Failed plot to kill al-Sadr

Here's an interesting investigation into an alleged US plot to lure Moqtadr al-Sadr into a trap and assassinate him.

Is this another example of short-term reactive thinking by the US forces (it's not known who may have authorised this attempt, but I imagine we can all advance an opinion) or a botched but reasonable operation to eliminate an opposing faction? If it had succeeded, would it have alienated the Shia completely at an even earlier stage or taken out a player determined to cause trouble?

Is it justified to assassinate such a significant leader under the flag of truce, however troublesome? What long term complications does such a failed attempt bring with it - particularly with wavering allies? Does it matter in grounding democracy within a country unused to it, when such a precendent is set for the removal of a politician with substantial electoral and popular support?

Exclusive: Secret US plot to kill Al-Sadr

By Patrick Cockburn In Baghdad
Published: 21 May 2007

The US Army tried to kill or capture Muqtada al-Sadr, the widely revered Shia cleric, after luring him to peace negotiations at a house in the holy city of Najaf, which it then attacked, according to a senior Iraqi government official.

The revelation of this extraordinary plot, which would probably have provoked an uprising by outraged Shia if it had succeeded, has left a legacy of bitter distrust in the mind of Mr Sadr for which the US and its allies in Iraq may still be paying. "I believe that particular incident made Muqtada lose any confidence or trust in the [US-led] coalition and made him really wild," the Iraqi National Security Adviser Dr Mowaffaq Rubai'e told The Independent in an interview. It is not known who gave the orders for the attempt on Mr Sadr but it is one of a series of ill-considered and politically explosive US actions in Iraq since the invasion. In January this year a US helicopter assault team tried to kidnap two senior Iranian security officials on an official visit to the Iraqi President. Earlier examples of highly provocative actions carried out by the US with little thought for the consequences include the dissolution of the Iraqi army and the Baath party.

The attempted assassination or abduction took place two-and-a-half years ago in August 2004 when Mr Sadr and his Mehdi Army militiamen were besieged by US Marines in Najaf, south of Baghdad.

Dr Rubai'e believes that his mediation efforts - about which he had given the US embassy, the American military command and the Iraqi government in Baghdad full details - were used as an elaborate set-up to entice the Shia leader to a place where he could be trapped.

Mr Sadr emerged as the leader of the Sadrist movement in Baghdad at the time of the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. It had been founded by his father, also a cleric, who had confronted Saddam's regime in the 1990s and had been murdered by his agents in 1999. Its blend of nationalism, religion and populism proved highly attractive to Iraqi Shia, particularly to the very poor.

Although Mr Sadr escaped with his life at the last moment, the incident helps explain why he disappeared from view in Iraq when President George Bush stepped up confrontation with him and his Mehdi Army militia in January.

Dr Rubai'e said: "I know him very well and I think his suspicion and distrust of the coalition and any foreigner is really deep-rooted," and dates from what happened in Najaf. He notes that after it had happened Mr Sadr occupied the shrine of Imam Ali in Najaf as a place of refuge. Dr Rubai'e had gone to Najaf in August 2004 to try to mediate an end to the fighting. He met Mr Sadr who agreed to a set of conditions to end the crisis. "He actually signed the agreement with his own handwriting," said Dr Rubai'e. "He wanted the inner Najaf, the old city, around the shrine to be treated like the Vatican."

Having returned to Baghdad to show the draft document to Iyad Allawi, who was prime minister at the time, Dr Rubai'e went back to Najaf to make a final agreement with Mr Sadr.

It was agreed that the last meeting would take place in the house in Najaf of Muqtada's father Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr who had been murdered by Saddam's gunmen with two of his sons five years before. Dr Rubai'e and other mediators started for the house. As they did so they saw the US Marines open up an intense bombardment of the house and US Special Forces also heading for it. But the attack was a few minutes premature. Mr Sadr was not yet in the house and managed to escape.

Although Dr Rubai'e, as Iraqi National Security Adviser since 2004 and earlier a member of the Iraqi Governing Council, is closely associated with the American authorities in Baghdad, he has no doubt about what happened.

He sees the negotiations as part of a charade to lure Mr Sadr, who is normally very careful about his own security, to a house where he could be eliminated.

"When I came back to Baghdad I was really, really infuriated, I can tell you," Dr Rubai'e said. "I went berserk with both [the US commander General George] Casey and the ambassador [John Negroponte]." They denied that knew of a trap and said they would look into what happened but he never received any explanation from them.

The US always felt deeply threatened by Mr Sadr because, unlike the other Shia parties, he opposed the occupation and demanded that it end.

There were two attempts to crush his movement in 2004, neither of which was successful. The first, at the end of March, began with the closure of his newspaper and the arrest of one of his close advisers. A warrant for Mr Sadr's own arrest was issued. A US general said his only alternatives were to be killed or captured.

The US authorities appeared to have little understanding of the reverence with which the Sadr family was regarded by many Iraqi Shia.

The crackdown provoked a reaction for which the US was ill-prepared. The Mehdi Army, though poorly armed and untrained, took over part of Baghdad and many Shia cities and towns in southern Iraq. The US had to rush troops to embattled outposts.

