Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

al Sadr

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • al Sadr

    Some assumptions:
    -al Sadr's men are (mostly) Iraqis
    -the actual government is not (yet) elected by Iraqis
    -US Army is not a direct ruling force in Iraq
    -there is no direct link alSadr and alQuadia
    -alSadr cannot be considered as dictator (right now)

    So
    that is the reason of bombing, killing al Sadr's men? It seems to me (at this time now) as valid political force in Iraq. However I don't like them, but it is not legal political base to kill them. Their attack on US forces is not good and the US forces should defend themself, but attacking Najaf...???

    Al Sadr just becoming more and more powerful because of these attacks, and the US can end up with Iraq as a very anti-US Islamic country.
    a brain cell

  • #2
    I agree with alot of your assessment laszlo.nemedi. Al-Sadr is a problem that must be addressed. However, all our efforts, including how we cope with his militia, must be oriented to promoting the primary mission of the Coalition force: "Promote and strengthen an independent Iraqi government."

    Al-Sadr lacks popular support among Shi'ites. Grand Ayatollah Sistani is probably the only figure with enough respect to incite a widespread and determined uprising among the Shi'a population. Al-Sadr is playing the only real card he has to achieve the kind of respect his father and grandfather possessed. The Coalition must realize their efforts do support his political ambitions.

    Unfortunately, I really don't believe the Coalition have a choice, but to confront Al-Sadr's militia in Najaf. He can't be allowed to maintain his own armed force that uses the sanctuary of religious sites to regroup. Even under the most ideal circumstances, this kind of problem has to be eliminated to prevent it from disrupting progress. Al-Sadr's transparent political motives, and the deteriorating health of Sanstai, only increase the need to stamp out this group ASAP. (If Sistani dies, we'll be screwed six-ways to Sunday.)

    The US needs to support the operation in Najaf, but Iraqi forces must take the lead. They need to openingly take risk, and fight hard. If this occurs, chances are Al-Sadr will go down without inciting a major Shi'ite uprising. If this is not possible, the US must encourage the Iraqi government to stand behind the offensive and openingly support it every time they get a chance.

    Some argue the US was too concerned with offending the Shi'a population early on. This encouraged inaction and allowed militias and other groups to gain strength. Now they are an even bigger problem than they would have been had the US simply taken action early on. I don't exactly belong to this group. However, I do feel the US was unprepared for the awesome task we undertook in Iraq. Because of that, our chances for success are even worse.
    "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

    Comment


    • #3
      deleted
      Last edited by laszlo.nemedi; 16 Aug 04, 15:13.
      a brain cell

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by laszlo.nemedi
        So
        that is the reason of bombing, killing al Sadr's men? It seems to me (at this time now) as valid political force in Iraq. However I don't like them, but it is not legal political base to kill them.
        I don't think it's worthwhile talking about legality. What laws are you talking about?

        Comment


        • #5
          This whole thing with Al Sadr started when Al Sadr assassinated aonther Shi'i cleric while the US was still a strictly occupational force. If the US is to represent some kind of rule of law, then Al Sadr must be taken in as a murderer and maybe even a terrorist, even if just a local one. Al Sadr's target had followers too and many Iraqis continue to die at the hands of Al Sadr's militia's. The US and the new Iraqi government have a responsibility to confront Al Sadr. Al Sadr has already said he wants some kind of seminal role in the government and he is no position to be eligable for one.
          Get the US out of NATO, now!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Pheno
            I don't think it's worthwhile talking about legality. What laws are you talking about?
            You are right there is no law in Iraq, so it is worthless. I try to say political legitimy to bomb them.
            a brain cell

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by SparceMatrix
              This whole thing with Al Sadr started when Al Sadr assassinated aonther Shi'i cleric while the US was still a strictly occupational force. If the US is to represent some kind of rule of law, then Al Sadr must be taken in as a murderer and maybe even a terrorist, even if just a local one. Al Sadr's target had followers too and many Iraqis continue to die at the hands of Al Sadr's militia's. The US and the new Iraqi government have a responsibility to confront Al Sadr. Al Sadr has already said he wants some kind of seminal role in the government and he is no position to be eligable for one.
              Al Sadr can be captured as murder in the occupation. But his men who joins today are "innocent" (OK, OK I know) regarding that murder.
              Later alSadr can be captured by the legal Iraq government, but now it is a mistake.
              a brain cell

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by laszlo.nemedi
                .
                Later alSadr can be captured by the legal Iraq government, but now it is a mistake.
                But by this logic any group in Iraq is free to take up arms against the provisional government and make whole cities "no go" areas.

                I understand an argument which says "capturing Al Sadr would do more harm than good". But I can't agree with an argument which says "he has a right to do what he's doing because the government isn't democratically elected."
                Last edited by Pheno; 17 Aug 04, 08:35.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Pheno
                  But by this logic any group in Iraq is free to take up arms against the provisional government and make whole cities "no go" areas.

                  I understand an argument which says "capturing Al Sadr would do more harm than good". But I can't agree with an argument which says "he has a right to do what he's doing because the government isn't democratically elected."
                  Isn't he saying that the followers of al Sadr give him a level of legitimacy. Ok the bloke has done illegal stuff, or is claimed to have whatever, but he is still an appealing leader to his followers. So this goes back to "capturing Al Sadr would do more harm than good". A legitimate elected goverment will have more authority to do the job of fixing the situation any way they see fit or what is realistically achievable.
                  Not lip service, nor obsequious homage to superiors, nor servile observance of forms and customs...the Australian army is proof that individualism is the best and not the worst foundation upon which to build up collective discipline - General Monash

                  Comment

                  Latest Topics

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X