|
i'm afraid that the linkage between the situation in najaf now and the justification for the war in general as a sub-topic was my fault--mea culpa---as i made an offhand characterization of the war (or two--or more...) in the course of talking about najaf and was called out on it..whence the veer. there would be an relation between how you understand the war in general and what you think should happen in najaf, i suppose--to me it seems a way to reduce complexity.
the fact of the matter, in general, have been laid out:
najaf is a significant shi'a holy site.
there is a significant shi'a opposition to the american-installed regime in iraq
this opposition has as much to do with the type of faction-manoevering that had characterized iraqi politics in general for some time as it does with the occupation itself, i think.
the question of whether there is at this point an explicitly shi'a political block in iraq, or if the shi'a population identifies itself as often in clan or other terms, i do not know.
but i assume it is in sadr's interest to try to create or expand a political block rooted in shi'a identity, and that the milita is a military instrument for doing that.
which makes the question of why sadr would be based in najaf interesting.
the worst thing the americans could do, it seems to me, is to attack/level najaf because not only would it further sadr's political interests but it would also become a lightening rod for sunni populations to mobilize as alongside the religious elements in the shi'a population on religious grounds--and this would transform iraq into a religious conflict in ways that it has not up to now been (in the real world----this has no contact with the right's seeming inability to distinguish a secular from nonsecular regime when it comes to the middle east)
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|