muqtada al sadr

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by 2hammers, Jan 30, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. If this is the master of all evil and a thoroughly bad guy as suggested in the media in Iraq since Saddam was taken out of power?, then why don't we take him out?, or is he the link to keeping the place stable. I don't understand why we put up with the Mardi army. Why don't we just take him and his followers out!!
  2. Well if need be I suggest we take him and his followers to Alton Towers, followed by a sit down meal, nice hotel and then the following day up to Blackpool for Donkeys ride and Ice Cream then back to Sandy place for a bit of a knees up.

    As previously stated. "I'll get me coat..............."
  3. Remember when al Zakawi was made out to be the be all and end all? Got taken out and it made virtually no difference. Fighting these people isn't like going to war with conventional connected organisations where decapitation is effective. The big names are more like demagogues than commanders without whom things would fall apart, because the organisation is disconnected, in small groups with no real heads to be decapitated.

    Ref why al Sadr hasn't been taken out: one reason might be that the concentration has been on rounding up the Sunnis who were in power under Saddam rather than the Shia?
  4. To take out Sadr would cause a Shia uprising. He is a figurehead to many, and seen as a hero of the resistance to others. His death would spur on radicals, ignite vicious anti MNF violence and cause a lot of problems. It would achieve nothing, and cost us a lot of soldiers lives.
  5. :biggrin: ... That said, you may be on to something clever... there's always more than one way to fillet a fish.
  6. When we were dealing with his militia the answer we heard was that Al-Sistani, moderate Shia cleric whose support or at least compliance we held as crucial, wanted nothing to happen to him at that time. Sadr had support only in the Shia areas of Baghdad and was trying to infiltrate Karbala and Najaf with no success.
  7. Everybody understands that later or sooner our American friends will leave Iraq. It seems to me that only mr.Bush ia unaware about it. So main parties in Iraq accumulate their forces for future battles for power.

    Mr. al Sadr now mainly imitate 'a fierce struggle' against foreign invadors. He keeps his main forces in reserve, equip them, train. Rare attacks against coalition forces are no more than trainings.

    Moqtada doesn't want to be regarded as a collaborator though I suspect that on many occasions he cooperate with our American friends. There are mutial interests. But only a handfull of Iraqi politicians (future political emmigrants) are ready to cooperate with the Americans openly. Their main objective is big money just now.

    By contrast Sunni insurgents really wage an effective guerillar war. And despite losses (really not big ones) they are become very experienced.

    So arresting (moreover killing mr.Sadr) the Americans would simlpy help Sunni insurgents in future battles for power.
  8. I seem to recall that Sadr's old man was a Shia big wheel that got bumped off. Was he not first trading as "Office of the Martyr Sadr"?

    Not sure is it actually Muqtada that is the problem or is he a "potential martyr on a stick" with others pulling the strings. Remember we are dealing with Arab politics here which make the Vatican look like a nursery school!
  9. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    He was only allowed to live as he was not considered a threat by either Saddam or the Iranians (as opposed to his Brothers, Father, Uncles etc. - all bumped off). This was because he was thought too thick to be a political leader. He is certainly not a 'cleric', despite what some media say - unless he got his 'qualification' from a write-in Koran Kollege somewhere.

    Now, it may be said that being thick never stopped anyone being a political leader - in fact it just makes it easier for the clever b@stards pulling his strings (see various 'World Leaders' for numerous examples). Whatever the reasons, he is a nasty bit of work, who leads his organisation solely because of who his Father was, which means that he feels he has a lot to prove.

    Oh, and I did hear a couple of years ago that when te US first moved against him in 2004 that they were all set to top him, but the UK FCO vetoed it, as they thought that he would be easy to work with (i.e. manipulate). Well done again, the FCO :)
  10. change there then!!
  11. Quite. As the quite amusing IntCorps officer said about him at our OPTAG - "He's not a cleric; he's a very naughy boy."

    My reading for what its worth is that al Sistani reined him in throughout 2004 & early 05 by convinicing people that things would get better with MNF present & there was no point attaking them. Furthermore, Sistani didn't want to see civil war but was keen on the elections. The absence of any great improvement in the lives of ordinary Shia, plus stoking by Iran and provocation by Sunni's (& AQ meddlers) has led to Sistani's voice of moderation being ignored, in favour of Sadr's more muscular (and fundamentalist) approach. To an extent we (ie the West) let Sistani down by failing to provide security. His age doesn't go for him either.

    I don't think martyring Sadr in 2004 would nec have been a good idea, whatever the American's love of killing people. At that time, and through the auspices of Sistani, we got him back in his box and calmed the Shia majority. Even if his killing hadn't led to a mass uprising & the expulsion of MNF from Iraq, another leader would have emerged to protect the Shia from Sunni violence (as many Shia perceive Sadr). It is not just the individual leaders - it is the ideas & the perceptions of the people that must be the real target.