Najaf faces final assault

[The Feral Underclass]

This is the latest news from The Guardian, it seems this man is really holding out against US imperialism and the new puppet regime in Iraq. Do people think we should support this man?

===============================================

Defiant radical Shia cleric told to disarm and quit mosque

Luke Harding and Michael Howard in Baghdad and Ghaith Abdul-Ahad in Najaf
Friday August 20, 2004
The Guardian

Iraq's prime minister, Ayad Allawi, last night issued a "final call" for the Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr to disarm his fighters and leave Najaf's mosque - or face the prospect of a devastating final assault.
Using blunt language, Mr Allawi said the radical Shia cleric had to accept the government's demands personally and in writing to end the fighting in Najaf.

"This is the final call for them to disarm, vacate the holy shrine, engage in political work and consider the interests of the homeland," he said, without specifying however how long Mr Sadr had to comply.

Last night a US aerial and ground onslaught pounded positions held by Mr Sadr's fighters close to the revered Imam Ali shrine in Najaf, lighting up the night sky behind the gold-domed mosque, but it was unclear if it was the prelude to the threatened assault.

US armoured personnel carriers could be seen inside the perimeters of the old city a few hundred metres from the shrine. The streets leading to the shrine were packed with Mahdi fighters armed with rocket-propelled grenades, and AK 47 and sniper rifles.

Iraq's defence minister, Hazem Shalan, said yesterday's military action in Najaf was merely a "clean up operation" on the fringe of the old city. Earlier, he had suggested the final offensive was just hours away.

Speaking in Baghdad, Mr Allawi made it clear he had not given the order for Iraqi government forces, assisted by huge US firepower, to storm the shrine - a move that will inevitably provoke outrage not only in Shia-dominated Iraq but across the Arab world.

"I have not issued orders to attack the mosque. If anything happens to the shrine it will be the fault of the militia," he said.

The standoff has plunged Iraq's interim government into its worst crisis so far.

Yesterday Mr Sadr reverted to his trademark defiance, a day after he apparently agreed to a demand from Iraq's national conference to give up fighting and enter mainstream politics. On Tuesday he had refused to meet a delegation from the conference that travelled to the shrine to meet him.

Asked about the government's latest demands, Sheikh Ahmed al-Sheibani, a senior Sadr aide and Mahdi army commander, told reporters in Najaf: "It is very clear that we reject them."

Away from the shrine, Mr Sadr's Mahdi militia also showed few signs of giving up. At least seven police were killed and 21 injured yesterday after three mortar bombs landed on a Najaf police station.

"Look at me, I am an old man," said Ahmad al-Kaabi a 62-year-old farmer from Nassiriya, armed with a sniper rifle "but I am willing to die for the sake of the Imam [Ali]."

Defiance was also apparent in Basra, as Sadr supporters fought their way into an oil installation and ignited buildings and warehouses. Militants had threatened such a spectacular to protest at the Najaf clashes.

Inside the shrine thousands of unarmed Moqtada supporters chanted for him and denounced Mr Allawi.

While there seems little doubt that Iraq's government has run out of patience with the cleric, who began his latest uprising just over two weeks ago, Mr Allawi did not rule out further negotiations.

He said the delegation snubbed by Mr Sadr on Tuesday was prepared to go back to Najaf provided the cleric "publicly and personally" agreed to their conditions.

"We have left the door open ... we are prepared to explore all possible avenues that lead to a peaceful resolution."

The cleric had to comply with the three-point resolution of the national conference, which called on him to quit the shrine in return for an amnesty. But Mr Allawi made it clear there was no place in Iraq for private militia, and bemoaned the presence of hundreds of "human shields" at the shrine.

"Human shields are the tactics of Saddam Hussein," he pointed out.

The crisis has severely dented the credibility of Iraq's interim government, not least because before yesterday it had already delivered Mr Sadr several other "final" warnings that had passed without result.

Yesterday Iraq's minister of state, Kasim Daoud, grimly predicted the cleric was facing his "final hours". He demanded he appear on TV and tell his militia to disband - a gesture that would amount to Mr Sadr's political suicide.

