In a high-stakes escalation of US strategy in Iraq, the Bush administration has decided after an intense internal debate to work with Iraqi security forces to crack down on the radical Shiite leader, Moqtada Sadr.
| 'Bout damned time, I'd say... |
Administration officials were reluctant to disclose details of the new approach for fear of tipping their hand to Sadr. But they said the Pentagon had concluded it was crucial to show resolve in the face of Sadr’s attacks over recent months on Americans and their Iraqi allies. “A decision was made to move against Sadr head-on because he crossed a red line. The US military believes he is responsible for the deaths of Americans and Iraqis and is actively hostile to the American presence,’’ explained Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA officer and now a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. The decision to clip Sadr’s wings carries risks because it could trigger a reaction within the Shiite Muslim community, which has been America’s key ally in Iraq. So far, the senior Shiite clergy in Najaf have tacitly supported the US-led occupation, and most of the Shiite population has followed the clergy’s lead. If the United States ever lost that support, its position in Iraq would quickly become untenable in the view of many analysts.
| Yep. That's the risk. That's why we haven't moved against the kid yet... |
The administration decided to get tough on Sadr in part because it wanted to defend the authority of the senior Shiite leaders. The clerics in Najaf, led by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani and known collectively as the Hawza, regard the 22 30-year-old Sadr as an upstart and a troublemaker, and most would quietly welcome a crackdown  so long as it didn’t put them even more in the firing line. “A growing number of moderate Shia believe that decisive action needs to be taken against him,’’ said one senior administration official. “They want it done with an Iraqi lead, but they feel it is our responsibility.’’
| We're pretty much constrained to letting the Iraqi cops take care of it, under the aegis of the IGC. Direct use of U.S. forces involves an attack on a "holy man" and probably an assault on a mosque. This week everybody approves, six months from now, after repeated "reinterpretations" of the story it'll all be our fault. To my surprise, though, the Iraqi cops seem to be up to the task. They're one of the big surprises of this operation... |
The debate over what to do about Sadr has been going on for several months. The crackdown has been controversial because of fears among some US military officials, reportedly including Centcom commander General John Abizaid, that it could widen the Iraq war at a time when American troops are already vulnerable. But both Abizaid and occupation chief Paul Bremer are said to have signed off on the new policy.
| Using the cops makes it a civil operation, rather than military. And they can "accidentally" bump Moqtada off and get away with it. We couldn't. |
|