Here's the problem with this analysis -- if Sadr truly leaves then Maliki has no working majority and will likely fall. The hope, apparently, is that Maliki will then have to re-form a more centrist coalition with more olive branches thrown to Sunnis and Kurds, leaving Sadr and his band out in the cold. But this weakens Shiites, which would seem to mean that the more likely scenario is that the Shiites replace Maliki and keep Sadr in the government fold.

That Mr. al-Sadr pulled out of the government of Mr. al_Malaki is not surprise. He so informed the world, that the part-time Puppet of Mr. Bush should not meeting the enemy of Iraq.

Now that they have a meeting [notably not inside Iraq, for the DECEIVER dare not show his face in the conqured land] it is time for the endgame.

The end game consists of USA/UK/Willing withdrawal, and the replacement of the spineless politicians inside the Green Zone [the only place they have authority].

In my opinion at this time, til the withdrawal of all the conquerors the Green zone is going to be a prime target, for that is the limit of USA control.

I say good riddance, for the propaganda of WMD, Al-Quada, Liberation, democracy, and viable government, has outlived its usefullnmess for the USA public. The Game is lost, so time to call closure: withdraw and pay reparations to IRaq for illegal invasion.

Moqtada al-Sadar should have been killed when we he first took refuge in Sadar City when he was under attack. There should be no refuge for him. If he hides in Sadar City bomb it until there is nothing left.

If a puppet government exists in Iraq it is because the people of Iraq do not want a democracy where power is shared by all. They would much rather have dispicable leaders like al-Sadar who promotes no religion only his own power and prestige.

This cleric has to have the warrent that was once issued against him excersized. He needs to be eliminated as a player in this mess. Before this is done though we must move a majority of our troops to Bagdad to destroy his militia. I don't understand why a citizen like myself understands what needs to be done but yet our government with all it's worldly analyst and the Bagdad government fails to understand and do?

Sadr is the hyenna teasing the lion. Then, the lion becomes angry and snaps the hyenna's spine. The US can do this to Sadr and his "Mahdi army" if it so wishes. It is not done only because the Mahdi cowards hide behind the bodies of their women and children. These cowards live at the will of the US, but they are too taken with themselves to realize it. They drink their own koolaid.

Iraq needs civil war, or at least some unmediated way of resolving conflict between factions. As long as the "democratic" government of Iraq has to answer to US occupation forces, and as long as sectarian factions can recruit non-state armies and attack other factions on the grounds that they are collaborating with the occupation, nobody is going to think about how to govern Iraq. We gave al-Sadr credibility when the occupation force removed the civil authority without taking responsibility for local day-to-day civil order; al-Sadr brought people together to provide services and security in his area, when nobody else would. We should not be surprised that taking out Saddam pushed power into the hands of Saddam's enemies, and we certainly should have known that the Shi'ites oppressed for decades by Saddam would not be cuddly democrats when they took power. We can't blame Iraqis for the chaos that we imposed on them, but we can stop contributing to their problems.

Bush made the deadly tactical mistake of pausing in the very middle of dangerous war to institute a horrendously malplanned "Nation Building". Whether planned or not, Nation Building is not what should ever be attempted in the midst of a war that STRATEGICALLY should have included IRAN. This is fundamentally why Bush and his NeoConned team are and were incompetent delusionists.

If the US is militarily adept and strategically smart, it must crush Sadr at all costs as bloody and costly as that will be, then move modest forces to reinforce the Kurds [and they can be supplied and trained]. This done, Iran is the absolute critical issue. Iraqi civil war is the problem of the Iraqi people and the moderate Iraqi people will find it quite easier to choose an independent path once Iran is throttled. If Iran is allowed to become the full power threat it is promising to become...Bush has left the US and the West the most deadly legacy on earth.

Many overly idealised views that this is simply another bombing campaign away from resolution. some simple facts need to be reviewed to understand the plight of this fragile nation. Saddam ruled by iron fist for this very reason, this country is divided to an extent many in the west cannot fathom. this country is in a state of us and them. The PM has lived his entire life that way, and now every citizen faces that us or them challenge daily. with that challenge these people are not ready for a democratic governement. They are not ready to be abandoned by the US. the point of declaring this a civil war is not to place blame on the Iraqis inmy view, but to highlight the failures of Bush. I agree with this column. Sadr is the key man with the Shia now. If he is eliminated another will emerge, and another. As long he can show there is not 100 percent buy in, the conflict continues. 3 federal staes.

It is a healthy situation, in a democratic process, that the opposition forces voice their concerns on matters which are important for the future of their country. Any responsible leader prefers to have his country free and his people have the freedom to chart their future. To call this a crime is outrageous.

