Quote:
Originally written in the WSJ
Respected Shiite clerics, led by Grand Ayatollah Sistani, issued a remarkable statement blaming the violence squarely on the shoulders of the young renegade.
|
The WSJ leaves the impression that Sistanti et al. are on our side, but
other sources give a more balanced assessment: "Reuters reports that .... Sistani had condemned both the Mahdi Army and the US military for fighting in the holy city." The NYT reports that we accepted the deal after Sistani threatened to speak out against us.
Meanwhile, "[s]ome Shiite leaders said they were discussing plans to offer the 31-year-old Mr. Sadr or people around him positions in the caretaker government taking over June 30, when the Americans will have less legal control. It was unclear whether the Americans knew of those discussions." Unclear whether the WSJ knows about this either, but they probably read the
NYT.
Quote:
Originally written in the WSJ
"[T]he cease-fire ... will prevent further damage to holy sites in Najaf and elsewhere by requiring the Mahdi militia to disarm and depart."
|
Will it also require them to say they're sorry? Read the NYT and you will find out that: "Though the agreement called for Mahdi fighters from outside Najaf to leave the city, there was little indication that anyone was makingthat distinction. "We have not seen any exodus of militia from the city," said Brig. Gen. Mark P. Hertling of the First Armored Division."
Presumably they'll leave the city when we catch the Fallujah killers and OJ tracks down Nicole's killer.
Quote:
Originally written in the WSJ
All in all, a big coalition victory...."
|
Do you read the WSJ, and the excerpts of Bush's comments of April 13 that I posted, and not see any tension between the two? Like, these concessions:
- Allowing the Mahdi Army to continue intact, as long as it remains off the streets, is a major concession to Mr. Sadr. In another, Iraqi officials agreed to "suspend" the arrest warrant for him that cites his suspected involvement in the murder of a rival cleric in April 2003. That represents, at least for now, a reversal for the Americans, who have said repeatedly that they intend to "kill or capture" Mr. Sadr and "destroy" the Mahdi Army.
Of course, you have to go to the NYT to find this out.
I'll bet Sadr is declaring victory, too. Most agreements are win-win situations.*
*Club's exception for poor African prostitutes would not seem to apply here.
eta: Just to be clear -- I'm not saying that the deal in Najaf is a bad one. I'm just struck and bothered by the gulf between Bush's public statements and what's happening on the ground. If a Democratic president struck this deal, the WSJ would surely accuse him of negotiating with terrorists.
