Well, we still don’t have a government in Iraq though my handy DDI counter on the sidebar here at JWN tells me that it’s been 54 days since the Iraqi election.
Much of the MSM here in the US has stopped its previous, breathless following of “who’s up” and “who’s down” in the contest for the various government posts… Moreover, we’ve had many fewer mentions recently of SCIRI head Abdul-Aziz Hakim as being “the most powerful man in Iraq”, etc, etc. A tag, I should note, that I questioned from the get-go— and then Reidar Visser provided some solid facts about the intra-UIA balance that backed up my questioning.
And today, we have this from AP’s Paul Garwood:
- Behind most of Iraq’s protests over cartoons satirizing the Prophet Muhammad has been one increasingly important figure — the fiercely anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
Al-Sadr, whose militia has fought U.S. troops and rival Shiite groups for prestige and power since the ouster of Saddam Hussein, has been meeting Middle East heads of state, including Iranian leaders and Syrian President Bashar Assad.
His political supporters won 30 seats in Iraq’s 275-member parliament, giving al-Sadr considerable clout in the dominant Shiite coalition, the United Iraqi Alliance.
“That’s not bad for a man people once regarded as inexperienced and ineffectual,” Iraqi analyst Mustafa al-Ani said from the United Arab Emirates.
He also said the cleric posed a strong challenge to the Shiite old guard, including Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, head of Iraq’s largest Shiite political party, and Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari. “He is going to compete with them for the Shiite leadership,” al-Ani said. [Duh! ~HC]
Al-Sadr, in his early 30s, offers an alternative to Iraqis furious at the government’s inability to restore security and basic services and to those opposed to the presence of U.S.-led troops.
And guess what, among those troops are troops from Anders Rasmussen’s little Denmark.
Garwood continues:
- In a sign of his popularity, particularly among younger Shiites, al-Sadr has drawn thousands of supporters onto the streets to denounce Denmark, where the drawings of the Muslim prophet were first published, and other countries where newspapers reprinted the images.
Some 5,000 protesters rallied outside a government building Monday in the southern city of Kut, burning Danish flags and calling for the 530-member Danish military contingent to be booted out of Iraq. The demonstration came a day after a gunman shot at Danish soldiers, children hurled stones at another patrol and a homemade bomb was defused near their base in Qurnah, 300 miles southeast of Baghdad.
“All these things add up to the idea that we might not be as popular as we have been as a result of the Prophet Muhammad drawings,” said Capt. Filip Ulrichsen of the Danish contingent. [Duh! ~HC]
The caricatures also prompted Transport Minister Salam al-Maliki, an al-Sadr follower, to freeze contracts between his department and Danish companies operating in Iraq.
Garwood goes on to quote some other Iraqi analysts as saying Moqtada seems to be doing pretty well politically. He writes, “Whether al-Sadr poses a threat to the Shiite political establishment remains to be seen, but many note he is maturing into a formidable political leader with street credibility for standing up to foreign forces.”
Sadr has been making a “premier-in-waiting” type of tour to neighboring countries, most recently Syria. Garwood again:
- In Damascus, al-Sadr told reporters on Monday that Iraqi and Syrian relations remain strong and that the common enemies were the United States, Israel and Britain, who were bent on “sowing seeds of sedition” between the neighboring Arab states.
He also sent a message to the Americans that Iran and Syria — accused by the U.S. of sponsoring regional militants — were his friends, adding “I will be one of the defenders of Syria and Iran, and all Islamic states.”
Like invading colonial powers throughout history, the US and its allies have been intent on pursuing “divide and rule” policies both within Iraq and throughout the region. Sadr has stood up quite clearly against these attempts. Though a number of his past actions– and those of some of his more zealous supporters– are certainly questionable (to say the least), at this point he may well be the best person to prevent the spiralling downward of Iraq into civil war, given his insistence on strengthening Shii-Sunni links inside the country.
I hope to heck he has some very savvy bodyguards.
I guess I should call your attention to an item I saw in an Iraqi newspaper (Qasim Al-mushtarak, to be found at qalmushtarak.com), in its issue dated Monday Feb 6. It is attributed to a news agency called Elaph (to be found at elaph.com), the latter run by an ex-editor at Al-sharq al Awsat, with hq in Surrey UK). The gist of the item is that in the recent round of dinners and luncheons and so on, US ambassador Khalizad has been letting the UIA know that if they put forward for future Prime Minister anyone other than Adil abdul-Mahdi (the SCIRI person and main competitor to Jaafari the Dawa person), he will see to it that there are so many problems that the UIA government will have to resign, and it will be replaced by a coalition involving all of the non-UIA entities). The writer describes the threats as “indirect”. The only cited reason the US is said to like Mahdi is that it appears he has promised to control Iranian interference in Iraq, or words to that effect. The author of this item points out that the numbers would indicate a Jaafari victory if the UIA were to vote on this, and that is a major reason why Hakim (the SCIRI leader) is in favor of still trying to work this out by “consensus” rather than putting it to a vote. (To the innocent bystander, it would seem a little counterintuitive to say the least for the US to be supporting the SCIRI with its Iranian connections, and with its recent insistence on federalism for the South of Iraq as well as the North, but this is reported in a charming flat-out style and it doesn’t get into that kind of question. Incidental points the reporter raises include the fact that the Kurds don’t like Jaafari because of what they see as his foot-dragging on incorporating Kirkuk into their territory, so a Mahdi government would be easier that way. Also that the Kurds have been talking to Alawi, and they don’t have the allergy to him that (Jaafari supporter) Moqtada al-Sadr does.
regards, John Whitelaw
“Al-Sadr has drawn thousands of supporters onto the streets to denounce Denmark…burning Danish flags…gunman shot at Danish soldiers, children hurled stones at another patrol and a homemade bomb…”
Who would have thought that neocon Danish hegemonic ambitions would be so nakedly exposed by the Sadrists who have caught on that in point of fact Bush, Blair and Olmert are merely three poodles of the Greatest Satan, Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen?
Is this an attempt at humor, WmPeele? If so, I’m afraid it fizzled. The Danish soldiers are in Iraq as part of the US-led occupation army, and have been all along. Personally I think there are better ways to resist foreign military occupation than through violence, but in such circumstances violence is quite legitimate under international law…
Given that the occupation of Iraq (if which the Danish soldiers are part) has brought terrible suffering to the Iraqi people I find your attempt at “humor” not only unusuccessful but also in very bad taste indeed.
and, pray tell, are there also Danish soldiers in Lebanon and Syria where Danish and Norwegian diplomatic missions have been set ablaze? Indeed, Josh Landis could tell you how unlikely it would be for citizens on their own to organize a protest rally in Damascus, let alone set ablaze two Scandinavian embassies…Could Bashir, like Sadr with whom he met very recently, cynically find this anti-Scandinavian popular outlet politically useful?
Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, in marked contrast to the cynical young firebrand Sadr, according to the Associated Press “condemned the cartoons but made no call for protests and suggested that militant Muslims were partly to blame for distorting Islam’s image.”
“He referred to ‘misguided and oppressive’ segments of the Muslim community and said their actions ‘projected a distorted and dark image of the faith of justice, love and brotherhood. Enemies have exploited this . . . to spread their poison and revive their old hatreds with new methods and mechanisms.'”