Comments on: The Speech: Sadr Bought Off? (Updated)

By: cronous money

cronous money — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 05:19:04 +0000

Afterward I saw that someone is accepting the apprentice, I ran to him said that you accepted me, I will have a good future of cronous money.

By: markg8

markg8 — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 15:28:55 +0000

It could be that Sadr has ok’ed Maliki and the Americans going after the rogue commanders who don’t listen to him anymore. There’s a number who’ve gone of his reservation and do their own kidnappings for revenge or profit and think he’s too soft on Sunnis.
This is the guy who afterall is trying to organize
a non sectarian movement to eject the occupation and
helped send an aid convoy to Fallujah back in April 2004.

By: MadOraDataMan

MadOraDataMan — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 07:51:36 +0000

A deal to let Sadr take over if he and his forces lie low while we leave?
I believe that during the last days of the Vietnam War, Henry Kissinger (or somebody) called this “a decent interval.” Question is, how much of an interval is “decent?” Nobody was much fooled by the interval between the “agreement” officially ending the war in 1973 and what happened in 1975.

By: Nicholas weaver

Nicholas weaver — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 02:33:35 +0000

Eric:
Wouldn’t work.
A: Sadr knows he can disappear into Sadr City and nobody will be able to find him. Look how long it took to find Saddam Hussein, and Hussein was mostly wanted dead by most of the people.
B: Killing Sadr wouldn’t help, and he knows it. Alive, he can moderate. Dead, he’s a martyr, and he’s enough of a believer that I’m not sure if he’d think it all THAT bad. Anyway, Hussein killed al Sadr’s father, and that didn’t stop the Shiites

By: Eric Hundman

Eric Hundman — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 20:44:29 +0000

Wild speculation here, but:
What if Sadr has been bought off with his life. We promise to avoid harming him, if at all possible, in exchange for him giving up some of his militia and armaments. The rest of his military (those most firmly under his control) go into hibernation until the U.S. finally withdraws, at which point he is excellently placed to grab power again.
This would, seemingly, work well for both sides. Sadr gets to live, power base intact, while the US gets to save face, calm the country before withdrawal, and avoid the messy business of assassinating a popular Iraqi leader during a civil war. At the very least it seems more likely than a monetary buyoff.
Anyone more informed than I care to add thoughts?

By: Zmonster

Zmonster — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:35:25 +0000

We did this before by accident, and had him by the short hairs. This time I believe we give weight to the notion, “knock it off, because whether your gov’t and your Prime Minister wants us to do it, we will anyway. This is the endgame, and Sadr will know that when we come for him for the fifth time.
Lancers!!!! Black Knights

By: MinorRipper

MinorRipper — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:01:22 +0000

So let me get this straight: Bush is now defying the Baker Report, Congress, the military, and the American public by escalating the war…Forgive me for not brimming over with optimism…
http://www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:14:58 +0000

why does the US ally with Sadr?
See LBJ’s rationale for allying with J. Edgar Hoover.

By: Mysticdog

Mysticdog — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:54:52 +0000

Just to follow up on the last comment… why does the US ally with Sadr?
Because he is anti-Iranian too. A Sadr backed goverment is almost as good as a sunni government for countering Iran. Sadr thinks Iraq is the righteous homeland of Shia Islam, and geographically he is largely correct. He has already largely defeated the Iranian shia in Iraq for leadership throughout the south.
And in the end, we don’t really care who runs the country beyond opposing Iran and opening up the oil fields for US companies. the fact that the Iraqi congress has apparently agreed to allow US companies to keep more of the oil profits from pumping and transport than any other country on earth seems to indicate that the deal has already been made in that regard.

By: MikeFair

MikeFair — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 15:46:14 +0000

It never makes sense to buy off an enemy, at least not an idealogical one. It’s hard to imagine how Bush, or anyone, could make that move.
Sadr has an idealogical cause, or an ambition for power, or both. Any gain that he would get from a deal, financial or otherwise, would only be parlayed later into more power. Bigger problems later.