Apr 10 2008

Sistani Does Join Maliki And Isolates Sadr

Published by at 10:37 am under All General Discussions,Iran,Iraq,Sadr/Mahdi Army

Bumped to Top, More Updates Below!

I posted the news yesterday that Iraq Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani had basically thrown Mookie Sadr under the bus and sided with the Iraqi government of Maliki, and then waited all day to see any secondary reporting the act. None came but Sadr did have spokesman come out and claim Sistani had told him to keep his Mahdi Army. It seems Sadr lied (and the SurrenderMedia bought it hook-line-sinker and bobber). Bill Roggio has the confirming news, so far the SurrenderMedia is embarrassingly mum:

With the Iraqi government applying pressure to the Sadrist movement and Muqtada al Sadr to disband the Mahdi Army, Iraq’s senior Shia cleric has weighed in on the issue. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the most revered Shia cleric in Iraq, backed the government’s position that the Mahdi Army should surrender its weapons and said he never consulted with Sadr on disbanding the Mahdi Army. Instead, the decision to disband the Mahdi Army is Sadr’s to make.

Sistani spoke through Jalal el Din al Saghier, a senior leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a rival political party to the Sadrist movement. Saghier was clear that Sistani did not sanction the Mahdi Army and called for it to disarm.

“Sistani has a clear opinion in this regard; the law is the only authority in the country,” Saghier told Voices of Iraq, indicating Sistani supports Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki and the government in the effort to sideline the Mahdi Army. “Sistani asked the Mahdi army to give in weapons to the government.”

Sadr did not consult with Sistani on the issue of disbanding the Mahdi Army, disputing a claim from Sadrist spokesmen who intimated Iraqi’s top cleric told Sadr to maintain his militia. “The top Shiite cleric had not been consulted in establishing the Mahdi Army, so [he] could not interfere in dissolving it,” Saghier said. “Whosoever established the al-Mahdi army has to dissolve it; Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr established this army and it is only him who has to dissolve it.”

Sistani is telling Sadr you either follow the law and do right or become a criminal and suffer the consequences. But it is Sadr’s responsibility to chose his path. Sadr is now completely exposed while his militia causes death and destruction fighting the authorities. Now the bloodshed is on his hands, as it was all the time.

And now the SurrenderMedia needs ask itself why it allowed itself to be dupes for a two-bit thug like Sadr. Why did they report propaganda that could not be confirmed. Why did they buy into the implausible, since Sistani has been against the militias for a long time and has been a supporter of the new Iragi government since its creation. Why would the liberal media defy all that history and run with Sadr’s cow manure?

Was it to give a boost to the Surrendercrats in Congress? Is our media willing to pass on lies to the American people as fact? Lies promulgated by a thug whose minions are killing US soldiers as we speak? At some point a price must be paid for this kind of support to our enemies, accidental or not.

If the SurrenderMedia and Surrendercrats don’t do some hard soul searching on how they are the useful puppets of the killers of our people, then America will do the soul searching and decide what to do about this terribly screwed up situation. We don’t need people echoing the lies of murderers of Americans, just to give them more cause to murder more Americans.

In related news Petraeus told Congress the actions against Sadr’s Mahdi Militia could take months. Then again the thug could collapse much quicker now that he is clearly working against the Shiite spiritual leaders.

Also, the UK SurrenderMedia is all miffed that Maliki snubbed UK forces when it needed some back up in Basra.

Iraq has snubbed British forces in Basra, turning to US troops to help fight Shia militia in the southern city despite the presence of British soldiers.

The withdrawal by British troops in September from their base at Basra palace to the relative safety of Basra airport outside the city has been blamed for the decision by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, to call for American help fighting the Mahdi army two weeks ago.

The UK Forces did not try to use the counter-insurgency tactics that the US did which turned the tide against al-Qaeda. They used the liberal “declare victory and leave a vacuum” and did to Basra what the Surrendercrats in Congress want to do to Iraq – which is hand it over to a new generation of thugs. Those finding for something more lasting and humane – like democracy in Iraq – would obviously pass by the offer to have more of the same bad ideas which brought about much of the hate in the Middle East in the first place.

