I'm not saying Saddam was a nice guy, I'm saying he provided stability. It's not like beheading a snake, it's more like chopping up starfish. The idea has appeal because it's simple, personal, provides a nice focus. And it seems it would be loosing all manner of factions and militias until a more fanatic leader came along. Because hearts and minds have been lost.

One gets the idea al-Sadr is riding a tiger, there are many different factions loosely associated with him operating mostly independently. His authority seems to as much moral as direct. Just as killing the Pope would not turn a militant Roman Catholic into a docile Quaker, killing al-Sadr would not seem to tame that tiger.

Whether one likes it or not one has to move past the incessant demonization which is so very attractive to certain people and deal with the power structure that exists, not the one one wishes were in place. al-Sadr probably should be empowered rather than emasculated, so as to give the US someone with whom to come to an agreement. It's easier to sell widgets to Wal-Mart than to every individual grocery store in the world. al-Sadr seems to have more real authority than al-Maliki, who seems to be trying to satisfy both Cheney and al-Sadr for a reason, he has to.

Had the US been at all interested in the Iraqi people, had the US invested a bit in winning hearts and minds, had the US fought the kind of war that respects civilians, al-Sadr wouldn't be a problem. He could have been co-opted. That wasn't done.

The US deals with many, many, many ugly people - the moral reasons for not dealing with him won't hold up. For any stability in Iraq the US will have to successfully deal with the al-Sadrs. Undoubtedly the problem is that they now won't support the continued military presence of the US in Iraq and they have the support of the people for that.

Regardless, Iraq is largely Shiite, and one must get along with Shiites. Just as in northern Iraq one must get along with the Kurds.

Arf