Looking at the post below with Laura Rozen's take on this, my impression is that disbanding the Mahdi army would be another catastrophic success, like disbanding the Iraqi army or de-Baathification.

Oh. THAT Rich Lowry. Is he still wet behind the ears? Or is it a 'secret' friend who rides a pony?

I think Lowry's friend's comment is understandable if you adopt a particular point of view, i.e., that the kind of "respectable" facade that we associate with legitimate political movements is essential to their legitimacy. To be legitimate, you must be "recognized" and associated formally with government, and on good terms with occupying armies, and so on.

Of course, by that standard, the French Resistance was illegitimate, and the Vichy government was legitimate. That's not to say that the parallel is exact, but it is to say that this point of view isn't very intelligent.

The Sadrists are a populist movement in a nation dominated by outside forces -- in this case the US and Iran -- and they are a movement of the dispossessed, i.e., not the ruling class. From all I can tell, they are perfectly legitimate in the eyes of their supporters, as well as to a large segment of the rest of Iraq -- opposed or allied -- and I would imagine that an "outsider" status suits their leadership just fine for now.

Sounds to me like Lowry's "friend" needs to get out more...

How can al-Sadr be "doomed" if he has all those followers, both popular and armed? Do you really expect him and them to just lie down to be doormats for the rest of the new system? I don't think so. Squeezing them too hard will just be more disaster over there. Listen to what Sen. Webb is saying.

It would certainly be nice if this were all true

Huh? In what world? Yah, he is not at first or second blush our kinda of guy, but in some ways he is the best of the litter which contains mostly curs.

As well as being the most popular leader in country (not saying much, I know), he is a nationalist who wants an Iraq free of outside domination, including that of Iran.

Some military types have posited that before we tried to off him, Mookie, was willig to work with us -to certain limit.

He is a fairly successful player in that f*cked up political scene and although we have screwed every chance to do something good there, it seems to me that were we the actually try, we might be able to deal with him and find a way for us to get the hell out of there in a way that almost saves face - tho we do not deserve it.

Lowery's been right about everything so far!

Maliki's fight in Basra was merely a flesh wound!

'Rich' is a good monicker for Mr. Lowery.

he is a nationalist who wants an Iraq free of outside domination... And of course, there's the rub.

The Sadrists are anti-Iranian Shiites, so why the U.S. isn't co-opting them is beyond me.

Because they're also anti-American.

One could see it from different perspectives. From the "might-makes-right" Teutonic crowd, the Maliki/Vichy government of the Green Zone is legitimate, and the Sadrists/Resistance are outlaws.

Yet I can't help feeling some nostalgia for the Nuremberg principles on aggression and the UN Charter, even though the Nuremberg trials were pretty much a victor's kangaroo court of ex post facto rules. "Quaint," in other words.

"To initiate a war of aggression is not an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, different only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."--U.S. Judge Biddle, Nuremberg.

It's 2008, and Kevin Drum just figured out NOW that the National Review and or its individual echoes like Rich Lowry might just must be spinning an intellectually dishonest fantasy for short-term political gain so I should take their blatant hackery 'with a grain of salt'?

In what universe, five years into a war that has no end in sight, does a chickenhawk buddy of Rich Lowry's from bowling night with the American Enterprise Institute or the Heritage Foundation Thursday fantasy baseball league get any benefit of the doubt?

What's next? Will KD finally reveal to us that he just figured out that, maybe, perhaps, he can't trust Robert Novak not to let rightwing talking points bleed into his analysis, or that it sounds like Fox News may not be 'Fair and Balanced'?

Every now and then, I get the feeling that when the war with Iran stops, the AEI crowd will have sold it with the same BS to the same naive goofs in journalism we depend on to make sure they don't get fooled again.

Because they're also anti-American.

They're anti-occupation, not anti-American.

What a world, eh.

what is motivating all this?

there IS something new here -- completely new.

unification -- for the very FIRST time.

Sunni, Shia, Kurd....Agreement.....TRUST.

Look, nobody has any idea (alright, maybe some idea) where this will end up.

But at least acknowledge what exists, however briefly, that never existed before.

Sadr now finds himself completely isolated?

