"The entire goal of this war , after deposing the tyrant, was to impose democracy and install an elected government. That government is treating with a militia as though it was a legitimate political organization, even though it has consistently acted militarily."
Alas, this precedent was set in Lebanon.
"But it is obvious from this that Sadr is being treated with honor by the Iraqi government."
Yes, now why? The initial plan in 2004 was to defang him by disarmament and watch him slip into obscurity as more popular leaders overwhelm him. Sadr remains a marginal figure, but since february of this year has been engaging in violence via his mahdi army.
Just as hezbollah in Lebanon was popularly elected enough to get parts of the Govt, the sadrists too have a voice in the govt via the fact that they got some votes.
What *should* happen is that Iraqis should find militias so unacceptable that al-Sadr becomes a pariah and is rejected by the Iraqi body politic. That has not happened, and the reason why is a large part of the reason Iraq is not in better shape: The culture is highly distrustful, sectarian, willing to accept and follow extremists, but most of all - after 30 years of totalitarian rule, the only institutions that had credibility and indepedence from the baathist rulers was the mosques ... and so we have excessive clerical influence.
I was thinking/hoping that both in lebanon and in iraq this influence would fade away through the action of democratic rule. in both cases, the key variable is the buildup of the central govts armed forces to replace militias.
I always look here to get the latest on Iraqi view of things:
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
" If it isn't a mess, then what is it? A "challenging situation"? "
Yes, it is a challenging situation!