Sadr won, and here's why.

Whether the current truce proposed in Najaf is accepted or not - I personally assume it will be, for the reasons I'll list below - I believe that what we've just finished seeing is a masterful political power play by Al-Sadr, the young cleric with "issues".

I say this to illustrate his position regarding the aged Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani. Sadr's father established what he called the "speaking" branch of Shiite Islam as opposed to the "silent" branch that Sistani leads, which has been passive-aggressive under Saddam as well as under American occupation. While Sadr built up power on the street, Sistani hoarded it for his voice by using that voice very infrequently.

Before the Sadr uprising, which, it bears reminding, occured after the issuance of an arrest warrant for murder by a US-backed judge, Sistani had been being beaten around with a large fish by Paul Bremer. Sistani's views on the interim Iraqi constitution had been shot down by Bremer (and Bush) by lobbying Shiites hard, including the now discredited Ahmed Chalabi, who turned against his own spiritual leader in this matter. Bremer also orchestrated the UN's refusal to cooperate with Sistani's concerns about delaying elections. The UN resolution currently tabled for the renamed Iraqi occupation after June 30th (which any quick glance will show IS an occupation, in the style of a protectorate, rather than a military presence that is the guest of a sovereign host nation) shows little sign of regard for Sistani's views.

So, with the US acting to minimize Sistani's influence, including, in the end, the truce deal in Fallujah, demonstrating that if the Shiites won't deal, the US has other options, and with US forces beating down on Sadr's militiamen, Sadr had one goal, and one alone, a goal which would lead to the satisfying of all his other goals later on, including his own survival.

He wanted, and needed, for Sistani to *say something*.

The "silent" branch had to actually be bothered to say something in such a way that the Americans would listen. It had to draw a red line that even the US would not dare cross, a line preferably where Sadr's militiamen were over the line, but Sadr himself, as a cleric, controversial as he is, is not, since his arrest or death would lead to permanent guerilla warfare. Because of the religious theories of Sadr's father, his influence (really, his father's) would not collapse upon his death, or even the end of his bloodline. Shiites have a long history of honoring martyrs, after all. It's their reason for being.

Today, the "silent" branch spoke. Sistani finally said something.

The moderate Shiites of the Iraq Governing Council and Sistani's aides have been spreading the word: Sistani has had enough. The Shiites, in general, have had enough. Sadr may have his flaws, but they are not worth the storming of Najaf, Shiite Islam's Vatican City, by heavy US armor as was done ignominously to Karbala. Sadr's militia must go, yes, but it will go because the religious leadership has decided that it must. Sadr, however, is off limits.

Why has Sistani, who clearly has so much to lose from Sadr's rise, not abandoned him completely? Why isn't Sistani coldly letting the US finish the job?

Because they're both holy men from the same religion. Sistani cannot be seen to betray one of his own, bravely (if foolishly - but more on that in a moment) fighting an opponent that he can no longer win against than if it was the Mongol Empire. He can leave his own to hang out to dry, to be severely beaten and battered, and indeed, humiliated by the foreign invaders, but he cannot be seen to allow Sadr to die for the sake of Sistani's silence. If he wants Sadr's head on a platter, the only way he can get it legitimately is if he publicly demands it.

That, he will not do, because moderate that he may be, he is still a Shiite holy man.

So, Sadr provoked the Americans by existing, armed and ready and operating under the radar; Bremer provoked Sistani into a full uprising; Sadr's uprising provoked a massive US military response; and now the massive US military response has provoked Sistani, the aggrieved parent, to finally yell down from the heavens, "Enough!!"

Sadr's militiamen were not martyred for the sake of getting the US out of Iraq. Not directly. They were occupied with a higher goal. All that blood, all those lives, civilian and militia, were expended for one purpose, and one purpose alone: getting Sistani to get off his rear end and establish a bottom line for the religion, a place beyond which even fears of war and calamity and the US military will be shelved for the sake of the unity of the entire religion and the preservation of the faith itself.

The end result is this.

Sadr has been brought back into the fold. On the surface, he has been humiliated by his defeat. In reality, he won everything he set out to: legitimacy in the eyes of the people, the grudging backing of Al-Sistani, and the entire Iraqi faithful declaring at the top of their lungs that Sadr has a rightful place in the political order of post-handover Iraq. This last part is the price the US must pay to avoid a full scale revolt, one which would make Sadr's efforts seem puny.

In other words, not only has Bremer's war of choice achieved nothing, it has actually cost the War on Terror dearly. A radical Sunni city-state named Fallujah is now the site of near-fatal beatings for the selling of alcohol and other enforcement of religious crimes. Sadr has been transformed from a murder suspect and an illegitimate rebel into a candidate for political office. And Sistani has been turned from a silent, cooperative figure into the one person standing between the US and the military conquest of the holiest city in Shiite Islam.

Sadr has won. All that remains is to see whether or not he will survive his victory, and whether or not he will be allowed to live to haunt the US occupation another day, or killed to haunt America for all time.

run a successful 2 car parade.

And I agree that Sadr will have won....if he isn't assassinated? Even then, he might be considered a martyr, which is an automatic ticket to paradise in some parts of the world.

More "victories" like Fallujah and this and we'll have to relocate the occupation to Qatar.

in Larry of Arabia that basically laid out the same idea that you posted- i think it was between Faisal and the English general..

Sistani was played as was Bremer/Bush*. Sadr comes out looking like the legitimate Iraqi/Shiite patriot. He read the Fallujah result correctly.

Sadr is basically offering himself as a martyr for Sistani's clout with the Americans. He "loses" so that the US owes Sistani for making this Sadr mess go away without a full scale rebellion, and, in turn, Sistani's doing exactly what Sadr wanted him to do in the first place. His loss is Sistani's gain, but Sistani's gain is really his gain, too.

Too complicated for the main post, I think. But this angle explains a bit about the internal Shiite politics the troops on the front lines can't quite comprehend.

Sadr helped make it clear that the political power in Iraq is held by the Shiites. Not the US. Not the Sunnies or the Kurds. Shiites.

And all of the Shiites in Iraq know this, and will support Sadr for his contributions to their political power. Furthermore, he defied the US and wasn't killed. That never hurt an Islamic politician.

nt