Is there a proverb that says everything unpredictable happens in the morning?
A knock on the front door at seven in the morning is not predictable; I jumped. What now?
I look out the entrance window hesitantly to find a small lady covered in black from head to toe, standing outside.
Um Noor!
Um Noor (mother of Noor) is a sweet soul in a tiny frame, who used to come help me with household duties once a week, from 2000 until I went away in Feb, 2003.
I am ecstatic! I have been trying to find her ever since I came back; she is so energetic and so proud of her faultless work.
I open the door with a cry of welcome on my lips, and she comes in. She looks at me and bursts out crying.
And the story comes pouring out.
She was happily married for twenty years, when Iraq was occupied.
After a while strange, little used words start flying around.
Sunni … Shiite … Sunni … Shiite … Then fighting started breaking out because of this long submerged difference. In her neighborhood, as in the greater majority of Baghdad's neighborhoods, no one is really sure who on their bloc is Sunni, or Shiite; and nobody really cares.
Soon after, the IEDs and car bombs started taking their toll from people still bewildered as to: Why is this happening?
BOOM! She loses her husband, on his way to work, a Shiite.
Being a Sunni herself, she is urged - very strongly - to move away; their part of Amil is Shiite controlled.
Having nowhere to go, she stays.
A car stops in front of their home.
BANG, BANG, BANG! She loses her son (20), her brother, and nephew
She takes her remaining children and flees, finding no haven - except in Abu Ghraib, (Sunni controlled) where she lives in perpetual fear lest her dark secret be uncovered: that her kids are – of course – Shiite.
Her two remaining sons (16 and 10) live imprisoned in their hut; she has buried all their IDs and tells everyone that they got lost …………and as a result they cannot receive rations.
They are starving to death.
How, and why, has it suddenly become important, this Sunni – Shiite business; and since when did Iraqis care?
I myself had not even heard the terms until I was an adult.
How to help????????
Can anyone see a light at the end of this dark, dark, tunnel?
The Times reports point blank today what ought to have been obvious since the start of the so-called "surge," namely, that the United States has decided to concentrate its fire on the Sunnis and give the Shiite death squads and paramilitary forces -- read: SCIRI -- a free pass. Notes the Times:
In Baghdad, American officials seem increasingly willing to tolerate some of those Shiite militias as long as they patrol their own neighborhoods. Administration officials said they had eased up on parts of the timetable for re-integrating former Baathists, for fear of a Shiite backlash.
An accompanying Times piece makes this even more explicit, citing Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, the top spokesman for the United States military :
General Caldwell’s comments — combined with praise for the cooperation of Shiite officials and negotiators for the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia loyal to the cleric Moktada al-Sadr — seemed to suggest that the military was returning to its former strategy of concentrating on Sunni extremists. That would represent a change from American officials’ comments in the past few months that identified Shiite militias as Iraq’s largest threat.
Thanks to Juan Cole's Informed Comment blog, we have an interview with Khalaf al-Ulayyan, a Sunni member of parliament, who accuses the United States of launching an all-out assault against the Sunnis while bringing Shiite militamen into the Iraqi forces involved in the "surge." In Amman, speaking to Iraq's Al-Zawra TV, here's part of what Ulayyan says:
Al-Ulayyan accuses the Government of trying to gain time by impeding the security plan. "They want to gain time to evict and kill the largest possible number of Sunnis, especially in the Baghdad Governorate," he claims, adding: "They dissolved Al-Mahdi Army before the implementation of the plan and asked the Al-Mahdi Army not to take up arms against US forces." He says the government has absorbed them into the National Guard, the Interior Ministry storm troopers, or law enforcement personnel.
He says that "top Al-Mahdi Army commanders" were smuggled outside Iraq to keep them from being arrested or killed, and notes that there was "an order to that effect signed by the prime minister himself and was displayed on space channels and on the Internet." He argues that the US forces go to the Al-Sadr city but they do not encounter any resistance. He says they announce on television that "the US and government forces will be storming the Al-Sadr City to search for concealed arms," noting that this is a warning to them to be on their guard. He says once they hear such warning, they will conceal their arms or bury them and the wanted people will escape. Al-Ulayyan asks: "Why do they not do that in our areas? Why do they not say that they will storm Al-A'zamiah neighborhood? Why do they not say that they plan to storm Al-Khadra or Al-Ghazaliyah neighborhoods?"
