Better Make Those Flowers and Candies "To Go"

by Eric Martin

Wow.  This is pretty big news (via the indefatigable Cernig):

Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric has been quietly issuing religious edicts declaring that armed resistance against U.S.-led foreign troops is permissible — a potentially significant shift by a key supporter of the Washington-backed government in Baghdad.

The edicts, or fatwas, by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani suggest he seeks to sharpen his long-held opposition to American troops and counter the populist appeal of his main rivals...Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia.

But — unlike al-Sadr's anti-American broadsides — the Iranian-born al-Sistani has displayed extreme caution with anything that could imperil the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. [...]

In the past, al-Sistani has avoided answering even abstract questions on whether fighting the U.S. presence in Iraq is allowed by Islam. Such questions sent to his Web site — which he uses to respond to followers' queries — have been ignored. All visitors to his office who had asked the question received a vague response.

The subtle shift could point to his growing impatience with the continued American presence more than five years after the U.S.-led invasion.

It also underlines possible opposition to any agreement by Baghdad to allow a long-term U.S. military foothold in Iraq — part a deal that is currently under negotiation and could be signed as early as July. [...]

Al-Sistani's distaste for the U.S. presence is no secret. In his public fatwas on his Web site, he blames Washington for many of Iraq's woes.

But a more aggressive tone from the cleric could have worrisome ripples through Iraq's Shiite majority — 65 percent of the country's estimated 27 million population — in which many followers are swayed by his every word.

A longtime official at al-Sistani's office in Najaf would not deny or confirm the edicts issued in private, but hinted that a publicized call for jihad may come later.

"(Al-Sistani) rejects the American presence," he told the AP, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment to media. "He believes they (the Americans) will at the end pay a heavy price for the damage they inflicted on Iraq."

Yeah, those permanent bases, that 100 year slumber party...we might want to consider a change of plans.  Opposition from both Sadr and Sistani is deal breaker territory - especially when you throw in a good portion of the Sunni population as well. 

Now Sistani is old, and reportedly infirmed, but I wouldn't bank on his successor changing that tune.  Consider this: Sistani is moving in this direction, at least partially, because of public sentiment and Sadr's ability to capitalize on his anti-American stance.  Opposing the American presence is popular.  That's not going to change any time soon.

Sistani also expressed his gratitude for the toppling of Saddam:

"Changing the tyrannical (Saddam Hussein) regime by invasion and occupation was not what we wished for because of the many tragedies they have created," al-Sistani said in reply to a question on his Web site.

"We are extremely worried about their intentions," he wrote in response to another question on his views about the U.S. military presence.

Or not.  Back to Sadr:

In perhaps another sign of al-Sistani's hardened position, he has opposed disarming the Mahdi Army as demanded by al-Maliki, according to Shiite officials close to the cleric.

Disarming the Mahdi Army would — in the views of many Shiites — leave them vulnerable to attacks by armed Sunni factions that are steadily gaining strength after joining the U.S. military fight against al-Qaida.

Guess he's trying to repair the hit he took when he refused to condem the bloody assault on Sadr City.  Cernig makes a very good point as well:

Sadr now has a free hand from Sistani as long as he plays nice with Maliki.

I think that's right, and Sadr is acting on it.  Recent reports of the Iraqi government's increased presence in Sadr City - and the warm reception offered by the locals - is being misinterpreted by all the usual suspects (Sadr's dead! Again!).  The assualt on Sadr City certainly strengthened Sadr vis-a-vis Sistani, as described above and predicted in this post.  The willingness to allow government troops into Sadr City is consistent with the terms of the truce, especially because the tradeoff is supposed to be less US military presence.

Further, Sadr has been very deliberate in his rhetoric as of late to make clear that the Sadrist current is resisting the occupation, and does not wish to fight the Iraqi government.  So welcoming Iraqi government troops makes sense (as long as those troops abide by their end of the truce's bargain and don't indiscriminately target and/or arrest Sadrists).

As Cernig mentioned, this position fits well within the religious guidance issued by Sistani.  We should really be making our way to the exits.

Matt Duss is also on the beat.

