April 05, 2004
Warrant out for Muslim cleric's "arrest"
An arrest warrant has been put out for a cleric inciting violent protests in Iraq against U.S. forces. And should he be “arrested,” his followers have promised to fight back.
Some might call this another instance of aggravation in the area—that we’re, in a sense, angering the insurgents by challenging them and meddling in their affairs. However, this is a laughable conclusion.
After all, the insurgents have already vowed to wage guerrilla war against U.S. and coalition troops in the region, and how any attempt to capture one of their leaders incites them to further violence--violence they have already engaged in--is indeed confusing.
One confused Reuters reporter put it this way:
"The announcement was likely to stir fresh fury among Sadr's thousands of supporters who have shown their opposition to America's postwar plans for Iraq in armed demonstrations over the past few days," he wrote.
It's simple. The insurgents have already challenged American presence in the area, and no act on the part of U.S. forces will change their minds one way or the other. Were we to leave tomorrow, we would still be hated. Maybe it's because of our freedom-loving ways. Or our overwhelming dominance in the global scheme of things. Or shoring up stability in the area. We're not liked.
But leaving is not the answer. We must stick up for the Iraqi people and not bow down to anti-American sentiment of a few Iraqi regions. Indeed, the support among Iraqis is there.
Now it's up to us to not let them down as Bush 41 did following the Gulf War. They can attain freedom from the more radical elements of their society. But for now, they're going to need our help.
Posted by Deleted Author at April 5, 2004 07:09 PMTalk to the Israelis about how well taking out opposition leaders works for them.
I don’t know what the solution will be, but I do believe I know what certainly won’t solve things there.
Posted by: ceejayoz at April 5, 2004 07:57 PMAs far as Sadr is concerned, and based on what I’ve heard, it is only sensible that we throw him in jail. I would do my best to get him alive though, since the last thing we need is to give them a Martyr. That isn’t to say it won’t be touchy. Doing things the easy way was an option we left behind when we decided to invade and occupy Iraq
To those surprised by this point of view coming from me, let me say this: This is an occupation. We do not and cannot have a functioning democracy in Iraq yet. When somebody starts stirring up trouble the way he’s doing it, we need to stick his butt in jail.
Occupations are about control and pacification. If we are not prepared to knock heads when it comes to people stirring up others to kill our soldiers, we may end up having to do, or watch other people do worse.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 5, 2004 08:25 PMDustin,
Maybe you were as ‘confused’ as Reuters reporter, because the article you linked to read:
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. authorities in Iraq announced Monday that a murder warrant was out for a radical Shi’ite Muslim cleric leading violent anti-American protests, but his followers swore to fight back if he was arrested.
A warrant for murder (in fact, the murder of a fellow Shi’ite cleric), and not for ‘inciting violent protests in Iraq’.
In our very own country, there are many extremists groups that advocate violent resistence aganist our government and publish newspapers and have websites promoting that message also.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at April 5, 2004 09:59 PMStephen “If we are not prepared to knock heads when it comes to people stirring up others to kill our soldiers, we may end up having to do, or watch other people do worse.”
Every now and then, Stephen, you say something that makes me wish you were on our side.
Bert,
Yes, the warrant is for murder, but it has been around for a long time now. They weren’t going to serve it until he started causing a lot of trouble recently.
Posted by: dave at April 6, 2004 12:35 AM> Every now and then, Stephen, you say something
> that makes me wish you were on our side.
Stephen’s opinion on the occupation is one that is shared almost universally among Democrats. Regardless of what anyone thinks about whether or not invading Iraq was a good idea, the United States is now in charge of Iraq’s 23 million people and we are responsible for their welfare. Now we’ve got to think about how - and work hard - to make Iraq work.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at April 6, 2004 01:54 AMIf that’s true, Christopher, I’m glad to hear it. I wonder then if you can explain how the alarm and finger-pointing Democrats voice with every setback in Iraq contributes to building the popular domestic and international support neccessary for taking care of the welfare of Iraqis?
Do Ted Kennedy’s shrill outcries about “Bush’s Vietnam” help Iraqis? Or are they intended to help John Kerry? I believe these are not only fair but obvious questions.
Posted by: Martin at April 6, 2004 02:10 AMObviously rounding up Sadr and his cohorts is important to attempt to quell the problems arising in Iraq now.
Too bad noone thought about these consequences prior to the invasion.
There needs to be a full court press to train a “coalition” army and police force , establish some sort of judicial system, and parliment and then get the [expletive deleted] out.
