Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

War on Iraq

An Interview with Shia Firebrand Moqtada al-Sadr

By Nazr Latif, The Independent. Posted June 11, 2007.


Shia leader and cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, the man Washington blames for its failure to gain control in Iraq, gives his perspective on the US involvement in Iraq: "The Americans are occupiers and thieves, and they must set a timetable to leave this country."
Advertisement

Moqtada al-Sadr, the man Washington blames for its failure to gain control in Iraq, has rejected a call to open direct talks with the US military and has accused the Americans of plotting to assassinate him.

In an exclusive interview the Shia cleric says: "The Americans have tried to kill me in the past, but have failed... It is certain that the Americans still want me dead and are still trying to assassinate me.

"I am an Iraqi, I am a Muslim, I am free and I reject all forms of occupation. I want to help the Iraqi people. This is everything the Americans hate."

Mr Sadr, revered by millions of Iraqi Shias, spoke after leading Friday prayers in the Grand Mosque at Kufa, just over 100 miles south of Baghdad. It is one of the four Iraqi cities considered holy in Shia Islam. He always wears a black turban, the traditional symbol of a Shia cleric who can trace his ancestry to the Prophet Mohamed. But for the second time in two weeks, he also wore a white shroud -- a symbol of his willingness to be martyred, and his belief that death is close at hand.

The young cleric inherited the aura of his father, Ayatollah Mohammed al-Sadr, who was murdered by Saddam Hussein's regime. He has been a thorn in the side of the Americans since the invasion, with his Mahdi Army -- the military wing of Iraq's largest Arab grassroots political movement -- having clashed with US and British forces. The movement has been accused of kidnapping five Britons in Baghdad last week, possibly in retaliation for the death of a senior Mahdi commander in Basra at the hands of British forces, but the Sadrists deny involvement.

Mr Sadr resurfaced recently after disappearing -- possibly over the border to Iran -- when the US began its security "surge" in Baghdad early this year. He ordered his fighters in Sadr City, the Mahdi Army stronghold in the capital, not to resist the operation. Last week the US military said it wanted to open direct, peaceful talks with him, but the cleric told the IoS he rejected the idea.

"There is nothing to talk about," he said angrily. "The Americans are occupiers and thieves, and they must set a timetable to leave this country. We must know that they are leaving, and we must know when." He has reason to be wary of US offers to negotiate. As I revealed last month, respected Iraqi political figures believe the US army tried to kill or capture Mr Sadr after luring him to peace talks in Najaf in 2004.

"We are fighting the enemy that is greater in strength, but we are in the right," he said. "Even if that means our deaths, we will not stand idly by and suffer from this occupation. Islam exhorts us to die with dignity rather than live in shame."

Mr Sadr did not say how he thought the US planned to kill him. But it is clear his decision to stay out of the public eye for months was prompted by safety fears, amid a crackdown on the Mahdi Army that has seen key figures arrested and killed.

With US, British and Iraqi government forces still conducting operations against the Sadr movement and its army, the cleric warned he was prepared to launch another armed uprising. "The occupiers have tried to provoke us, but I ordered unarmed resistance for the sake of the people," he said. "We have been patient, exercising statesmanship, but if the occupation and oppression continues, we will fight." The Mahdi Army has been relatively quiet, but it is becoming more active in Baghdad, responding to a series of devastating suicide bombings by Sunni extremists.

Mr Sadr, whose rise to become one of the most influential figures in Iraq coincided with the US overthrow of Saddam, said his movement sought to follow the example of Hizbollah, the Shia armed resistance movement in Lebanon. "Hizbollah and the Mahdi Army are two sides of the same coin," he said. "We are together in the same trench against the forces of evil."

He also spoke about a spate of recent fighting between his followers and members of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), the other major Shia party which has its own armed Badr faction. The clashes sparked fears that the power struggle among Shias will explode into full conflict.

"What happened with the Badr organisation and the Mahdi Army in many parts of Iraq is the result of a sad misunderstanding," he said. "We have held discussions to stop this being repeated."