Iraqis demand two things: a free country and a country free of terror. The neoconservatives did not want any popular movement in Iraq and this is precisely what they did to marginalize the Sadrist Movement. Likewise, the Christian extremists prefer to deal with dictators like the Saud regime and the authoritarian regime in Jordan. Both groups, however, have interest in inciting sectarian conflicts and in having politicians with no popular support to govern Iraq. In fact, this makes it possible for the neoconservatives' design for the region to materialize (perpetual war) and prevent Iraqis from making any progress culturally and economically.

Lots of tough-talkers here. The option of bombing Sadr City seems particularly intriguing, since Al Qaeda in Iraq bombed Sadr City just last week. Finishing Al Qaeda's work for them is certainly a novel approach to the war on terror.

The 3-state solution is anathema to Sadr because, unlike the other Shiite parties, he has a support base not just in the South, but also in Baghdad. He doesn't want his supporters split, and has declared his total opposition to even federal status for the South. In fact that's what his ongoing civil war with SCIRI (also known as the Iraqi Army and Police) in the South is all about.

Chris Barrett: "Iraqi civil war is the problem of the Iraqi people and the moderate Iraqi people will find it quite easier to choose an independent path once Iran is throttled."

This reminded me of a popular dinner-table joke among Washington militarists back in 2002. "Wimps go to Baghdad," they'd say. "Real men go to Tehran."

When Jay Garner, the first US viceroy in Iraq, was leaving the Oval Office after debriefing Bush on his time in Iraq, Bush slapped him on the back and said: "Hey, Jay, you want to do Iran?" Garner replied that he'd prefer Cuba for the cigars and women. Ah yes, the dreams were bigger back then...

But seriously, you and whose Army, Christ Barratt?

As for taking out Sadr, or enforcing his arrest warrant, the US tried to enforce it, in fact they vowed to "kill or capture" him. They also said they were going to disarm the Mahdi Army, way back in early 2004. But the Mahdi Army then inflicted their highest monthly casualties of the whole war. US commanders signed a deal with the Sadrists, complete with a pullback of both sides' forces, and the JAM kept their weapons and all mention of the warrant was dropped. In fact it was hard to even get US commanders to mention his name for much of 2004 and 2005.

Taking him out would certainly be an interesting way of building democracy in Iraq, since your own military intelligence says he'd win an election tomorrow. I guess we're talking about that special brand of democracy that America loves to export. You know, the kind where people can vote for anyone they like, so long as America likes them too because otherwise they get killed.

Congratulations, guys, on keeping up the gung-ho front. This is the first time since 2003 I've heard Americans referring to themselves as "Lions". The world is most impressed by America's skill in overblown, self-referential rhetoric. America's policy and execution...not so much.

Sadr would have done very well in elections as early as June 2003. That's one reason why the US cancelled elections all across Iraq after the campaigns were underway.

No-one in America seems to remember this, which is strange as it was reported at the time:

Occupation Forces Halt Elections Throughout Iraq

By William Booth and Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, June 28, 2003

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42905-2003Jun27?language=printer

SAMARRA, Iraq -- U.S. military commanders have ordered a halt to local elections and self-rule in provincial cities and towns across Iraq, choosing instead to install their own handpicked mayors and administrators...

..."They give us a general," said Bahith Sattar, a biology teacher and tribal leader in Samarra who was a candidate for mayor until that election was canceled last week. "What does that tell you, eh? First of all, an Iraqi general? They lost the last three wars! They're not even good generals. And they know nothing about running a city."...

...Paul Bremer, the civil administrator of Iraq, said in an interview that there is "no blanket prohibition" against self-rule. "I'm not opposed to it, but I want to do it a way that takes care of our concerns. . . . Elections that are held too early can be destructive. It's got to be done very carefully."

"In a postwar situation like this, if you start holding elections, the people who are rejectionists tend to win," Bremer said.

My Iraqi friends from different religious backgrounds have
consistently told me that Muqtada Sadr was nothing more than a street
thug with members of his organizations just pulled from their criminal
pasts. Of course he has some popularity in many Arab regions because
of his consistently anti-American position. I am not sure whether or
not he and his armed milita were directly responsible for the revenge
acts that took place last week, but if it is true, he might have been
using his presence in the government to cover up for this. Does his
departure mean Sadr will have a looser hand or does it reflect the
fact that the Malki government is not tolerating him. This remains to
be seen. The ball is largely in the court of the government who has
not yet shown a serious and consistent position on those who take the
lives and properties of fellow Iraqis. This should be the top priority
for any truly patriotic Iraqi government.

Daoud Kuttab - blog.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/daoud_kuttab

Why kill Sadr? He's the only guy in Iraq who hates Al-Queda-in-Iraq as much as we do, and has the guts to do something about it. The US should equip him, unleash him, and get out of the way. Our objective is to make sure that Iraq isn't a haven for Al Queda, right? And Al Queda is Sunni, right? And Sadr's militia hates Sunni murderers, right? OK, then, where's the problem?

