How Moqtada al-Sadr Won in Basra

Socrtease

Socrtease

Verified User
The Iraqi military's offensive in Basra was supposed to demonstrate the power of the central government in Baghdad. Instead it has proven the continuing relevance of anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. Sadr's militia, the Mahdi Army, stood its ground in several days of heavy fighting with Iraqi soldiers backed up by American and British air power. But perhaps more important than the manner in which the militia fought is the manner in which it stopped fighting. On Sunday Sadr issued a call for members of the Mahdi Army to stop appearing in the streets with their weapons and to cease attacks on government installations. Within a day, the fighting had mostly ceased. It was an ominous answer to a question posed for months by U.S. military observes: Is Sadr still the leader of a unified movement and military force? The answer appears to be yes.

The remainder of the article can be found at http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1726763,00.html?cnn=yes
 
I don't see why al-Sadr is any worse than the alternatives if you look at it from the perspective of the US getting the hell out of there. He's fairly popular among the majority, he's anti-al Qaeda, he is less closely tied with Iran than some of the the other Shi'ites we support.

The only problem with him is that he is anti-American occupation, which, unless you view the perpetual occupation of Iraq as a good thing, isn't really all that bad. That leads us to the obvious: Sadr is bad because he wants us out and our current leadership wants us to stay forever. Maliki and Co. are good because they don't mind our presence and need it to stay in power because they aren't very popular. It's a perfect match. Maliki needs us, and we need Maliki because he needs us.
 
Dungheap said:
I don't see why al-Sadr is any worse than the alternatives if you look at it from the perspective of the US getting the hell out of there. He's fairly popular among the majority, he's anti-al Qaeda, he is less closely tied with Iran than some of the the other Shi'ites we support.

The only problem with him is that he is anti-American occupation, which, unless you view the perpetual occupation of Iraq as a good thing, isn't really all that bad. That leads us to the obvious: Sadr is bad because he wants us out and our current leadership wants us to stay forever. Maliki and Co. are good because they don't mind our presence and need it to stay in power because they aren't very popular. It's a perfect match. Maliki needs us, and we need Maliki because he needs us.
Click to expand...
I was wondering why we made such a show of backing them up too. It made them look weak and ineffective even if they were kicking butt and taking names....

I said from the beginning this was a stupid strategy added on to the pile of stupid that was spent in Iraq.
 
Dungheap said:
I don't see why al-Sadr is any worse than the alternatives if you look at it from the perspective of the US getting the hell out of there. He's fairly popular among the majority, he's anti-al Qaeda, he is less closely tied with Iran than some of the the other Shi'ites we support.

The only problem with him is that he is anti-American occupation, which, unless you view the perpetual occupation of Iraq as a good thing, isn't really all that bad. That leads us to the obvious: Sadr is bad because he wants us out and our current leadership wants us to stay forever. Maliki and Co. are good because they don't mind our presence and need it to stay in power because they aren't very popular. It's a perfect match. Maliki needs us, and we need Maliki because he needs us.
Click to expand...

It's the same reason mediocrity is promoted inside corporate culture, because weak people need the establishment where as the truly gifted natural leaders are suppressed.
 
Let me guess.

You two think of yourselves as "natural leaders who have been suppressed by corporate culture".

What a bullshit excuse for being massive failures posting on a messageboard anonymously.
 
Epicurus said:
Let me guess.

You two think of yourselves as "natural leaders who have been suppressed by corporate culture".

What a bullshit excuse for being massive failures posting on a messageboard anonymously.
Click to expand...


Let me guess, you're an incompetent middle manager who spends most of your time spreading lies and manipulating to keep the awful truth from coming out about you.
 
Why is it that so many posts have to devolve into attacks and digs at the people who post on here? Can't we just respond to the posts without taking what someone said and moving it toward what is wrong with the poster?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top