Moqtada al-Sadr orders Iraq PM out of Basra

Telegraph UK ^ | 2:53am GMT 27/03/2008 | Damien McElroy, Foreign Affairs Correspondent

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has demanded that the country's prime minister leave Basra where he is overseeing a military operation to purge the southern city of its radical Shi'ite militiamen.

• SAS trooper shot dead in al-Qa'eda raid
• Q&A: Who is Moqtada al-Sadr?

  Relations between Sadr and Nouri al-Maliki have deteriorated sharply as the two men clashed over fighting between Iraqi forces and gunmen in Sadrist communities in Iraq.

  
  An Iraqi man carries the body of his son, who was killed during clashes in Basra, during a funeral, while militia loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr guards a street in the city
  
  

  Mr Maliki gave followers of Sadr and other Shi'ite gunmen 72 hours to surrender their weapons and renounce violence or bear the brunt of a military crackdown.

  "We are not going to chase those who hand over their weapons within 72 hours," said Mr Maliki. "If they do not surrender their arms, the law will follow its course."

  A spokesman for Sadr said his movement had appealed to Mr Maliki to reduce tensions in the city by returning to Baghdad and sending a parliamentary delegation to seek an end to fighting.

  Liwa Sumaysim, a spokesman for Sadr said: "Sadr has asked prime minister Maliki to leave Basra and to send a parliamentary delegation to resolve the crisis in the city."

[Allegra]

I always thought the goal was big contracts for Halliburton and similar companies, and “He tried to kill my Daddy”.

Did you forget the sarcasm tag, I hope?

[maica]

Thanks for posting an article actually written to be informative, such a rare event in journalism these days.

[Yankee]

Sounds like Mookie’s been studying the Berkeley, CA City Council.

[Danae]

He's smoking Opium from Afghanistan, fresh Daily, brought to him from the Taliban.

[txrangerette]

A request...in order to buttress or clarify your historical point, can you NAME the counterinsurgencies that had applied all of the correct elements of modern counterinsurgency warfare strategy, yet failed because they did not kill all of the people involved in the insurgency and move in to occupy their land?

I ask, because unless you CONTROL for those other elements that could have caused a counterinsurgency to fail, and unless you relate it to MODERN counterinsurgency warfare strategy, which General Petraeus wrote the book on, your point won’t win the day with me...and I daresay others.

[Antoninus]

I always thought the goal was big contracts for Halliburton and similar companies, and “He tried to kill my Daddy”.

Time to head to the pharmacy to renew your prescription.

[quant5]

Agreed. This a an imperial army run by Iran directly assaulting U.S. troops and allies. Send 200 cruise missles and destroy Iran’s gasoline refinery. Give them something else to worry about then attacking U.S. troops and allies.

[Mr. Silverback]

We entered this war with the goal of making things better for the people there?

No, we entered this war in accordance with the Bush Doctrine, which stated that we would destroy regimes who continued to harbor, train or fund terrorists. Saddam was doing all three, and that's aside from his laundry list of offensive moves against the United States.

And BTW, if you think that the Iraqi people don't have it better than they did under Saddam, you weren't paying attention pre-war. Your oil price comment also indicates you have no clue in the world why oil prices are high.

[Piquaboy]

He is going to be smoking when they catch up with him.

[cardinal4]

Methinks Sadr has outlived his usefulness. Take him out and the strings being pulled by Iran in Iraq will be cut..

[1035rep]

I don’t think she did. I thought that liberal lie had been shot to hell along time ago.

[LaurenD]

Your question has shows that you did not understand what I said. I don’t know how to be any more clear. Their was a communist uprising in Malaya (a British colony), and the British put down the insurgency. This has been held up as an example of the only successful counter-insurgency in modern times. While THEY DID NOT KILL EVERY LAST PERSON, as in the type of counter-insurgencies of the past, they still used the type of brutality that we could never get away with these days. Such as aggressively putting people in internment camps. Do you see us doing that in Iraq?

This is not complicated like you are trying to make it, I assume to blur the issue. It’s quite straight forward and supports my position that as insurgencies are very hard to put down without the use of the type of brutality we will never use in this day and age. The fact that this is the one example always held up that did work, just adds to the point that counter-insurgencies have historically not worked or been sustainable without extreme measures being taken.

You are quite hung up on the “kill every last person” quote and I simply was explaining the way battles were fought long ago, not advocating that as the solution.

[LaurenD]

What “oil price” comment did I make?

[LaurenD]

I didn’t say it was the only goal, but it certainly is one of the goals and has become the over-riding goal. The war would have been fought completely differently if it weren’t a major goal from the beginning and became a priority. It could have been over by now. We lost a little over 100 lives in the taking of Iraq and 3900 since, all for objectives that are non-military. Even if you discount completely, all of the deaths resulting from the humanitarian missions of this war, even the objective of denying Al Qaeda a stonghold in Iraq is not an objective our military will ever be able to achieve in any sustainable way without bombing strongholds without the regard for collateral damage and that is not going to happen. A temporary decrease in violence during surges......yeah, that is a no brainer.

