Sadrism

[endymion]

I have seen more and more references lately to "Sadrism". Formerly moderate Iraqis who have started to side with the insurgency. Raed, an Iraqi graduate student, posted this today to the blog Raed in the Middle:

Tuesday, August 24, 2004

After four years of trying to get rid of my boring thesis work, ahhhhhhhh, I hate it. Yeah, after four years, I had four strangers calling themselves my “jury” telling me that I have another three months to complete a bunch of extra notes and modifications. Grrrrrrrrrrrr.

The last weeks were really long, I was living in the world of raed, niki, and the thesis and listening to news every now and then, calling my family and some friends to understand what was happening; a boring kind of history repeating.

When AsSadr started his first revolution, some months ago, he was representing one of the strongest Shia movements in the south, and he had millions of supporters. He was underestimated by many observers until the events of last April, and I still think he is underestimated and that he got stronger.

The dense American administration missed up the situation in Najaf and Falluja at that time, killing hundreds of Iraqis and destroying dozens of houses without having a plan for what to do, the only plan was to the military one: attack and kill the “evil” dudes, and the only political plan was running away after the fake “handing over” of authority to a bunch of Iraqi employees taking some cute job titles like “president” or “pre-CIA agent”. All what the U.S. military operations did was leaving Iraq in a more complicated situation with militias believing that they are strong and that they “rule”. I’m not saying that attacking Iraqis at that time should have been stronger or more destructive, (I’m not sure it could have been more destructive), my point is that the military action against AsSadr and the militias of Falluja strengthened them, made heroes out of them and paved the way for the Iraqi militias and right wing to control the Iraqi street.

The new Iraq is this Iraq of bush, the occupied Iraq with unannounced civil war, the battlefield for surrounding neighbors and the firewall that protects the U.S. from external attacks (you want to fight us, come to Iraq, you are welcomed, open borders and cheap weapons).

Now, “Sadrism” is becoming the new phenomenon. Sadrism is the “new Iraq” that emerged after months of death and sacrificing. After months of invading the country, destroying it, and running away like cowards while Iraq is burning.

Having disasters like Sadrism cannot be analyzed without taking in consideration the reasons of why such a group of people are given the space and time to arrange themselves and start a parallel government. Little bush and his retarded administration should have either “liberated” them, then given them the space and time to express and rule themselves, or just shut up and let Iraq function the way it was before the war. Some observers, including myself, are positive that the U.S. administration wouldn’t have been caught dead supporting Shia religious leaders because that would be like giving Iraq as a complimentary to Iran, the big enemy and next target. So why give the Iraqi Shia this fake sense of freedom then kill them? where is the point?

AsSadr and his supporters are Iraqis; they are the poor repressed Iraqis that were devastated for decades, that the bush administration propaganda gave them promises of a better life after occupation. These people are the majority that the bush democracy should protect? doesn’t this clarifies why imported “democracy” would never work? Doesn’t this give and indication that when I speak about the specificities of our communities, and about the need of having INTERNAL changes, modifications, evolution and revolutions, I really know what the hell am I talking about?

Isn’t the “new” Iraqi muppet-show / government killing its own people now? Aren’t these Shia killed on a daily basis enough to hold a UN meeting, or attack the country for saving them? or is it because the Sadr army are anti-U.S?

Why is it allowed for bush and his administration to kill hundreds of Iraqis without a bastard opening his mouth? Why do we hear lots of dogs barking and remembering the human rights in the pre-war Iraq, or Yugoslavia or wherever?

I mean, it is bad that people are killing each other in Darfor, or that the Saddam government gassed Kurds in the north, but where is the difference between that and what is happening in Najaf? Where is the difference between what bush and Allawi are doing to Iraqis and what the worst totalitarian dictatorships did anywhere anytime?

Central authorities crushing smaller groups, people with bigger and stronger tanks killing others…

Freedom? Haha
International law? Hahahaha
Iraqi soccer team winning in the Olympics? Oh! This is worth it.