Mick Hartley

The Guardian and the Independent share a headline in a mood of schadenfreude as the followers of Moqtada al-Sadr threaten the coalition forces.

Naomi Klein has no doubt as to where the responsibility lies:

Make no mistake: this is not the “civil war” that Washington has been predicting will break out between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds. Rather, it is a war provoked by the US occupation authority and waged by its forces against the growing number of Shia who support Moqtada al-Sadr.

Considering that al-Sadr’s supporters include Hamas and Hezbollah, and that they’re threatening to use terror to turn Iraq into another Iran-style theocracy, you’d think Klein might just manage a little understanding – sympathy even – for the situation of the occupation forces, but apparently not.

Back in the real world, Andrew Sullivan is guardedly optimistic:

Of course, Sadr doesn’t represent all Shiites. Far from it. But the more mainstream Shiites are still obviously leery of siding openly with the CPA against him. We should expect – and actually demand – a very effective display of military power and authority from the coalition in response to this provocation. Arresting Sadr is a start – and certainly worth doing now rather than in four months’ time. The optimist in me hopes that this confrontation – threatening for months – can be resolved effectively before June 30. The pessimist in me worries about the propaganda value in this kind of unrest in deterring investment, polarizing ethnicities and sects, and making democracy even harder.

At USS Clueless, Steven Den Beste is also looking on the bright side:

One could easily come to the conclusion that the situation in Iraq has gone into the toilet in the last two weeks. But there’s definitely a silver lining in the dark cloud. Our enemies are making a tremendous blunder, and have given CENTCOM a priceless gift.

Worth reading as a corrective to the “Brink of Anarchy” stuff.