If true, this is good news for everyone.

I'm guessing he already knows what al Sistani's answer will be.

Didn't he already do this?

I'm guessing he already knows what al Sistani's answer will be.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2008-04-07 03:05 PM

Rogue, I said exactly that on the front page...this was set up in the last few days, and both al-Sistani and the clerics in Qom will look like heroes, while al-Sadr saves face in the presence of overwhelming force.

Don't forget, laying down arms is better then getting your ass kicked, and if al-Sadr does it under the mantle of religious authority, he can claim that he had no choice.

"Didn't he (Sadr) already do this...."

The man has in fact disarmed his militia twice after "losing" to two separate US offensives in years past.

"Laying down your arms is better than getting your ass kicked...."

Two points:

1) The evidence al-Maliki is the one doing the ass-kicking is ambiguous at best.

2)This is going to be one of those occasions when the Realist Right persists in seeing foreign actors purely in terms of their own emotional needs and cultural expectations.

Y'all need to think "Dune" here. Wheels-within-wheels and plots within plots. Some people can keep many plates up in the air at once.

In regards to the Mehdi Army simply going away, theres a major problem with that---Iraq is over-run with militias and al-Sadr only has one of them, the one that happens to be protecting his ass from all the other ones.

Mr al-Maliki has refused to back down and this weekend stitched together a rare consensus of Kurds, Sunnis and Shias to back a draft law banning any party that maintains a militia from running in future elections.


so the kurdish peshmerga will preclude kurdish participation and badr brigade will preclude sciri running, etc etc etc.

Mahdi Army Offers to Lay Down Arms


Thanks to Iranian diplomacy...

Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, a moderate religious leader in Najaf, and to senior clerics in Qom in Iran to consult on whether he should stand down his 60,000-strong militia.

So tell me who's running Iraq? Sure sounds like Reagan's friends, the mad ayatollahs.

Sounds to me like the Sadr had a choice of 30 seats and no militia or no seats and no militia. Iran was faced with the same choice. They wussed out because they knew their asses were going to get handed to them and decided that maybe representative government wasn't so bad afterall. Sadr won't win any favors by showing all the Iraqis he is an Iranian lapdog. He has been assimilated and neutered.

Tastes a bit like "reconciliation".....I call it, reality check. Iran can not and will not stand up to us if we don't give up. The Shiites are not one block, and are not as powerful en masse as the lefties have been crowing.

Wake up! We're winning!

We liberals arent tho.

all we need is another year another 1000 lives and another $200 billion

we swear

Truthhurts,

I'm not saying the situation isn't reversible and that we've WON. I'm saying, we're WINNING.

If he was winning, he wouldn't have asked for the ceasefire and neither would have Iran.

war is politics

iran is brokering peace

sadr is gaining more power and legitimacy

us is spending and dying

sadr's militia is dying as well but they aint going anywhere


I will give you that things aint 2 years ago, that is a given and even an improvement.

but Iraq is light years from something benefiting the US

how long can we sustain this investment?

WHere is Iraq headed?

If he was winning, he wouldn't have asked for the ceasefire and neither would have Iran.

Why wouldn't Iran? The Badr Brigade (al-Maliki's crew) IS Iranian. This would be the perfect scenario. Ending the fighting with their guy looking like the hero. The table would be set for Iran to make dinner after the US bought the groceries.

Not like any of this matters. The clerics will not take responsibility for disbanding something they do not control. Sadr wouldn't do it unless the other militia's disbanded. There are roughly 28 militias in Iraq. You think just asking one to do it will elicit the response you are looking for? I doubt it.

I hope it happens, but I doubt it will.

hope springs eternal

Iraqibuikkake,

They didn't ask Sadr to disband. It was kind of an ultimatum.

Iran figures their guys are next, although I think Sadr has some pretty strong links to them. If McCain wins, the Iranian guys are definitely next. They're hoping for a Dem to back off so that Maliki is too weak to take the rest of them out.

btw the one enduring truth about the iraq adventure is the complete and utter inability of it to be explained/understood.

this is the essence of bush's failure in iraq, look up the word quagmire in the dictionary and it says see bush-iraq

Truthhurts,

Yet, your lack of understanding of the matter does not prevent you from pronouncing it a failure....

i think you overestimate Iran's inluence over sadr.

and I think you definitely overestimate the reality that sadr will disarm his militia, it wont happen

Yet, your lack of understanding of the matter does not prevent you from pronouncing it a failure....

