The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    Iraqi Leader Who Killed His Own People Returns to Power in New Democratic Middle East

    By NCD on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 1:13pm |

    The touchy subject of the triumphant return of Moqtada al-Sadr, a radical anti-American Mullah, to Iraq from his four year sojourn in Iran was handled differently in headlines:

    The New York Times had a positive spin    : Iraqi Cleric Embraces State in Comeback Speech

    AOL News less exuberant: Back in Iraq, Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr Declares 'We Reject America'

    BBC neutral take: Iraq Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr urges Iraqis to unite

    AP via NYT : Cleric Urges Iraqis to Resist U.S.

    Inside the articles above were descriptions of the Mullah's message to the huge swath of Iraqi's who back him, many of whom fought for him against American troops, or engaged in killing Sunni's in the 2006-2007 ethnic cleansing of Baghdad.

    BBC "His militia was blamed for the abduction, torture and killing of thousands of Sunnis during the sectarian carnage of 2006 and 2007."

    AOL: "But he left open the possibility that some 50,000 U.S. troops in Iraq could be targeted before they are set to leave at the end of this year."

    AP: "The fiery Shiite cleric, who abruptly returned from Iran earlier this week, whipped the crowd into a frenzy when he called the U.S., Israel and Britain "our common enemies." ......"Let the whole world hear that we reject America. No, no to the occupier," al-Sadr said during his 35-minute speech. "We don't kill Iraqis — our hands do not kill Iraqis. We target only the occupier with all the means of resistance." "

    It was Moqtada al-Sadr's 39 seats voted into the 325 seat Parliament which met for less than an hour between the elections in March, 2010 and October of that year that allowed Maliki to finally form a government late last year.


    Positive side, instead of chanting 'Death to America" as they do at anti-American rallies in Iran, where Sadr spent the last 4 years, in Iraq he and his supporters chant "No to America".

    Sadr seems to be aiming to hold Maliki to the "all troops out by the end of 2011" agreement negotiated by the George W. Bush administration in August, 2008.

    In summary, thanks to the Bush invasion of Iraq, a man who opposed Iran, and enforced security in the country, and had no WMD yet who decades ago killed his own people was executed......

    ..and..has been replaced by a government that includes an Iranian backed Mullah who has killed his own people in the thousands and recently, also killed Americans (for instance in Najaf, where Casey Sheehan died in a battle with Sadr supporters), in a New Iraq still short of electricity, where orphans abound, Christians flee, and crowds chant "No to America" as the Mullah threatens any continued US presence in the country.

    Comments

    Boy, they just love us over there, don't they?

    Yeah we have really created a bastion for democracy and American good will haven't we.


    by Richard Day on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 5:11pm

    Maybe Mr. Moore makes sense, now.

    “The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the revolution, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow - and they will win.”

    Michael Moore

    by chucktrotter on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 6:54pm

    Yeah. And some right wing bastards will say such thoughts on paper make one a traitor to this nation.

    Those folks just hate us. they of course attemp;t to make a lot of money from us, but they hate us.

    I know that there are a million pages written on all of this, but I cannot escape Moore's conclusion.


    by Richard Day on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 7:29pm

    DD...

    Iranian influence does cause me great concern.


    by chucktrotter on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 7:57pm

    We were better off letting Saddam keep the lid on guys like Sadr.


    by NCD on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 9:23pm

    OIL!


    by chucktrotter on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 11:45pm

    "We were better off"

    More to the point, the Iraqis were better off...the Iraqi women were WAY better off.


    by jollyroger on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 12:02am

    Agreed.


    by NCD on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 10:57am

    the Mullah threatens any continued US presence in the country.

    Well, there's the silver lining--since apparently we won't leave on our own, and staying undermines our strategic interests bigtime.

    Anyone remember when Bremer had a warrant out for Sadr's arrest because of Al-Khoie's killing by Badr brigade thugs (ie, not Sadrists)?


    by jollyroger on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 11:55pm

    undermines our strategic interests bigtime.

    Lest we forget, 'Sama first got a burr up his ass on account of the troops we inserted after Gulf War One, for the purpose of protecting our Saudi toadies from any Saddamite ambitions.

    That worked out hellacool, n'est ce pas?


    by jollyroger on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 12:05am

    I'm not sure what your point is beyond Bush was a geo-political idiot.  Should we keep to our continued policy or try something new? What would you do if you were in Obama's shoes? 


