So, will the US be killing or disappearing Moktada al-Sadr in conjunction with the "surge"?

[TexasLawyer]

If the US takes him out, Baghdad (of which Sadr City is part) is going to become hell on earth. Perhaps why they'll need some reinforcements there? Just trying to read between the lines.

U.S. military says it has new mandate to pursue Shiite militias
Officials say new approach includes strikes against leaders

By Farah Stockman and Bryan Bender The Boston Globe
Published: January 14, 2007


WASHINGTON: U.S. military officials say the Bush administration has given them new authority to target leaders of political and religious militias in Iraq who are implicated in sectarian violence, including the powerful Shiite Muslim cleric Moktada al-Sadr. Such a showdown, integral to President George W. Bush's plan to increase the number of U.S. troops in Baghdad, could spark a deadly confrontation with Shiite militias, which enjoy widespread popularity in Shiite neighborhoods.

<snip>

The officials said that the new approach would include pinpoint strikes against top leaders in the Mahdi Army as well as other militias from the Shiite majority, which are accused of kidnapping and murdering civilians from the Sunni Muslim minority. The officials said they would focus on methodical manhunts for key leaders, like the one in June that killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a key Al Qaeda operative, rather than full-scale battles.

<snip>

"This could make Sadr even more popular," Marr said. "He could play this as 'the imperialist Americans are coming to attack me.'" Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week that Sadr must be neutralized. "The Iraqis are going to have to deal with Sadr," she said, in response to a question. "They're going to have to deal with those death squads, and the prime minister said nobody and nothing is off-limits."

<snip>

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Friday that Maliki's willingness to allow these joint forces to enter Sadr City and other key neighborhoods in Baghdad is "central to the success of this entire operation." Sadr City, a Baghdad slum with an estimated two million residents, was named after Sadr's father, a revered cleric who was assassinated during the regime of Saddam Hussein.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/14/news/iraq.php

[Fovea]

1. And will the Iraqi govt

survive that action.

[TexasLawyer]

2. Good question

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=127319&version=1&template_id=46&parent_id=26

Attack on Sadr will widen war in Iraq
Published: Sunday, 14 January, 2007, 11:01 AM Doha Time

By Patrick Cockburn

BAGHDAD:

<snip>

If the US Army, along with Kurdish brigades of the Iraqi army, do assault Sadr City, they are unlikely to win a clean victory. The rest of Shia Iraq is likely to explode. The US is already at war with the 5mn-strong Sunni community and is now fast alienating the Shia. For the first time this year, polls showed that a majority of Shia approve of armed attacks on US-led forces.

An offensive against Sadr’s Mehdi Army will be portrayed as an attempt to eliminate militias. But it is, in reality, an attack on one particular militia, because it is anti-American. The Kurdish brigades in the Iraqi army take their orders from the Kurdish leaders and not from Maliki. The US also has good relations with the other Shia militia, the Badr Organisation, which is the military wing of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

<snip>

A US attack on Sadr will open another front in the war in Iraq. It would split the Shia coalition into pro- and anti-American factions. It would disrupt the Shia-Kurdish alliance. It probably would not conciliate the Sunni insurgents.

Sadr’s movement thrives on martyrs. The only certain result of an all-out US assault on the Mehdi Army would be to deepen and widen the war in Iraq.

[Fovea]

4. My comment on another thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3116645&mesg_id=3117375

[annabanana]

3. Oh hell, no.

The troops will be under the command of Iraqi officers, (many of whom are actually Mahdi militiamen). Yeah, they're going to "get" Al Sadr.:sarcasm:

[necso]

5. Very little that these lunatics

might do would surprise me.

But while they're quick to use very poorly-thought-out violence, they also love the tough-talk and are obsessed with appearing tough -- so it's easy to overestimate their intentions.

Plus, of course, they're incompetent, so that an accurate estimate of their intentions often doesn't end-up instantiated in reality.

I think that at this point the escalation is a given (short of removal from office). But perhaps its exact shape isn't yet a given. And if the escalation aims more for defending the population as opposed to smashing (certain) militias (not rogue elements), then perhaps security, not violence, could be increased the more.

However, any hopes for real, substantial security must entail political and diplomatic efforts (like implementing an immediate ceasefire, pushing national reconciliation, talking to Iran and Syria, etc), which the administration seems rather unlikely to engage in.

[ShaneGR]

6. I certainly hope so!!!

If someone could please explain to me how you win in Iraq when the government is terrified to do anything because of this guy I'd love to know. The Mahdi army is already shoot on sight. Sadr is directly responsible for the deaths and maiming of hundreds if not thousands of US servicemen in Iraq, yet he's somehow untouchable? If Bush refuses to leave, fine, at least friggin try to win.

[TexasLawyer]

7. But what happens if the Shiites turn completely against

the United States? I guess we may soon see.