Sadly, I don’t think this is ever going to work, because Iraq was a cobbled together country. It isn’t a melting pot. I frankly have believed from before the invasion that this will devolve into civil war (what an oxymoron).
I know when I find myself agreeing with Pat Buchanan, The world is upside down.
Posted by: greg at April 6, 2004 02:18 AM> Do Ted Kennedy’s shrill outcries about “Bush’s
> Vietnam” help Iraqis? Or are they intended to
> help John Kerry? I believe these are not only
> fair but obvious questions.
The point of such rhetoric is to show how the Bush administration, either because of political concerns or just sheer wishful thinking, continually downplays the level of effort that the occupation and reconstruction will require.
The point is that Bush misled us into the situation in the first place, and that he’s misleading us now if he thinks we actually believe that the US will be able to “hand over power” this summer.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at April 6, 2004 02:58 AMDo Ted Kennedy’s shrill outcries about “Bush’s Vietnam” help Iraqis? Or are they intended to help John Kerry? I believe these are not only fair but obvious questions.
And easily answered. The way Bush got us in there was dumb, not to mention detrimental to our security and standing in the world, but now that we’re there, we need to do everything possible to make it work.
Including being flexible enough to delay the handover until Iraq has an elected government with a real constitution and a tradition of peaceful transition of power.
It’s obvious that Iraq is not ready for a handover. Even Dick Lugar and a bunch of Republicans are questioning Bush’s “resolve” on this matter.
And stick Sadr’s butt in the cooler. These guys are pretty brave when they think they’re going to Paradise, but a few weeks in solitary usually breaks ‘em.
Some facts: The warrant has been outstanding for a very long time. The warrant has not been served since no bearer of the warrant has been able to find him to serve it. The only thing new here is the announcement. All the rest is old news.
Iraq had internal civil problems before we arrived. Iraq is going to have internal civil problems for the unforeseeable future. All we have accomplished is exchanging one set of Iraqi hardships for another.
It was up to the Iraqi people to resolve their problems with Saddam. It is up to the Iraqi people now whether they want a unified Iraq with current borders and populations under an autonomous democracy of their own making.
All we will accomplish by remaining there instead of turning the entire operation over to the U.N. is ever increasing American body bags. Anyone who supports and perpetuates this war now that the reasons for it have proven false, is no supporter of our troops nor the U.S.’s committment to peace in the world. There is nothing patriotic about killing our soldiers needlessly. It is about the most unpatriotic act I can think of.
Posted by: David R Remer at April 6, 2004 08:19 AMDo Ted Kennedy’s shrill outcries about “Bush’s Vietnam” help Iraqis? Or are they intended to help John Kerry? I believe these are not only fair but obvious questions.
The obvious answer is that Vietnam was a quagmire where the government wasn’t really that honest with the public about, a war that was moral in it’s intentions, and which Americans initially supported. It was also an expensive war whose escalation from small scale military involvement depended on largely untrue allegations (The Gulf of Tonkin incident).
Which is why Democrat’s anger over the war in Iraq is so great. We thought we were fighting WWII, a good war, doing a great thing, making the world safe for democracy. We get there, and we see the Bush administration basically play out our mistakes in Vietnam all over again in Iraq. What makes it worse is that we don’t even find the threat we were looking for. We find that the threat never existed in the first place.
At least our people never claimed communist were there in Vietnam when they weren’t.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 6, 2004 08:55 AMWell, friends and neighbors, Mr. Sadr has taken over Najaf. Of course, Paul Bremers going, “Oh But it’s just one city. We’re in control of the rest of Iraq”
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 6, 2004 12:48 PMAFP reports that the U.S. army considered arresting Sadr late last year. Sadr wasn’t arrested to avoid inflaming Iraq’s Shiite majority.
Sadr has used the interim six months to put in place his militias, numbering between 3,000 and 6,000, according to Pentagon figures, and launch a violent campaign against US-led coalition forces in Iraq.
At the time Sadr was wanted for alleged participation in last April’s murder of a religious cleric, Abdel Majid al-Khoi. His militia, the Mehdi Army, had led a number of ambushes and attacks against US forces in Baghdad and Karbala.
There is only one way to deal with a thug such as Sadr, remove him and render him powerless. That requires disarming his band of guerrillas. It would have been better to have arrested Sadr last year. Now we appear weak and unable to control things. We have managed to inflamed the opposition and alienated the center. The Iraqis run when the Baathists or Sadr’s thugs start shooting is because they’re convinced that the evil doers will prevail.
American military and Iraqi civilians are paying the price for our earlier timidity.
We must learn from our mistakes. There can be no compromising with evil. It is always taken as a sign of weakness.