Not surprisingly, though you don't often hear this from a member of the Iraqi parliament, Ulayyan explicitly supports the resistance in Iraq, though he condemns Al Qaeda.
Al-Ulayyan says the Iraqi resistance is an honor to every Iraqi. He says that "when the Iraqi state collapsed in such a short time, we were ashamed and I could not appear in public because I was ashamed." He says the Iraqi resistance restored the honor of the Iraqis. He says he is prepared to offer everything to the resistance, adding: "The Iraqi resistance that fights the occupation, that defends the Iraqis, and that does not shed the blood of the Iraqis is the real resistance. We do not recognize terrorism that kills the Iraqis -- Shiites, Sunnis, or others -- and we do not consider it Iraqi resistance.
Posted by Robert Dreyfuss on March 15, 2007 10:31 AM|Permalink
"Sunnis vs. Shi'ites, Why they Hate each other. What's really driving the civil war that's tearing the Middle East apart."
So proclaims the cover of the March 5th, 2007, issue of Time magazine, U.S and Pacific editions. Presumably, they know better than to put it on the cover of the European edition.
It reminds me of the "Iraq at war with itself" cover of The Economist, May 2006, which featured the face of a bawling Iraqi man. I commented on it here.
Then it was the face of grief. Now it's the face of hate.
In both cases, Iraqis are portrayed as unfortunately emotional before the typical reader of Time, whose "person of 2006", let us recall, was You, the face of which is rationality itself, a computer.
Note the shades of "Why do they hate us?" which followed the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.
Beyond this (staged and unconvincing) image of these two hate-ful Iraqis, we find the now familiar American explanation of these 'hateful warring sects', in Behind the Sunni-Shi'ite Divide.
The lead-in from the contents page gives the gist:
The war between the two Islamic sects has left the U.S.'s hopes of building a stable Iraq in ruins. A look at the roots of the struggle —and whether anything can stop it.
This must be such a comfort to American readers. The guerrilla war against their soldiers, which is intensifying even during the present security crackdown, is not mentioned in this Time article.
Thus, in the space of a year the "narrative" has been transformed from the Iraq which America has ruined to the ruins of the "U.S.'s hopes". So it's Americans we should empathize with. If it wasn't for these over-emotional Iraqis, they'd have rebuilt the country, packed up and gone home by now.
No wonder they didn't run this cover in the European edition. They think little enough of America as it is.
Rather slap a declaration on its cover, and then presuming to clear up any lingering misunderstanding in the actual news story, Time would do better to form the words into a question: Why do they hate each other?
It's a good question, because until recently, whether Iraqis were Sunni or Shi'ite was not the defining feature of their identity.
To be sure, the common view that Sunnis, though a minority, controlled Iraq and discriminated against Shi'ites, who deeply resented their treatment, is amply supported by the historical record.
But it wasn't the doing of Saddam Hussein. It goes back to the days of the Ottoman empire (1534-1918), when Sunni Arabs from around Baghdad were placed in positions of power to ward off the threat of Iran connected Shia clerics.
The British continued this practice during the first half of the last century when they took control of the region. Integration of Sunnis and Shi'ias began as soon as the British left (although their monarch remained) and it continued under the Baathists.
More recently:
The real tension in Iraq in the latter 1980s was between the majority of the population, Sunnis as well as Shias, for whom religious belief and practice were significant values, and the secular Baathists, rather than between Sunnis and Shias. Although the Shias had been underrepresented in government posts in the period of the monarchy, they made substantial progress in the educational, business, and legal fields. Their advancement in other areas, such as the opposition parties, was such that in the years from 1952 to 1963, before the Baath Party came to power, Shias held the majority of party leadership posts. Observers believed that in the late 1980s Shias were represented at all levels of the party roughly in proportion to government estimates of their numbers in the population. For example, of the eight top Iraqi leaders who in early 1988 sat with Husayn on the Revolutionary Command Council--Iraq's highest governing body-- three were Arab Shias (of whom one had served as Minister of Interior), three were Arab Sunnis, one was an Arab Christian, and one a Kurd. On the Regional Command Council--the ruling body of the party--Shias actually predominated. During the war, a number of highly competent Shia officers have been promoted to corps commanders. The general who turned back the initial Iranian invasions of Iraq in 1982 was a Shia. [Helen Chapin Metz. ed. Iraq: A Country Study, 1988]
During the Presidency of Saddam Hussein, integration of Sunnis and Shi'ites continued. Most of his government were Shi'ia. As I recall, the majority of those "most wanted" depicted on playing cards by the U.S. Department of Defense, are Shi-ites, not Sunnis.
