Sadr condemns Rumsfeld, turn against his Sunni allies and threaten to kill Shiite women in the UIA.

She'at sources confirmed to Al-Watan that "Al-Hakeem complained to Sistani that he's being under pressure from Iran and has been receiving threats from the Sadr trend of inciting chaos and violence in case Ja'fari was replaced by Adil Abdil Mehdi" Clarifying that "Sadr made direct threats through a phone call to Al-Hakeem that he would kill all women members in the UIA and leaders in the SCIRI if Abdil Mehdi replaced Ja'fari"According to the same sources "Iran replaced it's strategic alliance with Al-Hakeem by one with Sadr who visited it last month" Announcing "His militias' readiness to defend Iran in case it was attacked by the US" and pointed out that " His supporters started intimidating acts against the British forces in Basra provoked by the Revolutionary Guard intelligence stationed in the city who finance and supervise those militias".From Al-Watan Kuwaiti newspaper (Arabic link)Meanwhile and in response to the attacks in Sadr city yesterday Sadr attacked what he called "Nawasib" which is a term used to describe radical Sunnis but at times of sectarian friction can be used to refer to all Sunnis saying 1st that "I used to trust the Association of Sunnis Scholars but they haven't made a clear stand against the Takfiris yet and anyone who doesn't do that is a Takfiri too" Then adding "I have the ability to fight those Nawasib and there's a legitimate cover from the Marjiya and I can confront them militarily and ideologically but I don't want to be dragged into a civil war" He added " Once they're killed by Saddam (Sadr people residents) and once by the occupier and now by the Nawasib God damn them. I've done what I can and called for peace and even heard hurtful words from my people, the Shiite for praying with the Nawasib but nothing worked" And then blamed the US again and held it responsible for everything and said commenting on Rumsfeld's latest statements about civil war " Ugly and condemned statements. We don't want your interference God damn you. If you don't protect people then why are you here?"From Sawt Al-Iraq website (Arabic link)In an interview on Al Iraqiya with Ambassador Khalil Zada, the host asked the ambassador about Sadr continuous verbal attack and accusations against US policy. He replied "I want to remind Sadr that Saddam killed his father and that the US toppled Saddam. Without the efforts of the US Saddam would have been in power now and most likely would be followed by his sons and grandsons. He owes us his gratitude for what the American people have done and without us I believe his life would have been in danger. This is the message"Well at least one man can say stuff like this to Sadr which made me feel some relief. It's unbelievable how a scum and an idiot like Sadr can destroy the hopes and dreams not only of Millions of Iraqis but also the whole region, the US and the world in building a peaceful democratic nation in this disturbed region. Everything seemed to be working in favor of this project when the Americans came. The terrorist were a serious threat in the beginning but not now. In my opinion it's become a myth used by the Iraqi government at times to control the lives and freedom of Iraqis and and to serve mere partisan and individual interests. Terrorism is a danger and it's a reality but the cure has proved to be a 100 times worse than the disease. Terrorists can kill people and destroy properties often in Iraq and occasionally in Europe and the US but the support they're getting is becoming less and less everyday, and killing innocents and destroying properties cannot destroy a civilization or threatens democracy and that's evident in Iraq more than elsewhere. Iraq was moving forward with the democratic process until Ja'faris government came and abused the authority it was given to increase the strength and control of major She'at parties. What do terrorists want? They don't want to win. They only want to destroy the western world and any country that adapts its form of living and then they want to go to their alleged paradise. By turning our countries into police states we're achieving most of their goals for them.Anti-terror efforts and powers that present themselves as protectors of the people from terrorism are the real threat now and not terrorists, at least that's the case in Iraq.

Sectarian violence spread to schools.