Posted by jonryker



iraq is not a failure because there is no winning in iraq.

iraq is not a success because there is no winning in iraq.

iraq is an abomination.

iraq will be an albatross on our country for years to come.

Truthhurts,

That may be true. Time will tell. Right now, looks good, though.

That may be true. Time will tell. Right now, looks good, though.

Posted by jonryker



couple of salient points here.

1. the positive forecasts from this administration have proven incorrect

2. the negative forecasts from critics have generally proven correct.

3. there is NO realistic analysis in mainstream politics as to what iraq is evolving into.

4. america cannot afford to wait indefinitely (and that is the truth-indefinitely) for iraq to resolve itself.

of course, as I have always said, iraq is the great catch-22 we cannot leave and we cannot stay.

the bush black hole.

impeachment would be too good for him, yet he will retire with his millions.

Wake up! We're winning!

Ryker is channelling the mad ayatollahs.

Sadr getting disarmed makes the Iranian run badr group the winner in the Basra oil grab. Like the recent cease fire, the Iranians will get the credit for stopping the evil Americans from killing shia civilians. Maliki will be even more on the hook to Iran for saving his ass.
Sadr was trying to link up with sunnis, badr won't.
Most of the top badr guys were in Iran before Bush opened the door fror them to return in 2003.
As they say in Tehran -Mission Accomplished!

"I'm saying, we're WINNING."

What exactly are we winning? A temporary quell in the violence? Been there. Political breathing space for the Iraqi government? Done that. Or are we hoping for long term allies? LOL. Fat chance...they'd turn on us the second it was feasible and convenient to do so. Are we really creating long term stability by continuing to meddle in and manipulate the fragile power struggle that encapsulated Iraq the second Saddam went into hiding?

Does JonRyker really think we have all the right answers for the Iraqi system? How has that logic worked out in recent history? If the roles were reversed, would he willingly accept intervention into his own local politics and way of life by a popularly perceived imperialist superpower from 5000 miles abroad?

Or is he just stoked that we continue to blow shit up and make people buckle in fear of our immediate power? Because that feeling, at best, lasts about as long as the smell of gunpowder. Expensive gunpowder these days too.

They didn't ask Sadr to disband. It was kind of an ultimatum.

...and Sadr's response was, No, I'm good. But if the clerics want me to disband them, I will. They won't ask him to do that, and he won't disband them. Sadr will force their hand by making Maliki and the US either:

1. Martyr him
2. Force the Iraqi government to be unconstitutional and deny his people representation.


Iran figures their guys are next, although I think Sadr has some pretty strong links to them. If McCain wins, the Iranian guys are definitely next. They're hoping for a Dem to back off so that Maliki is too weak to take the rest of them out.

Maliki IS an Iranian guy... That would make sense on why Iran is trying to make this happen. They want their guy to come out smelling like roses, and look like the champion of Iraq, all the while acting as an extension of Iran.

so the kurdish peshmerga will preclude kurdish participation and badr brigade will preclude sciri running, etc etc etc.

And, of course, our buddies the sunni Concerned Neighborhood Jihadists.

You libs are right. The surge has been a total failure.

correct because there has been NO political reconciliation, of course the fact is that bush doesnt want reconciliation

Kevin23,

If the best job we could get in this country was to strap bombs to ourselves and blow our own people up, I'd be for foreign intervention, as our system would have been proven to be morally, ethically, and economically bankrupt. Thankfully, this is not the case. What are we winning? Well, if you're still confused about what we're winning, I've gotta wonder how you think you know we're NOT winning.

IRAQIBUKAKI,

If Sadr wanted to be martyred, he's had his chances. He seems to avoid that fastidiously. The impetus for removing him and his thugs is a new law agreed to by everyone that those who field militias lose their seats. Not unconstitutional, as the law is agreed to by everyone else, including the other militias. Fact is, if he was half as strong as you guys say, he'd have kept fighting. He saw he could not win, so he's trying to negotiate. Sign of weakness.

