The history of the violence in Iraq goes back many decades. It includes all ethnicities. Saddam Hussein in order to maintain control would even carry out killings of his own allies in towns such as Fallujah if he felt is was prudent to maintaining the oppression of the people and hence control of his authority. Fear was the primary venue of control in Iraq and in parallel today, Bush's "Culture of Fear" is nurtured as a means of control of the people of the USA. Even today when the GOP is facing a tough election season, the RNC reaches into their bag of tricks using 'fear' as an underlying theme in commercials to influence voters.
But in regard to Saddam Hussein and the al Sadr family, there is a history of annihilation of those men of religious authority whom stood unlike the Grand Ayatollah al Sistani in defiance of Hussein. As a result 'the al Sadr family' was all but destroyed.
The Shi'ite Cleric Moktada al-Sadr's father, the Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr, was the most powerful Shiite cleric in Iraq in the late 1990s. His uncle, Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Sadr, was a leading Shiite activist who was executed by Saddam Hussein’s forces in 1980. Muqtada al-Sadr went underground in February 1999 after a spray of gunfire—from Saddam’s agents, according to most accounts—killed his father and two brothers. He inherited a network of schools and charities built by his father, along with the allegiance of many of the elder Sadr’s followers.
The Mahdi Army is no joke (click on) and in realizing that is taking on the central authority of Iraq as established under a constitution that is now in debate and under amendment. It is my view that the country of Iraq will someday dissolve into three autonomous nations of ethnic origins. This as a result of the inability of those ethnicities to find 'trust' among each other in maintaining a central/federal government. There is currently a movement within the central government to provide provincial authority that would find a way to divide the assets of that country among those provinces and dilute the threat of any one authority over that of any ethnicity resulting in a return to Saddam Hussein in just another form.
The Mahdi Army has sustained itself through three years of some of the most intense violence Iraq has ever seen. I doubt there has been this degree of violence in that country on a continuous basis in it's history. There have been wars, such as the Iran-Iraq War, but none sustained to the death toll of this war. If you add up all the atrocities of Saddam Hussein which are substantial including mass graves and death by deprivation, they would not total 600,000 people. The violence in Iraq has to stop. The USA has to realize it's potency of sustained attack on these people which results in a 'backlash' of fear of continued violence and annihilation from their experience. This sustained death toll at the hands of occupiers results in all kinds of issues, the least of which is boasted by Bush to be "The Central Front on Terror." If Iraq is a 'central front on terror' it is because the Bush military propagates it. There are no outside forces seeking control of Iraq or initiating attacks from inside Iraq on the USA Coalition. Quite the contrary. Iran is a Shi'ite nation. The region that Iraq is a part is the only place in the world where Shi'ites have large numbers over Sunnis. The Shi'ites are the fundamentalists. They live in this region of the world for a reason. They are among the holiest of lands of Islam and to that end stand diligently in protection of them.
The concept of "The Central War on Terror" serves only one purpose. That purpose is to keep political dogma in the USA viable, to sustain the lies that brought Cheney's war cronies profits along with relief of his liability to Halliburton stockholders. Bush on the other hand wanted to vindicate his father's so-called 'incomplete' war with Saddam in rescuing Kuwait from an Iraq invasion. There is no other reason for the continued occupation of Iraq. The Iraqi forces even under Saddam and during The Persian Gulf War of Colin Powell were incompetent at best. There was little reason for strong and invincible militaries in this region before the USA decided it was profitable to conduct wars of retribution and fantasy.
The strength of the Madhi Army is obvious. The strength of the people that support it is more obvious. The events of Amara is the second notable 'show of force' by these people under the guidance of their Holy Men. The first was when the the USA tried to assault the Imam Ali Mosque in 2004 and the people under the direction of the Grand Ayatollah al Sistani marched without arms or military from Kufah to Najaf. It stopped the USA military dead in it's tracks. A USA military that already had tanks in the narrow streets of Najaf headed for the mosque where the Shi'ite Cleric al Sadr was being protected by members of the Madhi Army and people of the community already inside the grounds of the mosque. It was a show of force then that caught the eye of the USA media and Amara is the second time.
The obvious venue for peace in Iraq is to stop the hideous pursuit of confrontation by the USA Coalition with the militias of Iraq. The United States admittedly had no post-invasion strategy for Iraq. Iraq was considered by minimally Rumsfeld, to have the largest accumulation of munitions in the Middle East. Although accused of seeking weapons of mass destruction which was indeed an issue with some of the genocide under Hussein, none were discovered with this invasion and over the years the United Nations Inspectors were able to secure all the stockpiled weapons into bunkers with UN Seals. Those seals were respected by Hussein and his military as a part of the Oil for Food Program.
One of the most huge post war debacles was due to the lack of insight to securing those bunkers. Somehow, Rumsfeld believed they would remain untouched with nothing more than UN Seals on them despite the reality that the UN Sanctions through the presence of UN Inspectors no longer meant anything with invasion and occupation. Those bunkers were raided including 300 tonnes of high grade explosives. Those munitions of which many were supplied by the USA to the Hussein government are distributed throughout minimally Iraq bolstering the sustainability of the rebellion that followed the USA Coalition invasion. This war can literally go on forever. Due to that fact the Bush administration has engaged in speeches about Iraq that are grossly inappropriate and meant to sustain the war for the sake of USA military crony contracts. While admittedly there is an al Qaeda presence in Iraq by the death of al Zarqawi, that is the case in all nations of the Middle East and most nations of Muslim majority. To say it is essential to remain in Iraq as a surrogate location of fighting al Qaeda is a travesty and sets up the American Forces as 'targets' to the designs of training elements of al Qaeda, 'Cause Celebre' (click on) if your will. In an interview with General Grange on Saturday morning on CNN these were his words which mirror the concept of "Iraq is the Central War on Terror."
NGUYEN: Yes, maintaining the security is key. And, you know, while we don't know exactly what is being discussed detail by detail in this meeting with the president and his top generals, you have access to a lot of people in the know. You served a lot of time in the military, and you stay in contact with many people still serving.
So what are they saying? What are the ideas being bounced around about a solution to the situation in Iraq?
GRANGE: Sure. One -- one item that not many people want to hear anymore, especially some of the people in Congress, is that, well, you have to give them a little bit more time. Well, we do have to give the elected government some time, and then we just monitor their resolve, their willingness to solve this. And in fact, if that starts to diminish, now that they are a sovereign nation again, we have to kind of take their lead. And that may be a decision that we leave.
The other is, we have to keep the influence out of Iran, in particular, but also Syria from interfering, which they are doing considerably right now, especially with the Shia militias. We have to continue to take down terrorists that are in the country.
And a comment made early that it's a magnet for terrorists, well, that's not really a bad thing because they are all in one place right now. Not all, but a good majority of them. That -- tactically, that's not a bad -- bad thing.
The other is we support the security forces of Iraq where and when needed. And then we have to keep presence in the region, because the region is a powder keg. It's going to be -- would have been that way if we were in Iraq or not. And so we have to keep presence to either destroy, disrupt or deny those that want to do things to other nation states that the world, international community, does not desire to happen, or us, because of the strategic importance of this part of the world.
NGUYEN: Yes. A lot of ideas there, General. We'll see how it plays out.
We appreciate your time, though, this morning.
GRANGE: My pleasure.
That concept along with the rhetorical stand by Bush to "Stay the Course" is a guarantee for exploitive military occupation that serves only one purpose and that is the profits affiliated with military companies which support Bush's agenda. Many retired generals that act as consultants to news agencies also are advisors/members to Boards of Directors to these same companies.
The cost for such exploitation is the deaths of our troops and loss of confidence by them in their chosen career path. To undermine the integrity of military engagement as the Bush/Cheney administration has done is to undermine the National Security of the USA while causing unjustifable hardship on a country such as Iraq.
To cover his tracks with pending elections, Mr. Bush has decided to deny his rhetoric in hopes of reshaping the criticism of "Stay the Course in Iraq."
In the portion of his interview with President Bush broadcast on the October 22 edition of ABC's This Week, host George Stephanopoulos let go without challenge several statements from Bush that contradict previous statements and actions. First, as the weblog Think Progress noted, Bush asserted that his administration has "never been stay the course" in Iraq, a statement to which Stephanopoulos could have responded -- but didn't -- by noting that Bush and other senior administration officials have repeatedly described the U.S. policy in Iraq as "stay the course." Bush began articulating his strategy for Iraq as "stay the course" shortly after the war began in March 2003 and has persisted until very recently, as Think Progress noted, and Media Matters for America has also documented (here and here).
http://mediamatters.org/items/200610220001
At a July 10, 2003, press conference in Botswana, Bush said:
BUSH: We haven't been there long. I mean, relatively speaking. We've been there for 90 to 100 days -- I don't have the exact number. But I will tell you, it's going to take more than 90 to 100 days for people to recognize the great joys of freedom and the responsibilities that come with freedom. We're making steady progress. A free Iraq will mean a peaceful world. And it's very important for us to stay the course, and we will stay the course.
"Stay the course" in Iraq was the oft-repeated mantra of Bush's 2004 re-election campaign. At an April 5, 2004, press conference, Bush said: "And we've got to stay the course, and we will stay the course. The message to the Iraqi citizens is, they don't have to fear that America will turn and run. And that's an important message for them to hear. If they think that we're not sincere about staying the course, many people will not continue to take a risk toward -- take the risk toward freedom and democracy." In an April 13, 2004, nationally televised address, he said: "It's hard to advance freedom in a country that has been strangled by tyranny. And, yet, we must stay the course, because the end result is in our nation's interest."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200609260012
Media claim Bush administration has disavowed "stay the course" rhetoric, but White House is still using it
Summary: Several media figures have recently claimed, or let Republicans claim, that the White House "rejects" the policy that the United States should "stay the course" in Iraq, even though President Bush and White House spokesman Tony Snow have continued to use that term to describe the administration's Iraq policy.
In recent days, several media figures have claimed, or let Republicans claim, that the White House "rejects" the policy that the United States should "stay the course" in Iraq, even though President Bush and White House press secretary Tony Snow have continued to use that term to describe the Bush administration's Iraq policy.
For example, in an August 31 Washington Post article, staff writers Peter Baker and Jim VandeHei reported that "[m]any Democrats accuse the president of advocating 'stay the course' in Iraq, but the White House rejects the phrase and regularly emphasizes that it is adapting tactics to changing circumstances." Similarly, on the August 30 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, guest host and MSNBC chief Washington correspondent Norah O'Donnell left unchallenged the claim by Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman that "I don't think our approach is stay the course. ... Our approach is to adapt and win." During a roundtable discussion on the August 27 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, responding to Al Hunt, Bloomberg News' Washington bureau chief, who stated that the conservative National Review had described Bush's "stay the course" policy as "absolutely not credible," National Review Washington editor Kate O'Beirne claimed that the Bush administration is "changing" its rhetoric to "adapt for victory."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200608310012
George Walker Bush is a perpetual liar with only one interest in mind and that is the political control of the powers of the USA. He cares nothing about the will of the American people or the Iraqi people either.
Today, the debate over Iraq and the change in strategy revolves around one city, Baghdad and the strategy for "The Battle for Baghdad." This is the only city in Iraq where the USA has control over territory, however, that control is somewhat tenuous (click on). On two separate occasions Baghdad has been placed under 'curfew' to regain control. There have been attacks into The Green Zone and to that end, it would be wise for the USA to realize attempting any widespread control effort by increasing troop strength is mostly futile and will only cause a temporary escalation in even more deaths, both civilian and military. The USA military needs to find an exit solution and not turn back from it. Iraq has it's security in the persistent militias. The resolve of the sovereignty of Iraq will find it's way to sustain or dissolve, but, that would happen anyway, with USA military occupation the timeline will be longer and the 'playground' for al Qaeda extended preparing more terrorists and not less.
