I think the author exaggerates the extent of Sadr's support. Taking five 'strong-holds' of al-Sadr, we find the following results in the provincial elections (based on most recent results, not final ones):

Maysan province: 15.2 percent (placing his support second)

Baghdad (which includes Sadr City): 9 percent (again, second place)

Basrah: 5 percent (fourth place)

Najaf: 12.2 percent (third place)

Karbala: 6.8 percent (fourth place)

This is not really "signficant support" for someone who claimed to represent the aspirations of the Iraqi people for "national liberation" and who was shamelessly supported by the pseudo-left world-wide

Certainly would not call Iraq democratic while there are US troops still there.

It seems too much of the American Way being cunningly used as the only Way to me?

As a political science historian, reckon I must still stay dead centre, as I do concerning an over-powerful little Israel against a so-called evil Iran.

Now about US companies and precious Iraqi oil, which concerns any historian about the Green Zone which is certainly sure to harbour oil reps, or rather Saudis playing double dice, both in oil and politics.

And while I only pray that Obama also plays democratically dead-centre, unfortunately owing to the proven historical American Way, I certainly would not take a bet on it.

Cheers, BB, WA.

Without wishing to be engaged in this discussion right now, I think it needs to be informed by some of the issues discussed on the forum "Bush's democracy of hypocrisy" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8288&page=0#131614

In this forum evidence of British and US sponsoring of terrorism in Iraq is discussed. This includes the incident in September 2005, when British SAS men were caught red-handed, dressed as Arabs, driving a car loaded with explosives towards a religious festival.

Thus, contrary to what we were led to believe, sectarian Sunnis and Shiites were not to blame for much of the violence of recent years.

How this relates to the recent provincial elections we have been told are successful, I cannot yet say.

See also:

"State-Sponsored Terror: British and American Black Ops in Iraq" at http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9447

"British Terrorism in Iraq" at http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1024

The discussion of evidence of complicity of the Bush administration in the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=76 is also related to this issue.

As we all know, whether or not we accept the official US explanation, 9/11 was used disingenuously as a pretext to invade Iraq.

Not only are the elections a win for Maliki and the US they are also a win for the the Arab world, Iraqi people, George W. Bush and the neocons.

Seems every small minded leftie and conspiracy theorist ought to give credit where it's due. But the democracy-deniers will find that much to hard to swallow for first they have to admit they were wrong to not support the war and then the surge.

That logically means they would prefer the regime of Saddam to a democracy. They all cried George and the neocons couldn't implant democracy in Iraq and it was wrong to think attacking the terrorist heartlands would result in a subsidence of terror in the region or worldwide. If you kiddies think the heartland of Islamic terror wasn't headed by Saddam you've totally missed the point of Saddam's rise. Hark back a few years and you'd find the 'supposed leader' of Islamic terror was Gadafhi. The point is in the Arab world the 'big man' syndrome takes an active role in guiding much of the dissent and that is something all you Bush haters have never recognised. Saddam while not playing host to al quaeda was the 'big man' leader, so attacking him and changing the Iraqi regime to one of democracy effectively turned the terror merchants and their support on their heads in their heartland.

If Obama isn't too much of a weakling terror in the mid east might very quickly become a thing of the past as the Arab worlds' regimes adopt democracy as an alternative to their current dictatorial and repressive methods of controlling Islamic terror.

Good ole George was right.

The author is part of a US "Institute" that pushes US business interests. This is a call to extend the latest profitable jaunt in the middle east.

Thanks daggett. You have hit the nail on the head.

Media reports on Iraq have made out the situation as "bad guys cannot even run their own country. Needs US, England, and other civilised countries to rid them of evil and put country on it's feet. No this has nothing to do with oil." They even spout this line with a straight face!
(The evidence against this story is overwhelming: No WMDs, no 911 link. While they were accusing Saddam of WMDs the US found 30,000 liters of undocumented VX nerve gas in US bases. The US is *by far* the leader in illegal WMDs, not to mention hypocrisy!)

If we had a real media we would know that the situation is more like "western countries lie, kill, destroy their way into a phony war as an excuse to takeover oilfields and cleanup some unfinished regional terrorism."

