Iraqi Cleric Quietly Approving Fatwas Against American Troops

According to AP report "" by Hamza Hendawi and Qassim Abdul-Zahra, this isn't just any cleric. This is the big cheese, the guy who help we need to keep some kind of lid on the the anti- American rage of Iraqis.  And, in fact, he is credited with keeping a major uprising developing after the bombing of the Mosque of the Golden Dome in 2006. but apparently now he is growing tired of our troops presence in the land of his people.

So far the fatwas have been small in number and done quietly, but they seem to be a measure of the extreme frustration the cleric is feeling towards the occupation.

The journalists' exact wording on that is:

The subtle shift could point to his growing impatience with the continued American presence more than five years after the U.S.-led invasion.

They also note:

Juan Cole, a U.S. expert on Shiites in the Middle East, speculated that "al-Sistani clearly will give a fatwa against the occupation by a year or two." But he said it would be "premature" for the cleric to do so now.

.Common Sense asks "Are Stepped Up Air Attacks Which Kill Civilians to Blame for Cleric's fatwas?" 

The change in al Sistani's willingness to permit action against our troops might be due to a mostly hushed up increase in the use of air attacks by US forces.  The surge in death from the sky was recently very visible in the joint Iraqi-US moves on Sadr City area of Baghdad to wipe out Mehdi army forces that might oppose the government of al Maliki and the Badr militia (aka 'the Iraqi Army'). 

That incursion into the Shiite stronghold saw the US military calling in attacks on homes and neighborhoods that made ground troops American or Iraqis feel "icky" because of "suspected militants".  Family homes were taken out by air crews who couldn't see the children dying, as if the military has developed some kind of horrific tooth fairy that delivered massive death blows instead of a little bit of spending money.

We had heard of air attacks killing civilians earlier in the war, but lately -- post surge -- they had become something we've read about in the news much more often-- well, those of us who had a decent news source which didn't just download the 'truth' from the Bush administration.    Always afterwards,  the military first claimed they only killed militants, and then when proof emerged that civilians, even children and women were killed -- blamed Iraqis by saying the militants were hiding among the civilian population -- i.e., using human shields again.  This claim is subtely repeated over and over again by Dana Perino -- who adds her never varying repitition of "we regret the loss of civilian life" that makes you miss Tony (the liar) Snow. (Who ever thought that would happen?)

In fact, though, we invaded their land.  Their families live with them in their land.  It was our choice to invade. And, especially in the cramped neighborhoods of Baghdad, the ability for militants to divorce themselves from the families and civilians of the area, doesn't truly exist.  I guess they could all go live in one large building and paint a target on the top.  That is, of course, totally unreasonable to expect.  Yet, still one could not guarantee the safety in the neighborhood in which such an attack would be undertaken. 

As I read about more and more of these attacks after the start and especially since the completion of 'the surge', I wondered if I had just missed these horrific attacks on civilian areas.  Sure we heard about some of them, massive air attacks on Sunni areas, weddings, suspected militant hideouts, etc., but not used with the frequency that has been used on Baghdad (first in the Sunni areas and lately in Sadr City and I suppose now in Mosul).

A recent report confirmed that the air attacks were being used much more often.  Apparently they are a part of the surge that the Bush administration is not copping to.  

The end result is that after attacking Shiites that al Maliki shouldn't be fond of, Sadr's followers, we got our butts kicked out of that effort because our means were so fascist.  No mainstream journalist told me that, but I can read the tea leaves.  Our glorious attack with the Badr militia (aka Iraqi Army) on the stronghold of the Sadr militia (aka Mehdi Army) and 'special groups' was stopped.  Our troops were told they were needed more in Mosul.  Then the Iraqi Army (aka Badr militia) continued in Sadr City without airstrikes and with the acquiescence of the Mehdi Army.

Still al Sistani also seems to feel that any occupation of a Muslim land should be brief and helpful. 

Apparentlly, ours has finally worn out it's welcome.

So, remember how John McCain asserts we can stay in Iraq for 100 years peacefully (making sure they don't say no to American Big Oil taking their crude at a 'spoils of war' profit)?

There are times when political fantasy appears to border on dementia.  In fact to have Alzheimers is more honorable than to proposed to make a far flung nation a type of West Bank to be exploited by our fat cats at the continued cost of troops' lives and taxpayer's enormous burden.

tags: iraq  war  troops  al sistani  

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit