Not to be one to allow the Sunnis to have all the limelight in fighting the Americans, Moqtada al-Sadr has evidently encouraged his flock to join in on the fray by organizing protests and becoming more assertive. The result?


(ABC News online: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1080574.htm

and.....



http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/...1017035856.html
Questions for debate:

1.)What should the U.S. do to contain(or take out?) Moqtada al-Sadr?

2.)Up until this point, has our response to him(he was the one who hated the caucus idea and wants a direct election) appropriate?


3.)What damage do these events do to the assertion that it is only insurgents within the "Sunni Triangle" who are against us and remain the lone area unpacified?

Kill him. Of course, we will have to make it look like someone else did it or our troops will be bombarded by his nutty followers. Sadr is just causing disruptions and inciting violence like his shut down newspaper.


No damage. Sistani and Sadr are small potatos compared to the psychopathic nutballs we are dealing with in areas like Fallujah.

Do not assassinate him. Doing so raises him to Martyred status with his followers and legitimizes his assertions about the Coalition occupation.



In my opinion, our response to him has been about right. Moqtada al-Sadr relegated himself to the fringe not long after the occupation began by taking extremist positions and making fanatical speeches from the mosque and his religious powerbase. Although a smaller group of extremists rallied to his cause, his sermons alienated many Shia (especially anyone older than him; Moqtada is approximately 29 or 30 years old and only had a large religious following because of his father, Mohammed Sadeq al-Sadr, murdered in 1999). Moqtada is still a threat but I don't think we can do much more above and beyond what we're already doing.



As far as I know, the Coalition does not assert that it is "only" insurgents within that area and that it remains the "lone" area unpacified. I think they would say, however, that the Sunni Triangle comprises the greatest danger areas to stability and recovery.

I say do nothing.

After all, we can always beat them into liberation.

Don't look now, but things are about to get interesting!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3601887.stm



I bet anyone that a wave of violence strikes--any takers?

I think you are right. But we can't let the murder of Abdel-Majid al-Khoei go unpunished. He'll just keep his violent preachings going while he's sitting in a jail cell

I think the U.S. needs to take a cautious approach to this situation. This is bigger than one man, way bigger!! Whether we take him out or not is not the point,
We need to find a beter way to communicate to the Iraqis and let them know we want to help them. Problem is, we never came there to to help them. Because the invasion was under false pretenses and the fact that the Iraqis, the whole world and half this country understand this, the only way to get out this situation is establishing a better relationship with the UN and the Iraqis to better facilitate the transition.

The insurgents will only grow if we arrest Moqtada al-Sadr. We're stuck in between a rock and a hard place. But something must be done to protect our troops. It looks like things are starting to break down and if we don't have some type of change in policy, things are going to get even more uglier.

1.)What should the U.S. do to contain(or take out?) Moqtada al-Sadr?

Imprison him until the Iraqi council takes over the nation and then let them deal with him... unless of course he is found guilty of causing the deaths of US servicemen.. in that case charge him with murder and throw him in a dark hole for a very long time.

2.)Up until this point, has our response to him(he was the one who hated the caucus idea and wants a direct election) appropriate?

Yes.

3.)What damage do these events do to the assertion that it is only insurgents within the "Sunni Triangle" who are against us and remain the lone area unpacified?

They demonstrate the naivete of the argument. It must be obvious to any one who stops to consider the matter that national pride int he face of a foreign invasion force, even a benign one, is not determined by one's religon.

If anything, this development only goes to show how complex the situation on the ground is... and always was.

First of all, I would like to point out that said argument is a conscious generalization. I don't believe these incidents do much damage at all to the assertion that Sunni tribesman and loyalists are behind most of the bombing. The coalition has also noted that Islamic extremists may be involved to a lesser extent. The evidence has only recently come through on Sadr.

Now then, the matter of national pride not having religious boundaries is well taken.

The rub, of course, is that this may change on a local levels when certain areas or religions are favored by the now deposed government. Now the motivation is not nationalist pride, but anger at being displaced from the top of the heap. Certainly this would explain the marked differences opinions polls show between Sunni and Shia on a range of issues.

The situation is complex, but not as complex as pessimism dictates. Slightly more than the Pentagon view is my estimate. No where near the fears of those opposed to the war...

That said, the rest of moif's post speaks for me too!

1.)What should the U.S. do to contain(or take out?) Moqtada al-Sadr?I would actually try and steal his thunder and show him for the spoiled child of a well respected man. Technically he is not even a full fledged Ayatollah.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,116145,00.html

I would work the Ayatollahs themselves and appeal to their sense of self. I doubt any of them wish to be outshone by a FNG. Treat him like an annoyance to the press and get the ayatollahs themselves to disparage him. (I would use Malcolm X as an example. He got big and powerful and even worse Respected. So he was gunned down. Most agree the hit came from inside the nation) Far too many other ayatollahs will want to maintain their personality cults and not find themselves sidelined or even worse trivialized by someone riding on their father's coattails.
Get them arguing among themselves if possible.

2.)Up until this point, has our response to him(he was the one who hated the caucus idea and wants a direct election) appropriate?
Yes the response has been adequate.

3.)What damage do these events do to the assertion that it is only insurgents within the "Sunni Triangle" who are against us and remain the lone area unpacified?
All of Iraq is unstable. The people of Iraq have traditionally been enemies and getting them to "Agree" to a representative government will go over like trying to get approval for a gay pride parade in Branson MO from the Council of Conservative Citizens. However al-Sadr is more of an anomaly than a standard threat. He is trying to maintain his personality cult and desperately seeking ways to strengthen his hold on a cushy life. I think jailing him is a tricky solution. It can easily go backwards and send Iraq spiraling into unrecoverable chaos.

Communication with religous fanatics is what we need? Uh, dont think so. We should shoot them in the head. They want one thing, we want another, Sadr is openly attacking us, we should blow out his brains in the process of attempting an arrest.

There is no touchy feely way to reason with people with no education who think that god spoke to a guy in a cave 1400 years ago and that theocracy is the way to go. If they get a theocracy through violence, weve lost.

Did I mention shooting them in the head?

We've seen worse. Heck...what's going on in Iraq now is not as bad as what we've being trying to deal with for a whole year

Sadr is an Iranian figurehead and is trying to gain power by killing his rivals and turning everyone against US troops and other coalition partners. He needs to be dealt with swift action such as shooting him dead. This guy is a troublemaker and is disrupting the rebuilding of Iraq

I think shooting or imprisoning him is a horrible idea- the idea of turning his own poeple against him, however, is a great idea. If we "shoot him in the head"- it will increase the power of what may be powerful enemies of him- his presence keeps the Shia a little more fractured. If we kill him, it might make his enemies start thinking that the US is exactly what some poeple are saying - an oppressor- and it might radicalize the more moderate Shia. I put it this way- I hate GW Bush- I loathe him and despise his very being- to me he represents all that needs cleansing and change in this nation to make it great again- however- if a foriegn power "shot him in the head"- I too would go to fight that common enemy.

The better way is to perhaps finance or encourage his enemies, give them more power and leeway, more access to thier populations etc.

And what does deliberate summary execution of Sadr by our military say of our vaunted American ideals and the rule of law?

Unless he engages in open combatant activities, or refuses to follow an order to surrender and resists by force, a soldier can't just "blow out his brains" without violating the laws of land warfare.

Against my better judgment, I'll say it-why not?? It worked for Reagan in order to get hostages released?? We give up a few TOW missiles and we get people back, worked in the '80s!. I do understand your point though. If we don't want to experience karma again(i.e.-Bin Laden and the CIA) then we shouldn't associate with such types. At the same time, if they don't talk to us, they will turn to some other benefactor.

