Charleton Heston and the NRA should be all over this one.

These guys were guarding their property, a mosque, and not bothering anyone when these troops show up and order them to abandon their posts.

Where's the right to bear arms, especially to protect yourself and your property?

I had thought that al-Hawzah translates something like religious seminary (though the social role is more like the Tibetam monestaries.) So, referring to "al-Hawzah" is confusing if there are different Hawzah involved. As I understood it, different high-revered clerics have their own "hawzah" (and associated Mosques, etc...)

Am I making this up, I don't remember where I read this and am certainly no expert...

Not quite clear on this: you say "[Anti-coalition rhetoric] may be part of their response to the political challenge posed by Sadr's movement." and then, "Sadr and his gunmen had seemed to be doing a pretty good job of driving them closer to the Coalition." -- But from your first quote, it seems like Sadre was driving them further from the coalition. Am I missing something?

Come on Billmon, conquerors don't have to apologize and victors don't have to say they are sorry. The military mind is one of the elements of the quagmire; neocon stupidity and intransigence are others. I am sure commentators on this blog will find others.

We've reached another grim milestone, folks, as the recent deaths pushed the total of U.S. soldiers killed in combat since "Mission Accomplished" over the century mark. Something tells me it'll take a lot quicker for our combat deaths to top 200.

Nofundy--
I've wondered what the NRA's position is on gun ownership in other countries. Do they view it as a God-given universal right, or would they agree that countries can enforce gun laws in their own countries? If they say it's a universal right, then they can't have any argument with Iraqis running around with guns, and if they say gun laws are enforceable in other countries, then they're agreeing that gun rights can be legally modified according to law. Seems to me either way it backs them into a corner.

CapD you're using logic where none applies -- a frequent problem when dealing with the right-wing.

While guns have legitimate uses, and there's room for regulated private ownership -- in fact plenty of other countries allow guns in private hands -- only in the US has gun-ownership evolved in a fetishitic syndrome -- and I'd argue that it is a relatively recent (mid-20th century) phenomenon.

Trying to use reason when talking to a NRA fanatic is like talking to Gollum about his precious.

Future shorter Kristol/Friedman/whoever:

"The massacre of hundreds of suspected Iraqi terrorists is a good thing, otherwise they'd be rampaging in the streets of Indianapolis"

"The recent armed uprising and chaos that has taken over all of Iraq's countryside except for Baghdad and Kurdish areas just shows how sucessful the Coalition of the w(b)illing is"

"The shooting down of the commercial airliner proves that we are winning the ..."

"The coordinated attacks on American..."

"The nuclear explosion detected in..."

Keep up the Shiite Storm coverage Billmon. I read about Muqtada al-Sadr here for the first time the other day, very innarestin'.

Glad I have to go to a site called Whiskey Bar to get some in-depth coverage of events in Iraq. Thank you American Media! /sarc

Cap D:

Here is a classic NRA quote from the past - Board Member Neal Knox, talking in the Wall Street Journal about solving the Somalia crisis by handing out Kalashnikovs to mothers: "If [they] had been armed, what do you think would have happened if some old boys in a Jeep with a .50-caliber machine gun had pulled over the truck that was bringing a little bit of food to some mother's starving baby? That mother would have blown away everybody on that truck, and that would have been that. THAT is an armed people."

So, if this Shiite Storm keeps up, how much longer until the Iraqi people start hoping for the return of Sunni skies?

Any armed struggle with Shiites is noteworthy at this point since these people are clearly not "Saddamistas". This is suppression of a legitimite Iraqi interest group that we deem to be undesirable.

Jeremy Osner wrote: Not quite clear on this: you say "[Anti-coalition rhetoric] may be part of their response to the political challenge posed by Sadr's movement." and then, "Sadr and his gunmen had seemed to be doing a pretty good job of driving them closer to the Coalition." -- But from your first quote, it seems like Sadre was driving them further from the coalition. Am I missing something?

Missing the importance of tense. Sadr's activities HAD been driving people Sistani's way. While that was going on, Sistani could sit pat and wait for new arrivals. But sonmewhere in the last couple of weeks, Sadr's overt opposition and take-charge ideas may have combined with general US stupidity to make his more aggressive stance attractive rather than repellent.

Sistani now needs to respond by upping his ante. Armed protection of a mosque, firefight with the invader, a few yankee scalps may be how he restores his cred.

Billmon, Kos and others have been talking for months about the dangers of these guys conming off the fence and the need to act intelligently to keep them there.

