Smells fishy to me:
Iraq’s most influential Shiite cleric has been quietly issuing religious edicts declaring that armed resistance against U.S.-led foreign troops is permissible — a potentially significant shift by a key supporter of the Washington-backed government in Baghdad…
So far, al-Sistani’s fatwas have been limited to a handful of people. They also were issued verbally and in private — rather than a blanket proclamation to the general Shiite population — according to three prominent Shiite officials in regular contact with al-Sistani as well as two followers who received the edicts in Najaf…
A longtime official at al-Sistani’s office in Najaf would not deny or confirm the edicts issued in private, but hinted that a publicized call for jihad may come later.
“(Al-Sistani) rejects the American presence,” he told the AP, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment to media. “He believes they (the Americans) will at the end pay a heavy price for the damage they inflicted on Iraq.”
This smells to me as people close to him posturing politically as they see Maliki gaining prestige.
Take a look at this line in the report:
All spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.
Hmmmm, where have we heard that line before from the AP? Then you look at the previous work of the two writers, Hamza Hendawi & Qassim Abdul-Zahra, and you definitely get a feel for some anti-American sentiment in their writing. Is this a case of some reporters hearing the political posturing and hoping it to be true?
Myself, I believe it’s baloney. Just remember, it was only a few weeks ago when the AP was writing about the coming doom for Maliki’s government when they faced Sadr. As usual, the AP was wrong then and maybe once again.
This should put the nail in the coffin. From todays AP report:
In perhaps another sign of al-Sistani’s hardened position, he has opposed disarming the Mahdi Army as demanded by al-Maliki, according to Shiite officials close to the cleric.
Oh really?
The Sadrists have been marginalized. Even the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who has been reluctant to make political interventions in recent years, pointedly condemned Sadr for refusing to disarm.
And:
Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the most revered Shia cleric in Iraq, backed the government’s position that the Mahdi Army should surrender its weapons and said he never consulted with Sadr on disbanding the Mahdi Army. Instead, the decision to disband the Mahdi Army is Sadr’s to make.
And just look here to see how the many aides to Sistani gave different answers to different people to the same question.
We shall see how this plays out but this looks to me like a few anti-American writers received some tips that they believe just have to be true and went with it. Kinda like that whole burning six episode aye?
UPDATE
This comment by Dale at Hot Air hits the nail on the head:
First of all, Juan Cole is an expert on NOTHING! He’s an Anti-Semitic, Anti-American, Pro-Jihadi Leftist Nutbag, a convert to the Cult Religion of the Baha’i, who has sucked up to the Ayatollahs and Mullahs of Iran and Shiite Iraq for years!
Second, on the Bullshit Scale, this is a pure 10 out of 10; Sistani doesn’t not at all believe in playing “politics”; he has issued fatwas in the past saying that his followers must not go against the “government”.
Second of all I’ve never heard of “individual fatwas” of jihad; it makes no sense to declare “jihad” against “occupiers” if you tell one or two people!
Just remember, Sistani may be Iranian by blood, but he definitely belongs to the Iraqi “Najafi” school of Ithna Asheri Usuli Shiites, the so-called “Quietists”, who are really influenced by the old apolitical “Akhbari” school if Shiites.
As Sadr, conversly, is Iraqi by blood, but he is definitely, theologically of the Iranian “Qomi” flavor of Ithna Asheri Usuli Shiites; instead of a “Quiteist”, he’s of the “Khomenist/Activist” stripe, a trouble maker and a pure Jihadist, who believes, unlike Sistani, in an active Political role for the Shiite Religious authorities.
Regardless, this is mostly BS, and political posturing by people close to Sistani, who are most probably worried by Maliki suddenly coming out on top in his battle with As Sadr, and they figure this might be a way to subtlely reign in Maliki, so he doesn’t get too powerful.
Ditto to that!
More here
See author page
I agree totally — this story is pure b.s. Sistani does not want his people to go through more bloodshed, which is exactly what will happen if he calls for fatwas against the US military; the very force which gave them freedom and a voice for the first time in decades.
Besides, do we really believe anything Juan Cole says? The man is a complete hack — his work is so laughably absurd it’s amazing anyone takes him seriously.
Remember this principle: if the MSM hearts someone, then you know that person is probably a douche.
More accurately, they aren’t anti-American, but simply opposed to the occupation of Iraq. Most journalists on the Iraq war now have an anti-occupation sentiment in their writing. Both journalists, as far as I could tell, also have had years of experience writing solid, descriptive stories on the war. Additionally, their sources were multiple in nature and belonged to the Ayatollahs’ personal militia (or body-guards). So, their credibility as journalists remains intact and nothing smells out of the ordinary.
If any concern for accuracy in the story is to be found it should be in the sources themselves. It is here error is most likely to be found. Yet, this “leak” is exceptional; it is quite extraordinary for multiple sources, so close to Sistani, to disclose such private information, if it is true. Given this reality, I think the “leak” is best understood as a warning. Here’s why:
Yesterday Sistani met with Maliki to discuss various Iraqi related items. This indicates from one point of view that Sistani is now active again and not a quiet player any longer. Maliki’s spokesman today explained Sistani was supporting Maliki and his assault on the Mahdi Army, but that’s only one side of the story. The last week in April a Sistani’s spokesmen and imam, Abdul Mahdi Karbala’i, in a Friday sermon stated:
Al-Karbala’i concluded by calling on the government to take “urgent measures to alleviate the suffering of Al-Sadr City’s citizens who were harmed by the outlaws’ crimes.”
In view of these recent events it’s not untimely for such a story to arise regarding Sistani’s impatience with both Maliki and the US occupation.
One can imagine that Sistani was concerned with being out of sync with many his supporters imams, as their concern over Sadr City was all over the news for the past month; and while his shia brethren in Sadr City were (and to some degree still are) being blockaded, bombed (without food and water) for weeks with the assistance of the US military he looked dislocated as the quiet one.
Additionally, Sistani understands the US has lost patience with Bush’s foreign policy in Iraq. This timing too is another opportunity for Sistani to push Bush and Maliki in a direction towards US troops leaving Iraq.
Regarding the comment, “Second of all I’ve never heard of “individual fatwas” of jihad; it makes no sense to declare “jihad” against “occupiers” if you tell one or two people!
Sure it does. The ‘sense’ is tied to specific time, locality and circumstances: probably all being bound to Sadr City. Fatwas are also hard to define, just as any religious declaration is, and therefore, by their own nature are elusive and subject to multiple incarnations. One would expect that from our side the Pope himself bestows “special blessings”, “special orders” and “special sanctions” to those close to him, when times need it, in times of crisis. To think of Fatwas as only full universal blanketed declarations is to tie the hands of religious leaders and a card-board understanding of the complexity of a fatwa.
Finally, these actions should not be out of character for Sistani. We know from the simple attention to his website he has long been opposed to the presence of foreign troops in Iraq. The question has always been what to do about it– to which he has generally remained vague and quiet. As one looks at the facts more clearly, the closer that US forces recently have become involved in tamping down resistance with Maliki –resulting in numerous civilian deaths, homelessness, and illness– the mounting public and religious pressure against the occupation, a more active a Sistani presence is a proper course of affairs and not out of the ordinary.
Therefore, the AP press piece hardly smells fishy to me. As I see things unfolding Sistani’s back and he’s looking to end occupation as he thinks the country has had enough.
“he thinks the country has had enough.”
And yet how many interviews have I read with Iraqis whose first concern is that the U.S. stay. They know that if we leave before they are ready that the evil will return.
Apparently, they are wiser than most Democrats.
…and yet the polls in your Brookings Inst. Index cites 70-80% of Iraq wish for us to leave.
So, which is more accurate, your ‘interviews’ or your polls?
Furthermore, that’s what it comes down to doesn’t it; the will of the Iraqi people and the sovereignty of the country; not Maliki, not Bush, not the CPA, not generals, not Iran; it is a peoples’ choice, the thematic cornerstone of democracy —that the will and sovereignty of ‘the people’ be respected and unfettered.
Yet we Americans “are wiser”
That’s generally the end of the story isn’t it; you gentlemen fetter the will of the Iraqi people. Of course, you rationalize the polls away as inaccurate or blimps of no consequence, but there they are, one after another, in one fashion or another: 70-80%, not trusting us, wanting us to leave, believing we create more violence than Iran or militias, willing to attack us…. You ignore all this vastly negative public sentiment smothering it in we are “wiser” than they are.
Some of you, however, may be actually concerned, and then retort: ‘We got to stay; they don’t know what they are talking about; they will kill each other in no time once we leave.’
Yet that is in your eyes, your ‘American’ voice, your ‘American’ perspective, not an Iraqi’s. Iraqi polls indicate the US military presence provokes a majority of the violence, they are the catalysts to anger. Yet I have never seen a counter-argument -EVER- to this polling data point.
Yet we Americans are “wiser.”
Yet the morally undeterred refusing to acquiesce to a possible future genocide remain steadfast. If Iraq never had a ‘civil war,’ fine, then, I say; you then should also have less of a moral concern for one happening now, as most ethnicities are all segregated and have been relocated and most of Iraq has made so much progress in 5 plus years. So, if you let them go about their business and you support their general will by removing the US troops, you may even prevent a possible genocide! With the Iraqis, the UN, and international support, their numerous other ways to promote stability, outside of the Administration’s military driven solutions a possible genocide can be removed from reality.