Elsewhere, US troops stepped up the pressure on the Mahdi army by staging their deepest raid yet into Sadr City, Baghdad's vast Shia slum and Sadr stronghold. At least 50 Mahdi army fighters were killed during the 24-hour operation, US officials claimed. American tanks later withdrew to the edge of the suburb.

Since the crisis in Najaf erupted Mr Sadr has managed to outwit his enemies with an extraordinary display of brinkmanship. But with food, ammunition and water all running out, according to delegates who visited the shrine on Tuesday, it seems unlikely he can hang on much longer.

The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1287093,00.html)

[Guest1]

Fuck no.

Support the resistance, but please do us radical Arabs a favour and do not compromise with clerical Fascists!

A choice between two evils is no choice at all! It is a dishonour to the Arab labour movement to hold this man or any of his fanatic allies with any reverance. It is people such as him who murdered so many progressives in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. There is no excuse for the left to turn a blind eye to what this man and those like him really are, reactionary psychopaths. We are not opportunists who will stand with the enemy of our enemy, though we know they would kill us, given the chance.

Let the US run their policies that way, we shouldn't follow.

Support of people like Sadr is a tacit implication that there is no alternative in Iraq. The labour movement has grown very strong over the past year and is building an alternative to Theocrats. The Communist Party, or at least the breakaway that refused to join the coalition and is actively engaged in the resistance, have also built a strong base and run popular newspapers all over Iraq.

To side with Sadr is to give the Iraqi left the cold shoulder and doom them to another generation of tyranny in the Middle East. The time has come for the left to stop being afraid of "imposing our culture" and realize that there are people on the ground, of these cultures, calling for us to stand in solidarity with them. They ask for help to change culture and change these institutions, though they don't ask us to do it with bombs and tanks.

So radicals, stop feeling guilty! Take a stance! Do what you know is right, and don't be afraid of it! Be loud! Because your silence is hurting the movement.

[Morpheus]

Those of us in imperialist nations should oppose imperialism in Iraq and elsewhere unconditionally. However, Che y Marijuana is right in that there are huge flaws in Al-Sadr's politics and we shouldn't support him. However, for those of us in imperialist nations this is largely academic, it's not like wer'e in a position to join the Mahdi army or anything. The only real question is whether wer'e against the occupation (obviously we are); whether we side with any particular faction of the insurgents is really only relevant for propaganda purposes. Of course, this would be different if we lived in Iraq.

[PRC-UTE]

Good post, Morpheus.

You're right that it's a complicated situation and ideally we'd like to see a more principled anti-imperialist movement in Iraq but I think the occupation pushes people to the muslim camp.

That's one of the reasons (shameless self-promotion :rolleyes: ) the IRSP and INLA were formed, to give the national liberation struggle in Ireland a working class charactar.

[Subversive Pessimist]

We should support their attacks on coalition soldiers, but to me it stops there.

We shouldn't admire or support the policies of a religious leaders, other then killing coalition soldiers.

[Guest1]

I agree with what you're saying morpheus, and respect your opinion. Now don't take this as an attack. But if we can take a more principled position on Chavez, why can't we do the same with these clerical facists?

It's important to be consistent.

[duk]

i support anyone who fights us troops. the enemy of ur enemy is ur friend! :D

[Guerrilla22]

al-Sadr is not in opposition to the US because he wants to end the occupation of Iraq, he wants them out because he wants to gain control of Iraq and the US is poised not to let that happen. Al-Sadr's whole motivation is to grab power, why do you think he went around knocking off other clerics?

I agree with CyM, al-Sadr is not someone we should support, he's a fundamentalist and is bent on bringing Iraq to become a theocracy.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 04:21 PM
i support anyone who fights us troops. the enemy of ur enemy is ur friend! :D
That's the thinking that lead the US to create Bin Laden and Saddam, let us not follow the same logic.

[Guerrilla22]

It looks like al-Sadr is not going to back down afterall, and was only negociating with the US in order to buy more time to figure out some kind of strategy and to smuggle arms into Najaf. I wonder how long he will be able to hold out in that mosque untill the US looses patience with him and goes in after his ass.