Local Iraqi TVs have been reporting an increasing sectarian tension among students in primary and high schools lately. The tension and quarrels often resulted in physical fighting among Sunni and She'at kids. Iraqi local media blamed some of the teachers in those schools for inflaming sectarian feelings, and of course the "occupation" is still considered a major reason.I was walking down the street in a predominantly Shiite area at one of those days when a daytime curfew was imposed and saw kids use the empty streets to play various games, mostly football but all kinds of games too. A group of kids with ages ranging probably between 7-10 years old caught my attention. They were carrying green flags and toy guns and chanting "No to terrorism, yes to Islam". They were just playing of course but what a dangerous game. The green flag is a symbol for Shiite and it's not just used by kids or civilians in religious ceremonies but sadly by some Iraqi security forces as they patrol the streets without even carrying an Iraqi flag. Also most of the names of Iraqi army units used to refer to Shiite Imams but thankfully someone paid attention to this and they're being changed. Terrorism often refers to Sunnis here, not all of them but at least most, and Islam of course refers to Shiism, as that's the only orthodox form of Islam to them just like the Sunnis mean their sect only when they use the word Islam.Both sides are definitely responsible for feeding hatred and distrust to their kids. The only difference is that Shiite now control most of the media and government offices and that makes the effect of any sectarian message they send more powerful. Sunnis certainly did a similarly bad job when Saddam was in power but it shouldn't be pay back time or else we'll never make it to a real democracy.One of my cousins study agriculture in Al-Kufa University in Najaf. Her father came to me once asking me to help her in one of her classes. The class is called "Democracy" which replaced Saddam's "National culture" that referred to the Ba'ath teachings that we had to take in the 1st years in college (I failed once in that class). This sounded great, to replace the Ba'ath twisted teachings with teaching democratic values, and I told my uncle that I was more than happy to help as much as I can. However it wasn't what I thought. Their teacher had asked them to prepare an essay on the relation between democracy and the revolution of Imam Hussein! And that was not just once, as he told me that most of their study was actually about Shiite Imams and how democratic they were. My uncle couldn't find a book that link the two together and thought I could find some references through the Internet since I have a home connection and have more experience in this field. I told him that I can't help him, as we'll probably need a million dovetail joints to connect the two and they still won't fit, and that she'd better just say that Imam Hussein was great and beautiful and liberal and supported gay marriage and that he studied the values of democracy at the hands of his father Imam Ali who studied it at the hands of the prophet Mohammed who studied it at Harvard…Yes he couldn't read and write but back then reading was optional in universities.Seriously, sectarian tension is way too strong now and there are probably only two ways to resolve it; civil war as I pointed before or a united government that apply justice, better education and national security forces that can deal with the security challenges without alienating any party. None of these standards is present now but there's still hope in the new government that it may meet at least some of them.

Signs of hope.

Before Ja'fari's last visit to Turkey everything was going in the wrong direction and the only hope I could see was that a civil war may resolve most of those unsettled issues and repressed anger and distrust that has been building among different Iraqi sects. The politicians were not doing what they should do and the people were just following those their leaders who were already lost, so the only hope was in that the people would wake up on their own, but that needs a huge shock, as obviously Saddam, the war, and what followed were not enough to change the hearts and minds enough to push forward to a real change.However, someone very stupid (or very smart?) seem to have advised Ja'fari that it's a good plan to visit Turkey these days, and then not inform the Kurds and take along with him some Turkmen figures who have no real official position in the government. That was enough for the Kurds to practically change sides and stand with the Sunni bloc and Allawi to demand that the UIA replace his nominee for the prime minister position.None of those blocs can be really considered a liberal democratic one, but collectively they, for the 1st time seem to be working well and that include the UIA. Adil Abdil Mehdi is not much better than Ja'fari but he's still a better choice for the moment. I tend to see the Sadirists as a much bigger threat to Iraq's unity than the SCIRI and despite (or probably because) their alliance with radical Sunnis, they are more likely to further widen the split between Sunnis and She'at. Ask any Sunni who they distrust more and they will answer Al-Mehdi army. Ask any She'at who they distrust more among Sunnis and they'd say the Association of Sunni scholars, Sadr allies.Another reason why replacing Ja'fari is a good thing is that it most likely going to deepen the already existing disagreement between Sadr and Al-Hakeem, the strongest men in the UIA. Sistani has always managed to keep them together like when the cause of conflict was opening an office for Sadr in Najaf, but now the dispute is about something much bigger than that.If the UIA is not worse than the rest then why is it good that it get weakened? Simply to create a balance where none of the involved political powers can have things totally their way. To me of course the UIA is worse than Allawi and even the Sunni bloc but a She'at may not see it the same of course. However, what am I going to lose if no one dominates the parliament and what would a Kurd or a She'at lose if their groups don't dominate? Nothing, except absolute power and the chance to dominate and oppress other sects which I believe is not what most Iraqis want.Now the UIA may not submit to the demands of the other sects and that would bring us back to civil war if the Kurds maintained their current stand.I have been thinking since the 1st elections that Iraq's main hope lay in the way the Kurdish Alliance act and how much would they be involved in Iraq's politics as a whole country and not just when it comes to Kurdistan. The Kurds have fewer reasons to disagree with Sunnis or She'at than those two have to disagree with each. They're mostly Sunnis and that makes Sunnis less sensitive towards them and they were subject to oppression and discrimination just like the She'at which makes it easier that they communicate and understand each other.If the UIA agrees on changing their nominee this may give rise to a more balanced government that most Iraqis would support and this would mean that dealing with Sunni insurgency would be easier and then dealing with She'at militias would be more possible too. How is a government led by a member of the SCIRI going to agree to disband the militia? Seems impossible but it doesn't have to be that radical and doesn't have to include all militias. The SCIRI would be more than happy to see the Mehdi army disarmed and Sistani may not object that much too if it can be done in a smart way. The new Iraqi government may try to enforce it on all including the Peshmarga but then all the Peshmarga and the Badr brigade may need to do is keep a low profile.The Mehdi army most likely won't be able to do that, as while the Peshmerga functions only in Kurdistan and have no reason to be that active or aggressive and the Badr brigade has to always keep a low profile because it can't survive if its actions were shown to the public. The Mehdi army survives only with chaos and tension and they often create those by themselves. They would also be found unjustified in creating any sectarian tension if the Sunni insurgency gets dealt with by the government which would be Sunni in part and wouldn't find it as difficult as it is now to gain the support of locals in Sunni areas. After the Mehdi army get dealt with, the rest shouldn't be that difficult.Probably just a wishful thinking on my side but I don't think anyone can say that it's impossible.

