Since the Congress is incompetent and cannot do what 70% of the country wants them to do (for those of you who have been living under a rock for 5 years, that is ending the War on Iraq), the Iraqi resistance will have to do it. Al-Sadr believes that the puppet government of Iraq is about to fall (see: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/20/europe/EU-GEN-Britain-Al-Sadr.php ). Will al-Sadr bring down the government of Iraq and end this War since nobody in Washington has enough intelligence to figure how to end it?
2007-08-21 11:20:23 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Al Sadr has his own enemies and his "army" basically only runs part of Baghdad. He doesn't have the force to run the whole country nor does he have support of all the Shiites. He is only well known because his army is in Baghdad although he is said to be in Iran. There are 18 providences in Iraq all of which could seperate into their own city states. Remember ancient Greece developed Democracy, but they were basically a bunch of city states that would go to war with themselves. That's also the natural makeup of the politics of Iraq and probably the best system to set up rather than a weak federal system based on many modern Democratic/Republic systems.
2007-08-21 17:23:16 · answer #1 · answered by gregory_dittman 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Al Sadr is part of the Coalition that keeps Maliki in Power. That's why the Army never rewally moves against him.
He doesn't have to kick the Government out he owns it.
2007-08-21 13:43:19 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Vampire is esentially correct. Everytime you see reports of Sadr "pulling out his block", he is actually removing cabinet members, or only boycotting votes, and not formally removing his support. If his party did so, it would be a disaster for the Maliki government. I also find true1's statement a little hard to swallow. Why would you release al-Sadr due to the objections of the local cleric? He owns the clerics.
2007-08-21 13:50:14 · answer #3 · answered by Chance20_m 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If you think this guy coming into power and ending the war is a good thing, then you obviously don't know this guy. My Company had this POS arrested in 2003 in Najaf. We had to let him go due to pressures from the local cleric. He is part of the problem and not the answer. Sometimes the opposite of war is not peace. It's something much worse than war. Be careful what you wish for because you may get it. The way to end the war is to win it. The way to win it is to let us fight it the way wars are fought. Bloody and deadly. Collateral damage is a part of war.
2007-08-21 11:38:39 · answer #4 · answered by Rick 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Is it stable that they are coming abode? confident. Is it available that the interest isn't performed and Iraq could desire to desire to slip back into the anarchy that prevailed after Saddam grew to become into deposed? confident, very. is this probably a flow by skill of skill of the Obama administration to curry choose for with the left wing of the Democratic occasion? Now, does not I be the cynic to think of of that?
2016-10-08 23:57:09 · answer #5 · answered by blust 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think Al-Sadr and Zarqawi should have been killed or captured before sovereignty was turned over to Iraq.
2007-08-21 12:30:13 · answer #6 · answered by csn0331 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
And what about the war in Afghanistan?
And what about when we invade Iran?
2007-08-21 13:09:13 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