The Actual Biggest News Of The Day

...is that the Iraqi Prime Minister is running the US military and protecting the very forces that engage in sectarian violence and kill US troops.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki flexed his political muscle Tuesday and won U.S. agreement to lift military blockades on Sadr City and another Shiite enclave where an American soldier was abducted.

U.S. forces, who had set up the checkpoints in Baghdad last week as part of an unsuccessful search for the soldier, drove away in Humvees and armored personnel carriers at the 5 p.m. deadline set by al-Maliki. Iraqi troops, who had manned the checkpoints with the Americans, loaded coils of razor wire and red traffic cones onto pickup trucks.

Their departure set off celebrations among civilians and armed men in Sadr City, the sprawling Shiite district controlled by the Mahdi Army militia loyal to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Small groups of men and children danced in circles chanting slogans praising and declaring victory for al-Sadr, whose political support is crucial to the prime minister's governing coalition.

The prime minister's challenge to U.S. conduct of the war was the latest in a series of acts designed to force the American hand and test Washington's readiness to give him a greater say in securing the world's most violent capital.

Who's controlling our soldiers in Iraq? Why the fuck are we there if we can't even attack the root of the problem?

Iraq is a mess because it's a mass of contradictions, and the military simply does not function well in a contradictory environment. In fact nobody does. Nothing is black-and-white over there and the fact that the supposed ally of a Prime Minister just earned a victory by stopping our forces from looking for our own kidnapped soldier is a testament to that. You can go on and on about a botched joke but this is the story of the day. Maliki somehow got the impression after getting elected by the Parliament to lead Iraq that he was allowed to use his own judgment in leading Iraq. We wanted a puppet, not an independent leader. And the puppet we got turned out to be more beholden to the Mahdi Army and Iran that us.

As soon as news broke that the security cordon was lifted, al-Sadr supporters declared it a victory for their leader.

"If they had not lifted the siege, our strike would have spread to the rest of Baghdad tomorrow and the whole of Iraq the next day," said Jalil Nouri, a senior al-Sadr aide.

In issuing the order to lift the blockade, the prime minister said U.S.-manned checkpoints should not be established in Baghdad except during curfew hours from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. He also said U.S. and Iraq forces would not give up on trying to calm the capital.

"Joint efforts continue to pursue terrorists and outlaws who expose the lives of citizens to killings, abductions and explosions," said the statement, issued in al-Maliki's name in his capacity both as prime minister and commander of the Iraqi armed forces.

And did you notice this buried lede, with points to ESCALATION? this points to escalation in the Iraqi securiy forces, not US troops. I misread. I thought we had hundreds of thousands of Iraqi troops ready and waiting by now, though.

Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday he was inclined to approve proposals by Casey and the Iraqi government to increase the size of the Iraqi security forces.

"I'm very comfortable with the increases they've proposed and the accelerations in achievement of some of their targets," Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon.

But Rumsfeld would not say how big of an increase in Iraqi security forces has been proposed. Two other defense officials said it was far fewer than 100,000, and one official suggested it might be about 30,000. Those officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

U.S. government approval is required for any plan to expand the size of the Iraqi forces because it could not be accomplished without additional U.S. funds and the provision of U.S. trainers and U.S.-acquired equipment.

Of course, to this Administration, government approval is as easy as a flick of the executive pen. Congress will not be consulted (especially if it's a Democratic Congress). They mean to increase forces at a time when more and more military leaders understand that a deadline for troop WITHDRAWALS is probably the way to go.

Growing numbers of American military officers have begun to privately question a key tenet of U.S. strategy in Iraq — that setting a hard deadline for troop reductions would strengthen the insurgency and undermine efforts to create a stable state.

The Iraqi government's refusal to take certain measures to reduce sectarian tensions between Sunni Arabs and the nation's Shiite Muslim majority has led these officers to conclude that Iraqis will not make difficult decisions unless they are pushed.

Therefore, they say, the advantages of deadlines may outweigh the drawbacks.

"Deadlines could help ensure that the Iraqi leaders recognize the imperative of coming to grips with the tough decisions they've got to make for there to be progress in the political arena," said a senior Army officer who has served in Iraq. He asked that his name not be used because he did not want to publicly disagree with the stated policy of the president.

Because, see, if you disagree with the stated policy of the President in this country, or any Republican officeholder, you get put in a headlock and shoved into a window.

I hope the electorate is keeping their eye on the ball here. This is the major news of the day.