Sadr has threatened open warfare. I just want to know that if Sadr declares all-out war, can we then consider the war a failure? I’m just curious how far the right moves the goal posts. I mean, we’re supposed to be there to prevent a civil war, right?

They’ll probably argue that we have to help Maliki and his militia-dominated “national” government win. This, despite the fact that the current faction in power has better ties with Iran than al-Sadr. I thought we were supposed to prevent Iran from gaining influence, right?

The article mentions one way in which we are contributing to the tensions: “Tensions have been increased by the construction of a wall in the district by US and Iraqi forces.” I’m confused, isn’t the US supposed to be the stabilizing force in Iraq?

One final thing. Irony alert: “The [Basra] operation was criticised by US commanders as poorly planned and as failing to achieve its stated aims.” Hm. Pretty much like the entire Iraq War.

The right’s entire argument for staying in Iraq is a joke. They bring up the specter of genocide, even though ethnic cleansing occurred while we were there. We’re taking sides in an armed intra-Shiite battle for power; this is the opposite of preventing civil war and the opposite of political reconciliation.

It’s time to leave.