Sadr expected to extend militia truce in Iraq.
By on Feb 21st, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Sadr expected to extend militia truce in Iraq.
Reuters reports that Iraqi Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr “is expected to extend a six-month truce by his militia” the Mahdi Army. Sadr’s final decision will be read in mosques throughout Iraq at Friday prayer services. Sadr’s cease-fire declaration last August has been widely credited as a significant contributing factor in improving security in Iraq.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
But, but, the surge is working!!!!
February 21st, 2008 at 3:21 pmIf and when Sadr ends the truce, will there be another Tet?
February 21st, 2008 at 3:23 pmSure, but how much has his compliance cost the US government? Everyone has their price?
I was just talking about the trouble in Kosovo with some friends on http://www.soultv.net when i read this and decided to comment.
Is the same thing not happening in Afghanistan? The only thing that is stopping the violence is US paybacks to known terrorists! Is what they call democracy?
February 21st, 2008 at 3:24 pmwonder how big a truckload of cash we’ll be giving him for that??
turns out the “surge in bribery” was a lot more successful than the “surge in troops”
February 21st, 2008 at 3:24 pmThis is good news, but we’ll see if the trolls try to conflate this to:
Surge = Cause of reduced violence…
February 21st, 2008 at 3:27 pmDid Gigi recently move to another battered women’s shelter or something? The most recent talking points don’t seem to be catching up with her, so she’s forced to rely on worn-out clichés.
Poor Gigi.
February 21st, 2008 at 3:29 pmWow, GiGi, it’s going to be tough for you to take the “Party of Iraq defeat” in the White House, isn’t it? I think the nation has had enough of the Party of “Family Values,” though. Better hope for a false flag operation and declaration of martial law. It sure worked for Musharraf.
February 21st, 2008 at 3:35 pm“is expected to extend a six-month truce by his militiaâ€
– - In Iraq, this is called “an al-Sadr,” better known to Americans as a “Tom Friedman.”
February 21st, 2008 at 3:36 pmComment by jason baddo — February 21, 2008 @ 3:55 pm
Sometimes even the “liberal” side has it’s morons.
February 21st, 2008 at 3:59 pmPeace is always a good thing, idiot.
- – In Iraq, this is called “an al-Sadr,†better known to Americans as a “Tom Friedman.â€
Comment by Badmoodman — February 21, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
An Awhda as-Sadr, eh?
I like this term and shall add it to my vocabulary.
ÙˆØده الصدر. I like it.
February 21st, 2008 at 3:59 pmThis is good news, but we’ll see if the trolls try to conflate this to:
Surge = Cause of reduced violence…
Comment by RUCerious
—————————————————-
Heh….couldn’t have anything to do with the surge. Impossible!..Impossible I say!
It must be the spectre of an Obama presidency and the massive US retreat that will go along with it that’s got ol’ Sadr extending his truce….right?
February 21st, 2008 at 3:59 pmal-Sadr is a sellout and hollow Iraq patriot. He should be out there fighting to rid his country of American occupiers and enslavers. George Washington never extended a so-called six-month truce in his campaign to throw off the British colonists. Freedom fighters are becoming extinct
Comment by jason baddo
———————————————-
Utterly pathetic.
The Iraqis that are fighting for freedom are the ones fighting along side our brave troops.
You are the very definition of ‘useful idiot’.
February 21st, 2008 at 4:04 pmIt must be the spectre of an Obama presidency and the massive US retreat that will go along with it that’s got ol’ Sadr extending his truce….right?
Comment by Charles James Napier — February 21, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
Actually, it quite possibly is. Moqtada is an enterprising young man and I believe he’s trying to rebrand himself for a post-occupation Iraq.
February 21st, 2008 at 4:05 pmI was actually wondering if Obama will be able to get an audience with Ayatollah Khameni or if he’ll have to settle for Ahmadinjad….
February 21st, 2008 at 4:07 pmThe Iraqis that are fighting for freedom are the ones fighting along side our brave troops.
Comment by Charles James Napier — February 21, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
By this do you mean the Awakening Councils or the Iraqi Police or the Iraqi Army? Cause these three have been fighting each other on occasion, and I don’t know if that counts as “fighting for freedom” or “fighting along side our brave troops.” Which is it?
February 21st, 2008 at 4:07 pmYou are the very definition of ‘useful idiot’.
Comment by Charles James Napier — February 21, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
Actually, he is more like you, a “useless idiot”.
