THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Re, al-Sadr and Iran, see the Summer 2003 issue of the Middle East Review, "The Worldly Roots of Religiosity in Post-Saddam Iraq," by Faleh Jabar. pp 16-18.

hobitbob,

Is this journal not available online to non-subscribers? If not, can you summarize those 3 pages for us?

Thanks.

Essentially, it states that Muqtada al-Sadr, who by the way is not seen as the legitimate successor to his father, established clandestine ties to Iran in the late 1990s. He became part of a struggle in the immediate aftermath of Hussein's downfall among Shia leasders to determine who had supermacy. His popularity had been primarily with the sort of "angry young men" who make up the nucleus of any paramilitary movement.
With the death of al-Kohei on 10 Aril, 2003, which some hold Sadr responsible for, the struggle became one between Sistani, who is more moderate than Sadr (for that matter, Attilla the Hun is more moderate than Sadr), but by no means the "friendly face" the US seems to think he is, and Sadr, who perhaps sees himself as a young Khomeini.
Sadr is seen as a young hothead by the senior Shia leadership, indeed there is some speculation that he is in fact only 22, not 32, but he and his followers have led an effective war of rhetoric and sub rosa violence against other Shia leaders. The article concludes with speculation that if the US does not successfully correct problems in infrastructure by the end of the year (2003), that Sadr's militant rhetoric is likley to prove more appealing to the average Iraqi, and that he could lead an effective resistance that may lead to the US haeving to pull out, and either the attemtpted annexation of Iraq by Iran, with war as a result, or the establishment of Iraq as a puppet state of Iran under Sadr.

Sumac, I don't think the journal is online at all. It is an academic journal, and should be at most good librairies. Usually Borders will carry current issues.

This doesn't really belong here, so apologies - but it is interesting, I think - from ABC Australia:

Govt asked me to lie: sacked defence adviser
A senior Defence Department adviser says she lost her job because she refused to write a briefing paper, which she says would have lied about the threat posed by Iraq's weapons programs.

Jane Errey was a senior adviser with the Defence Science and Technology Organisation until she was sacked last week.

She has previously stood as a candidate for the Australian Democrats in the ACT.

Ms Errey says the Defence Department asked her to write a briefing paper claiming Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but that was not backed up by intelligence material she had seen.

"I believe I was being asked, as was the rest of the department at that time, to perpetuate the lie that the Government was putting forward in so far as the weapons of mass destruction existed and that they were a grave threat to the rest of the world," Ms Errey said.

But the acting secretary of the Defence Department, Alan Henderson, says Ms Errey was sacked because she did not return to work after taking leave.

Mr Henderson rejects her claim that she lost her job because of her views on the Iraq war.

"It is a coincidence," he said.

"We have shown consideration towards her position in relation to Iraq but at the end of the day you have to turn up and do a day's work or account for the reasons why you won't turn up."

Yesterday, Defence Minister Robert Hill has rejected the claims.
"Basically it's a management issue, it's got nothing to do with any briefs that she may have written or was going to write in the past," Senator Hill said.
Democrats leader Andrew Bartlett says it is a very serious claim and he is calling for an investigation.
"It does raise concerns, it does unfortunately have a ring of truth about it and those allegations should be certainly be properly investigated and publicly investigated," he said.

"I don't think it's good enough to say it's an internal matter when it's now become public and Ms Errey has made the decision to make a public allegation that she was sacked because of her refusal to be part of dismissing serious internal concerns that were attempted to be communicated to the Government."

That's one down; how many more to go before the administration of Bush falls?

Incompetence
"Bush administration officials said the strength of al-Sadr's rag-tag al-Mahdi militia took U.S. military commanders by surprise"

That seems to be the story of Bushco. Greedy, indept, shallow and uncaring for anything but grubbing wealth. This Regime is dispicable!!!

On TV when asked who the handover was going to go to, Bremmer replied, "Good question." He had no answer for it. Seems that he is as clueless as Dimson, the Pres. select.

Closing in
The pieces are starting to fit in the puzzle. I feel that at the least, Bushco ignored the oncoming 911 Attacks. Perhaps the rest of the pieces will be uncovered before the election.

I heard on the early morning TV news (NBC affiliate) that the coalition troops found a bomb-making factory in Fallujah, complete with suicide bombers' vests/belts and uniforms of the 82nd Airborne. I will look for a substantiating link later. Right now, thunderstorms are approaching so have to go out and plant and scatter seeds.

dlowan, that piece does indeed belong here. Thanks for posting.

Should we not have LAWS... LAWS with teeth in them...

that no member of federal government in charge of decision making, may profit ONE dollar from ANY action in the USA, that cost a human life?
I DON'T THINK ANYONE SHOULD.

War, if honest defense, should be NON PROFIT to all but the people who SERVE and especially those injured and dying from it.

It makes me so sick... really--- If I read Bush said: 'we are so grateful to those sacrificing (in Iraq) for the security of our nation'---one more time,
I may either throw up beyond my capacity of bearing it... or just 'shut off my mind" and 'sit out' the rest of my life, hearing NO news.

So companies like Haliburton should send in their people to reconstuct Iraq for free? They should risk their lives for minimum wage? How do you think the world works? Should we have the Boy Scouts go in and clean up?

Mc, every dollar destined to go Cheney or other investors,
WHO HAVE DECIDED they will serve their nation by being an 'elected' or appointed official with salary,

should be split among the soldiers actually fighting the war, or at least the ones family who die, and the ones sustaining injury.

THEY DEFINITELY SHOULD NOT PROFIT---

While there is no mention of found uniforms from the 82nd Airborne, bomb-making factories and suicide bomb vests were found in Fallujah:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3527-2004Apr11_2.html

But there was a quote from a Naval chaplain who stopped by to conduct a brief Easter service for the troops in Fallujah which gave me considerable pause, as it sounds too much like what Muslim clerics might say:

There used to be a group of Iraqi tribal leaders who worked, quite cordially, with an American officer on various projects. Not now though:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4142-2004Apr11_3.html

"When coalition forces came to Iraq they came as liberations, not occupiers," said a man in a billowing robe. "But our people have two guides: One is religion and religious leaders, the other is the tribe. You talk so much about developing the country, rehabilitating the country, but you have made so many mistakes. You opened the borders to saboteurs and mercenaries.

"It's all your fault."

And finally, additional information about al Sadr:

Who Is Moqtada Sadr?

No, McGentrix, not the Boy Scouts. We should have a reconstruction division of the armed forces. It could fill multiple roles in peacetime, and in case we attack a country, (which looks like something that might happen often if George Bush is re-elected,) this department would step in as administrators and reconstruction experts; they would be trained in cultural sensitivity, as well as other skills useful in a global economy. In time, this division could become as experienced as Halliburton, which is the reason Halliburton is so useful: they can do large jobs and multiple jobs and do them efficiently. The profit motive is what renders them suspect.

Kara, I like the cut of your jib. That is an excellent idea and should be given some definite thought.

However, the original thought is based on the secious notion that the current administration is somehow getting kickbacks from starting a war in Iraq.

That's a convenient mistatement of a complex, and largely invisible, issue. The question is...to what degree, if any, are the policies of this administration influenced by the desires of the petroleum (and related) industries?