What a mess. I heard Bush’ remarks earlier about the As-Sadr’s situation. I could not believe my ears. He analyzed—if analysis is the right word in the case of George W. Bush—the situation in terms of democracy versus non-democracy. Those remarks are carried on Middle East stations. The person in Iowa may believe that the US is pushing for democracy in Iraq, but the people in the Middle East, and in Iraq in particular, know better. They witnessed the way in which the US fought tooth-and-nail against free elections. And Al-Hayat (a pro-Saudi, pro-American daily) is reporting on Tuesday that the US occupation authorities in Iraq prepared an unpublished report in which they expressed their concern that a Sunni-Shi`ite electoral alliance could produce a victory for the “hardliners.” It also mentioned that the US would find itself in an embarrassing position if it was to surrender authority to an elected “Islamist” government, and that the emphasis is in the victory of “strategic allies.” The report talked about a $12 million funding for US researchers (who were dispatched to Iraq) regarding “the map of the Iraqi electorate” and the—I love the next phrase—“methods to change its orientations in the interest of the Iraqi forces aligned with Washington, DC.” But for Bush it is all about “freedom.” The words Jihad (by fundamentalists) and Freedom (by American officials) now really bother me. I now reach for the nearest exit upon hearing those words (with a tea beverage in hand, of course).

Having read Tuesday’s Arabic newspapers, and watched coverage on Al-Jazeera and Al-Manar TVs, I am astonished at the extent to which the major events in Iraq are not getting the attention they deserve on US news. I do not watch US TV news coverage but I listen to those “news” channels on my satellite radio while driving. CNN had a major segment on the Obsornes’ drug problems, as did FOX (Fox, of course, covered the story in a “fair and balanced” way). The print media (I am referring to papers that (at least) I read daily: New York Times, Washington Post, and San Francisco Chronicle are appreciating the significance of the story. New York Times in particular (and I am not a fan) is realizing that this is much bigger than the spin and propaganda experts in Baghdad would allow us to believe. There is a large scale rebellion, it seems, in the Sunni majority Al-A`dhamiyyah district in Baghdad, and unlike past occurrences, the people and the rebels are one. A correspondent for Al-Manar TV (affiliated with Hizbullah) noted that people are supplying the rebels with support, and hiding places. One Arabic newspaper (I think it was Al-Quds Al-`Arabi), reported that Iraqi police (the US trained force) members were voluntarily surrendering their weapons and stations to As-Sadr’s forces. As-Sadr’s forces, judging from the scenes on TV, do not look at all as “a miniscule percentage” of the Iraqi population, as the American official described them to the New York Times. One man leaped to the camera of Al-Manar correspondent in Baghdad to say that he is NOT a supporter of As-Sadr, but that he now will do his utmost to defend Muqtada out of anger against the Americans. Muqtada is supposedly in hiding in Imam `Ali mosque, but I believe he must be somewhere else.

I came across a website for Muqtada, and you can see an older copy of Al-Hawza weekly, the closure of which sparked the entire uprising. Robert Fisk of the Independent is reporting that the real reason for Paul Bermer’s decision to close down the paper was satirical pieces against his person. This will go down (the closure) as a dumb decision for sure. Muqtada is an odd fellow. I do not find him charismatic, and his very hot temper even shows in interviews. He once pushed a reporter in front of the cameras. Unlike your typical Shi`ite clerics, he does not have a good command of the Arabic language. I can even tell when Muqtada wrote his own speech, or statement. They usually are woefully weak in phraseology. His manner of speech is devoid of religious jargon—atypical—and is rather crude. But that may be part of his appeal, as the anti-intellectualism of Bush was part of his appeal to many voters. Muqtada appeals to the Shi`ite lumpen proletariat (those that Karl Marx was nervous about), in As-Sadr city and in the South, but the movement could easily spread, and may in fact create a united Sunni-Shi`ite front against the American occupation. In fact, one correspondent today (on one Arab channel) reported listening to slogans and chants that stressed “national unity.”

The statement by the Lebanese Ayatollah Muhammad Husayn Fadlallah was significant. This formerly radical cleric is now one of the most moderates, and has been in conflict with Hizbullah and Iran for years. His statement denounced the Americans and described what happened as “a massacre” and he criticized “American lies.” As-Sadr’s arch enemy, the influential Grand Ayatollah Sistani has been cautious, but may be pressured by the “street” to endorse As-Sadr’s movement, although I read about an attempt by the Iraqi puppet council to urge him to delegitimize As-Sadr. Another Grand Ayatollah, An-Najafi seemed to identify with As-Sadr’s movement, as did the Iran-based Ayatollah Haeri, who is the Object of Emulation (the spiritual and theological guide) of As-Sadr movement). Al-Hayat is reporting the existence of an Iranian role, but it cites sources in the Iraqi puppet council. Could Iran be interested in fomenting trouble for the Americans? A possibility for sure, but it requires domestic (or as old-time Marxists would call, subjective) conditions. I am reminded more and more of Beirut on the eve of the civil war: militias in the street, and countdown to more bloodletting and more chaos. The Americans are stuck, without a doubt. There is no way out, and Paul Bremer’s name will appear frequently when people start—years from now—debating “Who lost Iraq?”