As a frequent listener to the BBC, I have the general impression that al-Sadr is a violent thug. Certainly a quick search of the New York Times will convince anyone that he is no stranger to violence. So, if this is the guy who can hold the country together, perhaps you are saying that al-Sadr is the Shi'a Saddam? Sur-really?

I don't know where any of this ends up. We are worried about Iran, and nukes. We have elections that are going to Islamic extremists. There is turmoil over Danish cartoons depicting Islam in a harsh light. It's hard to predict Israeli elections, and nothing can be seen in anything but kaleidoscopic vision, anyway. There are too many variables.

If we are settling for al-Sadr, I don't know where our Middle East policy comes to rest in, say, two years. Of course, I don't know where it comes to rest, anyway. What are the other outcomes?

I guess this is an obituary to the Bush Policy, Iraqi, or Middle East. We are back to a violent strong man who can cut deals. If Iraq is 'done', overdone, what else? Bush likes to talk about isolationism. I guess that is the sub-text of a belief America is unhappy with the recent engagements. The process, whether total or partial, is disengagement.

Part of that is energy independence. Start the process of reducing the need for oil, and the market will tip, the price of oil will fall. At least we won't be rewarding the Iranians for our policy mis-steps. But beyond that, what ARE we supposed to do?

It took centuries for the West to reach democratic ideals. I don't know what the process will be in the Middle East. Bush thought it could move pretty fast. Maybe not.

Now what?

Nir Rosen concludes his article by writing, “It is a priceless irony that Muqtada Sadr -- the poorly educated, inarticulate, thuggish and violently anti-American young cleric -- may be the one man who can allow America to get out of Iraq without the roof caving in after them.”

This irony is hardly a new one in the name of diplomacy and strategy to and for U.S. interests. Lest we forget a person who is now front and in the epicenter of the fight on terror, Osama bin Laden.

Bin Laden was recruited by the CIA during the Soviet-Afghan war and fought as a Mujahideen. He and the Mujahadeen soldiers were trained by the United States in combat tactics.

Saddam Hussein was an ally of the United States for decades. The January 1, 1984 the Washington Post reported that the US had “informed friendly Persian Gulf nations that the defeat of Iraq in the three-year-old war with Iran would be ‘contrary to US interests' and has made several moves to prevent that result”.

Central to these “moves” was the cementing of a military and political alliance with Saddam Hussein's repressive regime, so as to build up Iraq as a military counterweight to Iran. In 1982, the Reagan administration removed Iraq from the State Department's list of countries that allegedly supported terrorism. On December 19-20, 1983, Reagan dispatched his Middle East envoy — none other than Donald Rumsfeld — to Baghdad with a hand-written offer of a resumption of diplomatic relations, which had been severed during the 1967 Arab-Israel war. On March 24, 1984, Rumsfeld was again in Baghdad.

On that same day, the UPI wire service reported from the UN: “Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers … a team of UN experts has concluded … Meanwhile, in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, US presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld held talks with foreign minister Tariq Aziz.”

The day before, Iran had accused Iraq of poisoning 600 of its soldiers with mustard gas and Tabun nerve gas.

There is no doubt that the US government knew Iraq was using chemical weapons. On March 5, 1984, the State Department had stated that “available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons”. The March 30, 1984, NYT reported that US intelligence officials has “what they believe to be incontrovertible evidence that Iraq has used nerve gas in its war with Iran and has almost finished extensive sites for mass producing the lethal chemical warfare agent”.

However, consistent with the pattern throughout the Iran-Iraq war and after, the use of these internationally outlawed weapons was not considered important enough by Rumsfeld and his political superiors to halt Washington's blossoming love affair with Hussein.

Well, we see where that alliance went.

Iran, under the aegis of Reza Pahlavi, Iran was a strong ally of the U.S, then again so was Panama’s Antonio Noriega, for awhile anyway.

Comes now the cleric, Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Like his fellow Iraqi, Ahmad Chalabi, al-Sadr was vilified and now is sought after by the Bush administration. I am sure that after al-Sadr, who is by no means a moderate, outlives his usefulness, he too will be tossed aside and re-vilified, if not killed.

al-Sadr’s role as unlikely savior to and for the United States is not something new. We’ve had plenty of unlikely, unsavory, saviors.

I have to admit I am puzzled. Why would call anyone this an acceptable outcome ?

The man would erect a strict islamic regime, thus denying human rights to the whole population, and excessively so to its female half, is a sworn enemy of both Israel and the United States, has more blood on his hands than he could ever hope to wash away, and has every power he owns seized through strictly illegal means.

This is the type of person that any sensible governement would immediately arrest and execute in due course of law.

As for Irqi unity, well, he may be best buddies with those sunni murderers who daily drench the soil with the blood of their fellow countrymen, who have resorted to political murder of opponents and frequent kidapping for ransom, and who therefore would be fitting companions should Muqtada ever find his well deserved way to the gallows, but on the other hand he a firece enemey of the Kurds, I venture to guess, are likely to return that sentimemt. So, while Muqtade could hold celebartions of victory with his Sunni buddies over the pile of corpses they together are responsible for, he will have anew bloody conflict with the North on his hands. Only, this times, it is Americas strongest and most trustworthy ally in Iraq who is threatened, so I have more than some doubt over the mentioned "honourableness" of this outcome.

To put it bluntly, such an disgusting outcome would be a horrible shame for the US and a spit on the grave of any Soldier who died there, and would leave the US without any shred of honour.

For obvious reasons I will refrain from calling Mr Rosen an antisemite, but it seems to me really bad for Israel's right to exist to put another militant and violent sworn enemy of Israel in charge of an oil rich middle eastern nation. What the hell is he thinking ?

And, lastly, what became of democracy, secular ideals, and human rights ? Ever heard of that, Mr Rosen ? The only acceptable outcome for this conflict is the establishment of a strong, working, democratic secular state guaranteeing human rights (including full freedom of religion) to all his citizens.

Rosen's solution is claimed in the article to "allow America to get out of Iraq without the roof caving in after them". This is only correct in one sense - the roof will already have been dismantled by the Americans themselves.

So, instead of cowardly whining and seeking barely face-saving "exit strategies", Americans should get serious about the responsibilities they have willingly taken over when invading that place. And, may I dare to suggest, this effort might start by firing that imcompetent bunch of idiots (called "the Bush administration") that currently run both that war and their own country and replace them with people who know how to fight and win a war - and how to find an honourable peace.