BBC: Iraqi leader warns Sadr movement

BBC ^ | Monday, 7 April 2008 16:41 UK | BBC Staff

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Iraqi leader warns Sadr movement

Shia Iraqis have marched in support of Moqtada Sadr

Iraq's prime minister has threatened to exclude the supporters of radical cleric Moqtada Sadr from politics.

Nouri Maliki told CNN that the cleric's movement would not be allowed to take part in elections unless it disbanded its militia, the Mehdi Army.

The prime minister and major Iraqi parties had already called for militias to be dissolved as the government waged a security campaign against the groups.

But it was the first time that Mr Maliki had singled out the Mehdi Army.

Aides to Moqtada Sadr on Monday said he would disband the militia if senior Shia religious leaders ordered him to do so.

They said a delegation would be sent to discuss the issue with the top Shia cleric in Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, and a grand ayatollah based in Iran.

Growing confrontation

In his interview, Mr Maliki said: "A decision was taken... that they no longer have a right to participate in the political process or take part in the upcoming elections unless they end the Mehdi Army.

"Solving the problem comes in no other way than dissolving the Mehdi Army."

	We have opened the door for confrontation, a real confrontation with these gangs Nouri Maliki, Iraqi prime minister

The provincial elections are scheduled for later this year.

Mr Maliki took power with the help of Moqtada Sadr, but broke with the cleric last year.

The BBC's Adam Brookes in Baghdad says the confrontation between the two men is growing.

Two weeks ago the prime minister sent thousands of troops into the city of Basra to try to force the Mehdi Army into submission.

The militia withdrew from the streets, but the operation was inconclusive.

Mr Maliki said the government would continue the crackdown. "We have opened the door for confrontation, a real confrontation with these gangs, and we will not stop until we are in full control of these areas," he said.

An MP for the Sadr bloc, Liqaa Aal Yassin, told the BBC Arabic service that two delegations would be sent - to Grand Ayatollah Sistani in Najaf and Grand Ayatollah Kazem al-Husseini al-Haeri in Iran - to discuss the possible disbanding of the Mehdi Army.

Ms Yassin said the government was also sending a delegation to Moqtada Sadr to discuss Mr Maliki's demand.

Mr Maliki's comments came after heavy fighting between US and Iraqi forces and the Mehdi Army at the weekend.

At least 22 people were killed and more than 50 others injured in clashes in the capital's eastern district of Sadr City, a stronghold of the militia.

Five US soldiers were killed, including three who died during rocket and mortar attacks in Baghdad.

Two of those died in attacks on the heavily-fortified Green Zone.

Moqtada Sadr has called for a mass demonstration on Wednesday against the US military presence.

[Boblo]

Do you think for a minute if the was a group called the New Republican Army which had been fighting US troops in New York and San Francisco and inflicting casualties that they would be allowed to field a candidate for President or maybe some Senators? Come on, they would cease to exist in a flash.

[Straight Vermonter]

They may be arrested or even killed but they would not and can not be kept from running for office.

[SunkenCiv]

Iraq’s Sadr to disband Mehdi Army if clerics order (Cover for Surrender)
Reuters | April 7 2008 | Reuters
Posted on 04/07/2008 6:42:53 AM PDT by jveritas
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1997884/posts

Iraq: Sadr Party Faces Rising Isolation
AP via ABC News | Apr 6, 2008 | HAMZA HENDAWI and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA
Posted on 04/06/2008 2:49:46 PM PDT by james500
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1997666/posts

Iraq Hearings: The Execrable Speaker Pelosi
North Star Writers Group | April 7, 2008 | David Karki
Posted on 04/07/2008 5:26:57 AM PDT by Invisigoth
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1997859/posts

Bush a Convert to Nation Building
The Washington Times | Apr 7, 2008 | David R. Sands
Posted on 04/06/2008 10:04:05 PM PDT by kellynla
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1997796/posts

Why Iraq Matters
National Review | April 7, 2008 | Frederick W. Kagan
Posted on 04/07/2008 7:57:18 AM PDT by moderatewolverine
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1997910/posts

[cameraeye]

Ok. (I have a towel on my head). Now, mookie you go get the boys and tell them to stop that fighting. I’m getting mad now and you are an idiot. There, now he can stop, right?