They married each other and lived together as Muslims and Iraqis. A little over a year ago they were fighting together side-by-side in the resistance to the occupation.[Link]
So well might we ask, Why all the sectarian killing now?
Most basically, if someone tries to kill you and yours, the emotions of anger and hate are a normal response. When there is no State justice system and given Iraqis tribal sense of honour, that those who are attacked will retaliate should surprise no one—least of all those inciting this civil war.
There is now a rat's nest of attacks and retaliation, causes and effects. But let's start with the event which seems to have transformed a united Iraqi resistance to the occupation into a civil war, the bombing of the al-Askari mosque, a little over a year ago.
Is it true that the mood on the street following the destruction of the dome was anti-Sunni? Not according to Sami Ramadani, writing in The Guardian: The word on the street was (and is) that this was the work of the U.S. and its allies—U.S. and Israeli flags were burned in protest—not Sunni extremists. The mood was anti-occupation, not sectarian.
So who were those masked gunmen who took around 12 hours to plant the explosives under that dome, in the then U.S. controlled Samarra?
It's a question many Iraqis are asking even now. It underlies Akram Abdulrazzaq's Iraq's Car Bombers—Who are They? Why is it that of the thousands of car bombs, not a single owner of these cars has been identified?
He goes on:
Before Baghdad fell to U.S. troops, the country had a sophisticated car registration system, and the authorities were able to identify the owner of any wrecked vehicle in a matter of minutes.
So why not now?
Don't these cars have registrations and serial numbers? We have yet to hear of the authorities identifying the owner of a single vehicle used in a car bombing or even where it came from.
Iraqis, he argues, are not persuaded by the authorities' "naive excuses".
They need the Americans and the Iraqi authorities they support to tell them where in the world all these car bombs are coming from. How is it that they manage to sneak through so many American and Iraqi checkpoints and road blocks, especially in Baghdad?
With more than 80,000 American troops now in Baghdad, and every modern means of technology available to them, how indeed.
How can one ignore the fact that with all of their capabilities, the occupiers and the government failed to prevent a vehicle carrying hundreds of kilos of explosives from freely crossing the border, traveling the streets and passing through check point after check point? On top of that, the authorities have been unable to identify even a single car bomb or person who prepares them; and they have failed to inhibit their passage through government checkpoints on their way to park amid shops and innocent people.
Wouldn't you think that the "security services" would make a special effort at the February 12 ceremony at the Shorja market to mark the one year anniversary of the bombing of the al-Askari mosque? Two car bombs. At least 80 people killed. [Link]
Where did these cars come from? Who owned them? How is it that the perpetrators of these car bombings are always "unknown"?
A lot of the cars used as car bombs, you may be surprised to learn, come from the United States. So argues Debbie Hamilton of Right Truth. She believes that they are supplied by "Muslim/Arab used car dealers", in support of the "terrorists", but a rather more obvious conclusion is possible.
Could some of the Pentagon’s hired Mercenaries be the real perpetrators of the daily bombings and assassinations of Sunnis and Shias in Iraq?
Is the current disaster taking place in the war-torn country part of a wider plot to provoke a U.S./Israeli planned civil war that will dismember Iraq?
And while we're on this topic, whatever became of those two British SAS soldiers, disguised as Arabs, caught about to plant a bomb near a religious festival in Basra? John Pilger's account is here. My own is here. See also Steve Watson's Who are the Real Terrorists in Iraq?
Why isn't Time magazine asking questions such as these? Americans (and the British, come to that) have such an exaggerated opinion of themselves that they don't believe "they" could have a hand in inciting this civil war.
If the recent BBC World Service poll, which evaluates the USA alongside Iran, Israel and North Korea, is any guide, the rest of the world appears not to have this problem.
"Islam doesn't have a Pope. So there isn't one guy who can say, 'This isn't kosher.'"
