| Home > Community Forum > The New Iraq Looks A Lot Like Lebanon: "Hezbollah on the Tigris?" « Previous Entry | Next Entry » |
May 08, 2006
The New Iraq Looks A Lot Like Lebanon: "Hezbollah on the Tigris?"
by Faithful Progressive
Salon has an excellent piece describing how "like the militant Lebanese group, fiery cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr is using both guns and butter to seize power in Iraq." Americans, especially Christians called to be peacemakers, have a perfect right to ask--we spent 320 billion dollars for this? We violated our own principles and attacked first to beget this? Did we really want to create a new Hezbollah on the Tigris?
The mosque episode is just one example of the way the Sadrieen, as Muqtada al-Sadr's followers are known, are steadily gaining power. In Iraq's constantly shifting political landscape, the fiery young cleric whose militia fought the U.S. twice in 2004 is bidding to become a key player. Al-Sadr has a two-pronged strategy: vehemently resisting the U.S. occupation, while providing social services for the poor and assisting the thousands of Shiite families displaced by sectarian attacks. It's a tactic that reminds many of that employed by Hezbollah, the militant Shiite group that is credited with driving the Israeli Army out of south Lebanon and is now a powerful Lebanese political party. Indeed, if anything, al-Sadr is on a faster track -- Hezbollah did not enter the Lebanese government until 1996.
To be sure, al-Sadr and his followers face significant challenges that Hezbollah did not, notably a vicious retaliatory war with Sunni insurgents and a Shiite population that is not unified. Al-Sadr is locked in a power struggle with the powerful Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq Party, the leading Shiite organization. Al-Sadr's followers may be devoted, but the young leader does not have the prestige or the respect of Grand Ayatollah Sistani, Iraq's leading Shiite cleric who has an uneasy relationship with al-Sadr and could clip his wings. Unlike Hezbollah, al-Sadr's movement does not enjoy the support of Iran. And the election of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who replaced Sadr's ally Ibrahim Jaafari, leaves Iraq's political future undecided. Key issues like federalism, the role of militias, the fate of Kirkuk, how to deal with escalating tit-for-tat killings, attempts to bring Sunni insurgents into the political process and, of course, the future of the American occupation could play out in ways that could diminish (or enhance) al-Sadr's power.
However, in Iraq facts on the ground are usually decisive. And al-Sadr is moving more quickly than any other leader to fill the void left by the barely functioning Iraqi government. At the very least, it seems certain that al-Sadr and his followers -- nationalist, militant, vehemently anti-American and anti-Israeli, and strongly religious -- will be significant players in the new Iraq, whatever form it takes.
Posted by Faithful Progressive at May 8, 2006 01:56 PM
Comments
Put it in perspective. In 1996 (and earlier), Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and others argued that Israel can shape its strategic environment by removing Saddam Hussein from power as a means of foiling Israel’s chief rival, Syria. In theory, by restoring the Hashemites to the throne in Iraq, "they could use their influence over Najaf to help Israel wean the South Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria." Muqtada Al-Sadr is the power in Najaf, and as this article points out, far from 'weaning the South Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, the ties between Najaf and the Hizballah have been strengthened.
How is that for 'success' in Iraq?
Posted by: r.johnson at May 8, 2006 04:01 PM
Pull God's people out of Isreal and then NUKE Iraq!! PROBLEM SOLVED!!
Then you can put God's people back in Isreal after the nuclear fog has cleared. Then threaten all the countries in the middle east to "watch themselves because we're backing Isreal 100% no matter what you think"!!
If need be then you nuke again until all the problems are gone.
Posted by: HTJB at May 8, 2006 09:31 PM
Americans now realize this war has made things worse.
CNN finds Bush's approval at 35 percent in its latest poll. Asked of those who disapproved of Bush whether it was mostly because of rising gas prices or mostly because of Iraq, 13 percent said gas and 56 percent said Iraq.
Only 33 percent said they think the war with Iraq has made the U.S. safer, compared to 53 percent who said less safe.
Posted by: jason at May 9, 2006 09:27 PM
HTJB writes: "Pull God's people out of Isreal and then NUKE Iraq!! PROBLEM SOLVED!!
Then you can put God's people back in Isreal after the nuclear fog has cleared. Then threaten all the countries in the middle east to 'watch themselves because we're backing Isreal 100% no matter what you think'!!
If need be then you nuke again until all the problems are gone."
My, my, what a Christian strategy. I so very much hope that you were being sarcastic.
Posted by: Ice Wolf at May 10, 2006 01:59 AM
Ice Wolf:
No joke!
It worked on Japan!
America just needs to flex more of it's muscle!
Posted by: HTJB at May 10, 2006 03:49 PM
It worked on Japan, yes, but we did it before Japan fell under our sovereignty. It wouldn't have done to bomb them after they had already been defeated, which is what you suggest for Iraq.
Posted by: Ice Wolf at May 14, 2006 04:00 AM
it's true 2006 will start world war three. according to bible code. then yahweh will gather his people who know the real messiah yahshua. the true faith. man is in big trouble with prison camps in u.s. for all american citizens. the police are seizing are gun and knive's. wow to the u.s. will go down in one hour.
Posted by: alan crawford at July 14, 2006 05:28 PM