We'll know in the next week or so whether this is a real shift, another tipping point, but depending on American intelligence, both kinds, is a hiding to nothing. If that's all that stands between a shaky status quo and game on, buy shares in the body bag business.

Do you really buy this "Coalition" BS vs, well, just us?

The way the media picks up the government terminology is proof that we really have an "offical" media as in soft totalitarian regimes like Mexico or Egypt -- examples would included "Weapons of Mass Destruction" for what were, correctly called, "unconventional weapons." "Coalition" is another.

A few days ago, I caught the Bos Globe reporter on our WNYC talk show with Brian Lehrer referring to the wounded in Iraq as "injured." I fired off an email question he indeed asked her, about why "wounded," a term always previously used war, had been supplanted by the more neutral "injured." (I can only assume switch was done at govt press conferences). Her response was interesting, she said it's a great question, she's a writer and she didn't really know. That was it.

Language matters.

Well, I guess it's a coalition of the 50 states, plus the UK, Poland etc. Pretty big coalition, non?

Shiites are 60% of the country, and the major non-establishment (read: restive, even revolution-prone) part of it. Clearly, as they go, so goes the political stability of Iraq.

It sounds to me like they know it. The question therefore arises, will they arrive at a means to exercise their dominant position peacefully, or will they fragment -- or be fragmented? And in either case, will the US be seen as foe or bystander?

A Shia leader seeking to dominate his rivals could easily use the US occupation as a rallying point. It therefore is in the US' interest to keep the Shiites happy and united. They're gonna own the place; we should make nice.

Unfortunately, it is in the interests of those who seek to divide and conquer -- the Sunnis, probably the Turks, and maybe the Iranians -- to keep the various Shiite groups from uniting. When it comes to the Iraqi Sunnis, this isn't a problem; we're already busy killing each other. The Iranians are a question mark; we're slowly trying to thaw the relationship, and we're not sure what their intentions are. But as for the Turks, we just paid them 8 billion dollars to put 15,000 troops in Iraq!

And let's not forget, the Turks invaded and ruled Iraq for hundreds of years, they're known to be determinedly secular -- like the Baathists were -- and they're known to desire domination over northern Iraq.

In my humble opinion, the Shiite storm hasn't come close to hitting yet...

perhaps it's closer than we'd think... (*)

Now it remains to be seen if the US is stupid enough to try and take sides in a Shi'ite civil war/power struggle. I can just see the Bushies trying to pick a "pro-American" Shi'ite faction to back.

Good article, poop ruiz.

KERBALA, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. troops on Saturday sealed off roads around the office and house of an Iraqi Shi'ite Muslim cleric whose followers the U.S. military has blamed for starting a shootout which killed three American soldiers. Soldiers surrounded the buildings in Iraq's holy Shi'ite city of Kerbala used by local cleric Sayyid Mahmoud al-Hassani with armored vehicles and helicopters circled overhead...

They have the entire area sealed off, the tanks and armored vehicles in place and the helicopters circling. What they are missing is .... hark, is that the sound of the bulldozers coming!

(Oops, wrong country... or is this the New Deal)

Not quite clear on this: you say "[Anti-coalition rhetoric] may be part of their response to the political challenge posed by Sadr's movement." and then, "Sadr and his gunmen had seemed to be doing a pretty good job of driving them closer to the Coalition." -- But from your first quote, it seems like Sadre was driving them further from the coalition.

The situation obviously is a lot less clear than I had thought when I made that statement. But I was drawing a distinction (which I should have made clearer) between the political response of the al-Hawzah traditionalists and how they actually read the situation tactically or strategically.

Sadr's anti-American rhetoric and actions clearly have struck a chord with at least some sections of the Shi'a population, So I was speculating that perhaps the traditionalists have felt pressure to publicly distance themselves from the Coalition.

But to the extent that Sadr actually threatens the traditionalists with force (as when his men tried to take over the Mosque of Ali in Najaf) then I'm presuming that he drives drives them closer to the Coalition, if only covertly.

Not necessarily a contradiction, although I didn't make it too clear.

Do you really buy this "Coalition" BS vs, well, just us?

I sometimes use "Anglo-Americans" as a synonym. But, while the term "coalition" as used by the Bush Administration may be intended as a euphemism, it is nonetheless accurate. The USA, Britain, Spain and Poland (plus bit parts for Denmark, the Ukraine, the Czechs, the Japanese, the South Koreans and the central Americans) is a coalition, even if the Americans are paying for it and doing most of the fighting.

Coalition is also short for "Coalition Provisional Authority." I'd say CPA, but then everybody would think I'm talking about accountants.