al-Maliki backs down - Fighting ends in Sadr City

Cid_Yama

Both sides in Iraq's Shiite civil war have accepted a truce in Sadr City. The Sadrists agreed to stop displaying arms in public and to allow the government to arrest specific individuals suspected of attacks, though only if they get a warrant first. The government ended its offensive and gave up on its demand that the Mahdi Army disband. It also apparently agreed that only government forces could stage raids in Sadr City, not the U.S. military. The Iranians were said to have been instrumental in brokering the deal.

So who won? As near as I can tell, opinion ranges from "murky" to "seems like the Maliki government backed down," but really, nobody knows. Welcome to modern warfare.

link
_________________
In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
- George Orwell

stu

I think Sadr is afraid of losing political influence. He keeps on making these promises off all-out war if he is attacked but yet he keeps on backing down.

Would be a different scenario if the US troops were not there.
_________________
"The age of excess is over. The age of entropy has begun"

mos6507 · Fission Joined: Aug 03, 2007 Posts: 2989

Poordogabone · Tar Sands Joined: May 13, 2005 Posts: 44

Sadr is the only potential "unifier" at the moment, closest thing to a viable state and has more leverage with the iraqi population at large than any one living in that fantasy land called the "green zone". And that is exactly why we hear "anti US" like it's part of he's name, every time he is mentioned in the american media.
What I think they are trying to say is anti US oil interest Muqtada al-Sadr.

Poordogabone · Tar Sands Joined: May 13, 2005 Posts: 44

Sorry double posted

dissident · Heavy Crude Joined: Apr 08, 2006 Posts: 380

Sadr is an Iraqi nationalist and it is actually the US backed Shia parties that are led by Iranian associates. So for the US Iraq plan to work it will have to take control in Iran. But this plan is DOA.

Taghayee