The return of Hoyatoleslam

Debbie over at Right Truth has an exclusive penned by a key advisor to Moqtada al-Sadr coincident to his speech in Kufa. It's a must-read for anyone following this conflict closely, which will become obvious upon its digestion:

Is it morning in Iraq? Not, yet. But the long night’s journey to the hour of destiny is drawing ever nearer its close. Sadrists are, at this hour, engaged in a make-or-break showdown. In our dealings within the Shia Alliance, cross-sectarian, and in our dealings with interested outside powers. Both, the Draft Oil Law, as is, and an ongoing Parliamentary re-alignment must be seen as crucial in this regard. As success in either and/ or both will demonstrate the new level of Sadrist power.

Some thoughts.. this morning's New York Times dropped hints from Republican insiders about troop draw-downs next year in advance of the election. Doubtful they were leaked without permission. There will be enormous pressure to get something squared away by then. In his recent 'bird poop presser' Bush himself dropped a hint of things to come by saying we would leave if the "Iraqis asked us to".

Although a reasonable person might assume granting such a request would undermine our very reason for being in Iraq it would be highly unlikely to come out of the blue. The UN is involved in Iraq and al-Maliki (or whomever) would also need consensus from the Sunnis and Kurds before acting, not to mention some form of blessing from the surrounding Arab countries as well.

Many astute observers have been asking for years which side the US would eventually back, a tough question since both could eventually represent threats to the Western security. If we hand over the mantle to al-Sadr we are de facto handing it to Iran, which sounds nuts based on the current leadership in Tehran and their aspirations.

But as Mr. Muth pointed out, Iraq is and always will be a majority Shiite country. They will either end up with a moderate Shia ruler who finds a way to effectively protect the minorities or another strong man who rises to power via the assassination/bloodbath route. Did anyone really think Iraq could undergo Shia majority control and/or national unity after 30+ years of Ba'ath terrorism against the majority? Perhaps the 'civil war' was a necessary evil to reach some form of national reconciliation. Or perhaps it's just business as usual in the Middle East.

At any rate the goal for America has to be security. Democracies are nice, but if the new leadership refuses to join the west in the fight against international terrorists/extremists or joins the Iranian/Syrian alliance to blow Israel off the map they cannot be supported, period, and now might be the only chance we've got to affect the future. We owe nothing less to our fallen troops and those fighting there now--something the pandering Democrats should consider while tripping all over themselves in "support".