Two articles today provide some insight:
New US defense chief weighs reinforcements on Iraq visit (AFP)
Top Shiite Cleric Is Said to Favor a Coalition for Iraq (NYT)
From AFP:
Hadi al-Ameri of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), described this idea as "madness".
"Any attempt to exclude Sadr's movement would be a strategic error," he warned. "How could you exclude the Sadr movement when the prime minister is working for national reconciliation?"
Instead, Shiite officials from the coalition parties said a delegation would meet Sadr and urge him to restate his support for the political process.
al-Sadr has paralyzed the government since Bush's meeting with al-Maliki in Jordan. Why would he rejoin the government now?
Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq sounds distinctly Iranian to me...which is a bit worrisome.
From NYT:
BAGHDAD, Dec. 19 —Iraq’s most venerated Shiite cleric has tentatively approved an American-backed coalition of Shiite, Sunni Arab and Kurdish parties that aims to isolate extremists, particularly the powerful Shiite militia leader Moktada al-Sadr, Iraqi and Western officials say...
Mr. Maliki has expressed strong interest in the coalition but wants initially to welcome all political parties into its fold rather than to limit membership, Iraqi and Western officials say. That would provide additional political cover for any break with Mr. Sadr.
The prime minister’s [al-Maliki] proposal, Mr. Hamoudi said, "is to start with a very wide door and gradually close it."
So, while different groups publicly express strong support and some reservation for the coalition I see a lot of agreement here on specifics. Including, critically, the approach to dealing with al-Sadr. Invite him in, give him a chance...when he rejects it, which I assume he will (why shouldn't I?), the beefed up American force can finally confront his militia head on.
Is that what our troops are going to do?? If not, they shouldn't go.
No comments:
Post a Comment