Comments on: The Iraqi National Conference – a mixed bag

By: Nat Whilk

Nat Whilk — Thu, 19 Aug 2004 20:38:58 +0000

Maynard Handley wrote: “Well at least the US is different from that monster, Saddam Hussein, who just killed his political opponents. No?” Excuse me for stating the obvious, but al-Sadr is a wee bit more than just a “political opponent”.

By: Maynard Handley

Maynard Handley — Thu, 19 Aug 2004 20:02:53 +0000

Next time shoot him, no questions asked. Better a marytr than someone who stirs up revolution every four months. Well at least the US is different from that monster, Saddam Hussein, who just killed his political opponents. No? So remind me, exactly what was the point of deposing him then?

By: peter ramus

peter ramus — Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:36:00 +0000

I think there’s a reasonably good chance that Sadr will carry through a withdrawal from Najaf and that the government/US will accept this without trying (for example) to demand the surrender of weapons. —John Quiggan Sadly, as they say, no. Sadr appears to be at the "matyrdom or death" stage of negotiations at this hour, judging from the most recently reported text message from his camp.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:19:32 +0000

Sadr seems to be going on a revolutionary break. The revolution will resume later when he doesn’t get what he wants. He should have been arrested the first time he tried his hand at revolution. Each time he gets to paralyze a city with no adverse consequences to his power he gains power because he successfully ‘stood up to’ the Americans. Next time shoot him, no questions asked. Better a marytr than someone who stirs up revolution every four months.

By: Warthog

Warthog — Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:07:40 +0000

The intitial process of selecting the 1,000 delegates from perhaps several more thousands of candidates throughout Iraq is in itself a successful democratic activity. Getting from 1,000 to 100 is another demonstration that advocacy and compromise can be part of Iraqi political life. That the conferees could get together enough to send an ultimatum to al Sadr is yet another big step. There will surely be bumps in the road but this is a very good beginning.

By: Rob

Rob — Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:00:40 +0000

No, his behavior shows he would do well. If he wouldn’t do well, why withdraw his forces?

By: Anthony

Anthony — Thu, 19 Aug 2004 11:57:34 +0000

It seems pretty clear that, if free elections are held, and Sadr runs, he, or his supporters, will do very well. On the contrary his behaviour shows he thinks he will not do well. The views of non-Iraqis is likely to be influenced by the Western media coverage of Sadr’s activity, which may not be representative of the support he actually has or his importance.

By: kevin donoghue

kevin donoghue — Thu, 19 Aug 2004 10:27:58 +0000

To say that the US should have settled in 2003 for a moderate, semi-democratic, “Sistanistan” kind of Iraq is a bit like saying Napoleon should have quit while he was ahead.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Thu, 19 Aug 2004 08:04:48 +0000

I’m always doing this kind of thing! I had “Conference”, then read something that gave me the idea I should say “Congress”. Fixed now, thanks

By: jb

jb — Thu, 19 Aug 2004 07:48:28 +0000

i believe this is a translation issue, but doesn’t iraqi national congress normally refer to chalabi’s party, while iraqi national conference refers to the convention over the last four days? in which case, the iraqi national congress is decidedly not a mixed bag.