[Owl558]

“However, when the current government gets to decide who the “valid” candidates are there is no longer a democracy. What Maliki is talking about is the politics of Iran, Egypt and Saddam’s Iraq.”

I suppose you must also include countries like Germany, Italy, France, the US, and S. Korea as being non-democratic as these countries have either banned or continue to ban violent political parties.

Your belief that to be democratic, a country MUST allow guerillas and terrorists to field candidates for president and Congress is interesting, to say the least.

By your criteria, the Southern States representitives should have remained in the US Congress and allowed to exercise a veto over Lincoln’s war declaration, war-spending, draft bills, and Emancipation Proclamation right?

Same with British sympathisers in our revolution too?

[Straight Vermonter]

Other than the representatives from states that seceded can you tell me who has been banned from politics in the US?

[Mr_Tiki]

This is not a good thing. The Iraqi government should not be excluding people from government

Actually it wasn't the Iraqi government who decided on this, but the Iraqi Security Council (a constitutional body representing the Iraqi parliament) which met last Saturday and decided on excluding the militias. My concern is whether the executive under Maliki is really capable of cleaning those thugs from the streets.

[Owl558]

“Other than the representatives from states that seceded can you tell me who has been banned from politics in the US?”

You’re asking, “Besides the people who were banned, can you name someone who was banned?”

This is a diversion from my question:

Considering that the US constitution was not subjected to a popular referendum like the Lisbon Treaty, and was approved by elected parliments at the state-level like the Lisbon Treaty (except in Ireland); do you also consider the US constitution to be a totalitarian document like you consider the Lisbon Treaty to be? Why or why not?

[Straight Vermonter]

You really can’t see the difference between someone who voluntarily withdraws from government, ie seceeds, and someone who is banned? The southerners who still considered themselves Americans (Andrew Johnson is most notable) stayed in congress.

As for your comments about the Lisbon Treaty you are being ridiculous. It has nothing to do with political parties being banned.

I have to admit I am a bit surprised that people on FR are defending this action.

[kinghorse]

Co-option seems to work pretty well in the countries you mention. Economic and political co-option is the solution It worked with the Sunnis but then they are an easier nut to crack than these Shia druids. When I read the blogs from guys like Totten it’s like this culture is unapproachable. But all you can try to do is coopt these people with things and a voice. To exclude will only perpetuate violence.

[Straight Vermonter]

Actually it wasn't the Iraqi government who decided on this, but the Iraqi Security Council...

I was responding to the article, which said it was Maliki's threat to the Sadrists. I'm not sure it makes a real difference though. Banning political parties is not the way to build democracy in a country with no tradition of democracy.

As I said previously, I have no problem with going after armed groups. Trying to keep people from competing in the arena of ideas is another issue.

Sometimes groups seem very strong and then get little support in an election and people find they are really a paper tiger. This was the case 2 months ago in Pakistan where the radical Islamic parties got trounced, even in the tribal areas.

[Straight Vermonter]

It worked with the Sunnis but then they are an easier nut to crack than these Shia druids.

A year ago everyone said the Shia were the cooperative ones. Remember when the Sunnis in Anbar were hanging Americans from bridges while the Shias were forming a government?

The Iraqi government is now demonstrating that they will not tolerate militias of any stripe. It is important to remember that this is essentially a Shia vs Shia fight. That is a big development for Iraq.

[kinghorse]

To take the other side, you Vermont guys kill me. You are the staunchest of liberty lovers, guns owners, the whole nine yards. Here’s where you fall off the cart. Vermont represents, population-wise, a very narrow experience of existence. You have almost -0- non-white people living in your state. That can make for a very utopian outlook on life. It’s not a racist statement. It’s simply stating the complication of race and culture really doesn’t matter in day to day of life for a Vermonter. And this argument in Iraq, while not racial is certainly based on culture. It’s like saying castillians and tories always got along. Clearly they did not. They killed the crap out of each other vying for dominance over Western Europe. They ended up making borders to keep each other separated and Ireland kind of took the worst of it from both. So to say these ancient people should just jump right past the fight for your borders step and go straight to the political is asking a lot. Personally I think the Iraqis appear to be doing miraculous things considering where they were.

