Anti-U.S. cleric al-Sadr threatens new uprising

[lily]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24216134/

Anti-U.S. cleric al-Sadr threatens new uprising
To ‘declare open war until liberation’ if crackdown on followers continues


updated 4:46 p.m. ET, Sat., April. 19, 2008
BAGHDAD - Anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr gave a "final warning"
to the government Saturday to halt a U.S.-Iraqi crackdown against his
followers or he would declare "open war until liberation."

A full-blown 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 at a
time when the Sunni extremist group al-Qaida in Iraq appears poised for new
attacks after suffering severe blows last year.

Al-Sadr's warning appeared on his Web site as Iraq's Shiite-dominated
government claimed success in a new push against Shiite militants in the
southern city of Basra. Fighting claimed 14 more lives in Sadr City, the
Baghdad stronghold of al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.



Fighting in Sadr City and the crackdown in Basra are part of a government
campaign against followers of al-Sadr and Iranian-backed Shiite splinter
groups that the U.S. has identified as the gravest threat to a democratic
Iraq.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, also a Shiite, has ordered al-Sadr to
disband the Mahdi Army, Iraq's biggest Shiite militia, or face a ban from
politics.

In the statement, al-Sadr lashed back, accusing the government of selling
out to the Americans and branding his followers as criminals.

Al-Sadr, who is believed to be in Iran, said he had tried to defuse tensions
last August by declaring a unilateral truce, only to see the government
respond by closing his offices and "resorting to assassinations."





"So I am giving my final warning ... to the Iraqi government ... to take the
path of peace and abandon violence against its people," al-Sadr said. "If
the government does not refrain ... we will declare an open war until
liberation."

Al-Qaida's offensive against American soldiers
Al-Sadr's statements came as al-Qaida in Iraq announced a one-month
offensive against U.S. troops. In a new audiotape released on a militant Web
site, a man claiming to be the purported leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu
Ayyub al-Masri, called on followers to attack U.S. soldiers and members of
awakening councils, Sunni Arab tribesmen and former insurgents who changed
sides and are now fighting al-Qaida.

A week of violence has raised concerns that suspected Sunni insurgents are
regrouping in the north. U.S. and Iraqi troops have stepped up security
operations in Mosul, believed to be one of the last urban strongholds of
al-Qaida in Iraq.

U.S. officials say the awakening councils and al-Sadr's truce were
instrumental in reducing violence last year. But the truce is in tatters
after Iraqi forces launched an offensive last month against "criminal gangs
and militias" in the southern city of Basra.

The conflict spread rapidly to Baghdad, where Shiite militiamen based in
Sadr City fired rockets at the U.S.-protected Green Zone, killing at least
four Americans. U.S. officials say many of the rockets fired at the Green
Zone were manufactured in Iran.

The Iranians helped mediate a truce March 30, which eased clashes in Basra
and elsewhere in the Shiite south. But fighting persisted in Baghdad as U.S.
and Iraqi forces sought to push militiamen beyond the range where they could
fire rockets and mortars at the Green Zone.

More fighting in Sadr City
The Americans are attempting to seal off much of Sadr City, home to an
estimated 2.5 million people, and have used helicopter gunships and Predator
drones to fire missiles at militiamen seeking refuge in the sprawling slum
of northeast Baghdad.

At a news conference Saturday, Iran's ambassador to Baghdad said his
government supports the Iraqi move against "lawbreakers in Basra" but that
the "insistence of the Americans to lay siege" to Sadr City "is a mistake."

"Lawbreakers (in Basra) must be held accountable ... but the insistence of
the Americans to lay siege to millions of people in a specific area and then
bombing them randomly from air and damaging property is not correct,"
Ambassador Hassan Kazemi Qomi said.

Qomi warned that the American strategy in Sadr City "will lead to negative
results for which the Iraqi government must bear responsibility."

At least 14 people were killed and 84 wounded in Saturday's fighting in Sadr
City, police and hospital officials said. Sporadic clashes were continuing
after sundown, with gunmen darting through the streets, firing at Iraqi
police and soldiers who have taken the lead in the fighting.

The U.S. military said its forces in Sadr City killed seven "criminals" —
two in gunbattles and five in two separate airstrikes. The military said it
does not engage if civilians are spotted in the area.

According to the Interior Ministry, at least 280 Iraqis have been killed in
Sadr City fighting since March 25, including gunmen, security forces and
civilians.

