Al-Sadr's followers refuse to disband militia in Iraq

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

ROBERT H. REID | April 20, 2008 04:02 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »

Show your support.
Buzz this article up.
Residents clean up their damaged house in the Shiite enclave of Sadr City in Baghdad, Iraq, Sunday, April 20, 2008. The house was damaged during sporadic clashes which took place after midnight on Sunday and killed 6 and wounded another 15, police and health officials said. (AP Photo/Karim Kadim)

BAGHDAD — Followers of hardline cleric Muqtada al-Sadr raised the stakes Sunday in the showdown with Iraq's government, refusing to disband their militia. The U.S. military said 40 Shiite militants were killed in fierce fighting in southern Iraq.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, meanwhile, assured visiting Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that he will not back down in his confrontation with Shiite militias, even as mortar shells fired from Shiite areas struck the U.S.-protected Green Zone.

In a sign of that resolve, Iraqi soldiers took control Sunday of the last stronghold of al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia in the southern city of Basra, where an Iraqi offensive last month triggered the current wave of Shiite fighting.

Al-Maliki, a Shiite, has demanded that al-Sadr disband his Mahdi Army, the country's biggest Shiite militia, or his followers will not be allowed to run in provincial elections this fall.

Al-Sadr's followers, who control 30 of the 275 parliament seats, rejected that demand Sunday and instead called for an end to U.S.-Iraqi military operations in Sadr City, the Baghdad stronghold of the Mahdi Army, and Shula, another Shiite district of the capital.

"All must know that disbanding the Mahdi Army means the end of al-Maliki's government," Sadrist lawmaker Fawzi Akram told reporters.

He called the government campaign against the Mahdi Army a "filthy military and media campaign" planned and supported by the Americans. He urged the United Nations, non-governmental organizations and human rights groups to intervene.

"Random airstrikes, killings and bloodletting will not help but rather will increase hatred and enmity," he said, adding that if operations continue "all options are open for us."

That could include the formal scrapping of a unilateral truce al-Sadr called last August _ a move that American officials credit with helping dramatically reduce violence over the last year.

Since the Basra crackdown began March 25, that truce is in tatters, with fighting in the Baghdad area and scattered clashes still under way throughout the Shiite south.

The U.S. military announced Sunday that U.S.-backed Iraqi soldiers killed 40 militiamen and arrested 40 more in fighting this weekend near Nasiriyah, a Shiite city 200 miles southeast of Baghdad.

A U.S. statement said the fighting broke out Saturday when "criminal militia members" attacked Iraqi security forces. Iraqi troops with U.S. special operations advisers counterattacked the militiamen in a local Sadrist office, where they found various weapons including Iranian-made penetrator bombs, the statement said.

Al-Sadr accused U.S. and Iraqi forces of "murdering" the "faithful brothers" by "brutal means" in the Nasiriyah fighting and demanded an investigation.

The anti-American cleric has accused the government of exploiting his August truce to crack down on his political movement and warned Saturday that he would declare "open war" if the campaign against him did not stop.

Al-Sadr's statement was broadcast in Sadr City on mosque loudspeakers, raising fears of more bloodshed among the district's 2.5 million people.

In the latest fighting, U.S. soldiers killed 12 militants Sunday in a series of engagements in Shiite areas of Baghdad, the military said.

Nine of them died after gunmen attacked a U.S. checkpoint in Sadr City with machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortar shells, military spokesman Lt. Col. Steve Stover said. There was no report of U.S. casualties.

The deaths were in addition to seven armed "criminals" reported killed by the military on Saturday in Sadr City _ two in gunbattles and five in two separate airstrikes.

Iraqi police and hospital officials also said six civilians _ four men and two boys ages 8 and 10 _ died in fighting in Sadr City after midnight.

"There was an uptick in violence in comparison with the past couple of weeks," Stover said. "We're not looking for a fight but what we are doing is protecting the Iraqi people."

A full-scale uprising by al-Sadr, who led two rebellions against U.S.-led forces in 2004, could lead to a dramatic increase in violence in Iraq, threatening the security gains since President Bush ordered nearly 30,000 U.S. reinforcements to Iraq early last year.

Nevertheless, al-Sadr appears increasingly isolated politically, as major Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish parties have rallied behind al-Maliki in his showdown with the militias.