Muslims against terrorism?

I just saw this post on Gateway Pundit about the demonstrations in Bahrain "against terrorism". Before looking at the pictures I was skeptic about the real nature of these demonstrations because I know that Bahrain has a She'at majority and I never heard of any demonstrations against terrorism there until the latest attack on the holy She'at shrine in Samarra.When I looked at the pictures in the original Arabic site my suspicions were confirmed. Yes, some of the signs carried by the demonstrators called for unity between Sunnis and She'at, but it really doesn't mean anything, as such calls were present in Iraq's demonstrations too and are used to conceal the sectarian nature of those demonstrations. Now there's nothing wrong with She'at demonstrating against insulting their sacred places but we should not fool ourselves and believe that this could mean the start of a wide and active rejection of terrorism among Muslims.On the other hands there were many signs that had an obvious sectarian tone. One sign was saying, "This is what the Yazidis did" with a picture of the destroyed shrine. Yazidis here refer to followers of the 2nd Amawi caliphate "Yazid Bin Mu'awiya" which is obviously used as a subtle refrence to Sunnis. It's not uncommon for some She'at clergy to refer to Sunnis as Amawis (The Amawi dynasty that ruled the Muslim world for about 100 years after Imam Ali was killed) although that family was slaughtered to the last including children by their successors and conquerors the Abbasi caliphates who 1st allied with the She'at and then turned against them. I haven't heard She'at clerics use "Yazidis" before but Yazid has always been the most hated and scorned Amawi caliphate by the She'at since he was the one who sent the army that killed Imam Hussein and many of his family members. There were still signs that clarified that Yazidis can be Sunnis and She'at meaning they're the criminals in any sect but again I see those as attempts to cover the sectarian nature of this demo. Both Sunnis and She'at speak about themselves as Muslims in public but that doesn't mean at all that they see Islam as one. It just means that they believe that their sect represent the true Islam while the others are just heretics.Some demonstrators did not forget to direct their anger towards their 'real enemy' holding signs that say "I'm in the camp of Hussein, not the camp of the Americans and the Zionists". Other signs were saying, "We're She'at forever and we will not give up on our belief"Again there's nothing wrong with She'at condemning attacks against their holy shrines but we have to be realistic and call thing by their names. This is not a demonstration against terrorism but a demonstration against those who target She'a and their religious symbols and a way for the She'at to vent their repressed hatred towards Sunnis.Westerns are very eager to see any sign of wide and strong rejection to terrorism by Muslims that sometimes they give things more than their actual weight or meaning. I understand that and like it but I don't see those hopes coming true soon.Why would Muslims condemn terrorism? They see themselves as victims of the west and so attacks on the west would actually give them some sense of justice! Sorry to say that but it's the truth about how many Muslims see such attacks while more are just not concerned at all and only a tiny minority do sympathize with western victims.Of course I don't see Muslims as victims of anyone but their own laziness and cowardice but to be fair complex international conflicts did lead at times to the west supporting Muslim dictators whom by their policies diminished any small chance the Muslim world had in reforming itself."But most of the victims of such terrorist attacks are Muslims, don't Muslims care about their own people at least?"one may argue. Doesn't make a big difference, as Muslims in most of the world live such a sh**y life and see death and torture everyday that they stopped caring about anyone except those close to them like family members or friendsSo, even She'at who have much more reasons to demonstrate against terrorism since it basically has a Sunni origin and targets She'at in many occasions, they don't react that much except when their religious symbols are desecrated. The reaction to bombing an empty building was a thousand times bigger than to attacks that killed hundreds of innocent She'at. Muslims in general don't care that much about human life and they don't value it as westerns do because they never had a life worth that much, and deaths for the most stupid and unfair reasons are very common to them, so why do you want Muslims to care about a few people killed in the US or Europe! There must have been a time during the life of each Muslim when they really cared but I doubt that they even remember that!It shows faith on the part of westerns that they expect Muslims to revolt against fanatics but they miss that they're judging people who live a very different and much difficult life by the same standards they judge their own society. Muslims will only care about life when they get to have one.

