Perhaps — and maybe it’s good. Zayed reports that Sistani is calling for calm, even as he criticizes the occupation:
The Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani issued a fatwa late Wednesday to “resolve the latest developments in Iraq in a peaceful manner” in order to prevent anarchy and bloodshed. “We condemn the behaviour of occupation forces in dealing with the current events, and we also condemn any trespass against public and private property, or any other conduct that may disrupt security and obstruct Iraqis from their jobs in serving the people”. Sistani also called upon political parties to work together in an effective manner to put an end to the “tragedy”.
There’s a lot more at his blog — read the whole thing. Remember, however, that eyewitness reports are seldom reliable regarding what’s actually being seen, much less the big picture. And the usual caveats (it’s the internet, people aren’t always who they say they are, mistakes get made, etc.) apply.
Still, I’ll cling to some kinda-good-news — considering the alternative.
(We have to win in Iraq. Please: more money, more troops, more international involvement. Resist artificial deadlines. Don’t just say we’re there for the long haul, prepare for it.)
We have to win in Iraq.
This has become sort of a mantra for commentators and bloggers. We must win, it is said, because to lose would mean consequences that are far, far worse than the conditions prior to the invasion. (I also suspect “we must win” because not winning is just one of those things Americans hate, especially in war.)
What I haven’t seen is a dispassionate analysis of what we must win. Perhaps our definition of winning should be flexible enough to include a solution that is merely stable, rather than ideal. For example, is a democratic Iraq – or even an Iraq that respects all human rights – necessary for victory? So long as genocide, civil war and sponsorship of terrorism by the government are not occuring, then it will be an improvement over the status quo ante (real and imagined.)
A poll prior to the most recent violence shows that many Iraqis would prefer a strong leader over democracy anyway. I suspect that after this round of blood-letting is over, support for that option will be even higher. Why not let them have it?
WaPo on Iraqi unity:
The cleric, Hassan Toaima, surveyed the scene with satisfaction as people filled a tent erected beside the shrine, flexing and unflexing their fists to push blood from their veins into plastic sacks that would be carried to war wounded in Fallujah.
“Look!” said Toaima, his eyes dancing below a tightly wrapped white turban. “This is strong proof that the people of Iraq will end wars between Sunni and Shiite before they begin.
“And we welcome Iraqis of all religions — Jews, Christians, everyone — to come and help the people of Fallujah and Karbala and Mosul and Nasiriyah and Basra.”
[…]
“We don’t need a call from the mosque,” said Mohammed Najem Mausoumi as he gave blood in Kadhimiya. “A Muslim is a brother to another Muslim. This is the real Islam.”
Like others in the cheerfully crowded tent, he bristled at being asked whether he was Shiite or Sunni.
Sunni is my bet. I wonder what his comment was when they opened up the first mass grave cause it certainly wasn’t, “A Muslim is a brother to another Muslim”, now that is something you can put money on.