Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why didn't Bush cut a deal with Muqtada al-Sadr years ago and save thousands of lives?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 11:44 AM
Original message
Why didn't Bush cut a deal with Muqtada al-Sadr years ago and save thousands of lives?
Edited on Sun Dec-02-07 11:46 AM by NNN0LHI
Any ideas? Was it a political calculation? I bet it was.

Don

http://www.pr-inside.com/al-sadr-urges-mahdi-army-to-abide-r327738.htm

2007-12-02 15:16:23 -

Al-Sadr urges Mahdi army to abide by his order to stand down

BAGHDAD (AP) - Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr on Sunday urged his Mahdi Army to continue respecting his order to suspend its activities and accused U.S. forces of sowing division among Iraqis.

Last August, al-Sadr ordered a six-month suspension of Mahdi Army activities to enable him to purge the force. U.S. officials say the order was responsible in part for the dramatic drop in attacks in the Baghdad area, although splinter groups have disregarded his instructions.

I thank my followers in the Mahdi Army for their obedience to my order and I urge them to continue respecting the freeze, al-Sadr said in a statement on his movement's Web site.

The order was issued after two days of bloody clashes in the Shiite holy city of Karbala that claimed at least 52 lives. Iraqi security officials blamed Mahdi militiamen for attacking mosque guards, some of whom are linked to the rival Badr Brigade militia.

The bloodshed triggered a backlash in the Shiite community about militias, once considered as protection against militant Sunnis but increasingly seen as thugs.

Al-Sadr's freeze also appeared aimed at distancing himself from factions believed influenced by Iran, a charge the Iranians deny.

The cleric had threatened to reverse the order unless U.S. and Iraqi forces halt raids and arrests of his followers in the Shiite cities of Karbala and Diwaniyah.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,310697,00.html

Gen. Petraeus Meets With Al-Sadr Deputies

Monday, November 12, 2007

WASHINGTON — Top U.S. commander in Iraq Gen. David Petraeus has met with representatives of Muqtada al-Sadr, once one of the top enemies fueling the insurgency against the elected Iraqi government, FOX News has confirmed.

The general has not met personally with al-Sadr, the military said, but the meetings come as the Pentagon is softening its approach to the firebrand Shiite leader who recently eased his hard-line stance with a ceasefire call last August.

Al-Sadr's aides have been quietly working with U.S. military officials to discuss security operations.

"Gen. Petraeus has not had any direct engagements or meetings with Muqtada al-Sadr. The command has indeed had direct engagements with some of his people that are within the organization. Mainly that has been via the Force Strategic Engagement Cell or FSEC as part of the overarching efforts to assist with reconciliation efforts," Petraeus spokesman Col. Steve Boylan said in a statement provided to FOX News.

First reported over the weekend in Newsweek, U.S. commanders said the pullback of al-Sadr's Mahdi Army has been a major factor in the decrease in Baghdad violence. They also said U.S. forces and Sadr's forces now have a common enemy: so-called "special groups" that once were aligned with Sadr but have splintered from the main organization.

Click here to read the full story in Newsweek.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
1. Well, why didn't they pour in a bunch more troops (surge) years ago?
They are stringing this occupation out as long as possible--what looks like incompetence is actually what they intended: a civil war in which various factions weaken each other, chaos, a busted infrastructure, an excuse for us to stay--all while we wait for oil and make shitloads of money on defense contracts and rebuilding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mabus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
2. Because Muqtada al-Sadr was labeled a terrorist
and BushCo didn't negotiate with terrorists. Of course, the list of who is and who isn't a terrorist changes at their whim. Therefore they can only talk to Muqtada al-Sadr on alternate Tuesdays and/or when they feel like it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reprehensor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-02-07 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
3. Well, Iraq would be too stable.
Destabilization is part and parcel of the invasion of Iraq.

Now it's Iran's turn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 07:55 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC