From the Telegraph UK
I no longer have power to save Iraq from civil war, warns Shia leader
By Gethin Chamberlain and Aqeel Hussein in Baghdad
(Filed: 9/3/2006)
The most influential moderate Shia leader in Iraq has abandoned attempts to restrain his followers, admitting that there is nothing he can do to prevent the country sliding towards civil war.
Aides say Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is angry and disappointed that Shias are ignoring his calls for calm and are switching their allegiance in their thousands to more militant groups which promise protection from Sunni violence and revenge for attacks.
"I will not be a political leader any more," he told aides. "I am only happy to receive questions about religious matters."
It is a devastating blow to the remaining hopes for a peaceful solution in Iraq and spells trouble for British forces, who are based in and around the Shia stronghold of Basra.
The cleric is regarded as the most important Shia religious leader in Iraq and has been a moderating influence since the invasion of 2003. He ended the fighting in Najaf between Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi army and American forces in 2004 and was instrumental in persuading the Shia factions to fight the 2005 elections under the single banner of the United Alliance.
However, the extent to which he has become marginalised was demonstrated last week when fighting broke out in Diwaniya between Iraqi soldiers and al-Sadr's Mehdi army. With dozens dead, al-Sistani's appeals for calm were ignored. Instead, the provincial governor had to travel to Najaf to see al-Sadr, who ended the fighting with one telephone call.
Al-Sistani's aides say that he has chosen to stay silent rather than suffer the ignominy of being ignored. Ali al-Jaberi, a spokesman for the cleric in Khadamiyah, said that he was furious that his followers had turned away from him and ignored his calls for moderation.
Asked whether Ayatollah al-Sistani could prevent a civil war, Mr al-Jaberi replied: "Honestly, I think not. He is very angry, very disappointed."
He said a series of snubs had contributed to Ayatollah al-Sistani's decision. "He asked the politicians to ask the Americans to make a timetable for leaving but they disappointed him," he said. "After the war, the politicians were visiting him every month. If they wanted to do something, they visited him. But no one has visited him for two or three months. He is very angry that this is happening now. He sees this as very bad."
A report from the Pentagon on Friday said that the core conflict in Iraq had changed from a battle against insurgents to an increasingly bloody fight between Shia and Sunni Muslims, creating conditions that could lead to civil war. It noted that attacks rose by 24 per cent to 792 per week - the highest of the war - and daily Iraqi casualties soared by 51 per cent to almost 120, prompting some ordinary Iraqis to look to illegal militias for their safety and sometimes for social needs and welfare.
Hundreds of thousands of people have turned away from al-Sistani to the far more aggressive al-Sadr. Sabah Ali, 22, an engineering student at Baghdad University, said that he had switched allegiance after the murder of his brother by Sunni gunmen. "I went to Sistani asking for revenge for my brother," he said. "They said go to the police, they couldn't do anything.
"But even if the police arrest them, they will release them for money, because the police are bad people. So I went to the al-Sadr office. I told them about the terrorists' family. They said, 'Don't worry, we'll get revenge for your brother'. Two days later, Sadr's people had killed nine of the terrorists, so I felt I had revenge for my brother. I believe Sadr is the only one protecting the Shia against the terrorists."
According to al-Sadr's aides, he owes his success to keeping in touch with the people. "He meets his representatives every week or every day. Sistani only meets his representatives every month," said his spokesman, Sheik Hussein al-Aboudi.
"Muqtada al-Sadr asks them what the situation is on the street, are there any fights against the Shia, he is asking all the time. So the people become close to al-Sadr because he is closer to them than Sistani. Sistani is the ayatollah, he is very expert in Islam, but not as a politician."
Even the Iraqi army seems to have accepted that things have changed. First Lieut Jaffar al-Mayahi, an Iraqi National Guard officer, said many soldiers accepted that al-Sadr's Mehdi army was protecting Shias. "When they go to checkpoints and their vehicles are searched, they say they are Mehdi army and they are allowed through. But if we stop Sistani's people we sometimes arrest them and take away their weapons."
Western diplomats fear that the vacuum will be filled by the more radical Shia clerics, hastening the break-up of the country and an increase in sectarian violence.
Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's former special representative for Iraq, said the decline in Ayatollah al-Sistani's influence was bad news for Iraq.
"It would be a pity if his strong instincts to maintain the unity of Iraq and to forswear violence were removed from influencing the scene," he said.
"Iraq is not a failure" -- (e:joshua)
Lol...
From what I can see you have never remotely suggested (e:joshua) that the war in Iraq was the wrong thing, or that it was failing. We have not bothered to ask your position on the war, because you have in the past clearly spelled out your position. Here is an example from your own words: :::link:::
"THE PROBLEM, Chrissy? Take a bow sir. You've now exposed yourself to the suggestion that you are willing to allow Iraq go down in flames as long as Democrats can gain politically from it in an election year. Any of you people who think that Democrats are going to somehow be smelling roses in November are kidding yourselves when the most prominent among you are begging, pleading and praying for our action in the Middle East to fail. That suuuure is going to be buying you votes, baby! P.S. I'm already deep in your squishy grey matter between your ears, lefties. Iraq is not a failure and won't be unless we do what you want, which is to give up. Of course, there is no meaningful public support for a pullout so you just might have to find a "sympathetic" judge to rule in your favor somehow suggesting that war is unconstitutional!"
Would this not be considered flip flopping? Are you pulling a John Kerry? Where have you ever said that you disagreed with the war in Iraq? The only thing you have done is tried to prove how those who are against war have only interferred with the peace process. Regardless of who is flip flopping here, many of us have held on to our beliefs over time rather than just toss them to the wind. I ask you again (e:joshua), where have you ever once said that the war in Iraq was the wrong choice?
I've always felt that the most important miscalulation the government made regarding this war was that there would be a viable political solution for the various tribes and different religious sects of Islam within Iraq. I have never believed that setting up a government as we have would work there, considering their seemingly insolvable sectarian differences. It would be like making the Catholics and Protestants get along in Ireland at the height of their differences - bad blood doesn't go away just because a coalition government was formed. Previous to Saddam going bye-bye, his Sunni minority and their oppression of the Shia over 30 years made it even worse. The whole time the Shia were saying, "Don't worry, trust us - we'll set up this government so that the Sunnis won't get unjust treatment." I called bullshit then and so should have the U.S. government. They should have know that there was going to be fighting - the Sunnis lost Saddam's benevolence and want it back, and the Shias are bitter about being mistreated and misrepresented despite being the majority. If they wanted to go into Iraq so badly, they should have thought about this and done their homework before dismantling their political structure.
Actually I have alot of problems with the Iraq war but nobody has ever asked me about it. It might come as a surprise to you that although I'm not one of these kooks who believe that this was a big conspiracy to overthrow Saddam for the hell of it, and that they *purposefully* misled the public about the WMDs, etc. - I've always thought that their logic and reasoning were wafer thin and faulty. I thought Dick Cheney was blowing smoke up our butt when he said that we'd be greeted as liberators - undoubtedly for some its true, but for others as we can see it certainly isn't true.
that was a very good article. thanks for posting it. Love the kitties below too!