Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
If someone had told you that thethe US would lose control of key cities in Iraq for a week, conclude a truce with gunmen and lose 80 casualties in 7 days, a year after the war started you probably wouldn't have believed that either.....
Conclude a truce? There is no truce. There is a temporary cease fire, for humanitarian reasons, and at the behest of several Shiite clerics to allow them to attempt to negotiate with al-Sadr. There is no permanent truce at all, and nothing concluded.
Oh, and al-Sadr is the one now attempting to broker a deal to prevent the destruction of himself and his illegal militia. He knows he is now in an untenable position because he was not able to create a popular uprising, despite help from Iranian mullahs and backing from several notorious Islamic terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbolah, who he as aligned himself with. His illfated attempt has resulted in utter failure, and he's now doing his best to save his sorry hide.
No, you are wrong, it is not the coalition that is seeking a truce to save themselves, it is al-Sadr. His fellow Shiite clerics are attempting to get him to turn himself in, not at all what he desired or expected. He is wanted for the murder of another Shiite cleric. The penalty for which is death. I don't see a good ending for him in this. And as was the case with Saddam, the coalition is NOT going to wait for him and his militia forever, they will surrender soon or they will perish.
