Comments on: Forced to fight renegades

By: abb1

abb1 — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 08:48:30 +0000

88, yes of course, the context matters. Unlike Sadrists, Buchananists are only imagining that their country is being invaded. That’s sorta like a difference between legitimate self-defense and a paranoid psychopath acting to ‘defend’ himself.

By: Laleh

Laleh — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 20:01:16 +0000

87: Yeah, but without the fascist overtones I think – and of course, Sadr’s movement inevitably has an anti-colonial feel to it (even if its nativism and its sectarianism are unpleasant – and sometimes deadly).

By: abb1

abb1 — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:48:23 +0000

Thanks, Laleh. So, it is a “God And The Country” thingy, something like Patrick J Buchanan’s “Pitchfork Brigade”.

By: Laleh

Laleh — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:05:02 +0000

abb1, for the symbols and iconography, check out

http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/sadr-billboard-palestine-street-722408.jpg

the symbols are all there: the Iraqi flag (very important; in Iran, the Islamic Republic immediately after the revolution did not really display the three colours of the flag; it began to do so again after Saddam ordered the iraqi military into Iran); images of the two elder Sadrs (Baqir – who used Marxist analysis in his very articulate economic/theological analysis – read Charles Tripp’s Moral Economy of Islam and Sadiq – who was much more of a hands-on and revered elder); and an image of the masses.

A sort of populist (not in the derogatory meaning of the term) with nationalist and IRAQI Shi’a iconography as well as a refernece to the people. Unlike Hizbullah of Lebanon, no images of Khomeini or other Iranian clerics.

as for speeches, apparently (based on what As’ad AbuKhalil says) he is not a very eloquent speaker. i am not sure how he rouses the public…

By: Jim S.

Jim S. — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:56:31 +0000

Sorry, no. 38, but 180,000 out of 300,000,000 is not tens of thousands. Americans are responisble, but virulent self-hatred gets one nowhere.

By: roger

roger — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:54:26 +0000

One of the puzzles of this war is the lack of class analysis that has been brought to it. Although the rightwing loves to float endless analogies between Iraq and South Korea, or Germany, or whatever, in actuality one of the unusual things about Iraq is that the U.S., from the beginning, misrecognized its natural constituency. This has always been the upper middle and upper class – the professional class. Instead, up until last year, the U.S. consistently persecuted this class, whether Shi’ite or Sunni, because it was, naturally, rewarded by the Ba’athists. This is one of the truly poisonous effects of Chalabi, who entered Iraq with the revengeful disposition with which some of the Bourbons entered France in 1815. Chalabi actually wanted to restore the social order that had existed in the mid fifties in Iraq – an insane proposition, but it did put a bare cover over Chalabi’s rampant theft. That provincial viewpoint basically kidnapped the American p.o.v. Hence, the professional class fled. One of the purposes of the accord in Anbar was to signal that they should come back. But the signal is too late: a new group, joined to the new Shi’ite governing class, is never going to let them back.

In brief, this is why the U.S. policy in Iraq is fucked over the short term. But will the governing class decide that they need the U.S. to enforce the new social arrangements in Iraq? That might be what is being decided now. Myself, I think that as they decide they do, the U.S. will be deciding to wind down in Iraq, since the monetary cost is simply too much.

By: abb1

abb1 — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:24:59 +0000

and lay the groundwork for greater influence

Hmm, maybe, maybe not. In a situation like this some guy who blows up a tank or shoots a helicopter might suddenly become more influential.

By: mds

mds — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:54:46 +0000

Sadr’s sojourns in that country are mostly the result of his needing a place to hide out when the going gets rough. Well, choosing Qom probably has an additional long-term purpose. It would be a significant boost in authority for Sadr if he could make mujtahid. If he just wanted to hide out with the eeeevil Iranians that are backing him, he could simply go to Teheran, like the politicians the US keeps supporting. Instead, it's seminary time. Be seen to be above the fray by hitting the books, keep out of the path of flying bullets, and lay the groundwork for greater influence. What's not to like?

By: Steve LaBonne

Steve LaBonne — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:28:38 +0000

Remember, though, as soon as President McCain gets all these guys together and tells them to stop the bullshit, peace will reign forevermore. And a pony.

By: Steve LaBonne

Steve LaBonne — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:20:19 +0000

Actually, dwmf, it’s the factions supporting Maliki (especially SIIC formerly SCIRI) who have stronger long-term ties to Iran. (Perhaps you missed the reports of Maliki’s recent love-fest with Ahmadinejad). Sadr’s sojourns in that country are mostly the result of his needing a place to hide out when the going gets rough.

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:18:47 +0000

78: People are actually saying the opposite, that the Iranians are cutting Sadr loose because their relationship with Maliki is good and Sadr is no longer useful.

By: DWMF

DWMF — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:14:39 +0000

Has nobody considered that Maliki’s aim is to purge Basra of Iran’s influence. Sadr is a puppet of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. When the going gets tough, he goes to Qom. I hear he’s getting a crash course in Shiite theology at the moment, to make him more “statesmanlike”.

By: Kevin Donoghue

Kevin Donoghue — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:09:38 +0000

I don’t see the problem, abb1. Nationalists are often deeply religious and competing nationalist leaders usually appeal to different social classes. If Robin Hood ever existed he was presumably some sort of Saxon nationalist as well as a redistributor of wealth, just as Joan of Arc was both patriotic and devout. There is no doubt that al-Sadr draws his support mostly from the have-nots and from those who looked to his father as a spiritual guide.

By: novakant

novakant — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:07:55 +0000

For anybody putting faith into the current Iraqi government, this is what John Burns, who knows a thing or two and has been a pretty fair observer, has to say about Maliki: Maliki is a man who -- not to be unkind -- I think if you were sitting on a local school board, you'd worry about appointing him to be principal of your local high school, and here's a guy who's been put in charge of a nation of 30 million people.

By: abb1

abb1 — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:20:23 +0000

Why, ‘nationalist movement’ would be enough of an answer for me, I don’t need fine details. The problem is, sometimes it’s presented as a religious movement and sometimes he’s a sort of Robin Hood popular in slums of Baghdad and Basra.