Iraq's Shi'ia alliance splits...

[Che Guava]

...three guesses as to who pulled out....and two of thoses guesses don't count...

Sadr group quits Iraq ruling bloc

The political movement loyal to radical Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr has withdrawn from Iraq's governing Shia alliance.

The move deprives Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's coalition of 30 votes - leaving it in control of about half the seats in parliament.

The decision, announced at a news conference in the holy city of Najaf, comes five months after Mr Sadr pulled out his ministers from the cabinet.

The group has complained that Mr Maliki has not consulted them over decisions.

Other grievances voiced in the past by the Sadr bloc include their call - ignored by the prime minister - for a timetable for the withdrawal of US-led forces from Iraq.

In August, the main Sunni alliance also withdrew from the Iraqi cabinet, which currently has 17 ministers - with 23 other portfolios left unfilled.

'Demands not met'

Nouri Maliki became prime minister largely because of Mr Sadr's support, so the latest move is a significant development, but not necessarily a crisis, says the BBC's Hugh Sykes, in Baghdad.

Despite being in a precarious position, Mr Maliki should be able to stay in power with support from other groups.

While there has been no official explanation of the timing of the announcement, our correspondent says Mr Sadr may be worried about continuing to support a government that is so close to the Americans.

Mr Sadr supporters have also been unhappy with Mr Maliki's moves to allow former members of Saddam Hussein's regime back into the administration, our correspondent says.

In a statement made in Najaf, the Sadr group said: "The political committee has declared the withdrawal of the Sadr bloc from the alliance because there was no visible indication that the demands of Sadr's bloc were being met."

It gave no further details.

The governing United Iraqi Alliance has already lost another small Shia bloc, the Fadhila party, but Mr Maliki still has the support of his own small Islamic Dawa party and the other substantial Shia bloc, the Supreme Iraq Islamic Council, led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim.

The Sadr block withdrawal leaves the prime minister with support from 136 MPs, including those from two Kurdish parties.

Many observers will be keen to see whether the suspension of the activities of the Mehdi Army militia that Moqtada Sadr ordered at the end of August will hold.

Analysts see the move as an attempt by Mr Sadr to regain control over his increasingly divided militia.

Meanwhile, in a report sent to the US Congress on Friday, the White House blamed the Iraqi government for failing to pass laws to reconcile Shia and Sunni Arabs.

li'ink

So not a crisis, but not good news either. What do you think might happen if the governing bloc collapses (besides another election, of course!)

 

[skadistic]

Iran has a hand in this. They pull Sadr's strings. Iran wants the weakest gov. possible in Iraq. That way they can send in their puppets to fill the void. Some thing Iran has already said they will do, even if they have to create the void.

 

[JohnRM]

When our forces flee Iraq, it will be Muqtada Al Sadr that takes over, with Iran behind him.

 

[Elrohir]

When our forces flee Iraq, it will be Muqtada Al Sadr that takes over, with Iran behind him.

Somehow I don't think the Kurds and Sunni's are going to let Sadr just roll in like that. Neither would the Saudi's....

Simply put, if the central government isn't in control, things are going to get pretty messy. I don't think any coalition is strong enough to crush the other, at least easily,

 

[George2816]

Somehow I don't think the Kurds and Sunni's are going to let Sadr just roll in like that. Neither would the Saudi's....

If the majority of people want a gov't just like iran guess whose fault it is? (You got it if you said the USA fault!)

Simply put, if the central government isn't in control, things are going to get pretty messy. I don't think any coalition is strong enough to crush the other, at least easily,

HMM?? So we are in a civil war? How does a 3rd party win a civil war?

 

[Elrohir]

If the majority of people want a gov't just like iran guess whose fault it is? (You got it if you said the USA fault!)

How about the peoples fault for voting for it? (Which they haven't done)

HMM?? So we are in a civil war? How does a 3rd party win a civil war?

I wouldn't call it a civil war right now, although I think it could easily become one if the US withdraws too fast.

 

[George2816]

How about the peoples fault for voting for it? (Which they haven't done)

HMM?? Iraqi had an election and the majority of the people want something like iran form of gov't. It is their right and we should respect that! (Its the USA fault for changing the gov't by guns)

I wouldn't call it a civil war right now, although I think it could easily become one if the US withdraws too fast

Sure it is even foxnews called it a civil war. (SO your saying its not a civil war until we withdraw? DO you think we could of won Nam?)

 

[Elrohir]

HMM?? Iraqi had an election and the majority of the people want something like iran form of gov't. It is their right and we should respect that! (Its the USA fault for changing the gov't by guns)

Iraq's government is Shia-majority, but it isn't particularly like Iran's, it is more secular, and has more Sunni and Kurdish partners in it.

Sure it is even foxnews called it a civil war. (SO your saying its not a civil war until we withdraw? DO you think we could of won Nam?)

So now your standard of reality is determined by Fox News? I find it endlessly fascinating the liberals seem to care more about what Fox News has to say than conservatives do. I seriously watch the Daily Show more than I watch Fox News (So barely at all) and I only read their website when someone links to a specific story - their website design sucks, I use other news sources.

I'm saying it hasn't reached levels that I would say qualify it as a civil war. Those levels could be reached while our troops remain there, and I think they almost certainly will if our troops withdraw too fast. As for Vietnam....I'm not sure how that is relevant.

 

[skadistic]

HMM?? So we are in a civil war?

A civil war would be an apt description if it were true. If you want to call gang warfare a civil war go for it. But seeing as there is no open war between two opposing armies its not civil war.

How does a 3rd party win a civil war?

Wait until the two main factions reach a level of attrition to wit neither could stand against an overwhelming force.