Mr Sadr has always been a fervent nationalist, and has recently held talks with Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province who have taken up arms against al-Qa'ida-affiliated extremists, while still opposing the US-led occupation. Despite his calls for cross-sectarian unity in Iraq, the Mahdi Army is widely accused of operating death squads responsible for the deaths and ethnic cleansing of thousands of Sunnis and Iraqi Christians.

Mr Sadr also insisted he opposed Iranian influence in Iraqi affairs, referring to tentative talks between the US and Iran. "We reject such interference," he said. "Iraq is a matter for the Iraqis."

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: moqtada al-sadr, iraq

Additional reporting by Phil Sands in Damascus. Nazir Latif writes for the Independent.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
A man of peace?
Posted by: Swedish liberal on Jun 11, 2007 5:48 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When listening to the warrior priest Sadr, you then know that the presence of US/British troops or UN troops is going to go on for decades.

I myself supported the Iraqi intervention not because of WMD but I saw from a humanitarian perspective as well as the perspective of Christopher Hitchens and Nick Cohen. GWB made a grievous error in saying that Saddam had WMD he just should have said he is very likely going to get and he is also very likely to support terrorists. Bur primarily he could not be left to terrorize and persecute his own people.

Those criticising the Iraqi intervention is left speechless when you ask them what their alternative was. The do not want to say this but the alternative was to leave the Iraqi to Saddams pleasures.

Was the outcome satisfactory? We do not yet know, in 0 years time we can say whether or not it was better to leave Saddam alone or whether Iraq will become a new Balkans or Afghanistan.

It is still in my opinion correct to intervene but it should from the start been said that this will take decades not years. Maybe the support would not then have been as great.

As being of Estonian decent and having all my relatives deported or having had to flee I find no price to high to get freedom.

However Sadr is not Iraq’s saviour, he is its butcher to be a new Saddam. What you reap you saw. By the way I hate religious bigots and nationalist but most of all I hate religious nationalists since they are the worst. The combine the worst of both worlds, the nationalism of modernity and the religious fervour of the Middle Ages.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Naive POV Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: A man of peace? Posted by: lessbread
» RE: A man of peace? Posted by: manor-tom
a marshalplan for IRAK
Posted by: richholland on Jun 11, 2007 6:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
after worldwar II USA offered Europe the socalled MARSHALplan.
Although the Socialistc Party was very powerfull Europe choose the Humancapitalisme .
Nowadays USA means Starbucks and Macdonalds and the sexual intregety of a brothel.
The people of IRAQ want freedom NOT the American philosophy,the Corporation USA is the ennemie of enviroment and Humanity.
The majority of Human wants a decent live and no biggest profit for a minority of Rich.
So spent the millions for a decent healthplan, and stop working so much.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You must be joking, mate.
Posted by: Squarehead on Jun 11, 2007 6:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
RE: "Those criticising the Iraqi intervention is left speechless when you ask them what their alternative was." You must be joking, mate. WE organised in opposition to this illegal (a not un-important little detail) war when it was first mooted. WE marched in a democratic fashion, lobbied our politicians, etc. IT WAS OBVIOUS from day 1 that this would be a shambles; it was so because of the obvious dishonesty of all the players, GW Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Powell (I still remember the laughable exposition on TV of a mil transport vehicle as 'Proof' of WMD). For those poor fools who were not dishonest (e.g. the average soldier dispatched there), well there is no great indication of a reflective intelligence at work.

The better course of action would have been to REDUCE sanctions, to engage in trade, and in the process allowed the organic growth of opposition to Saddam; perhaps to be helped at some future time. This is not a moral judgement of that regime; It is a practical political response to a political situation. Morally, I suppose even the most obtuse warmonger must have cause to hesitate now. Do you really think this is better than the Baathist regime?

How much suffering has to happen so that 'Friends of George' can make a buck (Or a few $Billion(s) or so)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You must be joking, mate. Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah
» RE: You must be joking, mate. Posted by: lessbread
Nice post Swedish liberal
Posted by: Poe on Jun 11, 2007 6:45 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I supported the invasion of Iraq....still do. Most specifically because of humanitarian reasons. I don't think the bloodshed is any worse now than it was under Saddam. Just different.
The planning for this war, was botched by the Bush administration, most notably, Rumsfeld. But it should never be considered a mistake to rid the world of a ruthless dictator...and his bloodthirsty sons. It is certainly not a crime against humanity. Ask the millions that suffered under Saddam.....the brutality......the real torture many endured.

