Followers of Muqtada al-Sadr, an anti-American cleric who has massive support from Iraqi Shia, are part of a popular nationalist movement, committed to a united Iraq, relative independence from Iran, an end to US occupation, and conservative religious government. Needless to say, I personally think many Sadrist goals and actions are noxious. I also recognize, however, that there are a limited number of players in Iraq with real support; Sadr is one of them, and he continues to prove that he has at least some control over his putative followers ... many of whom are armed to the teeth.
So when our Secretary of State engages in schoolyard bullying, taunting the leader of millions of (armed) Iraqis, many of whom are actively engaged in the political process, it's a slap in the face not just to a massive popular movement in a country we're occupying, but in the face of the troops who are on the ground simultaneously trying to work with and/or fight against Sadrists. It's yet another "Bring 'em on" moment from an administration that seems to have made an art of underestimating and misunderstanding the enemy.
Again, I have no affection for Sadr, and I know better than most the result of the work of him and his followers. Let's take a look, though, at the person Secretary Rice calls a coward: Throughout Saddam's reign, Sadr's family was one of very few religious families not to leave the country. For their troubles, the family was rewarded with murder after murder after murder. Sadr's father was killed by Saddam. So were two of his brothers. So was his father in law. This is not a guy who has avoided the effects of violence.
If we're serious about democracy, we have to be serious about dealing with people who are popular, even if we don't like them. General Petraeus made engagement with Sadrists a high priority, and it's not clear why we've now gone 180 degrees. But needless provocation has no military or political benefit, and it should be beneath the highest-ranked diplomat in the nation.