A second crisis began in Najaf in August and this time the US and the recently appointed government of Iyad Allawi appear to have decided to smash Mr Sadr and his movement for ever. But they dared not assault the shrine of Imam Ali, one of the holiest Shia shrines.

Other Shia parties suspected that once Mr Sadr was dealt with they would be marginalised. The crisis was finally defused when Grand Ayatollah Ali al- Sistani, after undergoing medical treatment in London, returned to Najaf and negotiated an agreement with Mr Sadr under which he withdrew but did not disarm his forces.

The attempt to kill or imprison Mr Sadr was first revealed by Dr Rubai'e to Ali Allawi, the former Iraqi finance minister, who gives an account of what happened in his recent book The Occupation of Iraq: Winning the war, Losing the peace.

Dr Rubai'e said this weekend in Baghdad that he stands by his account given there. He does not think the Americans were planning to kill him along with Mr Sadr because he had a senior American officer with him almost all the time.

Muqtada al-Sadr is one of the most extraordinary figures to emerge during the war in Iraq,a pivotal figure leading a broad-based political movement with a powerful military wing.

The appeal of the 33-year-old Shia cleric is both religious and nationalist. He is regarded with devotion by millions. He is also a survivor and an astute politician who has often out-manoeuvred his opponents. The US and Britain have repeatedly underestimated the strength of his support.

The al-Sadrs are one of the great Shia religious families. His relative, Mohammed Baqir al-Sadr, was the founder of a politically active Shia movement and was executed by Saddam Hussein in 1980. Muqtada's father Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr in effect founded the Sadrist movement in the 1990s. Finding he could not control him, Saddam Hussein had him murdered with two of his sons in Najaf in 1999, provoking widespread rioting.

To the surprise of all, the Sadrist movement re-emerged with Muqtada at its head during the fall of the old regime. In April 2003 it took over large parts of Shia Iraq. Its base was the vast Shia slum, renamed Sadr City, that contains a third of the population of Baghdad.

The US and its Iraqi allies regarded Muqtada as a highly threatening figure. Paul Bremer, the ill-fated US viceroy in Iraq after the invasion, detested and unwisely under-rated the Sadrists. When he moved against them in April 2004 he was astonished to see them take over much of southern Shia Iraq in a few days. Muqtada took refuge in Najaf.

There was a heavy fighting in August 2004 when the US made an all-out effort to eliminate Muqtada and his movement. Once again he survived, thanks to a compromise arranged by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

His movement became less confrontational. It took part in the elections in 2005, winning 32 seats out of 275. The Mehdi Army was viewed by the Sunni as an organisation of sectarian death squads.

The US began increasingly to confront the Sadrists. But they were an essential support of the Iraqi government, making it difficult for the US to move against them. When the reinforced US forces in Baghdad did threaten the Mehdi Army, Muqtada simply sent his militiamen home, and disappeared from view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

If it had succeeded, would it have alienated the Shia completely at an even earlier stage or taken out a player determined to cause trouble?

---

Both, but as I recall even Sistani wanted al sadr out, but not at the price of destroying a holy site. In the end he cut a deal for him.

Quote:

---

Is it justified to assassinate such a significant leader under the flag of truce, however troublesome?

---

I think so yes, assisination has been an effective political tool for many thousands of years, sadly the U.S. has fallen victim to some internal (or external) notion that in doing so it would sully a our reputation, you know the one thats in the crapper already.

Quote:

---

What long term complications does such a failed attempt bring with it - particularly with wavering allies?

---

I personally dont think it will have traction, the wavering allies arent going to waver further from this action. It looks to me like Iraq is a done deal, its status quo until we leave, and to be blunt Al sadr might be the person who comes in and fills the vacum we created.

Quote:

---

Does it matter in grounding democracy within a country unused to it, when such a precendent is set for the removal of a politician with substantial electoral and popular support?

---

the problem with grounding democracy in iraq is that it was forced upon these people. That in itself is a burden because of who imposed it, its not like they were going to throw flowers in the street.

Al Sadr is a bad guy, but he knows the politics of his region far better then the U.S. does and I suspect that once we get out of there (save for the 5 or so bases we keep manned) this guy will be running a large part of the show.

The Iraqi government refused to deal with Sadr after the fall of Saddam, when he was just another small time religious thug with a small following. The US pressed the Iraqi's to arrest him for involvement in various sectarian murders, and they refused. After the US is out of the way the current leaders will either have to cut a deal with him, and/or be assassinated themselves. Not exactly a novel political concept in the Middle East.

I don't want the US to be involved in any assassinations, but then wish in one hand spit in the other, see which one fill up fastest.

As wrong as it feels to say it: al-Sadr should've had himself an "accident" a long time ago. There's little doubt that he and his forces are a big part of the killings in Iraq.

The white flag should never, ever be abused. Wawing it means that you are NOT going to shoot. Simple as that. Find another way to kill someone than to abuse an institution you'll find yourself relying on later on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Is it justified to assassinate such a significant leader under the flag of truce, however troublesome? What long term complications does such a failed attempt bring with it - particularly with wavering allies? Does it matter in grounding democracy within a country unused to it, when such a precendent is set for the removal of a politician with substantial electoral and popular support?