I'm not saying that it's going to get better....or that it isn't going to get worse. It may, because of poor planning, never get any better.

But what do we do about humanitarian disasters.......that are created by man?? How do we help the people of Chad/the Darfur region? Most likely, it always has to be done with force....with the military. Those that oppose US military intervention but cry out about so many humanitarian issues across our globe need to face this fact.

I understand the frustration of those on the left....."what did Iraq have to do with 9/11?"
What happened to "Osama...dead or alive?"


For me it was timing......why now? Why didn't we concentrate on Afghanistan? Why did we use Afghanistan as a stepping stone to Iraq?

I don't think we need to apologize, however, for our involvement in the Middle East due to oil. There is nothing wrong with protecting a necessary resource, so vital to the US and the rest of the world.



If we're hated so much....with our "Imperialism"....our invasion of Iraq......why are we the only ones to get blamed for not doing anything about Darfur?

Where's the rest of the world? Why don't other countries stick their heads out for once?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nice post Swedish liberal Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah
» Non-sequitur argument... Posted by: Wesley69
» RE: weak response... Posted by: Wesley69
» RE: weak response... Posted by: Poe
» My last response... Posted by: Wesley69
» RE: Nice post Swedish liberal Posted by: Redviper
that ANY delay is a mistake, and that, all things considered, you should RUN out
Posted by: Squarehead on Jun 11, 2007 6:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Re 'Swedish Liberal' & my earlier post, "You must be joking, mate".

Let me offer this from 'Old Europe'.

I used to subscribe to a conventional wisdom that there would be a 'phased withdrawal' of US troops, in a timescale of 6 - 12 months. Now I realise that ZERO will be achieved by that; that ANY delay is a mistake, and that, all things considered, you should RUN out, preferably to-morrow, in the hope of saving a few more lives, both US and Iraqi.

They probably be too busy celebrating to engage in futher attacks, as the last helicopters leave from the 'Green Zone'

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The enemy of my enemy is not my ally.
Posted by: crazyquilt on Jun 11, 2007 8:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was strange to see this article, directly after seeing an article in the NYT about how the US is now planning to support certain Sunni groups who are to battle against al Qaeda-allied Shi'ite groups. Now, here is AlterNet's imprimatur on an article sympathetic to Sadr, although it at least has the honesty to note that Sadr's forces include death squads, as well as a few other ethical lapses. Of course, these facts are noted almost offhandedly, at the end of the article, far overbalanced by the many quotes which could have been uttered as easily by many AlterNet posters and writers as by a murderous fanatic.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is, perhaps, logically correct, but long and bitter experience has shown that it is a gambit which can have horrible consequences. It is, after all, how we (by this, I mean the US) created Osama bin Ladin and shored up Saddam Hussein in the '80's.

I would very much like to see our soldiers come home to their families. I believe this war was, and is, both illegal and unwise. However, to ally, either practically or ideologically, with those who would just as merrily slaughter our sons and daughters as the sons and daughters of their countrymen and -women, is strategically foolish and morally unsupportable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anti-Messiah/Anti-Christ
Posted by: lc on Jun 11, 2007 8:20 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Religious nationalist" also refers to G. Bush. Bush is the AntiChrist and Al Sadr is the AntiMessiah. Read the Book of Daniel and the verses about the first suicide bomber in Iraq and when Baghdad fell. Iraq is only the beginning. All of US have our part to play at the End Times.
IM
Belteshazzar

Hint: A Bradley Armed Personnel Carrier is a “Tarshish.”
www.WritingOnTheWall.us

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Only thing worse than religous bigots
Posted by: Brutus on Jun 11, 2007 8:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is the new breed of atheist bigots personified by the drunken Mr. Hitchens. Takes a lot of something to admit publicly you supported the Iraq occupation not because of Clinton/Bush falsehoods but the idiocy of atheistic jihad promoted by Hitchens.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Prince Bandar, Bush, MEFTA and the new covert approach
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jun 11, 2007 9:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bandar recently made headlines around the world as the recipient of $2 billion in bribes from a British defense contractor. Bandar and Bush are long-time buddies, who were at the heart of the covert and overt support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980s.