Reviewing the enemies of the change.

When I said in a previous post that the American military in Iraq and some people in the White House still see Sunnis as the enemy I never meant that they're taking sides, and truly I see that it's ridiculous to think this way.

What I meant was that they haven't been paying enough attention to the changing dynamics in Iraq since the 9th of April 2003 and still see things generally in the same scope. When the Americans entered Iraq most She'at and Kurds were overjoyed while most Sunnis were in shock. They didn't believe that it was possible and some of them didn't want to believe it was. They also feared a possible reappraisal from the She'at majority. Saddam and his propaganda machine did a good job in making Sunnis terrified of the prospect of She'at mobs marching to Sunni areas to kill and burn and rape, and it worked despite that none of that happened in the 1991 uprising when the She'at targeted no Sunni just for being Sunni. They only targeted Ba'athists and officials regardless of their sect.

Sunnis boycotted the political process and the fact that Ba'athists remained strongest than the Americans in Sunni areas made most Sunnis believe that this is not the end of it and that Saddam or the Ba'ath without him will make a comeback sooner or later. I say stronger because they were still able to kill and torture while the Americans 'couldn't' do that and couldn't even prevent Ba'athists from doing it and that translates as Ba'athists being stronger to most Iraqis.

But the political process went on and the Sunnis lost a lot by not joining it and at some point even the active ex-Ba'athists had to see that they would gain nothing from such a boycott and that a participation would be more rewarding especially that these people have no moral code or principle that keeps them fighting regardless of the outcome unlike hardcore Islamists who are by the way mostly non Iraqis.

The enemy no 1 of the change was the Sunnis while She'at and Kurds were mostly supporters of it. With time and as Sunnis decided to take part in politics this has changed. The truth is that there are many enemies to the change now in Iraq and many of them have strong influence inside or outside the government. Religious She'at are enemies of a liberal democracy in Iraq. Hardcore Ba'thists and even ex-Ba'athists are enemies of it too. Even extremist Kurd nationalists are strong enemies too, as their plans do not include a democratic Iraq but at best a democratic Kurdistan. Most of those however found it impossible to declare their frank opposition to the change and act upon it except for the Sadirists and some remnants of the Ba'athists and Al-Qaeda and its likes.

So which opposition deserves our full attention and which can be dealt with at a later stage? Is it the most determinant or the most capable?

Most Sunnis (Al-Qaeda and Ba'athists included here) tried to stop the political process but failed. Zarqawi couldn't stop the transformation of authority to Iraqis. He couldn't drive Americans out. He couldn't stop the formation of a transitional government, two elections and the writing of the constitution despite his desperate attempts. In the end Sunnis split as most of them saw that fighting isn't the answer.