Comments

[Ugh]

This is all wrong Eric. All Iraqis love us for giving them their freedom.

[Eric Martin]

Exactly.

What this post shows is the gross bias of the AP with all its photos of smoke that have been artificially darkened and mythical Iraqi sources who are also real people.

They twisted Sistani's words to make it seem like he doesn't want us to stick around forever with permanent bases and sweetheart oil deals.

Which is ridiculous!

[Forensicator]

This stands in the face of John McCain's arguments that the U.S. is key to stability. It seems the Iraqis are finding solutions that make it a much greater incentive for us to leave now than ever before.

If I were a Washington broker, and wanted to keep Iraqi peace, I would move on a deal in exchange for a pullout now, while everything favors that course of action.

[Forensicator]

This stands in the face of John McCain's arguments that the U.S. is key to stability. It seems the Iraqis are finding solutions that make it a much greater incentive for us to leave now than ever before.

If I were a Washington broker, and wanted to keep Iraqi peace, I would move on a deal in exchange for a pullout now, while everything favors that course of action.

[Jon H]

I wouldn't be surprised if a Sistani successor cranked the hostility up to '11' for a while upon taking the reins.

That would provide a lot of cover for any rival factions in the movement to be "tragically killed by the Americans".

[dmbeaster]

Somehow the war supporters seem to ignore the rather simple facts that most of the people in Iraq hate us, and most are perfectly fine with insurgents killing our soldiers. Sistani's apparent shift simply reflects that fact.

War supporters love to talk about COIN and other nonsense -- as if any of that makes any military sense when the majority of the population does not want our presence.

Just another sick aspect of this disaster -- the willful delusions that fuel war advocacy.

[Brick Oven Bill]

This article cannot be true. The State Department says there is no such thing as Jihad.

4:89 Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.

[John Cole]

I just want to say that the title of this post is teh awesome.

[Nombrilisme Vide]

This article cannot be true. The State Department says there is no such thing as Jihad.

4:89 Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.

You know, I've been trying to be good and neither feed nor bait you, BOB, but Gary's recent success in getting you to post at least a few links raises my hopes to the level of folly.

What translation, pray tell, of the Qur'an are you using? It's not a credible one. I say this knowing in the fullness of my heart that it's not seeking to be, and in fact strongly subordinates credibility and accuracy to inflammatory phrasing and succinctness. I shall optimistically point out to you that succinctness is not, perforce, a virtue in translations. And when succinctness extends to the point of willfully distorting what is being translated in the service of the ideology of the translator...

"They [hypocrites who had professed Islam, as made clear in the preceding text] would love to see you deny the truth even as they have denied it, so that you should be like them. Do not, therefore, take them for your allies until they forsake the domain of evil for the sake of God; and if they revert to (open) enmity, seize them and slay them wherever you find may them. And do not take any of them for your ally or giver of succor" - 4:89 (Muhammad Asad translation, 2003 ed.)

"They [hypocrites who had professed Islam, as made clear in the preceding text] but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): so take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (from what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks" - 4:89 (A. Yusuf Ali translation, from a 1990 Saudi printing)

Neither of these translations bear a strong resemblance to what you cite. Now, I'll admit that the second translation is not one I cleave strongly to, given its history and politics (and on some petty aesthetic points like its disagreeable insistence on not translating God into English, which apparently was an innovation not present in its first edition), and that its annotations are met with Saudi approval (I've read insinuations that they may be altered in Saudi printings to be more to Saudi orthodoxy... tho' the translation that the House of Saud currently distributes is noted as far worse). And by contrast, the former is one that is banned by the Saudi government, but is generally acknowledged as one of the better ones extant. I chose these two translations not for some special significance of contrast (though they do in fact provide one, which would be more evident given greater context or even the annotations), but simply because those are the two translations I possess. But again, neither bear more than superficial resemblance to your truncated "translation"... which is from where, exactly? I really would like to know.

[karen marie]

*ping*

obsidian wings gets today's "fractured fairy tales" award for delightfully clever post title.

i can't think of a single nice thing to say about the bizarre and obtuse "rule change" and i'll spare you my vitriolic speculations. imagine them in your spare time.