#30 Not a single named source – check
NYT (usually synonymous with above) – checkDefeatism of article not supported by article itself – check
Good news disguised as bad - check
Let’s take a look at this article, shall we, because what it really seems to say is that Sadr and 2/3 of his army have joined the political process. And the remaining 1/3 are fractured and have no central control. Iran doesn’t know who to support, but, according to this article, apparently isn’t supporting Sadr – rather the Iranians are throwing money and arms at a bunch of guys helter skelter because none of them are strong enough to come out on top. Additionally, the article concludes that Sadr is looking for discipline to consolidate his power (apparently through the political process, if we are to believe the first half of the article) and is expanding his influence into areas such as of Kirkuk and in Diyala Province, both mixed-population areas north of Baghdad where sectarian disputes have been on the rise. There, he is trying to appeal by casting himself as a defender of Shiites against Kurdish and Sunni Arab factions.
And Sadr is no longer fighting against Americans and seems to be cooperating with American forces to help them get some of the rouge guys, like the Abu Dera guy.
For the interested – here is a more detailed breakdown:
But as Mr. Sadr has taken a more active role in the government, as many as a third of his militiamen have grown frustrated with the constraints of compromise and have broken off, often selling their services to the highest bidders,
sooo...Sadar has lost control of his army because he joined the political process along with apparently 2/3 of his army. The remaining one third has become rogue killers who are being supported by Iran - who throws money at all of them because they do not know who will come out on top.
It answered his call to battle American forces in two uprisings in 2004, and stopped fighting when he ordered it. But as the violence in Iraq has spread, evidence of freelancing Shiites has accumulated
Author implies that evidence of freelancing Shiites has accumulated but, and the author is unclear here, Is this the same 1/3 of his fighters who were fighting against Americans but no longer heed Tater’s calls to stop killing and join the political process. I mean – cause they weren’t in the political process before so one might write that Sadr got 2/3 or his army to join the political process and only 1/3 are still out killing Americans and Sunnis.
Mr. Sadr is still immensely powerful, with as many as 7,000 militiamen in Baghdad, the official said. And the cleric has turned that firepower into political might. His candidate list won about 30 seats in Parliament this year, one of the largest shares. The participation was a central goal for American officials, who tried for months to persuade him to stop fighting and enter politics
So the Americans have achieved their central goal of getting Sadr to fight using politics instead of murder.
Still, six major leaders here no longer answer to Mr. Sadr’s organization, according to the intelligence official. Most describe themselves as Mahdi Army members, the official said, and even get money from Mr. Sadr’s organization, but “are effectively beyond his control.” Some of those who moved away from Mr. Sadr saw him as too accommodating to the United States. Others saw him as too bound by politics, particularly as killings of Shiite civilians in mixed neighborhoods began to soar.
Why doesnÂ’t the author name the six major leaders? Again, this paragraph seems to really say that Sadr has joined the political process and due to the process, these six mysterious leaders are no longer beholden to Sadr. Is that not a good thing?
“They’re not content to sit there and just defend their family on the street corner,” the official said. “They want to go out and take on what they view as Al Qaeda or Baathists or both in aggressive measure.”
SadrÂ’s army members are killing AQ. Is that a bad thing? And he uses the words Batthists here instead of Sunnis. Why?
He started against the Americans, but he moved on to killing Sunnis,” said Sattar Awad, a 29-year-old resident of the district. “People here look at him as a brave man.”
I would consider the fact that they are no longer killing Americans to be a good thing – worthy of of note. But this author works for the NYT, so of course that would disappoint him. Question – where was this author when the Sunnis were killing Shia and Kurds. Answer – sucking up to Saddam at the central bureau no doubt.
Although the splintering has solved some problems for the American military, it has raised new ones. “In some ways it makes it easier for me because I now have digestible doses I can deal with,” said a senior American military official at a briefing on Wednesday, also in Baghdad. “At the same time it creates problems because they are harder to find when they are splintered.”
Nothing wrong with that statement. Probably true. But the author almost makes it sound like itÂ’s a bad thing rather than a good thing that 2/3 of SadrÂ’s army has apparently joined the political process and only the remaining 1/3 is splintered and still fighting.
The splintering has changed the tone of the American militaryÂ’s interaction with the Mahdi Army in Sadr City. In past years, American forays into the area would often draw a storm of grenade attacks. But recent American moves into the area have been carried out relatively peacefully: Mr. Sadr has not ordered attacks because the men being sought were freelancers like Abu Dera, the intelligence officer said.
So, if I were to read between the lines, it almost sounds like Sadr is helping the American army get the rouge guys like Abu Dera.
And finally, the last three paragraphs I summed up above, it appears that that Sadr is looking for discipline to consolidate his power (through the political process) and is expanding his influence into areas such as of Kirkuk and in Diyala Province, both mixed-population areas north of Baghdad where sectarian disputes have been on the rise. There, he is trying to appeal by casting himself as a defender of Shiites against Kurdish and Sunni Arab factions and that Sadr is no longer fighting against Americans and even better, seems to be cooperating with American forces to help them get some of the rouge guys, like the Abu Dera
So this is really a good news article. Would we expect anything less from the NYT to spin it into bad? |
The radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr has lost control of portions of his Mahdi Army militia that are splintering off into freelance death squads and criminal gangs, a senior coalition intelligence official said Wednesday.