Perhaps it will be useful for Americans to recall that when the statue of Saddam Hussein was torn down in 2003 it was in the in the middle of what we now call “Sadr City” and it was the supporters of Moqtada al-Sadr that we cheered dragging Hussein’s head through the streets. When Saddam’s portrait was defaced, it was a poster of Sadr that went up in in its place.The Mahdi Army and Moqtada Al Sadr have majority support in the largest majority sect in Iraq - The Shia. They voted in the elections we insisted they have and under the constitution we made them write. Maliki only formed this government with al-Sadr’s support. Maliki can only stay in power militarily because of the US military presence. The reason why this war never ends, is that the Bush/Cheney administration specifically and the American people generally do not want to admit that the face of “majority rule”,and “regime change” and “freedom” in Iraq is the face of Moqtada al-Sadr. We will be able to leave Iraq when Moqtada al-Sadr takes over, and not before.

Saddam Hussein was a ruthless, inhumane prick because that’s what it took to keep Iraq together. I hate to say it, but chances are it will take another ruthless inhumane prick to do it again. Since we can all agree we’d have been better off leaving Saddam in power - why can’t we come to terms with that?

“ya see, the Iraqi’s just f%&k it up when we leave it to them…. think we need to hang on here and assert control for some more time, until the poor oul sods can manage it themselves”

If it is true, well then of course theres the language, “face the consequences”, this will unsettle and unnerve local innocent populations… its just not right! theres a whole bunch of normal people, including millions (literally) of kids involved in this, history will tell its own story as it always does!

anybody got any reactions from locals in Iraq to this statement? or did the Iraqi PM just announce it to the US press?

In addition to his comments about cutting a deal, a possibility, it is also likely that while the Iraqi administration might not try as hard, the commanders and front line folks aren’t exactly going to treat such a scenario lightly. In a military operation like they are implying, going anything but all out means not only failure, but death.

To suggest they will do less because they have a safety net seems to be more about trying to argue for a timetable then a realistic assessment of the situation.

Now, that said, to counter the “surge is working” point–what working? There was certainly a lull, but whether that is a tempoary break in hostility as the insurgents reassess the situation or a real “working”" is unclear.

The truth that many surge supporters want to ignore is that violence began declining before the surge thanks to the Sadr ceasefirem but the last month has seen a significant uptick in violence.

Even John McCain who a month ago was talking about the importance of victory (whatever that means) in Iraq as being critical to his campaign, has subtly changed his tune from the “we need to fight the islamic terrorists in Iraq” to “We have a moral responsibility”not to abandon the Iraqi people.

Gee, another Republican changing hos story on why we need to be there….I’m stunned.

If your theory were true, the surge in Bagdhad would be failing to achieve results. Instead, with a renewed commitment from U.S. forces, local Iraqis are no longer afraid to take on Al-qaeda and are doing the bulk of the fighting now. The coalition is once again the “strong horse”, and fear of reprisals from Jihadists if they were to retain control of the region is no longer an issue for the Iraqi soldiers.