Answer to Jim’s comment:
“Let’s assume for a moment that Maliki’s intention is not simply to get rid of an evil militia, but to destroy a political rival before the upcoming elections. In that case, should the US provide its full support for that? Is supporting Maliki in that endeavor really supporting freedom and democracy in Iraq?or is it doing exactly the opposite. Seems to me the word quagmire rings truer and truer with every passing day.”
I see this sentiment being repeated often the last few days. There’s a problem with the logic of the statement. You say Maliki’s intention is not “simply to get rid of an evil militia, but to destroy a political rival before the upcoming elections”. This tacitly acknowledges that Iraqi government needs to be rid of Sadr’s militia, but you disconnect Sadr’s political movement from the Militia organization when the two are one in the same and at the same purpose. Diminishing or destroying Sadr’s organization as a political entity is not contradictory to destroying his militia. To what extent they are actually able to do that is another question altogether.
I have no problem going after Sadr’s organization as well. It has opposed the very existance of the Iraqi government since its inception. It isn’t just a factional dispute. Sadr’s organization has made it clear that they are not going to be governed unless they themselves govern in an Islamic state. They don’t just oppose the present government they oppose the very idea of a secular government. Sadr’s organization is for all intents and purposes Hezbollah in Iraq and intend to set up a Shiite religious state along the lines proscribed by the Ayatollah Khomeini.
