Al Sadr Surrenders. Or Does He?
MSNBC reports that Muqtada al-Sadr, radical Shiite leader, has offered peace to Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki. Ed Morrissey concludes at Hot Air that al-Sadr’s offer is an indication that he’s losing, that he knows it and that this is the only way for him and his militia to safe themselves. Only problem: it’s not quite like that.
Nouri al-Maliki responded positively to the offer - it consists out of nine points. A spokesman said that al-Maliki believes that a deal would make Basra much saver. He seems to be willing, therefore, to accept it.
I have to admit that my initial reaction was also positive. But then I started thinking and read beyond the headline: “Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr offered Sunday to pull his fighters off the streets of Basra and other cities if the government halts raids against his followers and releases prisoners held without charge.”
I believe it’s called amnesty. O, and they’re not allowed to arrest any members of al-Sadr’s militia.
As if that’s not enough, there’s also this:
Al-Sadr demanded that the government issue a general amnesty and release all detainees. The statement said he also “disavows” anyone who carries weapons and targets government institutions, charities and political party offices.
After the killing of Maliki’s security adviser “Hassan Al-Kadhmi” by Mahdi Army in Basra today and according to Wasat Online, the Iraqi government and the Sadrists reached an agreement of nine points…the newspaper says that among the points is the withdrawal of the Iraqi and American forces from Basra, stop the raids against the Sadrists, Maliki to return to Baghdad in 48 hour followed by the ministers [Defense and Interior].
The peace offer isn’t an offer by someone who’s losing: it’s an offer of someone who believes he’s winning but who’s done fighting. Someone who may be winning, but prefers ‘peace’ in so far that the government withdraws completely from Basra and leaves Basra in the hands of its (the government’s) enemies.
Al-Sadr’s offer makes one thing very clear, I think: if al-Maliki accepts it, it’s al-Sadr who has shown his own government and the Americans who’s in charge of Basra. And it ain’t the latter two.
"Ed Morrissey concludes at Hot Air ""
More like tries to get their take spread around and repeated as fast as possible before people come with their liberal bias (read: doubt and scepticism).
Basra was always under control of warlords and militias. Steven Vincent was murdered in Southern Iraq reporting on the same militias, by the militias.
http://spencepublishing.typepad.com/in_the_red_zone/
http://spencepublishing.typepad.com/in_the_red_zone/2005/08/steven_vincent__1.html
Basra and the South may be worse off now, as compared to then, the British have no control over anything but an air force base.
There’s a simple way to tell: a week from today, who is patrolling the streets of Basra? IA troops or Mehdi Army?
More than likely, a little of both.
I increasingly feel that neither the pro-war nor the anti-war sites can be trusted for truthful reporting of even the most basic information from the region.
Jason:I agree. I’ve been running through every site I know, trying to get some accuracy, and it’s all spin and guesswork. Either IA troops are going to be trucking back to their bases, or they’ll be patrolling Basra. We’ll know in a few days.