Maliki has extended his 72-hour "surrender" ultimatum by another 10 days, and thrown in a generous weapons "buy-back" program as a bonus. Next, he'll be offering complimentary Happy Meals and free cable.
Meanwhile, the Green Zone is still being shelled daily, intra-Shi'ite conflicts are spreading throughout South and Central Iraq, Sadr's forces are taking over more neighborhoods in Baghdad, the British are still hunkered down at the Basra airport, more Iraqi police are defecting to the Sadr militia, and now the US is being sandbagged into hauling "Gen. Maliki's" chestnuts out of the fire.
If Sadr is fighting for survival, so is the deeply corrupt and unpopular Maliki government.
I'm surprised you're rooting for the Iranians in this one, TR. Then again, I guess that's what happens when you get all your al-Sadr spin from FreeRepublic.
Since when has the "Guardian" been affiliated with Free Republic?
Your silly nonsensical spin is getting tiresome RW. Either you start backing up some of you spewage or say goodbye.
Attah boy TR don't let the resident troll skate.
No problems with The Guardian, TR, just providing some context. I take exception to the standard Freeper/RedState assertion that because al-Sadr is fat, scary-looking, wears black and opposes the occupation, he "needs killin'," and his death would somehow improve stability in Iraq. Unfortunately, that ignores both his popularity (which would likely survive him), his recent contributions to stability and the messy complexity of Shi'ite factional politics.
Sadr's group is only one of several "criminal, radical, Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias" that presently control Basra, where the IA has little presence and the Brits were forced to cede the field. Sadr's problem is that the OTHER criminal, radical Iranian-backed militias tend to support Maliki...at least as long as he doesn't challenge their own partisan designs on Central and Southern Iraq.
The provincial elections -- which no party really wanted -- have forced Maliki's hand somewhat. This isn't so much a case of Maliki "taking out the trash" as it is an attempt to remove a potential political opponent -- sort of the Texas Caucuses with tanks.
Practically speaking, since the IA can't occupy Basra or Sadr City, and since Sadr's ceasefire was a real gift to the Coalition -- let's see how Maliki responds to Sadr's "surrender." Rumor is there's an agreement in the works now, and we may hear terms today. I suspect that all parties would be quite happy with a quiet return to the status quo, which Maliki can claim as a "victory." Maliki can then return to Baghdad, where he is unable to move freely in daylight, but can at least enjoy a decent meal.
BTW: "Spew" is one of those words people broadly apply to any opinion that deviates from their own preconceptions. It isn't really an argument, in the classic sense. My point is that Iraq isn't a football game, and premature triumphalism over a two-point goal is the sign of a team that's 10 points down, anyway.
In any event, I've rarely if ever, "spewed" on your site...although I did foretell the doom of Huckabee and Mitt, and I'll probably never stop paying for my pronouncement that Fred's campaign peaked the day he announced it.
Some sins cannot be forgiven.
Sadr is an enemy to the Iraqi people and the CFs. All your incoherent pontification does not change that very simple fact.
Commenting by HaloScan