The Middle East Free Trade Agreement is really a plan for the occupation of the entire region by US corporate interests - this is the occupation you don't hear about. It is taking place in Jordan, Syria, the Gulf States, and they'd love to go into Iran as well. This is why the likes of McCain and Lieberman are calling for an attack on Iran. Who is behind this? Bearingpoint, the IMF, the World Bank, and Bush's finance cronies - and Prince Bandar.

What they are doing in Iraq now is the the El Salvador approach - they fund radical Islamic terrorist organizations which funnel arms into Iraq via Saudi channels, in order to keep the country destabilized. The areas of the worst violence are the areas that are under American control, not the regions that are under Iraqi control. As Sy Hersh reported in the New Yorker, the same approach is being used in Lebanon, and it's likely that the mosrt violent elements of Hamas et al in Palestine are also recieving Saudi support.

Listen to what the Iraqi people and their union leaders have to say about what's going on in their country. These are people with advanced degrees in science and engineering and who are just as good at this as any American firm - but they've been cut out of the corrupt reconstruction contracts and are now the target of these very same terrorist groups that are being funded via the Bush-Bandar clan. They could easily rebuild their country without the assistance of Halliburton, Bechtel, CDM, Fluor, etc. - whose 'reconstruction contracts' were just a grand theft of Iraqi oil money.

The Western press ignores the Iraqi unions and focuses on the likes of this Shia holy man in order to perpetuate the myth of an Iraq split along ethnic lines. The Iraqi people do want a federal state system based on regional divisions (like we have here in the USA - states rights, etc.) but are entirely opposed to an ethnic/religious division of their country.

Listen to what the Iraqi labor unions have to say! See the Project Censored report: U.S. Government Represses Labor Unions in Iraq in Quest for Business Privatization.

US labor unions need to continue their support for the Iraqi labor unions, as well - which they've done, even if the US press won't report on it. If the Iraqi labor unions are crushed, the American labor unions are next!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Before Republicans condemn Al-Sadr for wanting a timetable for troop withdrawal...
Posted by: HughScott on Jun 11, 2007 3:05 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they should remember what Bush said in 1999, when he criticized Bill Clinton’s handling of Kosovo.

Proclaimed Shrub piously, "I think it's important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long our troops will be involved and when they should be withdrawn."

But then, that was typical Bush bullshit, unworthy of consideration. On the other hand, unlike George W., Al-Sadr is not stupid and should be listened to seriously.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Made in USA - War Crimes, Crimes Aagainst Humanity
Posted by: Ydotheyhateus on Jun 11, 2007 9:03 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Provided chemical and biological weapons to Saddam
2. CIA list provide Basis for Irai bloodbath
3. A quarter Century of US support for Occupation
4.US Supported Genocide in East Timor