For being such and "isolated" leader, he sure can cause a lot of trouble. Iraq has now competely exploded out of surge troop control, and all on mere insistance of an "isolated" leader. Who a thunk isolated people have that much power.

National Review is another name for FOX News. Partisan BS for stupid people. It is rather obvious that GOP can do anything but tell one lie right after another.

and to answer my initial question, it was critical that maliki, and maliki alone, be the prime mover on this.

he has instilled BELIEF and TRUST in his countrymen that he is acting for the good of Iraq, and not for his sect alone.

that's what has motivated this.

let's pray it survives.

for them.

and for us.

Um.... Neill.... what the hell are you talking about?

neil, is that you rich lowry? wing and a prayer!

Rich Lowry?
Would his friend be Fred Kagan or Donald Feith?
--

Silly boy... trix are for kids.

enjoy your narrative while you still think it exists..

talismangate:

Monday, April 07, 2008

What's That Sound?

D’yall hear those distant thuds?

That’s the sound of an imploding narrative.

It is also my cue to begin the third cycle in the cognitive loop of ‘anger-ridicule-pity’ through which I’ve channeled my reaction to how the story in Iraq is being reported.

For how can one not pity those miserable journalists as they scramble to find new narratives to define the last 48 hours in Iraq?

Not only has Maliki not backed down, but newly emboldened with wide political backing he’s begun to smash through Sadr City itself and is threatening to banish the Sadrists to a political Siberia. Muqtada al-Sadr, the guy the media has us thinking had won, has prostrated himself at the feet of Grand Ayotallah Sistani, promising Maliki that he would indeed demobilize his militia if the wise old men of Shi’ism would have it so. Gone are the millenarian certainties of taking orders from the Mahdi, the messiah. Gone is all that bluster of al-Sadr’s virile, confident ‘Outspoken hawza’ contrasted with Sistani’s supposedly feeble and retro ‘Silent hawza’. And he sends out his plea for clemency from Iran. FROM IRAN?!! From a place of chosen exile with which he had often derided the Hakims for seeking sanctuary and shelter there after Saddam has nearly eradicated their lineage. The place too, towards which his father’s confidants still point their accusing fingers for the murder that had befallen the old man and that of Muqtada’s two older, more worthy brothers.

Sadr surrendering his fate to Sistani and submissively muttering, “Do as you please, Sir.” Who would have imagined?

It is almost as baffling as Maliki’s abrupt transformation from an incompetent administrator into a wartime commander-in-chief!

And yet, the Sadrists keep sending out confusing signals signifying the confusion within their ranks. It happens, when defeat devours one’s will. “We will not disarm”. “We need to calm things down”. “We will fight”. “We will flee”. “No fair!” “We will march!” “We will stay home.” “A Sadrist?! Who me?”

Ahhhhh, the validation of it all!

Yes, you miserable souls: keep writing in that passive tense, that “Fighting rages” dodge. Never mind that Maliki and the Iraqi Army are actively picking a fight with the outlaws, a fight that the government is winning, and that’s the reason why the bullets are whooshing by.

And tales get unspooled. And narratives implode.

posted by Nibras Kazimi نبراس الكاظمي at 4:28 PM |

I have a friend who emailed me and said the entire contingent of House and Senate Republicans is actually composed of black women, and because of the Democratic primary contest, they're planning to come out en masse. But they can't because they're being lobbied by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to maintain their pasty-faced macho ruse until they get appointed to the Supreme Court, so they can pull the life support from an obviously braindead Rich Lowry.

And my friend knows this, because God told him.

RICH LOWRY? RICH LOWRY? A WALL STREET JOURNAL-STYLE, FRED BARNES-STYLE CRACKPOT WHO PRONOUNCES HIS EVERY RIGHT-WING FANTASY TO BE A WELL-KNOWN, WELL-DOCUMENTED FACT PROVEN BY SURVEY AFTER SURVEY, POLL AFTER POLL, ALTHOUGH HE CAN NEVER NAME THE SURVEY, NAME THE POLL, NAME THE SOURCE OF WHATEVER HIS LATEST FANTASTICAL IMAGINING MIGHT BE?

RICH LOWRY OR FRED BARNES: Bluster-bluster-bluster ... twisting head about like a victim of cerebral palsy ... well-known-fact, well-known-fact, everyone knows Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster! 98% of Democrats agree!

watch the headlines carefully, girls and boys.

Iraq's top Shiite religious leaders have told anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr not to disband his Mehdi Army, an al-Sadr spokesman said Monday amid fresh fighting in the militia's Baghdad strongholds.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki demanded Sunday that the cleric disband his militia, which waged two uprisings against U.S. troops in 2004, or see his supporters barred from public office.

But al-Sadr spokesman Salah al-Obeidi said al-Sadr has consulted with Iraq's Shiite clerical leadership "and they refused that." He did not provide details of the talks.
...

My growing suspicion is that Sadr actually has ideals and an agenda, and he isn't just in it to maximize the dough for himself and his buddies.

The US, by which I mean the CIA and the Pentagon (and probably most people in the Whitehouse) fear such men because they don't know how to make a deal with them. Their preferred policy is to kill them and install someone whose motivations are only greed and fear.

and just exactly what do these 'ideals' and 'agenda' entail?

versus the same for maliki?

(based on their actions)

And Iran is backing Maliki - not Sadr who is supposedly their pawn to tie down the hated Americans, but Maliki who spent his exile in Iran alongside all his Dawa and SIIC/Badr Brigade pals. Will Lowry's imaginary friend's narrative narrative implode? No, because it's only loosely connected to reality in any case.

Regards, Cernig

I dunno neill, but there has to be some reason we haven't been able to cut a deal with Sadr. If all he really cared about was his own well being, it should have been easy.

Unlike Bush, al-Sadr is hugely popular with the people. Taking him down only stokes more anti-American sentiment among Iraqis, not that we seem to care in the least.

America under George W. Bush just continues to make enemies where none existed before.

Imagine if you will, neill, a New Guinea highlander prognosticating about the U.S. system and doing so with the same level of understanding of the American situation as you have of the Iraqi situation and doing so with the same level of certainty. Even you might be able to identify crazed and uninformed ravings. Problem is, it would be hard to find a New Guinea highlander who would approach the project with quite the same level of hubris.

Does it not seem like this latest tack, insisting on the elimination of "illegal" (i.e., non-Da'wa/Badr) militia before the Current can participate in elections is a more natural option for PM Maliki than the attempted military operations? It has all the right elements: it tries to isolate Sadr (who is now 'isolated' by the government like the ocean is isolated by an island) and keeps ISCI in southern elected positions, while still holding something that can be called elections.

One has to wonder why this was not tried in the first place, and I hate to sound too paranoid, but VP Cheney's visit immediately prior has to have played some part. I think that we can safely say that he wanted the veto of the elections to be rescinded, but does the ludicrous attempt to evict Sadr by force not not have more of the hallmarks of a Cheney plan: we have an underestimation of the enemy, a fairly clear failure of planning, and a declaration of victory after an obvious defeat?

Juan Cole today demolishes the trope that Sadr is isolated and the Mahdi army is about to be disbanded. Why, oh why, can't we have a better Kevin Drum?

This is just more tea-reading by a casual observer, but I can't help if there wasn't a bit more shrewdness on Sadr's part in accepting consideration of disarmament of the Mahdi Army. The fact that he is seeking direct consultation from authoritative religious leaders may be a clever way of seeking endorsement. If the Shiite authorities tell Sadr to disarm, he can divulge himself of the responsibility of an increasingly restless and uncontrollable militia. If they tell him not to disarm, his authority is legitimated. Either way, it could help Sadr leverage his way out of the current power struggles happening below the surface of Iraqi politics.

If this is an uninformed or naive perspective, please feel free to point out where I'm not getting it... I sure don't hold all the answers here any more than the next guy.

I notice that the timing of this seems to coincide well with the Administration's, and the McCain campaign's, need to claim political progress in Iraq. Once again, it's all about crony capitalism and political power. But, unlike the public in the fairy tale, a substantial portion of this public and the press will not have absorbed the lesson that when these boys cry "wolf", there may well not be any wild canids around.

Oh GEEZ and "spin" would be a different thing HOW???
Listening to a guest on WJ today begin the makeover of the PIG that will continue with Petraeus and Crocker later today...and, YES, I continue to blame our media and our politicians for bringing us this MESS...the more despicable thing is that all efforts of both groups have been directed to making themselves and their actions LOOK BETTER to the American people and the world...any thinking person (like those of us who knew going IN was a bad idea) realizes that no one will be able to just PULL OUT ALL THE TROOPS AT ONCE...but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be making the criminals who brought us this disaster pay for it in some way other than slinking out of Washington in January 2009....

