Standing in the corner

Sadr is apparently willing to accept the presence of the UN to facilitate a peacful resolution to his insurgency. That's because they would view it as a benign force without a nationalistic agenda. Despite the best intentions of the bush administration, the soldiers on the ground and small number of Cooalition participants, sometimes perception is reality:

We prefer the UN to the (US-led) occupation forces, because Iraq is a member of the United Nations," Sheikh Ahmed al-Shaibani said. There is a big difference between the blue helmets (of UN troops) and the occupation troops.

The problem, as I noted below, is that Bush can't accept a large scale intervention by the UN before the election. He probaly won't be able to arrange it after, either, at least not at an acceptable price to the US taxpayer. But the UN is ready:

Asked whether the United Nations was working to broker a peaceful solution to the Najaf fighting, the spokesman said only that the world body was ready to extend its good offices where they were welcome

They are not welcome. The US won't allow it. That unwillingess exposes the vulnerabilities of the Bush administration to its enemies and allies and, I hope, to US voters. With his leadership, we are not in a position to end the conflict in Iraq. Under Bush, nobody will get the help we need, and all sides want, to broker a reasonable peace. He has painted the US into a corner. Only our votes can get this country, Iraq, and the world out of this mess.

First hand account of fighting in Sadyr City

Salon's Philip Robertson writes of his experiences in the last six days of fighting in Najaf and Sadyr City. Read this for balance.

Sadyr state of affairs

The US has gone into Najaf to remove Al Sadr. There wasn't much choice at this point. Another withdrawl would have crippled the new Iraqi administration. But there won't be any victors here. Turning Al Sadr into a martyr is a bad idea. Leaving him to fortify his positions and build his base isn't any better. It's typical of this administration to prefer the most straightforward, incautious route. It may work, but it's very dangerous.

The Australian notes

The offensive was preceded by heavy US bombing of another Shi'ite holy city, Kut, north of Najaf.

The Iraqi Health Ministry said 75 people were killed and 148 wounded in that attack.

The ministry said 44 died and 164 were wounded in Baghdad, mostly in the Shi'ite stronghold of Sadr City. The early fighting in Najaf left 25 dead and 153 wounded; 14 were killed and 77 wounded in Amara; and seven were killed and 52 wounded in Diwaniya.

And that's just the last 24 hours. Add to the mix the fact that Iraq's top Sunni Muslim has issued a fatwa forbidding Muslims from working with the cooalition. Arab states, including Lebanon, Egypt and Iran are calling for an end to the fighting.From the Associated Press:

In Cairo, Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa called it a "a painful and sad shedding of Iraqi blood" and warned that the violation of sacred Muslim places could have "serious repercussions."

Sadr is bad news but he has support. He is able to mobilize the poor and disaffected. His brand of nationalism, religious fundamentalism and violent resistance is a strong call. With this action, the US risks prying open the lid on the box containing all out civil war in Iraq.

Fallujah redux

I finished the post below and then this came bubbling up:

U.S. Troops Postpone Offensive in Najaf

Supposedly, they haven't finished training up the Iraqi army. Perhaps the US is once again realizing that it isn't in our interests to destroy Najaf yet. I hope cooler heads will prevail and no one goes in. It will be better to maintain the status quo, even a violent, baleful status guo, than it will be to shred the country.

Fate of troops hang in the balance while we wait for November

Today, as US troops prepare for a "final assualt" on Najaf to unseat Moqtada al-Sadr, Iraqis are protesting in mobs and the Iraqi Vice President is calling for the troops to stand down. This, of course, is contrary to the statements of Iraq's President who ordered Al Sadr out of Najaf.

It is a familiar dilemma. The US will suffer if it attacks in Najaf, just as it would if it attacked in Falluja. Iran is supporting Al Sadr and undermining the fragile Allawi administration. The US will open an unfathomable vein of bitter rage in the common Iraqi if it totals Najaf to get rid of Al Sadr.

US troops are in grave danger. We can fight and fight we will, but military victory in an expanding lattice-work of civil uprising looks very, very distant from here. There is no possible way for 130,000 troops to stave off the kind of civil war facing Iraq. When, not if, the situation explodes, our troops will be caught in the middle of a meat grinder.

John Kerry isn't an instant solution to the mess that George Bush made. But it is in US, and the world's, interest to advance a Kerry victory.

