Al-Sadr Offers to Remove Militia From Najaf

[seruriermarshal]

Al-Sadr Offers to Remove Militia From Najaf

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 NAJAF, Iraq —

U.S. troops scored a major success against Shiite militiamen Wednesday, arresting a key lieutenant of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr (search) in clashes that Iraqi hospital and militia officials said killed 24 people and wounded nearly 50.

Later, Iraq's national security adviser said al-Sadr had offered to remove his fighters from Najaf (search) — except for those who live there. Al-Sadr demanded that U.S. and other coalition troops "return to base," allowing Iraqi police to regain control of the city. Mouwafak al-Rubaie, a Shiite and the government's national security adviser, said the offer was made in a letter from al-Sadr to the city's Shiite religious leadership.

The young radical also demanded "broad discussions" within the Shiite community over the future of his al-Mahdi Army militia and that legal proceedings against him in a murder case be deferred until then. Al-Sadr said he is making this offer because of "the tragic condition" in Najaf after weeks of fighting between his militiamen and the Americans and the slight damage suffered by the city's holiest shrine, the Imam Ali mosque. There was no confirmation from al-Sadr or the city's Shiite hierachy, which has been trying to mediate an end to the crisis for weeks.

[Romulus]

Who the **** does this pig think he is "DEMANDING" anything. He ought to be glad the politicians are keeping him alive.

[Yard Ape]

This should be conditional on him also handing himself in to Iraqi authorities.

[scm77]

Muqtada al-Sadr says that he will pull his militia out of Najaf....and insert them into Kirkuk. :lol:

[SpazzMunky]

I think the population of Najaf is getting pretty fed up with him, I've read several articles that give that impression. He probably figures he'll get out before the inhabitants get too pissed off with him, and probably continue his operations from another city. Fortunately, if he changes cities he wont have the ability to hide behind holy shrines. (Well, at least not as much as he is doing now)

[obd]

The title of this thread should be changed in the regard that Sadr did not in any way "offer" to take his men out of Najaf....he tried to bargain to do it.....and we all know why he wants the Iraqi police to come to Najaf instead= because many of the Iraqi police have allegience with the insurgent movement movements......its a well known fact stated even openly by Ricardo Sanchez and Rumsfeld and they of course are working to change that.......

This ploy is very common for guerrilla forces feeling the heat.....In essence, he has attracted too much attention and seeks to allow the war to get back to a lower key where his men can kill Americans at a small enough pace to do political damage back home yet not attract overwhelming force from the Americans......its absolutely classic guerilla strategy.....or as I like to call it, "the dandylion effect" = the tallest dandylions are the ones cut by the mower first, the ones that stay lower have the better chance of survival...At this point, Sadr represents the dandylion that grew just a little too tall and he hears the lawn mower circling....lets make sure we dont let him get any lower before our "mower" comes to his patch of grass........

I say we missed th boat in Fallujah where the USMC had the insugency ready to be crushed......and now they instead feel as if they have attained a crushing defeat on America which has probably fueled the insurgency far more than if we had taken the city and made it an example to the rest.......lets not make the same mistake with Sadr as he is clearly feeling the pressure.......In fact, I humbly argue that we should take the operation tempo to the maximum possible if it is not there already and apply even more pressure while Sadr feels threatened and in a bad way.........in addition we should reinstall the special people whose charge it was to protect the Imam Alie mosque in the first place although they are a bit sketchy = for people charged to protect the mosque with thier lives and highly trained by Arab standards they sure as hell gave it up real easily to the Mahdi "Army"............makes me suspicios...wouldnt be surprised if half the bastards "protecting" it were already within the MA......oh well...

Oh well what do I know, Im sure the generals on the ground have access to more info than I....anyways, this is just my feeling with the specs of info here and there that I gather......

[Romulus]

Well said OBD! woot

[talib_killa34]

Well said!

You can't win both ways. They had a real chance to crush the insurgents in Falooj but then risked a huge PR disaster with lots of dead civilians.

Defeating the enemy is always done by carrying the fight to him and KILLING him.

Never by allowing him to escape to fight another day.

Ahh, but all of you know that already! :)

[martinexsquaddie]

crushing the milita forces at the cost of large numbers of dead civillians is not going to create a sustainable victory.
This is probably a good sign hopefully the milita will be out of the picture in short order its not like he has many friends left :lol:

[seruriermarshal]

Sadr Fighters Start Withdrawal from Iraq Holy City

6 minutes ago Add Top Stories - ******* to My Yahoo!