I don't have a clue who's winning in Iraq, but I've found that Juan Cole does. (http://www.juancole.com/) From his April 8th blog:

"I am always astounded at the combination of unrealistic optimism and foolish gullibility that marks political discourse on the Right in Washington. We were being told by Glen Lowry at the National Review that Sadr was on the ropes and on the verge of disbanding the Mahdi Army because the other political factions had turned on him, and that the others had had their militias join the regular security forces."

"So let us get this straight. Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army fought off thousands of regular Iraqi army troops in Basra and Baghdad, and perhaps thousands of those troops deserted rather than fight. So the Mahdi Army won big and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki lost. Also the US military trainers of the Iraqi troops lost face."

"So the next thing we hear is that al-Maliki is talking big and demanding that the Mahdi Army be dissolved. Usually you get to talk big if you win the military battle, not if you lose."

"The Sadrists have no intention of dissolving the Mahdi Army, according to this Arabic source, quoting Sadrist spokesman Salah al-Ubaidi. They point out, pace that great Iraq expert Lowry, that there are 28 militias in Iraq. The Badr Corps of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) still exists as a stand alone organization. In fact it ran as a political party in the elections and holds both provincial and federal seats. It hasn't been complete merged into the state security forces as Lowry alleged. And anyway, painting a sign on a militia saying 'this one is legitimate because its party won the last election' is not going to convince any real Iraqis."

and more!

I love this quote about Cole, from an article describing why he shouldn't be hired at Yale (he wasn't).

While Cole condemns anti-Semitism, he accuses prominent Jewish-American officials of having dual loyalties, a frequent anti-Semitic refrain. That he accuses Jewish Americans of using "the Pentagon as Israel's Gurkha regiment" is unfortunate. Further, while Cole has never visited Iraq, he condemns many who have.

Credibility matters. Blogging is not scholarship, but it reflects upon it. Sources matter. To support his opinion, Cole has cited the work of Lyndon LaRouche's former Middle East intelligence correspondent. Seldom are Cole's opinions backed by fieldwork. If Cole wants to believe that "right-wing Zionists" falsely depict the genocide in Darfur as "Arab" versus "black," fine. But did he do the work to justify his belief? When I was in southern Sudan, residents laughed at such apologia.

http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/17496?badlink=1

The theme among lefty blogs last week was "Sadr is victorious." A few more victories like this and he won't have much of a presence in Iraq at all.

And the other so-called Democrat from TNR, the Repug owned mag is talking again, why I don't know because Beinart has been so wrong so much in the past that I'm suprized anyone cares what he says, anymore that people care what Kenneth Pollock or Joe Klein say either.

Peter Beinart fluffs out a very Rove like projectionist statement: The danger is that Obama will fall prey to the malady that ruined Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter: self-righteousness.

Really, it ain't nothing like the self-righteousness of John McCain and his 100 year war. With the game of Rovism, Karl would always take Bush (or McCain's) bigest faults and try to "project" those very faults on to his opponent.

BUT calling of Obama a self-righteousness guy is a very bad idea, being that Obama is a African American, so that it would only conjure up visons of calling Martin Luther King, Jr a self-righteous gut too. And certainly Martin Luther King, Jr was a very self-rightous guy. I'm sure most African Americans believe that Martin Luther King, Jr had every right to be a very self-rightous guy too.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

Trying to label Obama as "self-rightous" is only going to piss-off every single African American out there, so it's a very bad idea. But of course, it's coming from a very stupid idiot by the named Peter Beinart.

What's Beinart's take on the malady that ruined Peter Beinart?

http://www.juancole.com/

Juan Cole's post of April 4th has more explanatory power.

I doubt Lowry has any real factual basis on which to ground all his wishful thinking.

Says Cole: "painting a sign on a militia saying 'this one is legitimate because its party won the last election' is not going to convince any real Iraqis."

