on, the hands of the fan start to rotate and as it rotates faster, you do not see these hands, but you know they are there?

That is what freedom is like in Iraq now. Giving us the free air as it rotates, but we do not see the hands.

Think about it. Dictatorships stink that is when they hit the fan?

The Expert? Well!

X is an unkown factor, and spert is a drip under pressure.

Let him eat cake.

Freedom will prevail in Iraq whether the skeptics and the naysayers like or not.

It took over seventy years to create freedom in Russia, and remove communism for good, how long will it take the Iraqis with the help of their friends?

Can any one please guess?

Kind regards
hameed Abid