Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiBAGHDAD - Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr called on Thursday for 1 million Iraqis to march against U.S. "occupation" next week after his Mehdi Army militia battled U.S. and government troops.
The government said it would not attempt to block the march if it was peaceful although Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who ordered a crackdown on militia in the southern city of Basra last week, threatened more strikes against Sadr's strongholds.
A statement released by Sadr's office in the holy city of Najaf called on Iraqis of all sects to descend on the southern city, site of annual Shi'ite pilgrimages that attract hundreds of thousands of worshippers.
"The time has come to express your rejections and raise your voices loud against the unjust occupier and enemy of nations and humanity, and against the horrible massacres committed by the occupier against our honorable people," it said.
The demonstration, called for the fifth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad on Wednesday, raises the prospect of unrest coinciding with a politically sensitive progress report to Congress by the top U.S. officials in Iraq.
"If his intention is to get a whole lot of people together and go and make trouble in Najaf, I don't think that is going to be very popular," U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker told a briefing.
U.S. forces called in helicopter strikes during a clash with suspected Sadr gunmen on Thursday in the city of Hilla and bombed a house in Basra overnight, after days of relative calm that followed a truce Sadr announced on Sunday.
The truce ended six days of fighting that spread through southern Iraq and Baghdad.
Officially, the Iraqi government is sanguine about the march. Interior Ministry spokesman Major-General Abdul-Karim Khalaf told Reuters: "The right to hold a peaceful demonstration and express opinions is guaranteed by the constitution, and we don't mind as long as the demonstration is peaceful."
But Maliki has been uncompromising toward the Sadrists, fellow Shi'ites who helped install him in power in 2006 but broke with the government last year.
The prime minister told reporters the Basra crackdown could be repeated elsewhere, listing the Shula and Sadr City districts, Sadr strongholds in the capital.
"Basra was a prisoner and now it has been freed," Maliki said. "Other cities need the same battle, and also Baghdad in areas where people are still in the hands of these gangsters."
A senior member of Sadr's bloc in parliament said the prime minister "must stop playing with fire, or the Sadr bloc and the Mehdi Army are ready for this battle, a crucial battle".
"The prime minister is trying to escalate the situation, and the brothers from the Sadr bloc are calling for calm," Sadrist lawmaker Bahaa al-Araji told a news conference.
MOBILISATION
Sadr has millions of followers and was able to summon tens of thousands of people on to the streets in Baghdad for demonstrations during last week's fighting. A march to Najaf would potentially mobilize swathes of Shi'ite Iraq.
The cleric also called for a "peaceful sit-in" in Baghdad on Friday to protest against bombings, arrests and vehicle bans that continue to seal off parts of the capital.
Police sources in the Shi'ite city of Hilla said five people were killed in Thursday's predawn clash and helicopter strike, including four policemen. U.S. forces said the clash erupted when gunmen fired on them as they attempted an arrest.
A U.S. military spokesman said an air strike in Basra killed "one enemy" late on Wednesday.
Reuters television pictures showed a woman's body in the rubble and rescue workers searching for more dead. Police sources said at least three people had died including a mother, father and son, and three were seriously wounded.
Last week's violence exposed a deep rift within Iraq's majority Shi'ite community and served as a reminder of the instability after months of security improvements.
Hundreds died, making March the deadliest month for Iraqi civilians since last August, according to government figures.
Nevertheless, the chairman of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, said Washington would not alter plans to withdraw about 20,000 troops by the end of July.
Crocker and General David Petraeus, the top U.S. civilian and military officials in Iraq, are due to report to Congress next week and are expected to recommend a pause in withdrawals after July to safeguard the past year's improvements.
Additional reporting by Khaled Farhan in Najaf, Aseel Kami, Dean Yates, Khalid Al-Ansary and Waleed Ibrahim in Baghdad, and Aref Mohammed in Basra; Editing by Robert Woodward
© 2008 Reuters
92 Comments so far
Show All"but be prepared to defend those resources to the death in the future."
anti-
One question : Were you , are you or will you ever be an enlisted person who will actually be required to accomplish your intentions above ? If not , your entire , collective post is detached and irrelevant hot-air.
Okay article for Reuters, but I sure hope Moqtada al-Sadr's doing as said; therefore, not complicit in crimes or any violence against innocent Sunni Iraqis and, other Iraqis who are neither Shi'ite nor Sunni, nor Muslim. As long as he abides by this rule, then I'm fully for him and the Mehdi winning.
That is my only concern with respect to al-Sadr and the Mehdi. They must not be against other innocent Iraqis. Otherwise, I'd have to be against al-Sadr and the Mehdi. SVP, NOT!
Anyone harming innocents is my enemy. Plain and simple! Sure it's not necessarily easy to deal with, but it's still my view; do not target innocents! NEVER!
Meanwhile, we need a People's Army in the USA. Might be interesting "spice".
The world of islam must now decide whether to wallow in a medieval form of religion that warms the heart with hatred of others,and whose greatest strength lies in its ability to shift blame, or to make the far more difficult choice of attempting to build tolerant, more equitable, open and honest societies.
Most Islamic states will make the wrong choice, and they will continue to pay for it by continuing to crumble into irrelevance. America and its allies can only play at the sideline and to think otherwise is arrogant and naive. The followers of Islam must decide for themselves of adherence to a mythologized past or embracing a challenging future.
