Reuters is reporting:
:
The U.S. military believes radical Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, one of Iraq's most powerful figures, has left the country and is now in Iran, two senior American officials said on Tuesday.
Sadr's departure was first reported by the ABC News network which said he had fled to Iraq because of fears that he might be targeted by U.S. bombs and worries over his safety because of a fracturing within his organization.
A.J. Strata writes:
I doubt seriously Sadr had as much to fear from the US as he did from the Iraqis, since one of his people planted in the Health Ministry was recently apprehended for running death squads and kiling government officials who appeared to support the coalition (which is why most are IN the Iraqi government). Since this man has been apprehended, and probably by now interrogated to the point he is spilling the beans, Sadr has more to fear from simple tribal vengeance than anything else. Many tribes and families will be looing for retribution of those his 'man' had assassinated. Sadr is now the Benedict Arnold of Iraq, so it is no surprise he has had to leave. There would be no sanctuary in the Shia community since he probably killed with impugnity there as well as against Sunni...If Sadr's people used Iranian weapons to kill Iraqis, he would be seen in the same light as Saddam - a butcher few in Iraq would defend and most would sign up to be on his firing squad. If this is the case, wacth for the dynamics in Iraq to see radical change. The US will not be the evil invaders, Sadr will become the evil traitor to his people
Ace found this interesting quote in an ABC report:
Al Sadr commands the Mahdi Army, one of the most formidable insurgent militias in Iraq, and his move coincides with the announced U.S. troop surge in Baghdad.Sources believe al Sadr is worried about an increase of 20,000 U.S. troops in the Iraqi capital. One official told ABC News' Martha Raddatz, "He is scared he will get a JDAM [bomb] dropped on his house."
Permalink | E-mail This | Technorati Links | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Iran, Iraq
Comments (22)
Lets hope it works.... (Below threshold)1. Posted by jhow66 | February 13, 2007 10:52 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Lets hope it works.
1. Posted by jhow66 | February 13, 2007 10:52 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 13, 2007 22:52
2. Posted by Mullah Cimoc | February 13, 2007 11:04 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Mullah Cimoc say aemriki so proud this wrong when woman of ameriki be slut and take LBT (low back tattoo).
Why so proud for kill so many muslim. for this all woman of ameriki not to have the babies and kill for abortion the children.
2. Posted by Mullah Cimoc | February 13, 2007 11:04 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 13, 2007 23:04
3. Posted by jhow66 | February 13, 2007 11:11 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"mullah c." huh?
3. Posted by jhow66 | February 13, 2007 11:11 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 13, 2007 23:11
4. Posted by Les Nessman | February 13, 2007 11:15 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
OT, but anyone have any details of the 'Bosnian refugee' who shot all those people at the Salt Lake City mall yesterday?
4. Posted by Les Nessman | February 13, 2007 11:15 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 13, 2007 23:15
5. Posted by Hermie | February 13, 2007 11:24 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
So Sadr, the big shot 'leader', turns tail and seeks protection from his patrons in Tehran, leaving his followers to face the wraith of not only the US forces, but the families of his victims.
I thought these Muslim clerics welcomed the chance to get their 72 virgins. Seems Sadr has as big as yellow streak as all the rest of his terrorist buddies.
5. Posted by Hermie | February 13, 2007 11:24 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 13, 2007 23:24
6. Posted by bryanD | February 13, 2007 11:31 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I agree with Mullah Cimoc. Low back tattoos and tramp stamps are HORRIBLE! It's off-topic, amen! On-topic: word is, Petraeus has dumped the neocon whisperers and has got his own counsel. Let's hope he sends the bolt home.
6. Posted by bryanD | February 13, 2007 11:31 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 13, 2007 23:31
7. Posted by metprof | February 13, 2007 11:43 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Rumor has it that Sadr's gotton an employment offer from the DNC.
7. Posted by metprof | February 13, 2007 11:43 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 13, 2007 23:43
8. Posted by Jo | February 13, 2007 11:49 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
metprof, shhhhhh, that information has not been made public yet. The DNC and the DLC both want him and a bidding war has begun. Stay tuned.
8. Posted by Jo | February 13, 2007 11:49 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 13, 2007 23:49
9. Posted by LoveAmerica Immigrant | February 14, 2007 12:20 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Sadr can replace the Dearborn imam to offer prayer at the DNC meeting
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/016768.php
The uses of a Dhimmicratic press
Last week in "Ain't you glad you joined the Dhimmicratic Party?" we noted the invocation given by the Dearborn imam at the DNC winter meeting in which the imam prayed for an end to "oppression and occupation." On Friday Sean Hannity interviewed the imam on his radio show following the imam's appearance on Hannity & Colmes. Charles Johnson has posted the audio of the radio interview here together with a video of the imam's appearance on Hannity & Colmes.
