I often disagree with jmc, especially on Sunni/Shia relations, but he's entirely right on this point. While I find the thought of the Iraqi Sunnis driven to ruin both comforting and cathartic, it is certainly not in our interest to allow the Madhi Army to do so.
Letting al-Sadr take over Iraq entirely, in order to set up a theocratic satellite state of Iran, with AQI as the leader of the Sunni resistance, and America forced to withdraw under fire, is a merger of worst case scenarios. We'd have been a lot better off leaving Saddam in power if this is how it's going to end.
What benefit would the U.S. derive from, as you say, allowing the Madhi Army to ethnically cleanse the Sunnis and wipe out the Badr brigades?
I understand why some see the Madhi Army as potentally more friend then enemy because they like us are fighting Sunni insurgents.
But, that is about the only place our interests coincide. If the Madhi Army is left to its own divices long term it will produce Hezbollah on steroids in the heart of the Middle East. We have a limited amount of time to keep that from happening.
I didn't say that.
I said:
you, in your infinite wisdom, think the Mahdi Army should be taken down by US forces, now, before they ethnic cleanse the Sunnis and wipe out the Badr Brigades.
Al Qaeda In Iraq, Saddam's bully boys, and all the other bad guys in Anbar would be greatly inconvenienced if they had to take time out from planting IEDs and lobbing mortars to run for their lives from Shiite death squads. And that's a bad thing?
"Allowing" the Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades to kill each other off supposes that they need our permission. They don't. How much American effort should go in to preventing two enemies from killing each other?