Right Wing Nut House

The US says he’s in Iran. Some of his supporters say that he’s still in Iraq. Just where is the butchering sadist?

First, the US view:

While members of the U.S. House of Representatives take turns weighing in on President Bush’s planned troop surge in Iraq, the focus in Iraq is not on the arrival of more U.S. troops, but the departure of one of the country’s most powerful men, Moqtada al Sadr and members of his army.

According to senior military officials, al Sadr left Baghdad two to three weeks ago and fled to Tehran, Iran, where he has family.

Al Sadr commands the Mahdi army, one of the most formidable insurgent militias in Iraq, and his move coincides with the announced U.S. troop surge in Baghdad.

Sources believe al Sadr is worried about an increase of 20,000 U.S. troops in the Iraqi capital. One official told ABC News’ Martha Raddatz, “He is scared he will get a JDAM [bomb] dropped on his house.”

Sources say some of the Mahdi army leadership went with al Sadr.

AP, however, is reporting that Sadr is still in Iraq:

Supporters of Muqtada al-Sadr said Wednesday that the radical Shiite cleric was still in Iraq, denying a report that he fled to Iran ahead of a security crackdown targeting his militia.

An Iraqi government official said al-Sadr was in the Shiite holy city of Najaf Tuesday night, when he received delegates from several government departments. The official, who is familiar with one of those meetings, spoke on condition of anonymity because he has no authority to disclose information on his department’s activities.

The denials came after a senior U.S. official said Tuesday that al-Sadr left his Baghdad stronghold some weeks ago and is believed to be in Tehran, where he has family.

The official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss U.S. monitoring activities, said fractures in al-Sadr’s political and militia operations may be part of the reason for his departure. The move is not believed to be permanent, the official said.

Al-Sadr’s militia is blamed for much of the sectarian violence and is widely seen as the main threat to Iraq’s unity and high on the list of targets for the Baghdad security operation.

I wonder if the “anonymous official” is related to Jamil Hussein?

Actually, I think both stories are correct. It is possible that al-Sadr has moved his base of operations to Tehran but could very well make periodic trips back to Iraq. But what is really troubling is the thought that Mookie has lost control of his militia and now fears some of them as much as he fears the Americans.

As long as al-Sadr was the leader of a radical religious militia opposed to the occupation (and any Iraqis who cooperated with us), his followers were united. But once the radical cleric stepped into the political arena, he risked the cohesion of his organization. Indeed, this appears to be what has transpired. Al-Sadr has spoken out frequently the last few months against sectarian violence. While most observers see his denunciations as pro-forma and insincere, some of his commanders apparently went off on their own and formed death squads in order to “cleanse” Iraq of Sunnis. U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad told Newsweek back in August:

“There are forces that are controlled by Moqtada, but there are commanders that are not controlled by him; there are death squads that are not controlled by him.”

This is what our people saw from the Mahdi Army 6 months ago:

Under the leadership of Sadr, the Mahdi Army was considered a containable force, susceptible to political bargaining. But as Sadr has leaned toward moderation—his party now has 30 seats in the National Assembly—men fighting under his militia’s banner have become more aggressive. In interviews with NEWSWEEK, Mahdi Army members, Iraqi politicians and Western officials describe an organization in which local commanders are increasingly independent from Sadr, splintering into cells of fighters committed to civil war. There are at least four offshoot Mahdi leaders in Sadr City alone; some groups are taking orders from Iran. There’s similar fragmentation in the largely Shiite cities of Najaf and Basra. According to a U.S. military intel official in Najaf, Coalition forces have been attacked by individuals who get their inspiration from the Mahdi Army but are not official members—men with “an AK-47, an RPG and a Sadr poster,” says the official, requesting anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity.

The situation is so volatile that, according to the U.S. officials, Sadr now fears for his own safety and position.

According to the AP article, Sadr sleeps in a different place every night and rarely appears in public. This could be due to a combination of fear of his own people and fear that the Americans have placed a bullseye on his forehead. Either way, Sadr has limited choices open to him. He can continue to try and work within the political system (where his radical anti-Sunni positions have been a hindrance to the government’s efforts to draw the Sunnis into greater participation in Iraqi political life) or he could become even more radical and begin open warfare against the United States.

