The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPatrick Cockburn Archive
Iraqis Shake Off Foreign Intervention in Sadr's Ballot Box Success
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Muqtada al-Sadr, the nationalist populist Shia cleric, has once again defied predictions as the coalition he leads outperformed rival parties in the parliamentary election on 12 May. His supporters successfully campaigned for social and political reform and against a corrupt and dysfunctional political establishment.

It was the latest surprise in the career of a man who barely survived the murder of his father, the revered Shia religious leader Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr, and his two brothers, on the orders of Saddam Hussein in 1999.

Four years later, after the US invasion of Iraq, he was in danger of being killed once again, this time by American forces who twice besieged him in the holy city of Najaf in 2004.

Mr Sadr will be very much the king-maker – though he will have no official position – in the formation of a new Iraqi government.

His coalition, which includes the Iraqi Communist Party, independents and secularists as well as his religious followers, appealed strongly to Iraqis who feel that, with the war won against Isis, they need to rebuild their country.

The Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi hoped to win the election – though no party was ever likely to win an absolute majority – by appealing to voters as the leader who recaptured Mosul from Isis last year.

He followed this up with a largely bloodless reoccupation of Kirkuk, held by the Kurds since 2003, and the restoration of a large measure of government authority in Iraqi Kurdistan.

The political movement formed out of the largely Shia paramilitaries, the Hashd al-Shaabi, which came second in the polls, had, like Mr Abadi, hoped to win more votes through their role in the war against Isis.

But the drop in violence to a level not seen since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein means that Iraqis are focusing on the theft by the political elite of hundreds of billions of dollars in oil revenues that should have been used to improve the supply of water, electricity, waste disposal as well medical care and education.

Mr Sadr has been frequently underestimated as a political leader since he first emerged from house arrest in Najaf at the time of the US invasion.

He was described by the western media as a ‘maverick’ or ‘firebrand cleric’, but his views were always more sophisticated and flexible than he was given credit for.

The origin of Mr Sadr’s influence was his family’s role as religious leaders and the martyrdom of many of them, beginning with the execution of Mohammed Baqr al-Sadr in 1980.

His father led a movement that appealed to the Shia poor of Baghdad and southern Iraq, combining religious revivalism with social and political radicalism. From the start, Sadrism had a strong element of Iraqi nationalism in opposition to all foreign interference in Iraq, be it American, British or Iranian.

In an interview with The Independent in Najaf in 2013 – the first he had given face-to-face to a Western journalist for 10 years – Mr Sadr spoke graphically of the ill-effects of Iraq inviting in different foreign powers to try to solve its problems.

ORDER IT NOW

He compared this to “somebody who found a mouse in his house, then he kept a cat, then he wanted to get the cat out of the house so he kept a dog, then to get the dog out of his house he bought an elephant, so he bought a mouse.”

Mr Sadr created the Shia paramilitary Mehdi Army to resist the Americans. He was later to stand this down during the Sunni-Shia sectarian mass killings of 2006-7, saying that it had been infiltrated by people not under his control.

He was denounced by the US as a pro-Iranian proxy, but he has made clear over the years that he opposes Iranian interference as well as that of other countries.

The Sadrist success in the election this month will be unwelcome in both Washington and Tehran.

The US had done everything it could to back Mr Abadi as a victorious war leader and a sort of Iraqi Winston Churchill – forgetting, perhaps, that Churchill lost the British general election in 1945.

Mr Sadr’s influence over an incoming government in Baghdad puts in doubt the future of the 10,000 American troops and military contractors in Iraq, though a Sadrist spokesman said after the election that US training and the weapons procurement from the US could continue.

Iran, for its part, has close links with the Hashd al-Shaabi and the group led by the former prime minister Nouri al-Maliki and will be wary of Mr Sadr’s Iraqi nationalism.

Mr Maliki stays in power until the formation of a new government, which he may lead in an alliance with the Sadrists.