Update: As we learn more (and ignore the myopic media) we see that the Basra move was, as I said a while back, an effort by Iran to take control of the port city of Basra – something Iran has been trying to do for decades.:

A GAMBLE that proved too costly.

That’s how analysts in Tehran describe events last month in Basra. Iran’s state-run media have de facto confirmed that this was no spontaneous “uprising.” Rather, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) tried to seize control of Iraq’s second-largest city using local Shiite militias as a Trojan horse.

The Iranian plan – developed by Revolutionary Guard’s Quds (Jerusalem) unit, which is in charge of “exporting the Islamic Revolution” – aimed at a quick victory. To achieve that, Tehran spent vast sums persuading local Iraqi security personnel to switch sides or to remain neutral.

The hoped-for victory was to be achieved as part of a massive Shiite uprising spreading from Baghdad to the south via heartland cities such as Karbala, Kut and al-Amarah. A barrage of rockets and missiles against the “Green Zone” in Baghdad and armed attacks on a dozen police stations and Iraqi army barracks in the Shiite heartland were designed to keep the Maliki government under pressure.

he expected call from the Najaf ayatollahs to stop “Shiite fratricide” failed to materialize. Grand Ayatollah Ali-Muhammad Sistani, the top cleric in Iraq, gave his blessings to the Maliki-launched operation. More broadly, the Shiite uprisings in Baghdad, Karbala, Najaf and other cities that Quds commanders had counted upon didn’t happen. The “Green Zone” wasn’t evacuated in panic under a barrage of rockets and missiles.

But the blindfolded media and liberals claim Iran is perfectly reasonable and are not involved in Iraq. In fact, Barack Obama wants to sit down to tea with the Mad Mullahs and Ahmedinejad (God’s messenger, so he claims) and chat about Iraq. No wonder they tried to grab the southern part of Iraq before our elections. H/T to reader Kathie

Update: Make sure to check out the interview with Bill Roggio at Front Page:

FP: So what about the news reports that indicated that the U.S. and the Iraqi Security Forces’ Basra offensive against Sadr was a failure?

Roggio: The reports of the death of the Iraqi Army in Basrah were widely exaggerated. The Iraqi Army and police met some stiff resistance in the opening days, but the media jumped to call this failure. Prime Minister Maliki did not plan well for the operation and jumped the gun on its execution by months (it was to be carried out in July). An Iraqi Army brigade fresh out of basic training was thrown into the fight and cracked – about 500 troops “underperformed or deserted” according to the New York Times, and 400 police deserted. But the other estimated 44,500 Iraqi security forces in Basrah held.

The Iraqi command rushed in reinforcements – about 1 Division or 7,000 troops, and by the weekend the Iraqi security forces began to get the upper hand. Then Sadr ordered his Mahdi Army to leave the streets. By the end of the fighting, more than 500 Mahdi fighters were killed, about 1000 wounded and another 300 captured in the fighting in Basrah, Baghdad, and the great South, where the military performed well against the Mahdi Army.

FP: What role is Iran playing? This whole face-off revealed Iranian military intervention in Iraq to be a given, right?

Roggio: To streamline operations in Iraq, Iran’s Qods Force established a unified command, called the Ramazan Corps, and split Iraq into three roughly geographical regions. I obtained a detailed description of the Ramazan Corps’ command and control network, storage and distribution facilities, training camps, and ratlines – or supply lines – into Iraq last fall.

The Ramazan Corps is a military command with senior Qods Force generals in charge. They direct the flow of weapons, cash, and the deadly rockets, mortars, and explosively formed projectiles into the hands of the Special Groups working in Iraq. The Ramazan Corps also brings Iraqi fighters in Iran to train them, and runs training camps inside Iraq as well.