Damn, a lot of you folks figure problems are easy to solve if you just kill more people. Not quick learners, eh?

Bush seems to be stuck between Iraq and a hard place. Support the sunnis who are allied with some group called al queda, or support sadr and the shias who are aligned with Iran. Bush's obsession with getting the right media coverage in Baghdad has effectively handed anbar to al queda.
Maybe Bush should just re-liberate Iraq, get rid of sistani and install the puppet government and made in America Constitution he wanted in the first place.
Mission Re-Accomplished, anyone?
Then again, losing two wars is enough for any President. Three is simply too many.

Mr. Ignatius' presumption is flawed. Maliki is a representative of al-Sadr's political base- they are not in remotely different, much less rival camps. It is curious to me how this relationship continues to be portrayed as an alliance when it the delineation in the two camps is non-existent- as clearly demonstrated by for example overt central government actions to halt US military action against Sadr's militias, and further demonstrated by the cancellation of today's talks.

We've installed a radical and radically conservative anti-American cleric in the mold of the Taliban the seat of power in Baghdad who represents only Shiites. To put that in context, we took a powerless horrifically oppressed majority and turned them into an oppressive and murderous ruling majority. In doing so, not only have we received no credit from the formerly oppressed group for reversing their fortune and facilitating their revenge, but we've managed to earn their ire and determination to work against our interests. Is it conceivable that we could've elected a more hapless government than this Bush administration? Has their been ever been one? King Edward, Emperor Nero, Prime Minister Chamberlain?... I can't think of any.

Let Love Rule (the earth abides...)

Ignatius's analysis is based on the assumption that what appears in public between Sadr and Malaki as disagreement
has not been coordinated behind the scene by Malaki and Sadr camp. I simply don't buy it.

The more likely scenaro is that Malaki was looking for an excuse not to meet with Bush and king of Jordan and asked Sadr to do him a favour or to provide him a chance to shy away from any commitment. It is part of the Shiite game. Earlier it was Chalabi, now Malaki is their "good cop" vs "bad cop" of Sadr.

As I have written somewhere else Bush team need to ask Jordan to send troops to Arab part of Iraq and put an end to this ungoing civil war and merge Jordan and Iraq (minus Kurdish northern part). That is the least costly solution on the table for US.

Iraq was ruled by the Hashemi relatives of king of Jordan and there was plans for installing king Hassan the uncle of king of Jordan as a replacement for Saddam. Let Kurds become independent and merge Jordan and Arab part of Iraq. End of story.

that the Shiites divided into groups in

This cleric has to have the warrent that was once issued against him excersized. He needs to be eliminated as a player in this mess

What Sadr does will soon be irrelevant. The Iraq Study Group has reached a consensus: American troops shall be pulled out of the combat zones. They are coming home.

Iraq panel to recommend pullback of troops
(The New York Times, 2006 November 29)
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/30/america/web.1130policy.php
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The bipartisan Iraq Study Group reached a consensus on Wednesday on a final report that will call for a gradual pullback of the 15 American combat brigades now in Iraq but stop short of setting a firm timetable for their withdrawal, according to people familiar with the panel's deliberations.

I encourage Sadr's enemies to find Sadr and to kill him in the sickiest possible way.

What Sadr does will soon be irrelevant. The Iraq Study Group has reached a consensus: American troops shall be pulled out of the combat zones. They are coming home.

Iraq panel to recommend pullback of troops
(The New York Times, 2006 November 29)
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/30/america/web.1130policy.php
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The bipartisan Iraq Study Group reached a consensus on Wednesday on a final report that will call for a gradual pullback of the 15 American combat brigades now in Iraq but stop short of setting a firm timetable for their withdrawal, according to people familiar with the panel's deliberations.

I encourage Sadr's enemies to find Sadr and to kill him in the sickiest possible way.

What Sadr does will soon be irrelevant. The Iraq Study Group has reached a consensus: American troops shall be pulled out of the combat zones. They are coming home.

Iraq panel to recommend pullback of troops
(The New York Times, 2006 November 29)
www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/30/america/web.1130policy.php
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The bipartisan Iraq Study Group reached a consensus on Wednesday on a final report that will call for a gradual pullback of the 15 American combat brigades now in Iraq but stop short of setting a firm timetable for their withdrawal, according to people familiar with the panel's deliberations.

I encourage Sadr's enemies to find Sadr and to kill him in the sickiest possible way.

Good Site .Nice work.

great site

Good Site .Nice work.

Very creative... May be you make new design for my sites? Thanks!

Very creative... May be you make new design for my sites? Thanks!

Hi,good! Thanks!

Very interesting.

good site

Nise site. Thanks you Thanks!

Nise site. Thanks you Thanks!

Nise site. Thanks you Thanks!