February 21st, 2008 at 4:09 pmBoth of you are morons.
I was actually wondering if Obama will be able to get an audience with Ayatollah Khameni or if he’ll have to settle for Ahmadinjad….
Comment by Keltoi — February 21, 2008 @ 4:07 pm
Ahmedinajad’s term is up in August 2009, and my understanding is that he’s not the most popular political figure in Iran right now. Unless he has a major surge I don’t see him being reelected.
In either case, hopefully Obama will meet with Khameni — someone in Iran with actual power.
February 21st, 2008 at 4:17 pmThis is from Juan Cole this past Monday:
“It is awfully suspicious that as soon as a firm date was set for new provincial elections in Iraq (October 1), the truce broke down between the paramilitary of Muqtada al-Sadr and that of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim.”
snip
“There is a good chance of the Sadrists taking much of the south in the provincial elections if they are fair, and Muqtada may not want to be bound by agreements with a party that he will seek to toss out of office.”
There’s a lot more and the article illustrates just how complex the situation is in Iraq.
http://www.juancole.com/2008/02/sadrist-badr-truce-breaks-down.html
February 21st, 2008 at 4:21 pmGeorge Washington never extended a so-called six-month truce in his campaign to throw off the British colonists.
Comment by jason baddo — February 21, 2008 @ 3:55 pm
Actually, he did. It was called “winter”. Valley Forge ring a bell?
February 21st, 2008 at 4:21 pmAhmedinajad’s term is up in August 2009, and my understanding is that he’s not the most popular political figure in Iran right now. Unless he has a major surge I don’t see him being reelected.
Comment by toasterhead — February 21, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
Or unless Bush bombs the place before he hands over the keys to Obama. Foreign attacks always do wonders for the popularity of national leaders.
February 21st, 2008 at 4:24 pmIn either case, hopefully Obama will meet with Khameni — someone in Iran with actual power.
Comment by toasterhead — February 21, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
He should definitely by-pass the President puppet, whoever it is, and meet with the Ayatollah (Khameni could easily be dead by 2009) in charge.
Problem is, they tend to be very reclusive – Sistani will only meet through intermediaries. I think that a face to face should be the price of admission for a re-establisment of diplomatic relations though.
February 21st, 2008 at 4:25 pmComment by jason baddo — February 21, 2008 @ 3:55 pm
Sometimes even the “liberal†side has it’s morons.
Peace is always a good thing, idiot.
Comment by Wayne
Or else it’s a right wing troll who is planting posts for other rightwingers to decry.
February 21st, 2008 at 4:25 pmIt must be the spectre of an Obama presidency and the massive US retreat that will go along with it that’s got ol’ Sadr extending his truce….right?
Comment by Charles James Napier
Good to see that charles nelson rielly is back. I thought it went away in snit never to return. Wasn’t it something about someone saying something bad about it’s wife? one would think that it valued it’s family more than that.
February 21st, 2008 at 4:28 pmgood news!
February 21st, 2008 at 4:36 pmbut, hoo boy! that’s gonna cost U.S. plenty!
The Iraqis that are fighting for freedom are the ones fighting along side our brave troops.
Comment by Charles James Napier
LMAO!!!!!
Yeah, better side with the foreign forces occupying your country to be called a PATRIOT!!!
February 21st, 2008 at 4:38 pmWhy Jason Baddo is a moron, Wayne?
If the US were occupied by a foreign force, you wouldn’t call hollow patriot the ones who decided to make truces with the invading force instead of fighting it. I can’t see where is the flaw of that statement. I understand the sensitivity issues, but there is no logic flaw there if we were to be completely sincere.
February 21st, 2008 at 4:42 pmOf course he is extending it. He sees success of the surge and the Awakening Councils have had in routing Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups in Anbar and Fallujah and other places in Iraq. Al-Sadr does not want to end up like them.
February 21st, 2008 at 4:54 pmIf the US were occupied by a foreign force, you wouldn’t call hollow patriot the ones who decided to make truces with the invading force instead of fighting it. I can’t see where is the flaw of that statement. I understand the sensitivity issues, but there is no logic flaw there if we were to be completely sincere.
Comment by Juan C. — February 21, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
Okay, but the analogy to George Washington fighting the British is flawed. This would be more like the British paying off the Navajo to fight the Sioux instead of the British.