The Times Online just released information that the Ramazan Corps “were operating at a tactical command level with the Shi’ite militias fighting Iraqi security forces” during the recent fighting in Basrah. “Some were directing operations on the ground.” This should come as no surprise to anyone following Iranian activities inside Iraq or have an understanding of the Ramazan Corps. Iran is fighting a thinly veiled, undeclared war against both the Iraqi people and the United States.

IF the news media were truly journalists and not propagandists this news would be headlines across the nation. The view from the region is Sadr and the Mahdi Army are toast – definitely read this one!

The young Shiite leader’s sin is that he did not find out from the start, and perhaps still has not found out, how Iran used him to deepen the sectarian divide in Iraq, despite his moderate stance in this respect. His pursuit of revenge from the “Baathists,” the followers of Saddam, who killed his father and uncle, has turned into an out of control, generalized campaign of sectarian eradication. Iran’s objective for adopting, arming and financing Al-Sadr’s militia was to create a “balance of terror” with Sunni dissidents seeking to defend their position and interests in the new system. Consequently, the “Mahdi Army” that grouped fighters from every impoverished region of Iraq, including some criminal gangs, turned into security groups led, controlled, and directed by Iranian intelligence, which took advantage of decades of social and political oppression.

The media and liberal ‘experts’ really screwed up on this one. How many mulligans do these people get before they are tossed out of the game?

Update: How long can the media hide the truth about how Sistani just threw Sadr to the sharks:

“Al-Sistani has a clear opinion in this regard; the law is the only authority in the country,” al-Saghier told Aswat al-Iraq – Voices of Iraq (VOI).

“The top Shiite cleric had not been consulted in establishing al-Mahdi army, so it could not interfere in dissolving it,” he added.

“Whosoever established the al-Mahdi army has to dissolve it,” he underlined.

“Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr established this army and it is only him who has to dissolve it,” he explained.

“Al-Sistani asked al-Mahdi army to give in weapons to the government,” the Shiite official said.

Now, will Sadr do as he was asked by the Grand Ayatollah? H/T Protein Wisdom.

60 responses so far

60 Responses to “Sistani Does Join Maliki And Isolates Sadr”

  1. truthhard2take says:

    Your logic is quintessentially flawed. I have opposed the war from the start, so have no obligation at all in this respect , but I can tell you as of late 2006 the majority of families which had lost a son or daughter in the war had turned against it, quite a statistic for military families.

  2. Rick C says:

    I do get a kick out of our friend Truth. Besides his fondness for quoting ancient polling data, he then leads us to a story of a Sunni insurgent. I love the way Truth takes the final quote from page three of the story. The insurgent urges the US to leave and Truth thinks that is final and killer quote. Let’s see, if I urge Truth to leave this site, will he accept that too?


  3. Cepik says:

    How is my logic flawed? For someone to be a chicken hawk they need to expect others to fight for them when they “refuse” despite being physically capable. That is a paraphrase of the definition that was used. That being the case, only those that served should have a “right” to speak up and if you have not served then your opinion doesn’t matter. Kind of like quid pro quo, no?

    Regardless of your stance, regardless of your position, if you “play” the chicken hawk meme like you did to 75 thne you too, are held to its standards. You didn’t serve so you must stop this portion of your position. Otherwise retract it and proceed.

  4. Whippet1 says:

    Note to Truthie,

    Any poll that doesn’t give the percentages of each group surveyed is bogus. Everyone kn0ws it including you. And to link and old poll is just as bad and you know it…but being deceptive is your style.

    Truthie, Norm, Breschau, soothie and the rest have no interest in honest debate.

    And Truth…there’s a fine line between a far-righty like Buchanan and a radical lefty like you.

  5. Boghie says:

    The Truth is Ever so hard to Deal With and Norm,

    If I could take a moment of your time – I know at least one of you is looking at some old interviews and surveys from the 80’s or whatever – I would recommend a review of ‘The Belmont Club’.

    To counter your arguments I could recommend many posts, but ‘About More Than Just Iraq’ would be a very good start.

