Morrissey,

Maliki a puppet? Really? Tell that to the millions of Iraqis who put him in power in a democratic election!

ME, Boulder, CO

I think many of you forgot that Iraq does not belong to America, Britain, EU or any other foreign entity. So butt out. America and UK are illegally occupying Iraq. Sadr is as legitimate as the puppet Maliki.

Morrissey, Philadelphia,

If the U.S. government was wise, it would call for a cease fire among all parties and negotiate a peace settlement. It would then withdraw its military, taking with it those Iraqi supporters whose lives would otherwise be in grave danger.

If the al-Sadr cease fire is forced to end, a great opportunity for peace will have been lost, as will many lives.

Dick Kazan, Redondo Beach, California / USA

If negotiating with Al Sadr's forces is to negotiate with terrorists, then I ask, what is to negotiate with American and British forces whose only job in Iraq has been to bring death and suffering to the Iraqis? Yes, what the Americans and British do in Iraq and Afghanistan is terrorism or more specifically state terrorism, thai is, when they kill, they do it wholesale. Islam is violence? Perhaps, but what has Christianity offered. Probably 10 times more violence. Is the West peace loving? Maybe for the fools who believe all their media feeds them. In fact the west has been the most blood-thirsty civilization on earth;

Jaime Galarza, Lima, Peru

Hiring 90 street sweepers in order to win support in a slum of 2.5 million is silly in the extreme.

It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

Maybe Obama, with his first hand knowledge of patronage jobs in Chicago, could lend a few keys words of advice here.

Like, it might take a little more effort than that to actually win.

gary, austin, USA/Texas

While peace is not an appealing option in dealing with the militias, it is the only one the US and UK forces can really choose. Al Sadr's forces are not legitimate, he is not a government agent, and his militia is not an Army in the real sense of the word. To cooperate and negotiate treaties with them is to essentially negotiate and cooperate with a terrorist organisation, which is, of course, not the western way.

Damien Turner, Dorchester, England

Al Sadr ought to listen to the EU or the British government - they keep explaining to anyone who will listen that there is no connection between islam and violence. Or, perhaps it is the other way around - time the EU listened to Al Sadr (and also Al-Zawahri, Abu Izzadeen while they are at it...).

Nick, Rotherham, UK

The more one reads about this, the more one thinks what a nasty business it is and that the Iraqi and US forces shd not lay seige to Sadr City (2.5 million), a poor slum area of Baghdad, & its Mahdi Army defenders. Hundreds of civilians have already been killed & thousands injured. Al Sadr's org. provides a massive nationwide network of charitable aid for the poor. I've written a lengthy comment recently (Comment Central),so will not repeat here. If it is true that al Sadr's faction has threatened to kill family members of Iraqi forces who attack Sadr City, that is terrible and wd nullify moral claims. However, it is not easy to decipher the truth without first hand verification. Many have defected & joined al Sadr's army. The US should not allow a repeat what happened in India when, after laying down their arms, the Sikhs were all martyred for wanting their own religion and territory. Al Sadr's religious faction's Mahdi Army is obvsly willing to die in battle. Don't
let that happen.

Joan Moira Peters, Whangarei (UK Citizen , temp. o/seas)

The civil war continues and will continue. This should all have been foreseen. The trouble is that America is the most powerful nation in the World but it does not have the political maturity to lead it.

A B Robertson, Dunoon, Scotland

So, last summer he called a truce which worked. Two weeks ago his soldiers were in the streets chanting 'If you do not attack us we will not attack you'. And last week our (coalition) forces tried to squash them. I wonder, dialogue and neutral treaties of peace or force, hmm, which one is better.

Farrukh, Woking, UK

Al Sadr is finished. Ayatola Sistani and his Badr Brigades, the only real Shiite resistance to Maliki, have switched sides. Even Iran is hedging its bets on Sadr now, claiming to support Maliki in getting rid of such miscreants.

Of course, the very presence of Al Sadr's forces in Basra and to a much lesser extent Sadr City is owing to a failure in American policy. That failure is, of course, listening to the British instead of getting rid of Sadr four years ago. The "no challenge, no fight" hudna that's kept Sadr around ever since Fallujah went out the window once Britain pulled out of Basra, and none too soon.

It seems that the American solution of "smoke 'em out, then smoke 'em" is what needed to be done with Al Sadr all along.

It will be interesting to see how long the media can keep the "quagmire" story in Iraq going now that the only real resistance amounts to a couple suicide bombings per week. Not much worse than Pakistan, after all, is it?

John, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

Bless our soldiers, but Iraqiies that co-operate with the US attempt to continue domination of life and politics in the mid-east are seen as conspiraring with the enemy.
We put the shah of Iran in power. We gave Saddam his first biological weapons, and helped him attack Itran.
The Shiite's about to hit the fan...
Let's get energy independent, seal our borders, and bring the troops home...

Peter, Twin Falls, Idaho