Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiSadr To Disarm If US Withdraws On Timetable
BAGHDAD - Influential Iraqi Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr would dissolve his Mehdi Army militia if the United States started withdrawing troops according to a set timetable, a spokesman said.
The comments come at a crucial point in talks between Baghdad and Washington over a new security pact that will provide a legal basis for U.S. troops to operate in Iraq when a United Nations mandate expires at the end of the year.
U.S. President George W. Bush has refused to set a firm timetable for withdrawing 144,000 American troops from Iraq, but spoke last month of a general "time horizon" for a pullout.
Iraqi negotiators have proposed that U.S. combat troops leave the country by October 2010, although Washington has not yet agreed to it, a senior Iraqi official said on Friday.
If agreed, the timetable would mean the Bush administration effectively adopting a schedule very close to that proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who opposed the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
A ceasefire imposed by Sadr on his militia a year ago has been a major factor in a drop in violence to four-year lows. Sadr, whose political movement controls 10 percent of seats in parliament, has long demanded U.S. troops leave Iraq.
"We feel there's a serious intention by the American forces for a withdrawal timetable at the very least," Sadr's spokesman Salah al-Ubaidi said before Friday prayers, when the cleric launched a new cultural wing of his movement.
"It should not be considered an end to the Mehdi army, but it's a halfway step to dissolving the Mehdi Army. If the U.S. began to implement a withdrawal timetable we shall complete the path to dissolution," Ubaidi said.
Mehdi Army street commanders in the Sadr City district of Baghdad welcomed the formation of the cultural arm.
"It is a good step to repair our mistakes, especially sectarianism and sectarian killings. We are very sorry about these sectarian killings, because some parties supported this violence for their own advantage," said commander Abu Sadeq.
The U.S. embassy in Baghdad said in a statement that all illegal armed elements in Iraq must disband to put an end to violence and it called on Sadr "to renounce violence and participate peacefully in the Iraqi political process."
TIME HORIZONS
Iraqi government officials say an agreement is close on a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal. But the White House says it is too soon to say when it can pull out its forces.
The issue is politically sensitive in the United States ahead of the presidential election in November. Obama has pledged to withdraw all combat troops by mid-2010, while his Republican opponent John McCain refuses to set a date.
The Iraqi proposal would see U.S. forces withdraw from the streets of Iraqi cities by the middle of next year and combat troops return home by October 2010. Some American support units could stay on for another few years, the senior official said.
"As of last night (the schedule) was one of the issues being discussed between the two sides. There is no agreement yet, but this is what the Iraqis are asking for," said the official, who is close to the negotiations.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, in Beijing accompanying Bush, said no announcement on an agreement was imminent and it was too early to discuss pullout dates. She cited Bush's earlier statement that any such goals would be "conditions-based."
Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations, Hamid Bayati, said on Thursday an agreement on the U.S. forces' status was close and that the government expected to put it to parliamentarians when they return from summer recess in September.
Sadr's Mehdi Army launched two uprisings against U.S. forces in 2004. He backed Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's rise to power in 2006 but split with him last year over the timetable issue.
This year Maliki, a Shi'ite, launched several largely successful crackdowns against militias including the Mehdi Army.
U.S. and Iraqi forces have now deployed in Sadr's Baghdad stronghold, the Sadr City slum, after weeks of heavy fighting in March and April. Prior to the campaign, government influence in among the slum's 2 million people was virtually nil.
Iraqi forces also successfully pushed militias from the centre of the southern city of Basra earlier this year.
Sadr's spokesman said while the "resistance" would not end until U.S. troops left Iraq, the cleric was ready to take positive steps if Washington moved in the right direction.
"If we find (this does not happen) and the U.S. forces change their stance over the timetable, we can change direction also," he said. "This will not mean ending the ceasefire, it will depend on what's going on on the ground."
Additional reporting by Peter Graff, Mohammed Abbas, Waleed Ibrahim, Aws Qusay in Baghdad, Matt Spetalnick in Beijing, Megan Davies in New York and Mariam Karouny in London
Writing by David Clarke, editing by Samia Nakhoul
© 2008 Reuters
Leila Fadel writes about the status-of-forces agreement for McClatchy.
