Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
Personally, I don't think holding Sadr (or, for that matter, resisting Sistani's pressure) was ever a realistic option. Whatever his many sins, its just not feasible to promote democracy on the one hand while detaining a popular party leader in the country on the other. On the contrary, it would have just burnished his Iraqi nationalist/anti-occupation credentials.
...
My sense is that JAM has always been a largely urban phenomenon, and I suspect that urban base is solid enough that it won't be shrunk too much the (very important) developments outside Baghdad, Basra, etc.--especially given the extent to which the Shi'ite militias are seen by urban Shi'ites to have provided (post-Samarra) protection in the face of Sunni attacks. From afar it seems that among middle class Iraqi Shi'ites (many of whom once looked down upon Sadr's "unwashed masses" with disdain) there's a feeling that "he's a thug, but at least he's OUR thug."
Al Sadr reminds me most of Hitler in the 1920s. Hitler too used both the democratic path and militia. And just as Al Sadr has the image of the polician who not only talks but also takes care of protecting against the Sunnites Hitler had a similar image for actually doing something against the communists.

Al Sadr has been a murderer from the beginning of the American occupation and he has never stopped murdering. Just as Hitler he is prepared to play the democratic play but not to give up the violence that forms his ticket to power. If this man gets the chance he will become the new Saddam.

I think it is naive to believe that you can have a real democracy as long as people who commit political murders are unassailable.