The New York Times had an interesting item today about ongoing negotiations with Moqtada al-Sadr. Putting aside, for a moment, the historical position of not negotiating with terrorists, the NYT suggested a breakthrough deal may be in the works.
A spokesman for the clerics who met with Mr. Sadr on Monday, Ali Adnan, told the BBC that a tentative deal had been struck.
Mr. Adnan said that if the Americans agreed not to send forces into Najaf, and not to seek the immediate arrest of Mr. Sadr on the pending warrant, which charges him with complicity in the April 2003 murder of a rival cleric, Mr. Sadr would agree to dismantle his militia.
This would be a fairly dramatic change in direction. We’ve been threatening to capture or kill al-Sadr for a while now; letting him go without arrest in exchange for him dismantling his well-armed band of soldiers would be quite a concession.
But as I read the NYT story, I had to wonder, has anyone told Bush about these negotiations?
Last night, Bush justifiably painted al-Sadr as a dangerous menace that has to be dealt with quickly and seriously.
In the south of Iraq, coalition forces face riots and attacks that are being incited by a radical cleric named al-Sadr. He has assembled some of his supporters into an illegal militia, and publicly supported the terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah. Al-Sadr’s methods of violence and intimidation are widely repudiated by other Iraqi Shia. He’s been indicted by Iraqi authorities for the murder of a prominent Shia cleric.
[…]
Al-Sadr must answer the charges against him and disband his illegal militia.
Won’t it be kind of difficult to reconcile these comments with an al-Sadr deal that lets him go without arrest?
Indeed, the NYT report said American officials were “evasive” when asked whether there would be follow-through on the murder warrant against al-Sadr.
Something to keep an eye on.