| Submit your comments on this article |
| The Religious Militia Muscles In |
| 2004-02-26 |
| Ten days after Mahmoud Shakir Mohsen arrested a member of the religious militia, the religious militia arrested him. "They told me, ’Your time is over,’" says the police sergeant. "’Now it’s our time.’" Bound and blindfolded, Mohsen was taken to the Islamic courts of Moqtada al-Sadr, the most militant cleric in the holy city of Najaf, where he was beaten with a police baton and held in an underground prison for 16 days, until his commanding officer negotiated a $200 fee for his release. As the police struggle to preserve order in Iraq, some Islamic groups like al-Sadr’s religious militia, Jaish al-Mahdi, are declaring themselves guardians of peace and justice. Many groups keep private armies, but al-Sadr’s men also maintain courts and prisons in eight southern Iraqi cities and Baghdad. Religious militia have shut down liquor stores in Basra and Baghdad and even killed some of their owners. In Najaf, CD sellers accused of peddling pornography have had their shops bombed. The court’s claim of religious sanction is particularly potent in Najaf, where portraits of religious leaders have replaced statues of Saddam Hussein. While al-Sadr’s critics may whisper that his courts are more concerned with stamping out the cleric’s enemies than with doing God’s work, few dare say it aloud. Though most cases involve family law and property disputes, the court also handles criminal charges, according to Husam al-Husseini, 33, a confidant of al-Sadr’s. People caught drinking or having sex outside of marriage are punished with a whip. Christians face the same penalties as Muslims. "Iraq is an Islamic country, so if he is Muslim or not, we have to beat him," al-Husseini says. Violent criminals are usually forced to pay compensation to the victim’s family. Prisoners are held in individual rooms under the courtyard or in a large holding pen, according to a former detainee who asked not to be named for fear of being rearrested. On his first night, he was pulled out of the cell, blindfolded and led to a room where he was strapped to a column. Two men, he says, beat him with a whip, then smashed his head against the column. He says that beatings took place nightly, and that he sometimes heard the screams of women. Neighbors of Qisme Ibrahim al-Quraishi say she turned up dead 10 days after she was arrested for letting prostitutes use her home. When her family cleaned her for burial, they found lash marks on her back and raw flesh where her fingernails had been. If al-Sadr’s courts have refrained from passing death sentences, it is only because the U.S. military would prevent any execution, says Hasan Naji, head of the Jaish al-Mahdi in Baghdad. "If the court convicts somebody, they can go complain to America, and they will come and close the court," Naji says. "But when America leaves, nobody will be able to close us." |
| Posted by:Paul Moloney |
| #15 liberalhawk, that's just a bunch of overanalyzing hogwash. You go in there with the 4th ID and arrest or smoke his ass end of story. His actions can not be tolerated and pussyfooting around Iraq worried to step on toes is not the way to stabalize it for the future. Everything you stated sounds like excuses to me. It sounds like the bs arab street crap we've been hearing for a decade. The percentage of people who are totally f-ed up in Iraq and follow Sadr is small. He's nothing. That is unless we make him something by allowing him to stand up to us. Then he actually become what you're afraid he is. By kowtowing to him we will create chaos. |
| Posted by: Damn_Proud_American 2004-2-26 8:50:51 PM |
| #14 You made an intricate case of interconnected reasons for letting him continue until there was some sort of Iraqi force which could handle the problem. I guess, in the mean time, we do nothing beyond the current "strategy" (which I think demeans the term) which is apparently hands-off or, at best, bottle it up and let those inside Sadr's 'hood suffer. You believe yours is the correct approach, fine. I disagree. I said why. I stand by every word of it. I found your last notion (action can be BAD) to be both disingenuous and, given how you put it, insulting. Of cource actions can be bad - so can inaction. You can't have it both ways: our guys are good guys but action can be bad so if we act our guys will run around shooting the place up. Really? You implied it rather clearly. Nothing was ever fixed by INaction, though you say that's okay for now, too. Really? Go patronize someone else. We're done here. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-2-26 4:27:53 PM |