Corruption and hypocrisy may me elements of the human condition, but Arab elites have developed them to a superhuman extreme. If they could they would steal the air and charge the poor for breathing it. The little guy hasn't got a chance in the middle east, and America should always be on the side of the little guy. Instead we give Arab fat cats license to kill, steal and betray us. Yes we want that twenty year old terrorist dead or imprisoned. But we are naive and self defeating if we simply continue to pick off terrorists one's and two's, or even in the hundreds, without recognizing that the very people we embrace have created the environment in which terrorism thrives. And those same pals have done their best to deflect the blame on us. We have consistently tolerated or supported those who said the right things to us, who signed oil contracts, who promised to keep things quiet and who made a mockery of every value our nation professes. Our reward? Terror.
But the truth is we should be astonished by how little Anti-American terrorism, given how long, how dishonestly, and how virulently our supposed friends preached their theology of blame to local audiences. Our willingness to trust those who pick up the dinner tab in Riyadh or Washington has been a bi-partisan sin and national disgrace. Hillary Clinton embraced madame Arafat and Pakistanis peerlessly corrupt benazir Bhutto. Both presidents bush refused to acknowledge the vicious strategic agenda of the Saudi royal family. But we will never achieve an enduring strategic victory until we recognize how cheaply democrats, republicans and corporate America has sold out to those who damn us from their pulpits behind our backs, insisting that the only hope for islam is to destroy Israel and America.
Why isn't there a serious bi-partisan outcry to expose Saudi misdeeds? Because both parties are horrified at the thought of Saudis revealing sweetheart deals, the retainers for nothing, the inflated contracts, and the appalling shabbiness of politicians, businessmen, and lobbyists willing to look the other way from human suffering, injustice, and the deepest roots of terror in exchange for a game of tennis with Prince Bandar. We have unleashed a great wave of change in the middle east. But we will never make decisive progress against terror until we address the underlying causes and stop supporting the smiling thieves who rob their own people than ask us out to lunch. For all the blood on his hands Osama Bin Laden has a higher ethical standard than our "friends".
The U.S. invasion and subsequent occupation are what is causing the civil war in Iraq, yet war-mongering American leaders like Hillary Clinton leave the solution to the victims -- the Iraqis -- as though it's all their fault. Are the U.S. leaders really so uninformed or just don't care and are playing dumb?
Anti-Marx - "I think the world without Iran (in its present incarnation) would be a better place overall"
I can't really believe you are serious, saying this, but feel that you are trying to shock, or be contentious for the hell of it.
Just to let you know, Iran is a country of 70 million people, and they have never invaded anyone in recent history. Their leader (who I do not agree with) never threatened to destroy Israel.
I have relations in Iran, and they go about their business much as we do in the West. I could make comments like - I would like to see the US nuked, or I hope every coalition soldier is killed - but I don't.
The reason why I don't say these things, is because I don't hate nations or communities as a whole, I despise politicians and administrations who are evil, and I do hate nationalistic interventionism, which has been the cause of many of the World's problems, for as long as history has existed.
"This guy can't call for peaceful protests and sit-ins out of one side of his mouth, while screaming for war out of the other."
Yes you can.
Both are tactics to be used as the situation and conditions dictate.
In general, the practice of NV tactics as principle only work well if you can get a sympathitic media and hence, you got public opinion on you side, and shame (the most powerful of human emotions) on your enemy. But this side of the Gandhian equation doesn't exist anymore. The media is now much more sopisticzted in it's memory-holing and consent mauufacturing machinery. Technology and organizational structures enables your enemy to kill without ever being near you. So, what's the point of nonviolent protest? - you might ss well hold the protest 5 km down in an abandoned mine under the deserts of Namimbia.
Nate W,
In what facts do you base your assertion that Al-Sadr is a "creep". If your country was suffering through a brutal occupation, wouldn't you support the resistance?
Or do you hate Muslims just because they are "different"?
Don't feed the troll!
This guy can't call for peaceful protests and sit-ins out of one side of his mouth, while screaming for war out of the other.
As with the rest of this country's media, CD is now under TPTB. This is my final post. God speed to us all, as this is the end of America.
Jon Stewart nailed this the other night. Bu$h the inferior announces that the increase in violence shows the desperation of the terrorists. (Shotgun Dick's dead enders in the last throes) If the violence is down for some short time it shows the success of the surge. etc. etc.
It's all good.
This is in agreement with the whole non-reality based view of the world. It explains how there was a rush to change the politics of Louisiana after Katrina, but no effort to help people even though failure to respond to emergencies is a black eye on the US throughout the world and shows total incompetence to all of the citizens. Be prepared, as long as these people and their supporters and political cronies exist, we will hear how everything they did was noble, good, and right and that anything that is reported as bad is spin or the result of being prevented from succeeding by the hate America crowd.
Newspeak Dictionary Gets New Entry
Hate is Love
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Cease Fire is Victory
Thanks to Dahr Jamail we now know that when our captive corporate media says cease fire it means a complete Donnybrook has occurred.
Sounds like General Motors will be happy with the outcome. They will have to produce and be paid for an entire new set of Humvees for the Iraqi army since they gave the last set to Muktada's forces last week. Doubly good because now that Muktada has all those heavy weapons even more will be destroyed, increasing GM's sales and improving the profits of the Halliburton subsidiaries shipping the war material in and out of the Middle East.
No wonder Bush is declaring this fiasco a huge success!
anti_Marx: you spelled 'Auntie' wrong. My friend's Aunt likes to smoke cigars and 'talk tough' about foreign policy, too. You go girl.
racom40: I agree. I could see a massacre of 40,000 Sadrists explained away as 'someone threw a bottle at the Supreme Doublegood Defense Forces of the Beloved Iraqi Homeland, we had to defend ourselves'.
That would be funny if Iran invaded Iraq to save the Sadrists. The incompetent Bush Administration needs about 6 months to plan a 'cake walk', I'd like to see them respond to chaos not of their making. 'Holy Shit ! Rockets just killed 2,000 American troops ! How are we going to explain this away on Fox News this Sunday ?'
I bet they would show *those* caskets on TV, prime time, with their own Special TV Logo, and a Three Hour National Mourning Ceremony. "We will choose a time and place to respond to this outrageous attack on our beloved Servicemen and Women, and when... what ? Pakistan is attacking now too ? 10,000 Americans dead ? And Saudi Arabia and Turkey are attacking too ? Oh shit ! It's too soon in the Election schedule ! Karl, quick, what do I do to save November for McSame ?"
Interesting that Yahoo News referred to Sadr's calls for end of the U.S. occupation as end to "occupation" - in other words Sadr just thinks it's an occupation (we the U.S. don't and even feel some contempt that someone who actually lives in the country being occupied would make such an assertion).
I wanted to shout, when I read Yahoo, "It IS an occupation!". I mean, how does anyone, any journalist, any thinking human being, get around that? We occuped their country. State it like it is and deal with it.
The popular media in this country just disgusts me.
Auntie Marks is kinda funny. At least folks can feed the trolls in safety here, not like on the Blue Pill Media sites where you can't tell the trolls from the plants without a programme.
"Anti-Marx...Matti, marinating in the same political juice day in and day out is nothing short of masturbatory. A little disagreement is good for a person's mental development, and who knows, one or both of us might learn something."
Okay, I'll take the bait....kind of like listening to Rush and Fox News day in and day out. I "get your act" I do the same, left wing troll on the mega/ultra "patriot" right wing nut web sites, "support the troops, bring 'em one, insurgency on the last throes, end of major combat operations...." it's old, it's boring, it's so McCain and fortunately it's going to be over. Not too many drink the kool aid anymore and many realize they've been bamboozled but too ashamed to admit it. Take a look, how many W04 stickers and bright shiny yellow jingoist car stickers do you see? Not too many.
-
AM, you've rec'd the responses you wanted, display your smug ignorance along with usual right wing GOP arrogance, doesn't matter. You and your kind have been wrong about 911 and the Iraq War/Occupation since day one...nothing but lying pigs and the public trough.
If they do have a march, it will probably be ignored by the media, the way they ignored those of us who protest marched before the invasion started. Most people won't even know about it. Or they will give equal time to a group of about 10 counter protestors.
ANTI-MARX: A lot of support for this war has come from the Evangelical community. These are persons who espouse a faith in Christ, who was a teacher of peace, an advocate for turning the other cheek. You speak of revenge as some high motive, and it reminds me of a callous wild animal tamer throwing some fresh meat to the pack. Is that the consciousness you see fitting for America? Based on this is the loose use of the word "enemy." A lot of posters on this site, myself among them, believe 911 was likely an inside job, a planned Pearl Harbor-like event as the neo-cons desired not only complete power over this nation, a feat done by breaking down the intended checks and balances imparted to three co-equal branches of government, but also through outright imperialistic motives in their "Project for a New American Century."
Ideas like enemy and vengeance breed contempt among persons. From a spiritual perspective, to promote militarism as a means for our nation to secure the assets that viably and justly belong to others consigns you a very low perspective on the yardstick of karma. Advocating--taking by force--what is not yours is a spiritual sin.
Bush had the balls you say? (to undermine the ideals of the UN) BALLS? In this corner we think of him as a chimp with the moral equivalent of a shark, and the intellect of a half-wit. I am glad I believe in karma, because persons like him will pay over MANY lifetimes for taking the lives of one million persons (Iraq) and leaving behind depleted uranium to ensure cancer and disease in many more. And you say he has balls... nice compliment. Not.
Anti-Marx---I cannot take you seriously. You bray like Eeyore---are you a troll or just addicted to attention? If I took your assertions seriously, I would question your humanity...but I suspect you just hope to stir folks up on this site.
I wouldn't dignify your bizzare statements with any counter- arguments. I am surprised so many take them seriously.
If you are serious, you are so lopsidedly egoic that you have lost all sense of connection to the earth and the rest of humanity. If so, I have a great deal of compassion for your level of unconsciouness. Life must be hellish for you. I pray, truly, that you are bored and like provoking people. Sad...
I think the idea of the Iraqi people nonviolently standing up to the American Freedom Bringers is a riot.
What with the Americans arming and funding the old Saddamists, the Shiites and Al Qaeda in Iraq units, the people couldn't do much worse. Maybe after the Americans leave they could have food, safe hospitals, and steady electricity in the outrageous desert summers.
They had better be smart enough to carry their weapons, I wouldn't trust Maliki to not go after them if they are defenseless. More and more, living under Maliki is like living under bush!
If only Rumsfeld was still Sec. of Defense. I could see it now, him standing at the podium gesturing with his claws of mass destruction while pronouncing, "People!! People!! You are seeing this all wrong! This is a sign that the surge is working and our efforts in Iraq have all been successful. I mean who could have imagined just five years after the Coalition of the Willing stood up to Saddam Hussain and his brutal dictatorship, that we could expect to see one million people marching peacfully in the streets of Najaf?!" At which point drool would begin to drip from my mouth, my eyeballs roll in the back of my head, and chills run up my spine as I get down on my knees and thank the God of Shrubya that our misson has been accomplished and I am saferer.
Maybe they will give Al Sadr a free speech zone.
There must be some retainer or handyman
or sitter at the Bush house in Kennebunkport. Please tell W to withdraw
every American from Iraq by midnight tomorrow. I send this message to you since
I know he hasn't figured out how to use the internet yet.
anti marx-- "I believe some enemy bloodshed was a good thing"
DUH --there WAS no enemy in Iraq in 2001. Bush/Cheney made it up and you and your ilk fell for it.
Matti, marinating in the same political juice day in and day out is nothing short of masturbatory. A little disagreement is good for a person's mental development, and who knows, one or both of us might learn something.
yes, I find it sad and disheartening that I cannot loudly call for marches world wide in solidarity with Al-Sadr -- not because I would like to "live in his world", certainly I am not part of his culture -- but to march for the right of Iraqi self-determination ... Iraq for the Iraqis ...
We need to get out -- all the way out -- and rely on the international community and the regional community to find a sustainable "peace"...
The puppet "democracy" we installed and bless is very much part of the problem ... .new elections, provincial and national, are essential ..
I believe in democracy ... America has set back the international "cause" of democracy in so many placed in the last decade by "blessing", certifying, demanding international recognition for election processes that are a travesty of the term, democracy ...
DEMOCRACY demands a free press, basic literacy, and some degree of personal security. More media, more education and more personal autonomy is always good. Democracy is mocked with votes are bought or the free press, exchange of ideas, freedom to assemble are trampled on.
WTF, I acknowledge that you are correct within the rubric of international law. However, I am speaking from a point of view that is very skeptical, if not dismissive of international law.
I believe first and foremost in nationalism and national sovereignty, and in military alliances secondly. I favor a pre-WWI approach to politics and world affairs (sorry, but too complicated a topic to explain here).
However, I also believe that if we proclaim ourselves to abide by and be defenders of human liberty and the premises of the Geneva Convention, then we are only asking for trouble if we contradict ourselves and display hypocrisy.
I find refreshing the fact that in an era of that world-homogenizing bane of the 20th and 21st century, the United Nations, sticking its nose into the business of what should be sovereign nations, someone like Bush had the balls to act unilaterally. However, just because I admire his courage does not mean that I necessarily approve of his methods.
Anyway, that being said, I do not agree with your viewpoint from my own perspective, but I do agree with you from an objective standpoint, within the prevailing rubric of international law and the Geneva Convention.
A Sad day for CommonDreams.
A flippin' REUTERS article for a lead, AND people actively feeding trolls.
I think the world without Iran (in its present incarnation) would be a better place overall, but with an unsecured Iraq on our hands, how are we going to be able to handle Iran as well? They actually pose a viable military threat if attacked, unlike Saddam's former rabble.
To be fair, Iran's leader M.A. (I know his name but do not want to spell it incorrectly) has called for the destruction of Israel before. Them's fightin' words, if ever there were any.
Whatever happens, get in shape and get your bike tires inflated, as gas will likely go through not only the ceiling, but the roof and the stratosphere as well.
anti-Marx wrote: The fact that our troops are there against the wishes of many people does not change the fact that they have the right to defend themselves if attacked.
You write well and I enjoy your posts, but without qualification, you end up opening more cans of worms that you expect.
Consider the above quoted statement. This is wrong. US soldiers in Iraq as a part of an illegal occupational force have no rights other than what is accorded them by the Geneva Convention. If they defend themselves, then that is a crime punishable under Iraqi law (whatever that means given Paul Bremer's illegal granting of immunity).
Israel's Zionist want the Unites States Military to attack Iran in May........They are formulating trouble in Iraq, that they will blame on Iran.
Expect a blood-bath in Baghdad and Anwar. .Look for the oil pipelines to be blown in a dozen different locales. .And guerrilla ambushes on all roads and highways.
Headlines will scream that Iran is the cause of all the death and devastation.....Let loose the Dogs of War on Iran.
IMPEACH both BUSH and CHENEY before its too late !!!!!!!!!!!
Grayling, are you not an American?
jlocke123,
I do not support a future war with China. What I meant was that China, as an emerging superpower, will likely be our chief competitor for resources in the future. And as much as you may disagree with the policies of this administration, I think that you would likely agree that a China on the prowl for oil in the future is a much greater liability to the world than the U.S. is. Every nation has its history of human rights abuse, but China has made an unapologetic art of it that the U.S. would be hard-pressed to compete with. I may be wrong - it's just a vibe I get - but I believe war with China is coming, and not a war of our own making.
Also, there is something to be said for wanting what is best for your own country. I would love to live in a world where there will always be enough to go around for everyone. I hope that that someday occurs. However, in the future, if there is a shortage of resources - if there absolutely is not enough to go around, then as an American, I want that shortage to be on someone else's soil, not mine. That is a function, like it or not, of primal instinct, of Nature, whose laws may be disregarded but can not be broken.
That being said, we should secure our resources now in as peaceful a manner as possible, but be prepared to defend those resources to the death in the future.
While I am rambling here, here is an example of globalism biting us on the *ss. The West and its greedy investors are largely responsible for promoting development in the Third World, and in doing so, have engineered a demand for resources that previously did not exist in those regions. I love my country nonetheless, and I believe our first duty is to our nation, but our nation is relatively young in this world, and its leaders fail all too often to project far into the future, as the millenia-old China does.
"Anti-marx, You sound coherent but your thesis that we went to Iraq to "draw in" Al Qaeda is well, a crock of shit. Al Qaeda was a thinly disguised excuse for going into Iraq, which they longed to do even before 9/11. Read Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies" for a concise history of how the emphasis shifted from punishing Al Qaeda within days after 9/11; and then remember GWB's famous "I just don't think about him that much anymore". It was NEVER about getting a "pound of flesh" even if some Americans wanted that. We didn't just draw them in, we created them where none had been."
Hamster, I agree that that is not why we went there, but I believe some enemy bloodshed was a good thing. The problem for me is how long this has taken, and how our administration botched it all to hell. I was happy to see Saddam hanging. I was happy to see that regime end. But if we in fact went into Iraq in large part to secure oil, the least we could have done was do it quickly and efficiently so as not to prolong the conflict. War is by its nature inhumane; the less we prolong a war, the less inhumane it tends to be, in my opinion.
I don't know what's going on with Common Dreams, but my last post was at 6:18 - not 5:18.
NMBill April 3rd, 2008 11:44 am
"The last one was peaceful and included a mix of Sunni and Shiite.
I'm telling you these people will get along if we get out!"
I agree. Let's get out of there - NOW!
David Grayling. April 3rd, 2008 4:46 pm ,,Count me in..when do we start?! THERE IS NO OTHER RECOURSE.
Green Zone Defeat? 'Handed Over' to a Government Called Sadr
Occupation forces no longer control the Green Zone
by Ali al-Fadhily and Dahr Jamail
Global Research, April 2, 2008
Inter Press Service
BAGHDAD, Apr 2 (IPS) - Despite the huge media campaign led by U.S. officials and a complicit corporate-controlled media to convince the world of U.S. success in Iraq, emerging facts on the ground show massive failure.
The date March 25 of this year will be remembered as the day of truth through five years of occupation.
"Mehdi army militias controlled all Shia and mixed parts of Baghdad in no time," a Baghdad police colonel, speaking on condition of anonymity, told IPS. "Iraqi army and police forces as well as Badr and Dawa militias suddenly disappeared from the streets, leaving their armoured vehicles for Mehdi militiamen to drive around in joyful convoys that toured many parts of Baghdad before taking them to their stronghold of Sadr City in the east of Baghdad."
The police colonel was speaking of the recent clashes between members of the Shia Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army, the largest militia in the country, and members of the Iraqi government forces, that are widely known to comprise members of a rival Shia militia, the Badr Organisation.
Dozens of militiamen from both sides were killed in clashes that broke out in Baghdad, Basra, Kut, Samawa, Hilla and most of the Iraqi Shia southern provinces between the Mehdi Army and other militias supported by the U.S., Iran and the Iraqi government.
The Badr Organisation militia is headed by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, who is also head of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) that dominates the government. The Dawa Party is headed by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
The number of civilians killed and injured in the clashes is still unknown. Iraqi government offices continue to keep largely silent about the events.
"Every resident of Basra knew the situation would explode any minute between these oil thieves, and that Basra would suffer another wave of militia war," Salman Kathum, a doctor and former resident of Basra who fled for Baghdad last month told IPS.
For months now there has been a struggle between the Sadr Movement, the SIIC, and the al-Fadhila Party for control of the south, and particularly Basra.
Falah Shenshal, an MP allied to al-Sadr, told al-Jazeera Mar. 26 that al-Maliki was targeting political opponents. "They say they target outlaw gangs, but why do they start with the areas where the sons of the Sadr movement are located? This is a political battle...for the political interests of one party (al-Maliki's Dawa party) because the local elections are coming soon (due later this year)."
The fighting came just as the U.S. military announced the death of their 4,000th soldier in Iraq, and on the heels of a carefully crafted PR campaign designed to show that the "surge" of U.S. troops in Iraq has successfully improved the situation on the ground.
"I wonder what lies General David Petraeus (the U.S. forces commander in Iraq) will fabricate this time," Malek Shakir, a journalist in Baghdad told IPS. "The 25th March events revealed the true failure of the U.S. occupation project in Iraq. More complications are expected in the coming days."
Maliki has himself been in Basra to lead a surge against Mehdi Army militias while the U.S. sent forces to surround Sadr City in an attempt to support their Badr and Dawa allies.
News of limited clashes and air strikes have come from Sadr City, with unofficial reports of many casualties amongst civilians. Curfew in many parts of Baghdad and in four southern provinces had made life difficult already.
"This failure takes Iraq to point zero and even worse," Brigadier-General Kathum Alwan of the Iraqi army told IPS in Baghdad. "We must admit that the formation of our forces was wrong, as we saw how our officers deserted their posts, leaving their vehicles for militias."
Alwan added, "Not a single unit of our army and police stood for their duty in Baghdad, leaving us wondering what to do. Most of the officers who left their posts were members of Badr brigades and the Dawa Party, who should have been most faithful to Maliki's government."
The Green Zone of Baghdad where the U.S. embassy and the Iraqi government and parliament buildings are located, was hit by missiles. General Petraeus appeared at a press conference to accuse Iran of being behind the shelling of the zone that is supposed to be the safest area in Iraq. At least one U.S. citizen was killed in the attacks, and two others were injured.
"The Green Zone looked deserted as most U.S. and Iraqi personnel were ordered to take shelter deep underground," an engineer who works for a foreign company in the zone told IPS. "It seemed that this area too was under curfew. No place in Iraq is safe any more."
Further complicating matters for the occupiers of Iraq, the U.S.-backed Awakening groups, largely comprised of former resistance fighters, are now going on strike to demand overdue payment from the U.S. military.
Ali, IPS correspondent in Baghdad, works in close collaboration with Dahr Jamail, our U.S.-based specialist writer on Iraq who has reported extensively from Iraq and the Middle East
anti_Marx April 3rd, 2008 4:24 pm:
- "If America does not secure resources for itself, other superpowers (namely China) will. I see a war with China in our future for this very reason."
This is the zero sum game your leader is currently playing, anti_Marx. Good luck with that war with China.
- "The more a nation acquires, the more it will be envied and hated by others."
This, psychologists would say, is "transference" or the projecting upon others your own negative feelings.
- "But if being in Iraq draws members of AQ into our gunsights (as it has), then we are getting our revenge."
Perhaps someone with more time could explain that "al-queda in iraq" has nothing to do with the "al-queda" that smashed the twin towers in New York. Al-queda are either dead or safe and sound in Pakistan/Afghanistan.
- "As long as America remains strong"
Ay, there's the rub.
And I call for a six billion strong march by the citizens of the world against escalating American Imperialism and military brutality.
I call for a boycott by six billion people against all American products.
I call for all governments of the world to boycott America and American politicians, to cut off all links with the White House and the Pentagon.
It's time the world moved against America otherwise we'll have no world left.
www.dangerouscreation.com
Anti-marx, You sound coherent but your thesis that we went to Iraq to "draw in" Al Qaeda is well, a crock of shit. Al Qaeda was a thinly disguised excuse for going into Iraq, which they longed to do even before 9/11. Read Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies" for a concise history of how the emphasis shifted from punishing Al Qaeda within days after 9/11; and then remember GWB's famous "I just don't think about him that much anymore". It was NEVER about getting a "pound of flesh" even if some Americans wanted that. We didn't just draw them in, we created them where none had been.
I may not completely agree with you, but this is a riot! lol
"BushCheneyathal-Man see oil, BushCheneyathal-Man want oil, BushCheneyathal-Man take oil errrrrr!"
"Hey anti-marx- We could have bought all the oil we wanted from Iraq for less than the cost of the war. But you would prefer to steal it. How's that workin' out?"
Well, hamster, I mentioned later on that I would never have supported a war solely on the basis of gathering oil. The problem is one can only be so coherent in these forums, so I guess I left some things out.
What I mean to say is that the American people wanted revenge - they wanted blood for what was done on 9/11. And those who did were right to want this. But because we were attacked by an organization that knows no country, we had to draw them to us in order to kill them.
Now, I do believe that this war is largely about oil, but I also believe that the government saw an opportunity to accomplish two simultaneous goals - securing a Middle East foothold, and giving the American people their "pound of flesh." I won't claim that our reasons to going to war were entirely pure, and now with 4000 of our guys dead I do want it to end. But the fact is, revenge was needed, and it seemed like a good time to gain a foothold in the M.E.
Terry B - Your numbers are inaccurate by about 1,000%. Also consider how many of those innocent people were killed by roadside bombs planted by insurgents.
The fact that our troops are there against the wishes of many people does not change the fact that they have the right to defend themselves if attacked. The blood of civilians is on the hands of everyone involved - not just the U.S.
Ok, first Garvey: I believe that you are absolutely right - if a nation secures resources aggressively, then it will become a target for other nations. But the sad truth is that war has almost always been about resources, and I fear it always will. Perhaps the wars of the future will be all the more savage as the world grows (sadly) more interconnected. If America does not secure resources for itself, other superpowers (namely China) will. I see a war with China in our future for this very reason.
The more a nation acquires, the more it will be envied and hated by others. That is where the military comes in, of course. I believe that now, more than ever, we should be strengthening and unifying our country from within for this very reason. But I also believe that we should be selective in our leveraging of strength, because we do not want to earn any more enmity than is necessary.
We will never be attacked by 5.7 billion people so long as we are selective in our sabre-rattling. I personally prefer peace. Had we never been attacked on 9/11, I would never support a war of aggression. I do, however believe in retaliatory warfare. Unfortunately, Al Qaeda is an organization, not a nation that we can simply bomb into the stone age. Sadly, however, we are limited to a kind of "proxy war" in a nation that did not attack us. But if being in Iraq draws members of AQ into our gunsights (as it has), then we are getting our revenge.
As long as America remains strong, there will be incentive for other nations to ally with us if we treat our allies well.
The illegal US occupation of Iraq is a bonanza without end for hundreds of thousands of US military industrial complex employees and their millions of dependents, and tens of millions more in secondary services. New SUVs for the whole family! Flip those burgers and feed those bombmakers! Look out - million man march could break the pipeline! Cut the news feed!
Hey anti-marx- We could have bought all the oil we wanted from Iraq for less than the cost of the war. But you would prefer to steal it. How's that workin' out?
This just came in over the news wire:
- Scientists have discovered a previously unknown species of homo genus, the prehistoric "BushCheneyathal-Man". When defrosted in the microwave, its first words were:
"BushCheneyathal-Man see oil, BushCheneyathal-Man want oil, BushCheneyathal-Man take oil errrrrr!"
I thought we all agreed a long time ago that the market determines who gets the oil.
anti-Marx, There are over a million innocent men, women, and CHILDREN, who are now dead because of this illegal invasion, and occupation. I hope someday, this minor detail, has at least a modicum of effect on your conscience.