The reasons why this is so don't have much to do with the pros and cons of either man per se. It's business. I am pretty sure Bush would welcome the intervention and assistance of any number of our allies at this point. But he can't ask. It would be way too expensive. That's because Bush made such a point of going it alone. Now, well, we are alone. For Bush to get serious with the allies he would have to renounce his entire strategy and open up the US treasury. That would completely alienate his base and give Kerry a nice flip-floppy talking point. In short, it would completely degrade his chances for re-election. So Iraq, our troops, Iran and the rest of the world teeter on the brink of total meltdown.

Kerry has the negotiating advantage of saying to the world-- Hey, I didn't get us into this mess, but you better believe we are in it together. The allies have the advantage of saying-- Hey we aren't mad at you we are mad at that other guy. Everybody has the advantage of saying, the past is the past, let's move forward towards a solution together.

A lot can happen between now and November. I pray the situation slows down. If Iraq doesn't spiral completely out of control in the interim and Kerry wins, there is a chance, not a great chance, but a chance, of the world joining together to produce a stable Iraq.

What are you voting for? Illustrates our options

What are you voting for? offers an intelligent, easy to read, graphic examination of the words and actions of the Bush administration. It will take you some time to get through it, but it is well worth it. Heck, I had to dally just to appreciate the art. Read it with an open mind and share it with your friends on the fence. This is a comic book with an informative kick.

Kerry's health care plan is well liked among the common folk

Joel Kramer has a good article out in yesterday's Star Tribune clarifying popular support for Kerry's healthcare plans. However, he reminds us that popular support for a practical solution to some of our most nagging problems doesn't neccessarily equal a vote. That's because, as I noted in If I vote for you will you make me poor, Part I and Part II, the people to whom Republican policies are sold are the very people for whom they are an economic disaster-- Middle class working Americans. As Kramer notes:

For most Americans, the tax cut was less than $1,000 for the entire household. But one thing you can be sure of: A lot of people who favor the Kerry approach -- health insurance security rather than tax cuts -- will vote for Bush.

Kerry can solve Iranian conundrum

We do not know how Bush's move into Iraq will shake out. But the war for influence is raging. We can only form our opinions from the highest perch, based on information we cull from the media. It is not a reliable method. However, it's possible to begin to trinagulate the truth.

I think the unfortunate likelyhood the US will take some sort of military action against Iran is increasing with every day. We are beginning to see some justification put forth by the administration for a pre-emptive strike, either covert or overt. Yesterday, Condoleeza Rice refused to rule it out. Her reasons were, of course, that Iran is maintaining an active nuclear weapons program.

This comes on the heels of the Iraqi Prime Minister's release of a warrant for the arrest of Achmed Chalabi, former neo-con wonder boy and maybe the reason why we are in Iraq at all. The WMD story, while compelling, is probably not the most pressing issue for the new Iraqi administraion and the US nor the real reason action will be taken. There is increasing evidence that Iran is closely tied to Moqtada al-Sadr and is actively supporting his uprising.

Over the past 10 days, about 1200 Iranians have been arrested in Karbala, a city of pilgrimage for Iranian Shia Muslims. Tehran is widely assumed by Baghdad to be supporting the renewed insurgency in Najaf by Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

Amidst it all, Al-Sadr has vowed to fight on. Reuters reports that 360 of his fighters are dead:

A firebrand Shi'ite cleric on Monday defied demands from Iraq's interim government that his militia pull out of Najaf, after days of fierce clashes with U.S. Marines who say they have killed 360 of his fighters.

By invading Iraq Bush and the Neocons, have created an environment in which it is possible for Iran to forge lasting ties with Iraq's enormous Shi'ite population. Al Qaeda has found fertile ground amidst the chaos. There clearly is no one governmental entity with credible control. This will result in more war, more terrorism, more deaths as all concerned rush to fill the power vacuum.

President Bush and his team have been surprised at every turn. They think they are fighting the good fight-- I'd like to think so too. But I think they are romantics. The weighed anchor on this journey with a map made of dreams. Now, the cause of creating a just peace in Iraq needs international help. Bush's diplomatic track record is not good. Kerry will also find it difficult to convince allies to join, to help, to give. But at least Kerry has a shot at getting them to sit down at the table. Bush's ineptitude is not an attractive proposition to anyone-- except Iran and Al Qaeda. For them, clever Iran, clever Al Qaeda, it represents the brass ring.