---

Dirty. Very dirty. But then again this is dirty business we're talkin' here. There's a certain goal and there are different ways to reach that goal. Whether the attempt works out or not is another question, though. If you play dirty it better work.

How many political assassinations have helped to build or secure a democracy? And how many have failed to do so or made the situation worse?

I think the record speaks for itself.

I'm not opposed to political assinations, per se. If I could have gotten Adolf Hitler in the crosshairs of a sniper rifle, I would have willingly pulled the trigger.

That being said, Adrian raises a good point that it's a tactic that needs to be considered very, very carefully as it has a potentially destabalizing affect.

And *pinch me*, I have to give a nod to Hore Tore. Regardless of the methods employed, the white flag must be and must remain sacrosanct. Using it as a tactic in luring enemies to their doom has been tried in the past. Usually, it leads to widespread slaughter of those who really are trying to surrender.

While they always denied abusing the white flag, one of the reasons given by the Hessians during the Revolutionary War for killing the Continental soldiers AFTER they surrendered was that the Continentals had used the white flag as a lure to an ambush.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The white flag should never, ever be abused. Wawing it means that you are NOT going to shoot. Simple as that. Find another way to kill someone than to abuse an institution you'll find yourself relying on later on.

---

The more and more I read your posts Hore Tore i have come to respect your position on issues, even though I disagree with you. What troubles me most about this post is the assumtion that waving means they arent going to shoot, thats simply not true (see Don's reference).

When your enemy considers it his duty to kill you, under the guise of his gods will you cannot deal in absolutes. Im not suggesting we shoot those who wae the white flag in all cases but in a particular case when the person who is doing the waving is dedicated to your death, presently and in the future, you must question the pretext of his surrender.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

When your enemy considers it his duty to kill you, under the guise of his gods will you cannot deal in absolutes. Im not suggesting we shoot those who wae the white flag in all cases but in a particular case when the person who is doing the waving is dedicated to your death, presently and in the future, you must question the pretext of his surrender.

---

I'd have to disagree - firstly, the while flag does not necessarily mean "surrender" but is also a sign that you want to parley. If you are completely convinced that the person who waves the white flag to parley ist dedicated to your death - even in the future - then this would mean that any parley is useless, so you should simply not accept any negotiations in the first place.

To accept a meeting, and to ignore the white flag in order to kill the person who carries it, basically destroys (or at least significantly hurts) your credibility for all future negotiations - even in completely different conflicts.

Shooting people with a white flag, regardless whether it is a sign of surrender or to parley, falls IMHO into the same category as dressing up as Red Cross people to conduct a military operation (unless of course it is obvious that those who carry the white flag abuse it themselves to "camouflage" an attack).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

I'd have to disagree - firstly, the while flag does not necessarily mean "surrender" but is also a sign that you want to parley. If you are completely convinced that the person who waves the white flag to parley ist dedicated to your death - even in the future - then this would mean that any parley is useless, so you should simply not accept any negotiations in the first place.

To accept a meeting, and to ignore the white flag in order to kill the person who carries it, basically destroys (or at least significantly hurts) your credibility for all future negotiations - even in completely different conflicts.

Shooting people with a white flag, regardless whether it is a sign of surrender or to parley, falls IMHO into the same category as dressing up as Red Cross people to conduct a military operation (unless of course it is obvious that those who carry the white flag abuse it themselves to "camouflage" an attack).

---

I understand your point, and it speaks to creadability of both sides of the equation. The problem is that creadability of intent is often based on circumstances that arent shared.

I just dont subsribe to a universal ethical code of intent. I will make a consession on your point

Quote:

---

so you should simply not accept any negotiations in the first place.

---

perhaps that is the more noble solution.

My point is simply if I know this person has in the past, and is still committed to my destruction/removal/defeat (Al sadr as example) then I must be suspect of his intent when waving the white flag. If presented with the option to "shoot" or kill that person now, as opposed to allowing them safe passage to "shoot" me later, I prefer to pull the trigger first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

If presented with the option to "shoot" or kill that person now, as opposed to allowing them safe passage to "shoot" me later, I prefer to pull the trigger first.

---

But that's the dilemma that you always face when you start to parley under a white flag, don't you?
If somebody has to enter negotiations under a white flag it means that hostility are still intense enough that he runs the risk of being shot when he does not carry they white flag. Negotiations under the white flag generally mean that you at least see a chance to - if not to cease hostilities completely - at least agree on conditions that lead to less bloodshed.
Such negotiations of course always include a risk of partial or complete failure, meaning that the negotiating parties will start shooting at each other again.

If you take the approach that I quoted above, i.e. not being willing to parley that might shoot at you the next day if negotiations fail, it means that you can generally scrap all negotiations under a white flag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Negotiations under the white flag generally mean that you at least see a chance to - if not to cease hostilities completely - at least agree on conditions that lead to less bloodshed.

---

Traditionally yes, and if you want to put it in the broad context of the application of the act sure. In this case however you have a person on the record as demanding your demise, regardless of the manner, time and place, his desire is to see you removed.