Cole continues:
"I am always astounded at the combination of unrealistic optimism and foolish gullibility that marks political discourse on the Right in Washington. We were being told by Glen Lowry [Glen?] at the National Review that Sadr was on the ropes and on the verge of disbanding the Mahdi Army because the other political factions had turned on him, and that the others had had their militias join the regular security forces."

"So let us get this straight. Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army fought off thousands of regular Iraqi army troops in Basra and Baghdad, and perhaps thousands of those troops deserted rather than fight. So the Mahdi Army won big and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki lost. Also the US military trainers of the Iraqi troops lost face."

"So the next thing we hear is that al-Maliki is talking big and demanding that the Mahdi Army be dissolved. Usually you get to talk big if you win the military battle, not if you lose."

"The Sadrists have no intention of dissolving the Mahdi Army, according to this Arabic source, quoting Sadrist spokesman Salah al-Ubaidi. They point out, pace that great Iraq expert Lowry, that there are 28 militias in Iraq. The Badr Corps of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) still exists as a stand alone organization. In fact it ran as a political party in the elections and holds both provincial and federal seats. It hasn't been complete merged into the state security forces as Lowry alleged. And anyway, painting a sign on a militia saying 'this one is legitimate because its party won the last election' is not going to convince any real Iraqis."

The majority of Iraqis, the poorest Shiites, are doomed to continued dominance by the Saddam replacement, the US.

The end game for Maliki? Demonize al-Sadr, make him the root of all evil in Iraq. That should provide another few month of nreathing room for his incompetence. Better yet, if the US can be suckered into fightting the Mahdi army for him.

The risk? Full scale civil war, with the US committed to six of the seven sides.

"The theme among lefty blogs last week was 'Sadr is victorious.'"

The theme pretty much everywhere, including in Iraq, was that Sadr was victorious. There's a reason for that.

"A few more victories like this and he won't have much of a presence in Iraq at all."

LOL.... Nice wishful thinking. Any time you want to rejoin us here in the real world, we'll be right here.

Kevin: Kindly do not waste my time with the dreams of the minions of National Review, the erstwhile supporter of segregation in the American South.

Rich Lowry's comments don't even resemble substance; they are so bad they don't even resemble propaganda. Why do we even waste time with this crap? We may as well talk about the truth or falsehood of the invisible pink unicorn and the wonderland in which it lives. And why would Rich Lowry's scenario be 'nice' if it did exist or was possible? The whole notion of "the only militia left in Iraq that still maintains an outlaw posture" is silly. It is a lawless broken country. Every word and frame of reference used by Rich Lowry, even his sense of hope, is made of fairy dust.

What has Maliki accomplished? He has been provided breathing room via alSadr that provides an excuse for overlooking his incompetence for aniother months. He has motivated the US to attack al Sadr, because "al Sadr is a threat to stability", and al Sadr humiliated the Iraqi army, Maliki and the US advisors. Those humiliations cannot be allowed to stand. Maliki wins by getting the US to take out al Sadr.

Look for a full blown civil war in Iraq by summer.

For the record, you don't even need Cole to debunk this particular bit of nonsense. This statement alone, "Sadr's militia is now virtually the only militia left in Iraq that still maintains an outlaw posture," is so blatantly false that it renders the whole post simply laughable.

Psst. Pass it along. I've heard the insurgency is in its last throes. And I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.

While Cole condemns anti-Semitism, he accuses prominent Jewish-American officials of having dual loyalties....

You mean like Perle, Leiberman,or (in the worst case)Jonathon Jay Pollard?

Prognosticator Rich Lowry:
March 2005
When Good News Strikes

Has the administration gotten a few fortunate breaks in the Middle East lately? Well, yes. Asked how he seemed to make so many lucky saves, the great Montreal Canadien goalie Ken Dryden explained that it was his job to be in the right position to get lucky. By toppling Saddam Hussein and insisting on elections in Iraq, while emphasizing the power of freedom, Bush has put the United States in the right position to encourage and take advantage of democratic irruptions in the region.

And so we have created the conditions for being pleasantly surprised by the positive drift of events in the Middle East, or unpleasantly surprised — depending on your politics.

April 2005
What Went Right
How the U.S. began to quell the insurgency in Iraq

It is time to say it unequivocally: We are winning in Iraq.

