Click
photo to play
Length: 4:20
JOHN ROBERTS: There are conflicting reporting tonight
about Muqtada al-Sadr, the militant Shiite cleric who
leads one of the most powerful militias in Iraq, the
Mahdi Army. He is one of the United States' biggest
adversaries, and senior White House officials say
that al-Sadr has fled to Iran out of fear for his
safety because of the coming military build-up.
But a spokesman for al-Sadr and a member of his bloc
in parliament says that the cleric remains in Iraq.
CNN's Michael Ware is working this developing story
and joins me now from Baghdad.
Michael, any way, now that the sun is coming up, to
more clearly ascertain where Muqtada al-Sadr is?
MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: John, absolutely
not. I mean, the situation remains as it did as 3
a.m. Baghdad time when this story broke. I mean,
maybe he's in Iraq. Maybe he's not. Right now, we
just don't know.
I mean, this is such a typically Iraqi story. I mean,
we've heard from these unnamed aides in the White
House. Well, how many times have we seen and learned
that what's said in Washington so often bears no
relation whatsoever to the facts and the reality on
the ground here in Iraq?
Yet again, on the law of averages, at some point
Washington does have to get it right.
We spoke to Muqtada's people just a few days ago in
Najaf. They said he's here. At 3 a.m., we woke up a
member of his party sitting in parliament, one of his
spokesmen. He said he's here.
Now, you would expect them to say that if he was, in
fact, here. But you would also expect them to say
that if he had, in fact, fled.
One thing to bear in mind: this is a regional leader
who travels. He could have gone to Iran. He might be
in Iran right now. The question there is why that
changes the whole dynamic. Nothing is clear, John.
ROBERTS: And Michael, it's not like he hasn't gone to
Iran before, correct?
WARE: That's what I'm saying. I mean, this is a man
who moves. I mean, he's just done a sort of regional
tour to reassure Sunni Arab nations. He's been to
Iran that many times. He receives support from Iran.
There's a -- you know, religious links to Iran,
political links to Iran. If you believe western
military intelligence, there's weaponry links to
Iran. So there's plenty of reasons that he might be
there. We just don't know.
This is a fellow who's a recluse at best. A lot of
people want to kill him, so he's very much going to
watch his security. Much is uncertain.
ROBERTS: But Michael, just play prognosticator here
for a second. If, indeed, he has fled to Iran because
he fears for his life, how significant a development
would that be?
WARE: Well, I mean, politically, it will certainly
send ripples throughout the Iraqi political scene. I
mean, Muqtada is a potent political force, as indeed
he's become a potent military force. He's not the
largest bloc. He's not the largest military faction
here. But goodness me, he can make some trouble.
And I mean, we saw that politically, he suddenly
became kingmaker when he was able to put the current
prime minister into his job.
Now, all of this, directing the political faction and
directing his now pretty significant Mahdi militia,
he can do from Iran. Osama bin Laden and Ayman
al-Zawahiri are able to direct al Qaeda from caves in
Waziristan, and al Qaeda barely seems to be skipping
a beat.
Al Qaeda in Iraq continues and its leader, Abu Hamza,
is on the run.
It will be nothing. The Sadr's political movement and
the Jaish al-Mahdi militia, sure they'll feel a
squeeze if he has fled to Iran, but they will not
cease to be, and Muqtada will continue to reign.
ROBERTS: Well, Michael, I'm sure it's going to be a
busy day there in Baghdad trying to figure out
exactly where he is. Thanks for joining us.
Appreciate it.
Click
photo to play
Length: 4:31
JOHN ROBERTS: We're keeping a close eye on a
developing story about Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shiite
cleric who leads one of the most powerful militias in
Iraq, the Mahdi army.
Senior White House officials say he has fled to Iran
out of fear for his safety because of the coming
troop buildup.
But a spokesman for al-Sadr and a member of his
political block in parliament says the cleric remains
in Iraq.
CNN's Michael Ware joins me now from Baghdad with the
latest.
Michael, you've been up since 3:00 this morning.
You've been making phone calls, checking with
officials. Any better idea of where Muqtada al-Sadr
is this morning?
MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely none,
John. It's uncertain in every sense as to just where
Muqtada al-Sadr is, whether he's in Iraq, whether
he's in Iran. At the end of the day, it's now up to
Muqtada to reveal himself, to show us his
whereabouts, if that in fact suits him.
I mean, what we have are these reports from unnamed
White House officials. This is the same White House
that thought there was weapons of mass destruction
here in Iraq and who, until recently, were telling us
things are going well in the war in Iraq.
So what we've heard from the White House and the
reality on the ground here in Iraq are often two
different things. But eventually at some point, they
shall get it right.
Perhaps Muqtada has indeed left the country. We can't
say. He travels frequently. And often that is to
Iran. There's plenty of reasons for him to go there.
So has he left or has he fled?
Now, just until a few days ago, we were talking to
his office in Najaf. They said he was in Iraq. 3 a.m.
this morning -- it's now 7 a.m. in Baghdad -- we woke
up a member of parliament from his political faction,
a spokesman. That gentleman said that Muqtada is
still here.
Now, you would expect him to say that if he's fled,
hoping to give him extra cover. Yet, you'd also
expect him to say that if he's still here.
John, at the end of the day, we still don't know.
ROBERTS: Michael, has Muqtada al-Sadr really been a
target of the U.S. military lately? Would he have any
reason to fear for his life?
WARE: Well, I mean, that's hard to answer. I doubt
it, per se. I mean, if the U.S. really wanted to drop
a JDAM, a guided munition bomb on top of his
building, they could do it. He's not like an al Qaeda
leader in Iraq where his whereabouts are such a
closely guarded secret.
Nonetheless, a lot of people would like to see
Muqtada dead. So it isn't easy to get to see him.
It's like a labyrinth passing through all the
different houses and back alleys and secret entrances
to his complex in Najaf to get anywhere near him.
If he's fled anything, it's most likely not U.S.
forces, certainly not the Baghdad security plan,
these extra 20,000 reinforcements. Why? Because
Muqtada does not live in Baghdad. Muqtada's
headquarters is in Najaf. It's from there he directs
his political and military factions.
So if he's fleeing anything, be it a flight at all,
it's most likely internal divisions, rogue commanders
gone bad, or pressure from rival, more powerful Shia
factions.
ROBERTS: Now, the suggestion, I guess -- the unspoken
inference from American officials here is that he is
leaving Iraq because he's afraid for his life, which
may have some impact on the operation of the Mahdi
militia. Would it have any impact at all, Michael?
WARE: Well, I think it would put things under strain.
I mean, clearly, you know, once the leader goes into
exile or has to go into hiding, that obviously
complicates matters. But at the end of the day,
tactically, operationally, it would amount to diddley
squat. I mean, we see Osama bin Laden hiding in a
cave in Waziristan, and al Qaeda continues its
scourge across the world. Here in Iraq, the al Qaeda
leader in Iraq is constantly on the run, never
sleeping more than a few hours in the same place.
That organization continues. Muqtada will be able to
direct his militia and political forces from anywhere
he wants to.
ROBERTS: Diddley squat, we'll hang on to that one.
Thanks, Michael.
Click
photo to play
Length: 5:49
JOHN ROBERTS: Well, there's plenty to sort through on
this story based on what Jamie McIntyre reported.
Joining me now in Boston is former Presidential
adviser David Gergen and standing by again in
Baghdad, CNN's Michael Ware.
Michael, this was a really big story coming out of
Baghdad with this very secret briefing. A lot of
security around it as well, unnamed sources giving
you all of this information. Big story, again, on
Monday. Then suddenly out comes the chairman of the
joint chiefs of staff and says, well, I can't really
say it's true, I don't know who these briefers were.
Were you surprised to hear about that?
WARE: Well, am I surprised to hear that there's a
disconnect within the military? No. I mean, it's
coming from the rolling disaster area that has been
the military's public affairs section. I mean,
they've been caught flat-footed in this war time and
time and time again.
And in terms of the informational propaganda war
that's being fought with al Qaeda and the Shia
militias, you know, the U.S. military effort is
getting stumped. So that there's mixed messages is no
surprise.