Maybe its the exception to the rule, but in al sadr's case, and for that matter those who subscribe to religous radicalism that allows for such proclomations how can you afford them the courtsey of the historical concept of "waving the white flag"?

If a rabbit catches a fox in a trap, does the rabbit A. let him go in order to be hunted another day? B. does he kill the fox first and live on? Or C. does he negotiate with the fox for a settlement and hope for the best?

The rabbit might be an honorable pious creature but choice B is the only one that ensures his long term survival.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

In this case however you have a person on the record as demanding your demise, regardless of the manner, time and place, his desire is to see you removed.

---

al-Sadr wants all Americans dead - no matter what? I have some serious doubts about that.

Quote:

---

If a rabbit catches a fox in a trap, does the rabbit A. let him go in order to be hunted another day? B. does he kill the fox first and live on? Or C. does he negotiate with the fox for a settlement and hope for the best?

---

I would not go as far as to see al-Sadr as a fox and the US as a rabbit - I think you are flattering this guy ~;)
Apart from that your comparison is not quite correct. The fox did not get caught and then started to negotiate. The rabbit started the negotiations and tried to kill the fox when it agreed.
Would a fox agree on negotiations with the rabbit? Who will trust the rabbit in future negotiations?

You are under the misconception that you can violate the meaning of the white flag if you think it is appropriate and return ti business as usual the next day. However, a white flag only serves its purpose as long as it is always respected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

al-Sadr wants all Americans dead - no matter what? I have some serious doubts about that.

---

I didnt say he did, my comments are in the context of the article posted. Perhaps I should say "wants american forces out of Iraq, no matter the means" Im comfortable attributing that sentiment to him without a link to a quote.

Quote:

---

I would not go as far as to see al-Sadr as a fox and the US as a rabbit - I think you are flattering this guy ~;)

---

A poor analogy, conceded.

Quote:

---

Apart from that your comparison is not quite correct. The fox did not get caught and then started to negotiate. The rabbit started the negotiations and tried to kill the fox when it agreed.
Would a fox agree on negotiations with the rabbit? Who will trust the rabbit in future negotiations?

---

Oh I dont dispute that but you left out the part that the foxes intent is to kill the rabbit regardless of the circumstances. There in lies the crux of my argument, the fox wants to kill the rabbit no matter the circumstance, the rabbit knows this, so affording a repreive under the guise of the white flag is either honor driven stupidity, or hope. Neither concept seems to be valid when, the underlying theme is the fox wants to kill you.

Does that mean the rabbit is less then honorable for tricking the fox in the first place? Yes, but the rabbit is also alive and in the end isnt that the more important outcome given the circumstances?

Quote:

---

You are under the misconception that you can violate the meaning of the white flag if you think it is appropriate and return ti business as usual the next day. However, a white flag only serves its purpose as long as it is always respected.

---

Again we are back to a universal application, perhaps your right if the violation (in your example) in an unjust manner. Thats where you and I part ways, I sense you feel that no matter the circumstances there is no deviation from the concept, a white flag is a white flag. Fine, but if I have a guy who has been trying to kill me, and its been his proclomation that this intent is his long term ambition, that negates my need to afford him protection under the white flag premise. Additionally if i can use the white flag premise as bait to eliminate him even better.

While that isnt a sexy option in way of perception of others of my honor, it does afford me the ability to say I eliminated the fox. Apparently we place different values on the concepts involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Perhaps I should say "wants american forces out of Iraq, no matter the means"

[...]

the fox wants to kill the rabbit no matter the circumstance, the rabbit knows this, so affording a repreive under the guise of the white flag is either honor driven stupidity

---

There is of course a big difference between the two. The first is typical for any armed conflict. People are willing to kill other people to achieve the goal. In the second case killing is the goal.
If you are correct with your first statement I do not see how this parley is different from any other parley in an armed conflict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

There is of course a big difference between the two. The first is typical for any armed conflict. People are willing to kill other people to achieve the goal. In the second case killing is the goal.
If you are correct with your first statement I do not see how this parley is different from any other parley in an armed conflict.

---

Well I'm not sure if we came to a point of understanding or not but it was fun back and forth. Cheers :balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Well I'm not sure if we came to a point of understanding or not but it was fun back and forth. Cheers :balloon2:

---

:bow:

One point I would like to make to Odin. To use your analogy, the rabbit waved the white flag at the fox. When the fox trotted over to ask 'what's up', the rabbit attacked him. This would be a terrible no-no.

Not respecting the white flag proffered by your opponent appears to be the argument you're making. I still have some qualms about that, but it seems more understandable. I hope you would agree that using a white flag as a pretext to get a bead on the head of your opponent is a move that will erode trust and civility in just about all future conflicts, and thus should not be allowed.

Just as a sidenote, does the so-called Independent always write its news stories like editorial page position pieces?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Just as a sidenote, does the so-called Independent always write its news stories like editorial page position pieces?

---

No, it doesn't. Patrick Cockburn is one of the journalists that does. He is often an excellent source, but his style is combative.

