Friday, May 21, 2004
Not a day goes by...
Without another revelation of systematic misconduct in Iraq.
Not to mention that fighting continues to get worse.
Keep reading the last link to get Juan Cole's analysis (1 and 2) on the game played by Sadr and Sistani. I don't agree with all of it---not Khat I'm an expert on this. But I suspect much of Sadr's action lately has been aimed to make Sistani choose a side---e.g., saying he'll disarm if Sistani orders it---because either side Sistani chooses benefits Sadr. If Sistani sides with the Americans, Sadr's stature as the Shia cleric opposing occupation is sharpened. If Sistani chooses Sadr and resistance, wll, Sadr's been on that position long enough to be able to win a prominent position in a resistance that, with Sistani's help, would be hard to defeat. Sistani appears to know that ambiguity serves him best, since he has the stature to get away with playing both sides, at least for now.
I'll be gone for the next week.
Not to mention that fighting continues to get worse.
Keep reading the last link to get Juan Cole's analysis (1 and 2) on the game played by Sadr and Sistani. I don't agree with all of it---not Khat I'm an expert on this. But I suspect much of Sadr's action lately has been aimed to make Sistani choose a side---e.g., saying he'll disarm if Sistani orders it---because either side Sistani chooses benefits Sadr. If Sistani sides with the Americans, Sadr's stature as the Shia cleric opposing occupation is sharpened. If Sistani chooses Sadr and resistance, wll, Sadr's been on that position long enough to be able to win a prominent position in a resistance that, with Sistani's help, would be hard to defeat. Sistani appears to know that ambiguity serves him best, since he has the stature to get away with playing both sides, at least for now.
I'll be gone for the next week.