| #13 "If you don't think 1,000 US troops, hell - make that 500 US troops with the right equipment and support couldn't take this tin-pot clown and his entire cadre of thugs out, with extreme prejudice, in short order then you have not been paying attention. And I find that very very hard to believe. The key to real success, which it seems is still a "lesson too far" for our military in dealing with the Sunni Triangle, is that you have to STAY" Its not how many troops it takes to take him out - we obviously have enough troops to do that. Its about what it takes to maintain the occupation after that. If you think this will make it take less, then it actually makes the job easier. If you think it takes more, then youre making the job harder for an already overstretched force. I cant say for sure which it will be from thousands of miles away, but im rather reluctant to second guess the guys on the ground, out of some ideological commitment to "its always better to be feared than loved" Sometimes it better to be feared. Sometimes its better to be loved (or at least not hated). Guys on the ground have a better sense than we do of any particular situation. Im not sure what this has to with being a "donk dream" since this careful analytical approach is the approach of the current admin, and not just State, but Defense as well. "Neighbors of Qisme Ibrahim al-Quraishi say she turned up dead 10 days after she was arrested for letting prostitutes use her home." Helpless women - in fact al sadr and pals would say this ISNT murder - its vigilante justice. Its taking ACTION, instead of handwringing, like the wimpy secular liberals on the Iraqi Governing Council. What we're TRYING TO TEACH THEM is that taking action ISNT always the best thing - handwring, analysis, etc are the keys to civilization. Can't hardly show them that by running around shooting the place up. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2004-2-26 3:02:16 PM |
| #12 Al Sadr is about due for a "work accident". There's too many good people dying on both the Coalition and Iraqi sides while actually working towards a decent and democratic society to suffer pronouncements from this fool any more. This self-serving and self-aggrandizing moron's own widespread infamy will perversely make him the perfect example to the other wannabes out there trying to establish their own little fiefdoms. Take him out, please. |
| Posted by: Dar 2004-2-26 2:31:08 PM |
| #11 LH - Sigh. I respectfully disagree - and you know I read your posts very carefully. I'll give you this: that's a beautiful Donk-dream collection of schtuff. Doesn't work for me, but... Impressive display of the wheels within wheels analytical approach. BUT. It's just fucking wrong to ignore him. Period. Let's get real, here. The Crips or the Bloods of El Lay could snuff this cretin. They would certainly out-gun him. And the fact that they survive in the same fashion right here at home is ALSO wrong. And the reason these types of parasites survive is the touchy-feely hyper-analytical approach which leaves the authorities PC-paralyzed. Daryl Gates so screwed up the El Lay political scene and so poisoned the dialog that this shit continues to this day - when it should've been wiped out 20 years ago -- with extreme prejudice. Back on-topic... If you don't think 1,000 US troops, hell - make that 500 US troops with the right equipment and support couldn't take this tin-pot clown and his entire cadre of thugs out, with extreme prejudice, in short order then you have not been paying attention. And I find that very very hard to believe. The key to real success, which it seems is still a "lesson too far" for our military in dealing with the Sunni Triangle, is that you have to STAY. You have to be aggressive as hell: raids, raids, and more raids; respond with overwhelming force - meaning ultra-rapid reaction forces always available when contact occurs. If you do this repeatedly, the asshats move on - Darwinism kicks in and those too stupid to do so die; those who figure it out leave the venue. Repeat as needed, where needed. When they have no place where they can play their game, they either go away or get dead. This is how the military should deal with Arab troublemakers - this they will understand and fear - which is Arabic for "respect". Sorry, I just can't buy a hand-wringing response - even from you bro, on this. Kidnapping police and murdering helpless women - and we both know there's much much more beyond that - cannot be ignored. I'm not much on "sending messages" because I've never seen it work. I'm very big on isolating problems and taking them head-on with direct action - whether militarily, politically, or in my work-a-day technical world. Is that $.02 worth? :-) |
| Posted by: .com 2004-2-26 1:12:30 PM |
| #10 Perhaps its time we went in and arrested his militia. Simply go in and arrest everyone except for Al Sadr and release all the prisoners. LW is probably right in that it will probably have to be sovereign iraqi's who do it. We just need to make sure they have the firepower and the will to do it and not simply bend over and take it. In the meantime we need to send a message that the police are 'off limits'. Perhaps send a strong force into his compound to 'explain it to him'. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-2-26 9:23:32 AM |
| #9 We have 100,000 troops, who have about all they can handle dealing with the residual Baathists, the foreign Islamists, and some rejectionists in Fallujah. NOT the time that Bremer, or Rumsfeld for that matter, want to take on Al-Sadr. Especially with al-sadr apparently maneuvering Sistani into looking too pro-American, so that he has to make a fuss about elections in order to show his distance. Look - Al- Sadr may be a thug, and a pro-Iranian thug at that. But the Shiites, while definitely glad we took out Saddam, do not trust us. And from their point of view with reason. We called for a revolt in 1991, they rebelled, Saddam slaughtered them, we did nothing. Now you can argue about whether it was Bush41's fault, or the UN's fault - in reality the call to revolt was probably meant for the Iraqi military - NOT the Shiites - I dont think theyre into such "french style" subtlety. As far as they are concerned, they were betrayed. And we might do it any day again. Every concession we make to the Sunnis, every hint that we're NOT going to allow them majority rule, even when motivated not by desire to reinstall the Sunnis, but by a well intentioned desire to protect secularism, is read by them as some kind of neo-baathism. a demagogue like Moqtada al-sadr plays to that kind of (well earned) paranoia. Thats why when Sistani looks to close to the US, Al Sadr can play it against him - and why Sistani to maintain "street cred" starts talking more radical. And why Chalabi, to maintain his own credibility moves in the direction of Sistani. So do you just go in and arrest Moqtada??? you do so, you confirm just what hes been saying. No its going to have to be Iraqis who arrest him. And it will probably have to be SOVEREIGN Iraqis - IE post-handover. Which is probably one reason Bremer and the admin are in such a hurry to turn over sovereignty by June 30. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2004-2-26 9:10:55 AM |
| #8 most likely because Bremer has gone all State on our ass over there... |
| Posted by: mjh 2004-2-26 8:55:34 AM |
| #7 This is unacceptable. Why the hell hasn't Bremer done anything about this? We have a friggin ARMY over there, they have ill-trained turbans. This isn't a difficult decision. |
| Posted by: Charles 2004-2-26 8:51:25 AM |
| #6 Ok,how about a .50 cal Barret round at a 1000 meters. |
| Posted by: Raptor 2004-2-26 8:40:19 AM |
| #5 My guess is that he and his gang are too powerfull to be taken out. The US wants to please the Shi'ia, so taking out Al Sadr is not a step in that direction. I agree that he's probably nothing more then a thug, but is he also in the perception of the Shi'ia Iraqi's ? I doubt that. |
| Posted by: lyot 2004-2-26 5:36:03 AM |
| #4 *snicker* That's really precious, Iyot. "Radicalizing" Sadr's "followers" is the point, huh? Lol! If what this article says is true, and if it is then you know it's only the tip of the iceberg of everything else they've done, then I'd suggest their becoming "radicalized" occurred long ago and is, shall we say, a rather minor detail. These are thugs, thieves, and murderous vigilantes from the Darkest Age of Man - not holy followers of a holy man. Pfeh. It is a mafia gang with a cloak of religious cover - and so thin that only a fool would be fooled. I suggest we ace the lot of 'em and then you can bemoan how I become radicalized. Too funny / foolish for werdz! |
| Posted by: .com 2004-2-26 4:01:29 AM |
| #3 I guess that he's not taken out because his death/capture would only radicalize his followers even more.. |
| Posted by: lyot 2004-2-26 3:38:54 AM |
| #2 I can't figure out why he's tolerted, either. Given the actions described, assuming this is accurate info, his continued existence and barbaric behavior boggles. It's well past time for his ticket to be punched - with prejudice. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-2-26 3:27:04 AM |
| #1 why are we giving this guy so much leeway and why don't the Iraqi police in baghdad crush this scumbag for having the balls to arrest a policeman. I'm really pissed off about this... what the hell are we thinking letting this crap go on?!? |
| Posted by: Damn_Proud_American 2004-2-26 12:29:29 AM |