By Suleiman al-Khalidi

NAJAF, Iraq (*******) - Rebel Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr began pulling his fighters from the Iraqi holy city of Najaf on Thursday after making an offer to end a bloody standoff with U.S. forces that has left hundreds dead.


Squad commanders from Sadr's Mehdi Army militia told ******* they had orders to quit their positions by noon (4 a.m. EDT).


Iraqi national security adviser Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, quoting a statement signed by Sadr, told ******* the cleric was willing to pull members of his Mehdi Army militia who are not normally resident in Najaf out of the city and had demanded in return that a murder case for which he is wanted be suspended.


For the first time in days there were no major clashes overnight. As armed men began moving from positions, one squad leader, Ali Abu Zahra, said he had formal instructions from Sadr to move his unit out: "It was a written and verbal order."


There was no immediate response from the U.S. authorities in Iraq (news - web sites), who have dismissed previous truce offers and said Sadr must face a murder charge and disband his forces.


U.S. troops seized a relative and senior lieutenant to Sadr early on Wednesday, who was also wanted over the same murder.


Any deal with the firebrand young preacher, could staunch a major source of trouble for U.S. troops as Washington prepares to hand over formal sovereignty to an Iraqi interim government five weeks from now on June 30.


"To end the tragic situation in Najaf and the violation... of the holy places, I announce my agreement to the following: an end to all armed demonstrations, the evacuation of government buildings...and the withdrawal of all Mehdi Army fighters," Rubaie quoted Sadr as saying in his statement.


CALL FOR TALKS


Sadr called for U.S. troops who have fanned out through the city -- site of the shrine holiest to Shi'ite Muslims who are 60 percent of Iraq's population -- to pull back to bases in the city, leaving Iraqi police to patrol the streets.


He also called for negotiations with Iraq's Shi'ite community -- much of whose leadership is bitterly opposed to Sadr -- on the future of his Mehdi Army, which U.S. forces, who have vowed to kill or capture Sadr, demand he disband.


U.S. forces have spent weeks trying to crush Sadr's militia, which has support among Shi'ites in the capital and southern cities, since an uprising that erupted in April after the arrest of a key aide and announcement of the warrant for Sadr's arrest over the murder of a rival cleric in Najaf a year ago.


Hundreds and possibly thousands of poorly trained and religiously inspired young men have flocked to Sadr's cause.


U.S. commanders have been driven to lament the ease with which troops have been able to kill dozens of youths daily as they stand up to tanks with machineguns and grenade launchers.


(Additional reporting by Joseph Logan in Baghdad)

[seruriermarshal]

NAJAF, Iraq (*******) - Militiamen loyal to rebel cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said their leaders had told them to withdraw from the Iraqi holy city of Najaf by midday (4 a.m. EDT) on Thursday following a truce offer from Sadr.

"It was a written and a verbal order," said Ali Abu Zahra, commander of one of the Mehdi Army units that has been battling U.S. forces in Najaf.

Earlier on Thursday, Iraq (news - web sites)'s national security adviser Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, quoting a statement signed by Sadr, said the cleric was willing to pull members of his Mehdi Army who are not from Najaf out of the holy city, and had demanded in return that a murder case for which he is wanted be suspended.

"To end the tragic situation in Najaf and the violation... of the holy places, I announce my agreement to the following: an end to all armed demonstrations, the evacuation of government buildings...and the withdrawal of all Mehdi Army fighters," the statement said.

Iraq's U.S. occupiers have spent weeks trying to crush Sadr's militia, which has support among Shi'ites in the capital and southern cities, since he launched an uprising in April after the arrest of a key aide and the announcement of a warrant for his arrest over the murder of a rival cleric.

[Gringo]

Looks like a sign that he's folding.

[seruriermarshal]

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040526/capt.bag11505261831.iraq__bag115.jpg

The top aid of radical Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr, Queis Al Kaza'aly, inspects the damage after overnight fighting in Najaf
Looks like his car ......
:roll:

[talib_killa34]

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040526/capt.bag11505261831.iraq__bag115.jpg

The top aid of radical Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr, Queis Al Kaza'aly, inspects the damage after overnight fighting in Najaf
Looks like his car ......
:roll:

All I can say is ...


