Sadr Appeals To Higher Power (Sistani)

By Cernig

Events in Iraq are moving so quickly right now that if you blink, something significant happens.

Most media reports, pundits and bloggers focus on the fighting in Baghdad - which killed 7 US soldiers yesterday and wounded over thirty, along with 34 Iraqi dead and 150 wounded - or on how the increasing violence and Gen. Petraeus' testimony tomorrow might impact the US Presidential race. But the really interesting and vital part of the whole affair is the political move and counter-move which drives the violence. The Mahdi Militia and Sadr's grassroots movement which supports it are simply too big to bomb and shoot out of existence - larger by a factor of at least 10 than AQI and it's support base ever were. No amount of Surgin' will accomplish their demolition so if there is to be an end to the current uptick in violence a political solution must be sought - and it appears that Muqtada al-Sadr is the only leader trying to find one. Then again, he may think he has a position of strength to do so.

Earlier, I wrote about Maliki's new agreement from every political party except the Sadrists that militias were now a bad thing and must be disbanded - which is only OK with them all because they've successfully redefined the bulk of their own armed support as being not-militia. Then Maliki warned that the Sadrists might be excluded from the October regional elections - the whole point of all of this - if they didn't come to heel.

Now, Sadr has come back with a statement which is potentially ground-breaking in the Iraqi political firmament.

Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr offered on Monday to disband his militia if the highest Shi'ite religious authority demand it, a shock announcement at a time when the group is the focus of an upsurge in fighting.

Senior Sadr aide Hassan Zargani said Sadr would seek rulings from Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's most senior Shi'ite cleric, as well as senior Shi'ite clergy based in Iran, on whether to dissolve the Mehdi Army, and would obey their orders.

"If they order the Mehdi Army to disband, Moqtada al-Sadr and the Sadr movement will obey the orders of the religious leaders," Zargani told Reuters from neighboring Iran, where U.S. officials say Sadr has spent most of the past year.

That puts the spotlight on the reclusive Sistani, 77, a cleric revered by all of Iraq's Shi'ite factions and whose edicts carry the force of Islamic law.

Sistani, who almost never leaves his house in Najaf, has intervened in Iraqi politics only a handful of times but on each occasion his rulings have been decisive.

Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said he could not comment on the statement by Sadr's aide. Sistani's spokesman, Hamed al-Khafaf, declined to comment.

That Sadr is openly asking Sistani to choose sides is unprecedented. Depending upon your own view of the current situation - is Sadr on the run or winning the battlesd and the war - you will see it as either another act of desperation or the shrewdest new move in the Iraqi Shiite-vs-Shiite political game yet. I find it difficult to believe that Sadr would appeal to Sistani if he thought Sistani would rule against him personally, though - and if Sistani rules in his favor then Maliki and SIIC are toast, no matter what their militia-stuffed security forces and the US military try to do. Sadr would be seen as the peacemaker, with the backing of the Grand Ayatollah and widespread popular support, while having removed (at least visibly) the supposed obstacle to his movement's political participation. Even if Sistani takes a middle option and bolsters Sadr but not his militia, the Mahdi Army can just fade into the background as it has done before and wait for Sadr's political victory before it takes its inevitable vengeance. Parts of it might continue as "rogue elements" ostensibly beyond Sadr's control but those whould be plausibly deniable as having any connection to Sadr himself.

"Sadr's decision will gain him respect among followers as a leader who is ready to sacrifice for his supporters' safety," said Iraqi political science lecturer Hazem al-Nuaimi.

But it is hard to imagine the gunmen disappearing from Iraqi neighborhoods any time soon, said Joost Hiltermann, Iraq expert at the International Crisis Group think tank.

"In a vacuum like the current one, militias thrive because they are necessary. They protect Sadr's people against sectarian attacks by Sunni insurgents and against the Shi'ite middle class which doesn't want Sadrists to get a share of power," he said.

Whether because he is being backed into a corner by Maliki's military moves in support of Dawa and SIIC's political posistions, or whether he thinks he has the upper hand and the time is right, Sadr's obviously moving to dislodge the Shiite core of the Iraqi government from power.

The Sadrists had said earlier that a move to ban them from elections would be unconstitutional.

Al-Sadr aide Salah al-Obeidi said al-Maliki doesn't have the authority to make such a decision because the issue is up to Iraq's Electoral High Commission and parliament.

"We are calling for dialogue as a way to solve problems among Iraqi groups," al-Obeidi told AP Television News in the holy city of Najaf. "Al-Sadr's office affirms that the door is open to reach an understanding regarding these problems."

It's also pretty obvious that he'd prefer that happened at the ballot box, where US guns and airstrikes don't count as votes, whereas Maliki would prefer the opposite.

Update In comments, regular reader IMaNLan offers a compelling scenario whereby everyone can have their cake and eat it.

My wild speculation, for what its worth, is that Sistani, if he decides on this matter at all, will recommend that JAM be incoroporated into the "Iraqi Army". Why? Because as a solution, it is elegant and peaceful...and, to me, suggests a familial kind of resolution that can actually increase unity beyond mere words. It also allows Mahdi/JAM to continue to "police" their own neighborhoods. Conversely, it avoids another "disbanding" event and aftermath...those don't turn out so well in Iraq.

Also, this decision would begin to address the REAL question, which is whether SIIC or the Sadr current will rule Iraq. This action would also leave Sistani looking good, by giving a decision which puts the onus back on the protagonists. Then if Sadr or Maliki balk, well then...its on them, as they say. If they don't balk, then the Iraqis themselves ultimately decide in the elections (as long as they are not rigged).

And Eric points to SWOPA at Needlenose, who says that Sadr actually has made this kind of appeal before - and Sistani decided pretty much in Sadr's favour.

Comments

[Steven]

AJ: Sadrists rule out dissolving JAM

http://del.icio.us/abuaardvark

[1MaNLan]

Sistani is also under some pressure, here. This cannot be JUST an opinion from the point of view of Islamic law, no matter how much he seems "remote" or apart from what is going on in his hideaway in Najaf.

However he rules, he knows that he may end with less influence as a result, and that he can inflate tensions to the runaway point, with a single, badly chosen word. He may be a religious figure, and may only have ruled a few times since the occupation, but he cannot escape the politics of occupation and the worsening internal strife within the shiite community. Somehow, he must figure out how to solve this like Solomon, without splitting the shiite baby ih half...

My wild speculation, for what its worth, is that Sistani, if he decides on this matter at all, will recommend that JAM be incoroporated into the "Iraqi Army". Why? Because as a solution, it is elegant and peaceful...and, to me, suggests a familial kind of resolution that can actually increase unity beyond mere words. It also allows Mahdi/JAM to continue to "police" their own neighborhoods. Conversely, it avoids another "disbanding" event and aftermath...those don't turn out so well in Iraq.

Also, this decision would begin to address the REAL question, which is whether SIIC or the Sadr current will rule Iraq. This action would also leave Sistani looking good, by giving a decision which puts the onus back on the protagonists. Then if Sadr or Maliki balk, well then...its on them, as they say. If they don't balk, then the Iraqis themselves ultimately decide in the elections (as long as they are not rigged).

[Eric Martin]

That Sadr is openly asking Sistani to choose sides is unprecedented

Not according to Swopa - which was news to me as well. Swopa's annoying like that. He had this to say:

Reuters is wrong in the story above where they say this is the first time Sadr has ostentatiously placed his militia's fate in Sistani's lap -- Moqtada made similar promises during previous conflicts. In those cases, the grand ayatollah (reluctantly or not) ultimately had Sadr's back, forcing compromise in the name of Shiite unity.

Is Mookie expecting the same sort of bail-out now, or is he just trying to tie the Maliki/ISCI government more tightly around Sistani's neck before open warfare breaks out?

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/4625

[Eric Martin]

My wild speculation, for what its worth, is that Sistani, if he decides on this matter at all, will recommend that JAM be incoroporated into the "Iraqi Army". Why? Because as a solution, it is elegant and peaceful...and, to me, suggests a familial kind of resolution that can actually increase unity beyond mere words. It also allows Mahdi/JAM to continue to "police" their own neighborhoods. Conversely, it avoids another "disbanding" event and aftermath...those don't turn out so well in Iraq.

Also, this decision would begin to address the REAL question, which is whether SIIC or the Sadr current will rule Iraq. This action would also leave Sistani looking good, by giving a decision which puts the onus back on the protagonists. Then if Sadr or Maliki balk, well then...its on them, as they say. If they don't balk, then the Iraqis themselves ultimately decide in the elections (as long as they are not rigged).

Oooh. That's good. I like it.

[Steve Hynd]

Me too. Bumped.

Regards, C

[1MaNLan]

I'm so glad that you appreciated my comments, Eric and Cernig.

But, I see that Sistani has declined to rule on the question of disbanding the JAM. Sad. Beware hairpin turns, slippery roads and elevated body counts on the road ahead...