The Independent is very much that and tends to reflect this stance in its real editorials. Most news reporting is factual and as opinion-free as newspapers are likely to get (which is why that stuff is useless for the Backroom :wink:) but it contains a lot of opinion pieces from both sides of the political divide. This editorial policy means one gets exposed to both left and right wing opinion in one's newspaper, which is one reason I read it.

Any significant bias is down to my choice of the articles to post. Mr Cockburn has got me into trouble before, but he does know his stuff.

Odin, I'm curious then on what you think of embassies and diplomats, as they're working under the premise of a permanent white flag?

And although they're on a higher level than regular negotiations they do bring a problem that isn't there on lower levels. They have a tendency to work as espionage hubs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

One point I would like to make to Odin. To use your analogy, the rabbit waved the white flag at the fox. When the fox trotted over to ask 'what's up', the rabbit attacked him. This would be a terrible no-no.

---

The underlying point in my theory is simlpy that the fox wants the rabbit dead, period. The rabbit should use the mechanism available to eliminate the threat, otherwise he prolongs his demise.

Quote:

---

I hope you would agree that using a white flag as a pretext to get a bead on the head of your opponent is a move that will erode trust and civility in just about all future conflicts, and thus should not be allowed.

---

Oh I concede its not moral or ethical, but killing someone first who has proclaimed thier desire to kill me, under any pretext, IMHO is justified. I rather find the white flag concept a simpler more effiecent way to that end.

Again, if you go back through my posts on this subject, my premise is based on the pretense that he wants to kill me, period, im not suggesting this should be done in all cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Odin, I'm curious then on what you think of embassies and diplomats, as they're working under the premise of a permanent white flag?

And although they're on a higher level than regular negotiations they do bring a problem that isn't there on lower levels. They have a tendency to work as espionage hubs.

---

I think its apples and oranges to be honest. On the one hand you have an embassy with a stated purpose of diplomacy (hence the diplomats) on the other you have a religous leader who has proclaimed your removal and or destruction as his purpose in life.

Failing to honor the flag of truce - is not something that should ever be done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

The underlying point in my theory is simlpy that the fox wants the rabbit dead, period. The rabbit should use the mechanism available to eliminate the threat, otherwise he prolongs his demise.

Oh I concede its not moral or ethical, but killing someone first who has proclaimed thier desire to kill me, under any pretext, IMHO is justified. I rather find the white flag concept a simpler more effiecent way to that end.

Again, if you go back through my posts on this subject, my premise is based on the pretense that he wants to kill me, period, im not suggesting this should be done in all cases.

---

I understand your premise, but surely the point of any parley is to find out if the enemy's position is negotiable on the killing part?

Use of the white flag or truce is time-honoured precisely because it gives a chance for dialogue and perhaps clarification of misunderstanding. It is fairly rare that a group or individual is totally and unutterably dedicated to the elimination of an opponent in all circumstances - and if the case, I would argue such a zealot is unlikely to participate in any talks aimed at compromise, so would not parley.

In this case, whilst you seem to believe that he is dedicated solely to killing US forces, al-Sadr is far more concerned at gaining power in Iraq than eradicating Americans per se. He sees the US withdrawal and defeat as a means to that end, but I'm sure he would be open to suggestions on how that withdrawal might be managed.

To enter into parley with the intention of using the process to eliminate a rival is both unethical and short-sighted. Apart from finding that in future, similar "courtesies" are extended in return, it is invariably doomed to fail. If al-Sadr had been killed, how many more - and probably more radicalised - strongmen would have taken his place? How when the time comes (and it approaches with the inevitability of the setting sun) do you negotiate dignified withdrawal with men who now refuse to meet with your assassins?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I understand your premise, but surely the point of any parley is to find out if the enemy's position is negotiable on the killing part?

---

Well yes, but in the case I am referring to Al Sadr, his position was clear already.

Quote:

---

Use of the white flag or truce is time-honoured precisely because it gives a chance for dialogue and perhaps clarification of misunderstanding. It is fairly rare that a group or individual is totally and unutterably dedicated to the elimination of an opponent in all circumstances - and if the case, I would argue such a zealot is unlikely to participate in any talks aimed at compromise, so would not parley.

---

I agree completely, As I said I dont suggest it as a doctrine but rather a useful tool in certain circumstances.

Quote:

---

In this case, whilst you seem to believe that he is dedicated solely to killing US forces, al-Sadr is far more concerned at gaining power in Iraq than eradicating Americans per se. He sees the US withdrawal and defeat as a means to that end, but I'm sure he would be open to suggestions on how that withdrawal might be managed.

---

Well yes, we agree that his overall goal is to have U.S. forces withdrawn but at the time referenced in the article

Quote:

---

(from the article) The attempted assassination or abduction took place two-and-a-half years ago in August 2004 when Mr Sadr and his Mehdi Army militiamen were besieged by US Marines in Najaf, south of Baghdad.

---

he was attempting to kill U.S. forces.

Quote:

---

To enter into parley with the intention of using the process to eliminate a rival is both unethical and short-sighted.

