Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Sadrist comments on the stand-down order

Nahrainnet, the Sadrist news site, adds the following to its report on Sadr's order to the Mahdi Army to stand down. First, the report quotes sources to the effect this naturally doesn't abrogate the universal and inalienable right of self-defense, in the event the movement is attacked or harassed. And then the journalist adds:
The question is: Will the leadership of the American forces issue orders to avoid harassing the Mahdi Army, or will it find this truce an occasion to increase its attacks on this Army, of which already hundreds of martys have fallen on account of attacks by the American forces, and over 2000 members have been arrested in the last eight months, including men of religion, social activists, and politicians?!
The stand-down statement and explanations by Sadrist sources included references to the need to protect the offices of all sects and parties, clearly an expression of concern about the attacks on SCIRI and Dawa offices in Baghdad (thought to have been in retaliation for what happened in Karbala), and to the need for a space of time to "reorganize the Mahdi army in a way that preserves its ideology". So the surprising stand-down order appears to have been triggered by a realization that control had deteriorated to such an extent that the movement as a whole was at the mercy of events triggered by others. On the other hand, it is important to bear in mind the point cited above, namely self-defence and the question whether the American forces respond by discontinuing their attacks or not, attacks which the writer points out have included arrest of civilian activists and not just fighters. Another point often lost in translation is that that the period referred to isn't "six months", but "a period of time not exceeding six months".

4 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

So the surprising stand-down order appears to have been triggered by a realization that control had deteriorated to such an extent that the movement as a whole was at the mercy of events triggered by others.

An odd remark coming whence it does, for where would any insurgency or resistance or muq√°wama whatsosever be unless "triggered by others"?

Unless somebody else triggers, troubles can't be presented as "self-defense," and any aggression that can't speciously be represented as "self-defense" nowadays is hopelessly out of court from the get-go.

9:21 AM  
Anonymous Shirin said...

Anonymous, are you suggesting that attacks on the American occupation are aggression, and not self-defense?

10:39 AM  
Blogger badger said...

I was referring to getting caught up in tit-for-tat sectarian fighting

12:09 PM  
Blogger Fangyaya said...

mont blanc pens
nike uk
michael kors outlet clearance
ray ban sunglasses
coach outlet
supra shoes
louis vuitton outlet
nike roshe flyknit
polo ralph lauren outlet
pandora jewelry
tory burch handbags
oakley outlet
jordans
tory burch outlet
oakley sunglasses
louis vuitton outlet
louboutin pas cher
nike blazers
jordan retro 3
coach outlet
cheap jordan shoes
hermes outlet
oakley sunglasses
coach outlet online
coach outlet
nike trainers
retro jordans
oakley outlet
cheap oakley sunglasses
toms shoes
hollister clothing store
polo shirts
christian louboutin sale
louis vuitton handbags
kobe 9
giuseppe zanotti sneakers
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton outlet
louis vuitton
nike free run
20167.21chenjinyan

11:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home