Article

2004-07-05 Iraq-Jordan

Allawi and al-Sadr flip-flopping more than Kerry?

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Edward Yee 2004-07-05 11:13:45 PM|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [11126 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Sheesh. Another muddle.

This is Tater's 7th or 8th reversal - he's definitely working his way up to Kerry's level of "flexibility" - but the key is his decision to claim that the Govt is illegal. He had kept his yap shut since the 28th - and now he's decided to open it again. If I follow the timeline correctly, Allawi spoke earlier - and this is Sadr's (possibly frantic) reply.

Fisnik Abrashi, the AP "reporter" needs to brush up on his English. The title of this piece should be:
Iraq Militant Cleric Claims The Current Government is Illegitimate - Vows to Keep Fighting

I see one clear motive, though I'm sure there are 50 more:

Sadr's hoping to pressure Allawi into recognizing him and his B-Team Madhi Mud Hens as legitimate "occupation resisters" so he can weasel all their asses (especially his own, given the murder charge) into the amnesty thing, if such a despicable notion ever becomes reality.

It's a smart political play by ol' Tater.

Allawi was addressing him directly (he had met with al-Sadr representatives) with his statement. It doesn't get much better than this:
"Every one of us, every individual, starting from the president downward should be answerable to the law."

Clearly, he is not considering Sadr for amnesty. We'll see if this amnesty thing is real and who is actually behind it. Hard to tell, right now, since all of these English stories have sequence, tense, and substance problems. "I can shout, don't hear you!"

So, unless Sistani or someone of influence jumps in to back Tater, Allawi is saying he's fully justified in making chips out of him. I'm cool with that.

Posted by .com 2004-07-05 6:17:11 AM|| 2004-07-05 6:17:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Why does not the US capture Sader and get it over with?

Posted by Mdfre12 2004-07-05 7:55:40 AM|| 2004-07-05 7:55:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Mdfre12 - I'd offer that it's because the gutless little shit hides behind his "army" in moskkk's and, right or wrong, we have decided not to go into the Holy Ammo Dumps after him. If / when the Iraqi Police or Army numbers and gumption are available (actually a function of when Sistnai decides to quit being an ass), then they can go in and grab this little Iranian Agent.

Posted by .com 2004-07-05 11:57:05 AM|| 2004-07-05 11:57:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Why does not the US capture Sader and get it over with?

It tried to. It failed.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-05 12:49:02 PM|| 2004-07-05 12:49:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 You were doing so well Aris.
;

Posted by Shipman 2004-07-05 1:02:28 PM|| 2004-07-05 1:02:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Bait posted... Hijack attempt in progress...

Aris - Sorry, but you are factually incorrect - and one would hope you're intelligent enough to know it. No further response is warranted.

RBers - Recognizing an attempt to "arisify" a thread, in advance, should be sufficient to thwart the attempt. Nothing to see here, folks. Let's move along and post constructively instead of taking the bait.

Posted by .com 2004-07-05 1:18:15 PM|| 2004-07-05 1:18:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Back OT

Posted by Frank G 2004-07-05 1:22:57 PM|| 2004-07-05 1:22:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Are you telling me that the USA didn't attempt to capture Sadr, or that it succeeded in so doing?

Because all other options consist of "It tried to. It failed."

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-05 1:55:57 PM|| 2004-07-05 1:55:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Are you telling me that the USA didn't attempt to capture Sadr

You gotta use a bigger lure Aris. This Northern Pike ain't biting.

Posted by Rafael 2004-07-05 2:20:03 PM|| 2004-07-05 2:20:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Go on being rude and/or amusing. You still fail to reply. WHAT EXACTLY WAS MY MISTAKE???

For me it's self-evident that the attempted capture of Sadr was a failure, evidenced by the fact that he's not captured. Where exactly did I make a mistake?

Other than being politically incorrect ofcourse, and calling a spade a spade, when people here prefer to call it a manual digging instrument.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-05 2:47:11 PM|| 2004-07-05 2:47:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Where exactly did I make a mistake?

There was no attempt to capture him.

Posted by Rafael 2004-07-05 3:03:54 PM|| 2004-07-05 3:03:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Rafael - Into the hole. Bread and water for you.