"BOO-YEA Mothaf***!!!!!!" woot

[5jumpchump]

In other news Jihad clerics around the world are sending tons of diapers ans bus loads of tissues to Najef for Saders militia Army . Us officials are blocking the convoy of goods preventing Sader and his soldiers from comfort when ****ting thier pants and crying thier eyes out . More at 6PM , eastern time :P

[obd]

Well guys, despite all of your support for what I said earlier (thanks) it looks as if US forces are taking the opposite path...........It appears Sadr has managed to negotiate with other top Shia and get US forces to halt thier offensive.........

Now I of course am not privy to all the ground information so I am inclined to accept what US generals on the gound are saying/doing but from a tactical standpoint this "Stand down" order is a BIG mistake........Yet again, we are being played like a finely tuned fiddle and acting quite predictably.......I think Sadr and his boys are having quite the good laugh at our expense at the moment!!

But there are a myriad of strategic reasons why we may have halted our offensive, one I can think of right off the bat is avoiding any more alienation of the other Shia clans in Iraq and gaining support at the same time by appearing to listen to and respect what they have to say............

At the same time, a "stand down" to the offensive may be advantageous to US forces in the same way it is to Sadr's Mahdi Army = as a period to rearm, regroup, gather more inteligence, and further guage the "mood" of the people in Najaf.......

after all, the best possible thing to happen for American forces would be if the Shia killed Sadr or forced him out of Najaf........if that happened than his credibility would shrink even farther, most likely it would fall all the way back to Sadr City area of Baghdad..........

Personaly, I think it would relieve alot of tension if Sadr was killed/captured. I think it would allow us to refocus to some degree our efforts on Fallujah which by all accounts is by no means passified and is still the "heart" of the insurgency in many ways...... Of course, for PR reasons the Marines currently conducting joint patrols are now touting thier successes but we all know that under the surface it is a powder keg waiting to explode all over again. For examply, there have been ZERO reported arrests done by the IP or Marines on joint patrols so basically they are just "sticking thier toe's in the water" right now......The only positive thing I see is that, hopefully anyway, the Marines cordon of the city is containing somewhat those whom we should have killed months ago in an all out assault........

The way I see it, the "Iraqi police" in Fallujah are 75% insurgents anyway which is why they safely move around the city.........As long as Marines keep the upper hand in "joint patrols" (by this I mean a proper ratio of Marines to Iraqi police to ensure they just dont turn on us and gun us all down when the chance arrises) they can use them to get acquianted with the city and gather intel/ confiscate weapons........but eventually I garuntee everyone that Fallujah is going to erupt again and when it does I can only hope the Marines are allowed to do thier job = close with and destroy the enemy.........

just a few of my thoughts.....your welcome to say thier rubbish......

[obd]

A bit more to add of my humble thoughts on the matter: I think also that showing a willingness to temper our actions in Najaf and defer to other powerful Shia can be quite a powerful tool in the future and even may give us some leeway to assault Fallujah.....or at the very least lesson the political fallout. After all, there can be little more powerful contrast for the Iraqi people than Najaf and Fallujah, should we peacefully evict Sadr yet violently crush Fallujah......

The "carrot and stick" approach can work well under certain circumstance although history teaches us that the "milk and honey" (with a little bit of covert stick heheheh) approach works best......but unfortunately despite the untold billions invested by the US there apparently is not enough money to go around for "milk and honey"......

Currenlty the US Congress is investigating numerous cases of fraud and even downright theft of much of the $$ billions earmarked for Iraq.....it never ceases to be the case that when that much money starts to float around without proper oversite the vultures begin to circle......Bush seems not to be bothered by it however as he seems to think the American people have bottomless pocketbooks....a good example would be the super high rates America is being charged by certain companies "friendly" to the Bush administration.........Oh well

I for one am beginning to lose hope in this war..I feel we have lost the "moral advantage" over the previos regime and this is not my personal view but I am saying this with regard to the current "world view" of America which has been tainted by both the stupidity of Rumsfelds policy towards interrogation and by the callous acts of a few soldiers........Bush seems to have thrown out the high ideals of post 1945 America (the kind of America I until recently felt we represented and was proud to be part of) for the old ideals of the Roman Empire.....

I do not think Bush has properly managed it from the very start..........Rumsfelds tactics may have worked wonders for the first half of the war but to be bluntly honest, I think the "Powell Doctrine" would have suited the "post war" a bit better at least in terms of sheer troop deployments..........

