A Journal editorial picks up on Gina Chon’s non-scoop front-page story yesterday to crow that “Moqtada packs it in.” Well, as I pointed out yesterday, there was little in that story that was new, as Moqtada al-Sadr seemed to be more clarifying earlier instructions to his people than issuing new ones. He will still maintain secret cells to attack U.S. troops, for instance.
And does the Journal really want a kinder, gentler al-Sadr? Paradoxically, keeping him an angry, violent outsider will go a lot further toward advancing the Journal’s goals in Iraq than having him as a peaceful political player. Because if he’s on the outside, his unruly Mahdi Army will continue to act like thugs, causing Iraqis to resent them and cling to the Maliki government (which the neo-cons at the Journal like.)
Having him inside the process, while decreasing the violence, gives him a chance to win at Maliki’s own game of politics, however. And if al-Sadr wins, does the Journal think an Iraq dominated by Shi’ite nationalists will be very friendly to U.S. interests? Perhaps it does, but I certainly don’t.
Like most Journal editorials, this is a grunt from the reptilian cortex, in line with the triumphalist bullying so common to that page.
You want a joke?….Try a mlitary tribunal!
The military arrest the suspect. Then put the suspect on trial. The military appoint the judges. the military appoint the prosecuting council. The military appoint the defense council. The military decide which evidence is allowable.
I mean, how would you like to be arrested and tried by your local police force where the police chief appoints the judge, appoints the prosecution, appoints the defense and decides in advance what evidece to allow, even throws in some phony stuff. Think you would be found innocent?
The first Gitmo trial finds the guy who drove Bush’s business partner OBL around guilty of terrorism. He was just a car driver for pete’s sake.
Would you put the White House limo drivers on trial as accomplices for crimes against the State if Bush and Cheney are ever indicted?
Boy, what a world. This must equate with Scopes monkey trial of 1925 as a mockery of jurisprudence.
anon.
regarding your posting above, i wish to advise that the pentagon are at present agressively pursuing bin ladens old nanny with objective of bring terrorism related charges.
it is the opinion of the generals that the said nanny by wheeling the young osama in a pram through the park violated the conventions of war. she will be hunted down, brought to gitmo, charged with aiding terrorism, tried by a panel of hand picked american officers by a kangaroo court and given a life sentence.
the same generals insist that the u.s. made a grave error of judgement at nuremburg by failing to prosecute adolfs driver, his pilot and the u boat commander who ferried him to south america after the war.