The BBC has this list of Muslim media responses to the battle in Najaf. Take just this one from Egypt:
The foreign interventions are a subjugation of the people's will, a usurpation of their powers, as well as an outlawing of their very existence... The slogans shouted by Anglo-American forces before the attacks on Iraq have changed into the opposite. Freedom has turned into slavery and stability into an enraged volcano.
The rest are very similar, almost uniformly condemning the US and the Iraqi Provisional government.
But what do those actually in Iraq have to say?
Muqtada Sadr injury is a fabrication by his thugs!Najaf war is Iranian fight against US/Iraqi forces. Iran determines to win! It should not have given this opportunity. The mistake is the CPA one when they postponed arresting Sadr. It is also the mistake of the Judge (Al-Maliki) who announced the arrest for Sadr publicly. It should have been done without noises! All by all Iran used it and created what is going on now!
British journalist taken hostage in Basrah by unknown thugs may be related to Sadr/Iran Militia!
Imam Ali shrine polluted by the Sadr thugs and converted into a camp for their arms and dirty asses!
Since Thursday night, armed militias and gangster terrorists (calling themselves the Mehdi Army) have been attacking Iraqi Police stations and other public property in the Holy City of Najaf. The fighting and criminal violence continued over Thursday night and for much of Friday. These enemies of a united and peaceful Iraq have been carrying out appalling acts against innocent Iraqis and their property.It is clear that these people are not from the Holy City of Najaf. Interrogation, by Iraqi Police, of captured fighters is revealing that they are mostly criminals released from prison by the former regime immediately prior to the latest war.
In the face of this attempt to destabilise the country, the Interim Government of Iraq ordered a combined operation involving Iraqi military forces and units from the Multinational Force with the task of regaining control of the city. It is now clear that the operations have been a complete success. Over 1200 criminals have surrendered to Iraqi forces. The Holy City of Najaf is secured.
And I want you to read this: My brother is a doctor; he and his colleagues were in the medical center waiting for the driver of the ambulance and another doctor, they waited for them because they had an emergency there… They kept waiting and waiting….. And suddenly they reached the center but without the car… ‘Where is the ambulance?’ they asked.. the driver replied: ‘Thank God we are alive……AlMahdi militia came across the street carrying RPGs and rifles with that green piece fastened around their heads, we were forced to stop, then one of them shouted ‘get out of the car..we have a duty’, immediately we got out and escaped, we were so frightened………..’
And
In short, the folks on the ground, those who call Iraq home, want to get rid of Al Sadr and his thugs, and welcome the help of the US in doing so; according to the Beeb, so-called moderate muslims in Egypt, Jordan, and the rest of the Middle East want to get rid of the US, and leave Iraq to the criminals.
How is this moderate?
Posted by Rich at August 13, 2004 11:40 AM | TrackBack
It would be a mistake to assume that because Sadr doesn't have moral support in Najaf that he doesn't have supporters in Iraq at all, as Juan Cole notes:
The Americans and Allawi cannot compete with Muqtada's religious authority. They also cannot stop his movement by killing him. Muqtada's favorability rating was 68% according to the CPA's own polling last May. It may well be higher now. (It is often argued that Najaf inhabitants hate Muqtada and his Mahdi Army, which justifies the US assault. It is true that Muqtada and his men are not from Najaf and are resented there, but Muqtada does have substantial support in many other southern Shiite cities, so that weakens the argument that he is not liked.)Posted by: Chris Wage on August 13, 2004 2:27 PM
It would also be a mistake to portray Middle Eastern sentiment as uniformly pro al Sadr and anti American.
It would also be nice if you could find a primary source, ie an Iraqi voice, that supports al Sadr, as opposed to another outsider. Additionally, Cole has no support for his claim that al Sadr's favorability rating has increased.
Going uncontested is the simple fact that those who are most directly affected by al Sadr and his thugs, the people of Najaf, dislike him and want him gone, and are willing for the US to make it happen.
Why can't the Beeb publish that? Why do the Arab editorialists not report that?
Posted by: rich on August 13, 2004 4:45 PMI think what you're doing is pursuing a straw-man to begin with -- that there's some conspiracy in the media to present a one-sided view where the US is the evil occupier and the mahdi army and Sadr are the holy saviours.
That's just not the case. The situation on the ground is muddled. Sadr is resented in Najaf for bringing down the US's wrath on the holy city of Najaf, but the US is also not considered blameless. Outside of Najaf, the Mahdi have a lot of support -- support that grows with every U.S. bomb that falls in Najaf in our ham-fisted attempt to subdue him.
Further, Sadr is (and should be) condemned widely by many for simply resorting to thuggish violence in inciting this insurgency, but that's hardly a criticism from which the US is immune.
The coverage in the media reflects all of this.
However, like it or not, there is a lot of anti-American sentiment in Iraq. Granted, there could be a media-wide conspiracy to present the U.S. in a bad light, when in fact everyone in Iraq loves the US. Or, it could be accurate. I think I'll cite Occam's razor here, and opt for the latter.
Posted by: Chris Wage on August 15, 2004 2:29 PMAnd I think you're ignoring the true thrust of my post, not that media coverage is unbalanced, (That's a foregone conclusion. Compare Plame v Berger coverage, or Bush AWOL v Kerry Cambodia coverage. QED) The point of my post is that most of the Arab media, at least as portrayed by the Beeb, indicate support for Sadr, and place the blame on the US, where most locals in Iraq place the blame on Sadr.
Where are the moderate Muslims? al Sadr has defiled one of the holiest sites in Shia by turning it into a battleground. Note that US forces are showing greater respect for the holy shrine than Sadr and his thugs. Where is the moderate muslim outrage?
It doesn't exist as far as the Beeb is concerned.
Your use of Occam's razor is flawed; Occam's Razor states that when two explanations fit all the known facts, the simpler of the two is more often correct. Occam's razor becomes a dull instrument when facts are deliberately excluded. You say al Sadr is resented for bring the wrath of the US on Najaf, implying that, without the US response, al Sadr would be welcomed by the people of Najaf. Can you document this in any way? The quotes I provided not only indicated that the antipathy towards al Sadr existed because of the thuggish acts of his followers, but also that the help of the US in getting rid of him was welcome. My position is backed by facts; yours by supposition and assumption. Occam's Razor is useless in this situation.
Posted by: rich on August 15, 2004 3:06 PMYou say al Sadr is resented for bring the wrath of the US on Najaf, implying that, without the US response, al Sadr would be welcomed by the people of Najaf. Can you document this in any way?
Not quite. I said the US response is making things worse, which is of course an opinion. Sadr is an insurgent inciting violence, and for this he should be rightfully condemned. (and is, by many)
The quotes I provided not only indicated that the antipathy towards al Sadr existed because of the thuggish acts of his followers, but also that the help of the US in getting rid of him was welcome. My position is backed by facts; yours by supposition and assumption. Occam's Razor is useless in this situation.
I am trying to avoid getting into a media reference dick-swinging contest here, because, as I initially stated, I believe the support for al-Sadr is muddled, and that anti-American sentiment is widespread. You can find plenty of examples of Iraqis on the ground that both fully support al-Sadr:
Ayad Ali, a militiaman in Baghdad's Sadr City slum, claimed his brother was run over by a U.S. tank.''I would fight the Americans until the last drop of my blood,'' he said, echoing a sermon al-Sadr has delivered in a funeral shroud, symbolizing his readiness to die in battle.
as well as those opposed to his (and our) presence and violence in Najaf, including even the vice president:
"I call for multinational forces to leave Najaf and for only Iraqi forces to remain there," he said. We must “put an end to this phenomenon of violence in this city that is holy to all Muslims."
I believe what I've read (in the same major media as you) bears this out -- that al-Sadr's support waxes and wanes along with the anti-American sentiment as the Iraqi people are forced to choose between two increasingly violent evils. Such is the folly of war.
U.S. complaints about al-Sadr, who has been charged with involvement in the death of a rival cleric, have helped turn him into a hero, suggests Duleimi's latest poll, due out Thursday. Six months ago, Duleimi found that only 1% of Iraqis backed al-Sadr. The new nationwide survey of 1,640 people finds 32% strongly support al-Sadr, and 36% support him somewhat.The same survey, conducted in late April, shows that 88% of Iraqis now view U.S. and other foreign troops here as an occupation force; only 7% consider them liberators.
So there, I think, is your answer to the question "But what do those actually in Iraq have to say?" And that was from May, not reflecting whatever shift in opinion has occurred since things have gotten worse (or rather, failed to get better), which, for all we know, could solidify al-Sadr's supporters or turn them against him (probably a good mix of both).
Posted by: Chris Wage on August 16, 2004 8:27 PMPayday loans http://payday-loans.order.gb.com 13.09. 2004 22:39:54 Credit Cards http://credit-cards.order.gb.com 13.09. 2004 22:39:54 Loans http://loans.order.gb.com 13.09. 2004 22:39:54 Mortgages http://mortgages.order.gb.com 13.09. 2004 22:39:54 Credit http://credit.order.gb.com 13.09. 2004 22:39:54
Posted by: payday loans on September 13, 2004 4:40 PM