just to refresh your memory, click the website under my name

Um, Maliki is heavily supported by Iran. The Dawa party, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, the Badr brigade, all the sources of Maliki’s support have long ties to Iran.

Iran stepped in because it didn’t want open civil war between two of its clients, Maliki and Sadr, at least not yet.

Of the two clients, Maliki is more aligned with Iran and Sadr is more of an Iraqi nationalist. Also when I say they are both supported by Iran, it may not be the same elements in Iran supporting both. Think of Chalabi being supported by the White House and the Pentagon, while the CIA and State Department were trying to warn people he was a fraud.

FWIW, I’m not as troubled as you are by the defining downward of victory. I’m not UN-troubled either. But I always viewed the early pictures being painted by Rosie Scenario to inspire public support.

I always viewed the best-case outcome as one where a semi-stable government that passed for a democracy was somehow fitfully established, and where we got little or no credit. Or even much in the way of tangible diplomatic relationship advantages. Still, the longer such a semi-stable, semi-democratic Iraqi gov’t endures, the better Iraq serves as a starter model, not for a perfect solution, but for a viable alternative that’s more desirable than a theocratic kleptocracy. The jury is WAY out on how that’s going to come out. The judgement as made by the only relevant audience, the Iraqi people, will be related to delivery of very concrete things…reliable water and power, schools, civic accountability, etc.

We’re well-served as observers to remember that democracy is messy, contentious, and SLOW. Americans ought to be hyper-aware of this idea by now, but lots of folks seem to think watching things as they unfold looks just like the executive summary in a history book.

Maliki or whoever else leads Iraq would be well-served to approach the job like a mayor…deliver stability and services and some semblance of predictability and reliability. IOW, fill the potholes and make the trains run on time.

I can only assume that the Iraqi army will back out and let Sadr’s militia secure the area

Thank God you know the truth and can share it with the benighted masses.

You don’t know what the facts on the ground are to make a statement like that – and unless you have spent considerable time there, you never will. The news we get is controlled, manipulated, and rarely factual. In addition, Maliki and the “government” troops are fighting who exactly….al-Qaeda, Iran, Sunni’s – or are they fighting a Sunni/Shia group supported unanimously by every “neighbor” of Iraq against the US occupation?

I’m not obsessing over things that happened 5 years ago – you are…..this war has been illegal since day one and to say anything else is simply a lie. Fools claim that since we are already there, to discuss how we got there or our conduct these past few years is fruitless and doesn’t serve a purpose for today. That is the exact same thinking that put us here in the first place – the ability to re-frame an issue that no longer relies on facts. The facts still remain that the USA attacked a sovereign nation illegally, killed hundreds of thousands of civilizations, lied continuously, and supports a posture of aggression that belies the facts.
I can tell you this, Maliki was lucky to get out of the most current situation with his dignity reasonably intact…….this was a political defeat – and may very well have been a military defeat except for the involvement of US air cover. Thousands of Iraqi army regulars not willing to fight doesn’t mean they lack courage, it means they aren’t willing to fight against their countrymen – who can blame them? The real questions are too frightening to answer……Why is the US in Iraq, and why is the US now taking sides in a Civil War? The answer to those questions points directly to war crimes………..and the USA could never be guilty of war crimes could it?

Isn’t it kind of hard considering that Sadr is currently in Iran already? Loose handling of facts already got us (US) into trouble in Iraq, so there is desperate need for more educated opinions on the subject.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j5leYnvOpPqrVCiXxC65pROPNYBAD8VRT50G0

Pyrrhic victory infers victory of some sort, what victory, the IA was proven to be weak and many deserted, Iran and Sadr’s strength and influence grows with the common people and he’s left in control of his forces, still armed and intact. And the Maliki gov was shown to be so weak that they had to go to Iran to get them to call Sadr off, how is that a victory?

when you say that it looks like a win and that Sadr stood down you sound like McCain who is totally lost on the facts, he only stood down because he was told to by Iran and only after maliki’s govt asked for peace

Thanks.

“your article sounds like a typical right wing delusion . . .”

Yeah. The right typically takes the position that we’ve won a pyrrhic victory that has left us weaker and broker and accomplished essentially nothing. Straight out of George W. Bush’s playbook.

2) Large numbers of colonial soldiers deserted. Large numbers of Yankees and Confederates deserted. Something like 5%, give or take, of a single green brigade deserted. Read some history of our own wars.

3) Cock crows, sun rises. Cock did not cause sun to rise. The best reporting seems to be that we had 4 days’ notice and we tried to talk Maliki out of it. Had we been involved earlier Maliki would have had air support from day one.

4) Oh? How so? I seem to recall France playing a rather large role in our Revolution. And if I’m not mistaken the USSR may have thrown just a little bit into “our” victory over the Nazis.

Great post by the way.

So, pay no attention to the facts on the ground, instead obsess over events of 5 years ago?