Or are you really that cold?
And even if every American worked at securing the nation from attack, it could not defend the country's borders from, say 5.7 Billion people.
The problem with that sort of (il)logic, Anti_Marx, is that if one country feels justified in waging war for natural resources, then it should expect to become the target of other nations once it secures those resources.
In other words, "chickens will come home to roost".
Anti_Marx,
How are you with the way we were led into war?
"Anti_Marx,
How are you with the way we were led into war?"
Could you be more specific? I assume you mean being deceived, so...
In a perfect world, the leaders of nations would not need to mislead their citizens. However, due to the sensitive nature of matters such as war, it is unfortunately a necessity to utilize propaganda, especially in a country so politically divided as ours. I do not enjoy being lied to - I feel it insults my intelligence and breeds distrust - but I can understand the reasons for doing so.
Again, in a perfect world, Bush could have whipped up the American mood into a desire for revenge for the 9/11 attacks. I would rather have seen him play a little more to emotions and perhaps a little less to reason (i.e., the supposed WMDs being stashed in Iraq).
Bottom line is, if you are going to wage an aggressive or retaliatory war, you need to be able to stand behind your decision, and never apologize for it. Instead of BSing about the search for WMDs, or Iraqi democracy, talk about how many insurgents and Al-Qaeda operatives we have killed. Many Americans wanted blood after 9/11, and Bush failed to capitalize on that need.
Well, Claudius, what I should have clarified was that I am against the war NOW, because I am wearied by the casualties and the monetary cost, but that I am fine with the original intent of the war if the goal was to secure oil. Unfortunately, the war has taken too long, and I am just anxious for it to be over.
But listening to the Great Unwashed shouting "No Blood for Oil," well, obviously they do not understand just how important oil is to our economy. Yes, we made the mistake of leaning to heavily upon it, but that is a burden which our country must bear until we develop more viable energy sources.
What? You mean we aren't being greeted with flowers?
The danger presented by Sadr is that he threatens to defeat the divide and control strategy by unifying Iraqis against all foreign intervention: the U.S., Al Qaeda (sp?), etc. Sadr follows a strong family tradition in this regard. His grandfather fought British occupation; his father was killed for his opposition to Saddam. So, in opposing the Sadrists, Bush is killing the very people that we "liberated." It was Bush's father who encouraged the Sadrists and other Shia, as well as the Kurds, to revolt in '91 before selling them out to death by Saddam. Now, the Kurds too, are being sold out again at the hands of our NATO friends, the Turks.
I learned the above on John McCain's website.(a belated April fool's)
Standard monopoly media operating procedure for covering rallies they don't agree with is to ignore the tens of thousands (or millions) of peaceful marchers (along with what their message is) and focus on the 20 people causing violence or disruption - even though those 20 people are often not affiliated with or supported by the rest of the marchers.
The Seattle march against the undemocratic practices of the WTO was mislabled as an "anti-globalization" movement even though most of the marchers were part of a global movement that wants a more democratic and humane form of globalization. The image I rember most was not the tens of thousands of marchers, but the repeated film loop of a few young teenagers throwing rocks at a window.
15 million people marched before Bush's war and occupation in Iraq, but the media only got excited when one of the floats was set on fire.
It is time for the monopoly media to be replaced completely by the more democratic internet.
"I personally am against the war" and later "I do believe that this war is largely about oil, and I am fine with that as long as we win quickly and efficiently."
Enough said.
Why are we supporting Maliki and his Supreme Council allies who want to have the Shiite south break away from the rest of Iraq?
Oh yeah, the imperial strategy of divide and conquer.
This will give them a taste of, for the people, of the people, and by the people.
A meaningless exercise, that will fall on deaf ears.
Awwww, poor little liberal babies have diaper rash. Poooooor baby.
Watching all of you libs parading around in your red diapers for the past several years has given me much to think about.
I personally am against the war, but only because it is putting us in debt up to our eyeballs. That money could be used to put more police on the streets, to prevent illegal aliens from coming in, and to strengthen our military. Instead we are pouring it into an effort that seems futile.
I do believe that this war is largely about oil, and I am fine with that, as long as we win quickly and efficiently. Having a strategic foothold in the oil-rich Middle East is a good move. But it should not take this long. Obviously our military is not being forceful enough.
Some may be correct - we often provide provocateurs to start trouble, then hammer the peaceful protesters. This time, it will backfire. Most of the Middle East, even many in the nations who are our so-called allies, will blow the doors off this occupation if Maliki or the US attacks such a demonstration. Wanna see the Shiite (various sects), Sunnis and Kurds unite - just blow away a couple thousand of them at one time - then we'll see how long it takes Bushie to declare 'mission accomplished.'
NMBill,
"I'm telling you these people will get along if we get out!"
I agree completely. The analogy I use is, imagine a brutal foreign occupation of the US where, people begin to notice that the occupier puts only Catholics in the traitor-puppet government. You can be sure that US cities would quickly fill with sectarian strife far worse than Derry in the worst of the Troubles.
So this call for a massive anti-occuaption protest - something all Iraqis can agree on, is a good move on his part.
Yes, I aggree that Reuters efectively calling it the "so-called occupation" is pretty irritating. But the fact is must USAns have trouble with the concept of the US occupying a nation, since they tend to think we already own the whole world.