-- Fareed Zakaria
That's why I love Fareed. He's got a grasp on the situation. He can break it down for you in simple terms that make it clear where the problems are. And he brings the funny. Unfortunately, you have to work really hard to find the funny in Iraq these days.
The recent reports of massive military operations are going to get all sorts of attention the next few weeks. Early reports aren't doing anything to brighten my spirits. However, it is still crucial we get a clear sense of the situation so we can see where the problems are, even if Dubya & Friends can't be bothered.
I know that the recent operation in Najaf is going to be played out as some sort of victory vindicating the Decider'sTM New and Improved Strategy For VictoryTM. In reality, this is like trying to quell unrest in Northern Ireland by helping Protestants kill Catholics at the start of Lent.
Actually, it is worse.
Four things you need to know
1)Sunni vs. Shi'ite 2)Where is Najaf? 3)What is Ashura? 4)Who is Muqtada al Sadr?
A couple of other things will shake out from these four main points, but these are critical. If you can't follow this, the spinmeisters in the Right Wing Echo Chamber will play you like a fool. Glenn Beck will have a field day with you. You don't want to be played for a fool, right?
Sunni vs. Shi'ite. Basically, it boils down to whether you believe that Mohammed's successor had to be from his blood line or if any man could potentially have taken the job. The split is evident in the profession of faith, called the Shehada, used by the two sects.
The Shia say:
There is no god but Alláh, Muhammad is the Messenger of Alláh, Alí is the Friend of Alláh. The Successor of the Messenger of Alláh And his first Caliph."
The Sunni leave out the stuff about Ali. Unfortunately for the Shia, Ali's blood line was exterminated in 873 CE. They don't buy it and prefer to believe the final Caliph is "hidden" and will return some day to lead them. While they are waiting the Ulema, or council of Ayatollahs, plays the role of central dispenser of all laws and edicts. The Sunnis of course don't recognize the authority of the Ulema.
It's not a perfect analogy but think of it as similar to comparing Roman Catholics to Baptists.
When you look at a map of Iraq, you find the Sunni and Shia are spread out, with some mixing in the South. Note that Najaf is predominantly Shia territory. Najaf is actually a central place for Shia, second only to the Iranian city of Qom as a center of spiritual learning. It has tons of mosques and universities. If you follow the river North, before you hit Fallujah, you wind up at Karbala. That's a really important city. Ali was slaughtered with his troops in Karbala trying to regain control of Caliphate. His tomb is there.
What is Ashura? Ashura is the most solemn holy commemoration on the Shia calendar. The observance of Ashura was outlawed by Saddam. Ashura commemorates the death of Mohammed's grandson, Ali. The death of Ali is observed by Shia with pilgrimages to Karbala. Only Mecca and Medina see more pilgrims. Unlike the pilgrimage to Mecca, this one is full of sadness and grief. Ali's martyrdom is widely interpreted by Shi'a as a symbol of the struggle against injustice, tyranny, and oppression. They beat their chests and flagellate themselves in an effort to connect with his suffering. The pictures you see of people walking through the streets bleeding come from these processions. Think of it as Yom Kippur or Lent, but with a severe beating. Oh, by the way, today is the first day of Ashura. It lasts for 10 days.
What about Muqtada al Sadr? He is the leader of the largest Shi'ite militia in the country. Najaf and Karbala are completely in his area of operations. Controlling Karbala means he controls the tomb of Ali. That is a major source of revenue. Think of it as controlling St. Peter's Basilica, the most prominent basilica outside of Vatican City. Imagine the revenue stream.
Sadr's militias are the same militias that everyone has been telling Maliki he needs to stand up to if they are going to take him seriously. Taking on the Mahdi Army is easier said then done. A US sponsored poll in 2004 found that 2/3 of the people in Iraq support Sadr.
To Sum Up US forces just had a knock down fight which resulted in the death of hundreds of "insurgents" just north of Najaf. This is Shi'ite territory. The main fighting force in the area is a Shi'ite militia with significant local support. The fighting occured just as the Shia enter the holiest period of mourning on their calendar. For the next couple of weeks, Shia are going to be streaming in to the area as pilgrims commemorating an historic event that symbolizes the ongoing struggle against injustice, tyranny, and oppression.