February 21st, 2008 at 4:55 pmJuan,
You still defending those who set off car bombs and use suicide-bombers in marketplaces and mosques killing Iraqi civilians by calling them “patriots?”
February 21st, 2008 at 4:56 pmYes, Ex. Sleep well.
February 21st, 2008 at 4:57 pmOf course he is extending it. He sees success of the surge and the Awakening Councils have had in routing Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups in Anbar and Fallujah and other places in Iraq. Al-Sadr does not want to end up like them.
Comment by Exley — February 21, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
Or he’s gearing up his army in preparation for the ultimate battle against the Awakening Councils, who often cite eradicating the Shi’a as their next target after eliminating al-Qa’ida.
February 21st, 2008 at 4:58 pmWell, at least your honest about it, Juan. I find it disturbing that you support such groups and tactics, but at least you are upfront about it.
(It’s a little early for sleep here, Juan….But, thanks).
February 21st, 2008 at 5:00 pm#32
Toasterhead,
Anything is possible, I suppose.
February 21st, 2008 at 5:01 pmExlax; In case you haven’t noticed, just why do you think the “insurgents” are fighting us? Is it because they hate us for our freedoms?
February 21st, 2008 at 5:16 pmOr maybe it’s because we have illegally invaded, occupied their country and stealing their oil?
They are, in truth, liberation fighters. They are trying to oust invaders, we would be doing the same if it were us instead.
Sure, Uncle Ho…Hey, who are they “liberating” when they send two women suicide bombers to blow up a marketplace, killing Iraqi civilians? Who are they “liberating” when they set off a car bomb outside a mosque slaughtering worshippers?
February 21st, 2008 at 5:19 pmWho are they “liberating†when they set off a car bomb outside a mosque slaughtering worshippers?
Comment by Exley
You from your pipe dream…
February 21st, 2008 at 5:21 pmJuan, Your hypocrisy is truly a wonder to behold. On another thread, you express indignation at US senators who voted for the authorization to use military force in Afghanistan, essentially saying they have blood on their hands and that they do not care about civilian deaths.
Yet here, you laud those who use suicide bombers and car-bombs against innocent Iraqi civilians, call them “patriots” and refuse to condemn their terrorist tactics.
February 21st, 2008 at 5:26 pmJuan, Your hypocrisy is truly a wonder to behold.
Comment by Exley
And there is more… ;)
February 21st, 2008 at 5:28 pmI understand the sensitivity issues, but there is no logic flaw there if we were to be completely sincere.
Comment by Juan C. — February 21, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
So you are saying killing others is better than peace and cease fire?
February 21st, 2008 at 5:35 pmRighties and “Independents”: thanks, for the stunning display of spin – you’ve truly broken new ground. Too bad it doesn’t actually count for anything.
February 21st, 2008 at 5:38 pmYet here, you laud those who use suicide bombers and car-bombs against innocent Iraqi civilians, call them “patriots†and refuse to condemn their terrorist tactics.
Comment by Exley — February 21, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
From their perspective, many of them are “patriots.” If you’re stuck in the European notion of nations and countries, it’s easy to condemn any act of violence as Iraqis killing Iraqis. But Iraq is only a country because the British drew some lines on a map of the former Ottoman Empire and called it a country.
The thing to remember is that the terrorists who commit these acts don’t see themselves as terrorists, they see themselves as “patriotic” Shi’a defending themselves against Sunnis, or “patriotic” Sunnis defending themselves against Shi’a, or “patriotic” members of one Sunni tribe defending themselves against another Sunni tribe. Or they see themselves as “patriotic” members of a pan-Sunni movement defending themselves against their opponents. Or they see themselves as someone who really needed the money when a guy paid him to leave a knapsack by the side of the road.
The notion of self-defense can and has been used to excuse a lot of horrific atrocities. Now, I’m not saying that I support or agree with committing these atrocities. Let me make that absolutely clear for the record.
But we’re also doing ourselves a disservice to just lump together all disparate groups in Iraq and call them all “evil terrorists” or call them all “freedom fighters” without looking at the motivations of the individual groups doing the fighting.
February 21st, 2008 at 5:45 pmSo you are saying killing others is better than peace and cease fire?
Comment by Wayne
No. It’s more complicated than that.
Let me make that absolutely clear for the record.
Comment by toasterhead
Ufff, good thing you did that. Exley’s judgements would have pursued your conscience relentlessly.
February 21st, 2008 at 6:15 pm