    “Thus the refusal of Sistani to intervene — worse still his statement that “the law is the only authority in the country” — meant the end of JAM’s last hope. Sadr can no longer hope for salvation by listening for the bell. Any bells that he hears are ringing in his head.

    But Sadr is really small potatoes though the many newspapermen perversely think of him as the uncrowned king of Iraq, and the “winner” of the recent confrontation. What recent events really signify is that Maliki, not Iran’s Khamenei, is the master of southern Iraq, or at least that the control of southern Iraq is now in dispute between the two. This means that there are now two political power centers in the Shi’ite arc. One center is based in Teheran and the other is based in Iraq. While the hard reality of a properous Kurdistan and the presence of a Sunni population whose insurgency was only so recently beaten (and which may flare up upon provocation) means that the Shi’ites can never control all of Iraq, southern Iraq is now the locus of an alternative polity within Shi’ism. Thus, Iran’s failed gamble is not only a foreign defeat for the Qods; it is a domestic political setback for the theocracy.

    Because the stakes are so high Iran has no choice but to lick its wounds and try again. This is one fight Teheran really can’t afford to lose. As Amir Taheri says, “this was just the first round. The struggle for Iraq isn’t over.” The second round, when it comes, will probably be a variation of the “Tet” strategy, just as this was.”

    I still think it odd that you and the media are squealing about a “Tet” strategy. To my understanding, the North Koreans and Vietcong initiated an attack on the South Vietnamese during Tet. How does that correlate with Iraqi national forces attacking some squalid turds in their ‘stronghold’.

    When the superhero Iranian sQuds and the mighy Sadrists strike again nations will bend their knee. They cannot be defeated. They are all-powerful.

    Again, my money is on Iraq.

    Those turds are ‘Targets of Opportunity’.

  6. ivehadit says:

    The joke of all this is that Hil and Obie, if either is elected, are NOT going to get out of Iran! Hmmmm…..what do they REALLY know and won’t share with the naysayers/global socialists/communists/democrat/leftists/deranged…

    Norm/truthie/Soothie are going to implode!

  7. crosspatch says:

    This line over at Protein Wisdom is key:

    “The Shiite clerical leadership in Najaf would oppose intervention by the new Iraqi security forces in a battle that could lead to heavy Shiite casualties.”

    The Iranians apparently believed that the Shiite leadership would oppose any operation in Basra. The Iranians believed that Sistani would take the position of Shiite first, Iraqi second. And that is a natural conclusion for an Iranian to come to because that is how Iranians think. And one tends to think that one is stable and normal and good … and that everyone else on the planet would think just the same. Well, that is how miscalculations are made because often other people don’t think exactly the same way. You cant expect other people to think the same.

    Liberals make the same mistake all the time. Their solutions are great as long as everyone else thinks just like they do.

  8. kathie says:

    I think this is a must read.

    Michael Yon: My Friday Op-Ed in The Wall Street Journal

  9. Dc says:

    If the argument is the POTUS has to be a combat vet in order to make decisions about war, then that pretty much leaves Obama and Billary out too now doesn’t it? Or is it still the lefts argument that the POTUS does not have the constitutional authority to be POTUS—and likewise that exercising such authority is an impeachable offense? Or that following a congressional order is unconstitutional because some senator personally changed their mind after voting for a legal binding resolution? Or is the argument, that by them “not” being vets, that means they won’t go to war?

    And who are all these disgruntled, leaking, “former officals” who have been plastered all over book shelves and TV hawing their dissent on the Iraq intelligence if there was no dissent? I do not hold sorrow for what happened to Saddam. He deserved it. And more than that, I’m glad we had a hand it seeing it served on him. But, I would suggest, that the notion that the POTUS would double-check and question and vet the intelligence given him by other agencies…has “already” been tried by the nutroots and congressional propeller head intellectuals who have decided that the president, attempting to vet intelligence given him, was treason of some sort or another. In fact..the dems think it’s an imeachable offense for a POTUS to have his own staff to even question the intel given them, or , even worse, to make their own judgements about it, do they not?

