Sully, Instahack, and Sadr
By Instapundit and Andrew Sullivan both think that Muqtada Al-Sadr’s retreat and expressions of approval for the new government are a victory for the administration. That is certainly a point of view.
A more accurate point of view would note that it was the US, not Sadr, who started the conflict. We shut down his newspaper, we put out a warrant for his arrest, and we said we would either “capture or kill” him. Then we attacked his bases of support.
We didn’t arrest him, we didn’t capture him, we didn’t kill him, and we didn’t even drive him out of his base. We tangled a bit, then gave up. Now he’s going to put together a political party and contest the January elections. He’s more popular now than he was two months ago.
The administration didn’t have to take on Sadr. Having made the decision to attack him, they could have destroyed him. Instead, they opted for the worst of all options, which was to attack him and fail. It’s a bad day for the warbloggers when they have to claim this as a success.
More on this topic at Juan Cole. . .