I really think a lot of people don’t get what “surrender” means.
Since they have “negotiated” for a handful of soldiers to be arrested, and Sadr himself is and will remain free, there is no surrender.
Doesn’t diminish what our soldiers do, but our leaders seem more concerned with soundbites than victory, and surrender sounds a lot better than “withdrawing from an unwinnable situation to rearm, regroup and attack again later”.
“I really think a lot of people don’t get what ‘surrender’ means.”
Patience, grasshopper. They’re taking baby steps over there.
Now we have Shi’ite security forces willing to fight Shi’ite militiamen; we have Sunni “Concerned Citizens” (or whatever they’re called now) willing to fight Sunni terrorists; and the population is turning against ALL terrorists.
The tectonic plates are shifting in the Middle East. Like all massive changes in the earth the movement is happening so gradually it’s hard to notice, but the changes are astonishing. Four years ago no Shi’ite soldier would’ve helped arrest or kill a Shi’ite militiaman.
And don’t forget the reason for the whole current hootenanny: al Sadr declared a truce and Maliki “accepted” it, and then Maliki went about dismantling the Mahdi Army. The Iraqis and Coalition have been arresting and killing these guys daily for the past year, even though Maliki had allegedly agreed not to do so.
So even if Maliki says he’ll accept another truce, he’s already shown that he’s perfectly happy to violate it and get rid of our fat, rotten-toothed friend Mookie.