As y'all have heard by now, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has brokered a peace deal with boogie-man-of-the-moment Muqtada al-Sadr. The deal: al-Sadr and his forces leave the holy shrine and US forces leave Najaf.

While one can never predict what either al-Sadr, who has renegged on deals before, might do, or what dumb ideas the Pentagon might come up with, it appears that this particular conflict is drawing to a close. A lot of blood has been spilt, and a lot of good will with it. The Iraqi government looks like a hapless bystander, clearly upstaged by al-Sistani's greater credibility. The US, diplomatically speaking, appears incompetent, save only in showing some wisdom in accepting al-Sistani's intervention; and militarily, it's a bungle. But worse than a bungle, because 74 people died in the process.

So here's the naive question: Couldn't al-Sistani have been made part of the negotiations in the first place? Couldn't we have thus avoided this mess, these deaths, this destruction, this whole embarrassing episode? Is there some subtlety in imperial gamesmanship I am missing here?

I'm serious. I realize the two clerics are "rivals," or so says the press coverage. Fine, but they are still Iraqi muslim clerics, they have some mutual interests and perhaps some self-interests that can be served by dialogue. Al-Sistani should have been brought in much earlier.

Owen loves his mommy.


Owen attacks his mommy.

Now see him try to walk.