Before the latest events that signaled what can be seen as a civil war by some, many Iraqis thought that on the event of Americans pulling out the Ba'athists would rule again using their most powerful weapon; terror and their still functioning base and semi-military structure. I thought that was possible too. What we saw though is that She'at militias were able to go inside almost strictly Sunni areas and burn mosques or occupy them and threaten and kill many Sunnis while no Sunni or Ba'athists were able to get anywhere near places like Sadr city for example and the only way the Sunni extemists fought back with was car bombs. Not a very efficient way to take over a country. Morevover, those suicide bombers are not part of any influential Sunni political power while She'at militias are and the fact that most Sunnis voted in the last election proves that.

When I asked an American friend here the question why American military still see Sunnis as enemy number 1 he answered, "Because they're the ones who are killing our soldiers" and that's a painful truth, that American soldiers are being killed and by Sunni radicals. Ba'athists and Al-Qaeda supposedly supported by many Sunnis can kill American soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, She'at civilians and can harm the infra structure. All that is terrible but did it stop the political change? It didn't just fail to stop Kurds and She'at but in fact it led Sunnis to join them.

The worst effect that radical Sunni groups can achieve is dependant on the response of the Iraqi government and namely the religious She'at groups. Had they confronted this terrorism as Iraqis and not as She'at, built a capable national army and police, none of what's happening now would've happened. Instead they used the support and money from the US to strengthen their own militias and basically turned the police and army into a sectarian force and more an oppressive one that targets Sunnis 1st but spread its oppression to involve all citizens including poor religious She'at who have no partisan support. They turned this into a sectarian confrontation while they could have made it a confrontation between Iraqis and terrorists but that would not have served their agenda. This is the major obstacle now. We have failed to build and Iraqi army and police and we failed to build an Iraqi government.

Thankfully the American embassy is paying attention and has been sending clear messages to the UIA that this is unacceptable and has been putting pressure on it to give up its sectarian policies.

Enemy no 1 of the change now is tens of thousands of organized militia under the control of fanatics like Sadr and Al-Hakeem and who have legitimate cover provided by Sistani and almost unlimited support (and influence) from Iran with funds coming from the revenue of the holy sites, Iran and sadly the US itself. This is the capable enemy even though it may look less determinant but that's only on the outer surface.

The Americans were not supporting She'at religious parties and are not fighting Sunnis, not at all. They're supporting the Iraqi government and fighting the insurgency, praising and glorifying those in power and discouraging opposition, as they saw it as opposition to the change and in some case it was but not all the time. The confrontation changed from one between supporters of democracy and opposing parties in the start as we all saw it into one between radical She'at on one side and Sunnis together with some secular She'at and Kurds now on the other side. Some Americans couldn't see this change and kept supporting the 'government' and discouraging the opposition.
The Iraqi army is great and the police is wonderful and the constitution is a great step towards democracy and the government represent all Iraqis and all Iraqis should support it. That's all they have been saying and all they wanted to hear.

Lack of patience maybe a factor and the fact that the enemy of the US is Sunni in most parts of the world maybe another factor. The battle in Iraq is more complicated than that however since She'at are much stronger here.
This project aims, as I see it, to spread democracy in the Arab/Muslim world. Most Muslims are by far Sunnis and therefore for such a project to gain acceptance among the majority of Muslims it has to not just help Iraq become a stable prosperous democracy but during the journey it should prevent any sort of obvious sectarian oppression and domination by She'at, as Sunni Muslims all over the world would become resentful and fearful of it.

This is a very difficult project, more difficult than we who believe in it ever thought but it still can work and it needs patience and sacrifices from all. I keep hearing it from American friends, here in Iraq and through this blog, that Americans want the Iraqi army to get on its feet as soon as possible and then leave. I'm sorry to say that I think it's better you leave now if that's what you think, as staying for a while and doing this in a rush won't make any difference for Iraqis and would only cause more unnecessary sacrifices among Americans. This project requires full commitment and nothing less.

What Iraqis have to do is another story of course. We have to have faith in each other and I'm one of those who believe that the natural course of events, with the needed commitments from Iraqis and Americans will definitely lead to what we all hope; a stable prosperous democratic Iraq that can be one of America's best friends in the region and that can convince most Muslims to reject fanaticism and endorse democracy. Let's decide if it's worth it and if it can happen.