corrente

More doubleplusungood news:

Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, issued his first official comments about the violence on Wednesday evening, condemning the U.S. approach to dealing with the Shiite uprising. In a written statement bearing his seal, Sistani called for both sides to pursue a peaceful resolution and "refrain from escalating steps that will lead to more chaos and bloodshed."

But across Baghdad, Sistani's moderate message appeared to have been drowned out by an increasingly vocal cry from mosque minarets for people to resist the occupation and to donate money and blood to help resistance fighters in Fallujah. In perhaps the clearest sign yet of the convergence of Sunni and Shiite uprisings, announcements from Shiite mosques called on people to help Sunnis in Fallujah, while residents of Sunni neighborhoods lauded Sadr and his followers.

Portraits of Sadr and graffiti lauding him have appeared on mosques and government buildings in Sunni towns west of Baghdad, according to Arab media reports. On Monday night, gunmen loyal to Sadr joined with Sunni insurgents in Baghdad in attacking U.S. soldiers on patrol in the first reported act of collaborative Sunni-Shiite resistance activity.

"The Sunnis and Shiites are now together," said Fatah Abdel-Razzaq, 31, the owner of a falafel stand in Sadr City, a sprawling slum of 2 million that has long served as Sadr's stronghold.

In Karbala, as with Kufa and other cities south of Baghdad, Sadr's militiamen have assumed effective control of the municipality. Black-shirted members of the Mahdi Army have taken over police stations and government buildings.
(via WaPo)

It's great that we sought out Sistani (really rather moderate) so now when we need a calming influence. Oh, wait ...

It is possible, of course, that Sadr launched his uprising because he knew he was on the way out, and so good will come of all this, since the Iraqi majority will... well, do what, exactly?

Vote for Chalabi? Well, maybe not.

Split the country into three parts? Turkey would be very unhappy about a Kurdish state, and we would be very unhappy if (say) a Shi'ite south allied itself with (nuclear capable) Shi'ite Iran, and (nuclear) Pakistan. Well, maybe not.

Let us occupy their country for the forseeable future? Well, maybe not.

What are the good outcomes from this, anyhow? Readers?

NOTE From alert reader Xan, Juan Cole gives the reasons Iraq and Iran won't get together, even if they're both Shi'ites; but then we counted on the Shi'ites never getting together with the Sunnis either ....