"I'm so worried about what's happened today in the Middle East, you know"

You know how the surge was supposed to foster a reconciliation among the Iraqis? Apparently, that didn't happen.

It's hard to make sense of everything, but this much is certain: Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has launched an offensive against the Mahdi Army, a militia led by Moqtada al-Sadr, and is personally leading the troops in Basra. Both Sadr and Maliki are Shi'ites, but Sadr is popular among the urban poor, nationalistic, and opposed to foreign influence--whether the influence is American or Iranian. Abdul Aziz al-Hakim's Badr Corps, allies of Maliki, are supported by both the U.S. and Iran. The U.S. has provided air cover for Maliki's forces.

From there, things get a little fuzzy: The New York Times paints a picture of limited U.S. and British involvement. The Times also seems to say that the Mahdi Army is upholding its end of a cease-fire agreement and that Iraqi forces are fighting splinter groups who are not controlled by al-Sadr. The Washington Post seems to think that the U.S. will involve itself (or is involved) more deeply in Basra than what the Times portrays. Also, the battle in Basra could last a good while. Meanwhile, Joe Klein's analysis is that American involvement is a bad idea: It will cause more American deaths, it could lead to Sadrist retaliations across Shi'ite Iraq, and it will not solve anything. Also, there's disagreement among officials both in the military and in intelligence about with whom we should have sided in the first place, if at all. Sadr, with his independent streak, could be the best hope for a stable Iraq. And we're launching air strikes at his followers.