[YKTMX]

People forget that the militia is made up of mostly poor, working class Iraqi men disgusted by both the coalition and their countries' leaders involvement with it. Of course Sadr isn't a totally savoury character but we should still support his militia's anti-imperialist struggle - absolutely, without pause.

[Leninist thug]

You guys are right. I fear Al Sadr and his brand of clerical thuggery. If he prevails he could be very dangerous. But the U.S. has provided no viable alternative to Al Sadr other than their puppet. The prime minister Allawi is a former Baath party hardliner and a Stalinist thug and a CIA darling.

Fucking bullshit *****es these fundamentalists assholes.

[h&s]

People forget that the militia is made up of mostly poor, working class Iraqi men disgusted by both the coalition and their countries' leaders involvement with it.
Yes, these people have also been brainwashed into believing that al-Sadr will be a good leader. Sure, we should always support the working class, but supporting al-Sadr is not supporting the working class - it is supporting the power ambitions of one man. If he succeeds, he will just oppress the people into doing what he wants. He has just latched on to a popular cause, and is exploiting it.

[YKTMX]

Yes, these people have also been brainwashed into believing that al-Sadr will be a good leader

That's not the point. We must unequivocally support them in their struggle whatever our opinions of what they've been "brainwashed" into believing.


Sure, we should always support the working class, but supporting al-Sadr is not supporting the working class

Supporting the militia does not mean "support" for Sadr. We support the militia in their fight against all foreign oppressors, it's not that complicated.


He has just latched on to a popular cause, and is exploiting it.

So what? There is no such thing as a "nice" national liberation movement.

The choice for people when it comes to Iraq is simple, the Iraqi's or the Americans - anti-Medhi is anti-national liberation.

[h&s]

Supporting the mehdi army is supporting national enslavement. Just because Iraq is ruled by a foriegn occupier that abuses the people doesn't mean that we should support a local abuser.
We should support the people in the mehdi army, but not their cause. Freedom from US rule does not mean freedom.

The choice for people when it comes to Iraq is simple, the Iraqi's or the Americans
Yes - Americans beating the prisoners, or Iraqis beating the prisoners - take your pick.

[YKTMX]

Supporting the mehdi army is supporting national enslavement. Just because Iraq is ruled by a foriegn occupier that abuses the people doesn't mean that we should support a local abuser.
We should support the people in the mehdi army, but not their cause. Freedom from US rule does not mean freedom.



OK, you're quite entrenched in your opinion. Tell me, did you support the Vietcong?


Yes - Americans beating the prisoners, or Iraqis beating the prisoners - take your pick

The Iraqi's for self-determination and against any and all foreign occupiers. That's what I support.

[h&s]

OK, you're quite entrenched in your opinion. Tell me, did you support the Vietcong? Sorry, I don't know enough to comment on that

The Iraqi's for self-determination and against any and all foreign occupiers. That's what I support.
I support that too, but when the result will be worse than the current situation i can not support them. Now if al-Sadr was to be killed by the marines, leaving no one in overall control of the people's politics I would support them whole-heartedly. I support the people - if they follow one man's orders to the letter they stop being the people and become just a tool for that man, and i don't support that man.

[YKTMX]

I support that too, but when the result will be worse than the current situation i can not support them

How could it possibly be worse? Bombings, torture, no democracy, unemployment, terrorism, humiliation, privatisation, hunger etc etc. At least if they get the Americans out they will have a chance to make their own mistakes.


I support the people - if they follow one man's orders to the letter they stop being the people and become just a tool for that man, and i don't support that man.

You're looking at this upside down. Of course Sadr is not the most progressive but the people fighting simply want the American's out. If you don't support that you can't call yourself an anti-imperialist. There's no other way to spin it I'm afraid.

[h&s]

How could it possibly be worse? Bombings, torture, no democracy, unemployment, terrorism, humiliation, privatisation, hunger etc etc.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - that will be exactly the same under al-Sadr (except maybe for the privatisation)
Do you really think that democracy will be permitted under a theocracy? How will it be different from Iran?

