I no longer have power to save Iraq from civil war, warns Shia leader

[motivez]

The most influential moderate Shia leader in Iraq has abandoned attempts to restrain his followers, admitting that there is nothing he can do to prevent the country sliding towards civil war.

Aides say Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is angry and disappointed that Shias are ignoring his calls for calm and are switching their allegiance in their thousands to more militant groups which promise protection from Sunni violence and revenge for attacks.


Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani

"I will not be a political leader any more," he told aides. "I am only happy to receive questions about religious matters."

It is a devastating blow to the remaining hopes for a peaceful solution in Iraq and spells trouble for British forces, who are based in and around the Shia stronghold of Basra.

The cleric is regarded as the most important Shia religious leader in Iraq and has been a moderating influence since the invasion of 2003. He ended the fighting in Najaf between Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi army and American forces in 2004 and was instrumental in persuading the Shia factions to fight the 2005 elections under the single banner of the United Alliance.

However, the extent to which he has become marginalised was demonstrated last week when fighting broke out in Diwaniya between Iraqi soldiers and al-Sadr's Mehdi army. With dozens dead, al-Sistani's appeals for calm were ignored. Instead, the provincial governor had to travel to Najaf to see al-Sadr, who ended the fighting with one telephone call.

Al-Sistani's aides say that he has chosen to stay silent rather than suffer the ignominy of being ignored. Ali al-Jaberi, a spokesman for the cleric in Khadamiyah, said that he was furious that his followers had turned away from him and ignored his calls for moderation.

Asked whether Ayatollah al-Sistani could prevent a civil war, Mr al-Jaberi replied: "Honestly, I think not. He is very angry, very disappointed."

He said a series of snubs had contributed to Ayatollah al-Sistani's decision. "He asked the politicians to ask the Americans to make a timetable for leaving but they disappointed him," he said. "After the war, the politicians were visiting him every month. If they wanted to do something, they visited him. But no one has visited him for two or three months. He is very angry that this is happening now. He sees this as very bad."

A report from the Pentagon on Friday said that the core conflict in Iraq had changed from a battle against insurgents to an increasingly bloody fight between Shia and Sunni Muslims, creating conditions that could lead to civil war. It noted that attacks rose by 24 per cent to 792 per week – the highest of the war – and daily Iraqi casualties soared by 51 per cent to almost 120, prompting some ordinary Iraqis to look to illegal militias for their safety and sometimes for social needs and welfare.


An Iraqi Shi'ite supporter of cleric Moqtada Al Sadr celebrates near a burning US Army truck

Hundreds of thousands of people have turned away from al-Sistani to the far more aggressive al-Sadr. Sabah Ali, 22, an engineering student at Baghdad University, said that he had switched allegiance after the murder of his brother by Sunni gunmen. "I went to Sistani asking for revenge for my brother," he said. "They said go to the police, they couldn't do anything.

"But even if the police arrest them, they will release them for money, because the police are bad people. So I went to the al-Sadr office. I told them about the terrorists' family. They said, 'Don't worry, we'll get revenge for your brother'. Two days later, Sadr's people had killed nine of the terrorists, so I felt I had revenge for my brother. I believe Sadr is the only one protecting the Shia against the terrorists."

According to al-Sadr's aides, he owes his success to keeping in touch with the people. "He meets his representatives every week or every day. Sistani only meets his representatives every month," said his spokesman, Sheik Hussein al-Aboudi.

"Muqtada al-Sadr asks them what the situation is on the street, are there any fights against the Shia, he is asking all the time. So the people become close to al-Sadr because he is closer to them than Sistani. Sistani is the ayatollah, he is very expert in Islam, but not as a politician."

Even the Iraqi army seems to have accepted that things have changed. First Lieut Jaffar al-Mayahi, an Iraqi National Guard officer, said many soldiers accepted that al-Sadr's Mehdi army was protecting Shias. "When they go to checkpoints and their vehicles are searched, they say they are Mehdi army and they are allowed through. But if we stop Sistani's people we sometimes arrest them and take away their weapons."

Western diplomats fear that the vacuum will be filled by the more radical Shia clerics, hastening the break-up of the country and an increase in sectarian violence.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's former special representative for Iraq, said the decline in Ayatollah al-Sistani's influence was bad news for Iraq.

"It would be a pity if his strong instincts to maintain the unity of Iraq and to forswear violence were removed from influencing the scene," he said.

It just keeps getting worse over there. Now we have one of the most influential people who's help to keep this "calm" (if it can be described as that) being marginalized because too many people are dying for people to continue to listen to him.

We have illegal militias that are gaining wide ranging support fighting the Iraqi police that we're training, and violence, death, etc, is trending upward again.

It's a very sad state of affairs. How long are we going to keep our troops in the middle of a civil war?

Shouldn't we start planning for an alternative strategy for when this starts to be a more intense civil war? Or at least have a plan for "if"?