Truthhurts,

Fact is, the major goals announced by the administration (two sets of free elections, laws for distributing oil money, lack of support for Al-Qaida, representative government), are all done or in serious progress. I'd say, they've been right a lot more often than their critics, all of which supported the war in the beginning, but then since have tried to have it both ways. Remember the "certainty" that there'd never be elections and that there'd be no Constitution agreed upon and that the government would never fight the militias and that Sadr really runs the country and all that....No? Well, I do.

Any objective view of this situation has to conclude that although it has been expensive and messy, progress toward a democratic Iraq is being made more and more rapidly. This does not mean that everything is smooth sailing, but it does mean that progress toward the objectives is being met. This is undeniable. Shrill denials simply make all you socialistas appear delusional.

The impetus for removing him and his thugs is a new law agreed to by everyone that those who field militias lose their seats. Not unconstitutional, as the law is agreed to by everyone else, including the other militias.

TH: Can you provide some proof of this law?

Fact is, the major goals announced by the administration (two sets of free elections, laws for distributing oil money, lack of support for Al-Qaida, representative government), are all done or in serious progress.

TH: anyone can hold an election, it takes reason to make them mean something, Iran has elections, Zimbabwe had an election, Hitler was democratically elected. that is the seed, laws for distributing oil money have not been passed-they just happen to be contrary to the wishes of the iraqi people, lack of support for AQ-their never has been a significant support for AQ-that is a bush lie, representative govt?-representative of people hostile to the US, well done.

I'd say, they've been right a lot more often than their critics,

TH: WMD? Links between SH and AQ? Abu Graib? Last Throes? disbanding the army? debaathification? surge being temporary? etc etc etc


all of which supported the war in the beginning, but then since have tried to have it both ways.

TH: you aint listening to the right critics, son.

Remember the "certainty" that there'd never be elections and that there'd be no Constitution agreed upon and that the government would never fight the militias and that Sadr really runs the country and all that....No? Well, I do.


TH: noone ever said these things wouldnt happen. What was said was that these things do not a country make that is worth the expenditure of US blood and treasure, but you hear what youwant to hear. The govt will fight the militias, the militias in opposition to the politics (Mahdi Army), while blowing those militias that support their policies (Badr). Kurdish Peshmerga are both a terrorists organization and a state sponsored militia depending on the day of the week and who you talk to, sadr doesnt run the country, it is barely controlled chaos, again stuff you have been told but refuse to hear. But continue to think that paying sunnit terrorists who not to long ago were kiling our soldiers is a sign of progress.

Any objective view of this situation has to conclude that although it has been expensive and messy, progress toward a democratic Iraq is being made more and more rapidly.

TH: nebulous, unmeasurable, bullshit. a talking point. Iraq IS a democratic country. They are an unstable, chaos ridden, corrupt, failed state, but they are a democracy.

expensive and messy-which in reality means 4024 dead Americans 40K wounded and maimed americans, 100's of thousands of dead Iraqis, millions of displaced iraqis, and trillions spent.

expensive and messy-I spit at your rhethoric.

This does not mean that everything is smooth sailing, but it does mean that progress toward the objectives is being met. This is undeniable. Shrill denials simply make all you socialistas appear delusional.

TH: towards what objectives? You sound like an administration mouth piece.

use your best Rush Limbaugh voice "PROGESS IS BEING MADE. THAT IS UNDENIABLE. RAPID PROGRESS"

bullshit and more bullshit

Shrillness does not improve whatever point you're trying to make.

The facts are, that Bush's objectives, every step of the way, have been roundly laughed at as "unachievable" by the left. They've been wrong every time, so far. He's not done yet, but progress has been and is being made toward a stable republic in Iraq.

When that shows up, they bring up catch-phrases like Abu Graib, Our Global Reputation, Climate Change, Change in General, Blood and Treasure, and other distractors to sidestep the point that they've been fundamentally wrong about the whole matter, including the importance of Afghanistan. When that doesn't work, they just scream "Bush, McBush, CondiBush, NaziBush...blah, blah blah.."

Utter demagoguery and foolishness. May work on the ignorant Socialistas, but doesn't work on intelligent people. The results so far, are indesputably in our favor. To deny this is to choose to occupy a different universe.