Mr Sadr is perceptive about political developments in Iraq. When I interviewed him five years ago he warned against Sunni-Shia sectarianism and foreign interference. He said that ‘the Iraqi people will disintegrate, its government will disintegrate and it will be easy for foreign powers to control the country.” This prediction was to be fulfilled six months later when Isis took Mosul and the Iraqi army broke up.

Mr Sadr said that sectarianism was spreading at street level and “if it spreads among the people, it will be difficult to fight”.

Iraqi politics is still largely based on sectarian or ethnic identity – Shia, Sunni and Kurd – but the religious parties that were in the ascendant after 2003 have discredited themselves. The majority Shia community is also more confident, after its military victories last year, that it is firmly in control and is not going to be dispossessed from power.

Mr Sadr said that the problem was that the Iraqi psychology had been shaped by a “constant cycle of violence: Saddam, occupation, war after war, first Gulf war, the second Gulf war, then the occupation war.”

The election this month, in which so many voters gave priority to social rather than security issues, may show that, as violence ebbs, Iraqi are becoming less traumatised.

(Republished from The Independent by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Iran, Iraq, Muqtada al-Sadr 
Hide 6 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. “The election this month, in which so many voters gave priority to social rather than security issues, may show that, as violence ebbs, Iraqi are becoming less traumatised.”

    i hope so.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Mr. XYZ says:

    “Mr Maliki stays in power until the formation of a new government, which he may lead in an alliance with the Sadrists.”

    I think that you mean Mr. Abadi, not Mr. Maliki. After all, Mr. Abadi is the current Iraqi Prime Minister.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. I’m not going to suggest that Saddam Hussein was “the good old days”, but the Ba’athists, whether in Iraq or Syria, were/are very much on the same page as Sadr. The problem was their approach to implementation which, not to put too fine a point on, was blunt brutality In fairness, there was and is many more complicatiions than recognized or admitted, due to ancient tribal rivalries that predate religious differences.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Since Saddam’s henchmen killed Sadr’s father, I strongly suspect that Mr. Sadr would not agree with someone saying ‘they were on the same page’.

    There’s also the minor matter of one being Sunni and the other being Shia, which is always confused in the west. For instance, when the world’s big terror threats are the Al-Qaeda and ISIS which been attacking the US and Europe for the last decade and a half are firmly Sunni, while the west constantly refers to the Iran Shias as being the world’s biggest supporters of terrorism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. I have always believed that Sadr was the best hope for the future of Iraq. He has always wanted both the Iranians and the US out of his country. If you remember, Sadr was the one who led a predominantly Shi’ite convoy to Fallujah to offer assistance to the Sunni’s objecting to the US occupation. (Because 4 mercenaries were killed in Fallujah, the US decided to lay siege and kill untold numbers of both Sunni fighters and civilians). One of the stories placed in the media was that Sadr was interested in the future of Iraq focused partially on his wish for literacy and education while the occupation and sectarian murders only deepened. It was written and published to show “weakness” instead of the his wish to see a different Iraq after the occupation. The US also tried to assassinate him until he fled to Iran. The one predominant factor is that Sadr is an Iraqi nationalist who heads a political following both nonsectarian and anti-corruption. As such he is a threat to US and Iranian interests. I hope he can succeed for the benefit of all in the region although I would suspect the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the other murderous thugs in the neighborhood will probably cry “Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest (“ayatollah”).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. El Dato says:

    The US had done everything it could to back Mr Abadi as a victorious war leader and a sort of Iraqi Winston Churchill – forgetting, perhaps, that Churchill lost the British general election in 1945.

    I thought the only thing that Churchill did for Iraq was post-WWI colonially suppressing in ruthless fashion Arab/Kurd aspirations, possibly going as far as using mustard gas, so that the Empire could maintain its glory.

    I can’t believe they literally took out Winston as a propganda implement,

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Patrick Cockburn Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Full Story of the Taliban's Amazing Jailbreak
"They Can't Even Protect Themselves, So What Can They Do For Me?"
"All Hell is Breaking Loose with Muqtada" Warlord: the Rise of Muqtada al-Sadr