Last week, Muqtada al Sadr, the leader of the Mahdi Army and the Sadrist political movement, called for massive demonstrations against the negotiations between the US.. and the Iraqi government over the basing of U.S. troops in the country beyond 2008. This Friday, the Sadrist movement carried out its first nationwide protest. The turnout was a flop.
In Sadr City, where two million Shias live in what is called Sadr's stronghold, Sadr could only get 5,000 in the streets. On a Friday after prayers. In a city where the Sadrists claim we are violating truces and killing indiscriminantly.
He can still issue a scary press release that gets Western reporters to break into a sweat, but when he fights in the streets his militias gets trounced, and when he calls for his supporters just to stand in the streets, they turn out in numbers that Ron Paul can attract.
Mookie might as well stay in Iran where he is truly loved by his Persian paymasters.
UPDATE: Our press rides to the rescue of Sadr again:
"No, no to America. No, no to the occupation," demonstrators waving Iraqi flags and banners chanted after afternoon prayers in Sadr's Baghdad stronghold of Sadr City. "Yes, yes, Moqtada. Long live al-Sadr."
Some protesters carried pictures of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki dressed as former president Saddam Hussein. One group burned an effigy of Maliki, then danced and stomped on it, as Iraqi government soldiers kept their distance.
The protests highlighted Sadr's still-formidable power and popularity among poor Shiites, even as the Shiite-led Iraqi government, backed by U.S. and British forces, has waged a campaign in recent months to weaken his movement and undermine his leadership credentials.
After his Mahdi Army militia engaged in fierce battles with U.S. and Iraqi forces last month, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths, Sadr negotiated a pact that allowed Iraqi troops into Sadr City but barred American soldiers. The arrangement was viewed as a victory for Maliki's government and for U.S. efforts to stabilize Iraq.
But Sadr's image and popularity have since enjoyed a boost in Sadr City. Raids and airstrikes have decreased in the enclave, home to more than 2 million people, and U.S. and Iraqi government efforts are starting to bring basic services to his impoverished core constituency.
Friday's demonstrations were an attempt to bolster Sadr's nationalist aspirations and to rally more support among Iraqis who perceive that he has made face-saving concessions to the government and U.S. forces -- and as his militia comes under pressure in other parts of Iraq.
Still formidable power? When the numbers in the streets don't match the fury of the quotes of those Sadrists interviewed?
And why would Sadr need to "rally more support" if his "image and popularity have enjoyed a boost" since Sadr's retreat in the face of Iraqi and American power?
Further, since when is it a sign of defeat if the Iraqis can fight without us? Isn't this the mirror image of the charge of failure in Basra when we provided limited support to the Iraqis and our press claimed it was a failed offensive because the Iraqis needed our help?
The article admits that we haven't needed air strikes, presumably because those rallying Sadrists are keeping off the streers, and that we are providing basic services that the Sadrists used to provide to justify their control and abuse of the locals.
I'm sensitive to the possibility that Sadr could gain support from the 65% of the Iraqi population that is Shia. If we lose the Shias, we can't stay in Iraq. But time after time, the Sadrists have proven to be weaker than their rhetoric and chest-thumping claims.
Yet our press focuses on the rhetoric and chest-thumping claims when judging Sadr's strength.
I wish our media would actually report on events so I can judge what is happening rather than simply amplify the enemy's press strategy by printing their claims in Western newspapers.