You're looking at this upside down. Of course Sadr is not the most progressive but the people fighting simply want the American's out.
Don't get me wrong - I support the anti US side of it, but when you look at pictures of the Mehdi army they have pictures of al-Sadr held in the air and stuck to thier RPG's - they have been fooled into becoming his tool for him to use and exploit.

If you don't support that you can't call yourself an anti-imperialist. There's no other way to spin it I'm afraid.
Really? Do you not consider al-Sadr using an army to gain control of Iraq for his own personal benefit imperialism?

[YKTMX]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - that will be exactly the same under al-Sadr (except maybe for the privatisation)

Yes, maybe, but the point is that's for the Iraqi's to decide. That's what self-determination means. By the looks of it they will have no chance under the Americans.


Don't get me wrong - I support the anti US side of it, but when you look at pictures of the Mehdi army they have pictures of al-Sadr held in the air and stuck to thier RPG's - they have been fooled into becoming his tool for him to use and exploit

So what? They've found a man to stand up the the foreign invaders. You can't abdicate your anti-imperialist when the "anti" isn't "nice".



Really? Do you not consider al-Sadr using an army to gain control of Iraq for his own personal benefit imperialism

Well, firstly that's never going to happen. I support his militia in defending an illegally occupied territory from foreign invaders looking to pillage their country. We can "deal" with Sadr when the American's have been kicked out.

[PRC-UTE]

How could it possibly be worse? Bombings, torture, no democracy, unemployment, terrorism, humiliation, privatisation, hunger etc etc.


I've said it before, and I'll say it again - that will be exactly the same under al-Sadr (except maybe for the privatisation)
Do you really think that democracy will be permitted under a theocracy? How will it be different from Iran?



You can't equate the two, no way.

I despise the muslim theocrats, but the fact is they don't invade everywhere else and suck them dry. We killed one hundred thousand Iraqi children - do you seriously suggest al-sadr will do that?

We can build a princpled left after the occupation force is gone. After all, they're still shutting down union halls and are the biggest enemy of any emerging left or worker movement.


Really? Do you not consider al-Sadr using an army to gain control of Iraq for his own personal benefit imperialism?

No. Besides, he only has power now because the average Iraqi hates the occupation. Remove the occupation and his power will wane at the very least.

[Kez]

are there any mass workers movements in Iraq other than these reactionary scum bags?

Is al Sadr:

Progressive? No
Gonna allow socialists to agitate: No


i agree national bourgeoise should be supported to overthrow imperialists, but im not convinced national bourgeoise covers this reactionary pillock.

Im still to make my mind up

[PRC-UTE]

You guys are right. I fear Al Sadr and his brand of clerical thuggery.

so says the Leninist Thug!

not that it matters just thought it was funny.

[Guest1]

Once again you all ignore that the resistance is made up of more than Sadr and the Mehdi army.

It is you who force us into choosing between Sadr and the US, because you give no thought to the many alternatives.

Again, support the resistance, but take a principled stance. Don't think for one minute Sadr will be better for the people.

[Guerrilla22]

That's not the point. We must unequivocally support them in their struggle whatever our opinions of what they've been "brainwashed" into believing

Ok, so does that mean we should be supporting al-Qaeda and Bin Lasen now? They aren't accomplishing anything by sitting around Najaf and gaurding al-Sadr's ass. If they really want to accomplish something they should take to the underground and launch a guerrilla war against the US, as other Iraqis have done.

[h&s]

Once again you all ignore that the resistance is made up of more than Sadr and the Mehdi army.

It is you who force us into choosing between Sadr and the US, because you give no thought to the many alternatives.
This is just what I think. Al-Sadr is just a small part of a much bigger picture. He controls just one city - there are resistance fighters all over the country completely independant of him. Although I must say I want Najaf to stay in his hands (just because it makes the coalition look bad), he is not the resistance I support.
We should look at the other people fighting the occupation, and not just class them all in the same boat.