Despite the constant stream of information confirming the falseness of the official line the media continues to plug it. I guess they are working on the theory that continual denial will exhaust all argument and people will move on. What is actually happening is that the Media is losing it's credibility.

Er, Keith...Look at some history mate.
It was the US and Britain that setup the current dictatorships and supported the dictators that put US interests before their own communities. Hardly democratic.
Remember the Iran-Iraq war? Guess who *made* Saddam who he was: Yep, his US backers, the same ones that gave him chemical weapons and offered him his coast back in reward for being America's pit bull. (He was a fool to trust the Neo-cons on that one!)
The US and England set up borders in what used to be the Ottoman Empire for strategic reasons. Divide and conquer was the main driving force for the borders we see today, with only powerful groups allowed to have any integrity (coz they fought for it). Groups such as the Kurds have very real objections to the way that the US has done things.
These is no conspiracy theory there...just history that the media conveniently leaves out of the picture.
The playschool version of events portrayed in the media has fallen apart. Even the military analysts are now admitting that constant warfare with civilians is not a good strategy.

So you'd prefer Saddam's rule, Ozlandy?

The reversal of fortune from a lost cause to a victorious one due to the Surge is a great victory for the U.S. and credit must be given where credit is due, to the determination of Bush to implement Petraeus' strategy.

It would be utter foolishnes if President Obama jeopardized and squandered this strategic victory over the insurgents by withdrawing combat troops from Iraq before the country brought these victorious fruits to the 'market' of democracy.

http://civcontraislam.typepad.com

Certainly the Washington Post was spot on when it proved how the Surge was Bush manipulated when lo and behold as pro-American Shias were about to arrest some known insurgent Sunnis, a US copter swooped in and arrested the friendly Shias.

As shown in Friday's West Australian, it shows how the Sunni Sheiks who had made the Surge Awakening deal with American generals are now proving less friendly, as shown below.

" IN this cradle of former Sunni insurgency, these tribal leaders nurtured and given power by the US only back a year or so ago, appear to want to take control again the old-fashiond way with guns and money - if their political ambitions promised by the Americans in the coming elections are frustrated."

Tried to get onto a West' journalist over the above, but as during the Howard era, it seems mature-age political historians are bad news for the paper.

Saddam was indeed an agent of US and British interests when they actively sponsored his rise to power and kept him their while he served their purposes.

However, like all despots who have been in power too long, he began to see himself as "bulletproof" and could act independently of his masters.
Noriega, Pinochet and the Shah of Iran were all ultimately removed or support was withdrawn, but Gadaffi seems to have bought some extra time.

The reason that Bush senior didn't get rid of him after Desert Storm was because he wanted Saddam removed by a military coup, not a popular uprising and the US actually helped the Republican Guard put down the civilian rebellions that followed.

Now they have a new croney in power and it will be interesting to see how much real independence he will be allowed to have.

Good on you Wobbles, not that the lying spin bastard's'll take much notice, even though we've really got proof on our side.

Read more -

As a trained political historian in a modern democracy might ask what is the correct way to analyse today’s political problems, particularly in the Middle East.

There is little doubt that today’s Middle East conflict is nothing like the major cause of both WW1 and WW2, both huge castrophies which rather disgustingly began mainly between two Western nations, Germany and France, finally both bringing in the rest of Europe and Russia, as well as the United states.

Speaking philosophically, today’s conflict, because it is so religious, is much more worrying because it is so lopsided, Western Christianity being gigantic in military capacity, while Islam, comprising the major anti-white Western forces , though huge in people power, is so pitifully low in regular armanents it has to resort to terroism.

The point is how does a trained historian go about this problem, which in some ways resembles my personal problem when I wrote a series on Westralian history called A Land in Need, in which some readers later told me I had been too sympathetic with the murderous Aborigines who in the early days attacked white settlers homes and viilages which were not protected by the military.

To close on Iran, which so many of our OLO’s fully agree with the Bush terminology of Iran as an evil state, while personally I turn to the story two years ago about the Iranian female judge who angrily replied to a suggestion how Iran would be much better learning the American Way to true democracy, to which she hotly replied -

Yes, it is true that we could do with democracy, but certainly not fashioned on the American Way.

Certainly any democratic Aussie political historian should be allowed these days to think the same.

Regards, BB, Buntine, WA.