Even Iran's ambassador to Baghdad has thrown his support behind the crackdown against "lawbreakers" in Basra, while deploring U.S. military operations against the Shiite militants in Sadr City.

U.S. officials believe Iran provides weapons and training to the militias, despite Iranian denials.

Rice told reporters she sees signs that the campaign has brought sectarian and ethnic groups together in an unprecedented way, and she said she wants to capitalize on it.

She said al-Maliki's government "has made a choice to pursue militias and is willing to bear the consequences."

That broad support _ especially from the Iranians _ may have accounted for the ease with which Iraqi soldiers entered the last Mahdi Army stronghold in Basra this weekend. Last month, Iraqi soldiers faced fierce resistance in the Hayaniyah district, but on Sunday officials declared the area under government control.

Iraq soldiers were seen Sunday setting up bases and checkpoints to establish a permanent security presence. Lt. Gen. Ali Ghaidan, a commander of the operation, said troops had recovered large caches of weapons during door-to-door searches.

Al-Sadr's followers believe the campaign is aimed at weakening their movement to prevent it from winning provincial council seats at the expense of Shiite parties that work with the United States in the national government.

However, the U.S. military insists the campaign is not aimed at the mainstream Sadrist movement but against criminals and Iranian-backed splinter groups.

"We've made it very clear that the Mahdi Army itself ... is not the enemy," said Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, which controls a large region south of the capital. "The enemy is Sunni extremists, Shiite extremists and Iranian influence."

___

Associated Press writers Sinan Salaheddin, Slobodan Lekic, Kim Gamel and Qassim Abdul-Zahra contributed to this report.

 
 

Comments
142
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)

More about Hillary's vote for war in Iraq: 21 of 50 Democratic Senators voted against the resolution. That's 42% of Democratic Senators who Hillary did not join in voting against the authorization. However, there was something else Hillary did not vote for. She did not vote for the Levin amendment, offered at the same time, which would have caused the president to return to Congress one more time before deciding to invade Iraq.

Furthermore, belying her support of the wars in the Middle East - late last year she voted for authorization of action against Iran. Here we go again....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:41 PM on 04/21/2008

Ok, here's a little test for all the Neo-con war mongers on the site today:

Question--If some foreign army invaded America tomorrow, killed 500,00 people, destroyed your culture, devastated your infrastructure so there was no water or power or food, and began building huge bases that showed they had no intention of ever leaving, would you fight back?

Yes/No

Question 2--If you fought back would you call yourselves Patriots and Freedom Fighters, or terrorists and thugs?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:02 PM on 04/21/2008

What 500,000 people? If you are trying to equate this with Iraq, the civilian death toll is 82,000 to 89,000 civilians over 6 years according to iraqbodycount.org and McClatchkey newspapers

It is roughly the rate at which Americans are killed by drunk drivers. And I don't stand for it at all. I want a national law against drunk driving that punishes those who kill innocent people to serve long-term jail sentences.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:54 PM on 04/21/2008

Drunk drivers are the cause for these deaths, wich does not equate with Iraq either---you disqualify an arguement then use the same arguement as your "rational" answer. And, by the way, you didn't answer the question.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:31 AM on 04/23/2008

How cute--you recognized yourself. I wasn't sure you would. And since you avoided both my questions I can only assume that you would characterize yourself as "undecided."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:39 PM on 04/21/2008

Which foreign army?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:37 PM on 04/21/2008

Pick one...then go back to AI...lol.

And thanks to you both for playing!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:37 PM on 04/21/2008

Hillary '08

I was called up in '04 in support of OIF II. I saw some discouraging things but also much good in the Iraqis and our own troops.

One thing I can promise you is that on the Huff Po, you will never seen anything positive related to our efforts in Iraq as it does not fit the HP's agenda. What you will see is as much negative coverage as possible in an effort to discourage readers on what is going on over there. It's politics, plain and simple. How sad it would be if a person simply relied on HP, KOS and Keith Olbermann for their information about Iraq.

