Defense Tech: The Speech: Sadr Bought Off? (Updated)


	Subscribe via RSS


	Archives by Date
		June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 See all Archives


	Archives by Category
		'Canes Afghan Update Ammo and Munitions Armor Around the Globe Av Week Extra Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere) Bizarro Blimps Blog Bidness Body Armor Blues Bomb Squad Brownshoes in Action Bubbleheads, etc. Cammo Green Catch the "Buzz" Chem-Bio Civilian Apps Cloak and Dagger Commandos Comms Contingency Ops Cops and Robbers Cyber-warfare Data Diving Defense Tech Poll Defense Tech Radio Dissent Tech Door Kickers Drones DT Administrivia Eat DT's Dust Extra! Extra! Eye on China Fast Movers FCS Watch Fire for Effect FOS Files Friday Funnies Gadgets and Gear Going Green Grand Ole Osprey Ground Vehicles Guns Homeland Security In the Weeds with Eric Info War Iraq Diary Jarhead Jazz JSF Watch Just War Theories Lasers and Ray Guns Less-lethal Logistics Los Alamos and Labs M4 Monopoly Medic! Mercs Missiles Money Money Money Most Wanted MRAP Edge Net-Centric Nukes Old Skool Our Shrinking Planet Planes, Copters, Blimps Podcast Politricks Polmar's Perspective Popular Mechanics Rapid Fire Raptor Watch Red Team Retro-Futuro Robots Roll Your Own Sabra Tech Ships and Subs Snipertech Soldier Systems Space Special Ops Star Wars Strategery Stray Trons Tactical Development Terror Tech The Deadlies The Defense Biz The Peoples' Site The Sunday Paper The Tanker Tango The View from Av Week Those Nutty Norks Training and Sims Trimble on the Case Video Lounge War Update Ward'z Wonderz You can run... See all Archives


	Newsletters


Edited by Christian Lowe \| Contact

The Speech: Sadr Bought Off? (Updated)

040410_alsadr_vmed.vmedium.jpg Has Moktada Al-Sadr, the Shi'ite strong man, been bought off, somehow? This is just a theory, an intellectual exercise -- not even a guess -- based on the President's speech.

Hear me out: A big part of Bush's plan relies on Iraq's cops. "18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades [will be] committed to" securing Baghdad. And "these Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations" there. But last time I checked, these police units were largely fronts for thuggish militias like Sadr's Mahdi Army. Also, the President talked about avoiding the "sectarian interference [that] prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods in Baghdad." How is that interference being avoided, or run over? By buying off its leadership, maybe?

UPDATE 01/11/06 10:50 AM: Or maybe not. "Iraq's prime minister has told Shi'ite militiamen to surrender their arms or face an all-out assault by U.S.-backed Iraqi forces, senior Iraqi officials" tell the AP.

On the other hand, "An Army officer who recently commanded a battalion in Baghdad predicted [to the Washington Post] last night that the plan would fail because Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his government 'will do things to maintain protection' of Sadr's forces."

UPDATE 11:24 AM: "I would suggest that PM Nuri al-Maliki's warning to the Mahdi Militia to disarm or face the US military is in fact code," Juan Cole says. "He is telling the Sadrists to lie low while the US mops up the Sunni Arab guerrillas. Sadr's militia became relatively quiescent for a whole year after the Marines defeated it at Najaf in August, 2004. But since it is rooted in an enormous social movement, the militia is fairly easy to reconstitute after it goes into hiding."

(Big ups: Nicholas Weaver, in the comments)

UPDATE 12:47 PM: Check out the weirdly ambiguous interchange between a reporter and SecDef Gates today, courtesy of Inside Defense.

Q: Is the United States military and/or the Iraqi government prepared now to arrest or kill Muqtada al-Sadr as part of this new increase?...

SEC. GATES: I think a source of frustration for both Iraqi and American forces in the past has been political interference during clearing operations... I think one of the most important commitments that the prime minister has made is that in this offensive, the military will have the authority to go after all law breakers. There are no exceptions. I'm not going to hang specific targets on specific people, but all law breakers are susceptible to being detained in this -- or taken care of in this campaign.

