I see we have new competition for Tony Snow’s job.
Today, “tens of thousands” of Iraqis marched in the Shiite holy city of Najaf, on the occasion of the 4th anniversary of Baghdad’s fall to American forces and in response to calls from firebrand cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr.
Colonel Steven Boylan, a top U.S. military spokesman, praised the peaceful nature of the demonstration, saying Iraqis “could not have done this four years ago.”
“This is the right to assemble, the right to free speech – they didn’t have that under the former regime… This is progress, there’s no two ways about it.”
But of course. And by the way, just what was it that the marchers were chanting?
That America go home. “Get out, get out occupier!”
Progress indeed.
Yesterday, al-Sadr’s written marching orders included a call for Iraqi partisans to stop fighting each other and instead unite to concentrate on their common arch enemy – America:
“Oh my brothers in the Mahdi Army and my brothers in the security forces, stop fighting and killing because that is what our enemy and your enemy and even God’s enemy hope for….”
“God ordered you to be patient and to unite your efforts against the enemy and not against the sons of Iraq. They want to drag you into a war that ends Shiitism and Islam, but they cannot.”
Anybody else hear an echo to the William Wallace “Braveheart” line about “sons of Scotland?”
Yet Colonel Boylon wants to characterize Iraqi streets filled with protestors calling for America to go home as an unequivocal sign of “progress?” One wonders if he also was in charge of Senator John McCain’s April Fool’s Day tour of Baghdad?
Back to al-Sadr, Edward Wong’s report yesterday ominously noted that,
“Mr. Sadr’s statement on Sunday indicated he might be ready to resume steering his militia, the Mahdi Army, toward more open confrontation with the American military.”
Yet I am aware of analyses suggesting that Sadr’s latest rhetoric and this march are an effort to “let off steam” for frustrated followers, or a sign of “desperation” in the face of recent US military attacks against his Mahdi “Army” in Diwaniyeh. (These assaults, by the way, included the use of US bombers….) In the following extended McClatchy story, we have:
Joost Hiltermann of the International Crisis Group observing that Sadr’s “lie-low” strategy has backfired among his more militant followers:
“Shiites who were targets [of sectarian violence] want to respond, and Muqtada is coming under more pressure to call for some kind of retaliation… [The mass demonstrations are] “one way of allowing people to let off steam.”
And this from Vali Nasr of the US Naval Postgraduate School, who contends that Sadr’s response to the U.S. troop assault against his once government-protected militia has put his position of power in jeopardy, and that his statements were meant to distract his followers, including militiamen who are eager to retaliate.
“This tough rhetoric essentially camouflages the decision not to fight.”
Perhaps they are correct. But my comment for the moment reduces to two words:
Wishful thinking.
Thousands of Iraqis march in Najaf to protest U.S. troop presence
Residents said the angry, boisterous demonstration, during which Iraqis burned American flags and chanted “Death to America,” was the largest in Najaf, the heart of Shiite religious power, since the American-led invasion. It was a clear attempt by Sadr to show to the world the extent of his influence here in Iraq, even though he did not appear at the rally. Sadr went underground after the American military began a new Baghdad security plan on Feb. 14, and there are no reliable reports of his whereabouts.
But quite evidently, everyone involved in the potentially extremely lethal military tangle in and around Iraq has been deeply engaged in probing and counter-probing each other’s forces and capabilities in a host of different ways, over the past four years.Helena Cobban
“Unfortunately the Iraqis are losing hope and they’re becoming very paranoid about each other; in other words, other sectarian groups. And they are not as optimistic about their country’s future as they once were. They still say they prefer things slightly over how they were under Saddam, but frankly the objective indicators of quality of life are a little worse today than they were in the last 5 to 10 years of Saddam’s rule.”
“To quote the New York Times op-ed that we wrote on March 18th, there is no proof of progress, but there is a glimmer of hope. ”
http://www.brookings.edu/views/interviews/ohanlon/20070319.htm
“They still say they prefer things slightly over how they were under Saddam…”
Huh?! Who says that? When? Where? To whom? Certainly no Iraqi that I have ever known says that now. I cannot remember the last time I read or heard a statement from an Iraqi saying they prefer things now over Saddam’s time. On the contrary, in fact. Even Kurds are complaining about conditions these days.