21 Comments so far
Show AllAdjunctS August 12th, 2008 1:26 pm
I do hope (for as an agnostic I do not pray), for your family and your brother in laws that he is one of the moslems who treat large sections of the Koran as many Christians treat large sections of the old testament of the Bible: they dismiss them as "historical" and not relevant to modern life, see below for the majority who do not treat the Qur'an as "historical" but rather this is what allah demands and this is what we must do. Though there are no direct statements in the qur'an or by mohammed on the subject one can and as shown many have taken inference in some of mohammed's statements in the hadiths as sanctioning honor killings.
'Honor' killing comes to the US
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/08/10/honor_killing_comes_to_th...
AdjunctS August 11th, 2008 4:20 pm
I just happen to come back here and saw your post,
"If I have one challenge to you, then it is of your stated attempt to give an "Islamic point of view." I think that you will have to specify which "Islamic point of view" you seek to represent, because there are apparently many interpretations and I suspect debates and competing perspectives within those interpretations."
You have no idea how correct you are. Just like in Christianity there are numerous sects all who pray to the same god but in slightly different ways.
Okay, so one wants to understand these Muslims. Which form of Islam should one study? Sunni Islam? Then what about Shiite Islam (which is quite different from Sunni Islam)? What about the different schools of jurisprudence within Sunni Islam? What about the various movements therein: the modernist movement, the Salafi movement (which includes the Wahhabi and Deobandi groups), the Ahmadi movements (whom most Muslims declare to be non-Muslim), the various militant movements? What about local forms of Islam that mix elements of the old religion with Islam? What about Sufis, both the ones popular in the West (considered heterodox by most Muslims, that means most moslems consider them to be apostates) and those popular amongst Muslims (but would seem to Westerners to be intolerant and too inflexible)?
Then obviously issues of major concern would be related to law, the form of states (government), and jihad. Each has a plethora of theories, practices, movements, ideologies, paradigms, groups, propaganda, and interpretations.
See, part of this has to do with the Salafis' efforts to establish the narrative that there is one Islam (which happens to be their type). Other groups do not challenge this because doing so would reveal to the world that Islam is fractured, which would desecrate Islam and its image before the infidels. Plus, some agree with the Salafis and are ashamed of their internal divisions. (Or they agree with the Salafis because the Salafis expertly justify their every belief and practice using the standard sources of Islam.)
In any case, "understanding" Islam is far more difficult than some may think.
"... perhaps without intending – to rely on bigoted stereotypes: Moslems as blood thirsty fanatics." "... my black brother-in-law, a convert to Islam, calls up after 9/11 to reassure that Islam is a peaceful religion." He may truly believe it is BUT,
Here we come to the contradiction that lies at the heart of Islam: if the religion of the Prophet is so true, so perfect, so exactly right for the human race, why is force necessary to install it and maintain it?
http://tinyurl.com/3c4z6o
About 67% of the Koran of Mecca deals with punishing unbelievers for merely disagreeing with Mohammed. Over 50% of the Koran of Medina deals with hypocrites and jihad against unbelievers. Nearly 75% of the Sira deals with jihad. About 20% of the Hadith by Bukhari is about jihad. The majority of the doctrine is political and it is all violent.
If you read the above url remember it was written by a non moslem and even though all of the sayings are correct some of the explanations are the writers concepts on islam, not that they are wrong but I find them to be be a little off the mark sometimes.
To say there are bloody and terrible sayings in the bible is a bit disingenuous, the old testament is the history of the jews a bloody time in history but remember Jericho was destroyed only once, the god of the jews did not say ALWAYS destroy Jericho. READ sura 9:5 in the qur'an then get your black brother-in-law to explain it. The new testament is the testament of christ a peaceful man, Islam is the testament of mohammed a very violent man.
"Moslems as blood thirsty fanatics."
I know you will say christians have killed many people in the name of christ, BUT the bible of christ did not give them the authority to do it. The qur'an gives moslems the authority to kill apostates and non believers. High on the list to be killed are polytheists, and Hindus are polytheists, thus in the moslem conquest of India (depending on the information you read) between 45 and 60 million Hindus were put to the sword, that comes under the heading of blood thirsty fanatics as far as I am concerned.
True just as not all christians are willing to blow up a planned parenthood office, but when one is blown up not many christians cry about it. Not all Muslims blow up trains and busses but when a moslem does and non believers are killed not many moslems cry over it. It is historically undeniable that Islam was spread by the point of the sword. A peaceful religion is not ordered to be spread by the point of a sword.
Wolf, lapaz, and riddimboy,
I know I'm coming two days late to this debate, but I'll leave my two cents anyway.
I'll start out admitting my ignorance.
But Wolf, your posts seemed – perhaps without intending – to rely on bigoted stereotypes: Moslems as blood thirsty fanatics. Your posts do not fit with my admittedly limited understanding of the few Moslems and Arabs I know. Most Americans get their personal contact with Islam through contact with black Americans – my black brother-in-law, a convert to Islam, calls up after 9/11 to reassure that Islam is a peaceful religion. Probably most Americans know that Islam even exists in the U.S. through black sports stars: e.g. Mohammed Ali.
Wolf, I understand that you feel very strongly about what you are writing. I appreciate personal experience and the authority that personal experience brings.
However, if your audience does not understand you, and says that they do not understand what you are arguing, you need to take some responsibility for that. If you just want to vent, then people will ignore you – or you will attract those who are also only interested in venting. You cannot simply call people morons or infantile and expect to get anywhere. Lapaz makes the point of separating your viewpoint, and you as a person. You need to do this.
If I have one challenge to you, then it is of your stated attempt to give an "Islamic point of view." I think that you will have to specify which "Islamic point of view" you seek to represent, because there are apparently many interpretations and I suspect debates and competing perspectives within those interpretations.
"Arent the Wahhabists influenced by the Deobandhi school of thought ?"
NO not really. Wahhabism is an austere form of Islam that insists on a literal interpretation of the Koran. Strict Wahhabis believe that all those who don't practice their form of Islam are heathens and enemies and are to be killed.
True, Deobandi interpretation of Islamic teachings is widely practiced in Pakistan.
The Deobandi interpretation holds that a Muslim's first loyalty is to his religion and only then to the country of which he is a citizen or a resident; 2) that Muslims recognise only the religious frontiers of their Ummah and not the national frontiers; 3) that they have a sacred right and obligation to go to any country to wage jihad to protect the Muslims of that country. That's why so many Pakistanis went to Afghanistan to fight the US.
Deobandi share the Taliban's restrictive view of women, and regard Pakistan's minority Shiia as non-Muslim. And it's always open season on apostates and non muslims.
The majority of the Islamic population (Sunni) in Afghanistan and Pakistan, belong to the Hanafi sect, these theologians have pushed Pakistan towards Islamic Radicalism for decades, and these were the ones who were the founders of the Taliban which espoused most Wahabi rhetoric and ideals. BUT the Wahhabi worldview increasingly co-opted the Deobandi movement in Pakistan and India. The Wahabi and Deobandi movements though similar in some respects are kind of like protestants and orthodox christians, not really a good example but the best I can think of right now.
Just like in Christianity there are numerous sects all who pray to the same god but in slightly different ways. In Islam even though Islam would like the west to think there is sunni islam the true islam and shia and all the other smaller sects which are to the sunni apostates, when you start digging down Islam is like a fractured glass. This is one of the reasons I left, just like in the christian and jewish religion there is so much bs that you must have faith and believe in when you know much of it is impossible. When you compare the lives of Buddha, Confucius (Kong Fuzi) and Christ with mohammed there is no way I could believe in Islam.
