The article I linked you to seems to be placing Maliki in the hands of Muktada these days.
”Still don't take it seriously. You must rate Moqty's abilities far higher than any Iraqi or American who has dealt with him. He's basically a thug in a turban, and he wouldn't even be where he was if he weren't his father's son. “
His father? Oh yeah the one who was assassinated along with his brothers, in-laws and anyone else he ever cared about. Do ya figure he harbors any ill will over that? If you think not you are wrong. He has on occasion subjected his followers to genocidal rants, and declarations against his enemy, America.
I was told in 2003/2004 he was one of dozens of nobodies wanting to carve out a fiefdom but that he would be crushed like the rest of the insurgent wannabees. I questioned that.
I was told in 2005 that he had resurfaced but that he had no real backing because the legit government was taking shape and he had stayed out of it. I reminded people about his ‘quiet’ reputation and the shadows organization stuff. Then I was told by a contractor that his power had been neutralized.
Periodically we have seen him surface with a larger and larger force of Al-Mahdis, better equipped and far more organized. News reports tells us that his loyal Al-Mahdis are being elected into legit government positions.
Now …
”Meanwhile, along with the Iraqi Accordance Front, which joined him in walking out on the prime minister earlier this year, Muqtada is calling for a dissolution of Parliament and early elections. “
”On the surface, the truce renewal seems to serve Muqtada well, as a man working for collective security - even if it means putting controls on his own supporters. While the world observes his "truce", however, many of his men have flooded into the Iraqi security services, under a plea from none other than Maliki. “… Reportedly, 18,000 militiamen have joined the Iraqi security apparatus
the Mahdi Army, however, we must acknowledge two realities. One is that its members were voted into power through truly democratic elections and were the overwhelming choice of Iraqi Shi'ites. That is why the UIA brought them into the Iran-backed coalition in the first place. Why? Not because they promised liberation, but because they vowed to end corruption, promised better security and more jobs, along with administrative, social and political reforms not for Iraqis as a whole but for Iraqi Shi'ites in particular.
The only way to prevent the Sadrists from being a state-within-a-state was to let them become the state, or major power-sharers within the state. The case is similar to that of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine. By accepting the duties of power, and sharing responsibility and accountability before the international community, Muqtada could not - even if he wished - continue his military war against his opponents in the Iraqi arena (Americans included).
What will we have to see for you to take him serious?
Best regards,
Gem |