Oh...and another thing... The heaviest concentration of Shia Muslims outside of Iraq is in ... IRAN. A lot of Iranians make that pilgrimage now that Saddam is gone. Remember that edict from Dubya that authorizes the killing of any Iranians caught in Iraq? Depending on your point of view, Bush could not have picked a better (or worse) time to declare open season on Iranian pilgrims.
We're going to see a lot of images over the next couple of weeks from this area. I am certain the media is not going to draw any of the distinctions I have laid out here. As far as they are concerned, this is just more of the "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" meme. As you can see the differences are important.
BAGHDAD, Dec. 22 — As the United States debates what to do in Iraq, this country’s Shiite majority has been moving toward its own solution: making the capital its own.
Large portions of Baghdad have become Shiite in recent months, as militias press their fight against Sunni militants deeper into the heart of the capital, displacing thousands of Sunni residents. At least 10 neighborhoods that a year ago were mixed Sunni and Shiite are now almost entirely Shiite, according to residents, American and Iraqi military commanders and local officials.
For the first years of the war, Sunni militants were dominant, forcing Shiites out of neighborhoods and systematically killing bakers, barbers and trash collectors, who were often Shiites. But starting in February, after the bombing of a shrine in the city of Samarra, Shiite militias began to strike back, pushing west from their strongholds and redrawing the sectarian map of the capital, home to a quarter of Iraq’s population.
The Shiite-dominated government publicly condemns violence against Sunnis and says it is trying to stop the militias that carry it out. But the attacks have continued unabated, and Sunnis have grown suspicious.
Plans for a new bridge that would bypass a violent Sunni area in the east, and a proposal for land handouts in towns around Baghdad that would bring Shiites into what are now Sunni strongholds underscored these concerns.
Sunni political control in Baghdad is all but nonexistent: Of the 51 members of the Baghdad Provincial Council, which runs the city’s services, just one is Sunni. --MORE--
Flunking Our Future By MAUREEN DOWD Published: December 20, 2006
Once our leaders get a grasp of the basics in Iraq, we can hit them with a truly hard question: What on earth do we do now?
The only sects that may be more savage than Shiites and Sunnis are the Democratic feminist lawmakers representing Northern and Southern California.
After Nancy Pelosi and Jane Harman had their final catfight about who would lead the House Intelligence Committee, aptly enough at the Four Seasons’ hair salon in Georgetown, the new speaker passed over the knowledgeable and camera-eager Ms. Harman and mystifyingly gave the consequential job to Sylvestre Reyes of Texas.
Mr. Reyes promptly tripped over the most critical theme in the field of intelligence. Jeff Stein, interviewing the incoming chairman for Congressional Quarterly, asked him whether Al Qaeda was Sunni or Shiite.
“Predominantly — probably Shiite,” the lawmaker guessed.
As Mr. Stein corrected him in the article: “Al Qaeda is profoundly Sunni. If a Shiite showed up at an Al Qaeda clubhouse, they’d slice off his head and use it for a soccer ball.”
Flunking Our Future By MAUREEN DOWD Published: December 20, 2006
Once our leaders get a grasp of the basics in Iraq, we can hit them with a truly hard question: What on earth do we do now?
The only sects that may be more savage than Shiites and Sunnis are the Democratic feminist lawmakers representing Northern and Southern California.
After Nancy Pelosi and Jane Harman had their final catfight about who would lead the House Intelligence Committee, aptly enough at the Four Seasons’ hair salon in Georgetown, the new speaker passed over the knowledgeable and camera-eager Ms. Harman and mystifyingly gave the consequential job to Sylvestre Reyes of Texas.
Mr. Reyes promptly tripped over the most critical theme in the field of intelligence. Jeff Stein, interviewing the incoming chairman for Congressional Quarterly, asked him whether Al Qaeda was Sunni or Shiite.
“Predominantly — probably Shiite,” the lawmaker guessed.
As Mr. Stein corrected him in the article: “Al Qaeda is profoundly Sunni. If a Shiite showed up at an Al Qaeda clubhouse, they’d slice off his head and use it for a soccer ball.”
Fear of Iran-Saudi proxy war increases in Iraq By Sharon Behn | Published Dec/11/2006 | Iraq , Peace and Conflict | Rating:
Sunni Muslim nations vs. Shi'ite Iran
By Sharon Behn The Washington Times
U.S. and Iraqi officials fear the sectarian conflict in Iraq will become a proxy war pitting Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Muslim nations against Shi'ite Iran if a U.S. drawdown in Iraq leaves a weak government in place.