Q: Sir, why are you vague on the treatment of al-Sadr? Because he has a long history here in this conflict as being on the most-wanted list of the United States; then the Iraqis persuaded the U.S. not to arrest him; he leads the Mahdi Army. I mean, this is the bad guy that the United States makes clear is helping to bring down this government, so why not commit to what our posture is with regard to him now?

SEC. GATES: What I will say is that all parts of Baghdad are going to be involved in this campaign, including Sadr City. (Cross talk.) (Laughter.)

Comments

Replica A Lange & Sohne
Replica Accutron
Replica Audemars Piguet
Replica Baume & Mercier
Replica Bell & Ross
Replica Breitling
Replica Bvlgari
Replica Cartier
Replica Chanel
Replica Chopard
Replica Christian Bernard
Replica Christian Dior
Replica Citizen
Replica Coach
Replica Concord
Replica Corum
Replica D&G
Replica DKNY
Replica Ebel
Replica ESQ
Replica Fendi
Replica Fila
Replica Franck Muller
Replica Girard Perregaux
Replica Givenchy
Replica Gucci
Replica Guess
Replica Hamilton
Replica Haurex
Replica Invicta
Replica IWC
Replica Jacob & Co
Replica Jacques Lemans
Replica Jaeger LeCoultre
Replica Levis
Replica Longines
Replica Mont Blanc
Replica Movado
Replica Omega
Replica Orient
Replica Oris
Replica Panerai
Replica Patek Philippe
Replica Piaget
Replica Rado
Replica Rolex
Replica Sector
Replica Seiko
Replica Skagen
Replica Swatch
Replica Swiss
Replica Swiss Army Victorinox
Replica Tag Heuer
Replica Technomarine
Replica Timberland
Replica Tissot
Replica Ulysse Nardin
Replica Vacheron Constantin
Replica Wenger
Replica Wittnauer
Replica Zenith
Replica Zodiac ecommerce
open source
shop
online shopping
Rolex Sports watches
Rolex Datejusts watches
A Lange & Sohne watches
Aigner watches
Alain Silberstein watches
Audemars Piguet watches
Bell & Ross watches
Breguet watches
Breitling watches
Bvlgari watches
Cartier watches
Chanel watches
Chopard watches
Concord watches
Corum watches
Dior watches
Dolce & Gabbana watches
Ebel watches
Emporio Armani watches
Glashutte watches
Gucci watches
Hermes Watches
IWC watches
Jacob & Co watches
Jaeger LeCoultre watches
Longines watches
Louis Vuitton watches
Mont Blanc watches
Movado watches
Omega watches
Oris watches
Panerai watches
Patek Philippe watches
Philip Stein watches
Porsche Design watches
Rado watches Roger
Roger Dubuis watches
Sarcar watches
Tag Heuer watches
Technomarine watches
Vacheron Constantin watches
Zenith watches ecommerce
open source
shop
online shopping

Posted by: luxury watch at April 17, 2009 05:27 AM

Posted by: luxury watch at April 17, 2009 05:24 AM

I always Buy Runescape from the company http://www.gameim.com. Because the company provides us Cheap runescape Gold.

Posted by: Buy Runescape at August 20, 2008 02:52 AM

You can use runescape money or rs gold to upgrade and buy your favourite equipment.

Posted by: rs gold at August 20, 2008 02:51 AM

At last I tell something to you on this game the Runescape Gold is very useful.

Posted by: Runescape Gold at August 20, 2008 02:50 AM

As you start your NosTale gold journey, you will gain friendships with Nosmates and Partners that will assist you anyway they can. Make your way around the world of NosTale online gold to help defeat the evil devils that have plagued the lands.

Posted by: NosTale online gold at August 20, 2008 02:49 AM

NPC in the game because of the economic system do not participate, Production of materials you must have bought only other players to earn potbs gold, but the spoils of war can be sold to NPC direct access to cash, its strong liquidity. You can use those in exchange for potb money.

Posted by: potbs gold at August 8, 2008 12:04 AM

Afterward I saw that someone is accepting the apprentice, I ran to him said that you accepted me, I will have a good future of cronous money.

Posted by: cronous money at August 6, 2008 12:19 AM

You can take your real money to buy eve online isk. I think that I will forever support such game.

