# Posted 12:28 AM by Ariel David Adesnik  

MARINES TAKE HEAVY CASUALTIES: It is a sad day. Heavy fighting against Sunni insurgents in Ramadi has taken the lives of 12 Marines. Coalition forces are also taking casualties in the struggle against Moqtada Sadr's Shi'ite militia in Baghdad and southern Iraq.

Are these losses the unfortunate price of victory? Or are they an indicator that something has gone wrong on the battlefield? Honestly, I don't know. The Marines say that they have secured Fallujah, where four American civilians were killed and mutilated this past week. It seem to early to say whether the struggle against Sadr's militia is going well or not.

Reports place the strength of the Sadr militia at anywhere from 3,000 to 10,000. Whether those are trained fighters or simply hangers-on I have no idea. As such, it is hard to say how strongly motivated Sadr forces are. Are they ideologically committed to establishing a Shi'ite theocracy? Or will they fall back when confronted with Coalition firepower and the condemnation of mainstream Shi'ites?

Speaking more broadly, does the recent outbreak of violence represent a serious threat to the stability of Iraq? As the NYT aptly put it,

One of the biggest questions at day's end was the role of most of the majority Shiites previously thought to be relatively sympathetic to American goals.

While Ayatollah Sistani has issued a decree urging Iraq's Shi'ites to remain calm, Moqtada Sadr is positioning himself rhetorically as a supporter of the Ayatollah. To that end, Sadr announced that "I proclaim my solidarity with Ali Sistani, and he should know that I am his military wing in Iraq." It is hard to know whether Sadr actually expects to win the Ayatollah over to his cause or whether he simply wants to draw as many mainstream Shi'ites as possible into his fold.

Another emerging question is the degree to which Shi'ite and Sunni radicals may unite against occupation forces. In one Sunni neighborhood in Baghdad, residents marched alongside the Shi'ite followers of Moqtada Sadr:

"What Moqtada Sadr did simply woke up the people," said Sarmad Akram, 36, who owns the small food shop next door. "Now the people have the guts to resist."

The exchange, in a middle-class Sunni quarter, was one scene Tuesday that appeared to challenge the assessment by U.S. military officials that Sadr speaks for only a radical fringe in Iraq and that his calls for mass resistance will resonate only with his followers.

Well, I hope not. And I expect not. Every sign until now has pointed to a broad Shi'ite preference for Ayatollah Sistani's strategy of taking control of Iraq through democratic means. The current uprising may provide a chance for a significant number of Shi'ites to vent their frustration, but unless mainstream leaders throw their support behind it, I don't see how it can gain momentum. On the other hand, those who know Iraq far better than I do are concerned. According to John Burns,

In effect, the militia attacks confronted the American military command with what has been its worst nightmare as it has struggled to pacify Iraq: the spread of an insurgency that has stretched a force of 130,000 American troops from the minority Sunni population to the majority Shiites, who are believed to account for about 60 percent of Iraq's population of 25 million.

Privately, senior American officers have said for months that American prospects here would plummet if the insurgency spread into the Shiite population, leaving American and allied troops with no safe havens anywhere except possibly in the Kurdish areas of the north.

Incidentally, Burns was briefly taken prisonerby Shi'ite radicals earlier today. In contrast to Burns, the editors of the WaPo have chosen to see the silver lining behind the hovering clouds:

For months it has been evident that it will be impossible to stabilize Iraq under a transitional government, much less stage the democratic elections planned for next year, unless factional militias are disarmed and disbanded. Mr. Sadr's Mahdi Army is the most dangerous among them. For weeks there has been a debate inside the occupation administration about whether and how to confront Mr. Sadr; by ordering attacks on coalition troops Sunday, the cleric may have ensured that a painful but necessary battle will go forward...

But now that the conflict with the Mahdi Army has begun, U.S. commanders should not hesitate to act quickly and with overwhelming force.

I tend to agree. There is nothing to be gained by cooperating with anti-democratic extremists. The faster that the United States crushes them -- while minimizing civilian casualties -- the faster it will demonstrate that there is no alternative to the interim constitution and the coming elections. In theory, one might call upon the United Nations to help resolve the current conflict. Yet at the moment, even its fiercest partisans have begun to admit that the UN's credibility has been severely damaged by the Oil-for-Food scandal and the incompetence of the first UN mission to Iraq in providing for its own members' security.

So here we are between a rock and a hard place. I've got my fingers crossed. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion