The US press went wild for this supposed report that Muqtada al-Sadr said he would dissolve his militia if Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani ordered it. Folks, he always says that when there is a controversy. (He said the same thing in spring, 2004). He says it because he knows it makes him look reasonable to the Shiite public. He says it because he knows that the grand ayatollahs are not going to touch the matter with a ten foot pole. They are not so foolish as to take responsibility for dissolving a militia that they had nothing to do with creating. And that is probably the real meaning of this CNN report that they ‘refused’ when asked. I doubt the grand ayatollahs in Najaf actively commanded Muqtada to keep his militia. They just declined to get drawn in.
The bright side is laid out here. All I can say at this point is: I know what I don’t know. As Shiite-vs-Shiite tensions mount, the myriad wars and proxy wars that are now "Iraq" get more and more complex and hard to read. One reason, of course, is the US presence. We muffle the actual power-structure in Iraq with troops and money, like snowfall on a landscape. We see some big shapes at times, but it’s hard to know what lies beneath. It’s a gamble either way, it seems to me, and anyone who tells you otherwise has an agenda. Until we have another president, I don’t see much practical alternative to leaving it to Petraeus and Crocker, closely monitored.
The Dish 