Most Still See Iraqis as Better Off
FigureDespite increasing sectarian violence in Iraq and growing frustration with the war in the U.S., most Americans (57%) believe the Iraqi people are better off now than they were when Saddam Hussein was in power. This includes solid majorities of Republicans (80%) and independents (58%). Democrats are almost evenly divided on this question (44% worse off, 42% better off). Opinions about whether Iraqis are better or worse off are correlated with views of the decision to go to war. A large majority (86%) of those who feel the decision to use force was the right decision think the Iraqis are better off, while only one-third of those who say the war was a mistake think Iraqis are in a better situation now.
When respondents are asked whether the Iraqi people will be better or worse off in “the long run” than they were under Saddam Hussein’s rule, optimism increases significantly; 71% say Iraqis will be better off in the long run, while just 18% say they will be worse off. Even among those who say the decision to use military force in Iraq was a mistake, 55% think Iraqis will eventually be better off. And the partisan divide that shapes most questions regarding Iraq is less stark here: large majorities of Republicans (86%), independents (67%), and Democrats (66%) feel things will ultimately be better for the Iraq people than they were under Saddam.
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=297
“The most unliveable cities are those stricken by civil strife, with Baghdad scoring 14.5, the lowest in the survey.”
http://www.mercerhr.com/knowledgecenter/reportsummary.jhtml/dynamic/idContent/1128060;jsessionid=HVOLB2Y51JJNCCTGOUFCHPQKMZ0QUJLW#Europe
“It is doubtful however that a lack of spice is why Baghdad remains the world’s least-enticing city for expatriates, with a score of 14.5.”
Swiss cities continue to top world rankings
salah,
i can’t believe you’re putting american surveys on iraquis mouth…
what are you talking about??
i don’t think there’s democrats or republicans in iraq… are you aware of that?
let’s think for a moment… perhaps sunnis and shias?
helloooo… planet earth…
Rudolf, Please look up the words “satire” and “irony” in the dictionary. Salah can be quite witty sometimes.
Scott, I agree with your wishful thinking analysis. Reading Iraqi media, it seems like a large portion of Shiite Iraqis think Sadr is doing the right thing: he knows that the “surge” [more like a plunge !] is short-lived, and since the Mahdi’s tactics are essentially different from the Anbar-style insurgency, there is no sense in losing thousands of his men confronting the US in conventional street battles that often end in A-10 Thundrbolt’s demolishing the entire area. The surge will be out of steam by the end of the summer, and he will have waited it out. This is not my commentary, but paraphrased from quite a few pieces I have read over the past weeks.
I would bet that Saddam would let them march and shout DEATH TO AMERICA.
Interesting thought Susan, but as you know, it might have depended on just when… Back when Saddam was so eager to portray “a new Iraq” and court American backing for his misadventure into Iran, I rather doubt it…. :-{
David — I recognize your comment – and indeed, that’s the great concern. Alas, if the present carnage in Iraq is a sign of “restraint,” I hate to see what matters will look like when the gloves come off….
Interesting Radio Free Europe report on al-Sadr and the Najaf rallies:
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/04/44204d6b-7af2-4143-87ce-27273a572656.html
Note the ending: “On a day when one might expect Iraqis to be celebrating the fall of the previous dictatorial regime and the beginning of a new era, thousands of Iraqis instead were out calling for an end to their country’s occupation.”
(That got by the RFE censors….)
Scott, what I kept hearing over and over on the mainstream U.S. broadcast media went something like this: “On the fourth anniversary of the day American troops liberated Baghdad from the tyrrany of Saddam Hussein, thousands of Shi’ites marched to protest the American presence”.
I really, really, really thought we had at least gotten past that kind of bull****. I guess I was wrong.
Juan Cole on Sadr’s looming presence, amid a government that is becoming, a la Lebanon, increasingly “irrelevant.”
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_5726551?nclick_check=1