It might have been possible to visit both the Sunni and Shia leaders and carve up Iraq into two or three semi-independent republics. At least that way, we could appeal to their leaders sense of power.

Once again, most of what I know is classified. My opinions are often based on things I can't site.

1.)What should the U.S. do to contain(or take out?) Moqtada al-Sadr?

Capture im and try him publicly. The poeple need to see the rule of law in action.

2. Won't this incite the Iraq people more and cause resentment?

More than there is already? Probably not. And it'll end it quicker.

3.)What damage do these events do to the assertion that it is only insurgents within the "Sunni Triangle" who are against us and remain the lone area unpacified?

Well if that isn't a question with an agenda. We've known about Al-Sadr for months. If the press had been doing it's job instead of just reporting body counts, so would you. It's not like any of his actions or words have been secret. But no one was interested on reporting in the "peaceful" parts of Iraq.

Also, on the question of whether we've adequately handled him so far? We've done the best we can.

What’s in a name, the u.s vs. another group of people in iraq fighting for some reason. What image does the u.s carry in the middle east or in Iraq. To get past the point I wonder how many groups you can find that fight against the u.s over some common cause. Which this of course relates to a common problem in the Middle East and is probably the same reason that terrorists come to be. The only reason i can see fighting these guys really is to turn Iraq into what the u.s wants.

Not only does the security side of it have an impact, but to our current administration and to many people in general it would do no good to hand a democracy to a group of people when guys like this could get elected. This in itself is a major issue with the whole mid east reform policy that we have going on.

It is easy to sit here in the u.s and say this is the way you have to be, this is how you must adapt your culture and how you must live, and then tell them that it is good for them. This also includes putting soldiers on the streets and so on. Of course we are going to pander to those that are going to be accepting of the way then the rest get killed off.

If you were to go back say a few thousand years ago, you might find the same thing, people found success in some ecology, made a culture, and believed in everything, as it was real, even in a religious aspect. Poseidon or Ra was a god and the reason why things happened. To delve farther in on this point it is the same thing today with different groups of people. I am not going to say that it is a product of our biology taking form but history does seem to repeat itself nonetheless.

To me what is going on in Iraq right now is just that, its like a bad form of sociobiology coming to bear. We decided what we are going to do, any people whom don’t conform either fight and die or dwindle away.

This leads me to my last part of the post, we can easily see the brutal product of conservatism alive and well in the struggle between Israel and Palestine. To have some spark of liberal thought happen in Iraq would be like having rain in a draught, it would be very beneficial. To just go around fighting these groups that come from the people can be just as devastating to our goals as they could help them. I would imagine things are very sensitive over there right now, every last little thing needs to be well thought out.

On questions 1 and 2, I agree with Lone Wolf. Capturing Al-Sadr and trying him publicly is the most positive outcome. Simply killing him would strengthen his organization in the short term.

As for question 3, again, as Lone Wolf stated, we have known about the potential threat posed by Al-Sadr's followers since we gained control (relatively speaking) of the country. There has never been any "assertion" that the only threat to stability in Iraq was posed by Sunni insurgents.

I refer you to a paper published by the Army War College in February: The United States and Iraq's Shi'ite Clergy: Partners or Adversaries?

I part with Lone Wolf on the question of whether or not we've handled the question of Al-Sadr well up to this point...I strongly feel that we did not adequately address the Shi'a factional problem at all.

I don't think we have handled him adequately. We knew he was a troublemaker and we knew that he could not be trusted to stay peaceful

The man was running a paper that was encouraging violence against US troops and preaching Anti-American sermons

Oh sorry, i thought i might go over peoples heads on that one, i will try to do better.

I was mainly trying to use a point about past cultures to bring up the need for some liberal thought in a very conservative area. Also about the decisions we make coming back to haunt us, nothing more.

I would just like to think that we started this war to first get rid of an immediate threat, then to remove a person whom was responsible for that threat (saddam)
then to give the people democracy.

