The ridiculously complicated games of Iraq

Despite his rhetoric, Sadr needs U.S. - for now - International Herald Tribune

This article explains the complications caused in Iraq by Moktada al-Sadr's ever changing (and often contradictory) actions in Iraq.

It seems extremely unfortunate that such a character has a stage on which to strut.

Meanwhile, it is disturbing to see what passes for sensible commentary on the increasingly deranged Road to Surfdom. Ken really feels for the citizens of Iraq (no issue there), but lets this wave of emotion lead him to say the following:

Yet millions of Australians and tens of millions of Americans, people of ordinary intelligence and goodwill, accept all this being done in their name with the complacent justification that the Iraqis are better off than they were under Saddam, or that the known tragedies associated with the occupation pale into insignificance compared to the tragedies that are predicted to accompany any withdrawal – even though the consequences of withdrawal are unknowable and the gates of hell forecasts are made by people who have a blatant vested interest in the occupation continuing.

So, what is more immoral? Leaving now, even against the wishes of a rabid anti-American like al-Sadr (see article above)? Or trying to assist in the prevention of the sectarian violence between civilians, which is clearly what most of the death is now about?

It is possible that an immediate withdrawal might mean that the country settles down in a shorter period, but in all likelihood only at the cost of a dramatic rise in death, displacement and mayhem first. (Who wouldn't expect a serious partition attempt if the US left right now, and who expects that it could be done without large loss of life?) It is quite ridiculous to suggest this view is only promoted by those with "vested interests" in America staying there.

What it comes down to is this: Ken prefers the idea of gambling with the lives of civilians, rather than see something in place that is specifically designed to help protect them. I don't see how you can seriously argue that staying there for now is not the moral thing to do.

UPDATE: a column in The Guardian also takes up the point of the complicated and often duplicitous actions of all the major Middle Eastern players in Iraq. It is well worth reading, but the general point is that many parties who claim to want the US out of there are just posturing. They actually want America to stay, at least for the time being.

Not everything said in this analysis might be accurate, but overall it sounds fairly plausible. It certainly indicates why, contrary to the normal expectation of Western democracy, the opinion of the people in Iraq on this is not something is deserving of enforcement at the moment.

UPDATE 2: Diogenes Lamp posts about a funny/serious letter to The Age about the silliness of comparing Iraq to the V-Tech killings.