If you read the constitution of Iraq (and Afghanistan) it says in the very beginning words to the effect that no law shall be made that goes against sharia law (this means there is NO true democracy in either country). Sharia law is religious law (Islam is a for lack of a better term a political religion). In a democracy people (or their representatives) make the law, you can call this the law of man that the people follow (some in government don't think they have to). Sharia law is theocratic made up by religious people who understand the Quran and the hadith and believe that sharia (Islamic law) expresses the highest and best goals for all societies. It is the will of Allah. LOL. Now my point, in Afghanistan a man Raman.. something or other, a year or so ago read the Afghan constitution and believed that it said ALL religions would be treated fairly and the qur'an says there is no compulsion in religion, so he admitted he had converted to christianity several years ago. The result was in almost all the papers and news shows, this Raman guy barely got out of Afghanistan with his head on his shoulders and is a marked man to this day. Why, because "according to the statement of Allah's Apostle (Mohammed), 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"
There will be a theocracy in Iraq similar to Iran, al-Sadr is a fast learner, how soon after the US leaves Iraq (and whenever that is, is not soon enough) I don't know, (unless al-Sadr is killed but I have my doubts that will happen). On the surface the Iraqis and Iranians don't really like one another, Iraq is arab, Iran is Persian but that doesn't mean they will not work together. Will the shia exact retribution on the sunni, the shia have long, long, long memories. al-Sadr will undoubtedly kill quit a few but there are a lot of sunni and he may just settle for ethnic cleansing. The Turks, they may also look upon an independent Kurdistan as a way to ethnically cleanse their Kurdish population and force them into the new Kurdistan. The Kurdish peshmerga is a formable force, the Turks could beat them but I doubt they would be willing to accept the losses. My first post was basically a worst case scenario. If I was not an agnostic I would pray it would not happen.
lapaz -- ""Saddam didn't slaughter people who challenged his religious views, wolfy. He killed his political opponents."
wolf -- "Saddam was not what one would call religious, he almost never went to a mosque unless it benefitted him in some way and surprise many of his political opponents were shia clerics."
Talk about reading comprehension. Unless im google-eyed both these statements confirm that Saddam wasnt religious, so i dont get wolfs main grouse.
"4, I am trying (and failing) to give you an Islamic point of view of what is happening and why and not your moralistic western view which Islam doesn't care anything about."
I agree ... the West doesnt have first dibs on 'morals' and nor does the East. I fail to understand what the 'islamist' viewpoint is in the matter ? If you are suggesting that Wahhabi Sunni 'purist' Islam as practiced by a large part of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia is in conflict with Shia Islam and moderate Sunni Islam then you are right.
If you are from Pakistan then you also may be familiar with the Deobandi school of Islam ... what are your thoughts on that ? Arent the Wahhabists influenced by the Deobandhi school of thought ? Arent these viewpoints a minority in the general scheme of Islamic thought ? Im no expert but I do have numerous Islamic friends from Pakistan, India, Iran, Africa, etc and they are not so acutely aware of their sect.
I agree with you, wolf, it is a horror story from hell. Do you really think there is no solution beyond the Second Shiite Islamic Republic, and the violence you described earlier (Turkish invasion, sectocide of the Sunnis)?
lapaz000 August 8th, 2008 7:07 pm
Raed Jarrar
I read his blog, what a riot, This guy knows EVERY western heartstring to pull and does a good job of it. And you people eat it up like corn flakes.
There are also a number of glaring historical errors (If you read history you would see them) for instance,
"After 7000 years, finally we have someone who knows how to unite iraqis"
Actually Iraq as an independant country has not been around for seven thousand years, nor has the present ethnic make up of the country been the same for 7000 years.
Still pictures can be captioned to tell you anything, Al-Jazeera ran quite a few pictures of dead civilians in Fallujah, unfortunately for Al-Jazeera all the civilians shown were decapitated. The US military shoot people they don't cut their heads off, al-Qaida and freelance jihadists do.
The US should never have invaded Iraq, never should have occupied Iraq (It was at first liberation from Saddam but to the shia this was an insult to their manhood, an infidel army had to do what they could not) then Bremmer turns it into an occupation authority - what mindless stupidity. And the rest is a horror story from hell.
riddimboy August 8th, 2008 4:53 pm
"So judging by your ridiculous statement every country with a divided Sunni-Shia population should be fighting each other to extermination. Get a grip.'
And just WHO are driving these car bombs into market places filled with shia women and children? Buddhist from Mexico?