The conflict also threatens to strengthen al Qaeda in Iraq, which is seen as supporting the Sunnis in their fight against the steady expansion of Iranian influence over Iraq's Shi'ite-led government, said one Iraqi Sunni exile close to the insurgency.
"It is a religious war," said the exile, who added that Sunni tribal leaders in Saudi Arabia are already funding Sunni insurgents in Iraq.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Friday said the escalating violence in Iraq made a regional war more likely.
"High levels of civilian casualties and displacement on a daily basis are breeding an increasing sense of insecurity and deep pessimism among Iraqis," Mr. Annan said.
"The prospects of all-out civil war and even a regional conflict have become much more real" since Mr. Annan's last report, issued three months ago, he said.
One Iraqi government official said he could see several Sunni Arab countries extending ties -- political, economic, moral and other kinds of support -- to Sunni groups in Iraq.
"The present situation in Iraq is very dangerous -- a lack of a viable government in Iraq leaves it open for others to increase their influence in the country, and it has already opened a door to a wave of Shi'ite nationalism," the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
In a Nov. 29 op-ed article in The Washington Post, Nawaf Obaid, an adviser to the Saudi government, said that if the United States leaves Iraq before the right time, "one of the first consequences will be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis. ...
"To be sure, Saudi engagement in Iraq carries great risks," added Mr. Obaid, who was subsequently fired as an adviser by the Saudi government. "It could spark a regional war. So be it: The consequences of inaction are far worse."
But Kamal Nawash, president of the Free Muslims Coalition, a Washington-based advocacy group, said he did not think the region's Sunni governments want to be directly involved in Iraq.
"Their modus operandi is money from wealthy individuals," he said, predicting that large sums of money would begin flowing from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states to assist the Sunnis in Iraq.
Growth of Shi'ite nationalism deepens concerns
All of Iraq's predominantly Sunni neighbors are getting increasingly nervous about the growth of Shi'ite nationalism led by Iran's theocratic regime.
"Shi'ites in the Middle East have basically been powerless since the beginning of time, and many of them see that for the first time in history, the tide is changing in their favor," Mr. Nawash said.
"For the first time, there is real concern about the future. Iran is being pretty aggressive in imposing its will, and it is not even that strong now. So they are thinking, 'Imagine if it becomes a real regional power -- it could be unstoppable,' " he said.
Incoming Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said during his confirmation hearing that his greatest worry was that "if we mishandle the next year or two and leave Iraq in chaos ... a variety of regional powers will become involved in Iraq, and we will have a regional conflict on our hands."
High-ranking Iraqi officials told the Associated Press that Saudi money from private donations is already being used to buy weapons such as the Russian shoulder-fired Strela anti-aircraft missiles.
The money is being disbursed through Sunni clerics, Sunni political leaders or directly to the insurgents, the AP reported.
Saudi government officials have denied that their country is a major source of financial support to Iraq's insurgents.
It has also been suggested that the Saudis might use their oil muscle to counter Iran's growing influence over Iraq.
Mr. Obaid, in his commentary article, said Riyadh could boost its oil production enough to cut the price in half. That would drastically cut Iran's oil income and thus its ability to support Shi'ite militias in Iraq, he said.
Ed O'Connell, a senior analyst at the Rand Corp., said the Saudi government could get directly involved, possibly by deploying its air force closer to Iraq's eastern border with Iran.
"You have to look at the symmetry of the situation -- if the Saudis introduce air power, it would be a balancing power. You have to look at the resources that can be mustered on both sides. These would be indicators that things could go south," Mr. O'Connell said.
Al-Sadr loyalists take over Iraqi television station
By Hannah Allam and Mohamed al Dulaimy McClatchy Newspapers
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Followers of the militant Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr took over state-run television Saturday to denounce the Iraqi government, label Sunnis "terrorists" and issue what appeared to many viewers as a call to arms.
The two-hour broadcast from a community gathering in the heart of the Shiite militia stronghold of Sadr City included three members of al-Sadr's parliamentary bloc, who took questions from outraged residents demanding revenge for a series of car bombings that killed some 200 people Thursday.
With Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki relegated to the sidelines, brazen Sunni-Shiite attacks continue unchecked despite a 24-hour curfew over Baghdad. Al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia now controls wide swaths of the capital, his politicians are the backbone of the Cabinet, and his followers deeply entrenched in the Iraqi security forces. Sectarian violence has spun so rapidly out of control since the Sadr City blasts, however, that it's not clear whether even al-Sadr has the authority - or the will - to stop the cycle of bloodshed.
"This is live and, God willing, everyone will hear me: We are not interested in sidewalks, water services or anything else. We want safety," an unidentified Sadr City resident said as the televised crowd cheered. "We want the officials. They say there is no sectarian war. No, it is sectarian war, and that's the truth."
Militia leaders told supporters Saturday to prepare for a fresh wave of incursions into Sunni neighborhoods that would begin as soon as the curfew ends Monday, according to Sadr City residents. Several members of the Mahdi Army boasted they were distributing police uniforms throughout Shiite neighborhoods to allow greater freedom of movement. The government announced it would partially lift the curfew Sunday to allow for pedestrian traffic.
In the Diyala province north of Baghdad, Sunni insurgents stormed into two Shiite homes, lined up 21 men and shot them to death in front of women and children, police there said. Later in the day, a Shiite television station showed footage of the victims' burials.
And in the western province of Anbar, a suicide bombing at a checkpoint in Fallujah killed a U.S. serviceman and three Iraqi civilians, according to a U.S. military statement. Another American and nine Iraqis were injured.
Also Saturday, Iraq's most prominent Sunni cleric made an appeal in Cairo, Egypt, for Arab nations to withdraw recognition of Iraq's Shiite-led government and said U.S.-led troops were complicit in Iraq's sectarian crisis. Hareth al-Dhari, leader of the militant Association of Muslim Scholars, declared Iraqi efforts toward a unity government "dead" and said the current violence is political rather than theological.
"The occupying forces have been giving cover to the militias and criminal gangs," al-Dhari said. "The government has been seen setting the atmosphere for them with the curfews to aid them in catching the victims and carrying out their attacks."
Al-Maliki's administration acknowledged it was powerless to interrupt the pro-Sadr program on the official Iraqiya channel, during which Sadr City residents shouted, "There is no government! There is no state!" Several speakers described neighborhoods and well-known Sunni politicians as "terrorists" and threatened them with reprisal.
"We'll obviously try to control them as much as we can, but when they (kill) more than 150 people in bombings, they have the right to speak," said Bassam al Husseini, one of Maliki's top advisers. "What are we going to do? We can't stop this. It's too hot right now."
Sunni politicians vowed to file complaints against the channel for inciting sectarian violence. Ordinary Sunnis were shocked to hear their neighborhoods singled out for attack on the government's station.
"I got four phone calls from friends telling me to change the channel to Iraqiya and see what's happening," said Mohamed Othman, 27, a Sunni resident of Ameriya, one of the districts mentioned in the program. "I think this is an official declaration of civil war against Sunnis. They're going to push us to join al-Qaida to protect ourselves."
Al-Husseini, the government adviser, also affirmed that a meeting between al-Maliki and President Bush would continue as scheduled next week in neighboring Jordan, despite the threats of al-Sadr's allies to withdraw from the government if it occurs. The Cabinet met for more than an hour to hash out an agenda for the trip, he said.
"The meeting will take place. That's the plan," al-Husseini said. "We need to straighten things up."
Al-Husseini said the top two items of discussion would be a report from the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan commission that will make recommendations for U.S. policy in Iraq, and a timetable for a withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.
"We want to talk about it," al-Husseini said, "to ask, `How long are they going to stick around?"
McClatchy Newspapers special correspondent Miret el Naggar in Cairo contributed to this report.
When you look at a map of Iraq, you find the Sunni and Shia are spread out, with some mixing in the South. Note that Najaf is predominantly Shia territory. Najaf is actually a central place for Shia, second only to the Iranian city of Qom as a center of spiritual learning. It has tons of mosques and universities. If you follow the river North, before you hit Fallujah, you wind up at Karbala. That's a really important city. Ali was slaughtered with his troops in Karbala trying to regain control of Caliphate. His tomb is there.
What about Muqtada al Sadr?