Iraq has deep rooted tribes and sects that are in opposition to its govt. I always use the gangs in America analogy because I can’t think of another way to explain my point. Imagine if our gangs here in America represented the same percentage of our population as these tribes and sects in Iraq do in Iraq. Can you imagine the tactics our police force and even military would have to resort to, in order to crush them permanently? And that is here in our country with well established law and order, in a civilization where the vast majority of our people do not identify with gang members or are tied to them by any ideology whatsoever. In Iraq, people are tied together by Islam and that is significant. Not to mention all of the other dynamics that make their culture very different than ours.

Which is why this strategy is never going to work. Even if it did, Iraq is one country, among many, in this WOT. This idea of regimes in other countries suddenly giving up all their power they hold over their populations via the use of Islam to control people, because Iraqis are happier, is ridiculous.

I never once said that things are not better for Iraqis than under Sadam. There foundation for law and order however, is still based on Islamic principles. The people did vote for Islamic clerics over a secular govt. I’m sure the women still being subjugated don’t feel like life is much better.

[LaurenD]

Maybe I can just be as clear and brief as I know how to be.

Concerning the WOT, I support the military mission. I do not support the long term strategy for accomplishing that mission.

Think of it this way. In WWll, there came a point where a decision had to be made. We didn’t have to drop 2 nukes. We could have sent ground troops in to fight door to door, while trying to sort out who was the worst of the worst (as we are doing in Iraq). The estimations at the time though had us losing far more lives doing it that way.

In other words, the decision was made to minimize loss of lives on our side, rather than theirs. The argument could be made that conventional bombings were killing more Japanese than the 2 nukes did, but it’s hard to believe that concern for the Japanese over concern for the lives of our military was the motive.

[HKMk23]

WOAH!! Hold the phone; I think you mistake my “tone” as other than it truly is.

Let me clarify:
I want Mookie out of the picture on a permanent basis.
I want Maliki’s efforts as PM to be the cause of this.
I want greater stability in Iraq.
I want that stability to be maintained by Iraqi forces; preferrably civilian Law Enforcement, not the military.

I want all of those things to be reality to a sufficient degree that all of you can declare a SUCCESSFUL end to the United State’s mission in Iraq, and come home victorious.

Be certain of this also: you DO have my greatest respect.

My initial “THEN what?” was not to dis your stated desire that al-Sad’r “get the hell out”; I am, in plain fact, in STRONG agreement with you at that point.

My initial post was simply to highlight my sentiment that THIS time had better not turn out like LAST time; that this go ‘round with Mookie had better drive a stake in his heart once and for all. LAST time there was soft-pedalling, and side-stepping, and the guy was let off to go about his business. I don’t seee any resonable way that that can be allowed to happen again without damage to Maliki’s credibility, and I see no way he could be let go that would not result in another, even uglier confrontation in the future.

He’s an ego with guns and the only way to deal with a guy like that is to pop his balloon; preferrably very publicly, and with a flamethrower, to emphasize the finality of it all.

Now, I’d personally love to have a few of our best go “in the black” and sing Mookie “Silent Night”. But, as much as I’d like for that to happen, I really think this fight has to be won by Maliki’s administration.

Actually, I think the sweetest move would be if Maliki could infiltrate Mookie’s org, take him down, and have it look like an inside job.

Obviously, that’s all wishin’ on a star, and we’ll just have to wait and see how it shakes out in reality, but whatever happens, don’t think for a microsecond that I have any desire for Iraq that doesn’t include you all coming home alive, and leaving a solid Iraqi government in control.

Forty years from now, I want you and everyone else in the world to be able to look at your present work Iraq and say, “That was the catalytic force that enabled Iraq to become the free and prosperpous nation that it now is.”

[Steve_Seattle]

Sadr is in serious need of some “lead poisoning.”

[FreeReign]

Well, al-Maliki is really just a warlord, and not the most powerful warlord out there. The Iraqi state isn't powerful, and he's hardly in control of what there is. The army at al-Maliki's back in al-Basra is composed of several armed militias within the Iraqi Army, some are loyal to al-Maliki's Dawa Party and others (such as the Badrists) have formed a marriage of convenience for the purpose of reducing al-Sadr's power. al-Sadr is considerably weaker than he has been, certainly, but he's still the single most powerful and influential figure in Iraq

What a load of wrong information.

[Candor7]

but he's still the single most powerful and influential figure in Iraq >>>>>>>>>>

Thats true if you pray towards Mecca 5 times a day, and shiver in the dark from fear of the bandits hired to keep the people DOWN. But the fact is that Iraqis, while remaining Muslim, are far more interested in freedom and a consumer based economy now, then they are in Minerets and Mullahs. And so they want to be rid of the traditionalists like Mookie.

If Mookie does not high tail it back to Tehran, they will send his dead body home in a match box, after giving him an overdue enema, and then his shia-it will fertilize the fields of Basra for years to come.

Mookie loses this one so bad that all thats going to be left of him are leg hairs.

[Candor7]

(FYI, back in the '60s, when the USAF announced the availability of the USAF Small Arms Markmanship Ribbon, there were three names on the very first orders cut awarding it on Yokota AFB, Japan. My name was one of those three -- and I did it with a M2 .30 carbine...)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Belated Congrats! I admire fine shooting anywhere, (but you diod it with iron sights!)