At first any people in Iraq who battled the coalition was a terrorist, that was very naive and racist. Now they are insurgents, against what. We were to go there and remove a dictator and give them democracy. Instead it seems we want only who we want to be in the government, not whom the people their want, and we want to have a say about how the constitution would be. I am not against reform, but that sounds like more then what we said we were out to do there. This was not to be an occupation or an attack on culture, but it seems to be getting this way in now that we are battling a certain sect of Muslims there, not terrorists or insurgents but the people whom live there.

I also do not know how much the other sects of Muslims will put up with both killing each other for power. That threat of civil war is still in the air, and along with that it would be very nasty if both groups wanted us to leave as bad as the one, and take our government with us.

Like i said you could hope for some liberal thought, but it looks like it will not occur.

Moqtada al-Sadr is just a reflection of such, if he is killed and nothing he talks about is cared about his followers will just dig in, and so will their kids. We need good leaders and thinkers now, not action figures with a name brand.

As per my normal reasoning and thoughts on Iraq, we as americans make our biggest mistakes in not having a clue, nor caring about what makes Iraqi people who they are, a people of a culture so far removed from our own that we cannot determine by our own standards what is important to them. This is and will be a reocurring problem for us unless we begin to take notice of their culture and act accordingly.

There is NO reason, except our own ignorance, arrogance upon unprovoked invasion to 'shoot him in the head'. What did you expect? Everyone in Iraq to get down on their knees and hail 'Allah Praise the Americans' and fall in line accordingly?




1.)What should the U.S. do to contain(or take out?) Moqtada al-Sadr?

WHY should we either contain, nor much less 'take out' al-Sadr? Isnt he vieing for political position in a 'FREE' Iraq? He is against coalition troops and wants us OUT, he is against american intrusion in Iraqi affairs, isnt that precisely what our government has been selling us, a free Iraq without our undo influence?
How has a marginal rebel united the Sunnis and Shiites against us? Except to assure americans have no say in Iraqs future. We said we wanted the same, except we were lieing.

2.)Up until this point, has our response to him(he was the one who hated the caucus idea and wants a direct election) appropriate?

Hmmn. Wanting a general election seems quite democratic.

3.)What damage do these events do to the assertion that it is only insurgents within the "Sunni Triangle" who are against us and remain the lone area unpacified?

The last few days have made it all too clear that there is not only the Sunni triangle that are against us. It took little to cause uprising in Iraq.
We have blundered so badly that factions who have no political understandings amongs themselves have aligned against us. This is standard in Iraqs history, they despise occupation. They will NEVER accept an american occupation, no matter how much we want to believe it. It goes against everything they stand for and always have, thats what WE do not understand. Suprisingly, because we would never stand for it either.

GoAmerica and Mustang, I didn't say that we handled him adequately. And by "we" I mean 1AD, who has been the closest American forces to him. I wish I could say more, but everything I know about it is classified and dealing with current operations.

And Artemise, I think you're confusing Al-Sadr with Al-Sistani. Sistani wants direct elections. Sadr wants Iran part 2.

I read an article yesterday on STRATFOR (a commercial company that does private strategic intelligence forecasting) that is essentially educated guesswork but felt compelled to bring it up here after reflecting that it speaks to all three of the debate questions posed by Nebraska29. It ultimately concludes that al-Sadr is probably a pawn being played by al-Sistani to renegotiate the Shia position with the US to ensure dominance in the new government, over the existing plan which does not guarantee Shia majority rule. The text starts out slow but if you are interested in this thread, I think you'll find the piece is worth reading.

I wanted to just post the link but it appears the link may change on a weekly basis so I will include the URL and the full text below it:

http://www.stratfor.com/corporate/index.neo?page=basicsample

Edited: As Jaime indicated, the text is too long to include here for copyrighted material (my apologies). When you follow the link above, the name of the article should be Gaming Out Iraq, dated April 8th, 2004. If you get a different weekly article, it has probably been updated by STATFOR and is no longer available; please just disregard.