You can argue about whether the cost is worth it, or whether it could have been done better or more efficiently or with fewer dead people or whatever, but to deny the actual accomplishments so far is just stupidity, because it doesn't even serve your twisted purposes. It just makes you look like you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Shrillness does not improve whatever point you're trying to make.

The facts are, that Bush's objectives, every step of the way, have been roundly laughed at as "unachievable" by the left. They've been wrong every time, so far. He's not done yet, but progress has been and is being made toward a stable republic in Iraq.


TH: back that up with facts. Noone says they cant have elections, etc. what we say is that they are generally meaningless to the overall situation in iraq while you continue to ignore ALL of the MAJOR errors that bush has made. iraq is NOT becoming stable. It is a seething cesspool, but you keep believing, maybe someday. I suggest, however, that you give a hard look at where Iraq is going.

When that shows up, they bring up catch-phrases like Abu Graib, Our Global Reputation, Climate Change, Change in General, Blood and Treasure, and other distractors to sidestep the point that they've been fundamentally wrong about the whole matter, including the importance of Afghanistan. When that doesn't work, they just scream "Bush, McBush, CondiBush, NaziBush...blah, blah blah.."


TH: sorry you ar fundamentally wrong. We have invested trillions and thousands of lives. What is AMERICA getting out of it? And be honest, not some flagrantly biased individual. A govt represented by Maliki? That is what we strive for? A populace represented by al Sadr? That is what we die for?

Utter demagoguery and foolishness. May work on the ignorant Socialistas, but doesn't work on intelligent people. The results so far, are indesputably in our favor. To deny this is to choose to occupy a different universe.

TH: the only demogoguery is from you rightwingnuts that refuse to see the reality in Iraq. You spew non-sequitors and hopeless out of touch catch phrases as if they have meaning. as for a different universe, it is your neocons who dont think they live in reality, that they make reality. of course reality being a bitch will come back to bite those arrogant mother fuckers.


You can argue about whether the cost is worth it, or whether it could have been done better or more efficiently or with fewer dead people or whatever, but to deny the actual accomplishments so far is just stupidity, because it doesn't even serve your twisted purposes. It just makes you look like you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

TH: It is NOT worth it because it is a strategic black hole. It could not be done better because it was a war of agression. Accomplish WHAT? answer that question. What are WE the american people getting out of it?

Iraq was not a threat to the US and to quote George W. Bush "I don't think our troops should be used for what's called nation building."

"If the best job we could get in this country was to strap bombs to ourselves and blow our own people up, I'd be for foreign intervention, as our system would have been proven to be morally, ethically, and economically bankrupt."

Now that is a hundred assumptions wrapped into an oversimplified judgment. life isn't as simple as good v. evil. We are not the ultimate good force in the universe. We are the occupational force. Why? You can't answer that simple question? For democracy? Done. For peace? BS. For a "friend"? maybe, but what assurances do we have that we won't be forever thought of as inherently imperial? How did that work out throughout history? Lets talk, or lets admit you're talking out of your ass.

"Thankfully, this is not the case. What are we winning? Well, if you're still confused about what we're winning, I've gotta wonder how you think you know we're NOT winning."

I don't. That's the whole point. It's a HUGE gamble with $3T US dollars and 4000 US lives. You would blindly follow deeper into a rabbits hole at the first sound of people trembling at our might. Don't start smelling your own farts quite yet...just because a guy won't fight you when you have a gun in his face doesn't mean he won't kill you while you sleep, or impregnate your daughter when she goes away for college....whatever appeals more to your worst fear.

So you still haven't answered the question of what's to gain by occupying, and what sacrifice is justified. Most Bushies do. They go by faith alone. Good v. evil.

Is it just me, but is JONRYKER batshit?

Yes, I'd say batshit describes him. I note he's reviving the "Bush is an Unappreciated Genius" theme, which was the neocon fallback position from "Bush Is God and We'll Fuck With You if You Disagree" theme of 2003-2005.

"Winning"----Neocons loathe that word, given how much they abuse it. Pre-Bush, winning in war meant getting more out of the conflict than you put in.

Well, I want my three trillion dollars back. Preferably within my lifetime, thanks ever much. I'd talk about American blood lost but I've yet to see a neocon give a God-damn.