Hillary '08

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:13 PM on 04/21/2008

It's rather hard for HuffPo to put a "positive" spin on an illegal invasion. A negative action gets negative press.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:23 PM on 04/21/2008

So name something positive that wasn't there before Bush destoyed it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:38 PM on 04/21/2008

the graveyard of 800,000 Kurds that were gassed by Saddam Hussein?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:55 PM on 04/21/2008

Ahhhhhh......."NORMALCY"....eh McCain?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:18 PM on 04/21/2008

What? Another "surge?"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:32 AM on 04/21/2008

On must wonder why the administration is trying so hard to INCREASE the violence in Iraq. The offensive against the Sadrists is bound to force a larger war between Shites in the south, one that could endanger Maliki's government, if you want to call it that. I've come to the conclusion that this is part of the set-up for the coming war against Iran, which will occur sometime prior to the November elections. With El-Sadr in Iran, it will be easy to convince many Americans that the Iranians are behind it all, and therefore must be neutralized. The only question is, will the military obey the order, and will Congress finally grow a pair and seek immediate impeachment for this war-criminal president and vice-president. The consequences of war with Iran would be catastrophic, economically and militarily. Every thinking person in Washington and the world knows this. Sadly, this administration is full of people who couldn't form a cogent thouhght if their lives depended on it,

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:10 AM on 04/21/2008

This comment above is very silly.. Al Maliki organized an offensive against Al Sadr without informing the US military commanders. It was only after the offensive had already begun in Basra that we were brought in for air support.

The administration is not doing anything to increase the violence, sir.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:38 PM on 04/21/2008

Sure, thanks for clearing that up. Cheney would never do anything like that now, would he.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:43 PM on 04/21/2008

I guess he doesn't consider Being There as a provocative act?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:05 PM on 04/21/2008

Judging from the most recent inanities coming out of the mouth of Secretary of State Rice there can be no question that the offensive against al Sadr is coming straight from Cheney.

And after all the evidence how can anyone believe that Cheney/Bush/Rice have the slightest idea of how to get out of the Catastrofuck they have created in Iraq?

The Cheney Plan. Kill more people. Sow more destruction. Not enough people have died yet. If only we kill a few more people every thing will be OK?

Instead of working for reconcilaition it appears that they are encouraging al Maliki to destroy the political opposition. And they will be replacing the Mahdi Army with the Badr Corps. Anyone who knows anything about Iraq should know that's not a good idea.

But the bottom line is: The Iraqi people continue to suffer for the stupidity, criminal stupidity of Bush and his gang.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:58 AM on 04/21/2008

Rice omitted the " WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE " threat against AlSadr.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:49 PM on 04/21/2008

"The Iraqi people continue to suffer for the stupidity, criminal stupidity of Bush and his gang."

Really? Funny you don't hear this from the Iraqi people. The jihadists are sufferign and we know how that upsets your domestic insurgents.

Scratch a hufftard, find a dhimmi.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:13 AM on 04/21/2008

Aftrt 7+ years of this stupidity you are still defending those criminals?

Yeah, go get the opinion of the Iraqi people. In your fantasy based world they all support the occupation of their country.

BTW The jihadists were the Sunni enemy. Al Sadr is a Shia.

Or is that fact too reality based?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:00 AM on 04/21/2008

Some GOOD analysis of the Mahdi Army and IA fight:

The Mahdis claim that they may end their cease-fire if the Maliki government doesn"t stop its offensive, but it looks like they may not have much juice left. They haven"t been able to slow down the Iraqi Army since the first days of the Basra operation, and the joint IA/US operation in Sadr City continues as well. Maliki has decided that the time has come to put an end to extra-legal armies in Iraq, and the evidence so far shows that he may have timed his operation well enough for success.

Of course, others will likely continue to spin this as more disaster because "violence" has occurred. At some point, though, the central elected government had to displace the militias and ensure that they had an indisputable monopoly on force in the nation if they expected to remain credible and keep Iraq in one piece. They gave the Sadrists at least four years to disband on their own, and they refused to do so. Maliki"s confidence in his armed forces appears to have been justified, while the Mahdis look more like the paper tigers the IA was supposed to be.

Maliki is taking the fight to the SADRISTS and the bluff and bluster of Sadr, who's hiding in IRAN, may be too little too late.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:36 AM on 04/21/2008

Great! I guess we can leave then since the Iraqi army seems to have things so well in hand.

Oh, silly me, I forgot. Things are never going THAT well over there. They're going just well enough that we have to stay permanently. Which is of course what we wanted to do anyway.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:49 AM on 04/21/2008

You just gotta love these armchair generals pushing their imaginary little army men around on their make believe chess boards. I wonder if They'd be so complacent if they were taking incoming fire?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:32 PM on 04/21/2008

Within YOUR lifetime, I'm sure.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:32 PM on 04/21/2008

What if the Iraqi military destroys the Mahdi army?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:13 AM on 04/21/2008

The Iraqi military IS the Mahdi Militia.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:25 PM on 04/21/2008

You need to read the article.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:38 PM on 04/21/2008

I don't care what the article says. It's been known for some time that militias and death squads exist within the Iraqi army. This includes the Mahdi Militia.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:21 PM on 04/22/2008

Then one pro-Iranian Shiite faction will have eliminated another pro-Iranian Shiite faction.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:50 AM on 04/21/2008

How about a little more "big picture" with your response?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:31 PM on 04/21/2008

Al-Maliki is taking advantage of the U.S. President's willingness to sacrifice troops for his own amusement, by trying to rid himself of a bothersome Shiite faction before the next elections. Having the U.S. Army back you up can be quite an asset sometimes.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:35 PM on 04/21/2008

AL SADR, MALIKI AND IRAN

Al Sadr is now identified with evil Iran and defeating al Sadr means beating Iran when the U.S. supported Maliki gov't is complicit with Iran in the funding of Hamas and Hezbollah through the Baghdad branch of Iran's Melli Bank-blacklisted by the U.S. Treasury Department as funneling money to terrorists. No sooner was Melli blacklisted by the Feds then Maliki allowed branches of the bank to be opened in Iraq. It is shameful to see the Bush Administration allowing US troops to be used in a purely political operation to benefit the irredeemably, irreversibly sectarian pro-Iran Maliki gov't. If one wants an example of kowtowing, butt kissing Chamberlainism look no further than the Bush Administration.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:05 AM on 04/21/2008

When someone accuses the Bush administration of "kowtowing, butt kissing Chamberlainism" you know they've gone waaaaaay over the top and are now in the realm of self-parody.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:46 AM on 04/21/2008

SEE BELOW MAJORKONG

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:05 PM on 04/21/2008

OVER THE TOP?

The Bush administration has bent over backwards trying to accomodate and moderate the pro-Hamas, pro-Hezbollah Maliki gov't, and what do we have to show for it? 4000 dead and billions spent, and an intransigent, sectarian shiite government that has more respect for Ahmedinejad than the fawning, craven, brown nosing George Bush.

The problem with you sir is that my comments are waaaaaay over your head, a head so buried in the sand that you mistake the darkness for light. If you want a strong dose of reality go to my website ApolloSpeaks at Townhall.com and read my essay The Rise of Nuclear Iran. Or contact me at bstarz700@aol.com and I will send you a copy. After you read it you won't be accusing me of being over the top in my criticism of Bush.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:03 PM on 04/21/2008

The Chamberlainism is over the top, but the essential point, that both Iran and the U.S. are on the same side in Iraq, is true:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/world/middleeast/21shiite.html

"BAGHDAD " In the Iraqi government"s fight to subdue the Shiite militia of Moktada al-Sadr in the southern city of Basra, perhaps nothing reveals the complexities of the Iraq conflict more starkly than this: Iran and the United States find themselves on the same side.
The causes of this convergence boil down to the logic of self-interest, although it is logic in a place where even the most basic reasoning refuses to go in a straight line. In essence, though, the calculation by the United States is that it must back the government it helped to create and take the steps needed to protect American troops and civilian officials.

Iranian motivations appear to hinge on the possibility that Mr. Sadr"s political and military followers could gain power in provincial elections this fall, and disrupt the creation of a semiautonomous region in the south that the Iranians see as beneficial."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:55 AM on 04/21/2008

No surprise really. The Iranians actively assisted with the Afghanistan invasion even to the point of allowing us to use an Iranian port for resupply purposes. Not because they're nice guys, but because they felt it was in their interest.

Rather than try to build on that cooperation, we turned around and lumped them into the "Axis of Evil". They view us with every bit as much suspicion as we do them.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:08 AM on 04/21/2008