[kinghorse]

that was 3-4 years ago. A year ago we were 100% focused on the nationalists, the sunnis. Just like in the Philippines, we took on the strongest group first before turning our attentions to the really tough nut, the Moros in the Philippines and the Shias in the ME. We had the christian connection with the Manila nationalists (who were still a determined enemy like the Iraqis Sunnis were) and used that to convince them to turn their guns on the muslims in the south. It’s the same deal in Iraq except we have really taking the political cake by getting the Sunnis to accept Al Maliki a technocrat Shia as their nominal leader. We are doing a good job over there I am telling you.

[kinghorse]

when I say strongest, I mean the group that managed the country, the magistrate class. That was the christians who patronized the Spanish in the Philippines. Clearly the US has entre with many influential Sunnis in the ME and we have used that connection to settle down the sunni tribes in Iraq. In Iraq those tribes historically were the ruling class, the manager class. We took them down first before going on to fight the true believers, Moros in the Philippines and Shias in Iraq. Pershing got really rough with the Moros, not the Christians in and around Manila.

[Straight Vermonter]

I think the Iraqis appear to be doing miraculous things considering where they were.

I think they are doing great things as well. That is why I don't want them taking a step backwards.

BTW, I work for IBM where the workforce is largely Asian and increasingly African. It's not like I live on a dairy farm.

[txhurl]

There are 270! parties in Iraq as opposed to our 4 or 5, some of which are being whittled out when they misbehave.

You can’t compare the two systems.

[Straight Vermonter]

I’m not sure the Sunnis are happy about Maliki as their leader. Their former “ally” AQI turned out to be a disaster. They realize they are the minority now and the Kurds and Shia have all of the oil. If they didn’t swing a deal with the Americans they would be left to the whim of the Shias. Better to be in the system than at the mercy of it.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From the HotAir Blog:

Sadr’s political universe continues to shrink

**********************EXCERPT*************************

posted at 9:00 am on April 7, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Moqtada al-Sadr has found himself increasingly isolated in Iraqi political circles.  Once considered a kingmaker when Nouri al-Maliki ascended to the Prime Minister post, he has managed to bring unity to the various sectarian factions in Iraq in a unique manner.  He has everyone looking to kick him and his Mahdis out of the next election:

Iraq’s major Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish parties have closed ranks to force anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to disband his Mahdi Army militia or leave politics, lawmakers and officials involved in the effort said Sunday.

Such a bold move risks a violent backlash by al-Sadr’s Shiite militia. But if it succeeds it could cause a major realignment of Iraq’s political landscape.

The first step will be adding language to a draft election bill banning parties that operate militias from fielding candidates in provincial balloting this fall, the officials and lawmakers said. The government intends to send the draft to parliament within days and hopes to win approval within weeks.

“We, the Sadrists, are in a predicament,” lawmaker Hassan al-Rubaie said Sunday. “Even the blocs that had in the past supported us are now against us and we cannot stop them from taking action against us in parliament.”

The move against Sadr in Basra clearly had a lot more support from Iraqis than previously thought.  Even Shi’ites have had enough of the militia leader and want to see security and control managed from the elected government.  The military phase was only the start; the political phase has just begun.  And this time, unlike in 2004, the central government has increased the stakes.  They now demand that Sadr disband the Mahdi Army entirely, not just stand them down.

[Straight Vermonter]

I’m not comparing them but I think both should be free. Iran has a lot of political parties. When the government doesn’t like a party they are banned. Are their elections free? Egypt has banned the LARGEST party in the country. Are their elections free?

Would you be ok with the green party or libertarian party being banned?