Is Moqtada al Sadr Irrelevant?

There he is, the bearded chubby cleric that American bloggers love to hate. “We’ve got to get rid of Moqty,” they say. Second only to Osama bin Laden, especially since Zarqawi’a successor is unpronounceable and so far unpictured, al Sadr seems to be the embodiment of evil, he is seen as the problem itself.

al-sadr.jpg

So when PM Maliki goes to al Sadr hat in hand, we gnash our teeth and wonder what’s going on.

This confusion reflects the current American preoccupation with individuals, oversimplification of events, and a presumption of structured, hierarchical opponents. “If we just kill enough bad guys, especially really bad guys like Moqtada al Sadr, (and implicitly their top-down organizations will fall apart), then that will solve the problem.”

The fighting in Iraq is not so much a matter of some anti-American conspiracy, acting as Iranian and Syrian cats paws, as it is a matter of anarchy and the devolution of power to smaller and smaler groups. When the shit hits the fan, when their is daily, unpredictable violence, as there is in Iraq, who are you going to trust? First your immediate family, then extended family, then neighbors, tribe, sect, etc. Small-time tough guys (Shiite or Sunni) take over neighborhoods. Maybe they are theoretically part of al Sadr’s Mahdi Army, or, if they are Sunni, maybe they are tenuously part of some insurgent group.

But all these larger organizations are fracturing. As for the national government, it hardly exists in the sense of wielding any real power.

Maliki conferred with al Sadr and Sistani? Do you think any of the three of them are, in any significant way, “in control,” even of their own supposed followers? They would love to do something, but exactly what could they do? As Mao observed, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” The guns in Iraq are controlled town-by-town, neighborhood-by-neighborhood, family-by-family.

More here: Militias Splintering Into Radicalized Cells - washingtonpost.com

Zeyad: “Sadr has made several attempts over the last few weeks to distance himself from the murderous actions of his private army, which only helps to prove that he has lost all control over it.”

More here on rival Shiite militias battling in Amarah.

Comments

  1. rbj wrote:

    Saddam held Iraq “together” only through violent, brutal means. What was going to happen if he stayed in power the rest of his life. I can’t imagine Uday or Qusay cheerfully giving up power to the other one, so there may have been a nice little shootout amongst the brothers’ militias; one in which an outsider would have used to take power himself. And then outside groups such as Sadar would have joined the fray, to take power for themselves. Alternatively, one brother might have killed the other ahead of time (and possibly dispatch dear old dad as well), but then the same general might have attempted a coup as well.

    All this potential chaos might then result in the ethnic/tribal/religious strife that we’re seeing now. To me, what’s happening in Iraq right now is something that probably would have happened anyway, once Saddam died. Iraq is a Frankenstein’s Monster of a country; put together out of disparate pieces that don’t belong together (thanks, Britian & France.)