The fall and fall of the House of Sadr

There should be a name for trends that become planted in the public mind and stay there forever. For example, since 1968 “rising crime rates”, under that name, have continuously been one of the 2 or 3 most important US political issues. If they’d actually been rising that whole time, 100% of us would be murder victims by now, and 100% of all property would have been stolen.

As I remember, crime rates actually did rise pretty steadily for about ten years after 1968, but have been flat, fluctuating, or declining ever since. But you still often hear people speak as though there’s been a steady rise which is still continuing.

John, the UK media tend to do the same in the UK I noticed – every year when each annual crime statistics report is printed (like the BCS and the Home Office/Police summary) they pick out the approx 50% of crime categories that have increased that year and report how all of them have risen. Next year it will be mostly a different 50% of categories. At most any comments about all the other categories that have dropped over the year will be skimmed over in one of the final paragraphs, assuming that most people wont read it that far anyway, or think that the drops in crime in those categories can’t be very noticeable if the reporter said nothing much about them.

He’s been down so long it looks like up to US.

There should be a name for trends that become planted in the public mind and stay there forever. For example, since 1968 “rising crime rates”…

It’s called ‘demonizing’. Applied to racial, ethnic and political groups, labor organizations, and individuals. Works every time.

Hated, with no public support, isolated, irrelevant, outfoxed by the sophisticated Bush and now a lonely fugitive

Yeah, we know all about Reynolds. So what about Sadr? ;)

7: Yeah, but I’m thinking specifically of the atemporality of a trend that moves in a given direction forever but ends up about where it started.

I did read something by Hexter once called something like “The Gradual Rise of the Middle Class, 1200-1700” which pointed out that at the end of five centuries of rise the middle class still remained about where it had started, wealthy bu lacking political power, which it could only gain by marrying or buying into the aristocracy.

A Glenn Reynolds learning process?

As for crime rates: Gosh folks, do you think with the population doubling there might be more crimes?

More crimes in absolute terms, but not crime rates – although increased urbanisation (as a fraction of the total population) and such may well cause some increase in expected crime rates, which often accompanies growing population.

Sure, but there are still plenty of conservatives ranting about rising crime.

there are still plenty of conservatives ranting about rising crime.

Not compared with ten years ago, there aren’t.

You really can be too cynical, you know.

Actually, crime may still be rising, only it’s rising inside the jails. Two million plus people in a mostly hobbesian setting will do plenty of it.

Speaking to the original post, what *is* the real status of Sadr these days? Maybe GR has been too eager to conclude he’s finished (or at least to pass on that conclusion when made by others) but it does seem like Sadr has gradually become less and less of a risk — even if he hasn’t been entirely put to bed, and may never be.

My usual disclaimer: I don’t claim to be an expert on Iraq, only a newspaper reader. But many who do claim to be experts have wildly divergent opinions on this, generally correlated with whether the opinion-holder wishes the Iraq enterprise to go well or go poorly.

As I remember, crime rates actually did rise pretty steadily for about ten years after 1968, but have been flat, fluctuating, or declining ever since.

Crime rates did rise during that period. It was a function of two contemporaneous statistical factors. First, the UCR, (Uniform Crime Reports) are voluntary and during that period more police agencies collected and reported their stats. But secondly and more importantly, the baby boomers came of age. Take a guess which age demographic is most likely to commit crimes. 14 to 45 is the prime crime committing demographic. After that, even hard core offenders tend to taper off. If you want to be picky about it, adjusting for these two statistical blips, crime rates have pretty much remained constant over time. Getting “tough on rampant crime” is just a political scam. They figured out long before 9/11 that fear is an excellent political tool and motivator.

John Q: I think Sadr was “demonised from the start” because he wanted to make Iraq a Shiite theocracy. And my recollection is that he used to be (thought to be) pretty pro-Iran. So the Coalition cast their lot with Sistani instead, the “quietist,” who seemed much more in favor of democracy and against Iranian influence. Of all the decisions made by the US/Coalition in this war, the decision to play nice with Sistani seems like of the least bad, and maybe actually good.