Here's a list compiled by William Blum( The Killing Hope):
1. China - 1945 to 1960s: Was Mao Tse-tung just paranoid?
2. Italy - 1947-1948: Free elections, Hollywood style
3. Greece - 1947 to early 1950s: From cradle of democracy to client state
4. The Philippines - 1940s and 1950s: America's oldest colony
5. Korea - 1945-1953: Was it all that it appeared to be?
6. Albania - 1949-1953: The proper English spy
7. Eastern Europe - 1948-1956: Operation Splinter Factor
8. Germany - 1950s: Everything from juvenile delinquency to terrorism
9. Iran - 1953: Making it safe for the King of Kings
10. Guatemala - 1953-1954: While the world watched
11. Costa Rica - Mid-1950s: Trying to topple an ally - Part 1
12. Syria - 1956-1957: Purchasing a new government
13. Middle East - 1957-1958: The Eisenhower Doctrine claims another backyard for America
14. Indonesia - 1957-1958: War and pornography
15. Western Europe - 1950s and 1960s: Fronts within fronts within fronts
16. British Guiana - 1953-1964: The CIA's international labor mafia
17. Soviet Union - Late 1940s to 1960s: From spy planes to book publishing
18. Italy - 1950s to 1970s: Supporting the Cardinal's orphans and techno-fascism
19. Vietnam - 1950-1973: The Hearts and Minds Circus
20. Cambodia - 1955-1973: Prince Sihanouk walks the high-wire of neutralism
21. Laos - 1957-1973: L'Armée Clandestine
22. Haiti - 1959-1963: The Marines land, again
23. Guatemala - 1960: One good coup deserves another
24. France/Algeria - 1960s: L'état, c'est la CIA
25. Ecuador - 1960-1963: A text book of dirty tricks
26. The Congo - 1960-1964: The assassination of Patrice Lumumba
27. Brazil - 1961-1964: Introducing the marvelous new world of death squads
28. Peru - 1960-1965: Fort Bragg moves to the jungle
29. Dominican Republic - 1960-1966: Saving democracy from communism by getting rid of democracy
30. Cuba - 1959 to 1980s: The unforgivable revolution
31. Indonesia - 1965: Liquidating President Sukarno ... and 500,000 others
East Timor - 1975: And 200,000 more
32. Ghana - 1966: Kwame Nkrumah steps out of line
33. Uruguay - 1964-1970: Torture -- as American as apple pie
34. Chile - 1964-1973: A hammer and sickle stamped on your child's forehead
35. Greece - 1964-1974: "Fuck your Parliament and your Constitution," said
the President of the United States
36. Bolivia - 1964-1975: Tracking down Che Guevara in the land of coup d'etat
37. Guatemala - 1962 to 1980s: A less publicized "final solution"
38. Costa Rica - 1970-1971: Trying to topple an ally -- Part 2
39. Iraq - 1972-1975: Covert action should not be confused with missionary work
40. Australia - 1973-1975: Another free election bites the dust
41. Angola - 1975 to 1980s: The Great Powers Poker Game
42. Zaire - 1975-1978: Mobutu and the CIA, a marriage made in heaven
43. Jamaica - 1976-1980: Kissinger's ultimatum
44. Seychelles - 1979-1981: Yet another area of great strategic importance
45. Grenada - 1979-1984: Lying -- one of the few growth industries in Washington
46. Morocco - 1983: A video nasty
The list goes on....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Nonsense Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah
» Yodude, you should.... Posted by: Jak_dah_rippah
Is Jak_dah_rippah a Pentagon disinformation specialist?
Posted by: lessbread on Jun 12, 2007 2:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The question bears asking.

Consider this:

The War Dept. is planning to insert itself into every area of the internet from blogs to chat rooms, from leftist web sites to editorial commentary. The objective is to challenge any tidbit of information that appears on the web that may counter the official narrative; the fairytale of benign American intervention to promote democracy and human rights across the planet.

The Pentagon’s War on the Internet (02/13/06)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Underestimating the Pentagon ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Underestimating the Pentagon ... Posted by: Ydotheyhateus
Truth is painful
Posted by: paschn on Jun 12, 2007 6:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unless your an authoritarian idiot. corporations coupled with "dumbed down drones" equals slaughter by this "god fearing" fine example of democracy. If I didn't need to fear cleaning it up,.... the vile hipocracy of this nation of fanged sheep would make me throw up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

AND THE SOLUTION TO IRAQ IS...
Posted by: channing on Jun 13, 2007 2:31 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Leave Iraq, every last American, not tomorrow, THIS AFTERNOON.

2. Place 100 Billion Dollars ( seed money matched by international, hint, hint, UK and Israel, donors) into an Iraq War Reparations Fund, held pending a formally agreed to Iraqi plan guaranteeing benefits to EVERY IRAQ Citizen the the Country, by verifiable special elections. (as soon as they agree, they get the money... how much violence do you really think would remain)

3. Offer US reconstruction and humanitarian assistance at their (agreed to) discretion. (the rewards for American companies would likely exceed expectations due to the "benevolence-factor".)


-This quantifies our "final" cost in lives and treasure.
-Proves Americans are not "imperialists".
-Has the flavor of the WWII Marshall Plan.
-Moves our nation "lightyears" in the right direction by healing world-wide stress in virtually all relations.

... Oh, did I mention that it robs every excuse our real enemies have to hate or attack us?

Cheney would hate it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]