Al Sadr
 

Let me axe a question: Would it be possible to kill Al Sadr ang make it look like some other sectarian group did it? AND more important would such a killing help or hurt the situation both short term and long term in Iraq? Who else might or should be targeted?

You never filled out a intro
 

No intro or profile no opinion from me...

I have to see you 'axe' a friggin question, that must be a trick, since most people "ask" questions.

Your mission for today - and I'm sure if you don't accept it you will go away - is:
Fill out your profile
Post an introduction
Read the stickies

Oh, yeah - I don't think anybody on this board will broach the subject of this post - for myriad reasons.

Sorry, I tought I had done that will take care of it immediately. The "axe" was a jest.

No worries, fish, just take care of it.

I would say that if al Sadr should have an unfortunate accident, I would not lose any sleep over it, but we have to consider second and third order effects.

What would the violence that would erupt do for our cause in the long term? Is the Iraqi government prepared to deal with it?

Who would replace him? Are they going to be any more or less rational? Would they be more supportive of the current government?

In short, this is chess, not checkers. We need to dealing effectively with the present, but thinking several moves ahead toward the end game.

Pros and cons, hearts and minds.

TR

Profile updated and introduction posted.
The false flag issue is a minor concern, but I do think that in this particular situation deniability might be useful...I agree with Col. Ralph that he needs to die, but I am not certain that we need to do it openly.

Okay, why?

Do you want to kill the leader of the movement or do you want to co-opt the movement so that it will be aligned with the Iraqi government? Will killing the leader do that or will it further move the movement away from the ability of the government to bring these factions under some sense of control down stream? Is Al Sadr the problem or is he the symptom caused by a variety of problems? Are you attacking the problem or the cause? Put all that in persepective and you will probably answer your own question. Think about what insurgencies are all about and divorce yourself from the kill them all and let Allah sort them out mentality or you will only be addressing the short term and not the long. Just another perspective.

It is hard for me to imagine ever bringing these factions under some sense of control while Iran is actively campaigning to create another middle eastern religious state. They are providing troops, training and money in both Iraq and Afghanistan. They are also providing a safe haven for insurgents flushed from Iraq. They are also thumbing there noses at us providing a psychological boost to terrorist throughout the World.

My thinking may be simplistic, but it seems the fate of the democracies in this region hinges on our ability to isolate or destroy the current Iranian government, and I'm not sure if the American people have the will to attempt this.

The Potus' original contention was to destroy any country that sponsors terrorism. I do not believe Iran's activity in this regard is a secret. If it's a question of WMD's, is there anyone who doesn't believe Iran has or shortly will have wmd's?

I was hoping that the recent adventure in Lebanon would spiral into an Iranian action. I seems as if Iran has become the kingpin in the area and needs to be knocked down before we can make any progress. It's like fighting the VN war without being able to go into Laos, North Vietnam or Cambodia.

Rant over.

What I am trying to do is avoid killing them all. My thiought is, there there seems to be a great emphasise placeed upon these "spiritual" leaders. Sadr, Sistani, and some others, my thought is that with out leaders the masses will have no direction and would be easier to pacify. So as to him being the problem or the symptom, I tend to view him as the problem. There are others.

Perhaps you are reading too much into my statement. By bringing these factions under "some" sense of control and by trying to get you all to think more about insurgencies without being too blatant, I was implying that you need to remove the reason for their existence. Tribes, sects, and factions of Islam will always exist and will always compete for their perceived roles in their culture. Armed militias exist for many reasons, one of which is to provide the protection for their followers that cannot be provided by the folks that are supposed to provide it, ie the government in power. Now I am not so naive to think that the Sunnis and Shias will ever join hands and sing Kumbaya will they roast a goat, but until the government can provide security, among other things governments are supposed to do, militias will not only exist but they will have the popular support of those that feel that the government is not looking out for them and they need to look out for themselves. Take away the popular support for the militias and you erode the power of folks that control the militias.

Nature, like Islam, abhors a vacuum. Kill the leader and another will rise to take his place. Kill the movement and there is nothing to lead. The problem is not Al Sadr or any of the leaders, the problem is what created the conditions that allowed them to rise to power in the first place. The leaders are irritants in the short term and these fundamentalist movements will go on forever with new leaders unless the movement is killed. Killing the terrorists will depleat their strenght in the short term, but kill the reason for the movement, Islamic fundamentalism, and you control the problem and cut it down to more manageable factions.

True, what I was seeing was a window of opportunity to let the vacuum be filled by a leader who supports the rule of law and not radical Islam, let him lead the masses to a REPUBLIC in the region. This is a large part of why I posited the false flag scenario.

If this movement supported the rule of law, it would not exist. I do not think you are I are on the same page here. But that's okay.

Jack, I am talking about a manufactured or planted leader not a regular militia guy moving up...One who could persuade the follpwers that as Imam, Allah has instructed him to lead them to properity, by keeping their values, but embracing modern ways and respecting individual rights, yadda, yadda...whatever, the line needs to be.

Before the US reclaimed Sadr City several months ago, Sadr had a secondary support group that was little known. Non-extremist Shias in the Sadr City/New Baghdad area loved al Sadr for his work to keep the Sunni terrorists under control in the east of Baghdad. They disliked his attacks on coalition forces, but tolerated them in exchange for sleeping well and being able to comfortable go to the market under the watchful eye of armed militia men that kept the streets safe from terror and suicide attacks.

After the US moved back into Sadr City and the Mahdi Army underground, in came the Sunni extremists. The terror attacks began, and a rift was formed in the militia. Those with no desire to attack the coalition disbanded with Sadr, since his claimed protection was no longer realized. Others with an underlying hate of the Americans were strengthened under his cause and fought harder (and probably died or were terribly wounded) trying to convince the US that Sadr City was not for them.

After he told the militia to go underground and stop hostilities with the coalition, hardline militants broke away completely and formed smaller independant cells (which, without sponorship of a larger organization are almost always short lived or crushed).

So, as you can see, there is no magic stance that one man can assume to gain power or strength or this volitile situation. These stories are the same in all of the past Mahdi Army strongholds- Karbala, Kufa, Najaf, and Sadr City. Sadr City, in my opinion, is the last bastion of the Mahdi Army. With every decision he makes he loses some and gains others. The Militia is manned by extremely poor, angry Shias- mostly in their younger years. So, although the Sadr City militia wing may be the most well armed and supplied, I'd be willing to bet they are not as dedicated as the other branches we have fought in the past.

Karbala and Najaf holds the poorest of the poor Shias in Iraq, living almost on faith alone- staying there just to be close to the shrines. Sadr City is a cess pool of humanity and instead of being driven by faith, they are driven by pent up anger and emotion, grandfathered into the fight simply because that's how they believe it's done. After the surge in Baghdad clears out the Mahdi Army, I'd be willing to bet they don't return again, they have nowhere left to go.

Al Sadr simply took advantage of the anger the Shias had. He is believed to be a descendant of Mohammed, since Shia Imams are said to be of Mohammed blood line, and his father was Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Mohammed Sadeq al Sadr. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is now the premier Shia cleric in Iraq. His teaching and guidance encourages Shia involvement in gov't and denounces violence. Therefore, followers of al Sadr cannot claim themselves in good standing as Shias.

A devout Shia interpreter from New Baghdad once told me, "Saddam did many bad things, but also did some good. He killed Ayatollah al-Sadr and left Ayatollah al-Sistani in power. Too bad he couldn't forsee Muqtada's future. Iraq suffers with one al-Sadr, imagine Iraq with two."

Although I agree that eliminating al Sadr is not on option presently, there needs to be a plan in action to replace him.
I am very irritated with the leniency the US and Iraqi governments have given him.

A very profound insight into the heart of the current situation. I was going to add my two cents but I think I'll wait for a more appropriate time and setting. Suffice it to say that many of those hardline, breakaway Sadrists have found the sponsorship of a larger organization and the result is worse than that with which we were dealing before.