STALEMATE:

Updated draft


COMPARING THE THINKING OF THE IRAQI RESISTANCE TO THAT OF...WAIT A MOMENT: OF THE HARMFUL IDIOTS? ARE THESE CAPABLE OF THINKING? Of course they are. Aren’t fruit flies? DO THE HARMFUL IDIOTS CAUSE HARM? BY WAY OF AN ANSWER: IS CREATING ORPHANS BY THE TENS OF THOUSANDS HARMFUL?


D.C. Notes: Drove to Potomac, Maryland, to Didi’s birthday party, the daughter of friends. When in Potomac, I try to focus on the road, fully. The McMansions insult my myopic eyes. Wonder what architects built these eyesores? Which, by the way, I could never afford. Pleased?


PART ONE

Thani Mu7awalah--second rough draft

THE TRAIN THAT COULD

They’re trying and trying hard.

The harmful idiots are trying to co-opt the Arab Sunni of Iraq. The Arab Gulf leaders had so instructed Mr. Cheney on his show-of-force tour of the oil-'n-gas protectorates, last May. But, as with their favorite protectorate, the harmful idiots almost always get the point too late. If at all. They shoot themselves in the foot, then do it again and again in lame and hazardous attempts to fix the self-inflicted damage.

Now they’re going full-steam after the very generation they liberated. A young Islamist Revolution, Sunni, had unleashed thanks to the invasion. It’s called the Islamic State in Iraq (ISI). Qaeda or not--it’s Iraqi. This revolution is youthful; it’s vibrant; It’s cunning; and its young members think nothing of death. The harmful idiots have offered them an opportunity, historic, first to liberate their country and, later, to fight for a formula for national unity and, later still, to fight yet again to regain the north.

In their divide-and-rule attempts to co-opt the Arab Sunni, minus the young revolutionaries, the harmful idiots face insurmountable hurdles.

A FEDERAL AND CONSOCIATIONAL IRAQ–NOT

For one, in Iraq, the Arabs–Sunni and Shia–would never accept to live under a consociational government in a divided country ("federal system."). Call it nationalism; call it the search for a sense of togetherness; call it a seach for common purpose. The Hakims (the ailing Abdel Aziz or his son Ammar) should pursue such to their own peril. Should they fail to dismiss the invader’s ideas (shared by Iran) about the future form of their government, they should expect to be dragged alive through the streets of Iraqi towns and cities. (Think Nuri es-Said.) They should humor Iran about federalism; but such should be temporary. Sooner or later, the pull of a fully united Iraq, should become the unavoidable and urgent call of the day, Iran or no Iran, occupier or no occupier. (Besides, a federal Iraq should translate into a de facto Shia state in the south. Good luck, Kuwait.)

No Iraqi Arab therefore should be expected to accept but total and unquestionable control by one central government over the north. Even Iran would risk compromising its alliance to the Iraqi Shia should it fail to appreciate the yearn for a strong central and united government. Islamic should be fine. Allied to Iran–that would depend on the tactics of the harmful idiots, their exorbitantly rich, spoiled, and privileged Gulf rulers, and Persian chauvinism. But non-consociational government and certainly non-federal. This quest should go through difficult and bloody stages. But have no doubt about the end result.


COUNTER-INSURGENCY, SECTS, AND THE YEARNING FOR NON-SECT

The harmful idiots think in sterile sectarian terms. Their fruit fly minds need clean and clear dividing lines, and sects lend themselves to that. The harmful idiots are mechanical in their thinking. In their world, there’s no ideology, no nationalism. They’re the product of an imperial machine that prints money and feeds them lots of it. So their world is devoid of struggles. They have jobs. That’s what matters.

Consider their counter-insurgency theories. What’s that: clear, hold...blah blah blah. What idiotic minds come up with such simplistic, asinine, and moronic stuff? Don't they realize that the revolution in Iraq is way bigger than a run-of-the-mill insurgency? Let’s go after the makers of the IED s and EFPs and we shall stabilize the situation, so we can retreat to our silly billy lily nilly pads. Need I repeat that these tactics reflect illusion and wishful thinking? They’re nothing more than the thoughts of Israeli-inspired reactionary forces trying to stem the march of history. It recalls to me the time when, researching my dissertation, I heard higher-ups in the Lebanese Forces, trained in Israel, mouth theories about how they were going to push the Druze out of the Shouf Moutains in Lebanon. (The Shouf had been spared the ravages of the Lebanese civil war until the Lebanese Forces, trained by the Israelis, applied the lessons of their mentors in that region of Lebanon.)

Instead, the Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, using Syrian and Palestinian troops (beholden to Syria), pushed the native Christians out of the Shouf. And these had nothing to do with Israel or its agents in Lebanon.

The harmful idiots can’t seem to comprehend (surprise!) that their divide-and-rule sectarian approach in Iraq ignores the basic fact that a society divided by sect should yearn to overcome that division. To do so, this society should seek an ideology that all but erases the source of its weakness: sectarianism. That was what the Baath had done, imperfect though it had been. Pan-Arabism was all-inclusive, though it left the Kurds out, somewhat. (They just didn’t want to come in.) Pan-Islamism therefore could be the remedy the doctor had ordered. And if the Kurds refuse to join in, all the better. Their refusal should give the ideology the elan it’d need by imbuing it with yet another sense of purpose: reclaiming the north.

The harmful idiots are building a puppet state which tools of enforcement are mostly under the idiots’ control. When all’s said and done, the harmful idiots and their Iraqi ancillary forces are nothing more than another militia, since they can’t pretend to have any legitimacy, United Nations or no United Nations. Never forget: to the Street, they’re Israel’s allies. A no no. A potent weapon of mobilization of the Street. Ask Iranian President Ahmadi-Nejad, who's perfeted the art of that mobilization. (A recent speech was nothing short of masterful in the way it linked issues dear to the Street.) When the harmful idiots should have exhausted our troops and their capabilities, drained them and their machinery, they should start pulling out. At the first sign of a pull-out the young revolutionaries–Sadrists and ISI-sts (Islamic State in Iraq) and others–should go at it. Seemingly never-ending wars should erupt, but ones that eventually should end with an Islamic state, pan-Islamic, not beholden to sect.


PRINCES AND SHEIKS, OIL-'N-GAS

The rulers of the Gulf oil-'n-gas protectorates know this. They know that once the harmful idiots order the withdrawal of the troops, Iraq would turn pan-Islamic, sooner-or-later. They need U.S. troops in Iraq as their mercenaries--the armed preservers of their privileges. Should oil money not be as bountiful as it is currently, their own people could very well respond with open arms to the pan-Islamic state in Iraq. What with the high birth rate in these Gulf countries, a generation of young ones should be looking to Iraq for inspiration.

The rulers of these countries are worry-free. They own a virtual financial empire overseas. Think kings, princes, and shieks with tens of billions of dollars each in globally-invested wealth. Oil-'n-gas has made them sinfully rich, without having to do any real work for it. So, in essence, they can buy up any country and settle there. They can also buy up the assured presence of U.S. troops in Iraq.

But the harmful idiots will want the oil-'n-gas leaders to stick around. These rulers are the harmful idiots’ contacts. The harmful idiots can’t seem to know how to open up to the revolutionary generations, saddled as they are by their strategic alliance to a reactionary and colonial Israel and by a domestic right wing militaristic establishment which remains powerful, even after defeat. (Think jobs.) The harmful idiots only know how to kill the young revolutionaries and their dreams. They don’t know how to open up to them. Goes against the grain.

IDEOLOGY: HOW IMPORTANT?

Staying in Iraq fires up the revolution. And it hardly provides an alternative ideology to nationalism. What ideology it provides is all about security. And that can be pierced relatively easily by suicide bombings, IEDs, EFPs, bombings of religious symbols, assassinations, torture and killing of opponents and innocents. Pan-Islamism, in contrast, offers the promise of unity and nationalistic pride. Pan-Arabism, a possible competitor to pan-Islamism, is dead. The harmful idiots, the Israelis, the Saudis, and the kiss-ass Uncle Toms of Egypt and Jordan had coalesced against it and murdered it.

Currently, the chief candidate to push along a pan-Arab ideology is Saudi Arabia, if only because it has the resources and its people speak Arabic. (Huh?) Yemen could do it, but it lacks the resources. But Saudi Arabia is a lost cause. Its Arab nationalist King is old. And his planned successor, Prince (Bank) Sultan...Well, there’s no money in pan-Arabism. And no lucrative contracts.

Besides, pan-Arabism threatens Israel. And anything that threatens the apple of America’s eye, even remotely and quite theoretically, is not to be tried by any Arab protectorate, including the Saudi. Don’t you ever forget that the harmful idiots can unleash campaign afer campaign to reveal the corruption of the princes should these ride the pan-Arab nationalist bus. These campaigns would suffocate the princes, not so much at home, but in any country that matters, where the princes might want to travel and settle. So, in essence, the harmful idiots have those princes by the balls.

To sum up: forget pan-Arabism albeit it being the most effective ideology to neutralize pan-Islamism.

(Part II to follow. May be)

CAN HAMAS AFFORD TO STOP?

third ruf draft


Hamas may have to carry the confrontation with Fatah to the West Bank. It'll wait to see whether Fatah would come through on sharing cargo. Fatah may not to want to share. After all, cargo is all it has left.

(Update: The Dahlan elements within Fatah have sold out to the harmful idiots. They've turned Fatah security forces into Elliot Abrams' Palestinian Contras. Let's hope Fatah has people within it who know that the harmful idiots have seen to this country's defeat and have tired us out financially. That it's unlikely that a new administration would continue the course set by the harmful idiots, especially if Iraq continues to bleed us financially.)

Hamas, though less able on the West Bank than in Gaza, may not have a choice but to seek confrontation in that part of Palestine. Why?

The Israelis should tighten the noose around Gaza, to help Fatah. That should make matters even worse for Gaza's population. These might blame Hamas for their destitution. Hitting this wall after its victory in Gaza, Hamas should carry the confrontation into the West Bank to confuse the issue as to who's responsible for the destitution of the Palestinians. Without military confrontation, the Palestininan public--both on the West Bank and in Gaza--might re-discover the cargo-getting Fatah, now that the Israelis have awakened to the need to favor one Palestinian generation , albeit (possibly) too late. With military confrontation, the public is liable to blame both Fatah and Hamas for its misfortune--not only Hamas.

Hamas might get lucky. The Israelis on the West Bank might join the fight alongside Fatah. This should turn the battle from intra-Palestinian to Palestinian nationalists against Israelis, traitors, and collaborators--the Palestinian Contras. Hamas might hasten the Israelis' intervention on behalf of Fatah by attacking them. It could do it from Gaza and have the Israelis retaliate. Pictures of dead children should go a long way in neutralizing Fatah's cargo advantage.

Or, better yet: Hamas could dispatch children on the West Bank to throw stones at the Israelis. These are easy to find since they're all over that part of Palestine, assuring protection for their colonial settlements and the humilation of the Palestinians. The Israelis would kill some of these children. A new Intifadha. And Abbas will look like the Contra Uncle Tom he and Dahlan ache to be.

THE AMAZING COVERAGE BY AL MANAR--AND SECURITY ALERT

thirtyfisrtrughdrapht–

written soon after a moderate volume of red wine, with dinner, and a supremely hectic all-American day–and a $50 ticket for failure to exhibit a NewCarInspectionSticker which DMV never had given me upon registering the stupid thing. Avoid at all cost Georgetown’s DMV. It’s hell incarnate. In contrast, the inspection station was nearly empty at around 3:15 PM. But it needed better instructions. Do I stand in the queue at the cash register? Don't I?

To access the Arab press and other useful sources, I go to al-bab.com.



Al Manar online, the Hezbollah Palestinian/Lebanese publication (Arabic), provides terrific predictive coverage In part, this is likely due to its knowledge of what Hezbollah’s allies are up to.

In part, al Manar has a keen ability to understand the mind of the harmful idiots and their stragtegy (I'm laughing) . In contrast, the harmful idiots--the stalwarts of the American right wing ( the Jewish right, the Christian right, and the Jewish right’s adoring and applauding liberals.) only know how to create misery and orphan little ones ("harmful") and understand...nothing; they're idiots!

SECURITY ALERT:

Al Manar carries "articles" which are no more than threats to regional countries or messages to allied operatives.



I went back one month. Here’s what al Manar had said:

--On or about May 13, 2007, al Manar reported that Hamas had been putting out feelers to the U.S. to check out the latter’s willingness to lift the embargo on the Palestinians.


--On or about May 15, 2007, al Manar wrote that, due to Hamas’s failure to break the American-Israeli sanctions, it had now set its mind on seeking the total destruction of the Palestinian Authority (PA). And, if need be, to sign an Oslo II ,without the involvement of Fatah.

--On or about May 17, 2007, al Manar wrote that Israel would be launching a vicious assassination campaign against leaders of Hamas and other Islamist leaders. I read between its lines that the goal of the planned assassination campaign was to help Fatah against Hamas. One day later, Israel bombed the headquarters of the Executive Force, a Hamas outfit.

HOW IT CAME TOGETHER

The result, as elaborated by this newsletter on May 16, 2007:

"Hamas re-took the initiative. It set off fighting with Fatah and launched rockets into Israel. Hamas wasn’t about to capitulate to an embargo: intra-fighting confuses the issues so as to lift the blame of starvation off the shoulders of Hamas leaders. Without the fighting [these] almost certainly would’ve been blamed for the stop in cargo delivery--the starvation of the Palestinians. With the fighting , Fatah ends up sharing a part of the blame."

HOW OT GOVERN: THE SAUDI PROTOTYPE.

For a thorough coverage of the BAE Systems' alleged estimated $ 2 bn bribery payments to Bandar bin Sultan, Prince, National Security Adviser, son of the Crown Prince (the future King), and former long-time Ambassador to the United States, google "The Guardian Unlimited." Use that newspaper's search engine to access its excellent coverage of the affair. To do so, type in "BAE files."

SAUDI ARABIA TO SYRIA: SCREW YOU SHIA ALAWITES!

easeir to raed tihrd adn rlucantt ruhg draaatf–
tabloid enough for you?

GOOD EYE (FROM BASEBALL--I don't have it.)

It would take a "good eye" to spot the gloating by Khaled al-Gosaibi, Saudi Arabia’s Minister of Economy and Planning, about the approval by the United Nations security council of the international tribunal to investigate the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister and Proxy-in-Chief in Lebanon of Saudi Arabia’s ruling family, the late Rafiq al-Hariri.

It seems that Saudi Arabia has managed to buy off Russia’s vote at the security council. Russia abstained, and its non-use of its veto has resulted in the establishment of a tribunal that should target no less than senior officials of the Syrian government–close allies of Russia.

It could be that Russia refrained from using its right to veto the resolution establishing the tribunal as a last straw to appeal to the U.S. The quid pro quo would be for the Bush Administration to refrain from setting up a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe. Still, it’s odd that Russia would use that particular venue, and no other, to appeal to the United States. Hence the likelihood that the Saudis had paid off the Russians–something eminently predicted by this newsletter.

(FLASHBACK:

Please refer to January 30 post, "The Bush Administration Uses Saudi Money to Pay Off the Russians." My mis-analysis then was about not appreciating the inching away by the now very wealthy Saudis in their foreign policy from the harmful idiots. I’ve caught on to that increasing independence in the April 30 post, "The harmful Idiots Unleash Jordan’s Prince Hasan Against the Saudis–a Correction."

In Lebanon, the tribunal was a place where the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and France found common interest. The harmful idiots meant to squeeze Syria to force its cooperation in Iraq; the Saudis meant to protect their tens of billions of dollars in loans and interest payments in Lebanon, including the public money that went straight into the pockets of their Proxy-in-Chief, the Hariri family; the French meant it to please Mr. Chirac, a beneficiary, it seems, of the Hariris and the Saudis.

And Lebanon was their field of violent dreams--all to avoid dealing with the real isssue. Dare I say what it is?)

A COUCHED MESSAGE TO SYRIA

Mr. Al-Gosaibi, speaking after a Saudi cabinet meeting on or about June 3/4, 2007, recited twenty zillion niceties about brotherhood and this and that. And then, couched in all this affected and empty talk, was the surprise. His hope, he said, was that UNSC Resolution 1757 (the tribunal) would put an end to the assassinations in Lebanon.

You could read this and not see anything in it. The Lebanese daily, As-Safir (Arab nationalist/left/Shia ) is VERY careful about criticizing Saudi Arabia–it just doesn’t do it. As-Safir in its online edition published al-Gosaibi’s announcement in the form of a seemingly innocuous but visible headline on its front page. The headline wasn’t specific. It was about the Saudi cabinet meeting and announcement, without deciphering that announcement to us. It may have missed its importance; but I doubt it. I’ve interpreted for Talal Salman, As-Safir's editor-in-chief, in the past. He is as shrewd a politico as Abdel Bari Atwan, the editor-in-chief of al-Quds al-Arabi. In addition, both are businessmen who seem to know how to keep their newspapers well oiled. Get it?

Did as-Safir place the Saudi cabinet announcement on the front page because, as with most Arab newspapers, it’s getting a slice of Saudi Arabia’s $200 billion yearly income? Or did it do it to have some readers note the animosity between Saudi Arabia and Syria?

I believe it’s the latter. I think that al-Gosaibi was gloating, and Talal Salman saw it but wasn’t about deciphering it for concern about repercussions--to the welfare of his newspaper? Mr. Al-Gosaibi was telling Syria that Saudi Arabia has stolen Russia away from it, and that any more assassinations in Lebanon would only expand the agenda of the tribunal, with little effort and possibly without need for a new vote–and the concomitant risk of a Russian veto. That the establishment of the tribunal should chill Syria and stop it from sponsoring assassinations of the well-oiled proxies of Saudi Arabia in poor, non-oiled, and interest-paying Lebanon.

"We robbed you of Russia, and we will bring you down, you bunch of f------Shia Alawites," seems to be what Mr. Al-Gosaibi really wanted to say.

CAREFUL: A MINEFIELD

Careful what you wish for, Mr. Al-Gosaibi! You could end up with a radical government in Syria , all-Sunni, all al Qaeda, and therefore way more appealing in the land of the Haramain al-Sharifayn. The harmful idiots have destabilized the region dangerously enough and have created thousands upon thousands of orphans. Enough destabilization.

Careful, too. For explosions in Lebanon are relatively easy to synchronize.

Careful: for Syria can develop a system to streamline Lebanese transit commerce via its border with Lebanon. (Closing off the border's entry points would threaten the popularity of Syria's own proxies and those of Iran in Lebanon. But streamlining the cross-border commerce, crucial for the survival of many in Lebanon, to favor pro-Syrian Lebanese, could strengthen Syria's hand in Lebanese domestic politics.)

Careful, too, in using your humongous amounts of oil money, for it’s relatively easy to finance Saudi Shia opposition, mostly overseas, of course. With the increasingly independent course Saudi foreign policy is taking–buddy-ing up to Russia and splitting away from the U.S.–some of the financing of this opposition might come from the harmful idiots. A means of subduing the Saudi body politic--FULLY--to play an active role in the confrontation with Iran.

Careful.

LILY PADS MEET IRAQI POLITICAL DYNAMICS

second rufff drapht

LILY PADS BLOSSOM IN THE HARMFUL IDIOTS’ OASIS

Recently, Sec. of Defense Robert Gates and Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno spoke about keeping U.S. troops in Iraq for the long haul, a la South Korea. It could be that both were pre-negotiating with Russian President Putin, before he meets with our fearless leader. It could be that they were sincere. On the off-chance that it’s the latter, it should be said that announcements about staying in Iraq are nothing new. They’re a version of the old policy of "lily pads."

The image of "lily pads" is quite telling. It recalls those platforms, the floating leaves of water lilies, which nature programs have shown us endless times. We’ve seen light-weight small animals (e.g., frogs) lie in wait on these platforms, to gather the sun’s heat or to hunt. But an elephant? I’ve never seen one use a like platform, lest she sinks in muddy waters, and be devoured by crocodiles. Where then did this image come from? The answer: likely from yet another harmful idiot, a Pentagon consultant from a place such as Rand. He likely had meant it to clear up his mind, in lieu of Ritalin, and to explain a policy, using his very own standard of the lowest-common-denominator-among-harmful-idiots.

Illusions and wishful thinking, forever...

Soon after the greatest victory over Iraq's well-equipped massive armies, we had learned that the U.S. had begun construction on four bases, isolated and self-sufficient islands in a sea of chaos. The less romantic name for these, the more harmful idiot-ish, one likely right out of a Pentagon manual: Contingency Operating Bases (COBs). We had learned that, along with these four large oasis of absurdity, ten others were being planned, called Enduring Bases (EBs).

We also learned from this newsletter (perhaps other places had reached the same conclusion, I don’t know) that one reason (only one) why the Iraqi resistance, mostly Sunni, had waged a bloody sectarian war was to disallow U.S. troops from withdrawing to these islands of serenity–to force them to stay among the conquered. Not only would the U.S. need to put a stop to the mass murder of civilians, to show success, but it would have to do it with a limited number of troops, surge or no surge. Most importantly, staying among the conquered keeps the cost of occupation high. Concomitantly, domestic pressure to withdraw would remain equally intense.

In other words, the harmful idiots would like to establish the lily pads, and move the troops into these, while using the surplus troops (the surge) and their Iraqi ancillary forces to subdue the country. But it’s not to be. The sectarian war in response should continue on, more as wars (Sunni v. Sunni, Shia v. Shia, Sunni v. Shia, Shia v. Sunni, Arab Shia v. Kurds, Kurds v. Arab Sunni, and so on.) These wars would be the means, at times conscious at times accidental, for placing hurdles in the way of the lily pads’ strategy–or the South Korea one. These wars, moreover, should keep the occupier worried about the fate of its collaborators--those manning the puppet government--further preventing it from seeking refuge in those lily pads.

Worse of all, the occupier's very strategy at times empties into that of the resistance. Consider, for instance, the policy by the harmful idiots to mobilize Sunni tribes, clans, and some members of the resistance ( e.g., the Islamic Army of Iraq) to contain the more revolutionary members of the Islamic State of Iraq (the sanctions’ generation) in the end empties into the pointed strategy of the anti-American resistance to keep the troops occupied away from their cherished lily pads. Get it?

IRAQI POLITICAL DYNAMICS

Along with one version or another of the lily pads strategy, the harmful idiots are seeking a new coalition of Iraqi political forces. They 're begging for the chance to stay on top of the oil fields, to consolidate Empire’s power, without having to raise taxes and (God forbid) strengthen the federal government.

The harmful idiots must’ve sent assurances to Muqtadha as-Sadr that they will refrain from assassinating him. And the White House counseled him to engage positively in the political life of the country. He, as a result, left his place of hiding, softened up on the U.S., and re-opened his arms wide towards his fellow Sunni–the non-takfiri Iraqis. (Update: softening towards the U.S. has lasted one second and a half!)

He does what he does at his own political peril–and ours.

Why? His meteoric rise in Iraqi politics (predicted by this newsletter) was intimately connected not so much to his family name. Sadr's meteoric rise was intimately connected to his opposition to, and confrontation with, the occupier--Israel's strategic ally.

(Seriously: the harmful idiots should stop thinking in terms of family name, such as believing that their Jordanian Prince Hasan the Hashemite carries credence just because he’s said to be related to the Prophet. So many make that claim; right or wrong, it really doesn’t matter. (The author of the book One Year in Casablanca makes that claim.) These are not the 1950s. We’re in the middle of an Islamic Revolution, spurred on by the invasion of Iraq. Family background means zilch in a hot places such as Iraq–and now Lebanon.)

Accordingly: Sadr eases up on the Americans should only mean that he will be out-maneuvered by people on his left: A new and yet younger generation of Arab Shia leaders should emerge. Their prominence would be directly related to their willingness to confront Israel’s ally. Sadr and his Mahdi Army as a consequence should become the past.

To illustrate: consider what became of Fatah. Didn’t it turn into Uncle Toms, awaiting crumbs from the harmful idiots, the Kuwaitis, and the Saudis–and not-so-implicitly allied to Israel, as if only such alliance would keep it alive as an organization? Hamas, as a result, took over. Hamas, in turn, became statesman-like, and is being outmaneuvered by younger Islamists, having failed to break the American embargo and obtain cargo for the Palestinians. (There’s a possibility that Hamas is spinning off these. This newsletter had predicted the spin-offs; but it could be that these new organizations are a hybrid: part spin-offs, part independent.)

( Note: The harmful idiots in this instance should've adopted the Saudi-mediated Mecca Accord. This would've created a new dynamics that likely would've been more conducive to Israeli-Palestinian peace--assuming flexibility on the part of the Israelis and less colonialist policies--huge assumptions, indeed. Now we're looking at the possible take-over of the Palestinian Street by factions which are supremely more radical than Hamas. Congrats to the harmful idiots. )

Sadr should therefore become another Fatah, should he ease up on Israel’s ally.

But Sadr isn’t this newsletter’s concern. The troops are, and our future and our pocket book. Viewed from this enlightened (yes!) angle, the future without Sadr as the freedom fighter will be one where new Muqtadhas will emerge and make life hell for for the troops, lily pads or no lily pads. They will be financed by many who don’t want us in Iraq.

Get it?