Anyone who’s read my analyses of Iraq should have noted by now that I’ve developed a belief that the US government should seek a closer alliance with him. And I fully expected to be challenged at some point. What expertise do I bring to my argument?
As regards Muslims, Iraq social stratas, etc., my analyses can’t qualify as expert at all. Yet I possess a pragmatism rooted in my mortal experience that there is much that most humans have in common when the veneers of ideology and nationality get peeled away.
The NY Times provided a multi-author overview of Moqtada Al-Sadr today that describes his efforts at the current juncture in this long war that I consider a must-read. It displays how he came to prominence and how he’s acted and reacted with flexibility in response to different events. It doesn’t overlook his imperfections, nor does it make him out to be a demon. And the biggest question that many have about him is where do his real loyalties and motivations lie?
Our president makes decisions based on gut feelings, even if his gut goes against all evidence. My analyses of Al-Sadr arise from instinct, too, but I see nothing in the available evidence that contradicts my senses about the guy.
Consider this backdrop: His father practiced the care of the poor and marginalized. That’s consistent with core teachings at the roots of the three great Western religions.It should not sound foreign or extremist to Christian and Jewish ears.
His father and several close members of Moqtada’s family, were murdered by order of Saddam. Moqtada would understandably feel anger at Saddam and his sycophants for those grievous losses. But would he extend that to all Ba’athists, or the larger group of Sunnis that they sprang from? That’s possible but isn’t a certainty.
Al-Sadr did not express emnity with us nor did he ask for this war. With the US invasion, he was simply thrust into the middle of the war. And how has he reacted to that?
He has displayed respect for his elder cleric, Al-Sistani.
He’s protected Shia neighborhoods from Sunni attacks and established a functioning safety net that’s benefitted the wounded, ill and poor, carrying on the works of his father.
His army has fought back against US troops, when attacked.
He has leveraged pressure against the Shia Prime Minister when he feels Shias are under excessive pressure from US forces.
He’s purged his ranks of people who act too independently of his direction, especially those that have made his organization look bad or out of control.
When the surge was announced and it was clear that the common populace in Shia neighborhoods would be protected by US troops, he pulled his army aside. Whether tactically motivated or motivated by a sincere desire for a restoration of order, the net effect is the same.
While friendly to Iran, he’s known to be a nationalist that doesn’t want Iraq’s government to be Iran’s puppet. Nor does he want it to be America’s puppet.
Though occasional criticism is directed his way, sometimes for the actions of his army, he appears to remain sensitive to that and tries to correct the errors made.
All the while knowing he has both military and political enemies who would eliminate him in an unguarded second.
As I said, I can’t know his every motive or his ultimate goals. But he’s demonstrated courage, intelligence, compassion, shrewdness while serving the needs of millions of Shias and under a long period of strife and duress.
It is the SCIRI forces more closely aligned with Iran that has sponsored most -if not all- of the death squads operating out of government ministries.
The NY Times article indicates that Americans are now actively negotiating with him, something I’ve been advocating for the past year. I don’t know if that’s at the initiative of General Petraeus, but it marks a fresh measure of understanding that Al-Sadr, like Al-Sistani, retains considerable influence over millions of Shias. Enough, perhaps, to quell the civil disorder if the Sunnis back off or are held off by US forces.
Of course, the Seymour Hersh report casts lots of doubts about whether Bush’s negotiating efforts are real or whether Al-Sadr is being set up by an administration now siding with the Sunnis.
In any event, considering that Al-Sadr had no past of anti-American animosity and the circumstances he’s had to contend with since, defending a population where unemployment rates have ranged from 33% to 60%, I have to admit he’s impressed me greatly. He’s navigated amid sharks, he’s had SCIRI, the Sunnis, Al Qaeda, the US military and Bush aiming at him. And he’s survived. As one of the two most popular figures in the country.
I still think, if he’s negotiated with without betrayal, he may hold some keys that can unlock progress towards a functional country. But if Bush, the cabal of ex-pat elites in the new Iraq government and the oil company execs are seeking a partitioned Iraq - as the Hersh article indicates, he may be the biggest impediment they’ll encounter, guaranteeing a long fight still ahead.
Either way, I consider Al-Sadr to be a pragmatist above all, capable of dealing sensibly to every fresh hand he’s been dealt. Perhaps that came from outlasting his mortal enemy, Saddam Hussein. Perhaps it came from the wisdom and compassion of his father. Wherever it came from, I believe pragmatists make good leaders and allies. His main principle seems to be he won’t sell out the civilian population he represents, and that, too, is deserving of respect.
As a non-expert, I could certainly be wrong. But as a pragmatist, I sense the presence of a pragmatic dude.