And just WHO are blowing up shia mosques in Pakistan? It could not be the sunni, it must be those nasty Mormons.
Iraqis and other Muslims have said and written similar things that I have written. Just listen to Raed Jarrar speak about his country here :http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/
You think that everything that is happening in Iraq can be explained by Islam, and a "Western" point of view cannot comprehend what is happening?
Also, I was attacking your viewpoint, not you as a person, because it sounds like something John McCain would say. I'm sorry if I offended you.
lapaz000 August 8th, 2008 5:32 pm
I do wish you would take a reading comprehension course in school, any school will do.
How do I know you are an infidel, just read your comments, all your comments come from the moralistic western view of the world. Islam has never thought that way and never will that's one of the reasons bushie boy so fucked up in Iraq.
"Saddam didn't slaughter people who challenged his religious views, wolfy. He killed his political opponents."
Saddam was not what one would call religious, he almost never went to a mosque unless it benefitted him in some way and surprise many of his political opponents were shia clerics.
I really wish you people would stop reading and believing the myths and fantasies of the left and right, they are all wrong.
"Why are you calling me a moron?"
True moronic might have been a little strong, but you do have "infantile moralist views on the world".
"real argument that isn't based on personal prejudices"
"sounds much like John McCain or an organ, like the New York TimesT, of the government propaganda system that seeks to legitamize an occupation"
So you get upset by my inferring you have a moronic view of the world but you can infer I am an organ of the government propaganda system and not think I would take offense to that statement?
If you could comprehend what I have written (in English) you would know that,
1, I did NOT approve of the invasion of Iraq
2, I do NOT approve of the occupation of Iraq
3, I do NOT approve of how the Europeans fucked up the ME after WW1 and how the US and Russians with their competing ideologies fucked up the Iraqi people
4, I am trying (and failing) to give you an Islamic point of view of what is happening and why and not your moralistic western view which Islam doesn't care anything about.
actually, wolf, it was a scenario because everything you proposed has not happened and is what you think will happen. in fact, it was your expert Pakistani and ex-Moslem opinion that gives you so much insight into how and why it will happen: Because Sunnis and Shias hate each other and want to commit genocide or sectocide.
I agree that slaughters took place before the US invaded, and the US was backing and supporting them all the way. In fact, the US was the enforcer of the sanctions regime that was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children.
You think that I love reading about violence? What would give you that idea? Character attacks don't play out here, buddy. This isn't a presidential debate.
Saddam didn't slaughter people who challenged his religious views, wolfy. He killed his political opponents.
I don't even know what you are arguing wolfy. I am arguing for an end to the occupation. Is that high-minded, as the blogger before you wrote? Is it high-minded to want to stop a war?
What are you arguing? That the US is trying to prevent genocide?
That Sadr's going to turn Iraq into an Iranian theocracy and then kill all Sunnis?
You think that it is up to the US to determine who governs Iraq, so our attempts to overthrow him are legitamate?
How do you know that I'm an infidel? Why are you calling me a moron? Try to come up with a real argument that isn't based on personal prejudices before you engage in a debate, okay Wolf?
riddimboy August 8th, 2008 4:29 pm
"I cant imagine either scenario being a perfect alternative for the beleaguered Iraqi civilian population..."
You are totally correct, thanks to the cold war the US and Russians have managed to totally FUCK UP the Iraqi people. Actually it went back even further, after WW1 with the break up of the Ottoman empire the Europeans just like they fucked up Africa by divided it as they wanted to and not as the tribes divided the land, divided the ME as they wanted to and totally FUCKED it up.
"Are you somehow making the argument that Iraqis are better off now than under Saddam !! "
Of course not, and they were not very well off under Saddam (unless you came from Tikrit).
"Iraq which was decidedly far more secular and secure !!"
Iraq was secular to a point because it benefitted Saddam NOT because it benefitted the Iraqi people. Saddam killed both al-Sadrs father and brother (both shia clerics) because he thought they posed a threat to his rule. Many other shia clerics were also killed and many fled to Iran. Saddams secular state existed only as long as the sunni military and secret police kept the rest of the country living in fear.
wolf -- "As a Pakistani and ex- moslem I know about mass slaughter, it's not nice."
