al-Sistani gives up

September 4, 2006

While the capture of yet another #2 man for al Qaeda is encouraging, this seems like an even bigger story right now. For reasons I can’t quite figure out, the U.S. media isn’t giving the story much attention.

The most influential moderate Shia leader in [tag]Iraq[/tag] has abandoned attempts to restrain his followers, admitting that there is nothing he can do to prevent the country sliding towards [tag]civil[/tag] [tag]war[/tag].

Aides say Grand Ayatollah Ali [tag]al-Sistani[/tag] is angry and disappointed that Shias are ignoring his calls for calm and are switching their allegiance in their thousands to more militant groups which promise protection from Sunni violence and revenge for attacks.

“I will not be a political leader any more,” he told aides. “I am only happy to receive questions about religious matters.”

It is a devastating blow to the remaining hopes for a peaceful solution in Iraq and spells trouble for British forces, who are based in and around the Shia stronghold of Basra.

“Devastating blow” sounds about right. As the Telegraph noted, al-Sistani has been “the important Shia religious leader in Iraq and has been a moderating influence since the invasion of 2003.” If he’s giving up, hope for the future is dwindling — assuming anyone still has any hope left.

As C&L reminds us, the Washington Post’s David Ignatius was on The Chris Matthew show in July, discussing al-Sistain’s concerns about Iraq spinning out of control. Ignatius said:

“Well, if you didn’t have enough bad news out of the Middle East this week, Ayatollah Sistani. He’s really the most important and powerful personality in Iraq. He is signaling the Bush administration this week that he is worried that the situation in Iraq is spinning out of control. He is the crucial person. If he gives up on this effort, this effort is over.

“He has been our crucial ally. He is very quiet. You don’t see him, he doesn’t give speeches, he doesn’t meet with Americans. But if he decides the game is up, the game is up.”

As Yglesias noted, al-Sistani was, up until recently, considered the “magic bullet,” not only for Iraq, but also possibly Iran. Now, he’s giving up. It’s not a good sign.

***…the U.S. media isn’t giving the story much attention.***
———————————————-CB

Steve, I think there’s something more to the story that needs to be given “a serious think or two.” In taking the position he has, it’s a fair guess to say that al-Sistani is no longer playing to the gameplan set by the Western powers, its media, and its snivelling little masters. By withdrawing from the political realm and reverti9ng to the “real” position of a religious leader—that, of course, being “religion—he’s a direct slap in the face for both the Bush administration and the Religious Reich. Instead of being a participant in the “Poli-Theofascism” that’s running rampant among “some people” in this world, he’s doing the one thing that is actually the ‘right-and-proper” thing to do—and I give the man a standing ovation for it.

Imagine this, all you Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons! Observe this, you foul Bill O’Reillys, Ann Coulters, Rush Limbaughs, and Sean Hannitys of the world! For, as much as you and your self-serving ilk scream and rant about the horrible Islamofascist, there stands a great leader of Islam who, in a single act, does more to walk in the path of the Nazarene Carpenter than all of you combined….

  • Sistani’s exit won’t be noted because the morons can’t bring themselves to admit they have lost their war of choice.

    Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown in 1781 – it took another 2 years for the British to finally admit they had lost the North American colonies, and even then they refused to carry out their agreed-on responsibilities in the peace agreement that recognized American independence in 1783, keeping British troops on American territory for another 8 years because of American failure to force Americans to pay their prewar debts to English businessmen.

    Given we are the self-chosen successors to the British Imperialists, why would we behave differently?

  • I think the reason that al-Sistani’s declaration is being ignored is that, sadly, the significance of it is beyond the comprehension capabilities of the news media (or at least what they are willing to spout). After all, it’s not an (innocent) guy claiming to have raped and murdered a 6 y/o girl- something which is so easy to explain…

    Merely the explanation of al-Sistani’s standing in the Iraqi Shiite community takes more than an 8-second soundbite, and thus it has always been marginalized by the media (think about it, even back in 2003 when we did hear his name with some regularity, it was always that he was our ‘ally’- not even a decent glimpse of the fact that he was never an ally, but an independent power in his own right, whose goals happened to coincide with ours for a time). etc.

  • al-Sistani’s declaration is being ignored because “American Idol” is gearing up. And “Survivor” will be race-based this time. And John Travolta may be gay. And NASCAR’s featuring….

  • I agree with Tom. But I think Castor Troy misses the mark somewhat about the motivation of the MSM to ignore the story. It is not difficult to explain, even to those who have not been following the conflict, that the most important Shiite religious leader has given up trying to keep his followers from violence because things have so unravelled that no one is listening to him anymore. You don’t need to appreciate any of the nuances of this fact to get the main message. The MSM doesn’t cover it, I think, because they still are corporatist colluders with the Bush sadministration and don’t want to be naysayers who could futher undermine the Republicans in the coming election. That and, oh yeah, they are, by and large, lazy bastards who want to sell papers.

  • Regarding Tom Cleaver’s remark that Britain kept soldiers on American soil for several years after formally recognizing U.S. independence, let me offer one clarification: British troops stayed for 13 years, not eight (from 1783 until 1796). British imperialists have never been happy about relinquishing real estate — how long did the U.K. maintain its bases in Iraq after the formal “transfer of sovereignty” in 1932?

  • This is BAD news. I’ve been wondering what’s been up with Sistani. If he hasn’t been covered in the past several months, there’s no reason the expect him to be covered now.

  • I think I remember a Newsweek (The Silent Sistani – Scott Johnson) article last week talking about Sistani. Wondering where he was. It was before this quote but along the lines of he was picking where he tried to influence things because people weren’t listening to him as much. Sadr was become more influential.

    Bush & Co never wanted to deal with Sistani, never wanted to recognize that he could be a positive force.

    • Comments are closed.