    As to intelligence, the intelligence communty failed on a catastrophic scale. That point has “entirely” been pushed aside. Nobody talks about it. It was Bush’s fault. He “lied” and thousands “died”. There was PLENTY of dissent as well, as evidenced by the talking heads and books on tthe market now which speak directly to it. There was dissent written in the NIE summary. And for all the bluster, and book sales and money speaking engagements, not ONE of those people was willing to go on the record about it and say so. In fact, quite a few of them, when their statements were put into congressional record, said gave very different impressions than they do in public, on TV or in their books/aticles (Joe Wilson included). Go figure. Oh, there is no doubt, the President Bush was making a hard case for holding Iraq’s feet to the fire. And there any number of cases to be made about why Saddam should be dealt with. Just to list them takes nearly any entire page (as evidenced by any number of resolutions passed declaring it so).

    But we are where we are “now” and need to think about where we go from “here” based on what is “in front of us”, not what should have been, or could have been, or would have been. We already invaded Iraq. Saddam is dead. The sunni/baathist dictatoral control of Iraq is dissolved. We have fought our way through the aftermath, mistakes and all. And we face what we face now. There are certainly fundamental truths in the area now that are apparently hard to accept by some, based on political, idealogical positions. That’s on ALL sides of this.

    One only need be mildy observant to recognize that it is important for Iraq to have some kind of peaceful co-existance with it’s neighbors other than killing a million of them, and using WMD, or threatening the same. And if all the “Truth be told”, then we’d have to talk about Iran and other countries current invovlement in destabilizing, and murderous, activities inside Iraq as well. As Mick Jagger said witnessing a stomp down in front him at Altimont….”People….who’s fighting and what for”? You can’t stop asking those questions just because you disagreed with the reasons for the initial invasion. We are how many years into this already? Who is killing who, and why, is important. And you certainly can’t just ask those questions of “one-party” to a multiparty conflict and declare any sort of deeper understanding of the situation. Everyone has their “interests”. Not just the US. And everyone’s interests, and the actions they take in the course of persuing those interests, must certainly be looked at and seen clearly to have any sort of depth of understanding about where we are now, what is possible, or what is down the road. I’m not so sure being fluent in election 04 rhetroic, pre-war arguments, etc., and expanding that into the future is really capturing the essence of the situation on the ground and what kind of dynamics exists today, etc.

    Just a thought.

  10. 75 says:

    “If there is justice in the world, 75 has kith, kin and loved ones whose life and limb are at stake in Iraq, who will suffer the defeat directly and/or more hopefully indirectly…”

    Nice to see Truthy is so concerned about the welfare of others.

  11. truthhard2take says:

    “The joke of all this is that Hil and Obie, if either is elected, are NOT going to get out of Iran!

    Quite a slip, you’ve had it. You only wish.

  12. truthhard2take says:


    Like traditional conservative James Burnham said, the only interest in the Mideast for America is oil and whoever has the oil will sell it at market prices. Of course the neo-cons whose primary loyalty is to another nation beg to differ and the amoral military-industrial complex begs to profit.

  13. 75 says:

    Truthy says….”It’s the Joooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooos!”

  14. truthhard2take says:


    so do the Jooooos themselves, clown, Bush loyalist Zelikow being one in a more honest moment.

  15. truthhard2take says:

    On the other hand this leaves open the question –are you a dishonest one, or merely a dunce?

  16. ivehadit says:

    Greater minds than yours have proclaimed the fact that hil and barama know they will stay in Iraq!

  17. truthhard2take says:

    Staying and winning are two different things.Vietnam in slow motion.

  18. 75 says:

    Ah, Truthy with a Vietnam reference. Who didn’t see that coming? Hang in there Truthy..you may get another Vietnam yet.

  19. Dc says:

    James Burnham? Traditional Consevative? hahahaha. Thats a good one. Are you just being intellectually dishonest as an attempt at humor?