Sadr, meanwhile, launched two mini-wars agains Coalition forces, intended (I suspect) to result in Sadr as some sort of Iraqi ayatollah. Both were swatted down. So he turned to politics, where he’s been more successful. He’s routinely described as Maliki’s most important source of support, ergo untouchable. Ideally the leader of a political bloc would not have a private army, but as you say he may be no more nefarious than any other militia leader — if more powerful, and therefore more danderous. But now, if he’s really fled the country, the political tide may have also turned.

I don’t know the real answer of course. Maybe he’ll be back, stronger than before. But it does seem like the years-long effort to sideline a potentially very dangerous piece of the Iraqi puzzle may be getting somewhere.

Incidentally, what about the US’s dealings with Sadr represents a war crime? Unless you consider the whole affair a war crime, as many clearly do.

All these points are of course disputed. As I say, I don’t know the truth, and neither do you; amusing to see you describe yourself as someone who does.

Actually I’m not, at least not intentionally. The Bush White House is hardly credible in these matters. (Incidentally, if a story is sourced to a US military official, particularly one in Iraq, it’s not necessarily the Administration’s vetted line. It’s tempting to think the US works like that, but it doesn’t. Not all the time, anyways.) I do read a variety of news sources, and what I’ve read on Sadr is conflicting. One could read the tea leaves of events to say that Sadr is on the verge of being run out of town on a rail, or that he is the most powerul man in Iraq (though I can’t say I have seen much to support the notion that he is a “”force for stability”). In asking the question, I was hoping for perhaps some kind of knowledgeable analysis, from maybe someone who does know a bit about what’s going on, not regurgitated third-hand blog blather or this my-side, your-side shite. Forget I said anything.

Well I was aiming for more ambiguity than that; I did describe it as my recollection, and things change fast in this war. Just now I did a quick search of “sadr iran” and came up with a stew of conflicting viewpoints on this topic, including many that certainly don’t come from Administration sources. For instance, a year ago Al Jazeera ran a report that Sadr had pledged to defend Iran if it were attacked, e.g. by the US. Does that indicate Sadr is pro-Iran or is backed by Iran? No, not necessarily, but it makes it hard to describe Sadr as particularly anti-Iran. (link: http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=18043) (This interview was also blogged much more extensively by your man Juan Cole. In his transcription I found a rather amazing assertion by Sadr that military resistance against the occupation had “failed” and that Sadr was 100% political now. Link: http://www.juancole.com/2006/02/muqtada-al-sadr-on-aljazeera-ready-to.html).

I also found an analysis from last fall on antiwar.com that describes Sadr as one of Iran’s “Iraqi Shi’ite political-military allies” (link: http://www.antiwar.com/orig/porter.php?articleid=9724). (Incidentally, this article also supports your position that Sadr is the main power in Iraq today.)

On the other hand, an older analysis on tompaine.com, written by an editor for The Nation, says “Sadr’s relationship with Iran is unclear,” with both evidence for and against the connection — mostly against. (link: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2005/09/22/badr_vs_sadr.php) (This article, by the way, also forthrightly describes Sadr as having “launched” two battles against American forces.)

And of course there are a raft of right-of-center sources that describe Sadr as Iran’s proxy, but I assumed you would dismiss these with a wave of your mouse (quite legitimately, in may cases).

Who’s right, if anybody? I certainly don’t know, but it seems safe to say that this issue (and every other one I mentioned) is quite disputed, and *not* just by the White House. Interestingly, though, the one position not represented in my unscientific sample is that Sadr is “the most anti-Iranian of the major Shiites leaders,” which, as you assert, is the position of those who know anything. Even a quick perusal of Juan Cole’s site did not turn up support for this idea, though Cole does say that “of all the major Shiite fo[r]ces, the Sadrists are the least close to Iran” (not quite the same thing). (Link: http://www.juancole.com/2006/01/muqtada-pledges-defense-of-iran-from.html)

John Q, I am not trying to trot out a battery of selectively culled web quotes to support one specific position, in the manner of your garden-variety comment troll. In fact I am trying to do the opposite; very little in this conflict can be “proved” one way or the other. I find your smug assertion of a single (and facile) interpretation of events to be galling. (Though to be fair, there’s not as much hard evidence against your interpretation as there is against Glenn Reynolds’. So your original criticism is apt.)