corrente

While our troops get shot. (Hey George! What's the latest on that body armor?)

[W]hat is now transpiring is also a battle for control of the Shiite street to see who will eventually lead Iraq's largest ethno-religious group.

These latest events are also a clash of leadership between Sadr, who demands an immediate withdrawal of U.S. and other coalition troops from Iraq and the milder, more-moderate stance adopted by the older Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who favors a quieter transition and advocates a more cautionary approach.

Sadr, on the other hand, is opposed to waiting for the June 30 hand-over date, demanding the U.S.-led coalition leave immediately. With Shiites forming about 60 percent of Iraq's population, Sadr believes his coreligionist should assume immediate control of their destiny.

Sadr is relatively young and inexperienced but commands, nevertheless, a following strong enough to stir trouble, as became evident this past weekend. He rules over much of the Baghdad slum known as Sadr City, named after his father who was killed by Saddam, and is believed to have about 5,000 armed followers.

The development to watch for now is to see if the mainstream Shiite movement falls in behind Sadr, and joins the anti-U.S. movement, or instead, if they opt to wait on the sidelines for the United States to remove Sadr from the political scene.

Politically for Sistani, allowing the Americans take out Sadr would be the most advantageous move. The removal would leave the political playing field clear for Sistani, who would then be the only Shiite leader left standing. Since Saddam's downfall last spring, a number of prominent Shiite leaders have been killed.

However, if Sistani, or the Iranian-backed al-Badr Brigade, with more than 10,000 armed supporters jump into the fray, it could spell real trouble for the United States. Iran, one must also suspect, is not without interest in the outcome of events in neighboring Iraq. Tehran's ayatollahs would undoubtedly revel in Washington becoming ingrained in an urban war in the slums of Baghdad.

Already, Monday there was talk of sending more troops to Iraq to help quell the troubles. In its last rotation, the United States has downsized the number of American troops in the country from 130,000 to about 100,000. But if the violence continues, additional forces would certainly be needed.

Another danger, of course, is that Sadr would attempt a "hostile take-over" of the Shiite leadership by trying to physically eliminate Sistani, a possibility that should not be discounted. Should Sadr prove to be successful, it could place the militant ayatollah in an unprecedented position of power and give the U.S.-led coalition a genuine cause for concern. On the other hand, an attempt on Sistani could also pitch Shiite against Shiite, making the June 30 deadline for handing the country over to Iraqis highly questionable, and that despite the fact President George W. Bush reaffirmed Monday the date was not subject to revision.

Regardless of the outcome, there is one Shiite who stands to gain by the removal of either ayatollah -- Ahmad Chalabi, the leader of the Iraqi National Congress -- and the man on the fast track to become the next nexus of power in Iraq.

Second, what is unsettling about this turn of events is until now at least, most of the violence emanated from the Sunni population and was mostly limited to the area referred to as the Sunni Triangle. The horrendous killing and mutilation of four civilian contractors last week, for example, took place in Fallujah, in the heart of Sunni-populated territory.

But this recent outbreak involving the Shiite community sets a dangerous precedent and has moved the conflict to previously quieter areas of the country. If not intelligently addressed, it could rapidly broaden into a quagmire and draw the United States into a vicious version of an Iraqi intifada, and a conflict without a foreseeable end.
(via UPI)

Eesh. Thank God Bush has a plan. Uh, what's the plan?

NOTE to Kerry: Your message on this, whatever it is, is coming through as "more diplomacy." That's not going to cut it, analytically correct though it may be.