Yet, we Americans are “wiser”.
Americans are generally now the only nation in Iraq. Most have left; many other nations now refuse to assist us. The world community is opposed to our presence. Yet, we Americans have our supreme eyes and ears and voices on how to run ‘house’—despite almost everyone now;
yet we persist, we know their house better than the residents in their own home.
You say, ‘al Qaeda’s been defeated; Sunni’s hate them now.’ ‘Good,’ I say,’ they know their enemy; they can own their security.’
Finally, it’s not just polls and people of Iraq that wish our troops off their soil. One year ago a majority of the Iraqi Parliament voted against an increase in the US troop presence in Iraq. When polls say the people of Iraq want us out of Iraq, it’s more than simple majority, it’s a vast majority evidenced by being carried over into the highest chambers of representative government.
Yet, we Americans are “wiser”.
Add now religious leaders, even Sistani, not only opposes our presence but permitting aggression against us. This was the backlash that many thoughtful onlookers feared, that Maliki might face with his ill-prepared, clumsy sieges. As a consequence, without a thought, now Maliki has postponed the Oct. regional elections (the day after committing to Pelosi their continuance– a slap in her face, for sure). (Which as a matter of course, if the postponement is maintained, will in the least provoke political fractioning, and in the most violence.)
To some Republicans it’s not enough to simply support a country’s independence and sovereignty, they additionally require ‘American’ mandates that conform to their own domestic designs. In the end, by consequence, everyone suffers and the story, over time, becomes clear to all with the modern invention of polling: poll after poll 2/3s of Americans want out of Iraq, 3/4 of Iraqis want Americans out of Iraq.
(On a more humorous note, at least for me, I found it Ironic that on the same day that Sistani was pulled out of the woods, a McCain supporter, Hagee was pushed back into the woods.)
Accuracy of either means nothing, Doug. Whether an interview or a poll, they are not government policy.
The US stays because the Iraqi President asked us to (for an add’l two years) late last year. You do not abandon a fledgling Arab democracy when their leadership requests help. What kind of an ally would we be?
I guarantee – if the Iraq President, two Veeps and PM asked us to leave – we’ve be doing an orderly withdrawal starting immediately.
The liberal talking points of we can’t leave when the violence is high, and now we stay when the violence is down is absurd. We are waiting for the formal green light from the government. Since they haven’t asked, evidently they aren’t too upset at our presence.
And yet everyone who follows this stuff knows Maliki get his nods from the White House, and that Bush and he have done all they can to ignore congress and the Iraqi parliament on troop presence renewal:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/mnfindex.htm
You obviously didn’t read my whole piece.
Maliki is not the Prez, Doug. Talabani is a Kurd. One VP is Shia, the other Sunni.
And if Maliki got all his nods from the WH, what the heck was he doing in Basra? Evidently a very independent puppet, despite what strings you believe are attached. If the Iraq Assembly mandated a withdrawal, the four power positions would be required to do as voted. That “majority” you say voted against the surge must have fallen short of the minimum needed to require action, or it was veto’d by the Pres Council.
And I don’t give a whit about the UNSC and their mandates. They’re a worthless bunch of elitist bureaucrats that thrive on corruption, and have nary a successful endeavor to their name. You think they can stablize Iraq? OMG…. They were the first to bug out in 2003. Talk about a fair weather friend.
PS: US Congress and US policy are not dictated by opinion polls (i.e. “the will of the people”) but by our elected officials’ decisions. Why should your version of Iraq be any different?
Doug: I feel your pain.
What a shame Iraq isn’t the disaster you want it to be.
Keep trying though. I’m sure you’ll convince the Obamatons!
How sad!
I just can’t keep up with the anti-free-Iraq types’ beefs, Mike’s A. Last year Maliki was a disastrous mistake… a puppet of Iran and someone “we” should have gotten rid of. Ain’t that a laugh.. that we tell them who to appoint as PM. Do that and we’d really deserve the “puppet” comments.
This year we hear he’s a puppet of the US and Bush WH.
Oh what a difference a day, and some progress, makes….
Iraq could become the Switzerland of the Middle East and the libs would still lament the evil Bush and “the cold blooded killers”. For the libs to admit that Bush has been successful at anything, especially such a hated undertaking as the Iraq war, on the failure of which they staked their reputation, would be like for the Ayatollahs to publicly convert to Christianity.
and yet the polls in your Brookings Inst. Index cites 70-80% of Iraq wish for us to leave
They want us to leave eventually, Doug, but not at this time. Only when they are strong enough to ensure their safety. The Iraqis know we don’t want to stay forever at least with the force we have there now. But it will be a while before we can leave entirely. Unless Obama or Clinton win the WH. Then everything goes down the toilet. And I do mean everything.