9. Posted by LoveAmerica Immigrant | February 14, 2007 12:20 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 14, 2007 00:20
10. Posted by epador | February 14, 2007 1:08 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
We all know that Sadr left because the US effort is loosing and he's afraid the lawlessness and slaughter Chimpy McHitler has unleashed upon his fair and peaceful country will engulf him and his family. Its all Bush's fault!
10. Posted by epador | February 14, 2007 1:08 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 14, 2007 01:08
11. Posted by Kim | February 14, 2007 1:56 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Sadr will be John Edwards new blog chief of staff beginning next week. Just a few prayer rugs and dnetal adjustments to be worked out with Johnny boy.
11. Posted by Kim | February 14, 2007 1:56 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 14, 2007 01:56
12. Posted by jpm100 | February 14, 2007 5:27 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Unfortunately Sadr left weeks ago when the surge idea was newer and before all the talk of opposing the Surge happened in Congress.
Also the spotlight is on Sadr having left.
He might be put on the spot and have to return. Which if we do nothing then, we will look like idiots.
12. Posted by jpm100 | February 14, 2007 5:27 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 14, 2007 05:27
13. Posted by nikkolai | February 14, 2007 7:20 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
You mean, the surge is working? Thanks, Nancy! Oh, wait a minute......
13. Posted by nikkolai | February 14, 2007 7:20 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 14, 2007 07:20
14. Posted by Rodney Dill | February 14, 2007 7:56 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The rats are leaving the ship
14. Posted by Rodney Dill | February 14, 2007 7:56 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 14, 2007 07:56
15. Posted by epador | February 14, 2007 8:47 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Maybe he went on a business trip to get more bomb parts.
15. Posted by epador | February 14, 2007 8:47 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 14, 2007 08:47
16. Posted by Heralder | February 14, 2007 8:54 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I don't know what he's worried about, our Congress is busy making sure Iraq will be safe for him.
16. Posted by Heralder | February 14, 2007 8:54 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 14, 2007 08:54
17. Posted by ChrisO | February 14, 2007 11:32 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
To the few of you who attempted some sort of intelligent comment, I would point out that it is no surprise that Sadr left. If you recall, many of those opposing the surge said it could likely have a short term benefit. In a prvious such offensive, the militias laid low until the offensive was over, then returned to their activities. That's the nature of an insurgency. If we flood a relatively small area of Baghdad with soldiers, the militias will temporarily slow down their activity. But that doesn't mean that everytime they go underground we get to declare victory. You still seem to think that fighting an insurgency is all about taking territory. It was Franks' attitude that taking the capital equals victory that got us into the situations we're in in both Iraq and Afghanistan. There's no indication that Sadr has given up the fight and fled. He's just waiting us out.
And no, he's not waiting for the Democrats to surrender. The insurgents have been using the same tactics since we invaded.
17. Posted by ChrisO | February 14, 2007 11:32 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 14, 2007 11:32
18. Posted by Lee | February 14, 2007 12:40 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
An article I read yesterday stated that al-Sadr has family in Iran -- so it is quite possible that al-Sadr is taking a vacation and visiting his family in Iran, and will return after the heat dies down.
That's the problem with Bush's whack-a-mole approach to fighting terrorism. Once you engage in this mode you are committed to whacking the moles forever - and even when you manage to kill one, another will pop up in their place.
18. Posted by Lee | February 14, 2007 12:40 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 14, 2007 12:40
19. Posted by Wayne | February 14, 2007 6:20 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Lee
That is what they said about the prairie dogs. However, we killed so many of them that the animal rights groups want to put them on the endanger species list. We can do the same with terrorist. Although it will take time and persistent effort just like it took with the prairie dogs.
19. Posted by Wayne | February 14, 2007 6:20 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 14, 2007 18:20
20. Posted by John S | February 14, 2007 6:35 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
It's still not too late to make him a martyr.
20. Posted by John S | February 14, 2007 6:35 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 14, 2007 18:35
21. Posted by Lee | February 14, 2007 7:54 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"That is what they said about the prairie dogs."
So terrorists reproduce and spawn young terrorists the same way prairie dogs breed prairie dog pups? Nope.
If you killed enough prairie dogs their reproduction rate drops, and you have fewer pups being born, true.
You can't say the same about terrorists. The rate of new terrorists entering the fold is not effected by us killing terrorists - in fact it appears the opposite is true - the more dead terrorist martyrs, the more new terrorists rising to take their place.
21. Posted by Lee | February 14, 2007 7:54 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 14, 2007 19:54
22. Posted by Wayne | February 15, 2007 12:45 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Lee
You are the one that brought up the whack-a-mole approach. Also where are you coming up with your data on the number of terrorist?
You claim in one sentence that the rate of terrorist entering the fold is not affected by us killing terrorist then in the next sentence says that it does. Which is it? Regardless if we kill enough terrorist their will be much fewer regardless of the recruitment rate. Many think this is impossible. That is what they said about prairie dogs as well. There is an old saying that goes something like this "those claiming something is impossible are often interrupted by those who do it."
22. Posted by Wayne | February 15, 2007 12:45 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 15, 2007 12:45