In fact, there is some evidence that while many of us here in America have been critical of the Bush Administration for not “going after” al-Sadr, the military may have been trying to draw the Mahdi Army into open conflict with the Americans all along.

Bill Roggio:

While much of the public’s perceptions of the efforts against Sadr are shaped by operations in Sadr City in Baghdad, the Coalition and Iraqi government are chipping away at his power base outside of Baghdad. The series of raids and clashes, often masked as efforts against “criminals,” “thugs,” “death squads,” and “kidnappers,” are being conducted against the extreme elements of Sadr and his Mahdi Army. The goal is to remove Sadr from a position of influence, either by force or his surrender, and split his power base. Sadr’s lieutenants are being systematically targeted, which will drive him to either fight or withdraw.

You may recall the operation carried out by the military in late October following the kidnapping of an American serviceman where all of Sadr City was sealed. Only the intercession of Prime Minister Maliki who ordered a lifting of the blockade saved the Mahdi Army from a confrontation then. At that time, we were targeting known death squad leaders - some of whom had denounced Sadr for joining the political process and for not being radical enough in trying to cleanse Iraq of Sunnis.

Now it appears that we are once again prepared to hunt down and destroy al-Sadr’s creation. But should we target Sadr himself? Ed Morrissey feels that by driving him out of the country and into Iran, the anti-American cleric may have destroyed his own credibility:

And as for Sadr, this will destroy him and his Mahdi Army. ABC reports that Sadr wants to try to run the Mahdis from Tehran, but his credibility as a jihadi just tanked. Who’s going to fight for someone who won’t stand up for himself?

And the Iranians surely have to be thumping their foreheads over his bug-out. The US had just demonstrated that the Iranians had backed the insurgencies, which the Iranians disputed, and the chief of the Shi’ite militias announces that he’s going to become a remote-control general from their turf. It’s going to be very difficult for anyone to pretend that Iran has not actively fueled the insurgencies while Moqtada directs his armies by long-distance telephone calls.

This demonstrates that the US forces have seized the initiative in Baghdad, and that the Maliki government has apparently completely abandoned Sadr. It’s a tremendous victory in the preliminary stages, and it sets the table for an end to the hottest part of the insurgencies in the Iraqi capital.

I’m not in complete agreement with Ed. This “victory” is actually part and parcel of what we’ve been seeing not only from the Mahdi Army but also insurgents and death squad members. They are leaving Baghdad in anticipation of the crackdown. Once a modicum of peace is restored and the Americans begin pulling out, they will probably be back - with a vengeance.

I agree with Ed that this knocks the chocks out from underneath the argument made by war critics that the surge will have no effect on the violence in Baghdad. The fact is, it already has. It is now up to Maliki and the Iraqi government to take advantage of any lull in the violence and reach out to the Sunnis in order to build a truly national government where all Iraqis feel they have a stake in the future.

Since Sadr refuses to change his ways or alter his ultra Shia nationalistic beliefs, he has become a political liability for Maliki. This could be why the Iraqi Prime Minister has abandoned him to the tender mercies of the American military and why Sadr sleeps in a different bed every night.

UPDATE

Did Maliki set up Sadr’s exit to Iraq in order to avoid capture by the Americans?

Alphabet City:

Question: A cowardly act by the Shia Benedict Arnold who fled into Iran because Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki abandoned him?

The other possibility, the document is genuine and Muqtada has not run with his tail between his legs but has been secreted away in Iran with the blessings of PM Maliki and NSA Mowaffak al-Rubaie. Both belong to the Dawa Party which forged it’s ties to the Khomeinists during Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s exile in Najaf in the late 1970s.

Since it would fully be in keeping with Maliki’s efforts to protect al-Sadr over these last months, I would tend to think that the letter is genuine and represents a sell-out by Maliki of our military and of the man who has sacrificed his personal and political standing with the American people to support him; George Bush.

The extent of this betrayal is too ghastly to comprehend. What it says to me is that Maliki has no intention of seeking a political solution to Iraq’s troubles and has thrown in his lot with the ultra Shia nationalists who want a Sunni-free Iraq. How they get to that point will make Bosnia look like a picnic and Darfur pale in comparison. Tens of thousands of Sunnis killed with millions on the move as refugees. Utter, complete chaos and disaster.

Is there no one in Iraq with the vision and the guts to lead the country to something better?