I don't want to see us caught with our pants down like we were after the invasion when there was no plan to deal with what many saw coming, ie, the insurgency.

[Thorgrim]

If Dems lose in '06...its interesting to note the GOP would have 2 more years to deal with this Iraq crap, by then they'll have to withdrawl on their own, and it'll be a complete 100% GOP defeat

[avsp]

Originally Posted by motivez

Shouldn't we start planning for an alternative strategy for when this starts to be a more intense civil war? Or at least have a plan for "if"?

I don't want to see us caught with our pants down like we were after the invasion when there was no plan to deal with what many saw coming, ie, the insurgency.

hard to imagine one though, ..., securing the boarders for a start?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

If Dems lose in '06...its interesting to note the GOP would have 2 more years to deal with this Iraq crap, by then they'll have to withdrawl on their own, and it'll be a complete 100% GOP defeat

Nevermind the fact that Iraq would be unstable and in ruins. The GOP would be "defeated"... break out the champagne!

It's funny how people pretend to care when it suits their political agenda.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

"I will not be a political leader any more," he told aides. "I am only happy to receive questions about religious matters."

Now if we could get every cleric over there to follow this...

[KatKanPlay]

We broke it!

[Nonphixion]

Too late to save, my friends.

Iraq has been in Civil War for weeks now -- our administration just continues to lie to us about it, because admitting "Civil War" = Failure.

----

US Soldier Compares Iraq Civil War to Rwanda Circa-1994

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by motivez

It just keeps getting worse over there. Now we have one of the most influential people who's help to keep this "calm" (if it can be described as that) being marginalized because too many people are dying for people to continue to listen to him..

Does anyone else see the parrallel?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Nevermind the fact that Iraq would be unstable and in ruins. The GOP would be "defeated"... break out the champagne!

It's funny how people pretend to care when it suits their political agenda.

It's a civil war, how do we "win"?

We lost its just a matter of who is going to take the blame, I sure as shit hope its not the Dems

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

It's a civil war, how do we "win"?

We lost its just a matter of who is going to take the blame, I sure as shit hope its not the Dems

You completely missed my point.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

You completely missed my point.

I think your point was mostly some sort of insult about what kind of American I am, and my answer didn't admit defeat and sign up to move to Canada, so I didn't "get it"

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I think your point was mostly some sort of insult about what kind of American I am, and my answer didn't admit defeat and sign up to move to Canada, so I didn't "get it"

yeah because thats exactly what he said

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I think your point was mostly some sort of insult about what kind of American I am, and my answer didn't admit defeat and sign up to move to Canada, so I didn't "get it"

No I just was pointing out it's interesting how in other threads about the war you care so much about civilian losses and use it to paint the military and GOP in a negative light.

Yet here, when discussion of a civil war blooms your first knee-jerk reaction is how bad the GOP will look because of it.

Just kind of puts things into perspective is all.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

No I just was pointing out it's interesting how in other threads about the war you care so much about civilian losses and use it to paint the military and GOP in a negative light.

Yet here, when discussion of a civil war blooms your first knee-jerk reaction is how bad the GOP will look because of it.

Just kind of puts things into perspective is all.

I am only one man, I can not end the civil war in Iraq

The only "discussion" is, how are we going to withdrawl, with a GOP congress or Dem congress, I'd rather the former

You make it seem like I am rooting for civil war so the GOP looks bad, its already here, its time to move on to the next topic

[thomez]

well that fucking sucks ass to say it lightly

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by motivez

It just keeps getting worse over there. Now we have one of the most influential people who's help to keep this "calm" (if it can be described as that) being marginalized because too many people are dying for people to continue to listen to him.

We have illegal militias that are gaining wide ranging support fighting the Iraqi police that we're training, and violence, death, etc, is trending upward again.

It's a very sad state of affairs. How long are we going to keep our troops in the middle of a civil war?

Shouldn't we start planning for an alternative strategy for when this starts to be a more intense civil war? Or at least have a plan for "if"?

I don't want to see us caught with our pants down like we were after the invasion when there was no plan to deal with what many saw coming, ie, the insurgency.

In your opinion whats the correct course of action at this point? Should we just pull out? Should we wait it out? I think pulling out would be a huge mistake, but I think being viewed as an "occupation force" is also harmful to us and our reputation.

[thomez]

I say try and split the country and oil revenues. That's like the only shot we got I think. Then they can terrorize each other, which is bad, but not as bad as terrorizing us.

Should have just listened to me in the first place and not started this shitfest

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by thomez

well that fucking sucks ass to say it lightly

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by thomez

I say try and split the country and oil revenues. That's like the only shot we got I think. Then they can terrorize each other, which is bad, but not as bad as terrorizing us.

Should have just listened to me in the first place and not started this shitfest

[motivez]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95