Posted by .com 2004-07-05 3:05:00 PM|| 2004-07-05 3:05:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 There was no attempt to capture him.

Fine then. I had thought that the whole Sadr-insurrection thingy had started with US forces trying to capture and/or kill Sadr after a warrant for his arrest.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-05 3:09:30 PM|| 2004-07-05 3:09:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 His location was known. Had they really wanted to, I think they could have captured him.

Posted by Rafael 2004-07-05 3:25:00 PM|| 2004-07-05 3:25:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 In the end, Aris, that started with the interim, pre-sovereignty government putting out an arrest warrant (apparently from the same judge who's trying Saddam now) -- and it was a political choice it seems to leave al-Sadr to the post-handover government, from the brass. Belmont Club had a more glowing take -- US KIA 19 and dozens wounded vs. al-Mahdi 1500+ KIA.

Posted by Edward Yee 2004-07-05 3:35:18 PM|| [http://edwardyee.fanworks.net] 2004-07-05 3:35:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Had they really wanted to, I think they could have captured him.

And I think differently, because I think they did really want to capture him and found out they couldn't.

That this estimation may have been due to political considerations (perhaps something like "we can't capture him without totalling the whole of Najaf, thus inciting countrywide Shiite rebellion") rather than purely military ones, doesn't make this less of a failure to capture him.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-05 4:05:02 PM|| 2004-07-05 4:05:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 There was no attempt to capture him. There can't be a failure if there was no attempt. How can you fail at wanting something???

Posted by Rafael 2004-07-05 4:57:39 PM|| 2004-07-05 4:57:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 I Aris is on Veeee Aaaaa Ceeee Aaaaa Teeeee Ieeee Ohhhhh Nnnnnn!

Posted by Commie Francis 2004-07-05 5:34:54 PM|| 2004-07-05 5:34:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Rafael> There were troops at it and lots of fighting and killing people and besieging cities and people saying that Sadr's slated for destruction. That was an attempt IMO to capture or kill Sadr. I think back then everyone here was seeing it as such an attempt.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-05 5:50:07 PM|| 2004-07-05 5:50:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 I think everyone here also believes that if the US forces wanted Sadr dead, then he would now be dead. Not arresting or killing him was a political decision made for whatever reason. The fighting and killing you're refering to was of Sadr's goons. Probably in hopes of sending him a message, which evidently he did not get.

Posted by Rafael 2004-07-05 7:06:30 PM|| 2004-07-05 7:06:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Wow - the patented Aris-Capture-The Topicâ¢ didn't work! Sadr dead is a martyr, Sadr alive is a fat incompetent seething shithead with no street cred. Check out his Mahdi army? F Troop, more likely

Posted by Frank G 2004-07-05 7:15:58 PM|| 2004-07-05 7:15:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Rafael - Next time you need help with your browser or similar? Go piss up a rope.

Posted by .com 2004-07-05 7:26:16 PM|| 2004-07-05 7:26:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 that if the US forces wanted Sadr dead, then he would now be dead

True -- and if US wanted Tehran nuked, then it would be nuked. But that kind of talk is meaningless.

Not arresting or killing him was a political decision made for whatever reason.

That a decision to retreat was made by politicians in their offices rather than generals on the field, that makes it better how exactly?

If Sadr and his Iranians allies used political/diplomatic strength rather than bullets in order to keep himself alive and free and in a position to still seek power, then how is that so much better?

And Frank, Sadr dead is Sadr dead, and Sadr alive is Sadr alive and defying the US. Bull on the "martyr" cliche. Better a dead so-called "martyr" than a live enemy. Nor have I seen Saddam's boys being made into martyrs for example.

I keep on hearing about how Sadr's "street cred" has been destroyed, but the only evidence I've seen is the disgust Iraqi bloggers have of him who had already been disgusted with him even before all this happened. Where do you get this valuable info on Sadr's supposedly diminishing "street cred" from?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-05 7:59:58 PM|| 2004-07-05 7:59:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 well, Aris, America is peculiar in a way you wouldn't get: Civilian politicians control our military

Posted by Frank G 2004-07-05 8:01:51 PM|| 2004-07-05 8:01:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Did you read anything I wrote? Or are you just going with whatever snarky comment comes to your head, regardless of whether it fits or not?

YES, Civilian politicians control your military, and that's great, but that's also the reason that a defeat caused by politics is no less a defeat than one caused by bullets.

Did you read ANYTHING I wrote? I'm taking back, all the things I had once said about you being one of the more reasonable posters here. You are even worse than .com in that you only follow where he leads.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-05 8:39:08 PM|| 2004-07-05 8:39:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 "You are even worse than .com in that you only follow where he leads."

Lol! Another factually incorrect statement. I'm far far worse. Frank's a sweetheart puppydog compared to me. I am evil incarnate, ad hominem-boy.

Hit that tip jar, yet, Sponge Bob?

Posted by .com 2004-07-05 8:48:07 PM|| 2004-07-05 8:48:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 I disgree, .com has subtlety I lack. The tone of your original post said it all: "tried, failed". You're an asshat and wish no success to the Iraqi future, just so you can crow. Grow a pair of cojones, take a chance, and wish democracy well, and I'll change my new opinion of you Aris. If you don't approve of me, given your post, I'll consider that a badge of courage

Posted by Frank G 2004-07-05 8:52:00 PM|| 2004-07-05 8:52:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Nice manual digging instrument, there, Frank. Lol!

*high five*

Posted by .com 2004-07-05 8:54:34 PM|| 2004-07-05 8:54:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 That a decision to retreat was made by politicians...

There was no decision to retreat, because there was no decision to advance (on Sadr).

Posted by Rafael 2004-07-05 9:38:49 PM|| 2004-07-05 9:38:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 The tone of my "original post" is bitter despair. And annoyance at people thinking they can turn defeat into victory by simply proclaiming it so.

I wish no success to the Iraqi future? Why, because unlike you I don't confuse desire with reality? Because unlike you, I don't think that wishing for something badly enough will change things as they are one iota worth a difference? Because I don't think that daydreaming is better than realism? Because I call "defeat" "defeat"?

If I really were as you think of me, I'd be a much happier camper, not borderline depressed. Idiot.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-05 9:51:35 PM|| 2004-07-05 9:51:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 But Frank G won't ever get why I find the group masturbation he indulges in so meaningless. Will you ever comprehend, Frank, the idea that a citizen's complaints can be much more useful and valuable than his cheers?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-05 10:03:02 PM|| 2004-07-05 10:03:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 only if they're productive complaints - I don't see that - pass the Nivea?

Posted by Frank G 2004-07-05 10:05:20 PM|| 2004-07-05 10:05:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 While yours are very productive cheers, is that it? I'd very much rather be the most harsh of critics than be what you are, you cheerleader.

*****

Lastly a quote, before I call it a day.

"There is no greater calamity than to underestimate the strength of your enemy.
For to underestimate the strength of your enemy is to lose your treasure.

Therefore, when opposing troops meet in battle,
victory belongs to the grieving side."

âLao Tzu, Tao Teh Ching

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-07-05 10:09:27 PM|| 2004-07-05 10:09:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 grieving side? I suspect they'll be doing the car/crater swarm. Victory is flexibly defined, apparently

Posted by Frank G 2004-07-05 10:19:27 PM|| 2004-07-05 10:19:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 Never heard that one before Aris, real pretty & flowery like. I was always partial to

"Peace through superior firepower."

-Patton

Posted by Jarhead 2004-07-05 10:33:19 PM|| 2004-07-05 10:33:19 PM|| Front Page Top

17:51 jules 187
17:34 Seafarious
17:33 Sock Puppet of Doom
17:27 Anonymous6584
04:34 Anonymous6390
04:43 Howard UK
04:03 Tobacconist
00:50 Anonymous4617
00:27 Super Hose
00:25 Super Hose
00:21 Super Hose
00:21 Lucky
00:20 Mark Espinola
00:19 Super Hose
00:18 Anonymous5430
00:18 Super Hose
00:15 Super Hose
00:14 Edward Yee
00:13 Lucky
00:12 Super Hose
00:09 Super Hose
00:07 Frank G
00:00 Super Hose
23:54 Super Hose
Merry-Go-Blog