The New York Times runs a worthy profile of one of Iraq’s most reclusive and powerful figures, the young Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. Consistently underestimated by both Americans and the Iraqi Shia establishment personified by Ayatollah Sistani, Sadr has built on the legacy of his father (killed by Saddam in 1999) to foster a violent, fanatical, and deeply rooted nationalistic popular movement. Implanted into the culture in some Shia areas of Iraq the way Hamas’s many agencies have come to dominate Palestinian society in the Gaza Strip, Sadr’s movement (the so-called Madhdi Army) represents the grievances of many of Iraq’s poor Shias. As the Times piece notes:

‘Mr. Sadr’s offices are accessible storefronts that dispense a little bit of everything: food, money, clothes, medicine and information. From just one office in Baghdad and one in Najaf in 2003, the Sadr operation has ballooned. It now has full-service offices in most provinces and nine in Baghdad, as well as several additional storefront centers. In some neighborhoods, the militiamen come around once a month to charge a nominal fee — about 5,000 Iraqi dinars, or $4 — for protection. In others, they control the fuel supply, and in some, where sectarian killings have gone on, they control the real estate market for empty houses.’

Does anyone remember back in 2004 when Paul Bremer ordered Sadr arrested? Well, just as he remained on the loose then, the current focus on Moqtada is unlikely to rein him in any time soon.

Unless America just pulls out of Iraq. Then his own countrymen and countrywomen can deal with this guy. Sadr’s power and prestige is fed by the occupation.

America has lost Iraq. Moqtada has lived up to his father’s legacy, while George W. Bush hasn’t even met that (in his case meager) standard. Bush the son has lost Iraq. It’s not easy when even starting out, such a misconceived war could never have turned out well–and it hasn’t helped that America has been led by an idiot.

And I’m not talking about General David Patraeus. That guy is an officer, following orders, but the way he has allowed himself to be used as a political tool (and set up as a potential scapegoat) suggests that he, like Tommy Franks, might have irons in the Republican political fire.

Oh well. Time to move on. All this absurd debate about how well the “surge” has knocked down the whack-a-mole insurgency in one place like Anbar (and let’s not mention whether the situation has consequently gotten worse in Baghdad) is a bizarre waste of time that most Americans have moved beyond.

The Democrats are better than the Republicans on this, but still need to get much better. Barack Obama wants a withdrawal, it seems, but seems too cautious. Pulling out should happen overnight–those that think there is something to salvage from this ugly occupation are just indirectly arguing for more military involvement of one sort or another. Democrats should stop emphasizing how gradual a withdrawal would be–the occupation has failed to stop the bloodbath that so many American politicians still pretend hasn’t yet started (it has!!) but would happen if coalition forces withdraw (how do they know?–and haven’t they already been wrong about everything else?).

Harry Reid can keep the Senate up all night, but how about pulling out that “nuclear option” that the Republicans kept threatening to use and overruling the filibuster that keeps the war running? Screw the Senate rules–the Democrats should be able to hold the majority for the conceivable future, and anyway the Republicans have let that cow out of that barn with their threats when they were in the majority.

Bombing a bunch of stuff hasn’t worked. Come on. Gas up, fill the canteens and head for the Kuwaiti border. Let the British stay if they want–who cares. Let’s cut our losses. That’s what they are–losses.