Sadr is one of the key pieces on the dark side - he is in a player the game not the one controlling it.

Sadr has given orders to his supporters (unfortunately the numbers are growing) to kill or kidnap Australians as well as the nationals of any govt he and his backers think my weaken (and some are).

Last week a British general unfortunately said publicly that his troops in the south were only able to remain because of the goodwill of the local Shia (who belong to the al-Sistani camp). He went on to say that if his base was surrounded by 150,000 protesting Iraqis, then he would have no option but to pull out - so today we hear of a new coordinated campaign by agent provocateurs to try to bring about just such an event. 4 car bombs were set off - death toll up to 50 dead (mostly innocent civillians incl two busloads of toddlers (approx 15 blown apart)).

At the same time many supporting countries (i.e. Honduras, Thailands etc:) are all stating publicly they expect to pull out. Each one that makes such an announcement encourages the game tactics to be reinforced.

In one way what we are seeing with Sadr, is that a country that was run by one oppressive dictator, seems to have a need for another. A known murderer such as Sadr comes across as a man of action & the confused populace are drawn to him even though he would be every bit (perhaps even more so) the evil bastard that Saddam was.

In Basra, the players in this game are using terror to drive a wedge between the British and the locals. It may not have been Sadr's men who carried out the Basra bombings but the people behind the attack are happy to let Sadr wear the responsibility * Sadr is ugly & stupid enough to want to take it.

I am willing to bet that in the long run Sadr will be terminated by either other Iraq factions, al-qaeda operatives or the US.

It is a very difficult call to claim that this type of trouble would not be taking place had the UN been given a brief to go into Iraq and the US had not acted unilateraly. Am inclined to believe that Iraq was a plum target for a number of factions in the M.E., as well as the east and west based on the reality that Saddam's glory days were over & once he got toppled by who ever was going to do it (it would have happened sooner or later). The country's influence is the expectation Iraq actually holds approx the same reserves of cheap (1-2$ a barrel to lift) oil that Saudi does & this wealth is raw power for who ever comes out on top in the country post Saddam.

America didn't 'directly' create the problem looming in Iraq (history post WW1 & WW2 did), but today it has the might to try to influence the outcome to its best advantage and the unilateral determination of the repubs was the US driver.

Despite anyone's personal views on the rights and wrongs of the way & what the US did by invading, it is *not* in the majority's interest to see Iraq unravel & be torn apart by a pack of wild dogs all intent on grabbing the biggest bit of the carcass.

The coming weeks will be challenging.

Doug Marker

Hopeless is one view, difficult & complex another.

The reality is we are in there and there are, and always were going to be, forces who would set about sabotaging any attempts to mould Iraq into a 'modern' democracy.

The Shia extreme are one such force & they are fuelled by many long years of
oppression. Some remember what happened in 91 when they rose up against the govt.

Sadr is playing his moves carefully. He openly called for an uprising and got one. His motives are many, 1) to deflect from his crime against al-Khoei, 2) to gain a bigger power base among the young and radical (he may even believe he can usurp al-Sistani - an assasination is well within his repetoire of accomplishments but al-Sistani is too important a target for an open plot). I am sure that most of us have seen how al-Sadr cultivates his appearance (when his mouth is shut) to look immpressive & fearsome, just like the most esteemed Shia Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini.

The problem with a humiliating withdrawal from Iraq at this point is that the world would be a much messier place and nothing would really be resolved. Repubs would still be wanting another go. Iranian revolution would get exported to Iraq & oil once again becomes an economic weapon to pull west's chain with. Actually, Iraq would become the problem it was always going to be, only much earlier than if Saddam had remained a while longer.

We can decry the problems with having gone into Iraq the way (we) did, but the reality is that it has happened & now we are caught into playing the game. Hopefully much more carefully. Sadr has cunningly put himself in Najaf as bait to the US forces. If they go in, then Sadr will have won as it can only lead to a complete breakdown of coalition control in Iraq and also spread the anti-western feeling further. The real trick is to get Sadr out somehow (& that won't be easy). Or to get an agent in there to top him. That may produce a temporary backlash but only from his headless supporters & they are clearly a minority.

The other issue here that is easy to forget is the enmity between the wahabi Sunnis and the Shia. They may form a temporary alliance to tackle a perceived common enemy but it will be mayhem once that common enemy has gone (as happened with Russians in Afghanistan). 1st - together we kill the invaders, then - we slaughter each other !!!.

Doug M
#2 clarify meanings & correct typos)