---

This is where we disagree, respectfully my point is best illistrated by the quote from the article above. He was attempting to kill U.S. soldiers (at the time) and while its less the honorable to lure him by those means, the point of war is to kill the enemy, particularly one that is devout in his belief that your removal is paramount to his exsistence.

Quote:

---

If al-Sadr had been killed, how many more - and probably more radicalised - strongmen would have taken his place?

---

Now we are moving beyond the scope of the original post, in the context of what was happening on the ground then, I dont know 25-30? And if they were attempting to kill americans I would expect that we would try and kill them first.

Quote:

---

How when the time comes (and it approaches with the inevitability of the setting sun) do you negotiate dignified withdrawal with men who now refuse to meet with your assassins?

---

You dont, as a victor you instruct the terms you dont ask. Thats part of the problem with current U.S. involvement in Iraq, we negotiate far to much, and we have allowed a circumstance via the turn over a few years ago where we are basically a foreign police force.

thats a whole other thread though mate :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Well yes, we agree that his overall goal is to have U.S. forces withdrawn but at the time referenced in the article he was attempting to kill U.S. forces.

---

But isn't this true of any battle? The point of a parley under truce is to find ways that the killing may be stopped or avoided. Isn't it unusual to have a truce with someone who isn't trying to kill you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

This is where we disagree, respectfully my point is best illistrated by the quote from the article above. He was attempting to kill U.S. soldiers (at the time) and while its less the honorable to lure him by those means, the point of war is to kill the enemy, particularly one that is devout in his belief that your removal is paramount to his exsistence.

---

A truce is not and never should be arranged for the purposes of killing your opponent, otherwise it is not a truce but a ruse, and parleys become rare. Trust is necessary in warfare, because at some point the killing has to end.

I disagree with your contention that the point of war is to kill the enemy. That is a means to the actual point, which is to further political aims by force. In almost all cases, certainly in civilised societies, if one can achieve the political aims without killing it is by far the preferred option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

You dont, as a victor you instruct the terms you dont ask. Thats part of the problem with current U.S. involvement in Iraq, we negotiate far to much, and we have allowed a circumstance via the turn over a few years ago where we are basically a foreign police force.

---

You negotiate a lot because you aren't in any position to dictate terms. That's the whole of the problem with US involvement. But I agree:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

thats a whole other thread though mate :beam:

---

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

But isn't this true of any battle? The point of a parley under truce is to find ways that the killing may be stopped or avoided. Isn't it unusual to have a truce with someone who isn't trying to kill you?

---

Again, I dont believe Al sadr was someone who wanted to negotiate a truce to stop the killing, rather to prolong his ability to continue to kill via his organization (turns out that happened after all)

Quote:

---

A truce is not and never should be arranged for the purposes of killing your opponent, otherwise it is not a truce but a ruse, and parleys become rare. Trust is necessary in warfare, because at some point the killing has to end.

---

Sure, if the person who is negotiating wants the killing to stop too, trust is a two way exchange, by your own position surely you see that offerring trust under a white flag to someone who wants to negotiate the ability to kill you later is folly?

Quote:

---

I disagree with your contention that the point of war is to kill the enemy. That is a means to the actual point, which is to further political aims by force. In almost all cases, certainly in civilised societies, if one can achieve the political aims without killing it is by far the preferred option.

---

A broad reference but somewhat contradictory. Yes in civilised societies you achieve the end without killing, but we are talking about a specfic circumstance on the battlefield, after the war had been declared.

Quote:

---

You negotiate a lot because you aren't in any position to dictate terms. That's the whole of the problem with US involvement.

---

It is now yes, but for a brief moment ( I know its hard to harken back that far) Iraq as a nation was defeated, that was when you dictate the terms, not after you hand over control of the government to someone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

I think its apples and oranges to be honest. On the one hand you have an embassy with a stated purpose of diplomacy (hence the diplomats) on the other you have a religous leader who has proclaimed your removal and or destruction as his purpose in life.

---

I was rather considering during war-time but I think I lost focus a bit, as embassies usually aren't open during those times.
Diplomats, on the other hand... How else are you going to negociate with your enemy about anything, like POW exchanges?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Sure, if the person who is negotiating wants the killing to stop too, trust is a two way exchange, by your own position surely you see that offerring trust under a white flag to someone who wants to negotiate the ability to kill you later is folly?

---

The point of the white flag is to be able to do any negotiations with the enemy without those ending up as "enemy sighted :hmg: ".
If it's folly to negotiate then you simple don't get anywere with the negotiations and kill them later, but the trust of the white flag should not be broken.

Now it's perfectly fine for them to take American negotiators as hostage during the next white flag as "the Americans doesn't respect the white flag anyway".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

The point of the white flag is to be able to do any negotiations with the enemy without those ending up as "enemy sighted :hmg: ".
If it's folly to negotiate then you simple don't get anywere with the negotiations and kill them later, but the trust of the white flag should not be broken.

Now it's perfectly fine for them to take American negotiators as hostage during the next white flag as "the Americans doesn't respect the white flag anyway".

---

Again, im not trying to use a broad brush here, but in the case of american negotiators, in the field, during a battle, well okay fair enough.

