Sadr, Sunnis oppose Iraq partitions

[ECH1969]

Powerful Shiite Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has reaffirmed his opposition to a plan to separate Iraq into three connected but largely autonomous partitions.

Riyadh Nouri, an aide to the religious leader, who also opposes the U.S. occupation of the country, said: "Iraq must not be divided," The Washington Post reported Tuesday.

Sadr met Sunday with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, who heads Shiite political party Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which is pushing for the partitioning plan.

The federalism plan has also met resistance from Sunni Muslims. The Iraqi Accordance Front, the main Sunni bloc in parliament, boycotted a legislative session Sunday protest a proposition that would outline the procedure for separating Iraq. The Sunnis fear the Kurds and Shiites would control all the country's major oil reserves. Followers of Sadr joined the Sunni boycott.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20060912-100118-2080r.htm

[Kagemusha]

1. In other words, America's allies support partition, its enemies don't

even though partition is opposed to Bush's policies.

[Odin2005]

2. It's about oil.

If Iraq breaks up the Sunni Arabs will end up with very little oil.

[Kagemusha]

3. My point being that the US' supposed enemies support Bush's policy

and Bush's supposed allies (who are actually Iran's) oppose Bush's policy...

[Igel]

4. So Sadr's opposition is to gain the support of the Sunnis?

Or to make sure that when his crew is in charge that they have a larger jurisdiction?

Or both?

Or some other possibility?

[Kagemusha]

5. Sadr wants to be the big cheese in Iraq. Not half of Iraq, not a third

He'd love to have the Sunnis' support, but the fact is, his name is dirt with them since the retaliation after the Golden Mosque bombing (as I'm sure Al Qaeda in Iraq hoped). But totally besides wanting a unified country because he sees himself as an Iraqi and not some transplant Iranian in Iraq because it's Shiite holy land... like al-Sistani...

SCIRI's al-Hakim wants the Shiite super-province to be created not by referendum anymore, but by an act of parliament that puts him and other politicians in charge of it with a governing council. Why, you might ask? Because if they simply held elections, Sadr's movement might just win and they can't have that. They have the US Army suppressing Sadr supporters left and right to make Iraq safe for de facto (that is, all but in name) partition between the Kurds and SCIRI/ Badr Brigade, which is the REAL ally of Iran in Iraq, not Sadr/ Mahdi Army.

It is therefore not a particularly funny joke that Bush says he's against partition - and I actually believe him, partition makes him look bad - but the military he commands is suppressing both the Sadrists and the Sunnis, thus making partition more difficult for them to resist. In the meantime, PM Maliki is watching the majority leader of his parliamentary bloc make a move to be the big cahuna of a Shiite superprovince so that the Shiites can be just like the Kurds, with Hakim as its prime minister, with his own oil revenue financed, official and legal, territorial armed forces (i.e. the Badr Brigade with better weapons). Oh and, he'd shut the spigot of oil revenue from the south to the government to a tiny trickle, and make sure that not only the Sunnis, but Sadr, the Fadihla Party (which ran the Oil Ministry under the last government), and so on, can't touch them. The Kurds don't care because they'll get theirs and Maliki can't touch them.

And I repeat, this is an outcome that Bush and the US Military is helping along because of who it's fighting on the ground, even though the jaw-jaw says no partition.

[Yupster]

6. My guess is

Sadr believes that once the US leaves, he can take care of any Sunni problem that arises, so why support partition.

The Sunnis are against partition, because the Kurdish north and Shi-ite south each have lots of oil. The Sunni center would be on the very bad side of any partition.