I don't think it's cattiness at all, and now Marvin is asking me to answer some questions, so I guess he wants me to give still more information and analysis. So here goes.
MG:
Allawi? Hashemi? Some salvation! Some front!>>
Evidently all you have to do is oppose the occupation and call for a timetable. Why the sarcasm here? MG
We know most Iraqis and their political parties want an end to the
occupation. So, in fact, does the Bush administration. The issue, of course, is over when the occupation should end - before or after US forces have suppressed the Sunni insurgency. And on this point, of course, Iraqi politicians like Allawi and Hashemi (and Maliki and Sistani and Hakim and also presumably Sadr who moves in these circles) are clear: they want to see the Sunni militias crushed, and then they will sort matters out among themselves.>> If the national security state plans permanent occupation--that is permanent bases in Iraq--then how could Bush be for ending the occupation. Where have you ever read or heard anything from Bush to this effect--that he wants to end his occupation of Iraq? In specific terms--like a timetable for withdrawal? And even if he had, would he lie to cover up the plan to stay? Sure he would.
a) If Sadr is truly on the side of the Sunni insurgents against the
Americans and their collaborators, why did he become part of the Iraqi government which is trying to suppress it rather than developing a common program and organization, including a joint military wing, with the insurgents?>> In classic resistance form he is on record as saying that no social or political progress could be made in the occupation. Remember, HE IS NOT part of the government. People politically active who are associated with him are--as a parliamentary bloc (not the Shia bloc, but a solid 30 member bloc) and as ones with portfolios running some ministries. But what you say would be like saying Dr. Dean is now in power in Washington DC. I might also add that some elements of the Sunni Resistance are also politically represented. In ways quite analogous to the Sadrists, they are represented in structures outside the occupation that seek social and political roles, and they also have people in the elected government.
If Sadr is determined to end the occupation, why has he not proclaimed
that any reinforcement of the US garrison and attacks on Sunni areas will be met with resistance from the Mahdi Army? What kind of signal does it send to the Bush administration for Sadr to instead meet with Sistani and government officials with a view, according to his own representatives, of shortly resuming his participation in the government?>> I didn't see any meeting recently between Sadr and Sistani. I saw people taking their coalition of the occupation to Sistani, with Sistani rejecting it. Show me a quote where his representatives are saying they will shortly resume participation.
Sadr is a story of a road not taken after the battle of Najaf. If he had opted then to move towards political unity with the Sunni resistance rather than accept to become part of the US-sponsored government, it would, IMO, have dealt a decisive blow to the occupation. Januzzi's position, in effect, is that Sadr has been on the first road all along and that he is engaging in "coordinated" attacks with the Sunni insurgents against the US and government troops. I think this is a bizarre reading of what is happening in Iraq, but we'll know soon enough.>> Political unity in what structure? The occupation government that he and the Sunni Resistance mostly reject (though some participate in)? I count the Sadrists and at least two other groups as constituting the Shia Resistance, and this has included armed conflict--that is the reason why Britain, for example, has had as many deaths among its troops. I also think more than a few Sunni are relieved that the Sadrists pursued their ends on at least three fronts: one, in the parliament (where they have opposed breaking up the country); two, in Iraq as a state within the state , and three, in armed resistance. I'm not really sure what you are waiting on to happen in Iraq Marvin, so I'm not really sure what predictions you will see come true. I think you have some hidden views about Iraq and Islamists that seems to cloud your thinking. If Michael thinks that is catty, well too bad. As he knows, I appreciate moderators who do more than boo from the sidelines and he himself has added very little to the discussion. CJ