I think whats happening in this thread is we are mixing the broad concept of "waving the white" flag, with a battle field tactic. Immorral and unethical? perhaps, but they werent sitting in an embassy around a large table with camera bulbs going off and the media present, it was in an effort to win a combat situation.

I understand the core difference from myself and those opposed to my premise in the thread is my rational to dispose of a point of honor to achieve the defeat of an enemy (via his death). I do get it fella's, but I suspect if we had the chance to ask those in history if they could use a ploy (no matter the guise) to defeat an enemy while in the midst of combat they would.

To equate that concept to the broad scope of negotiation outside of combat is where we part ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Now it's perfectly fine for them to take American negotiators as hostage during the next white flag as "the Americans doesn't respect the white flag anyway".

---

I'm sure you didn't mean it quite this way, but it does not become perfectly fine. Just because the Americans misused the convention of the white flag, that event does not then confer the "right" to misuse it to everyone. Tit-for-tat might be the way of the world, but it is not a justifcation for ignoring conventions that save lives.

It's the same argument as we've been having in the torture thread - they do it, so we can too. That way barbarism lies.

@Odin - I think we shall have to agree to disagree. I cannot seem to make headway on your position, and you probably think the same about mine.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I'm sure you didn't mean it quite this way, but it does not become perfectly fine. Just because the Americans misused the convention of the white flag, that event does not then confer the "right" to misuse it to everyone. Tit-for-tat might be the way of the world, but it is not a justifcation for ignoring conventions that save lives.

It's the same argument as we've been having in the torture thread - they do it, so we can too. That way barbarism lies.

---

It's a break on the 2 way trust and only shows that it's that particular faction doesn't abaide the rules concerning the white flag. If I go with a green flag and claims that this green flag forces your side to surrender and you don't accept that, the flag is useless and serves no purpose.
Same thing applies to someone that breaks the white flag principle often enough.

You're perfectly correct that is not giving the right to do this against any other faction, but if one particular faction ignores it, the only thing you can do is to not trust the white flag used by that faction, because they have proven themself to not be trustworthy on that principle.

It's the same making a strategy of faking your surrender to then fire, suddenly does shooting surrenders make a somewhat practical strategy (making the comrades of the false surrenders suffering, although doing that will probably make the enemy fight to the death).

Everything you do on the battlefield has consequences in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Again, I dont believe Al sadr was someone who wanted to negotiate a truce to stop the killing, rather to prolong his ability to continue to kill via his organization (turns out that happened after all)

---

Can't the exact same thing be said about the US army. They didn't want to negotiate a truce to stop the killing... they wanted to kill them all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

I understand the core difference from myself and those opposed to my premise in the thread is my rational to dispose of a point of honor to achieve the defeat of an enemy (via his death). I do get it fella's, but I suspect if we had the chance to ask those in history if they could use a ploy (no matter the guise) to defeat an enemy while in the midst of combat they would.

---

This is all correct in game theory if the opponent(s) cannot remember previous turns. It would be far better to say "We don't negotiate with terrorists" and to hunt them down, then to flip flop and say under a white flag "We negotiate with terrorists" and try and assassinate him. It destroys long term credibility, it really isn't a smart move strategically.

However in real life(tm) there is a tendency for opponents to have a longer term memory. Yes, you might successfully assassinate one person. Leaving a series of successors of worse, equal or better ability at fighting yourself... leaving the strategic situation for this single set of enemies totally open and possibly setting oneself up for worse opponents. Not only that, every other opponent will from now on refuse to parlay because they believe that you will assassinate them. It makes it rather difficult to negotiate an end to 'troubles' if no one will listen to you. It also means that your opponents will get more and more desperate as you back them into a corner, you have removed parlay from the table as an out so they will fight far far more viscously then if they believed that there was a glimmer of hope for peace and a long life.

On a tactical level on a once off occasion it will work. In the long run you will make your opponents feel cut off from hope... something Sun Tzu advises sternly against doing.

Delete

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

is all correct in game theory if the opponent(s) cannot remember previous turns. It would be far better to say "We don't negotiate with terrorists" and to hunt them down, then to flip flop and say under a white flag "We negotiate with terrorists" and try and assassinate him. It destroys long term credibility, it really isn't a smart move strategically.

---

At the risk of repeating myself again, i understand the implications long term. In context to the article, a seige situation, a battle, to object is to kill the enemy or break his will.

If your suggesting that the "long term credibility" of the U.S. should be the trump card in the efforts to win the battle, okay we disagree.

Quote:

---

However in real life(tm) there is a tendency for opponents to have a longer term memory. Yes, you might successfully assassinate one person. Leaving a series of successors of worse, equal or better ability at fighting yourself... leaving the strategic situation for this single set of enemies totally open and possibly setting oneself up for worse opponents.

---

Yes there are lots of possibilities and potential outcomes, but at the moment in time the absolute is you are seiging an enemy to win a battle. Sitting back in the armchair years after the occurance and pointing out long term potential outcomes is fun to do but I find it hard to apply to the situation as its occurring, perhaps my expectation of those in combat is too low?

Quote:

---

Not only that, every other opponent will from now on refuse to parlay because they believe that you will assassinate them.