I was at the briefing. I saw the evidence. Much of it
is very, very old hat. So I think this is perhaps
just people, you know, in the political ether at the
chairman's level not being aware of what's being done
actually on the ground level.
I think that there's just a miscommunication here.
And listening to the chairman, what he's saying
sounds like old hat. It's what was being said here
six months ago. I think we're waiting for the
chairman's rhetoric to catch up.
ROBERTS: David Gergen, from a political standpoint,
this is just downright weird.
DAVID GERGEN, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER: Yes. It's
weird and botched. You know, to have the -- these
were military officials, after all, briefing in Iraq,
in Baghdad. They were not some part of the CIA or
something, they weren't part of a different agency.
So here you have a lower level officials but in a
very, very highly publicized and intentional effort
to get a message through all over the world,
especially in America, from Baghdad, you would think
that that would have been more closely monitored and
would have been ordered from the top and people on
top would have had some hands-on. Because, after all,
that briefing was the lead story in many major
American newspapers.
But I have to tell you, John -- and I'd be interested
in what Michael thinks about this. My sense is that
General Pace and Secretary Gates are also trying to
walk this back because they realize how explosive a
charge would be that the Iranian government is
directly meddling and sending these weapons in. It
added to the sense -- that briefing added to the
sense that we were headed toward a confrontation and
people were looking for ways to spark this, looking
for ways to encourage each other to step it up.
And it's very clear that the top people in the U.S.
military do not want a confrontation with Iran at
this point, even if their civilian masters might want
one.
ROBERTS: Well, Michael, what do you think about that?
Were these briefers perhaps at the behest of the
White House trying to connect some dots here to
ratchet up the level, and then you've got the command
at the Pentagon saying, whoa, whoa, wait a minute,
hang on, let's dial this back before it goes too far,
as David was suggesting?
WARE: Well, certainly, what these briefers were
saying -- and, remember, we couldn't film this
briefing, nor tape it, nor could we reveal the
identities of the defense officials who were briefing
us. Nonetheless, one of them is going on the record
on camera today to repeat most of what was said, to
put it all out there publicly.
But, you know, why they're doing it now? The military
here says that these particular bombs, these lethal
roadside bombs Iran has introduced, there's been such
an upsurge, they feel obliged to go public and
hopefully put some pressure on.
But of course, this has got to fit within the context
of a greater game. This rivalry between Washington
and Tehran that's being fought out in the words of
one intelligence analyst, in a proxy war here in
Iraq.
So this is not happening in a vacuum. And if it needs
to be finessed at higher levels, that wouldn't
surprise me in the least. David might well indeed be
on to something.
ROBERTS: Yes, a one-sided proxy war, though, Michael,
because the U.S. is its own proxy there in Baghdad.
David Gergen, why do you think that the
administration is talking so much about Iran these
days? Is it trying to find a boogeyman for all of the
problems in Iraq? Or could this really be leading to
another development here in the war?
GERGEN: Well, there are ominous signs that we're
stepping up the pressure and that they're stepping up
the pressure simultaneously. You know, "Newsweek" has
reported this week, John, as you know, that the
United States is preparing to send a third carrier
into the Persian Gulf region, to follow the second
one the president announced only a few weeks ago.
So there is clear indications that both sides are
ratcheting it up, that we could stumble into a
confrontation, that one side may wish to prod the
other one and goad it into some sort of action that
will allow them to retaliate.
You know, I have no doubt that the United States
government, the military, as well as the White House,
feel that Iran is meddling too much and that they --
Iran is a real problem.
And there are a couple of explanations for that. One
is Iran would like to have the United States fail in
Iraq. The other thing is they'd like to keep --
they'd like to remind the United States, if you have
hit us, if you have go after regime change in Iran,
we can really cause you deep problems in Iraq. Don't
mess with us.
ROBERTS: Yes. And as some people have pointed out to
me, David, in the last few days, that the more ships
you throw in there to the Gulf, the greater you have
increase the chances that some sort of action could
happen...
GERGEN: Absolutely.
ROBERTS: ... that could trigger a very fast
escalation.
David Gergen in Boston and Michael Ware in Baghdad,
thanks.