Posted by: buy eve online isk at August 6, 2008 12:16 AM

nice to meet you

Posted by: wowpowerleveling at April 14, 2008 08:10 PM

It could be that Sadr has ok'ed Maliki and the Americans going after the rogue commanders who don't listen to him anymore. There's a number who've gone of his reservation and do their own kidnappings for revenge or profit and think he's too soft on Sunnis.
This is the guy who afterall is trying to organize
a non sectarian movement to eject the occupation and
helped send an aid convoy to Fallujah back in April 2004.

Posted by: markg8 at January 12, 2007 10:28 AM

A deal to let Sadr take over if he and his forces lie low while we leave?

I believe that during the last days of the Vietnam War, Henry Kissinger (or somebody) called this "a decent interval." Question is, how much of an interval is "decent?" Nobody was much fooled by the interval between the "agreement" officially ending the war in 1973 and what happened in 1975.

Posted by: MadOraDataMan at January 12, 2007 02:51 AM

Eric:

Wouldn't work.

A: Sadr knows he can disappear into Sadr City and nobody will be able to find him. Look how long it took to find Saddam Hussein, and Hussein was mostly wanted dead by most of the people.

B: Killing Sadr wouldn't help, and he knows it. Alive, he can moderate. Dead, he's a martyr, and he's enough of a believer that I'm not sure if he'd think it all THAT bad. Anyway, Hussein killed al Sadr's father, and that didn't stop the Shiites

Posted by: Nicholas weaver at January 11, 2007 09:33 PM

Wild speculation here, but:

What if Sadr has been bought off with his life. We promise to avoid harming him, if at all possible, in exchange for him giving up some of his militia and armaments. The rest of his military (those most firmly under his control) go into hibernation until the U.S. finally withdraws, at which point he is excellently placed to grab power again.

This would, seemingly, work well for both sides. Sadr gets to live, power base intact, while the US gets to save face, calm the country before withdrawal, and avoid the messy business of assassinating a popular Iraqi leader during a civil war. At the very least it seems more likely than a monetary buyoff.

Anyone more informed than I care to add thoughts?

Posted by: Eric Hundman at January 11, 2007 03:44 PM

We did this before by accident, and had him by the short hairs. This time I believe we give weight to the notion, "knock it off, because whether your gov't and your Prime Minister wants us to do it, we will anyway. This is the endgame, and Sadr will know that when we come for him for the fifth time.
Lancers!!!! Black Knights

Posted by: Zmonster at January 11, 2007 01:35 PM

So let me get this straight: Bush is now defying the Baker Report, Congress, the military, and the American public by escalating the war...Forgive me for not brimming over with optimism...
www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com

Posted by: MinorRipper at January 11, 2007 01:01 PM

why does the US ally with Sadr?

See LBJ's rationale for allying with J. Edgar Hoover.

Posted by: Quaker in a Basement at January 11, 2007 12:14 PM

Just to follow up on the last comment... why does the US ally with Sadr?

Because he is anti-Iranian too. A Sadr backed goverment is almost as good as a sunni government for countering Iran. Sadr thinks Iraq is the righteous homeland of Shia Islam, and geographically he is largely correct. He has already largely defeated the Iranian shia in Iraq for leadership throughout the south.

And in the end, we don't really care who runs the country beyond opposing Iran and opening up the oil fields for US companies. the fact that the Iraqi congress has apparently agreed to allow US companies to keep more of the oil profits from pumping and transport than any other country on earth seems to indicate that the deal has already been made in that regard.

Posted by: Mysticdog at January 11, 2007 11:54 AM

A more sinister interpretation is that "using Iraqi police and military units" is code for "Helping the shia pacify the sunni". After all, those units are almost all shia, certainly at the command level. Those that aren't are Peshmerga, which we know have already been asked to help out in Bagdad.

In this case, Sadr lays low because the US will assist and train and arm his forces (as they already have been duped into doing), and assist with the ethnic cleansing Sadr began. The US provides a cover for the minor acts of genocide, because we announce each day we have "cleared areas of terrorists and insurgents", as opposed to "we have cleared the area of men defending their homes and families from a hostile fanatical religious sect".

My money says the US never makes another major push against Sadr, hoping instead to use our alliance with him to win back the less fanatical shia.

And Al Qaida wins again, using our participation in crushing the Sunnis in Iraq as the best recruiting tool we've ever given them (as well as creating a massive refugee situation for freshly aggrieved recruits), far greater than our support for israel or the air base in the holy land.