[Elrathin]

I read that earlier LIly and to be honest this truce that Al-Sadr did was the reason why there was a significant lack of loss of life in the "surge months".

If he goes full force, I suspect there will be a significan INCREASE in loss of life and it will play badly for the U.S.

Alternatively I will have to say the fact a militia leader that has so much play in the peace or lack of peace in Iraq only shows that the government is not as solid as others have been saying and the future of Iraq is in jeopardy because of it.

[apdst]

If he goes full force, I suspect there will be a significan INCREASE in loss of life and it will play badly for the U.S.

If he goes full force there will be more enemy targets terminated. That will be a good thing.

[Elrathin]

If he goes full force there will be more enemy targets terminated. That will be a good thing.

Sure thing, just like it was before right? Despite the "Rambo" attitude of your comment, the fact remains that many Iraqis sympathize with Al-Sadr and that will cause an increase in Anti-U.S. attitude with the Iraqi population.

It will only solidify the view in some Iraqis that the U.S. is only an occupation force to be resisted and that resistance WILL GROW.

Take the hint from what England went through, the minute the majority of a population thinks you are there for only occupation, you might as well give up because they will win.

[Drocket]

Apdst reference to nuclear weapons in 5... 4... 3...

[jose]

If he goes full force there will be more enemy targets terminated. That will be a good thing.
As in your enemy targets,...... or his? the US would do well in talking to this man as it looks like he will be soon running Iraq

[apdst]

Sure thing, just like it was before right? Despite the "Rambo" attitude of your comment, the fact remains that many Iraqis sympathize with Al-Sadr and that will cause an increase in Anti-U.S. attitude with the Iraqi population.

They will support Sadr until he starts using them as sympathy targets to further his agenda. He's done that before and he knows it won't work. Hence, the ceasefire. He has learned, that you can't win the war by killing more of your own people than you do the enemy. Common sense, really, but I guess it takes some people a little while to catch on.


The Mahdi Army, in it's present carnation, cannot successfully extract The United States military from Iraq. Sadr is totally reliant on assymetrical warfare to achieve his goals. Only once in history has an assymetrical force defeated a conventional force in the field.

[apdst]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080419/ts_nm/iraq_dc

Sadr's threatening, but there ain't alotta people gittin' skeered.


BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on Saturday threatened an "open war" against the Iraqi government unless it halted a crackdown by Iraqi and U.S. security forces on his followers.

The specter of a full-scale uprising by Sadr sharply raises the stakes in his confrontation with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who has threatened to ban the anti-American cleric's movement from political life unless he disbands his militia.

A rebellion by Sadr's Mehdi Army militia -- which has tens of thousands of fighters -- could abruptly end a period of lower violence at a time when U.S. forces are starting to leave Iraq.

"I'm giving the last warning and the last word to the Iraqi government -- either it comes to its senses and takes the path of peace ... or it will be (seen as) the same as the previous government," Sadr said, referring to Saddam Hussein's fallen regime, without elaborating.

"If they don't come to their senses and curb the infiltrated militias, then we will declare an open war until liberation."

Sadr's movement accuses other Shi'ite parties of getting their militias into the Iraqi security forces, especially in southern Shi'ite Iraq where various factions are competing for influence in a region home to most of Iraq's oil output.

Sadr launched two uprisings against U.S. forces in 2004.

His movement then entered politics and backed Maliki's rise to power in 2006. But the youthful Sadr split with Maliki, a fellow Shi'ite, a year ago when the prime minister refused to set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

"Do you want a third uprising?" Sadr said, adding that he wanted Iraq's Shi'ite clerical establishment to set a date for the departure of American troops.

In Sadr's Baghdad stronghold of Sadr City, one Mehdi Army commander said he was "thrilled" about the statement.

"We will wait until tomorrow to see the response of the government. Otherwise they will see black days like they have never seen before in their life."

Sadr's threat could not come at a worse time. On Friday, U.S. forces said they had intelligence suggesting Sunni Islamist al Qaeda, pushed out of Baghdad and western Iraq last year, was plotting a return to the capital to stage major bomb attacks.

ROCKETS HIT HOSPITAL

In Baghdad, police described battles between security forces and gunmen that began on Friday in Sadr City as among the heaviest in the capital since Maliki launched a crackdown on the Mehdi Army in the southern city of Basra late last month.

Police said 12 people had been killed in the Shi'ite slum. Hospitals said they received more than 130 wounded overnight.

Late on Saturday, Ali Bustan, head of the health directorate in the eastern section of Baghdad, said three rockets hit the Sadr Hospital in the slum. It was unclear if there were any casualties. The U.S. military said it was not to blame.

Bustan said the bodies of three women had been brought in along with 40 wounded people following fresh clashes.

Maliki has threatened to ban Sadr's movement from provincial elections this year if the cleric does not disband his militia.

In response, Sadr has threatened to formally scrap a ceasefire he imposed on the Mehdi Army last August, which has already been hanging by a thread given recent clashes.

In his statement, Sadr did not refer to the truce, but his spokesman in the holy city of Najaf, Salah al-Ubaidi, said the cleric was not bluffing.

"We mean every word," Ubaidi told Reuters.

Sadr issued his warning after Iraqi soldiers swooped on the Mehdi Army's stronghold in Basra. Iraqi officials said they now controlled the bastion, known as the Hayaniya district.

The dawn raid by government troops there was backed by a thunderous bombardment by U.S. warplanes and British artillery.

Maliki's initial crackdown on the militia in Basra last month was criticized by U.S. commanders as poorly planned.

It failed to drive the Mehdi Army from the streets and sparked battles across the south and in Sadr City, the cleric's Baghdad stronghold. The government dismissed 1,300 soldiers and police for refusing to fight in Basra, the port for most of Iraq's oil exports.

On Saturday by contrast, Harith al-Idhari, head of the Sadr office in Basra, said the militia had not put up any resistance, in observance of a ceasefire declared by the cleric.

Major-General Abdul-Karim Khalaf, an interior ministry spokesman, described the Basra operation as a major success.

[Drocket]

Only once in history has an assymetrical force defeated a conventional force in the field.

In the field? Of course not - that's the entire POINT of asymmetrical, that you don't fight your enemy on fair ground (I'm trying to figure out who you think actually managed to do this, and all I can come up with is the movie 300...) The goal of asymmetrical warfare is to strike where your enemy is weakest, which isn't generally facing their army head-on.

If you plan to use any reasonable definition of success, asymmetrical warfare is probably the most successful method for fighting a war possible. The list of successes is virtually endless, from the American revolution to the French revolution to the Spanish civil war to about 50 misc. uprisings that eventually wound up toppling the British empire to the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan to... Well, the list just keeps going on.

[Scribbler1]

It seems to me WE waged "asymmetrical" war against the British a couple of centuries back.

And WE won.

Maybe Sadr reads history books.

[apdst]

(I'm trying to figure out who you think actually managed to do this, and all I can come up with is the movie 300...)

I was referring to The Boer War.

It seems to me WE waged "asymmetrical" war against the British a couple of centuries back.

Not completely. There were some unconventional tactics employed against the British, but ultimately, they were defeated by conventional means.

Even during Vietnam, The North knew that they had to transition to a conventional force, at some point. By 1970, The VC had ceased to exist and the NVA was a completely conventional force, complete with division level arty, tanks, combined arms operations and everything.

[Scribbler1]

Not completely. There were some unconventional tactics employed against the British, but ultimately, they were defeated by conventional means.I wasn't meaning to imply they ALL hid behind trees and ambushed the Redcoats, but the popular impression is that we did that a LOT because we didn't have the firepower to fight row after row of British soldiers on an even playing field.

It's funny though, now that I think of it. That kind of warfare gets people called terrorists these days.

[apdst]

I wasn't meaning to imply they ALL hid behind trees and ambushed the Redcoats, but the popular impression is that we did that a LOT because we didn't have the firepower to fight row after row of British soldiers on an even playing field.

Yes, that is the popular impression, but it's no accurate. It just goes to show what happens when revisionists get their hands on historical facts.

That kind of warfare gets people called terrorists these days.

Actually, the people who are called terrorists are the ones that attack civilians so as to instill fear among the populace and effect a certain political outcome. The Colonials never killed civilians to reach that outcome. British Colonel Banastre Tarleton did, however, use terrorist style tactics during The Rev-War; burned houses, executed wounded soldiers, executed civlians.

[jafar00]

British Colonel Banastre Tarleton did, however, use terrorist style tactics during The Rev-War; burned houses, executed wounded soldiers, executed civlians.

Much like Israeli and US armed forces do today.

[apdst]

Much like Israeli and US armed forces do today.

And you can prove that US troops are executing civilains?

[4Reaganomics]

Al Sadr is pretty fat for a guy who never throws down a good old roast pork sandwich.

Going off topic, I wonder what his diet is. We better handle this meatball pretty soon.