---

Yet again, a broad brush against the backdrop of a very specfic battle. In addition to that the U.S. military wasnt the first to think up this tactic.

Quote:

---

On a tactical level on a once off occasion it will work.

---

:beam: I agree

Quote:

---

In the long run you will make your opponents feel cut off from hope... something Sun Tzu advises sternly against doing.

---

He also advises that : "Victory is the main object in war. If this is long delayed, weapons are blunted and morale depressed. When troops attack cities their strenght will be exhausted".

Seems to me that in the context of this battle, the effort was made to achieve "the main objective of war"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

He also advises that : "Victory is the main object in war. If this is long delayed, weapons are blunted and morale depressed. When troops attack cities their strenght will be exhausted".

Seems to me that in the context of this battle, the effort was made to achieve "the main objective of war"

---

Is al-Sadr really the main objective of this war? One would have thought that the US would have more to worry about than a two-bit cleric who doesn't command the majority of the troublemakers.

The problem with using such drastic tactics for a minor objective like this is that it invalidates all related measures in the future. If you're going to violate the sanctity of the white flag, do it when your country is in danger and you want to assassinate the sole figure that holds the invading forces together. Don't do it when you have a minor irritant who keeps saying things you don't like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Is al-Sadr really the main objective of this war? One would have thought that the US would have more to worry about than a two-bit cleric who doesn't command the majority of the troublemakers.

---

Do i detect a note of sarcasm? Perhaps if you take a few minutes and reread the post, its put in context of the linked article from the first page. This was a seige that was occurring and the tactic was employed at that time.

thats how I read the article, since no one has corrected my take on the article thus far thats the context my argument is framed.

Quote:

---

The problem with using such drastic tactics for a minor objective like this is that it invalidates all related measures in the future. If you're going to violate the sanctity of the white flag, do it when your country is in danger and you want to assassinate the sole figure that holds the invading forces together.

---

If you look back at my posts, I dont condone the act. I do recognize it as a valid battle field tactic to end a battle. Perhaps i wasnt eloquent in framing it that way in every post, but I have certainly made enough concessions in this thread to illustrate that I get the broader implication of the act.

Quote:

---

Don't do it when you have a minor irritant who keeps saying things you don't like.

---

A minor irritant who later went on to encourage his army into sectarian killing, seems to me if the tactic had worked it would have saved lifes.

Wonder if that would have made the papers 2.5 years later, you think? :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Do i detect a note of sarcasm? Perhaps if you take a few minutes and reread the post, its put in context of the linked article from the first page. This was a seige that was occurring and the tactic was employed at that time.

thats how I read the article, since no one has corrected my take on the article thus far thats the context my argument is framed.

---

It's worth blowing away any remaining trust people will have in your word to end a siege, especially when you're doing the attacking?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

If you look back at my posts, I dont condone the act. I do recognize it as a valid battle field tactic to end a battle. Perhaps i wasnt eloquent in framing it that way in every post, but I have certainly made enough concessions in this thread to illustrate that I get the broader implication of the act.

---

Cost-benefit. The benefit would have been getting rid of the local warlord. The cost would be no-one ever again trusting a word you say, with the resulting impracticality of a political end to the war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

A minor irritant who later went on to encourage his army into sectarian killing, seems to me if the tactic had worked it would have saved lifes.

Wonder if that would have made the papers 2.5 years later, you think? :no:

---

Is he even the most militant in his group?

There was a chap who seized on Protestant unease in Northern Ireland in the 1960s, and advocated the deepening of sectarian tensions, sectarian violence even. Then there was another chap who was present at the Bloody Sunday shootings in 1972, being the head of the local IRA. They're now First Minister and Deputy First Minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

It's worth blowing away any remaining trust people will have in your word to end a siege, especially when you're doing the attacking?

---

Considering that this issue has not been at the fore for the eroding trust in american occupying forces and america as a while I would say yes it was. Of course I could be wrong, maybe this one incident has been the catalyst for the upswell in not liking america.


Since no one on this thread has chosen to provide evidence that in fact thats the case (this event did happen after all) it would seem that answers your question in itself.

Quote:

---

Cost-benefit. The benefit would have been getting rid of the local warlord.

---

the local warlord who is generally considered to be the king maker in getting malaki in to the PM spot? Perhaps you and I have a different valuation of Al sadr's influence in Iraq.

Quote:

---

The cost would be no-one ever again trusting a word you say, with the resulting impracticality of a political end to the war.

---

See my first repsonse.

Quote:

---

Is he even the most militant in his group?

---

I dont know is he?

Quote:

---

There was a chap who seized on Protestant unease in Northern Ireland in the 1960s, and advocated the deepening of sectarian tensions, sectarian violence even. Then there was another chap who was present at the Bloody Sunday shootings in 1972, being the head of the local IRA. They're now First Minister and Deputy First Minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

---

I think I get your point, but not really sure. Sadr's group has been linked to sectarian violence. Would someone have come in in his sted should he have been removed? Probably, but 2.5 years ago we would have been ahead of the issue, not in refelction.

Shouldacouldawoulda - hindsight is such a wonderful thing isn't it ?