What is truly ironic is that without the actions of Dubya, Cheney, & Co., Sadr would merely be the wayward son of a famous imam who was murdered by Saddam's government. The Iraq fiasco has given this creep a platform to power and prominence he would have never achieved before "Mission Accomplished." A picture of Sadr can placed in the encyclopedia next to the article about the Law of Unintended Consequences.
maybe the problem is that the administration has trouble using words properly. "If his intention is to get a whole lot of people together and go and make trouble in Najaf, I don't think that is going to be very popular," U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker told a briefing.
When you get a whole lot of people together, it is by definition popular.
WTF,
I agree. Bring the man here to organize. But I doubt George the Inferior will give up.
I, too, predict trouble. The U.S. will blame it on someone else and more Iraqis will die. But if there is a march here at the same time (when exactly is this scheduled?) I would definitely be there. Actually, the 4th of July should be a travel day, and the 5th of July we should all march with our upside-down American flags waving.
sadr has shown that he prefers peace to war by reeling in his forces. al-maliki and bush state that they are not going after sadr when they go after basra. sadr states that there will be a million man march to get the occupiers out of iraq. crocker's reaction to the idea is that these little iraqis are only capable of disruption and want to do it on a larger scale as though they are soccer thugs from england. wouldn't the mutual power involved in an alliance of al maliki's government and al sadr's popular uprising point to a breach in the wall of stalemate? if we get out of iraq like sadr says we should wouldn't there be enough rational power in iraq to take care of the likes of al qaeda? no one would have anyone to fight anymore. as it stands now the iraqi people keep in the memory the thousands and thousands who have died deaths related to our occupation. there is real hatred there. we really are the ones in the way here. may sadr's march open america's eyes to this fact after its being blinded for so long by the notion that we would be welcomed with flowers like the sixties love-child Richard Cheney suggested.
Oh, it sounds impressive-- but once they funnel that million into Free Speech Zones in the middle of nowhere, they won't get any attention at all.
NOT a good idea...Sadr will get one million Iraq's together in one place, then Maliki will get the US to blow them all up
Bill BRG -
You forgot Petraeus' favorite lie: the march is being organized by Iran.
jj
If his intention is to get a whole lot of people together and go and make trouble in Najaf, I don't think that is going to be very popular," U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker told a briefing.
Quote from article.
Weellllllll ! This beats the Beijing Olympics ! Ha ! Ha ! Ha ! Ha ! This is sung to the chunts of Tibet Tibet. You Americans really crack me up ! This American ambassador Crocker is truely a clown of the first order, He makes jokes in the face of a million man march.
Tibet belongs to the People's Republic of China AND THE RIOTING & KILLING OF HAN CHINESE WAS ACTIIVELY ORGANISED BY THE CIA. Hey ! Yankee it is not true that the Iraqis ask for the Americans to stay. The Iraqis want the Americans out, so this demonstration is proof that there is no pretext left for the Yanks to pretend that their stooge Al Malaki represents the wishes of the people of Iraq.
Yes ! USA remember, what you said to China by your Henry Paulson, NEGOTIATE WITH AL SADR AND DO NOT USE FORCE ! Right ? The peoples of the world must demonstrate our commitment to peace in Iraq by calling for the USA to do the right thing, GET THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ.
WHAT TO DO WITH THE AMERICAN BIGGEST EMBASSY BUILDING IN THE WORLD; TURN IT INTO A BASKETBALL STADIUM !
Good for Sadr, 1 million strong, get the US out of there!
Maybe the media will cover the event like they cover Tibet.
The corporate mega-media will determine the "success or failure" of the demonstration on their terms. Just like here in America.
The best coverage of large demonstrations is on Youtube shot by people there.
...that's how I followed the G-8 conference demonstrations.
If al-Sadr achieves his million-man march, we should bring him to the US to organize one here.
An opportunity for Cheney.
All the dead enders in one place.
Cheney: the American WMD.
"If his intention is to get a whole lot of people together and go and make trouble in Najaf, I don't think that is going to be very popular," U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker told a briefing.
________________________
This kind of statement and the mentality behind it explain why most Iraqis think it's cool to shoot Americans. Americans have become very popular in Iraq, at least for purposes of target practice.
It is not news that Iraqi's are overwhelmingly opposed to the occupation, but it will be interesting to see how this is going to (not) be covered in the corporate media.
why is the word OCCUPATION in quotes in the first paragraph?
- "If his intention is to get a whole lot of people together and go and make trouble in Najaf, I don't think that is going to be very popular," U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker told a briefing.
- Sadr has millions of followers and was able to summon tens of thousands of people on to the streets in Baghdad for demonstrations during last week's fighting. A march to Najaf would potentially mobilize swathes of Shi'ite Iraq.
Ryan Crocker, is this the stupidest man in Iraq? Ryan, I know you are a stud as far a Maliki's secretary in the Green Zone is concerned but Sadr getting millions of people together is the definition of popular.
The last one was peaceful and included a mix of Sunni and Shiite.
I'm telling you these people will get along if we get out!
A million Muslims is about 5% of what we have left of the Iraqi population. Suppose 5% of the U.S. population had a peace march.
Large rallies against the occupation and the groups that organize then within the popular resistance are rarely covered in the US corporate media which has become inseparable from Army Psy Ops and the NSA. That they happen isn't all that unusual though a rally that large would be hard to ignore. I don't know that Sadr has the popular backing to pull it off as he is a divisive figure.
Those who march will be lucky if they only get tasered.
They`d better do it quick, while there are still a million Iraqis alive with enough limbs intact to march.
let's hope they have more success than in the u.s. and elsewhere with their demonstration...............