If current trends continue, our counter-insurgent campaign in Iraq will be fit to be mentioned in the same breath as the British victory over a Communist insurgency in Malaysia in the 1950s, a textbook example of this form of war. Our counterinsurgency has gone through the same stages as that of the Brits five decades ago: confusion in the initial reaction to the insurgency, followed by a long period of adjustment, and finally the slow but steady erosion of the insurgency's military and political base. Even as there has been a steady diet of bad news about Iraq in the media over the last year, even as some hawks have bailed on the war in despair, even as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has become everyone's whipping boy, the U.S. military has been regaining the strategic upper hand.

This doesn't mean the war couldn't still go wrong. "It's not over," says a top officer in Iraq. A key assassination, continued Sunni rejectionism, an inter-sectarian explosion, or something unforeseen — all could still derail us in Iraq. Nor does it mean that our effort is perfect. "I give us a B minus," says an administration official, a tough grader who is nonetheless an optimist. But it does mean that as of mid-April 2005 we are winning, just as surely as we were losing in the darkest days of the dual radical-Shia and radical-Sunni uprisings a year ago.

But I'm sure he's right this time. And Lucy won't pull the football away from Charlie Brown's kick the next time you open your book of collected "Peanuts" cartoons.

Smears about Juan Cole cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged. Let's take the canard that he's an anti-Semite. Proof please. Show me where he accuses Jewish-American officials of double loyalty, and provide context.
"While Cole condemns anti-Semitism, he accuses prominent Jewish-American officials of having dual loyalties, a frequent anti-Semitic refrain. That he accuses Jewish Americans of using "the Pentagon as Israel's Gurkha regiment" is unfortunate. Further, while Cole has never visited Iraq, he condemns many who have.

If you want to box with Cole concerning credibility your arms better be pretty long. Show me where this fine historian has relied on LaRouche for evidence. I see a claim, but no evidence.

Oh, and your fact-finding trip to Sudan. Was that a trip your fingertips took from the danger of your keyboard? Pardon me for being skeptical.

"Credibility matters. Blogging is not scholarship, but it reflects upon it. Sources matter. To support his opinion, Cole has cited the work of Lyndon LaRouche's former Middle East intelligence correspondent. Seldom are Cole's opinions backed by fieldwork. If Cole wants to believe that "right-wing Zionists" falsely depict the genocide in Darfur as "Arab" versus "black," fine. But did he do the work to justify his belief? When I was in southern Sudan, residents laughed at such apologia."

http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/17496?badlink=1

If you think Maliki didn't take a black eye last week and that Sadr didn't benefit, then you are incapable of objective analysis.
"The theme among lefty blogs last week was "Sadr is victorious." A few more victories like this and he won't have much of a presence in Iraq at all."

I read this blog everyday and this blog has some of the smartest people posting I have ever seen. Thank you for the intelligence and fairness that is such a big part of the conversations.

Other major militias have disbanded, transforming into political organizations and joining — or becoming — legitimate security forces, which explains why you never hear about any other militia in the news.

IOW, he is going to be rubbed out because he won't take our money? Just a thought.

Some military types have posited that before we tried to off him, Mookie, was willig to work with us -to certain limit.

Sounds kinda like Castro.

The US, by which I mean the CIA and the Pentagon (and probably most people in the Whitehouse) fear such men because they don't know how to make a deal with them. Their preferred policy is to kill them and install someone whose motivations are only greed and fear.

So, he is guilty of the crime of "Lack of a Self-serving Motive"? This is ironically so Stalinist, but very predictable.

NO MATTER how the battle turned out, no matter who won, U&I ARE PAYING FOR IT. (and the Iraqi people, of course) (ENJOY OR IMPEACH--1-202-225-0100)

Does this mean that Mr. Lowry can break out the "We're Winning!" cover for the National Review again?

Historically the only way you disbanded militias was to build a national army with more legitimacy and superior firepower. The Iraqi army may have superior firepower but it doesn't seem likely to have more legitimacy anytime in the near future and maybe ever.

Not to mention the fact that Sadr's army isn't by most accounts organized in any meaningful sense and practically every household in Iraq has at least one AK-47; you're not going to convince reasonable people in a country being torn apart by sectarian violence, a foreign occupation, and massive amounts of crime to turn in their family's only means of self-defense.