In short, I feel the long term costs of this war will far far far outweigh any short term benefits, if indeed thier turn out to be any at all......as success in creating "democracy" in Iraq seems now to be as elusive as ever.......In fact, I feel there is a real danger at present of basically destroying the terrorist base in Afghanistan only to create a new and more freindly one in Iraq.........not to mention the fact that long term success in A-stan is by no means garaunteed either.......

One thing Iraq most certainly was not under Saddam was freindly to terrorists........Saddam was thier enemy as well........ I would argue that Saudi Arabia (our nominal "friend") is more guilty of that yet of course we are loath to mention such things (accept for a few brave Republicans..not including Bush) who are willing to "call a stone a stone".......

I must say also that I support the general idea of the war, just not the implementation of it..........

All one has to do is examine a map of the regoin for an idea of how impossible the situation is...Syria, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.....

Turkey doesnt want our success for they fear a new and stable Kurdish area not under attack by Saddam will only eventually lead to a renewed Kurdish "intifada" within Turkey...... Saudi Arabia does not want us to succeed in Iraq because a democratic Iraq would obviously undermine the dictatorship that is the "House of Saud"..... Syria, now the only surviving Bathist regime, doesnt want us to succeed for obvious reasons, and Iran is in a perfect position to run circles around us using the Shia majority........In short, its a ****ING DISASTER WAITING TO HAPPEN.....ten times worse than Vietnam...........Jeez I better stop before I work myself up........bye all....hope I did not offend anyone or manage to start a flame war.....time for me to go to work........peace....

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I'm not sure what to think about this. On one hand, as obd has said, it's a classic tactic. It's sort of like what Saddam would do time and again - talk tough, make trouble, then try to bargain his way out of things. And it worked like a charm for years with the UN. Unfortunately for Saddam, the US wouldn't have it.

It seems to be part of the culture - like you have to be willing to bargain somewhat or at least appear to be bargaining so that both parties can come away with some dignity.

I only hope that we do not let up on him, and that the plan is for him to turn himself in - rather than us coming to get him. Both scenarios end the same, but one affords him (and his followers?) some dignity. If we let him slide, it would be a huge mistake.

[talib_killa34]

I think the only people to "lose" any such "war" will be the country of Iraq.
The US troops WON (REPEAT: WON) their war going in and booting the SH Family of Saddam, and his two sons.

Iraq will suffer with the rise of warlords like in Somalia. The UN will begin to have ALL of their aid workers and staff leave and for good!

The region will suffer, with petty '"brush-wars" flaring up with Syria, Iran, and Turkey all jockeying for postion for influence and power.

But you know, luckily there will be 150K Allied (?) troops to stand by there and make sure that does not happen.

I don't think even John Kerry would sink THAT low to order a withdrawal from Iraq. Cuz once you pull out, six months to a year afterwards the world will demand the US go back in to restore order!

Hmmm... :cantbeli:

[rokus2595]

The agreement fell into place after Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the country's most powerful Shiite leader, sent a message to the Americans urging them to approve the deal.

According to two Iraqi Shiite leaders, American officials signed onto the agreement after they received a forceful note from Ayatollah Sistani and other senior clerics, passed to them by Iraqi's national security adviser, Mowaffak al-Rubaie.

"The religious leadership passed a strong warning to the Americans yesterday to end the standoff in Najaf peacefully," said Hamed Khafaf, an aide to Ayatollah Sistani.

Had they refused, Mr. Khafaf said, the ayatollah, convinced that the presence of American forces so near the Imam Ali Shrine was unsustainable, "would not stay silent." That appeared to be a threat to speak out directly against the Americans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/28/international/middleeast/28CND-IRAQ.html?hp

[talib_killa34]

The agreement fell into place after Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the country's most powerful Shiite leader, sent a message to the Americans urging them to approve the deal.

According to two Iraqi Shiite leaders, American officials signed onto the agreement after they received a forceful note from Ayatollah Sistani and other senior clerics, passed to them by Iraqi's national security adviser, Mowaffak al-Rubaie.

"The religious leadership passed a strong warning to the Americans yesterday to end the standoff in Najaf peacefully," said Hamed Khafaf, an aide to Ayatollah Sistani.

Had they refused, Mr. Khafaf said, the ayatollah, convinced that the presence of American forces so near the Imam Ali Shrine was unsustainable, "would not stay silent." That appeared to be a threat to speak out directly against the Americans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/28/international/middleeast/28CND-IRAQ.html?hp



IS THAT RIGHT? :backhand:

The sooner we get out of this sorry country (in 50 years) the better.