What this means is that Iraqi forces are clearly demonstrating a capability to operate independently, a long-awaited sign of progress.  Furthermore, the Shi’ite-dominated government is finally showing a willingness to stand up against the influence of Shi’ite extremists linked to Iran.

You oversimplify. It is not sufficient to characterize the Iraqi government as "Shi’ite-dominated" when we’re talking about Shiite vs. Shiite conflict. SIIC and Dawa are both heavily influenced by Iran, and they, not Sadr, dominate the national government. They are not "standing up" to Shiite extremists, they are likely attempting to reduce the influence of Sadr and his Mahdi Army (this is especially likely considering that both parties were likely to suffer in upcoming provincial elections.) I don’t see how such conflict between Shiite groups is a "silver lining" for us, seeing as how the parties that are in power that we presently align ourselves have much more affinity for Iran than they do for us.

It’s odd how "thoroughly predictable ideologues" seem to grasp these nuances, whereas you do not.

Talk about a lack of credibility, both SIIC and Dawa are supported by Iran. Both groups origins are as opposition groups that formed in Iran. Here is Senate testimony from Ray Takeyh, is his credibility in question?
http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2006/TakeyhTestimony060919.pdf

Although Iraq’s Shiite political society is hardly homogeneous, the two parties that have emerged as the best organized and most competitive in the electoral process are the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and the Dawa Party. Both parties have intimate relations with Tehran and allied themselves with the Islamic Republic during the Iran-Iraq war. SCIRI was essentially created by Iran, and its militia, the Badr Brigade, was trained and equipped by the Revolutionary Guards. For its part, Dawa is Iraq’s longest surviving Shiite political party, with a courageous record of resisting Saddam’s repression. Under tremendous pressure, Dawa did take refuge in Iran, but it also established a presence in Syria, Lebanon and eventually Britain. However, despite their long-lasting ties with the Islamic Republic, both parties appreciate that in order to remain influential actors in the post-Saddam Iraq they must place some distance between themselves and Tehran. The members of SCIRI and Dawa insist that they have no interest in emulating Iran’s theocratic model, and that Iraq’s divisions and fragmentations mandate a different governing structure. Former Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jafari, the head of the Dawa Party, insisted, “Not all the Shiites are Islamists and not all Islamists believe in velayat-e faqhi. Cloning any experience is inconsistent with the human rights of that country.” In a similar vein, Adel Abdul Mahdi, the leading figure within SCIRI, emphasized, “We don’t want either a Shiite government or an Islamic government.” Their persistent electoral triumphs reflect not just superior organization, but a successful assertion of their own identity. Still, Dawa and SCIRI do retain close bonds with Iran, and have defended the Islamic Republic against American charges of interference and infiltration. In the end, although both parties have no inclination to act as Iran’s surrogates, they are likely to provide Tehran with a sympathetic audience, and even an alliance that, like all such arrangements, will not be free of tension and difficulty.
Although less well-publicized by Tehran, it does appear that Iran has established tacit ties with Moqtada al-Sadr and has even supplied his Mahdi army. In a sense, unlike their relations with SCIRI and Dawa, Iran’s ties to Sadr are more opportunistic, as they find his sporadic Arab nationalist rhetoric and erratic behavior problematic. Nonetheless, given his emerging power-base, strident opposition to the American occupation and his well-organized militia group, Tehran has found it advantageous to at least maintain some links with Sadr. Among the characteristic of Iran’s foreign policy is to leave as many options open as possible. At a time when Sadr is being granted an audience by the Arab leaders and dignitaries across the region, it would be astonishing if Iran did not seek some kind of a relationship with the Shiite firebrand.

I have to say that I sometimes get the impression that some members of the far-left are rooting for a loss. No matter what.

Guess what, folks? All the Shiite groups are funded and supported by Iran. Sadr’s connections are more than “tacit” considering that he’s paid several visits there in the past for training and guidance.

Anyone want to guess at why that might be?

Jimmie is right, and I wrote on this yesterday.  Getting caught up in who Iran funds and doesn’t fund is kind of moot, because Iran is an equal opportunity financier of Shi’a terror and insurgency.

PIJ and Hamas both receive various levels of support from either Hezbollah, Iran, or both, and they’ve clashed on occasion.   

I didn’t ignore it, Rudi. I disagreed with your interpretations of the facts because they conflict with evidence that the Iranians are supplying the Mahdi militia and the Iraqi government is opposed to that.

But apparently, you think that falsely claiming that your arguments are being ignored will help you cover up for the many times you’re getting caught spewing inaccurate talking points instead of responding to what is actually being posted.

P.S. The way you go running to TMV to “tattle” every time someone here posts something critical of one of their posts is just about the most completely infantile piece of game-playing that I have ever seen in the blogosphere. Your behavior amounts to “let’s you and him fight”. Pathetic.

Rudi, I did link to his post in my post. And I sent the normal automatic trackback indicator that Wordpress does. If TMV does not accept or process those trackback indicators, that is their problem, not mine. And I might even consider posting a comment on TMV manually if not for the fact that the post’s author has a long history of coming back at any critical comments with a spate of vulgar emails ordering such commenters to “get the f*ck out of my thread” and the like.

I stand behind my interpretation of the post and its author’s larger body of work. Maybe you should deal with your disagreement yourself instead of running to tattle to the Big Kids in the hope that you can get some bullies to come help you.

P.S. Your attempt to change the subject from a criticism of the author’s post to an unrelated snipe at Bush is noted and rejected. Are you capable of staying on any topic without a BDS outburst? Again, pathetic.

Its the same pretty much any time we publish a post critical of one on TMV, actually. Rudi has apparently appointed himself as TMV’s Secret Squirrel to monitor The Legion of Doom meeting at PoliGaz.

But even so, Secret TMV Squirrel needs to get a new writer, because his current scripts are beyond dog-eared from repetitive overuse.

And calling someone a "rodent" is a "Moderater response". I will not lower myself to your standards. Maybe you can compare crib notes with your "advisement committee" for a mature response. Someone who witnessed death in Vietnam is more qualified on military matters than a "perfumed General" smacking away at a keyboard.

Your credibility is severely undermined by the fact that you don’t even know which Shi’ite groups are the ones supported by Iran. Sadr’s militia is the one armed and funded by Iran, not the Iraqi government.

That comment is extraordinarily naive, and I see that you’ve been quick to back away from it. Still, you seem to misunderstand the situation. As other commentators have noted, Iran supports all Shiite parties to one extent or another, but it enjoys the greatest affiliation with Dawa and SIIC. This is simply an undeniable fact.

Yes, I suppose it’s a good thing that the national government’s military and security forces can support themselves (at least that’s how it appears, but the Mahdi Army seems to be giving them a problem in Basra and around Iraq.) But there are two problems with your silver lining. The first is that this isn’t Vietnam, and our success in Iraq cannot be measured by the ability of the government to defend itself. In fact, that concern is almost irrelevant as the government comes to represent not only mostly Shiites, but two particular Shiite parties. Second, I don’t think anybody thought that the end result of a self-sufficient Iraqi military would be a Shiite civil war.

Remember when we were worried about the ability of the government to protect itself from Sunni insurgents? That seems almost quaint now, doesn’t it?