Sadr Calls for an Iraq Truce; GOP Balks

<a href="">Wikimedia Commons</a>

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

On the eve of the 9/11 anniversary, Muqtada Al-Sadr, the firebrand Shiite cleric who’s long been an erstwhile enemy of American troops in Iraq, made the United States a fascinating offer: His followers won’t threaten our forces, so long as they’re gone from Iraq by the end of the year.

The proposed truce means that Sadr—a political survivor who has tangled twice with US troops and whose loyalists played a significant role in the killings that escalated Iraq’s civil war—would lay down his arms as long as the US sticks to the withdrawal agreement it signed with Iraq’s president in 2008, the New York Times reports. But there’s a problem: Republicans on Capitol Hill who want to stay dug in. “Now, the US has an opportunity finally to extricate itself from the nightmare,” writes Middle East expert Juan Cole, “but powerful forces in Washington are trying to ensure that the US keeps a significant troop presence in Iraq.”

That’s right: Senate conservatives, angered by reports that the White House might actually honor George W. Bush’s promise of withdrawal, are more hawkish than the anti-American Al-Sadr. The US hawks are led by John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who would prefer to see 25,000 American soldiers remain in Iraq through 2012. “I think that the President of the United States…has a pattern now of ignoring or not adhering to the recommendations of our military leadership,” McCain complained to Fox News least week. “Now, I don’t question the president’s authority to make his own decisions, but I do question…whether those decisions or not are good for America’s national security.”

As usual, the Obama administration’s reaction has been to forge a possible compromise: US diplomats are reportedly in talks with Iraqi President Nouri Al-Maliki to leave a contingent force of 3,000 American troops in country past the withdrawal deadline. With just a few months left till zero hour and not much legal wiggle room, it’s unclear precisely what the US presence in Iraq, if any, will be on January 1, 2012. But conservatives and liberals seem to agree that the Obama compromise is a big mistake. “It may be better not to have any than to have just 3,000 there,” McCain told Fox.

Cole was more to the point. With Sadr controlling a large bloc of the Iraqi parliament as well as thousands of men on the street, he wrote, reneging on the Bush-era pullout deal would be a strategic and moral catastrophe: “3,000 US troops aren’t troops, they are hostages waiting to be taken.”


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend