Sunday, September 03, 2006
Sistani is very upset. posted by Richard Seymour
The declining influence of Sistani and his political affiliates in the SCIRI has been discussed on the Tomb before. We know that it is the result of their corruption and sectarian politics, their complicity with the occupation and their complete inability to deliver anything that their voters actually wanted. The rising star of Sadr as an anti-occupation nationalist rooted in the Shi'ite working class is the converse. However, the attempt to control and reinterpret the story is already underway, so: what to do with a news story that contradicts almost every relevant known fact about Iraq?It's a curious blizzard of vagueness, counterintuitive assertion and insinuation from the Telegraph, in which nothing quite coheres. All that emerges with any clarity is a 'line': namely that Sistani is a 'moderate', while Sadr is not; and Sistani has "strong instincts to maintain the unity of Iraq" while Sadr pursues sectarianism. The only reason why Sistani is a 'moderate' for the Telegraph is that he advocates a pacific strategy for dealing with the occupation, namely total compliance. However, the claim that "Sistani's men" represent anti-sectarianism in Iraq is concentrated bullshit - but this is why the Telegraph doesn't bother to mention who "Sistani's men" are. Neither the SCIRI, nor its leader Hakim, are mentioned anywhere in the article: this would perhaps be because any reader who follows the news would know that Hakim is the one who has recently been troubling the political waters with renewed visions of an autonomous south. (The Kurdish leadership, meanwhile, has replaced the Iraqi flag with the Kurdish flag, indicating a further move toward breaking away.) "Sistani's men" also include the Badr Corps, who have from their privileged position within the Interior Ministry carried out some of the worst sectarian attacks. Yet, for the Telegraph, the nationalist forces of Sadr, who has tried to forge unity blocs with anti-occupation Sunnis, are the sectarians.
As Gilbert Achcar points out, the main beneficiaries of sectarianism in Iraq are the occupiers themselves. Only a minority of Iraqis endorse such politics, but many of them happen to be well-placed in the Iraqi state, thanks to the occupiers, and in some cases have developed intelligence outfits and militias of their own over the years. If there is a civil war in Iraq, it is an elite affair being directed by precisely the sectarian groups that have sought and found US tutelage.
So, what is the conclusion when a notorious MI6 leaking post, the Sunday Telegraph, tells you a story that is completely at odds with every relevant known fact about Iraq?