We'll see

AP for October 9 reports that

Shiite militiamen loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr agreed Saturday to begin handing in weapons, a significant step toward restoring order in Baghdad's sprawling Sadr City slum as the interim government struggles to curb Iraq's more widespread Sunni insurgency.

Twice before there has been an agreement - in Najaf - regarding al-Sadr's militia and twice it hasn't worked out. After the first ceasefire in June, all members of the Madhi Army who were not actually from Najaf were supposed to go back home. But as the Guardian (UK) later discovered, not everyone had.

Then after fighting flared up again, leading finally to the August ceasefire negotiated by Sistani, Sadr told his militiamen leaving the Imam Ali Mosque to turn in their weapons as they left. That didn't happen, either.

So we'll see if anything happens now.

On a related point, as I've said several times, I wonder just how much control Sadr actually has over "his" militia and how much he's become simply a rallying point, a symbol of resistance, and how much internal politics and possibly competing interests are involved. What raises this now is the conflicting statements about Sadr's involvement - or lack thereof - in the January elections.

First, on August 31, Reuters reported that an aide to Sadr stated that

[c]leric Moqtada al-Sadr will field candidates in Iraq's first elections and campaign on a platform calling for the withdrawal of U.S. forces....

However, nearly a month later, on September 27, Reuters had this:

Rebel Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr will not take part in elections scheduled for January as long as U.S forces remain in the country, an aide said on Monday.

"We as Sadr's movement will not take part in the elections held under the shadow of occupation," Sheikh Abdul Hadi al-Daraji told Reuters. "Sadr movement will not nominate any candidates," he added.

He also expected Sadr's followers to boycott the elections.

Sadr himself seemed to endorse that position a few days later. Again, from Reuters:

Iraqi Shi'ite Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr hinted on Monday that he may not take part in elections planned for January, telling Lebanese television he rejected polls serving foreign not Iraqi interests.

"These are going to be U.S. elections," he told Lebanon's al-Manar television. "I want elections for the Iraqi people, I want elections that are Iraqi, free and fair, nothing more, nothing less."

Sadr also said he would only support someone who was untainted by the U.S.-led occupation.

At the same time, as the article noted by use of the words "hinted" and "may," Sadr clearly left himself some wiggle room that would allow him to say later that the election process could to serve Iraqi interests and to support an "untainted" candidate. Which simply emphasizes my curiosity as to why, if the position was as firm as Daraji claimed and Sadr's organization as unified as they like to present, it took four full weeks to change "will" to "will not" take part?

Footnote: I don't know how much this means, but I was interested to notice this:

"When we, the religious authorities, reject the elections then those who follow us should not take part in it and they will not," Daraji said.

Moqtada al-Sadr is a young and relatively low-ranking cleric. To describe him and the other leaders of his movement as "we, the religious authorities" is a bit, well, shall we say grandiose? Or perhaps unintentionally revealing on Daraji's part if not Sadr's?