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 12:57am

    Not to presume to speak for the original poster, but as an interested observer I don't see any indication that Obama rejects the fundamental "original sin" underlying our geo-strategic operations: the proposition that it is in our interest (and justifiable) to project power for the purpose of ensuring our commercial supremacy in resource competition.


    by jollyroger on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 1:20am

    Okay.  If we are to into this discussion, are you coming from the point of view that we should just immediately leave, whatever comes from that...what will be will be?


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 1:29am

    When you are in a hole, and you want to get out--first stop digging.

    We can't do anyone any good there--we have the reveres midas touch.  Everything we touch turns to shit.  that's why anyone we endorse (whether explicitely, like Allawi, or tacitly, like Maliki) ends up worse off poitically.

    Certainly no one is fooled re:our motivations.  When they say "you are here to take the oil", they are hardly deluded.

     

    The thing is, we could have paid ten dollars a gallon for gas since 1991, and we'd still be way ahead, economically, of where we are when you factor in the costs of these adventures.

    That is, we as a people would be way ahead...Halliburton, Exxon, Chevron, etc. not so much.


    by jollyroger on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 2:37am

    The other thing that we need to do is recognize Iranian regional hegemony--after all, we pumped up the Shah for 25 years in pursuit of that end.

    Just because we bet on the wrong horse doesn't mean that the dominoes get reshuffled.

    At least if we weren't meddling in Iraq, the built in arab/persian, Shia/sunni tension would guarantee some distance between Iran and the Shia dominated Iraq we have cleverly brought into being.

    Furthermore, the Saudi oilfields are predominantly in the part of the country which is itself Shia majority.

    That's just the way it is.  We really need to get the fuck out of the way because stumbling around like we do just gets our buildings toppled, and stuff.

    In other words, we are way out of our depth.


    by jollyroger on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 2:30am

    Coming from a "country bumpkin"...Oil is a commidity that flows into a pool.  There are thousands of storage facilities (including ocean-going tankers) holding crude until the oil prices optomize.  It doesn't matter where the oil originates!  Our oil companies do not have national interests...Just profits.  We, as American taxpayers and providers of cannon fodder, keep the lanes of petroleum exports open for friend and foe.  How much does a gallon of gasoline "actually" cost us?


    by chucktrotter on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 3:20am

    I have seen $11/gal quoted as factoring in the dollars spent shoring up friendlies...that, of course, does not include the fractional life/gallon cost of our dead, let alone the multiples of that number of innocents incinerated...

    In short, too fucking much to waste hauling 3 tons of metal around with us on the way to the supermarket.


    by jollyroger on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 2:08pm

    Agree with Jollyroger. The point is this ain't no new Middle East and our crimes and intervention have done little in the way of good (they have the internet now in Iraq and I think Friedman was touting all the cell phones). Starting wars is a risky and expensive business, and the outcomes are often not what was expected or assured by war supporters.

    Our adventure in Afghanistan seems to be making things worse in Pakistan, as tens of thousands march to support the assassination of the moderate governor of Punjab. The Iraqi's may kick us out later this year which is fine with me, it would be a gift from Allah if we were kicked out of Af/Pak by the local governments also.


    by NCD on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 11:13am

    The fundamental fact to acknowledge is that virtually nothing -- NOTHING -- that has happened in the Greater Middle East in the past half-century did so despite U.S. intervention. It has all happened because of U.S. intervention. From overthrowing Mosadegh and installing the shah, to arming the mujahedin to push the Soviets out of Afghanistan, to egging on Saddam to attack Iran, to setting up vast military bases in Saudi Arabia -- it's all come back to bite the U.S. in the ass.

    Military adventures and co-opting of local leaders have had one overarching effect: to destabilize existing governments and empower fundamentalists as the only viable alternative. Khomenei, Moqtada al-Sadr, Mullah Omar, even Osama bin Laden -- each is in his own way an American creation. Get the hell out now, buy your oil on the open market, and use the the money you save on Mideast wars to save your own crumbling society. It's not rocket science.


    by acanuck on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 5:20pm

    Americans have concluded, with the eager help of politicians of both parties, that God is offended by the prospect that we might actually share space on a bus with other people (eewww...) rather than cruise about cocooned by steel.

    That we might live near each other, conveniently walking to the store, instead of defended on all sides from human contact by half-acre zoning.

    Gasoline at market price? A stench in the nostrils of the Lord, and an abomination before the nations....


    by jollyroger on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 5:30pm

    But.....I thought when Bush invaded, his supporting wingnut Base said "Kick their ass, and take their gas!" ...didn't work out that way, which adds to the anger on the right.

    Excellent and succinctly stated points acanuck.


    by NCD on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 7:53pm