From the Boston Globe:

Bush made the assertion in a signing statement that he issued late Monday after signing the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008. In the signing statement, Bush asserted that four sections of the bill unconstitutionally infringe on his powers, and so the executive branch is not bound to obey them.

"Provisions of the act . . . purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the president's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as commander in chief," Bush said. "The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President."

One section Bush targeted created a statute that forbids spending taxpayer money "to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq" or "to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq."

My only point is that the only civil war discussed in the media before the fighting in Basra erupted was primarily Shia/Sunni conflict; it therefore makes sense that it was the civil war Kagan was referencing, especially since Basra had not happened yet.

On Feb 23, the WaPo carried a story about Sadr extending his ceasefire.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022200495.html?sid=ST2008022200780

Some quotes from there:

"This is a huge shock," said Bassim Zain, 27, one of the militiamen from Diwaniyah. "We were expecting that Sayyid Moqtada will end the freeze in order to defend ourselves."

Another militiaman, Jassim Ali, 36, predicted that his comrades under pressure in Baghdad, Diwaniyah, Karbala and Basra "will be obliged to defend themselves. They will not be committed to this decision. This new decision will be an opportunity for the government and the occupiers who are against the Mahdi Army."

Other senior militia leaders vowed to obey. "We wanted the freeze to be lifted, but we are obedient and loyal to Moqtada Sadr," said Laith al-Sadr, a Mahdi Army commander in the Shiite district of Sadr City in Baghdad. "We will be patient. We know this path is filled with oppression, but eventually there will be an end for everything."

and ends with this:

"Qais al-Karbalai, a Mahdi Army commander in Karbala, warned that if attacks against Sadr's followers continue in the south, Sadr could change his mind.

"It's not like building a holy shrine. It's just a decision," Karbalai said. "Anytime there's harassment by the Americans and the government, Sayyid Moqtada can retreat from his pledge and use his army."

--- An Iraq watcher would gather that peace in Iraq was poised at a precipice. It would not be long before Sadrists stopped turning the other cheek. Especially an Iraq watcher as smart as Kagan....

======

JuanCole.com for Feb 24 has this:

The instability in Basra is so bad that a planned drawdown of British troops from 4700 to 2500 by March seems likely to be postponed. The Guardian Observer writes,

"'In an unusually frank analysis, Colonel Richard Iron, military mentor to the Iraqi commander General Mohan al-Furayji, said 'There's an uneasy peace between the Iraqi Security Forces [ISF] on the one hand and the militias on the other. There is a sense in the ISF that confrontation is inevitable.They are training and preparing for the battle ahead. General Mohan says that the US won the battle for Baghdad, the US is going win the battle for Mosul, but Iraqis will have to win the battle for Basra.' '"

---- Emphasis added by me. Not true according to Sunny Day, Happy Path F. Kagan!!!

The Iraqi Commander of the security forces in Basra and his western adviser are quoted in an English publication, at the end of February, about their feeling of the inevitability of a confrontation in Basra, and that they are preparing for it,

and scarcely a month later, it is argued here, Kagan was right at the moment he spoke, how could he have known what was coming?

Here are the URLs:

Feb 24, 2008 - how could a Brookings or AEI expert have foreseen the last days of March? Just how?

Juan Cole

http://www.juancole.com/2008/02/37-killed-in-turkish-kurdish-fighting.html

The Guardian Observer:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/24/iraq.iraq

The quote again:

"In an unusually frank analysis, Colonel Richard Iron, military mentor to the Iraqi commander General Mohan al-Furayji, said 'There's an uneasy peace between the Iraqi Security Forces [ISF] on the one hand and the militias on the other. There is a sense in the ISF that confrontation is inevitable. They are training and preparing for the battle ahead. General Mohan says that the US won the battle for Baghdad, the US is going win the battle for Mosul, but Iraqis will have to win the battle for Basra.'

Basra has been the scene of a violent power struggle between rival Shia factions, prominently Jaish al-Mahdi (JAM) led by the radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who last week announced an extension to its six-month ceasefire. It has seen armed groups move into hospitals and university campuses to impose their religious and political ideology, bullying or even beheading women for going out to work or dressing inappropriately.

Asked who runs the city now, Iron, who has been in Basra since December, said: 'There's no one in charge. The unwritten rules of the game are there are areas where the army can and can't go and areas where JAM can and can't take weapons.'"