"Any government that presumes to represent the majority of people must confront criminal elements or people who think they can live outside the law," Bush said at the White House. "And that's what's taking place in Basra and in other parts of Iraq. I would say this is a defining moment in the history of a free Iraq."On Saturday, 29 March, Maliki
promised to "stand up to these gangs" throughout Iraq and called Basra "a decisive and final battle."Now, where I come from, "defining moments" define something, and "decisive battles" decide something.
Given that the recent violence has abated only because al Sadr has reined in his Mahdi Army - after they successfully battled Iraqi forces & withstood U.S. air assaults in Basra - it's hard to see any other interpretation than that al Sadr won.
What was defined? Al Sadr's continuing role as a powerful player in Iraqi politics.
What was decided? Al Sadr's Mahdi Army supremacy over the Iraqi Army.
Will either W or Maliki admit these conclusions, and move forward by engaging al Sadr politically?
[I know where I'm putting my money on this question... but, hey - I could be wrong!]
Stop the madness!
No comments:
Post a Comment