How so ? Did you take part in it ?? So judging by your ridiculous statement every country with a divided Sunni-Shia population should be fighting each other to extermination. Get a grip.
--- "Who do you think killed those hundreds of thousands of Iraqi shia when Saddam was in power,"
There is no evidence to support the hundreds of thousands of sectarian deaths that you claim took place. Even the most conservative sources claim there were close to 50,000 deaths under Saddam and that excludes the Iraq-Iran war.
lapaz000 August 8th, 2008 3:44 pm
"Nice scenario wolf,"
Actually it's not, unless you enjoy reading about mass slaughter which you probably do. As a Pakistani and ex- moslem I know about mass slaughter, it's not nice. I don't "seek to legitamize an occupation that the vast majority of Iraqis blame for the sectarian violence". Actually if you didn't so firmly believe in your myths you would know sectarian violence was a way of life under Saddam. Who do you think killed those hundreds of thousands of Iraqi shia when Saddam was in power, Nigerian baptists? There is no doubt bushie boy FUCKED UP big time when he invaded Iraq, There was countless other ways he could have eliminated the Saddam government and installed a more western friendly one with out invading, your CIA did it all the time, or did until congress eviscerated them. Sectarian violence has slowed a little BUT it will pick up again with a vengeance when an islamic cleric (al-Sadr) picks up the qur'an and an AK47 and whips the zombie masses into a mindless killing machine.
Now your infidel mind with it's infantile moronic moralist views on the world may not be able to comprehend the following BUT the sunni are apostates according to the shia, and the shia are apostates according to the sunni ( google the sunni-shia split, it's too long to try and explain here) now in the hadiths we have the following:
Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:
Narrated 'Ikrima:
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle (Mohammed) forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle (Mohammed), 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"
Thus thanks to mohammed (the perfect man) you have shia and sunni killing each other for over 1,000 years, and until one side or the other is exterminated it will not end because each side firmly believes the other "changed his Islamic religion".
wolf -- "Unfortunately riddimboy has NEVER been to Iran and suffered under the vice and morals police or the Iranian legal system or he would know the last part of his statement was beyond ludicrous."
I haven't wolf ... at the same time i haven't had jackboots on my throat either. I cant imagine either scenario being a perfect alternative for the beleaguered Iraqi civilian population but I can only guess. When you've lost everything and can barely scrape by like a majority of Iraqis i seriously doubt they give a fuck who rules them as long as someone friggin feeds them. I suppose we can sit here comfortably and pass such ludicrous high-minded judgments and promptly tuck into our vegan burgers ... or steak ??
Are you somehow making the argument that Iraqis are better off now than under Saddam !! I mean after we helped kill a million Iraqis and displace 2 million or more (which Saddam could have never managed to do) we still havent been able to match Saddams Iraq which was decidedly far more secular and secure !!
Nice scenario wolf, sounds much like John McCain or an organ, like the New York TimesT, of the government propaganda system that seeks to legitamize an occupation that the vast majority of Iraqis blame for the sectarian violence and which the vast majority of Iraqis want to end.
al-Taqiyya, al-Taqiyya, thats all it is. Without the US armed forces backing them up the Iraqi army could not fight it's way out on a wet paper bag. al-Sadr has already had 3 Ayatollahs killed and when the last US soldier leaves the country Al Sistani will be killed. There is an arab saying , he who has the qur'an in his right hand has the power, he who has the the qur'an in his right hand and an AK47 in his left hand has absolute power. al-Sadr will have absolute power (over the shia) The sunni will rebel and the Kurds will declare an independant country (like Kosovo). And the blood bath will begin. In the end MILLIONS and MILLIONS (conservatively maybe 5 to 9 million +) will be dead, If the Turks do not attack the Kurds will have their independant country, the sunni will be exterminated and those left alive will flee to Saudi. al-Sadr should have been killed years ago when he ordered the first 2 Ayatollahs killed, Now as riddimboy August 8th, 2008 2:08 pm says, "he will take over Iraq and install an Iran style theocracy..." Unfortunately riddimboy has NEVER been to Iran and suffered under the vice and morals police or the Iranian legal system or he would know the last part of his statement was beyond ludicrous.
The "agreement" is merely a device to legitamize the occupation indefinitely. According to leaked reports of the negotiations between the two sides, the US can choose to adjust, basically ignore, the timeline if it feels it necessary. This is why Sadr says that the resistance will continue. Let us not forget that there is no peace in Iraq. 500 Iraqis are dying due to the violence every month. Baghdad is a city of Sunni and Shiite ghettos-- separated by US-built walls. Disgruntled Sunni militiamen, the "Sons of Iraq," were fighting the occupation or engaged in sectarian warfare before they turn their guns on the Salafis. As recent reporting has made clear, the Baghdad government is only going to integrate 20% of the fighters into the security or police forces. That leaves around 80,000 armed men hostile to both the government, the occuation, and often civilian Shiites. The extreme violence seen in during 2006-2007, with 10,000 people dying a month, can explode again unless a political solution is reached soon. Violence can explode in Kirkuk if a political solution isn't reached between Kurds, Arabs, and Turkmen.
Has everyone forgotten about how the Iraqi Oil Minister has said that Iraq's oil fields are on the market and can be expected to be sold by the end of 2009? That vanished from the media as soon as it appeared. The Western oil corporations are not going to be able to operate, ever, I think. The Iraqi resistance to the theft that has been planned for the last couple of decades is much too resiliant to ever allow it to happen.
As Raed Jarrar, an Iraqi currenlty living in the US, has said: the FIRST STEP for the political-economic conflict in Iraq to be solved is for the US to end its imperial intervention.
The US has a bipartisan consensus, as the article makes clear, about what it thinks is the future of Iraq. The "agreement" being negotiated by the Bush administration is very similar to what Obama has declared as his "withdrawal" plan.
Rather, the economic depression that is lurking, the Second Great Depression according to Willaim Engdahl, is more likely than anything else to end the occupation. I don't think that Americans who really understand the need for change, and are thus falling head-over-heals for Obama, are going to remain as passive as they are now if the US economy plummets as far as has been predicted by many economists. These next years are hard to predict, but at least we know they are going to be filled with violence and misery no matter whom we "elect." And that is why there is a need for a "surge" of popular resistance against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and against the corporatist nature of the government.
"This year Maliki, a Shi'ite, launched several largely successful crackdowns against militias including the Mehdi Army."
Muqtada just wasnt playing .. thats all. Does anyone seriously believe the Mehdi Army is ineffective or not capable of defending itself ?
Muqtada will wait and watch and at a time and place of his choosing he will take over Iraq and install an Iran style theocracy .... which is probably 10 times better than having American Marines blwoing your brains out if you so much as pick up a fallen newspaper.
http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick08082008.html
Ok, some final thoughts. Perhaps the perspective I am going to give is very western, but given that there are so many different interpretations of Islam, Christianity, and every other religion, perhaps the Koran, the Bible, etc. are not really the place to begin the debate over the nature of the religion. Perhaps, the place to begin is with the "external" factors.
Since the Word is always the same (we can leave out for now conflicting translations), that leaves us with other social factors. In certain environments, religions are interpreted to support peace, in others war. These environments vary within countries, within eras, within political movements.
I don't really accept your approach of simply adding up percentages of the Koran that support war or forced conversions or whatever. Religion and religious belief are too complicated to be reduced to a math problem. Obviously, some people gravitate towards violent interpretations while others peaceful interpretations. The question is why.
I suspect that there are many Moslems who treat large sections of the Koran as many Christians treat large sections of the Bible: they dismiss them as "historical" and not relevant to modern life, as to be understood figuratively rather than literally, as not representing the "true" core of belief; or they simply accept that the Bible is "contradictory" and requires individual judgment. I suspect that many separate, "compartmentalize," the different parts of their life – religion here, politics there; or treat belief as culture rather than religion – eat this; don't eat that; give presents to family here; give to charity there.
On a personal note, I advise you to be wary of treating your own past as harshly as you treat Islam's past.