We can "deal" with Sadr when the American's have been kicked ou
And just tell me; how the fuck can "we" do that?!? :blink:

[refuse_resist]

A religious fundamentalist like al-Sadr shouldn't be supported. However I do agree with many of you that it's good to support the working class Iraqi's who are involved in the resistance against U.S. imperialism.

The thing is, if they do attack his army while they're in that mosque, it'll piss off so many other people across the middle east and will more than likely escalate the conflict. If Iran gets involved, they would more than likely try and turn the country into a religious theocracy. Even if they were to get involved, it wouldn't be good to support them.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 05:17 PM
i agree national bourgeoise should be supported to overthrow imperialists, but im not convinced national bourgeoise covers this reactionary pillock.
Why not? It's covered worse people. Chiang Kai-Shek for example.

But I don't think the national bourgeoisie should be supported....don't get me wrong, I wish the Sadrists every success in embarassing and bloodying our main enemy, especially as so many of their ranks are working people from the "Sadr City" slum...and I don't consider it totally impossible for communists in that country to work out some kinds of common action with such groups as during the Iranian Revolution, that's a tactical question.

But if you're going to actually send aid to anyone, it should be the workers' movement or at least groups that have some progressive class content to their nationalism...partly academic yes, as the main demand is bring the troops home now regardless, but not 100% academic, US Labor Against the War have a website where you can send money to the Iraq unions for example.

Incidentally, this kind of distinction ain't new to the communist movement. From the 2nd congress of the Comintern, where communists first declared support to anti-imperialist movements as a general principle:


There has been a certain rapprochement between the bourgeoisie of the exploiting countries and that of the colonies, so that very often -- perhaps even in most cases -- the bourgeoisie of the oppressed countries, while it does support the national movement, is in full accord with the imperialist bourgeoisie, i.e., joins forces with it against all revolutionary movements and revolutionary classes. This was irrefutably proved in the commission, and we decided that the only correct attitude was to take this distinction into account and, in nearly all cases, substitute the term "national-revolutionary" for the term "bourgeois-democratic". The significance of this change is that we, as Communists, should and will support bourgeois-liberation movements in the colonies only when they are genuinely revolutionary, and when their exponents do not hinder our work of educating and organising in a revolutionary spirit the peasantry and the masses of the exploited. If these conditions do not exist, the Communists in these countries must combat the reformist bourgeoisie, to whom the heroes of the Second International also belong.

link (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/2nd-congress/ch04.htm)

[PRC-UTE]

That's not the point. We must unequivocally support them in their struggle whatever our opinions of what they've been "brainwashed" into believing



Ok, so does that mean we should be supporting al-Qaeda and Bin Lasen now?

al-qaeda isn't a locally based resistance movement, they're an international terrorist group with connections to some very unsavory regimes, formerly cronies of the CIA. If they were fighting for liberation of a specific territory that would be different but I think their strategy is to bring conflict to a head between islam and europe and Amreica.


Actually, it's hard to tell what al-quada exactly is; are they trying to overthrow the Saud monarchy and thus withold oil to the west (bringing us down in the process).

Or are they just crazy religious fanatics full of hatred for modernisation??! Do they hate their own collaborators with western capitalism more than they hate "crusader europe"??

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 03:47 PM

al-qaeda isn't a locally based resistance movement, they're an international terrorist group with connections to some very unsavory regimes, formerly cronies of the CIA.
I agree that al-Qaeda and similar groups, like Zarqawi's, aren't reallly comparable to the Sadrists...partly they draw their base of support from different classes, partly their methods, partly their program is even more reactionary....

[socialistfuture]

I can't ever imagine Al Sadr being in a position that he would become the leader of Iraq. So I think the whole thing about him being a theocrat isn't totally relevant - He won't make Iraq a theocracy because he isn't in the position to do it.

I read that in the area controlled by his followers that people who look at porn, drink alcohol and engage in certain other activites are punished (smoking is allowed). One punishment mentioned was caning.

The Al Mehdi army provides security roles as well as military ones. Al Sadr also provides for the community - Mosques are community centres not just religious areas.

As a ruler he would not be to the liking of the left, as an element in the new Iraq I think he has his place. His defiance has given spirit and courage to the Iraqi people.