Iraq's al-Sadr warns that he may not extend cease-fire

[bemildred]

Source: AP

NAJAf, Iraq: Radical Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr put the United States and the Iraqi government on notice Friday that he may not extend a six-month cease-fire by his militia.

The cease-fire by the Mahdi Army militia, due to expire next month, has been cited by U.S. commanders in Iraq as a major contributor to the nationwide reduction of violence over the past six months. U.S. and Iraqi forces, however, have stepped up their hunt for the militiamen in recent months, arguing they were members of rogue cells closely linked to Iran.

"The rationale for the decision to extend the freeze of the Mahdi Army is beginning to wear thin," Salah al-Obeidi, al al-Sadr spokesman, said in a statement issued in the holy city of Najaf south of Baghdad.

"This is because the government is supporting some criminal gangs operating inside security agencies and which refuse to abide by the law," said al-Obeidi. He did not elaborate, but he was alluding to Shiites from rival groups that have infiltrated security forces.

Read more: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/01/18/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq-Mahdi-Army.php

---

1.) I guess he's not getting enough attention.
2.) This is one of the reasons the "surge" is "working".

[sabra]

1. I guess this is what the US Mil means by "fragile" security gains?

:shrug:

[bemildred]

2. I'd say that was a good assessment. nt

[TwilightGardener]

3. Just al Sadr's way of getting a bigger paycheck from Petraeus--

I am of the strong suspicion we've been paying him (Petraeus met with his deputies last fall)--remember when Petraeus promised a closed group of Repub Senators last spring that the surge would start to show results in August 2007? That's when al Sadr mysteriously "stood down" his army and declared a cease-fire. How much are we paying him?

[dantyrant]

4. Interesting...

I hadn't heard about the meeting. My feeling was that Sadr had stopped fighting because he didn't want to legitimize the perception that sectarian violence is tearing Iraq apart from within. He's been a vocal opponent of the balkanization plan and I find it hard to believe he'd knowingly work with the US, but of course my reading of events could well be wrong. There's so much we don't know about what's happening on the ground in Iraq.

[TwilightGardener]

6. We are paying all of the other "insurgents" on the Sunni side to

stop setting IED's and causing trouble, so it's not a stretch for me to believe that we are paying (or otherwise giving some sort of benefit to) al Sadr for doing the same on the Shia side. The fact that we didn't take him out a long time ago, even though he obviously has the power to cause a lot of violence and unrest, means that he's more valuable to us alive. If we killed him, the Shia might treat him like a martyr and go nuts, but it's probably more than that--we want him powerful, and in control of his militia, and he probably gets some sort of promise or some payment in exchange.

[humbled_opinion]

5. Surge splurge... n/t