LAT: Steadfast in Defiance, (Sadr) Gains Stature with Iraq Masses

THE CONFLICT IN IRAQ
Steadfast in Defiance, Cleric Gains Stature With Iraq Masses

By Tyler Marshall and Henry Chu, Times Staff Writers


BAGHDAD — Militant cleric Muqtada Sadr's refusal Tuesday to meet with a delegation of Iraqi religious and political leaders is the clearest indicator yet that recent fighting in Najaf has strengthened the anti-American leader, some analysts say....

***

Although many Iraqis denounce his tactics, Sadr's strident militancy has made him the embodiment of resistance to the continued presence of more than 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq....

***

Analysts believe that a key to Sadr's political clout has been his emergence as the only national symbol of defiance to the massive U.S. military presence that remains in Iraq despite the formal hand-over of sovereignty. As the U.S. presence grows more unpopular, Sadr's aura gains more luster....

***

A poll by Iraq's Center for Research and Strategic Studies in Baghdad shortly after thousands of militiamen loyal to Sadr launched a springtime uprising against the U.S.-led coalition indicated that the cleric was second only to Iraq's venerated Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani in drawing support. (Allawi, who was not yet prime minister, trailed far behind.)...

***

"He's a populist, a grass-roots political figure," (Bruce Hoffman, acting director of the Rand Corp. Center for Middle East Public Policy in Washington) said.

"He's not polished, not terribly intellectual and doesn't have an accent leavened by decades in exile, but these have become his strengths. At a very visceral level, he appeals to many Iraqis."


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-sadr18aug18,1,5497257.story?coll=la-home-headlines

"He's not polished, not terribly intellectual... but these have become his strengths. At a very visceral level, he appeals to many..."

Hmmm. Sound like anyone else we know?

:evilgrin:
dbt

This "sovereignty is Bushit!

The Hand-Over That Wasn't: Illegal Orders give the US a Lock on Iraq's Economy
by Antonia Juhasz

Officially, the U.S. occupation of Iraq ended on June 28, 2004. But in reality, the United States is still in charge: Not only do 138,000 troops remain to control the streets, but the "100 Orders" of L. Paul Bremer III remain to control the economy.

These little noticed orders enacted by Bremer, the now-departed head of the now-defunct Coalition Provisional Authority, go to the heart of Bush administration plans in Iraq. They lock in sweeping advantages to American firms, ensuring long-term U.S. economic advantage while guaranteeing few, if any, benefits to the Iraqi people.

The Bremer orders control every aspect of Iraqi life - from the use of car horns to the privatization of state-owned enterprises. Order No. 39 alone does no less than "transition from a … centrally planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat.

Although many thought that the "end" of the occupation would also mean the end of the orders, on his last day in Iraq Bremer simply transferred authority for the orders to Prime Minister Iyad Allawi - a 30-year exile with close ties to the CIA and British intelligence.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0805-07.htm

http://juancole.com/

Muqtada declines to See Delegation
Marines Launched Attack without Approval

Alex Berenson and John Burns of the New York Times make the explosive allegation that local Marines in Najaf launched the attack on Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Militia on August 12 all on their lonesome, without direction from the Pentagon in Washington. At most, they had authorization from the American-appointed governor, Ali al-Zurfi, though he won't take responsibility for it all, either.

I studied colonial history with John S. Galbraith of UCLA, who was known for emphasizing the "Man on the Spot." That is, colonial officials and military men out in Malaya or Africa often made policy without reference to London. (Much of India was acquired in this way. It is amusing to go back and read the cautions of the British cabinet to British governors-general of the 18th century not to conquer more territory without permission).

If Berenson and Burns are right, American Men on the Spot are making crucial policy decisions that have the potential to affect the lives of all Americans and all Muslims. The Marines in Najaf were acting like just another militia, engaging in a local turf war with Muqtada and his men, and giving no thought to the consequences of behaving barbarically in the holy city of Najaf.
</snip>

Link to the quoted NYT article

As some right wingers are saying, turn it all into a parking lot, many people of Iraq may not like that idea, they may not like their country's most sacred places leveled by a war in hopes of a new WalMart, maybe the rest of the world doesn't agree with the WalMart mentality.

By closing down al-Sadr's dissenting newspaper, the US Viceroy (Bremer) guaranteed the hypocrisy of "freedom" would be exposed for the "only if you can buy it" hypocrisy - crossed fingers ("King's X") behind the backs of US/global militarists.

Was this foreseeable? Of course. It's intentional. A big bully needs a target. al-Sadr was nominated since Saddam's bag leaked out all of its US-supplied gas. "War" means profits. "Fear" means profits. We have global corporatists who thrive on exploiting conflict, deprivation, and fear. Frightened people are more willing to cough up their labor, autonomy, and cash than the courageous.

Courage isn't about not being afraid. Courage is doing the 'right thing'(TM) even though vulnerable. (Superman wasn't courageous. The US military machine isn't based on courage.)

Sadr(H.A.)'s aide in Karbala`, Mustafa al-Yaqubi, was seized by the invaders in connection with false charges. In protest of this, demonstrations were carried out in many central/southern cities. However, outside the Spanish occupation base "al-Andalus", the demonstrators were fired on by the occupyers. A similar massacre took place in Madinat as-Sadr, with US tanks crushing unarmed demonstrators. It was in response to these vicious crimes that a period of armed resistance was opened up by the Mahdi's Army, and not over the newspaper (a provocation of a similar period, but not the spark).