To read today's news I fear it may be.
Via Reuters and Yahoo News
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's prime minister raised the stakes in his showdown with followers of Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, saying in an interview broadcast on Monday they would be barred from elections unless their militia disbands.
The comments followed an offensive by government forces into the cleric's Baghdad stronghold, the Shi'ite slum of Sadr City, in which heavy fighting returned to the capital after a week of relative calm when Sadr called his militiamen off the streets.
"A decision was taken ... that they no longer have a right to participate in the political process or take part in the upcoming elections unless they end the Mehdi Army," Maliki said in an interview with CNN, according to a report posted on the U.S. television network's Web site.
Maliki's threat to drive Sadr's millions of supporters out of the political process heightens tensions in a conflict that has divided Iraq's Shi'ite majority and led to the worst fighting since extra U.S. troops arrived last year.
Sadr's followers are due this year to participate for the first time in elections for powerful provincial government posts that control the southern half of the country -- and are widely expected to oust less-popular Shi'ite parties that back Maliki.
Sadr's followers said the authorities had no power to disband the Mehdi Army militia.
"No one can intervene in the Mehdi Army; only those who established it and the religious leaders," the spokesman for Sadr, Salah al-Ubaidi, said.
Five U.S. soldiers were killed on Sunday in the renewed fighting, including three killed and 31 wounded in strikes with mortars bombs or rockets that crashed across Baghdad.
One of those strikes killed two U.S. soldiers and wounded 17 inside the heavily fortified Green Zone government and diplomatic compound, where personnel at the world's largest U.S. embassy are now required to carry body armor and helmets.
Another strike unleashed a huge fire in the Jamila market, a vast wholesale bazaar that provides food for much of the eastern half of Baghdad.
This, I believe, sounds distinctly like a declaration of war against the Mahdi Army. How can any citizenry accept complete disenfranchisement. I mean honestly would we accept disarmanment at the hands of a government allied to a belligerent regional power. New York most certainly would not accept complete disarmanment by a federal government controlled by Virginia even today.
Al-Sadr will almost certainly end his ceasefire when his people are disenfranchised. Recent reports have indicated that he has major support throughout the South and especially in Basra (the major port city). And, of course, he has a stronghold in Sadr City (named for his grand uncle Mohammed Mohammed Sadeq al-Sadr (who in the eyes of Iraqis "heroically" fought against the British in the 1920's). With these major bases of support he will be difficult to dislodge. And given the sentiments of some of his community:
Mustafa, he said, was killed after Sadr had ordered Abu Abdullah's 60 fighters to stand down. And that order, he said, was the only barrier between him and "a revolution" against his Shiite rivals and U.S. forces. "Every day now is worse than before," he said.
I fear that Sadr may try to set himself up as an independent power. If conditions allow, he might legitimize himself by holding the provincial elections in defiance of the national government.
Bush will most likely remain as belligerent as always and back the national government against Sadr, seeking no conciliation. Rumors abound that Cheney gave the O.K. to Maliki on his offensive. And I have no reason to believe that Bush's (or more accurately Cheney's) position has changed. I wonder if Iran will be able to resume their peace-broker role from a week ago, but I doubt it (peace-making has never been a talent of the current Persian government).
I do not know if we have the force structure to attack the South and support a weak Iraqi Army. If the IA's performance matches last week (and there is no reason to think it won't), Maliki will more and more rely on us to prosecute his Shiite Civil War. I pray that Bush does not fall into that trap, but I no faith in his ability to see it.
If he does send sufficient support to surpress the South (something I not sure we can even do with so few troops), the Sunni center may itself rebel:
As the video shows there is much discontent in this now organized force of 70,000-80,000. The scheduled withdrawal of forces was already a tenuous thing that could have lead to more violence from pacified communities. A further reduction of U.S. presence in order to promote an offensive in the South could give an opening to a Sunni rebellion against the national government.
Of course, al-Qaeda will exploit any chaos to conduct murder and mayhem. I also fear that if we leave the Kurds to constant attack by the Turks that the North will become a very bloody place indeed.
This prognoctication may sound very bleak, but I have no optimism for either the Iraqis or us. How can all this violent faction lead to peace. Let us reflect on what we have been put through by lesser government officials and work to end their reign of horrors.