ThinkProgress Logo

Security

The Silence Of The Clerics

sadrweb.jpgAl Jazeera reports that “an aide to Muqtada al-Sadr has lashed out at Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq’s most revered Shia cleric, for keeping silent over clashes that have killed hundreds in Baghdad”:

Speaking at Friday prayers, Sheikh Sattar Battat, an aide to al-Sadr, said he was “surprised” that al-Sistani had failed to condemn the violence.

“We are surprised by the silence in Najaf where the highest Shiite religious authority is based,” he said, referring to al-Sistani.

For 50 days Sadr City is being bombed … Children, women and old people are being killed by all kinds of US weapons, and Najaf remains silent.

Battat said the al-Sadr movement has not seen any “reaction or fatwa [religious decree] from Najaf” criticising the government assault on Shia fighters in Sadr City.

“For us this means that Najaf accepts the massacre in Sadr City,” he said.

Much of Muqtada al-Sadr’s legitimacy is based on the legacy of his father, Grand Ayatollah Sadeq al-Sadr, who built his movement in the 1990s among Iraq’s poorest Shia, and was assassinated by Saddam’s regime in 1999.

One of the central elements of the elder Sadr’s program (and now of Muqtada’s) was a distinction between the “silent clerics” (represented by Sistani and the Najaf establishment) — bookish sorts who stay remote from the lives of their people — and the “speaking clerics” who take part in the suffering and struggle of the Shia, as Sadeq did. And here the “silent clerics” once again stayed silent while Shia were crushed in Sadr City, of all places, while medical care, food, and shelter are being doled out in Muqtada’s name. It doesn’t require any math to see that Sadr benefits politically from this.

Yglesias

The Air Force’s War on Us

One weird recent defense policy subplot is that the Air Force has acquired a large pot of money to produce propaganda ads aimed at convincing the American public that the Air Force is super-important and needs more money. The fruits, a demagogic, inaccurate, fear-mongering ad about our alleged vulnerability to missile attacks on satellites:

Noah Shachtman details the many ways in which nothing said in this ad is true. I’d also associate myself with what Robert Farley has to say. But let’s also note that not only does this vulnerability not exist, but if some other country did shoot a missile at a civilian satellite there’s nothing Space Command could possibly do about it — they’re not going to intercept the missile. What we’d have to do is retaliate against the perpetrator with perfectly normal atmospheric planes and missiles.

Yglesias

Politics and Policy

Scott Lemieux gets speculative:

Admittedly, this is the kind of counterfactual that’s impossible to prove, but my guess is that if she had voted against the war Clinton would be the Democratic candidate. Given the closeness of the race, her inherent advantages going in, and that the war had to be a liability it’s hard to imagine that she wouldn’t have prevailed without the Iraq albatross. Whether or not Clinton’s support was sincere — I don’t think it really matters — sometimes getting big policies wrong really is politically damaging. (See also the 2006 midterms.) This is evidently a good thing.

I think that’s right. To take the notion that good policy is good politics out of the realm of pure idealism, I’d say the point is that policy that can be seen to have turned out poorly is bad politics. With some bad policies, the costs are either hidden or deferred to the future (or both, as with excessive carbon emissions) in which case bad policy can be excellent politics. But with something like a war that’s going to have a lot of very obvious short-run consequences, it’s genuinely quite helpful politically to have sound substantive judgment.

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up