Iraq’s best-known anti-occupation cleric, Moqtada Sadr, is widely reported to have abandoned politics and retired to a seminary in either Najaf or Qum in Iran.
The reports relied on a message written by Sadr in response to a question from a “group of devotees”. Nearly all the initial reports that I saw, whether in English or Arabic, suggested the message marked a new era in which Sadr would no longer be a thorn at the side of the US-led occupation forces after publicly “admitting his failure to end the occupation and retiring into political obscurity”.
I can only surmise that some reporters obviously don’t read Arabic, while others are engaged in sensationalism, disinformation, heavy editing or a bit of wishful thinking. For even a cursory reading of Sadr’s message unveils a steely determination to continue along a path he believes was mapped out for him by his widely respected father, who was assassinated in 1999 by Saddam’s secret agents.
The “devotees” had asked Sadr to explain his absence, which was “causing anxiety”. Sadr responded with a two-page explanation calling on his followers to show “understanding” of the reasons for his “material disconnection” from them, and declaring his great longing for and deep desire to be with them, “most of whom did not disappoint me in times of war or peace or times of hardship or prosperity”. He salutes them and the proud Iraqi people and pledges that only death would end his devotion to them.
He gives seven reasons for his decision to seclude himself “for a while”. These reasons add up to an unmistakable call on the faithful to await his return and, in the meantime, to follow his instructions to continue the fight to end the occupation and establish an Islamic society. Following in his father’s footsteps, he takes a swipe at Grand Ayatollah Sistani and the most senior clergy of Najaf by calling his own religious authorities the “speaking Merji’ya,” as opposed to the silent ones. This is a recurrent theme of Sadr and his closest lieutenants, which infuriates the most senior Iraqi clergy, but delights his militant, impoverished followers. “Silence” toward the occupation is a wounding condemnation that they often direct at Sistani and three other Grand Ayatollahs.
As for the reported version of his admission of failure to end the occupation, this is how he actually puts it:
[As to] “the liberation of Iraq and making it an Islamic ... society; perhaps I didn’t, up to now, succeed in both matters, due to my deficiency or insufficient effort; or it could be due to society’s deficiency or insufficient effort; or both. Therefore, the remaining of the occupier, or the nonliberation of Iraq, on the one hand, and the indiscipline and deviation of many from the righteous path has pushed me toward secluding myself from them in protest and opposition.”
Denouncing the current “utterly worldly political arena,” he pledges to distance himself “until I find it beneficial to return ...”
He reminds everyone that he has loyal lieutenants who are leading the faithful through the numerous Martyr Sadr Offices, “which are protecting the general guidelines laid down for them and are adhering to the invariables of this honorable line ...” He concludes by stressing the tactical nature of his move, and calling on the faithful to obey all “who represent us with written and stamped” authorization of the Honorable Office (his office) or “my own personal stamp.”
It is my assessment that Sadr has correctly concluded that the US is not planning to withdraw from Iraq for the foreseeable future, and that ending the occupation will be a protracted affair.
He has also correctly concluded that the US and its Iraqi allies see his supporters and the Mehdi Army as the main obstacle to their current plans for Iraq. In response, he has been purging and reorganizing the Mehdi Army, which was “infiltrated” by the agents of the occupation and the Supreme Islamic Council (SIRI) (Badr Brigades), led by the pro-US cleric Abdulaziz Al-Hakim.
While the US generals have welcomed Sadr’s extension of the cease-fire for another six months, the campaign of arrests and assassination of his supporters continues unabated. There are almost daily attacks by occupation and government forces on Sadr supporters.
This week the southern city of Kut became the main arena of armed clashes. Sadr City, with its millions of Baghdad’s poorest, is a fulcrum of the conflict. So are Basra and Misan, from which the Mehdi Army forced out most of the British presence.
Meanwhile, Sadr issued another directive this week stressing the Mehdi Army will remain armed to “resist the occupation” and that the cease-fire did not exclude “the right to self-defense” if attacked by the occupation forces. It is also noticeable that his followers are now publicizing “resistance operations against the occupation” and shelling of the Green Zone.
But Sadr is mistaken to think that his forces, plus his wide popular support, are enough to end the occupation in the years to come. That mammoth task requires a much broader alliance of all the Iraqi anti-occupation political forces pledged to liberation, democracy and social progress. His disdain of the country’s powerful secular traditions, though currently unorganized, could prove to be his Achilles heel. A degree of unity amongst the peoples of the region threatened by the US and Israeli war machines will also be necessary. One other ingredient is vital: the efforts of the worldwide anti-war movements, particularly in the US and Britain.
As the fifth anniversary of invading Iraq approaches, the US-led occupation’s goal of controlling the Iraqi people drifts further away. But the US administration, meekly followed by the British government, regards Iraq as central to US interests in the region and is refusing to accept that people will not bow to the occupiers, despite the bloodbath and the destruction. The US strategists think that through playing on differences in Iraq, using greater firepower and more air raids, and perhaps escalating the war into Iran, they could extricate themselves from the deepening crisis. They seem to believe they could buy enough time to bolster a puppet regime in Baghdad, backed by US military bases.
Sadly, it is Iraqis and other peoples of the region, and not the US strategists, who are and will continue to be the main victims of this savage war.
Pushing Hamas
Thomas J. Mahoney
United States
It is good that Egypt is “pushing” Hamas for a cease-fire (March 6). But why just Hamas? Why isn’t the whole world condemning Israel and pushing the occupiers into a cease-fire? When one’s back is against the wall and there is no food, no water and nowhere to go, big problems develop between the occupied and the occupier. How many Palestinian people must die before the world and international bodies say enough is enough? The latest genocide of the Palestinian people is building up a retaliation against those who are creating yet another Holocaust!
