Al Sadr told his followers to stop attacking U.S. forces in Iraq for 6 monhts. Is it because their winning?

Question

Here's the link:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294990,00.html

It's not being covered in the press, of course. If we're losing, why doesn't al Sadr tell his people to finish us off? Or does he just want to wait until after the elections, when he has a demonrat president to face, like "tough on terrorism" Mrs. Bill "i didn't have sex with that woman" Clinton, or "I use to be muslim, but not anymore" Osama Obama?

What do you say liberals and demonrats? You claim we're losing, how badly are we losing?

Remember the GOP,
"Bush screwed up in Iraq...", how? We're WINNING, in spite of how much you'd like to believe otherwise. We can't stay there forever? How long did we stay in Germany and Japan after WW2? That's right, WE'RE STILL THERE. Bush "played in their hands"? Is that what Sadamm thinks? Or his sons? Silly me, I forgot, THEY'RE DEAD. Did he play into Osama's hand? He planned on living in a cave? lol.

Nothing you say makes any sense at all.

Dinod, I think the story DOES show that we're winning. Actually we've already won. There is killing and fighting still going on, of course there is in every major american city, but in both cases, we're in control.

Sorry for your luck.

Answer 1

Im surprised that Al Sadr isnt on the liberal guest list for a clinton/obama fundraiser... i mean, the rest of the communists will be there.....chavez, castro, etc,etc.

Answer 2

This is no way can be considered winning or any kind of victory. I would assume he is either regrouping, reupping munitions and getting reorganized for a later date, or that he is making an attempt to stabilize the country so that US forces leave. After all, time and time again we and the Iraqi's have been told that we will leave when the country is stable and can handle its own security. Maybe he is giving the US a chance to live up to its word and do what they said.

Answer 3

No matter how many "juvenile" phrases you pack into your meaningless post, it still doesn't change the fact that your idol Bush screwed up in Iraq. Iran already has a foothold in Iraq. They just have to play a waiting game now. We can't stay there forever and Iran isn't spending a penny getting control of Iraq. Bush played right into extremism's hand making this stupid move.

Answer 4

I believe that he is trying to legitimize himself. Sooner or later we're going to have some kind of negotiations to end this war. Al Sadr wants a seat at the table. We've already told the Malaki government that they are have to share power. All parties will eventually have to be recognized.

Answer 5

This is being reported by all major news outlets --

"The surprise declaration was widely taken as a tacit acknowledgment of the damage done to his movement’s reputation by two days of Shiite-on-Shiite in-fighting, which killed 52 people, wounded 279 and forced thousands of pilgrims to flee birthday celebrations for the Mahdi, one of Shiite Islam’s most revered medieval saints.

Mr. Sadr’s aides declared an unequivocal end to all militia operations. Ahmed al-Shaibani, the chief of Mr. Sadr’s media office in Najaf, confirmed that this “includes suspending the taking up of arms against occupiers,” a reference to American-led coalition troops.

But Mr. Shaibani, who was one of the major commanders in the Mahdi Army’s August 2004 battle with American troops in Najaf, another Shiite holy city, left open the possibility that militiamen would react if provoked, saying only, “We will deal with it when it happens.”

It is also unclear whether the widely feared group will continue to exert its powerful hold over the black market distribution of everyday necessities in Iraq, including gas, diesel, cooking fuel and other utilities.

Mr. Sadr’s officials claimed that the freeze was intended to isolate and eliminate “rogue” elements of the Mahdi Army that no longer responded to Mr. Sadr’s orders.

American and British commanders have frequently made accusations in recent months that some Mahdi Army fighters have slipped out of Mr. Sadr’s control, operating as criminal gangs or receiving financing and training from Iran to carry out attacks on American and Iraqi security forces. One possible impact of the freeze would be to enlist the help of American forces to weed out rogue elements for Mr. Sadr’s group. In effect, Mr. Sadr was saying, anyone who attacks Americans is by definition violating the freeze and laying himself open to retaliatory attacks.

A statement signed by Mr. Sadr said the six-month suspension of the militia’s activities was intended to “rehabilitate it in a way that will safeguard its ideological image.”

Sounds like he's going to let US eliminate the "rogue elements" regroup and consolidate his power. In six months Bush will still be President and will still have a year to go in his Presidency. This story in no way shows that the US is "winning" in Iraq...

Answer 6

No -- it only makes sense.

Al-Sadr wants to consolidate his power, and if he's not fighting the US and if he's not fighting the Iraqi forces, then there's nothing to stop him from consolidating.

Remember, this is one of the major faction leaders, who was until recently one of the senior members of the Iraqi govt -- he is in a good position to provide stability in his territory, and that's the best anyonje going to get for a while.

Answer 7

They just suffered heavy losses in there last engagement. Also there might be a bigger problem coming, Iran has just stated they are ready to go in there and fill in the gaps if we leave and that would present a whole knew set of problems for those trying to gain control of Iraq for there own purposes.

Answer 8

I believe the tide has turned there, with the tribal sheiks siding with the coalition now, his best bet is to get in politically.

Answer 9

It is called regrouping so they can fight with even more vigor and efficiency.