Well, it seems Muqtada al-Sadr, head of the infamous Mahdi Army, is certainly acting like he wants to be the next Saddam:
BAGHDAD, Iraq — The Shiite militia run by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr seized total control of the southern Iraqi city of Amarah on Friday in one of the boldest acts of defiance yet by one of the country’s powerful, unofficial armies, witnesses and police said.
The Mahdi Army fighters stormed three main police stations Friday morning, planting explosives that flattened the buildings, residents said.
About 800 black-clad militiamen with Kalashnikov rifles and rocket-propelled grenade launchers were patrolling city streets in commandeered police vehicles, eyewitnesses said. Other fighters had set up roadblocks on routes into the city and sound trucks circulated telling residents to stay indoors.
Fighting broke out in Amara on Thursday after the head of police intelligence in the surrounding province, a member of the rival Shiite Badr Brigade militia, was killed by a roadside bomb, prompting his family to kidnap the teenage brother of the local head of the a-Madhi Army.
So much for the vaunted power and authority of the Iraqi Government led by Prime Minister Maliki and supported (sort of) by President Bush. It seems Maliki’s authority terminates at the borders to the Green Zone. He can’t even stop what is essentially a fratricidal conflict between two Shi’ite political factions (and their well armed militias).
And I don’t have to remind anyone that al-Sadr has no love for America. Our troops have engaged his Mahdi Army on several occasions (remember Najaf?), and he has frequently called for an end to the American occupation of Iraq. Or that he has close ties with Iran, Target No. 2 in Bush’s Axis of Evil hit list. Or that he is likely the power behind many of the Shi’ite death squads roaming Iraq looking for Sunni victims to “cleanse” through the use of torture and murder.
Hey, but things were so much worse under Saddam, right? Right?
So, we will redo the Najaf battle in Amarah?
I doubt it. We’re too tied down elsewhere.
Here at Public Agenda, we’ve created a new tool to track Americans’ opinions on foreign policy issues, providing a basis for political commentary. Similar to the Consumer Confidence Index, the Foreign Policy Anxiety Indicator provides policy makers, journalists and ordinary citizens with the public’s overall comfort level with America’s
place in the world and current foreign policy.
An essential tool updated twice a year, the Indicator will consistently provide much-needed information on the public’s perception of more than two dozen aspects of international relations.
In a world strewn with violence and highly-charged international issues, Americans are broadly uneasy about U.S. foreign policy. The September 2006 shows the Foreign Policy Anxiety Indicator at 130 on a scale of 0 to 200, where 0 is the most confident, 200 the most anxious and 100 neutral.
Eight in 10 Americans feel the world is becoming a more dangerous place for Americans, yet they’re also skeptical about most of the possible solutions, such as creating democracies or global development. Only improved intelligence gathering and energy independence have substantial support, with energy firmly established as a national security problem
for the public.
In fact, the public lacks confidence in many of the measures being taken to ensure America’s security. Less than 33% of Americans give the U.S. government an “A” or a “B” grade for its execution of the following foreign policy issues: reaching goals in Iraq and Afghanistan, maintaining good relationships with Muslim countries and protecting U.S. borders from illegal immigration. And these are just a few of the findings of the survey.
These are some of the other startling findings:
Want to learn more? Go to http://www.publicagenda.org/foreignpolicy/index.cfm to download the report.
Public Agenda is a nonprofit, nonpartisan group devoted to public opinion and public policy. The confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index is developed in cooperation with Foreign Affairs with support from the Hewlett and Ford foundations.
I call it a Hobbesian dystopia, far more brutish that what existed under Saddam Hussein.
Sadr has far fewer ties to Iran than his Shi’i rivals, the Badr brigate- he is something of a Shi’i Arab nationalist populist, very much at odds with Tehran. And, while his militias hands are certainly not clean- it is the Badr brigades and other Shi’i militias that are associated with the ministry of the interior that are running the majority of the death squads. Sadr was pointedly kept away from the ministry of the interior.
He has also complained about Iran infiltrating and gaining undue influence in his organization, trying to find the link, but it did reach western media.