Posted by: Mysticdog at January 11, 2007 11:48 AM

Juan Cole's analysis of the statement from Maliki:

"If part of the strategy is to assault the Mahdi Army frontally, that will cause enormous trouble in the Shiite south. I would suggest that PM Nuri al-Maliki's warning to the Mahdi Militia to disarm or face the US military is in fact code. He is telling the Sadrists to lie low while the US mops up the Sunni Arab guerrillas. Sadr's militia became relatively quiescent for a whole year after the Marines defeated it at Najaf in August, 2004. But since it is rooted in an enormous social movement, the militia is fairly easy to reconstitute after it goes into hiding."

http://www.juancole.com/2007/01/bush-sends-gis-to-his-private.html

Posted by: Nicholas Weaver at January 11, 2007 10:57 AM

It never makes sense to buy off an enemy, at least not an idealogical one. It's hard to imagine how Bush, or anyone, could make that move.
Sadr has an idealogical cause, or an ambition for power, or both. Any gain that he would get from a deal, financial or otherwise, would only be parlayed later into more power. Bigger problems later.

Posted by: MikeFair at January 11, 2007 10:46 AM

This would be an ideal opportunity for Sadr to consolidate his power - by giving up a few visible insurgents who might represent a future threat to him, he gets the US to do a twofer at little cost to himself or the army people under his control.

Posted by: ignoreland at January 11, 2007 10:42 AM

I seriously doubt that all the money in Allah's creation could buy of al Sadr. Look at the fit he provoked when Malaki just went to meet with Bush in jordan. He will tolerate the US as long as the US is helping to kill the Sunni insurgents (who he semes to view as a greater threat for the moment, after all, it was Sunni radicals, not the US, who blew up that Shrine), but that is about it.

Rather, I think al Sadr has already settled on an "evaporate" strategy, as long as the units "pacifying" Sadr city are effectively members of the Mahdi army anyway.

The "evaporate" strategy has been used twice before to great effect against the US military: Fight enough of a battle to "put up a good fight" and maintain credibility, then go back home and 'dissapear' as an army, because your army is everyone.

And if the US tries to bring Sunni or Kurdish forces into Sadr City, or significant US presence, we will find out just how quickly "all access" can change. Again, Sadr has had Malaki do this before, he would do that again.

Posted by: Nicholas Weaver at January 11, 2007 10:25 AM

Since this "new plan" will use the police stations as bases, it seems that Sadr's cooperation is essential. Thus, this "bought off" theory makes some sense. But what is the cost? What does Sadr get? I tend to agree with cowalker.

Posted by: WCharles at January 11, 2007 10:17 AM

Sadr's militias have shown willingness to buck his authority before. If this leadership *has* been brought off, I expect a new leader to fill the insurgent vaccuum -- unless serious clerical power is brought to bear. But haven't religious leaders already condemned the bloodshed, at least in public?

Best case scenario from my inexperienced perspective, Sadr or his lieutenants have been bought off to a point where they are willing to arrange the arrest or ambush of significant insurgents and stockpiles, neutering resistance early in the contest.

-TTm

Posted by: Ticktockman at January 11, 2007 10:15 AM

Not just the same region TB, Same country. Then we fought a glorious war to get rid of him. Maybe that's Bush's new angle. Install Sadr, then go in and oust him in 2008.

Posted by: crack at January 11, 2007 08:48 AM

Bought off, or just given a slice of the pie?

Just watch out for that knife boys ... hey, we've installed/supported thugs like Sadr before, and in the same region.

Just watch out for that knife ...

Posted by: TB at January 11, 2007 01:50 AM

Somehow I doubt that al Sadr has been bought off with money. Now I could believe that he's been bought off with assurances that all he has to do is wait until the Great Satan has withdrawn most troops, 12 to 18 months from now. THEN he can operate without constraints.

Posted by: cowalker at January 11, 2007 01:42 AM

It's called magic, that's how, the same magic that got us into the war.

For that matter I didn't expect you to be a conspiracy theorist.

Posted by: Harry Toor at January 11, 2007 01:03 AM

FWIW: Short-term, "bought off" is probably better than "killed". I'm pretty skeptical that he's been bought, but we should be trying to buy who we can. Even if for a few months.

Posted by: Murdoc at January 10, 2007 10:41 PM

The Speech: Sadr Bought Off? (Updated)

Comments

Post a comment